Chamber and committees

It could be many things. It could be a lack of training or equipment—I do not know. I am making an assumption that there is a barrier because, from what you have said this morning, I am not convinced that Scotland should not be doing what is done elsewhere.

You have given information and evidence to suggest that it would be up to the professionals to decide. In my opinion, the professionals are not doing what I have described, because there is a problem. If there is a problem, it may be that a barrier is in place, or some kind of logjam that is causing the situation to occur. That is my interpretation, but it would be good to get your view on whether you think that there is a similar issue.

I support Mr Ewing, convener, because I think that there is an opportunity here. I would like to hear from the visitor management steering group as to where we are. I propose that we keep the petition open for some more deliberation.

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.

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.