Chamber and committees

That is a very good point. I certainly have direct experience of constituents who were diagnosed as being at the end of life and had hoped to stay at home, but were given a date for adaptations that was, by some time, after the expected end of what life they had been given to understand lay ahead of them. That was doubly cruel. They were told, “Yes, it could be done, but not until you are no longer here.” In many ways, that was cruel and defeated the purpose completely.

Mr Stewart made specific suggestions. This is also an issue of delivery and whether there are underlying calculations and a proper appreciation of the overwhelming need that there is to support somebody at that particular moment, when they need it most. I wonder how we might pursue that further. Does Mr Sweeney have any suggestions?

Our next petition, PE1992, which was lodged by Laura Hansler, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025 and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A4—sorry, I mean the A9. There might be problems with the A4, too, but we are concerned with the A9 on this occasion.

Members will recall that we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 14 June. At that meeting, we heard from the petitioner Laura Hansler; Grahame Barn, who is the chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland; and officials from Transport Scotland.

During those two evidence sessions, we heard how dualling the road and installing a central reservation could dramatically reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions on the A9, and we were provided with details of the road safety measures that are being put in place to reduce road traffic collisions and resulting road closures on the route.

We explored issues around the procurement process, including the impact that existing processes have had on the level of risk that is passed to contractors, and timescales for the completion of the project. We also discussed the petitioner’s call for a national memorial for those who have lost their lives on the A9 and, significantly, identified that the petitioner was not calling for that to be on the A9 itself, which Transport Scotland felt would be vexatious. I think that the petitioner undertook to consider that further and come back to us in writing in due course.

At that meeting, we agreed to reflect on the evidence. We were joined by Edward Mountain in his capacity as reporter on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, but Mr Mountain is not with us this morning.

Do members have any thoughts or suggestions?

Given the changes that we have been advised have been applied elsewhere in the UK, it would be interesting to get not only an update on the capacity implications but the national fertility group’s view on why other parts of the UK have expanded their capacity to offer the treatment and we, as yet, have not. I would be very keen to understand its position on that.

Do members agree with the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

Does the committee agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We touched on that a bit in our discussions last week. It is certainly an area that we would want to pursue with the cabinet secretary.

Mr Torrance’s suggestion that we invite the cabinet secretary is different from our original suggestion, which was to invite the Minister for Transport. Nonetheless, we would do that after the statement has been delivered to the Parliament. Are there any other suggestions?

I recall that, when we took evidence previously, Mr Torrance was somewhat aghast at the idea that the road might simply be closed for a period of time because, obviously, businesses have to survive. Perhaps we might consider trying to find local residents, organisations and businesses from whom we could take evidence about the timescales, prioritisation and scheduling of the work, and about their views on the road safety work that has already been completed. We can also ask those communities whether they would welcome there being a memorial somewhere in the vicinity of the A9.

We could add that to the list of issues that we can contact organisations about. Certainly, it seems that India is free of the pious and humourless guardians of social media that we have here, who I am sure would take a contrary view to yours.

We have mentioned quite a long list of people from whom we might want to take evidence, particularly the local businesses grouping. Is the committee content to delegate the responsibility to me, as convener, working with the clerks, to identify which local businesses and members of the community we could get in touch with?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to petitioners who might be tuning in to watch our proceedings for the first time that, ahead of our consideration of each new petition, we invite preliminary views from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research service.

The first of our new petitions is PE2017, which was lodged by Margaret Reid and is on extending the period that specialist perinatal mental health support is made available beyond one year. I welcome Tess White—a former colleague of ours on this committee—who joins us for the consideration of the petition.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend maternal health support beyond one year, to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health boards, to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality networks standard type 1 across all health boards, and to establish a mother and baby unit specifically in the north-east of Scotland.

The SPICe briefing highlights a short inquiry undertaken by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2021. One of that committee’s recommendations—recommendation 26 in its report—was that perinatal mental health services should not be restricted to the one-year period after the birth of the child. In its written submission, the Scottish Government says that it is considering the two-year review of mental health law that was undertaken by Lord Scott, and it expects to provide an initial response by this summer.

The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report also said that there is a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a new mother and baby unit serving the north of Scotland. The Scottish Government’s written submission notes that it consulted on the best way to increase mother and baby unit capacity and says that it will produce a report on its options appraisal in late autumn 2023.

On meeting perinatal quality network standard type 1, the Scottish Government highlighted that it was invested in delivering new services in 11 health boards and expanding services in three. It also noted that the provision model recognised that PQN standards are less easily suited to areas of low population and more rural areas.

Before asking colleagues how we might proceed, I ask Tess White to contribute to our thinking.

In respect of that last recommendation, in the light of the evidence submitted by Tess White and given that the Scottish Government is considering the issue of establishing a mother and baby unit in the north-east, we could ask what consideration has been given to the incorporation of that unit into a hospital that is currently under design and construction, because that seems to afford an obvious opportunity. It would be interesting to know whether that is being considered and, if it is not being considered, why it is not being considered, and whether the Government believes that not considering it would delay significantly the ability to realise the ambition. Given the lead time to identify suitable premises, if there is an opportunity to do that in the shorter term, we should seize it rather than simply having an aspiration, which might take a long time to fulfil.

Do we agree with the suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.