Seòmar agus comataidhean

You acknowledge that we have a role here. If the Parliament wants to change things and make things happen, it is up to individuals such as Monica Lennon MSP, who has supported the petition, to try to do that. We are doing that now by having this discussion and debating the topic. We are putting the topic further up the agenda to try to ascertain what the problem might be and what the solutions should be.

I see that as my role in this committee: to try to tease out some of the evidence and the issues so that we can provide the best service that we can within our capability for individuals in Scotland. As I said, however, I am perplexed when those individuals are not being given a similar quality of service as people south of the border. To me, it is not right, in some respects, that individuals in Scotland are not being provided with the same standard of information and operation that people are getting elsewhere. As I said, that perplexes me, as a member of this committee, and I am trying to tease out the issues to try to iron them out and support people to get a better service.

You have made some very valid points, convener, and Katy Clark and Jackie Baillie, too, have outlined the situation that we find ourselves in. I am happy for us to keep the petition open.

We have a number of options for action. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the petitioners’ latest submission and seek information on the outcome of the exercise by the Scottish Association of Medical Directors to explore the availability of non-mesh surgery in individual health boards—that is vital—and on the development of NHS Scotland’s scan for safety programme. Specifically, we should ask when it will begin and how it will be rolled out.

We could also write to the British Hernia Society for its views on the action that is called for in the petition and for information on its work to develop a hernia-specific registry, which is important. Those are my suggestions, convener.

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 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.