Chamber and committees

As you identified, convener, at this stage in the proceedings, we do not have many options, so I suggest that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we close the petition.

As you identified, clinical trials will be carried out with a view to building an evidence base that is connected with CBPMs. Unlicensed products are not routinely available on the NHS, and licensing is the only way to ensure safety, quality and efficacy. Pending results from the clinical trials, there is no further action that the committee can take.

In closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner to highlight the eligibility of Scottish patients for the upcoming clinical trials and the information provided by the interim chief pharmaceutical officer about the process. That would be useful. However, there is not much further action that we, as a committee, can take at this stage. As you identified, the petition could come back in some other format.

Once again, I think that this petition has probably come to its conclusion and that we need to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders. As you have identified, the feedback from local authorities to the Scottish Government suggests that the vast majority of idling drivers switch off their engines when requested to do so. The SPICe briefing indicated that fixed penalty notices are rarely issued. The Scottish Government has stated that it considers the current approach to enforcement to be fit for purpose and appropriate.

As you indicated, convener, COSLA said that local authorities do not have the resources to manage a statutory duty to enforce the engine idling ban and that, because of the additional resources and staff capacity that would be required, local authorities would not be able to manage that process.

For all those reasons, rule 15.7 of standing orders should come into effect and the petition should be closed.

I concur with my colleagues that more information is required. We have already discussed data collection. Police Scotland talks about “operational” procedure, but it would be interesting to get more clarity and to seek further information from Police Scotland on the process of updating and recording the policy, including whether there has been a wider consultation on the policy change and how such work is progressing. I acknowledge that the police see it as one thing, but I think that we and the petitioners see it as something else. Clarification is required, and we need to ensure that we get the full information, so I add that to what my colleagues have recommended.

You have indicated that many of the complaints that you receive are inadmissible, so there is a need to promote understanding so that individuals know what areas they can complain about and what capacity you have to deal with a complaint of that nature. How do you manage to get that information out so that people understand that you can investigate only certain aspects in relation to the code of conduct? It would be good to know what your ambition is for that, as that may help you to manage the number of complaints that you receive.

Good morning. It is very obvious from the discussion already that things are moving forward. You have made some very positive remarks about confidence, ability and ambition, and those are all good to have in the process. It would be useful to unpick more of where we are with the complaints backlog.

You have touched on the backlog and where we found ourselves. There was a massive increase in complaints in 2021-22 in comparison to the previous year. Where are we now with the backlog? How many complaints are you managing at this time, and how well are you reducing that backlog? We have touched on staffing and staff training, and I think it is vitally important to make sure that those things are lined up, so that you can perform and progress. It would be good to get an idea of where we are sitting with that situation now, so that we can compare and contrast with where we were.

You have identified that there is a sea of information coming towards you in the form of a number of complaint capacities. In the past, your organisation has struggled to recruit and retain staff, and funding has been crucial for what you have required. I know that additional funding has been granted by the SPCB. It would be good to get a flavour of whether that is enough to enable you to manage the situation or whether you feel that other pressures will come forward that are financially orientated.

We acknowledge your ambitions, but, if you do not have the capacity and resources behind those, you will not be able to achieve what you want to. We all want to see the process progress to the level where we do not have to wait for nine, eight or seven months for a situation to progress. You should have a much more effective and efficient role. You are going to have these new people and you have had some extra funding, but is that enough to enable you to manage the situation and the crisis that you find yourselves in today?

You touched on performance, and I know that performance indicators have been introduced into the complaint-handling process. It might be useful to tease out how that is progressing, as assessing performance using those indicators will inevitably support you not only to get rid of the backlog but to manage the complaints that come through on a regular basis.

As you identify, managing that communication is vitally important so that there is no misunderstanding of the complexity—it might not be black or white; there are still grey areas in all of this. As members, we acknowledge that and think about how we fit into the process, but we and others must have confidence that your organisation will not only manage and support but investigate and be able to show, at the end, that you have gone through the process fairly and without favour. That is what we need to see in order to have confidence in the organisation. There might have been a slight lack of confidence in the past, but we all want to get to that place—I have no doubt that you do, and your report itemises that very clearly. We need to be sure that the steps that you are taking are making progress and that we are seeing that resolution for the future.

At the previous meeting, I asked for some of that information, which we have now received. In the circumstances that we now find ourselves in, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the JCVI has no plans to review the need for or value of an HPV vaccination catch-up programme for boys due to the indirect protection offered through herd immunity. We have collated and brought forward information, but I do not believe that it will change the direction of where we are.

The petitioner makes some valid points. It is apparent that things have not really changed in that time. It would be useful to write to SEPA to highlight the issues that have been raised by the petitioner, seek information about the review of the regulation of private sewerage systems and ask whether consideration has been given to alternative approaches for identifying and authorising private sewage discharges. As I said, the petition makes some valid points, and I would keep it open in order to ask SEPA to clarify those issues.