Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given that this is very much in connection with a petition that is open and under consideration, it is perfectly in order for the committee to actively promote that event. There will be an opportunity for committee members to drop in to meet Mary Ramsay and, in the first instance, to engage with that drop-in event, which I think would be a productive thing to do.

In your evidence, Rhoda, I think that you have taken us slightly further forward. Did I hear you say that an application has now been lodged—you assume—by NHS Tayside?

I acknowledge that many other countries moved very quickly at a point when the drug could have been introduced and we did not. I understand that NICE and the SMC were participants in a meeting that took place a fortnight ago, and that they are now talking about final guidance being produced in April. I suspect that there is not a lot that the committee will be able to do that will accelerate the process, but I understand everything that you are saying as to why the petition is there and why you think it should succeed.

The petition also brings home lessons that could be learned, because who knows what situation we might face again? It seems that, at one point, there was a process. That process has been normalised back to existing practice and, therefore, people are struggling. This session has been very helpful to us in understanding the issues.

I think that we might want to confirm that with NHS Tayside. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we are all disappointed, which is why the petition has stayed open. There seems to have been quite a curious bureaucratic process and almost obfuscation, given the opportunity and the benefit that there would clearly be to patients in Scotland. We heard how the alternative has been so disappointing historically.

I think that we want to try to clarify those points. I thank Rhoda Grant, because that has taken forward the committee’s understanding of the current situation.

We will keep the petition open and write to the various organisations, including the Scottish Government, after confirming with NHS Tayside that the application has now been submitted.

Are colleagues on the committee content with the suggestion from Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner very much for their petition and we hope that the action of the Scottish Government now progresses. Of course, as we have said in the past, in the event that the petitioner feels that there has been a shortcoming in the commitment that has been given, they can come back to us with a fresh petition in due course.

We thank the petitioner for the petition and again say that, in the event that they feel that the actions that have now been promised do not materialise, they can return at a later date. That was the last of our continuing petitions.

Thank you. I have to say that it was judged necessary for the protection of families in situations of domestic abuse to introduce regulations as a consequence of the 2020 act, but those are not going to be implemented until 2024. Let me anticipate that we will be told that the pandemic means that work on various things was delayed. However, to be told that it is expected that that might not happen until 2024 all sounds a bit vague and woolly to me.

In addition to Alexander Stewart’s recommendations, I propose that we go back to the Scottish Government to ask why on earth this delay involving an issue of protection—a protection that the Parliament regarded as being so necessary that we embodied it in legislation—is going to take until an unspecified date in 2024 to resolve. There seems to me to be a lack of urgency. The pandemic is now behind us, in the sense that I do not think that it is imposing a burden on the Government such that it cannot pursue the implementation of provisions in its own legislation. I think that the distress that the delay will be causing really ought to be given greater urgency than the response suggests that it has been. Are colleagues content that we proceed on that basis? Does anybody else want to comment?

Colleagues, I am obviously sympathetic to the representations that we have received from Mr Choudhury. Could we couple that suggested action with a notice to the petitioner, drawing their attention to the actions that the Scottish Government has indicated are being taken, but pointing out to them that they can bring back the petition in a year’s time if they feel that the provisions that the Government has said are about to be fulfilled by local authorities and Water Safety Scotland have failed to address the issues? I do not know whether there is much more that we can do at this stage, but we could draw to the petitioner’s attention that there is that route to take.

Yes, that makes sense. We will accommodate all of that. I would quite like us to see a draft—even by correspondence—of the potential letter to the minister. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.