Seòmar agus comataidhean

I concur with Mr Ewing, because the clarity is not there. Mr Whittle and Mr Ewing have identified that the process can result in confusion and the idea of individuals and organisations not getting the chance to have their say. As we have identified, some pressure groups and organisations can be good at getting their message over, but it might not necessarily be the same message for everybody in a community.

Communities require an input, although some people are of the opinion that a project will happen anyway—local authorities make a decision that is then overturned, and the community does not want it. A lot of effort goes into some of this, and the “meaningful say” is problematic in the extreme with regard to what happens. I certainly concur with all of that.

I agree. The petition has opened up many more options. It is about rights and about the inconsistencies that we have found. I concur that the minister should come to give evidence to the committee. It might be useful to seek information from the Scottish Government on what action it is taking to address workforce capacity issues to ensure that care-experienced people can access support when they need it.

As you said, convener, plans to introduce legislation on the Promise are also vital to the whole process. I suggest that the minister coming to the committee to give us some clarity on both those aspects would be a way to progress the matter. We will learn more about the Scottish Government side of things when the minister is here, giving evidence on the petition.

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.

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.

That is very good to hear. The communication process was identified as an area of challenge, and you have explained what you do to inform the relatives, the next of kin or individuals who require information and how that is managed. The college found that there were sometimes barriers in communication and in making sure that individuals understood what was expected and what would happen to the samples. It identified that area in its evidence to us.

Excellent. Thank you very much for that.

It is important that we get further information from the Scottish Government in relation to a number of issues. One is the advice that has been received from the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board on how things are progressing; another is the anticipated timetable for the public consultation on the draft vision for public transport; and a third is, as you have said, convener, the action that is being taken to address issues of digital exclusion in the purchasing of rail tickets. It would be useful to have information on those issues to hand when we ascertain how we can take forward the petition.

It is important that we seek more information. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to seek information on its plans to review home reports, including the anticipated timetable for any review.