Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms White.

Are we agreed on the wider set of suggestions, colleagues?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner very much, but, in the light of the Government’s response, we will move to close the petition.

Our next petition is PE2017, which was lodged by Margaret Reid. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend maternal health support beyond one year; to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health board areas; to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality network standard type 1 across all health board areas; and to establish a mother and baby unit in the north-east of Scotland.

We are joined for our consideration of the petition by our colleague Tess White. Good morning, Tess.

We most recently considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. We requested an update on publication of the options appraisal report, and the minister stated that it would be published in due course. However, we understand that, notwithstanding what the minister said, no report has yet been published.

The minister’s response also highlights that development of a draft service specification for perinatal mental health services has been identified as a priority area. The minister states her intention to provide £85,000 “in this financial year”—the clerks have confirmed that that means the financial year that we are currently in—to support the first phase of work to develop intensive treatment services for perinatal women, their infants and their families in the north of Scotland.

Before I ask colleagues for their comments, I invite Tess White to address the committee.

The last of the new petitions that we are considering this morning is PE2122, lodged by Gemma Clark, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon the predominantly female historical victims of Scotland’s witch trials, who were accused and convicted under the Witchcraft Act 1563.

For Mr Torrance and me, who have sat on the committee for some time, the petition brings us full circle to one of the first petitions that we considered in this parliamentary session. Members will recall that we considered a similar petition, which was closed partly on the basis that Natalie Don MSP was at that time pursuing a member’s bill on the issue of a pardon. However, having now been appointed as a minister, Ms Don-Innes has withdrawn that proposal.

During her time as First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon issued, somewhat unexpectedly, a formal posthumous apology to all those who had been accused, convicted, vilified or executed under the act. It is noted in PE2122’s background notes that those in favour of a pardon believe that it would

“convey a strong message of equality and opposition to misogyny in contemporary society.”

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that a formal pardon would require legislation and that, having set out its legislative programme for the remainder of the parliamentary session, it has no plans for legislation in that area. The response also states that the Government would give careful consideration to any fresh proposal for a member’s bill in that area, although, frankly, given where we are in the current parliamentary session, the chances of a member’s bill being progressed on the subject are zero. Given the backlog of members’ bills that have already been advanced and the advice that has been given to members who might be considering lodging a fresh bill at this stage in the session, it is probably not a viable option.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you very much, Mr Ruskell—that is very helpful. Looking at the responses that we received, it was not immediately clear where we could go with the petition, so I am very happy to embrace the suggestion.

That is a thought. We could look at who participated in the exchange in the chamber last week.

PE2070 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop general practitioner surgeries allowing only same-day appointment bookings and to enable patients also to make appointments for future dates. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 20 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Government and national health service regional health boards to understand how appointments are handled across Scotland.

Many of the health boards note the flexibility in their models for individual practices to provide services to patients in accordance with the specific needs of their practices. Most of the responses report a mix of on-the-day appointment offerings and advance bookings in general practices, with a small number of exceptions. The responses also highlight concerns about capacity and an increase in patient demand, which, according to NHS Ayrshire and Arran, can at times outweigh the clinical capacity that is available to some practices. The response from NHS Grampian states that the sustainability of services remains a concern, highlighting that, between 2022 and 2024, just over 10 per cent of Grampian practices elected to hand back the general medical services contract.

The health and care experience survey found that the proportion of people reporting that they find it easy or very easy to contact their general practice in the way that they want has declined. In 2017-18, 85 per cent of people were satisfied with their experience, but the figure has gone down to 78 per cent. In 2023-24, 50 per cent of respondents reported that they were able to book appointments at their general practice three or more working days in advance. That was similar to the 2021-22 survey, when the figure was 48 per cent, but significantly lower than the figure in 2019-20, when it was 64 per cent.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2016, which was lodged by Gordon McPherson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of the risk factors, signs and symptoms of thrombosis. We were hoping that Jackie Baillie would join us this morning, but she has been detained at another committee meeting in which she is participating.

We most recently considered the petition on 20 March 2024, at which time we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care. We sought clarification on a discrepancy in the figures for deaths relating to thrombosis each year, which the petitioner had highlighted.

The cabinet secretary has explained that the smaller figure provided covers deaths from venous thrombosis, and the larger figure includes both venous thrombosis and arterial thrombosis. The risk factors for venous thrombosis and arterial thrombosis, which can lead to heart attack and stroke, are very different. The Scottish Government has different strategies for each, including in relation to its approach to public awareness raising and clinical guidance.

The response points to the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network’s national clinical guidance on the prevention and management of venous thromboembolism in patients with Covid-19. That guidance was published in 2021, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s guidelines were updated in August 2023.

The cabinet secretary stated that, in the light of the updated material for clinicians and the revised guidance for the general public, the Scottish Government has determined that the cost of a public awareness campaign on thrombosis is not justified at this time.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?