Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Sweeney makes valid points about where this could go. There is an issue about timescale and the resource that may be required. We acknowledge that, but we need to get clarity as to where and how. It would be useful to know that plan Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland have in mind so that we can ascertain exactly where we are. There is real merit in some of this for the location that has been identified. That should be examined, and more time should be given for us to get clarity. It might give us more options if there are other proposals on the table as to timescales, resource implications and what might happen in the location.

As Mr Sweeney identified, the life expectancy of the road will have to be managed in some way, shape or form. It is as well to look at all options rather than just put something through systematically. That could achieve a lot more and make something of the location. As a committee, we certainly have an opportunity to develop that through the petition.

I am.

I agree. The rapid review is a way forward, as it has been identified that there are affected areas in other health boards. It would be of benefit to note the recent commitment by the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to carry out a rapid review of each health board and to keep the petition open, pending completion of that exercise. That will give us a much better overview of exactly where we are. You have identified Grampian and another local authority that has a specific issue, which the minister is aware of. Let us wait and see what comes back from the whole review and see how things progress following that exercise.

We should keep the petition open. In her submission, the petitioner makes some valid points about where we are in the whole process. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the Bute house agreement exploration group’s recommendations, when they become available in autumn of this year. The petitioner talks about COSLA’s involvement, and it would be good to get some clarity on that. That is what I propose at this stage.

As you rightly identify, we could write to the minister to ask what the Scottish Government and local authorities are considering in relation to bringing an end to the practice of removing the compulsory supervision orders, and to seek information on whether the Scottish Government will consider amending the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to ensure that the duty to provide continuing care applies to care-experienced people who need it, even if they have ceased to be looked-after individuals before their 16th birthday. We had very good discussions on that when we took evidence. We could ascertain the Government’s position on those issues prior to the minister attending the committee.

Yes, convener. There is no doubt that there continues to be a loophole in the whole process in relation to the private hire and taxi sector. I suggest that, once again, we seek more clarity by writing to the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland to seek her views on the action that is called for in the petition and to ask how many special restricted licences are currently registered in Scotland. The petitioner makes a valid assertion. Yes, the short-life working group may have concluded, but it has not come back with anything specific for the sector, so it has been left in limbo.

We have probably taken this petition as far as we can take it in some respects. I propose that we close the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the behaviour that the petition references may already be prosecuted under common law and existing statutory offences.

As you identify, convener, this would appear to be a major problem, and women are being let down. Over the past seven years, and even prior to that, I have had many letters in my mailbag on the issue, and it is fairly moving up the women’s health agenda.

In addition to your suggestions, I suggest that we write to NHS Education for Scotland to seek information on the development of the bespoke training that was mentioned, the framework focused on menopause and how the training is being rolled out to GPs and primary healthcare providers. It seems that the biggest problem that we have is that there is no consistency. Seemingly, women are being dismissed and having to endure and suffer for a number of years. Doing both those things will give us an opportunity to see where we are.

I agree that it is good to have a report that summarises where we are and that does not go into too much detail. It is an important report because it clarifies many areas that we have considered and some that we are continuing to consider.

It is always good to revise and review, which is exactly what we try to do. We have had a number of opportunities to look at the code and at what might be improved or considered. That is still very much where we are. We have not got it right in all aspects—we know that—but we are prepared and willing to test the water and find out where we should go. That comes through fully in the report.

For example, we have brought in proxy voting and ideas about situations in which it might apply. That is all to the benefit not just of the Parliament but of its members. The committee is here to support and protect the members but also to scrutinise them, which is exactly what it does. The report gives that information.

Excellent. Thank you very much for that.