Seòmar agus comataidhean

I concur. As you have identified, the petition has been quite a harrowing one for the individuals involved. Without question, a gap seems to have arisen, and it would be appropriate for us to recommend that we have a specific statutory offence to alleviate some of the problems that have been identified.

Fergus Ewing is correct when he talks about the difficulties that individuals have suffered in going through this process. The difficulties have been exacerbated and aggravated by circumstances and situations in the agencies that are there to provide support. There needs to be some clarity there. Going down this route might give us the opportunity to ensure that some of the problems are ironed out and that individuals who go through the process do not suffer the same consequences that others have.

I, too, thank Monica Lennon for her presentation; she made some very valid points on the petitioner’s behalf about the way forward.

Convener, you have identified that advertising is one of the biggest issues. There is a need to find out what action is being taken. These days, when someone purchases a ticket, nine times out of 10 it is not from an individual but through a machine. The machine tells them what the price of the ticket is, so they are not necessarily able to understand what options are available. They hit the button and it tells them what they can have. That process may not give them the cheapest or best-value ticket. Some of that needs to be looked at.

We have talked about technology and ensuring that developments can be made, but there is room for improvement as to how that can be managed on the ground.

You have identified that there is a postcode lottery for some services, depending on location and geographical situations and circumstances. That is important because, if services are not fully implemented and working collectively across the whole estate and the whole country, there will be massive gaps for individuals, who are at risk if they are in that situation.

Is it correct to say that the gap was identified during the process?

I am disappointed that neither Callum nor the committee has received any further information. There was a huge amount of publicity around Callum’s coming to the committee to give evidence that day, and I would have hoped for such a young inspiring individual to be treated slightly better than that. However, we are where we are.

It is now time to write back to the First Minister to seek an update on where we are with the petition. When we had Callum here to receive the petition, there was a real buzz about the possibility of his ask becoming a reality, because he had put so much effort into it. It is disappointing that that effort has not been given the full credit that it deserves.

We need to write back to the First Minister and invite the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport to give evidence on where the petition might be going, in order to fulfil the aims that Callum put forward. His objectives and ambition were fantastic, and we should encourage them as much as we can to ensure that his dream becomes a reality.

I concur with Mr Ewing. He identifies an area that requires to be considered. As Mr Whittle said, it is difficult not to include those individuals because of the circumstances that they found themselves in, so I am very supportive of Mr Ewing’s proposal that we attempt to move the issue into that area. Doing that will give some redress to those individuals.

The petitioner makes some valid points. Adaptations have been discussed in the past in the Parliament, and various committees have looked into the current situation and how it can be appraised.

I think it important that we continue with the petition, so I suggest that we write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations to seek information on the progress that is being made to deliver more wheelchair-accessible homes across Scotland, in particular. We can also seek confirmation from the Scottish Government on issues that the petitioner has raised. For example, in the petitioner’s view, there are issues with the current housing adaptations system—as I have said, the system has been looked at by committees in the past—in respect of the management of adaptations, the backlog and any difficulties in that respect. Seeking confirmation from the Scottish Government would give us an update on the current situation.

I suggest that we write to the UK Covid-19 therapeutics advisory panel, to seek information on the considerations that it has given to making Evusheld available as an antibody treatment to patients. We should also write to Blood Cancer UK and Kidney Research UK, to seek their views on the issues that have been raised by the petitioner. In addition, we should write to the Scottish Medicines Consortium to request the review of its decision to wait for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence report to provide access, via the NHS, to the Evusheld treatment for people who have zero or limited response to Covid-19 vaccinations. Finally, we should invite the petitioner and patient groups that campaign on the need for access to Evusheld to give evidence.

The Scottish Government has launched a new suicide prevention strategy, which is its blueprint for what it wants to happen. Do you have any confidence in it?

Who should the Scottish Government be talking to? You have given some compelling evidence, as an individual who has experienced trauma, but who else should the Scottish Government try to embrace to capture the real situation and circumstances out there?