Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, Tess. That was very helpful.

Given the letter that we received back in April after our consideration of the petition last year, and the matters that Tess White has just raised, I think that the minister has some explaining to do. I do not like to put it so bluntly, but it does not seem to me that progress has been forthcoming. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Well, we obviously want to make the Scottish Parliament great again, Mr Ewing.

Thank you very much for the suggestion, Mr Ruskell. That is how we will proceed. We will keep the petition open and we will refer it to our colleagues on the NZET Committee, which is led by Edward Mountain.

We thank the petitioner, who will, I hope, understand why we have acted as we have, given the options that are available to us.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will take place on 5 February.

The only question in my mind is the time that is left to us in this parliamentary session. I am slightly concerned that it could be another six to nine months before we consider the petition again, which would then leave us up against the dissolution of Parliament. To give the petition some chance of life, I think that we would be better making the referral to the NZET Committee now so that the committee has some headroom within the life of the parliamentary session to advance the petition’s aims and objectives. That is just one thought.

Yes, and I might have expected there to have been more representations, but clearly there have not been. Are colleagues content to support Mr Ewing’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any other suggestions, or is the committee content that we close the petition on the basis that has been detailed by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1952, which was lodged by Jane Clarke, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s national health service to form specialist services, training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction—dysautonomia.

We last considered the petition on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We have since received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, stating that there are no current plans to develop a dedicated specialist autonomic nervous system service in Scotland. It also says that most people with autonomic nervous system symptoms experience them as part of other underlying conditions, and that they are cared for within existing pathways for their underlying condition.

The minister also explains that she has been advised that it is well within the remit of neurologists to diagnose and manage such symptoms as part of their routine practice, in the majority of cases. The submission also states that cardiologists might also see people with autonomic nervous system symptoms for assessment and investigation, including in circumstances when symptoms do not occur as part of a separate neurological disease.

The petitioner and Lesley Kavi, who is a trustee and chairperson of PoTS UK, have provided a joint submission to the committee. The submission states that PoTS UK has seen no evidence of investigations into the needs of people with postural tachycardia syndrome and related dysautonomia. They are confident that the majority of general neurologists in Scotland would not want to accept referrals for PoTS and they are keen to receive evidence from the minister that would prove otherwise.

The submission also provides personal testimonies from across Scotland that highlight the difficulties that individuals have faced when seeking appropriate treatment for their condition.

The petitioner’s submission and the testimonies that we have received contradict the view of the minister, as expressed in her earlier submission. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of our existing continued petitions, the first of which is a petition that is of long standing and one with which the committee has been heavily concerned. PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, 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.

We last looked at the petition on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to seek an update on the work of relevant health boards in obtaining controlled drug licenses and implementing written policies on access to prescribed medication. We have received a detailed table—which colleagues have in the meeting papers—that outlines the current position of all health boards on that matter.

The minister has stated that “as part of the” Scottish Government’s

“on-going work to support a positive outcome from this petition ... officials have been engaging with the relevant areas following the rapid review ... to ensure ... that processes are put in place to support the delivery”

of the agreed actions in the set timescales.

Regarding NHS Grampian, the minister has stated that

“the premises inspection took place on 4 October 2023. Following that inspection, there were some actions that required follow-up, which have since been actioned. NHS Grampian have had no further communication with regards to their application for a controlled drug licence, but understand that a delay is not unusual.”

A number of health boards have checked and subsequently confirmed to the minister that their custody suites do not require a controlled drug licence. Some boards already have the licence in place and others have since applied for the licence. The minister has stated her intention to request

“annual updates from health boards”

to ensure their continued compliance with the requirements that were set out in the rapid review.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. He feels that there is

“a complete lack of courage by the Scottish Government to implement their own policies, Scottish Law and the Human Rights Act.”

He states that

“detainees have the right to ... have enough information about their condition, treatment options, the benefits and risks relevant to them, and alternative options for them to give informed consent to treatment”

and highlights that

“This includes the opportunity to ask questions and discuss concerns.”

We have effected some progress on the petition over the time of our consideration. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Thank you. No member has indicated that they have other suggestions, so are colleagues content to accept Mr Ewing’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.