Chamber and committees

Progress is being made, but we require more information. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Transport encouraging the Scottish Government to continue to make progress on the issue, which has already been raised by other MSPs and not just by those on this committee. We should also recommend that it explores all available options to formalise the role of community representation on boards of public organisations providing a lifeline service to island communities. We have discussed some of those organisations in the past, when we have talked about the representation on HIAL, David MacBrayne Ltd or CMAL. It is those types of organisations that we would be requesting the minister to give us more information about. With that information, we can then assess what progress is really being made.

I agree with that. I think that the petitioners have found that there is a gap, and there is no doubt that the process is confusing and complex. A whistleblower might well be what is required. By getting information from those organisations, we will get a better flavour of how the process is working. There is guidance in place but, as I said, I think that there is a gap in the process, which that action might help us to understand. Also, we should ask the Government how it plans to progress the issue, if the gap is perceived to be real, and we should ask to what extent it is focused on addressing it.

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 Are you aware of any other countries that have withdrawn it or are having difficulty with it?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.