Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for your comments so far. NICE has already done some appraisals and some technological outlook work to see what has been happening with the product in question. Are you aware of any other countries that are using Evusheld that have carried out appraisals or technological processes that are similar to those that are being undertaken by NICE?

There was a health authority in one country—was it Ontario Health?—that had some issues with Evusheld. I think that Ontario Health would not recommend its being used routinely. Are you aware of any other countries that have withdrawn it or are having difficulty with it?

I agree that the sessions were very informative, but it is now time to follow up on some of that information.

I suggest that we seek details of the 2018 suicide prevention action plan evaluation. It is important that we try to establish where we are and when the outcome framework for the new suicide prevention action plan will be published. It is also important to have specific information on mental health assessment units, including locations, funding, patient uptake and any expansion. We felt very strongly about that, and there is room for more detail on that and for it to be expanded. It would also be useful to have an update on whether the Scottish Government will publish its response to the Scottish mental health law review before summer recess.

Those are some recommendations that I would make on the petition.

I am perplexed by this in some ways. I appreciate what the Scottish Government is saying about what it is attempting to do, but, in my view, there are still areas of responsibility that may require some clarity. I think that the time lapse on this is also stressful. I note what the petitioner says about being let down and the complexities of such issues. There is no doubt that there is exposure of individuals to potential abusers in the process.

I would seek some clarity. I would like to see more information from organisations that may be able to give us a little bit more advice and support. I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland. I think that Scottish Women’s Aid, Shared Parenting Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland have a role, too.

I acknowledge what the Government is saying. In due course, things may improve, but at the present time I do not see that being the reality.

It would be also useful to gather more information from organisations that you have talked about in the past. The Law Society of Scotland has a role, as do the Family Law Association and Shared Parenting Scotland. Their views and opinions would be useful, in addition to what David Torrance said we should ask the Scottish Law Commission.

I go back to my original question about the Scottish Government introducing a national standard to try to placate people about some working practices. As you have identified, this is taking place not just within your council area but across a number of graveyards in various locations at different times.

The witnesses have made some very valid points about where we are and how we have ended up in this situation. It is primarily health and safety considerations that have created this situation.

There are guidelines and standards, but what are your views on the Scottish Government introducing a national standard to ensure that processes are followed and that there is communication with families who have memorials? As you have explained, standards have been in place for one type of headstone, but they are now being used for something very different. If a national standard was introduced, would that be of benefit in resolving some of these situations?

That is the issue. There are historical headstones that have stayed where they are for generations; there has been very little movement in any way, shape or form. However, there are more modern ones that are much more at risk of being targeted and knocked down. That becomes a problem.

Those are sensible suggestions, convener.

At stage 3, we have groupings of amendments, so it might be advantageous to announce something at the beginning or end of each group to the effect that proxy voting will take place. That would cover all the votes in the group, which might alleviate the timescale issue. Such a suggestion could be thought about.

I understand where we are with all this, convener. It is an important issue. At the outset, we said that we needed to be sensitive to members and to understand how the scheme would work in practice, and it is now working in practice. That is giving us an insight into the complexities that require to be managed when someone is in circumstances in which they need to use the scheme.

Like Bob, I think that we should be realistic about what we are trying to achieve. We are not trying to put up barriers or to set areas where we think that the scheme should not be used. At the same time, we need to be sensitive to what is required not just for the Parliament but for the member.

As Bob said, the scheme should provide the opportunity to not have to rush back to do things and continually think, “Is this going to happen?” Having someone who you know and trust to give you that support takes some of the pressure off. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to alleviate the pressure on the member so that not only can their work be done, but they can have the confidence of knowing that they are supported with regard to voting and the practical side of things, and that that is being done on their behalf. That is what I wanted out of this whole process, and that has been achieved.