Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, any final recommendation would do that.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2204, which was lodged by Candice McKenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national database to record patient outcomes for medications, hormone replacement therapy—HRT—and all other hormone therapies used to treat or manage endometriosis. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that Scotland follows the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on endometriosis diagnosis and management. The guidance outlines best practices in endometriosis diagnosis, referral, pharmacological treatment, surgical management and care co-ordination. It has been used by NHS Scotland to develop the endometriosis pathway, which details the investigation and management of patients.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the proposal would be a positive but substantial project. The submission states that the creation of a national database of this scale and complexity would have significant costs attached for the development and implementation, as well as considerable implications for clinical staff time. The Scottish Government considers that there are mechanisms by which those living with endometriosis are able to access the best possible care and support.

10:45

The Government also states in its submission that action has been taken to support women and health professionals to learn more about endometriosis, the symptoms and the treatment options, and that menstrual health, including endometriosis, will continue to be an area of focus in the next phase of the women’s health plan. That next phase will continue action to improve the collection and use of data, as the Government acknowledges that there are clear gaps in routine women’s health data. The Government also highlights information about current endometriosis research that it has funded.

In her written submission, the petitioner draws on her lived experience and international evidence, which she feels demonstrate that structured outcomes data improves safety, consistency and quality of care. She says that the absence of national data drives inconsistent care, avoidable complications and continued reliance on trial-and-error treatment, and that it contributes to patients being dismissed when they report worsening symptoms, as clinicians lack the evidence that is needed to validate or explain patient experiences. She goes on to highlight international examples of endometriosis data collection and the impact of endometriosis on economic productivity.

In the previous parliamentary session, I well remember our former Labour colleague Elaine Smith, who was very much associated with the issues of endometriosis, attending the Public Petitions Committee on a number of occasions and raising the subject in debate in the chamber.

This is another petition on which it seems to me that there is still more work to be done, but, with only five meetings left, I am not sure what work we could do at this stage.

PE2206, which was lodged by Jack McConnel, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the single-lane road weighting in the road maintenance funding formula and to either consider increasing it or adapt the formula to reflect static or similar overheads for any road width, and to conduct an assessment of single-lane road overhead costs for rural local authorities and their impact on funding formulas across all road-related allocations.

We received a very succinct response from the Scottish Government, which, somewhat disappointingly, only minimally engages with the core issues of the petition. That is certainly the case with the second ask, which is on assessing costs. Essentially, we are informed that the needs-based formula, which is used to distribute the quantum of funding available for local government, is subject to constant review and is agreed each year with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The Government states that it is always open to suggestions to improve the funding formula but that any such proposals must go through COSLA in the first instance.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Are members content with Mr Golden’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2207 is entitled “I demand the Scottish Parliament create a pilot court to try Russian war criminals with Ukraine”. The petitioner, Sviatoslav Rozenko, demands that the Scottish Government establish a pilot court to try Russian war criminals in co-operation with Ukraine and international bodies. That will make Scotland a centre of international justice, ensuring punishment for the guilty, protection of victims and adherence to international law, strengthening the country’s authority globally and demonstrating commitment to justice and international legal principles.

Before we begin any further consideration of the petition, I note that the committee did not receive the Scottish Government’s response to it until last week, which is substantially later than was expected. That is disappointing both for the petitioner, given the effect on their opportunity to give any response to that, and for the committee.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the petition’s ask to be practical or achievable. The submission states that, although it would be legally possible to create a new domestic court with universal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Ukraine, the Scottish Government’s policy is not to create a new domestic court to prosecute those crimes. The Government’s reasons for that are set out in its written submission and include the impracticality of prosecuting crimes without any nexus to Scotland, practical and financial challenges with investigating and translation, and the cost involved in creating a new court.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. The petitioner sets out that the ask of his petition is possible in Scotland. He states that the Scottish Government’s position is a political choice rather than a result of legal constraint. The submission counters the Scottish Government’s financial position, stating that no cost estimates or comparisons with alternative routes were provided. The petitioner states that the true reasons for the Scottish Government’s rejection are political caution, fear of precedent, unwillingness to take international initiative and wider geopolitical consequences, all of which are perfectly legitimate. Do members have any comments?

11:00

If members have no other comments, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

So, this is another petition that we might want to leave on the short list of petitions that will be held over until the next session, as we think that there are issues here that we would like to be explored. We will defer a decision on whether to close it until we decide whether we feel that that is the appropriate route or whether a fresh petition would need to be submitted in the next session. Are our colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the final continued petition this morning, PE2209, which was lodged by Joanna Kerr, as was the previous petition that we considered. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make CCTV mandatory in all taxis and private hire vehicles.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, although the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for the overarching legislation, the day-to-day administration of the licensing regime is devolved to independent licensing authorities. The submission states that the licensing authorities—in this case, the 32 local authorities—have discretion to determine appropriate licensing arrangements for vehicles according to local needs and their own legal advice. That includes decisions in relation to the installation of CCTV in vehicles as a requirement of licensing. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s position is that that is a matter more appropriately for individual licensing authorities to consider.

The submission notes that a task force on civic licensing is reviewing a range of licensing provisions, including provisions in relation to general taxi and private hire car licensing. It is expected that a report setting out recommendations will be presented to the Scottish ministers by spring 2026. Although the focus of the group is not specifically on CCTV, that issue might arise as part of its considerations.

Obviously, the issue is a matter for local licensing bodies, which are the local authorities. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

As there are no suggestions, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government’s view is that it is more appropriately a matter for individual licensing authorities to consider. In any event, the committee has limited time ahead of it to consider the issue further.

Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. I will make a couple of points before I bring in colleagues. Although I talked about the petitions being quite technically varied, community engagement is an underlying theme, which is sometimes prominent and sometimes discrete.

In relation to outages as a result of last week’s weather event, you said that, mercifully, we have been much more fortunate than we were a year ago. Was that in any way due to resilience planning in the interim, or were we just luckier this time than we were the previous time we had bad weather?