Seòmar agus comataidhean

I entirely agree that the petition should be kept open and that evidence should be taken from the minister, so I am entirely satisfied with that suggestion.

I want to make two points. First, if there are to be three units, that means that the whole of the Highlands, including Morayshire, Argyll and the isles will not have such a facility. We should reflect on that, because there are very strong feelings in hospitals there that face potential closure. That has been a very live issue, particularly in Wick and Elgin, over the years. My late wife was involved in saving the maternity unit in Moray many decades ago.

Secondly, I ask Jackie Baillie to clarify something, either now or, if she needs to get more information, later. You indicated that the performance of the Wishaw unit was the best, not just in Scotland but in the whole of the UK. I am interested to know, either now or later, but certainly before we take evidence from the minister, what the statistical evidential basis is for that judgment.

I agree with those comments, but I also reflect on the fact that imprisonment serves various necessary purposes. Those include incapacitation to protect the public, deterrence against future crime, rehabilitation—which is important and challenging—and punishment. Punishment is the price that people pay in losing their liberty for committing a very serious crime. It cannot be morally justifiable to somehow elide punishment as a justification for imprisonment. The public would find it difficult to agree that punishment is not appropriate where someone commits a rape or a murder. Punishment is a necessary—though not the sole—function of imprisonment, and, in my humble opinion, it must always be so.

Yes, I do.

This petition is similar to one of the previous petitions, in that we have received a substantive supplementary written submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government’s response. In that submission, dated 5 September, which is fairly recent, the petitioner makes some fairly fundamental criticisms of the Scottish Government’s response. For example, the petitioner suggests that there is perhaps an inappropriate closeness between the Scottish Government and the GTCS, as evidenced by the fact that, within 24 hours of the petition’s publication, Scottish Government staff had emailed senior figures at the GTCS, which raises questions about the independence of the GTCS.

What is more significant is that the Scottish Government’s response referred to the PSA criticism, and the PSA has, as you said, convener, made a very detailed report. It added other criticisms, incidentally. For example, it said that the five-year rule is entirely arbitrary, which is absolutely correct. However, the Scottish Government did not actually mention the fact that the PSA report was fairly critical with regard to how these reports are normally shaped. In fact, it was very critical indeed. The Scottish Government also did not say that the equivalent of the GTCS in England was abolished in 2012—it just does not mention that at all. Therefore, plainly, that is something that could be done. I am not advocating for that—I am not taking a side on this—but, to give voice to the petitioner, we should go back to the Scottish Government to ask for a specific response on the points that the petitioner has made, and to ask what exactly is going to be done to address those criticisms, in the light of the fact that the report from the professional standards authority, which, as I understand it, is an independent body, was critical in numerous aspects.

It all looks to me as though there is potential substance to the petitioner’s claim that there is a very cosy relationship between all these bodies and that their leaders pass between them, so that the independence is theoretical, not real. I am not suggesting that we call on the minister to give evidence, because I am aware of the timetable pressure. I would have called for that had we been earlier in the parliamentary session. However, I think that we should make those requests of the Scottish Government for a specific response to the petitioner and to hear what it feels must be done in relation to pursuing the PSA recommendations, rather than it just drifting away and nothing happening, which is often the case.

I speak in support of what my colleague Ed Mountain said. I, too, have constituents who have profound concerns about the way in which complaints are dealt with. They feel that they are kept in the dark. No information is ever given to them about anything, and they are left feeling completely impotent. That might be because of GDPR or the law, and it might not be; I do not know.

What I know is that the system is inherently wrong: public bodies are failing to observe the first basic principle of any justice system, which is nemo judex in causa sua. To put it in plain English, they are marking their own jotters. Any public body, when facing criticism, will circle the wagons and defend itself. That is an instinct. It is very simple: there is an inherent conflict of interest between defending its own interests as a public body and dealing with a complaint from a third party.

This petition has been on the go for three years. To supplement what Mr Mountain has said—I drew this to the convener’s and the clerks’ attention prior to the meeting—I point out that fairly recently, on 26 September, we published the petitioners’ supplementary submission. In that submission, they make new substantive points. The first is about the growing support of MSPs; they mention all the MSPs who have supported the petition. Then, they talk about the GTCS and the patent defects of its filtering out of child safeguarding referrals at the initial stage. The defect is that the GTCS basically goes what with the education authority says—so much so that, according to the submission, the statistics show that

“only 26% of referrals received from the public”

were investigated

“compared with 92% of employer referrals.”

That was the finding of the Professional Standard Authority, which is, itself, independent and which also criticised the system, having

“found that the GTCS relied solely on the referral information”.

No one acting in any judicial capacity can rely on hearing only one side of the case. That is a breach of a second principle of natural law: audi alteram partem, which, as Latin scholars will know, means “listen to both sides of the case”. It could not be more elementary and yet, three years on, we are no further forward.

I accept entirely that we are moving towards the end of this parliamentary session. However, there are six months left in it. I hope that colleagues feel that this is fair: given the cross-party support for the petition, its obvious strong points and the petitioners submission in September, the least that we should do is invite the Scottish Government to respond specifically to the points that were made in that submission. It sets a good example: as the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, we must ensure that the Scottish Government responds to the other side of the case.

I know that we are under a lot of pressure to close petitions and I will not be arguing that every petition should be kept open. There are only two this morning that I think that about—which, for me, is a very modest bag—and this is one of them. It has an extremely strong case and, three years later, we are not any further forward.

Well—festina lente, you know.

I also declare an interest: I am the deputy convener of the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel. Although I think that I am capable of coming to a balanced view on the very sensitive issues that are involved, I nonetheless decline to do so on this matter in case it is seen that I am partial and have an interest. That is perhaps the appropriate thing for me to do in this case.

I will take that as a compliment, convener.

Mary Ramsay submitted a petition in May 2019—six years ago—asking for some kind of adequate provision for essential tremor. I understand that she has been ably assisted by Rhoda Grant MSP, so I have not been acting for her personally. Over that time, Rhoda has been persistent, as has the petitioner, who has lodged no fewer than six submissions arguing that there should be ultrasound capacity in Scotland to provide a national service. There is no such capacity, despite the fact that, in 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued guidance recommending that there should be. For quite a while, Covid was used as an argument for not doing anything, and, since then, NHS Scotland’s national services division has repeatedly argued that there is not enough money to do it.

The petitioner estimates that 100,000 people in Scotland suffer from essential tremor, which is a serious neurological condition. However, there seems to be no treatment in Scotland, despite the fact that NICE has recommended that there should be. Moreover, there is treatment in England. I am told that the relevant ultrasound equipment exists in Liverpool and London—it may exist in more places now, as that information is a couple of years old. That means that patients from Scotland who are referred for treatment have to travel to Liverpool or London. Perhaps your officials can come back to me with a specific number for how much that costs, cabinet secretary, because that money is completely wasted and could have been used to provide a service in Scotland much more cheaply.

I put it to you, cabinet secretary, that this is manifestly a pretty farcical failure. The responses from the Scottish Government that we have had have just said, “Well, there is no money and we are not really doing anything,” despite what the NICE guidelines say.

Is this not a manifest failure to put in place proper provision, as has been done in England, for a large number of people in Scotland who suffer from a debilitating neurological condition?

I will move on to the first question. How does the cabinet secretary see the NHS’s ability to recover from the problems of Covid, which were, plainly, all-engulfing? What is his personal commentary on how successful—or otherwise—the NHS has been in restoring the full provision of services to patients across Scotland?

That will happen next February, then. Can people wait until then?