Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will sum up. We should very much keep David Torrance’s suggestion in mind, although I think that he agrees with colleagues that, in the first instance, we should seek information on what the status of all the issues is, as Tess White and other colleagues have suggested.

I would like to frame those questions around asking for a candid assessment of where things were before the Covid pandemic happened and what the pandemic has done. What impact has it had on delivery? If the impact has been prejudicial, what steps are being taken to get back on track? In response to our inquiry, I do not want to be told, “Of course, we’ve had a pandemic.” We all know that we have had a pandemic—I do not need to be told that. I would like to have a candid understanding of the pandemic’s impact and the plans that are in place to resolve that, in relation to all our questions. We could get something back that tells us what we already know; I would rather find out what we are going to do about the situation.

We will keep the petition open. Thank you very much for joining us, Monica. Are you happy with the course of action that we will take?

PE1872 is on improving the reliability of island ferry services—I will be cheeky and say that our last new ferry was launched in 1872. The petition, which was lodged by Liz Mcnicol, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently ensure that all islanders have access to reliable ferry services. In its submission, the Scottish Government outlines action that it is taking in the short term and the long term to add resilience to the ferry fleet. That includes exploring opportunities to charter vessels to add resilience in the short term, and its long-term commitment to securing replacement vessels—several on-going projects are mentioned.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights the major inquiry into the construction and procurement of ferry vessels that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee undertook towards the end of session 5. That committee’s report was published on 9 December last year and made a range of recommendations, including calls for improvements in the strategy for replacing ageing vessels in the ferry fleet. Furthermore, in its session 5 legacy paper, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee drew the attention of its successor committee to several ferries policy issues.

That covers the submissions and evidence that we have. Do members have comments or suggestions for action?

Is that on the basis that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee can take the petition into account as part of its on-going review of ferry services?

Are members content that we write to the Scottish Government to seek a summary of the report on progress that has been made against the “Additional Support for Learning Action Plan” once it has been published, which we expect to be in the next few weeks—that will probably be in nice time for us to consider the petition again—and that we write to key stakeholders, including the children that Tess White identified, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Scottish Council of Deans of Education, Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society, to seek their views on the petition and the Scottish Government’s submission on it? We will hold the petition open in anticipation of receiving their replies. Is everybody content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I was quite struck by the petitioner’s submission, and I am grateful to the petitioner for bringing the petition back. I understand that evidence was taken on the petition in the previous session. I did not hear that evidence, but I was quite affected by the petitioner’s submission. I noted the difficulties that the petitioner continues to experience in relation to family members and other individuals whom she is seeking to support.

I very much take the point that we do not properly understand what additional impact the pandemic may have had on the Scottish Government’s programme and on what the Government is trying to achieve, or the way in which the pandemic has compounded the difficulties that people are experiencing and our ability to deal with them. I start from that position.

That is a good idea and I would be interested to hear whether there has been any enlightenment in the various health boards in relation to alternative medicines and other therapies. I recall from a previous petition that practice was very variable and that some health boards subcontracted the work to other health boards or used their facilities, such as those at the centre for chronic pain or whatever it was that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde had at the time.

It would be useful to get an update from other health boards. Is there anywhere that we could find any evidence on the issue? I ask the clerks to pursue that. When we are told that the evidence is not there, where can we go to find some evidence?

Given that the Scottish Government’s submission makes it clear that it has no plans to review or amend the legal and policy frameworks that would operate around the issue, I am minded to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should certainly, as Paul Sweeney suggests, draw the petitioner’s attention to the new cross-party group that has been established. I take note of Tess White’s suggestion. We could write to the chief pharmaceutical officer about the petitioner’s family member potentially being eligible to participate in the clinical trial that is being talked about. That is a useful, productive and proactive suggestion.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and wait to hear back from those we wish to write to?

Members indicated agreement.

We could write to the Scottish mental health law review asking for an update on its work in relation to compulsory detention and to care and treatment under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

I know that there was a previous petition and that evidence was taken on that. I understand that the petitioner is keen to speak to us again. Do we agree in the first instance to write to seek further clarification on whether there is anything new and substantive, of which we have not been made aware since our consideration of the previous petition?

Members indicated agreement.

In our letter to the Scottish Government, I am quite happy to ask for the scope of the options that are explored to be broadened. The issue can hit any family and, depending on where they are and on accessibility, the incurred costs could be much higher or much lower. If they have to travel regularly but reimbursement is slow, or if they do not have access to funding to undertake that travel, even if the costs are subsequently reimbursed, that can be very prejudicial for families who are already highly sensitive and concerned about their child’s welfare.

I am quite happy to write to the Scottish Government to draw out all those issues. The willingness is often there, but without there being a full appreciation of how complicated the process for accessing funding can be.

Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.