Seòmar agus comataidhean

Maybe we will go. I am all for an outdoor outing. It might be quite useful to us.

Thank you all very much. It has been incredibly helpful. Given that we are coming into the summer, I like the idea of sensing the thing for ourselves—because, potentially, we all think that we know about it; certainly, we all have an investment in it; and, from everything we have heard, there are some serious issues underpinning the petition that the committee will want to reflect on in the light of all the evidence that you have given us this morning and that we heard from the petitioners.

I thank you all—those who have come here and those who have joined us virtually. That has been very helpful. I briefly suspend the meeting.

It would be useful to draw the attention of the Scottish Government to the evidence that we have received about that reduction. I agree with what you say. Given that there are local taxi licensing boards, I would have expected that we would get a fuller response.

We have quite a full schedule ahead but, as this will be an on-going issue, do we agree to seek to have an evidence session around the issues that are raised by the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Monica. It is extraordinary in many respects, because when I first came to this Parliament in 2007, so much of the discussion that we had in the chamber was about the destigmatisation of mental health. Many of the mental health charities and organisations changed their names to become more accessible, and all of that was designed to destigmatise mental health issues and encourage more people to come forward.

The problem that we have is that, notwithstanding the expansion of services that there has been, people’s willingness to come forward with acute mental health conditions that they probably did not come forward with previously means that, in some acute situations, help is just not there. I think that we all assume that it is there, but there is increasing evidence that there is considerable pressure on services.

Do colleagues have comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

That seems perfectly sensible. If it does not hold such an inquiry, I will be keen to invite the petitioner to come to this committee. I think that we would also want to hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care about the issue that underlies the petition, which is the need to have a full review of our mental health services. We might also be interested to know the petitioner’s view on the recruitment of the lived experience panel that is being established and, potentially, to highlight that as an opportunity for active participation.

As colleagues have no other suggestions, are we content to proceed on that twin track?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1924, which was lodged by Rebecca Wymer, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to complete an emergency in-depth review of women’s health services in Caithness and Sutherland.

The petitioner believes that there is a Highland gynaecology crisis that predates Covid, with funding

“funnelled into Orkney or Inverness.”

She believes that serious conditions such as ovarian cancer are potentially being missed due to a lack of specialist training for general practitioners, and she notes that there are currently no miscarriage, menopause or fertility services available in the area. She highlights the logistical difficulties that are associated with patients from Caithness having to travel to Raigmore hospital for help along roads that are often closed or dangerous to drive.

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care explains in his submission that the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport is actively engaging with her constituents on the issues that the petition raises. She has now arranged to meet NHS Highland senior management and clinicians to discuss the delivery of gynaecological services and she will feed back to her constituents on progress.

The cabinet secretary’s submission also provides further information on? scoping work for the creation of a centre of excellence for rural and remote medicine and social care; a community midwifery unit that is being built at Caithness general hospital; improvements to maternity and neonatal units at Raigmore hospital in Inverness; and co-ordination between transport and other agencies to explore how access to healthcare can be improved, specifically in relation to the A9 and A99.

In her submission, the petitioner reiterates that all women need access to a gynaecologist, but she says that, to her knowledge, no in-person gynaecology appointments have taken place at Caithness general hospital since 2019. She is concerned that the cabinet secretary is unaware of how bad the situation with the roads is. She states that the rural unit framework has been incredibly successful for MRI machines, breast screening, cancer screening and, more recently, vaccination clinics. She suggests that it might include appointments with a gynaecology nurse or consultant to filter out who needs to be on a surgical list and who could be treated in the short term to reduce waiting lists across the board.

Do members have comments or suggestions on the petition?

Our final new petition today is PE1925, which is on changing the heavy goods vehicle speed limit on major trunk roads to 50mph, in line with other parts of the UK. The petition was lodged by David Singleton, who points out that that speed limit is 40mph in Scotland. He urges us to urge the Scottish Government to increase it to 50mph so that there is consistency.

The Scottish Government has stated that, in 2018, it conducted its

“own evaluation of the potential impacts of increasing speed limits for HGVs in Scotland”,

and it found that there would be

“small safety benefits and marginal environmental impacts”

in doing so. A pilot scheme that increased the speed limit for HGVs to 50mph on the A9

“showed positive road safety benefits”.

The Scottish Government is considering its policy on HGV speed limits as part of the national speed management review. That review, which has commenced, will consider appropriate vehicle speeds for Scotland’s roads and will include stakeholder and public consultation.

However, the petitioner remains unconvinced that the Scottish Government is planning to increase the HGV speed limit on major trunk roads. He urges Scottish Government officials

“to travel with a driver of an HGV on the 100 mile A75 trunk road in both directions on the same day”,

going

“One way at the 40 mph limit and the other way at a higher speed when and where it is safe to do so.”

The petitioner believes that doing that

“would give them some idea of the problems caused by slow moving traffic”

and some comfort in relation to an increase in the speed limit.

The petition is interesting, as the petitioner has highlighted something that the Scottish Government is looking at. However, he is not convinced that that will necessarily lead to anything.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

The Scottish Government says that it is having a review. We might reasonably ask for some clarity on when it thinks that that might come to fruition. Maybe we should ask whether there is any way in which the petitioner or others can engage with the Scottish Government in relation to the underlying issues. I am not sure that the Scottish Government will want to take up the offer of an HGV lift up and down the A75, but I am sure that we would be happy to draw that to its attention.

Are colleagues content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

That is great. We will all ask you a few wee questions, so that we can get a handle on the petition.

What is your favourite subject at school?