Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. I suppose that we could also take evidence from camper van owners—that is potentially a way—[Laughter.]—forward.

Mr Torrance, save us from this mischievous hilarity.

Thank you. That concludes agenda item 1.

Our next continued petition is PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

Empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help—sorry, I am reading about the wrong petition.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 18 January. It is a petition of some long standing, as colleagues will remember. Since that meeting, we have received two written submissions from the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy. The first submission says that NHS Grampian—members will recall that it is involved in these matters—has £1,052,919 per year allocated from the £10 million available to fund work on medication-assisted treatment standards. It includes a letter from NHS Grampian stating that there has been a delay in obtaining the controlled drug licence application and that, although it is difficult to give a definitive timescale, the board is working towards an application being made by the end of April 2023. Presumably—I hope—that has now occurred.

A recent report has been brought to the attention of the committee in the minister’s second submission. The minister highlights that similar issues exist in NHS Lanarkshire as exist in NHS Grampian. In response, the minister has committed to conducting a rapid review of each health board to ascertain the extent of the issues across Scotland, which is positive. The work will include writing to the chief executive of each territorial health board and Police Scotland, details of which are included in the clerk’s note. The minister has stated that she will monitor the situation closely and provide updates to the committee as they become available.

That is a constructive response, following the engagement that we have had with the Scottish Government. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you. I must say that I find the petition quite intriguing. I should say that I was at school with the son of the man who designed the road at the time. I do not think that that associates me with any personal blame for it, but I remember watching with quiet fascination it all being constructed in the early 1970s, when I was at school. Prior to its construction, it was quite a long journey. It was then quite a short journey, and then it became a very long journey again as traffic volumes increased and people became familiar with the road.

I noted with interest your most recent online campaign on the reconstruction of Charing Cross and the original buildings, which, I think, were demolished, and on the part of the road that runs along the front of the Mitchell library, which is potentially open to being capped. Is that correct?

Yes, I am content that we should do that. I wonder whether we might also ask the SQA the very same question. We would be interested to know the basis on which it has concluded that simply the academic review of the correctness of the marking is sufficient.

The exams diet is coming to a conclusion, and results will be forthcoming in the next few months, so the issue will become a very live one for a considerable number of people. It would be interesting for us to take the petition forward at least to that extent, in order to have greater clarity on why that will be the case. We might ask the SQA what practical implication it believes the approach will have in relation to the outcome of appeals this year in comparison with previous years.

Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sorry, Mr Choudhury, but what report is that?

Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content to proceed with the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank all of you very much.

The next meeting of the committee will be on Wednesday 14 June 2023, when we will take evidence from the Lord Advocate among others.

That concludes the public part of this morning’s meeting. We will now move into private session.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. For those who might be joining us for the first time this morning to see the progress of a petition, I want to make clear, as I usually do, that, ahead of our consideration, we invite the Scottish Government to comment and the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe, to look at the petition. That helps to inform the committee so that we can discuss matters in a meaningful way.

The first new petition, PE2012, which was lodged by Angela Hamilton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the need for follicle-stimulating hormone blood tests in women aged 40 to 45 who are experiencing menopause symptoms before hormone replacement therapy can be prescribed to relieve their symptoms and replenish hormone levels. Angela tells us that she is aware of many women aged 40 to 45 who have all the symptoms of perimenopause, but, because their blood tests do not confirm that, they are dismissed by doctors and left to endure debilitating symptoms that affect all aspects of their lives.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health highlights National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance that HRT can be offered without the need for a blood test when other symptoms are present but that a blood test may be required to rule out other illnesses. The minister also mentions that NHS Education for Scotland has been commissioned to create a bespoke training package focused on menopause, including perimenopause and menstrual health, and that there is now a specialist menopause service in every mainland national health service health board, with a buddy system in place for island health boards.

Angela has provided a submission that shares the experiences of women with perimenopause symptoms who have sought help from their general practitioners and been left feeling dismissed and let down. Colleagues will remember that that is a common theme in petitions. She also raises concerns about NICE guidelines not being consistently followed by local health boards and a specific concern about the prescription of antidepressants for women with menopause symptoms.

This is a different area of women’s healthcare. Unfortunately, there are similarities in the patient experience. There is an appeal to the committee to see what more we might be able to do about that. I suggest that we keep the petition open in the first instance and write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to seek its view on the action called for. Are there any other suggestions?