Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are there any other suggestions, or is the committee content that we close the petition on the basis that has been detailed by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1952, which was lodged by Jane Clarke, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s national health service to form specialist services, training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction—dysautonomia.

We last considered the petition on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We have since received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, stating that there are no current plans to develop a dedicated specialist autonomic nervous system service in Scotland. It also says that most people with autonomic nervous system symptoms experience them as part of other underlying conditions, and that they are cared for within existing pathways for their underlying condition.

The minister also explains that she has been advised that it is well within the remit of neurologists to diagnose and manage such symptoms as part of their routine practice, in the majority of cases. The submission also states that cardiologists might also see people with autonomic nervous system symptoms for assessment and investigation, including in circumstances when symptoms do not occur as part of a separate neurological disease.

The petitioner and Lesley Kavi, who is a trustee and chairperson of PoTS UK, have provided a joint submission to the committee. The submission states that PoTS UK has seen no evidence of investigations into the needs of people with postural tachycardia syndrome and related dysautonomia. They are confident that the majority of general neurologists in Scotland would not want to accept referrals for PoTS and they are keen to receive evidence from the minister that would prove otherwise.

The submission also provides personal testimonies from across Scotland that highlight the difficulties that individuals have faced when seeking appropriate treatment for their condition.

The petitioner’s submission and the testimonies that we have received contradict the view of the minister, as expressed in her earlier submission. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of our existing continued petitions, the first of which is a petition that is of long standing and one with which the committee has been heavily concerned. PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

We last looked at the petition on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to seek an update on the work of relevant health boards in obtaining controlled drug licenses and implementing written policies on access to prescribed medication. We have received a detailed table—which colleagues have in the meeting papers—that outlines the current position of all health boards on that matter.

The minister has stated that “as part of the” Scottish Government’s

“on-going work to support a positive outcome from this petition ... officials have been engaging with the relevant areas following the rapid review ... to ensure ... that processes are put in place to support the delivery”

of the agreed actions in the set timescales.

Regarding NHS Grampian, the minister has stated that

“the premises inspection took place on 4 October 2023. Following that inspection, there were some actions that required follow-up, which have since been actioned. NHS Grampian have had no further communication with regards to their application for a controlled drug licence, but understand that a delay is not unusual.”

A number of health boards have checked and subsequently confirmed to the minister that their custody suites do not require a controlled drug licence. Some boards already have the licence in place and others have since applied for the licence. The minister has stated her intention to request

“annual updates from health boards”

to ensure their continued compliance with the requirements that were set out in the rapid review.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. He feels that there is

“a complete lack of courage by the Scottish Government to implement their own policies, Scottish Law and the Human Rights Act.”

He states that

“detainees have the right to ... have enough information about their condition, treatment options, the benefits and risks relevant to them, and alternative options for them to give informed consent to treatment”

and highlights that

“This includes the opportunity to ask questions and discuss concerns.”

We have effected some progress on the petition over the time of our consideration. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Thank you. No member has indicated that they have other suggestions, so are colleagues content to accept Mr Ewing’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1930, which was lodged by George Eckton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on that aim.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 7 February, when we agreed to write to the then Minister for Transport on the outcomes of the fair fares review. We have received two responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, the first of which alerted us to the publication of “Fair Fares Review—Main Report”, noting that it contains a number of recommendations relating to fares and ticketing.

The second response states that the Scottish Government had been working to refresh its smart and integrated ticketing strategy delivery plan, which it duly published back in August. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport also tells us that ScotRail is in the early stages of trialling an account-based travel or pay-as-you-go scheme, with progress also being made to introduce split-ticketing functionality to the ScotRail website and app. It is already a pay-as-you-go scheme on the railways. I am sure that that is what we used to call it in the old days. Pay as you go—I thought that meant that you bought a ticket. It is fancy language for buying a ticket.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which details a freedom of information request to ScotRail about split ticketing, while the second sets out the petitioner’s on-going concerns about the limitation of split-ticketing options via ScotRail’s ticketing platform, the impact of reduced hours for station ticket offices—which I think has been the subject of a debate in the chamber—and the need to invest in digital system upgrades to ensure that the ask in the petition can be realised.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

As there are no other suggestions, are colleagues content to close the petition on the basis of the cabinet secretary’s response and as detailed by Mr Golden?

Members indicated agreement.

Our final new petition, PE2120, which was lodged by Tam Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permanently abolish peak fare pricing on all ScotRail-operated rail routes.

Members will be aware that a pilot for the removal of peak-time fares ran between October 2023 and September 2024. Transport Scotland’s analysis of the pilot showed that, although there was a limited increase in the number of passengers, the pilot did not achieve its aims of encouraging significant modal shift from car to rail.

The evaluation also said that the pilot produced benefits of between £1 and £1.25 for every £1 spent, which compares favourably with some major transport investment projects that are being pursued by the Scottish Government.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland stated that the rail system relies heavily on the revenue generated during peak hours, and that abolishing peak fares would require diverting a significant amount of public funds—something between £25 million and £40 million annually—which the Scottish Government says is simply unaffordable in the current fiscal climate.

The response goes on to highlight the discounts that ScotRail has introduced to its season and flexipass tickets, and includes Scottish Government commitments to develop proposals for a new rail fare offering and investment in Scotland’s railway.

The petition touches on an area of current party-political and public debate. In that context, we have received a submission from the petitioner in which he acknowledges the fiscal challenges faced by the Scottish Government but says that he believes that the cost of inaction on the matter might be higher in terms of exacerbating environmental issues and social inequalities. He urges the Government to reassess the permanent removal of peak fares as part of its broader efforts to reduce the cost of living, combat climate change and improve public transport access for all.

It is perhaps worth noting, for the benefit of anyone who might be following the progress of the petition, that the Parliament agreed to a non-binding motion that called on the Scottish Government to reverse its decision to reintroduce peak fares on Scotland’s railway, and agreed that making public transport more accessible, affordable and reliable is key to supporting more people to use it.

In so far as the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do something, the Scottish Parliament has, through the non-binding motion, progressed, in its own way, that very request for action. In the light of everything that we are hearing and the on-going debate, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Good morning and welcome to the 19th and final meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take in private agenda items 4 and 5, which are to look at our petition signature process and the forthcoming work programme for the new year. Are colleagues content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We have two petitions for which we would seek to bring together our respective ministers and the Lord Advocate. Are members content with that proposal, on the back of seeking further information in the first instance in both cases?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition will be kept open, along with the petition in the name of Alex O’Kane, and we will speak to the minister in respect of both.