Seòmar agus comataidhean

You talked about the peer group that you have set up. Do you liaise with any of the authorities? Do you go to them, or do they come to you?

You are right: if lessons have not been learned and the situation is not changing, something needs to be done. You are attempting to bridge that gap.

As I said, I commend you for all that you have done so far and for coming here today, because that gives us an opportunity to think about what progress can be made and what we can do.

You also talked about compensation and things of that nature.

You said that talking about a monetary sum in relation to your situation would belittle the whole process.

A wide range of recommendations on participation and understanding of the shared process have come out of the review. It would be good to get an overview of the Government’s views on the recommendations. Are the recommendations to be implemented in full? Do you have any timescales for implementation? Are there any that you would find difficult to deal with and might disregard?

I will move on to talk about the treatment of pre-application consultations, because that area creates some difficulty for individuals, organisations and communities. Is there any evidence that how wind farm developments are treated when it comes to the pre-application consideration is anything other than a tick-box exercise? That is the perception that some people have. What is the Scottish Government doing to improve such engagement?

Mr Ewing makes a very valid point with regard to how we should examine the issue. I also agree with David Torrance’s recommendation to write to the Deputy First Minister. The entire saga continues to unlock and show survivors and individuals across the care sector and support sector how they were dealt with in that entire area. We should examine the matter as much as we possibly can so that we can capture it.

As the convener identified, organisations and individuals are falling through the net, which is the last thing we want. We want to encapsulate as much information as we can so that we bring together the broadest range of views and opinions. We will achieve some of that through the suggestions of Fergus Ewing and David Torrance; I am therefore very supportive of those proposals.

In the report, there is the idea of creating a unit with responsibility for participation. Has the Government done any costings of the implementation of the report’s recommendations, including in relation to the proposed new unit? It is important to ensure that the recommendations can be effectively managed, and that can happen only if there are resources and proposals to support that unit and make it a reality.

I would certainly agree with all that.

We have seen in all the petitions the dilemmas that communities face, even with the technological advances that we have seen in medicine and the opportunities that can be dealt in relation to urban areas and rural areas, but that does not seem to be working in many communities. A more in-depth look by the health committee might well bring to the fore areas that have been addressed and concerns that have been raised by petitioners.

The communities have not received the continued support that is vitally important for their livelihoods in relation to any medical process. The health committee could do a much more in-depth analysis of some of the areas that have been brought to our attention, which might help to unravel the issues and to support the petitioners.

Does the Government have a top priority from the recommendations? Is there one area where you think, “That’s where we need to be going and where we are going to go first”?