Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do members agree with the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We touched on that a bit in our discussions last week. It is certainly an area that we would want to pursue with the cabinet secretary.

Mr Torrance’s suggestion that we invite the cabinet secretary is different from our original suggestion, which was to invite the Minister for Transport. Nonetheless, we would do that after the statement has been delivered to the Parliament. Are there any other suggestions?

I recall that, when we took evidence previously, Mr Torrance was somewhat aghast at the idea that the road might simply be closed for a period of time because, obviously, businesses have to survive. Perhaps we might consider trying to find local residents, organisations and businesses from whom we could take evidence about the timescales, prioritisation and scheduling of the work, and about their views on the road safety work that has already been completed. We can also ask those communities whether they would welcome there being a memorial somewhere in the vicinity of the A9.

We could add that to the list of issues that we can contact organisations about. Certainly, it seems that India is free of the pious and humourless guardians of social media that we have here, who I am sure would take a contrary view to yours.

We have mentioned quite a long list of people from whom we might want to take evidence, particularly the local businesses grouping. Is the committee content to delegate the responsibility to me, as convener, working with the clerks, to identify which local businesses and members of the community we could get in touch with?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to petitioners who might be tuning in to watch our proceedings for the first time that, ahead of our consideration of each new petition, we invite preliminary views from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research service.

The first of our new petitions is PE2017, which was lodged by Margaret Reid and is on extending the period that specialist perinatal mental health support is made available beyond one year. I welcome Tess White—a former colleague of ours on this committee—who joins us for the consideration of the petition.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend maternal health support beyond one year, to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health boards, to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality networks standard type 1 across all health boards, and to establish a mother and baby unit specifically in the north-east of Scotland.

The SPICe briefing highlights a short inquiry undertaken by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2021. One of that committee’s recommendations—recommendation 26 in its report—was that perinatal mental health services should not be restricted to the one-year period after the birth of the child. In its written submission, the Scottish Government says that it is considering the two-year review of mental health law that was undertaken by Lord Scott, and it expects to provide an initial response by this summer.

The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report also said that there is a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a new mother and baby unit serving the north of Scotland. The Scottish Government’s written submission notes that it consulted on the best way to increase mother and baby unit capacity and says that it will produce a report on its options appraisal in late autumn 2023.

On meeting perinatal quality network standard type 1, the Scottish Government highlighted that it was invested in delivering new services in 11 health boards and expanding services in three. It also noted that the provision model recognised that PQN standards are less easily suited to areas of low population and more rural areas.

Before asking colleagues how we might proceed, I ask Tess White to contribute to our thinking.

In respect of that last recommendation, in the light of the evidence submitted by Tess White and given that the Scottish Government is considering the issue of establishing a mother and baby unit in the north-east, we could ask what consideration has been given to the incorporation of that unit into a hospital that is currently under design and construction, because that seems to afford an obvious opportunity. It would be interesting to know whether that is being considered and, if it is not being considered, why it is not being considered, and whether the Government believes that not considering it would delay significantly the ability to realise the ambition. Given the lead time to identify suitable premises, if there is an opportunity to do that in the shorter term, we should seize it rather than simply having an aspiration, which might take a long time to fulfil.

Do we agree with the suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Jackie Baillie. I agree. In many respects, it seems ironic that we as a nation pride ourselves at times on the fact that we have resisted physical invasion for 1,000 years but it would appear that our natural habitat is the subject of a successful invasion by foreign species. At times, there seems to be lip-service acknowledgement of that but no concrete action. The statistic that you gave of 56 per cent of trees at the highest altitude being Sitka spruce is an example of that. Of course, we all saw that for ourselves.

I know that we have received warm words, but I wonder whether the committee feels, as Jackie Baillie does, that there is still room for us to pursue these issues.

Jackie Baillie’s testimony had a couple of specific suggestions that I think the committee would be happy to embrace.

Given the investment that we have made in the petition, it may end up being one that we consider to be suitable for a debate in the chamber at some point. A love of Scotland can extend very much into the natural habitat of our country, and the concern that the committee has felt has very much been given substance by what we have seen for ourselves.

Jackie Baillie said that Scottish Forestry could be overwhelmed and that the last thing that it is looking for is a sort of nature watch from the public. We are at the stage where non-native species are so prevalent that the battle could become a battle lost. Before it can be a battle won, it has to be a battle properly engaged in, and we are maybe not at that point.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As no one has any other comments, are we content with Mr Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.