Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a reasonable approach, as the committee has probably taken the matter as far as it possibly can. I note that the Scottish Parliament has cross-party groups on building bridges with Israel and on the situation in Palestine, and that shows that the Parliament is not ignoring this important issue or simply throwing it away.

I do not think that it is for us to chase this matter, but I would like the MSPs on both cross-party groups to come together at some point and speak to each other in a rational manner. That might actually help with developing a better approach in Scotland. Of course, I do not know whether we can influence such a move.

That is a perfectly reasonable way to move forward on an issue that, with the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—coming up in Glasgow this year, Scotland should be at the forefront of with regard to thinking about future developments. I am perfectly happy with the suggestion that has been made.

Is there any plan to ensure that everyone who has had a mesh procedure over a period of time to be decided is contacted to ask them about their experience since they had the treatment? I know that there are people who have been uncertain about how they can complain, who they can complain to, and whether they are wasting people’s time. However, they are in discomfort, and having that material inside them is affecting their lives.

That is very important. I recently spoke to a man who had an abdominal hernia repair that involved mesh and who has suffered great pain and almost disability as a result. The issue has not been covered widely in the media, but there are men who do not know what to do next. They do not know who to complain to and whether they should just go back to their GP or somewhere else. There are people who have problems but who do not know what to do about them. I wonder whether everyone who has had the procedure could be contacted, because issues might then be raised that are being ignored at the moment.

You have already addressed some of the issues that I am about to ask about, but it might not do any harm to take them from a slightly different angle. Submissions that we have received link the issue that we are discussing to a misunderstanding at service level about where individuals should be directed for appropriate autism support. Does the Scottish Government plan to review the legislation in respect of autistic people so that it is no longer assumed that they have either a mental disorder or a learning disability? If so, is there any timescale for such a review?

I think that that is perfectly logical, although I note that the Scottish Government has stated in its response:

“The Scottish Government publishes each year a statistical bulletin known as Criminal Proceedings in Scotland. The bulletin presents statistics on criminal proceedings concluded in Scottish courts, including a breakdown by sex of convicted persons by crime type.”

Therefore, given that the Scottish Government has already given us that information, I think that it would be better to contact the organisations that David Torrance identified before we approach the Scottish Government again with those results.

Without going into a rant, convener, I have to say that my follow-up question was taken away from me there.

Mr Torrance’s suggestion is perfectly logical and sensible. The petition is one of a group of petitions that make a statement about an issue that is not in the public domain to a great degree. For us to be able to respond successfully to the petition, it is incumbent on us to investigate the issue and to consider it further once we have received the responses.

The Government should be made well aware of the failure to use the affirmative procedure and the fact that the committee is unhappy with the procedure that it followed. The nature of the coronavirus situation that we are dealing with means that things have moved on apace but, because of that, the regulations have potentially skipped some of the oversight that is required in the Parliament. Therefore, they should be affirmative.

Both, actually.