Seòmar agus comataidhean

We could seek more information on fertility treatment for single women. I suggest that we write to the Fertility Network Scotland, the British Fertility Society and Fertility Scotland to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for. We also have the opportunity to write to the national fertility group to seek an update on the work to understand the capacity implications of any future expansion of access to NHS IVF treatment for single women, as you suggested in your opening remarks, convener.

It would be useful for us to write to Road Safety Scotland, IAM Road Smart, the RAC Foundation, the Road Safety Foundation and the road safety charity Brake to seek their views on how effective Transport Scotland’s road safety improvement schemes and road safety campaigns are likely to be in reducing road casualties, and whether measures should be put in place during the period before dualling work is completed. They will all have views and opinions on that, and it would be useful for us to clarify those.

I was impressed by the presentation that we had from the petitioner and others, and this is a major issue that continues to receive a huge amount of publicity, almost weekly. There is much more that the committee can do to progress the aims of the petitioner and the community.

The analysis is very useful in showing where we are and how we have progressed through the various parliamentary sessions to where we find ourselves at this point. As other members have indicated, there is a balance to strike in relation to motions, and that has been discussed in the past.

As others have said today, it is very important that members have the right to recognise individuals and organisations in our regions and constituencies. Giving that recognition to, for example, individual unsung heroes is a very valid part of our role. Other motions are largely supportive of other things that happen. I think that the best way to describe it is that there are categories of motions. We might be the ones who lodge the motions, and it might be our staff who help to make that happen, but it is our constituents who receive the recognition.

Emma Harper’s point about monitoring the situation, to see whether there is a surge in such motions, might be the best way to manage it. We have to acknowledge the work that the chamber desk team does to manage the number of motions that are submitted to it on a weekly basis. Analysis of that team’s work might be useful to identify whether there have been changes that have helped the team members in dealing with the deluge of motions that come on a regular basis.

I am content that we continue as we are but that we also monitor the situation for the future, because I think that that would be useful.

You acknowledge that we have a role here. If the Parliament wants to change things and make things happen, it is up to individuals such as Monica Lennon MSP, who has supported the petition, to try to do that. We are doing that now by having this discussion and debating the topic. We are putting the topic further up the agenda to try to ascertain what the problem might be and what the solutions should be.

I see that as my role in this committee: to try to tease out some of the evidence and the issues so that we can provide the best service that we can within our capability for individuals in Scotland. As I said, however, I am perplexed when those individuals are not being given a similar quality of service as people south of the border. To me, it is not right, in some respects, that individuals in Scotland are not being provided with the same standard of information and operation that people are getting elsewhere. As I said, that perplexes me, as a member of this committee, and I am trying to tease out the issues to try to iron them out and support people to get a better service.

I acknowledge that, Lord Advocate, but there seem to be barriers in Scotland at the moment and we are concerned about that. Imaging facilities are available in other parts of the United Kingdom and imaging takes place as a matter of course, but that is not happening here. We would like to know why. You explained that the professional organisation has a role to play in all that, but it is quite difficult for individuals, and for the petitioner, to see why there seems to be a differentiation between what takes place here and elsewhere. It is my understanding that there must, therefore, be a barrier in Scotland that is not permitting imaging to take place here. Do you acknowledge that there may well be a barrier if the service is not being provided to the same standard in Scotland as it is in other parts of the United Kingdom?

This is a very important issue, which, as you have identified, has already been raised a number of times in the Parliament, so it is important that we keep the petition open.

We should write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to seek an update on how the Scottish Government intends to allocate the consequentials that result from the UK Government’s funding of swimming pools in England—which has recently been discussed at length in the Parliament—and to seek details on the Scottish Government’s consideration of the support that it will provide to the sport and leisure sector in Scotland.

We should also write to sportscotland to seek further information on the support that it is providing to Scottish Swimming for the delivery of the Scottish swimming facilities project. That information would also help to give us an indication of where we are with the whole process.

Those are the actions that I propose, convener.

Some of the questions and answers that we have heard this morning have been quite vague. I acknowledge that you are giving your views about your roles and responsibilities, but we are trying to investigate the petition and to draw out as much information as we can, in order to assist the petitioner. As the convener said, there is no need for a change in the law to allow for the use of imaging.

Previous witnesses have told us about the time saved by the use of imaging. We have heard that scans can be used to establish a cause of death in 94 per cent of cases and that 92 per cent of those post mortems were non-invasive. It is obvious that using that equipment for scans is of real benefit to individuals. The process saves time for professionals and the fact that it is quicker can give some reassurance to the next of kin. You have already told us about the targets that you have set and want to achieve within your service.

Mr Shanks may be the best person to answer this. Do you acknowledge that imaging could have benefits both for the service and for the next of kin? Should you consider procuring imaging services, in order to ensure that we have a better service for clients, for service users and for yourselves?

It would be useful to get a flavour of your views and opinions on the proposed memorial. As I indicated when I spoke to the petitioner, it appears from your previous comments that you dismissed that type of memorial on the ground of road safety concerns. Now that you have heard from the petitioner what the intention may be, do you have a similar view, or has your view been changed?

Thank you.

The memorial is one of your wishes in your petition, but it appears that Transport Scotland has dismissed that because of road safety fears. I commend you for bringing forward the proposal, but what is your view on Transport Scotland’s position and how do you respond to the fact that, from my reading of the papers that it has provided, it is quite dismissive of that proposal?