Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree that an evidence-led approach is critical, and I concur with colleagues that the routes of research that have been identified and proposed are appropriate, and I support our taking those actions.

I found this petition quite interesting, as it sets out an interesting interface. Although the Scottish Government’s prima facie case is that the matter is reserved, we know of cases in the past—for example, the development of atomic power stations in Scotland—where planning powers have effectively been used to direct or influence policy decisions. An element of leverage could be deployed here, and we could look at opportunities to create greater incentives for community ownership.

I therefore think that the petition is worth further exploration and evidence gathering. The Scottish land fund and other stakeholders that operate in this field might have some interesting and innovative suggestions about how policy could be developed, particularly with regard to potential changes to planning legislation in Scotland, which is a devolved matter and could lead to the introduction of incentives that are indirect but would be nonetheless effective. As I have said, the matter is worth further exploration.

Yes, convener. I am pleased to hear about the minister’s ethos of continuous improvement, but one of the themes that has recurred in this morning’s evidence-taking is the power imbalance that service users often experience. Could there be a mechanism for people to report any good practice or exceptional activity that they have experienced? Such practice could, in turn, be fed in to the system so that it can be learned from and then introduced across the board. In short, service users could help inform this sort of thing. Perhaps it happens already, but given what we have been discussing, allowing service users to illustrate where good things are happening might be helpful as a pointer in setting standards of excellence and could be considered ahead of the new legislation being introduced.

I wonder whether it would be worth our seeking an opinion from the Lord Advocate on the matter.

I share concerns regarding the level of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the instrument, particularly in light of the logistical difficulties that have been encountered in the past few days, which demonstrate that the policy was immature in its delivery and would have benefited from parliamentary oversight.

In light of constituency representations that I have received regarding international compatibility, as well as the value for money of the technical solution that ministers decided upon, I say that the policy merited greater debate in the Parliament, regardless of whether we support the principle of vaccination passports. Therefore, I agree that the regulations would be better suited to the affirmative procedure than the made affirmative procedure. In particular, although it is valid to talk about a serious and imminent threat in relation to the broad context of the pandemic, the primary purpose of the vaccination passport system is, as far as I can see, to create a negative incentive structure for vaccine uptake rather than an immediate need to deal with transmission, which is more readily dealt with through test and protect.

For those reasons, the regulations would merit greater parliamentary scrutiny and I support using the affirmative procedure.

While I agree with the Scottish Government’s broad intent, it might be useful to identify areas where there is good practical application of such teaching in schools. It could be useful to identify and share that with the broader education bodies. There are pockets of very good teaching in schools. There is a particular school in Easterhouse that is doing a project called nae straw at aw. The whole school is engaged in it, and it is an incredibly inspirational exercise.

There are examples in Scotland where some really good work is being done. Perhaps those should be identified, and we should try to transplant the ideas behind what the schools concerned are doing more widely. I was not convinced from its submission that the Government is as enthusiastic about doing that as it might be.

There are systemic issues that need to be thoroughly investigated, particularly the effect of the moderation of examinations. The pandemic threw up huge issues of gross inequality, particularly in the 2020 exam diet; the grades were effectively determined by a postcode lottery, even though academic performances might have been the same. We need a serious investigation of the fundamentals of the operation of the exam system in Scotland. The petition’s suggestion would be a very worthwhile exercise and I am in favour of writing to the Scottish Government on that basis.

The petition is timely, because it identifies a gap in thinking and planning. I acknowledge that the population base is insufficient to sustain such a service. Given that, on average, there have been only five cases per year, the service would not be economically viable, nor would it be clinically viable, because expertise could not be sustained with that throughput of operations, so it makes sense for children to go to a UK-level centre of excellence.

However, that might cause huge disruption to a family, so it is very important that there are more robust obligations on the health service to provide sustenance to families who face that disruption. That point has probably been missed. If necessary, there should be greater statutory obligations on health boards to ensure that families do not suffer financial detriment as a result of that disruption.

I believe that we have received a submission from the petitioner, who is very keen to address the committee. I would therefore be content for the gentleman to be invited to present to the committee. I understand that the previous petitions were referred to the Mental Welfare Commission, which recommended closing them without action. The petitioner’s concern is about the act not having a measure of outcomes to which professionals and pharmaceutical companies are held. On that basis, I would be content to invite the gentleman to present to the committee, if my colleagues are minded to agree.

I note that the Government says that it is up to individual health boards to determine the appropriateness of that service provision. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for us to invite health boards to make submissions on the provision in their areas so that we can see their views.