Seòmar agus comataidhean

Kelly McBride wants to come back in.

As we are coming towards the end of our time for this session, I ask Fergus Ewing to move on to the final questions, which are about the next steps and the Government’s reaction.

Welcome back. Item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. PE1723, on essential tremor treatment in Scotland, was lodged by Mary Ramsay. The petition, which was last considered by the committee on 19 January, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

Rhoda Grant will be joining us again.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the National Services Division. We have had a response from the Scottish Government that indicates that the National Services Division is expected to resume applications for the commissioning of new services this month. That was roughly the timetable that was suggested when we last considered the petition.

The National Services Division continues to engage with the clinical team in Tayside to understand what would be required to provide focused ultrasound in Scotland, should it be decided that that is the preferred option.

The Scottish Government submission informs us that

“the Scottish Government has not committed funding to the MRgFUS service in 2022/2023. The evidence base ... will inform consideration on any future financial investment.”

The Scottish Government also provided information about its work to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals.

The petitioner’s most recent submission highlights that there are 100,000 people in Scotland with essential tremor, and she has suggested that that figure does not include those who are waiting to see specialists or those who have been misdiagnosed.

Rhoda Grant is with us. We are not necessarily taking a lot of additional evidence, because we are waiting to hear what progress can be made, but would you like to contribute anything that would further our understanding?

Thank you very much for that.

I believe that we will keep the petition open. We are still awaiting some of the key information that we feel would be critical to our coming to a determination. Would colleagues like to make any further recommendations?

I very much concur with that recommended route. When I read the Scottish Government’s response, I, too, was slightly disappointed. I had hoped that, given the circumstances and the fact that the legislation emerged out of a stage 3 amendment, discussion with the Government might have led to some sort of resolution. I felt that the Government gave a rather disdainful brush-off to the issue that we are trying to explore. Therefore, taking evidence seems to be a reasonable course of action.

Are colleagues content that we proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested? It might also be useful to write to the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, just to find out their wider concerns about the conservation impact of the proposal. Are members content with that, too?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open on the basis that has been suggested and to take those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

I am mindful of the time, but I will bring in our other two witnesses. Talat, would you like to comment further, or has Kelly summed things up?

Fiona, is there anything that you would like to add?

Fergus, do you have any other questions?

Are there any final thoughts on that?