Chamber and committees

Actually, we have not taken a decision to send a letter yet—it is the petitioners who have recommended that we might consider doing so. You have rather jumped the gun, but who knows? We might be minded to do it.

I call Carol Mochan.

Agenda item 3 is the consideration of new petitions. Before we consider new petitions, I always say to those who might be following our proceedings that, before we consider a petition, we ask the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to do some detailed work advising us on the issues underpinning the petition and also seek a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. However, as I said at the start of today’s meeting, I am afraid that we are now considering the very last of the new petitions submitted to us with very little time left in this session, if any, to do justice to any of these petitions. We have barely a handful of meetings left, and it may well be that the interests of the petitioners will be best served by the petitions being freshly submitted to the new Parliament in May.

I will upset the order because I recognise that Mr Mountain, who joined us for an earlier petition, is still with us. I will move first to the one that I know he has an interest in, so that he can pursue the very many busy aspects of his day yet ahead, and to acknowledge, of course, that he will not be with us in the next session to advocate on behalf of the issues that are raised in the petition. This is his moment so to do.

Two questions follow from that. Can you illustrate for us, relative to the size of the current unit in Glasgow, the size of the new unit that you expect, and what you envisage the timetable of the transition being?

I was going to suggest that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we close the petition on the basis that Police Scotland has stated that it has been recording the biological sex of suspects in rape and sexual offences, that it will continue to do so and that it has decided to expand this approach to all crimes. The COPFS and SCTS operate with data received from reporting agencies, including Police Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s position is that the issue raised in the petition is an operational matter for the relevant bodies.

However, in closing the petition, I am quite happy to propose that the committee write to the COPFS, the SCTS and the Scottish Prison Service to seek their assurance that they will be implementing the recommendations outlined by the chief constable. We will follow that suggestion from the petitioners, but do so as part of the process of closing the petition.

We will do so.

My final comment and reflection is that the petition is here because there are still people out there who are unconvinced and they can only be so because, for whatever reason, they have not understood the issues or they have raised concerns which may yet hopefully be accommodated or addressed. Communication is always very important in these matters and maybe work still needs to be done to offer the reassurance that people would want in advance of finding themselves in this situation.

Minister, thank you once again to you and your officials for engaging with us so constructively. We very much appreciate that.

Welcome back. We move to the consideration of other open petitions. Given that there are only a handful of meetings of the committee left, it is terribly important to say that, irrespective of the merits of many petitions, the committee will have no option but to close them before this session of the Scottish Parliament comes to an end with the final sitting of Parliament in March. Therefore, although there are a number of very important petitions on which the committee believes that there is still work to be done, the petitioners’ interests may well be best served by the lodging of a fresh petition to the Parliament when it meets in its new session in May next year.

We may hold over a very small number of petitions in the legacy document that we pass on to our successor committee in the next session. In the committee’s last meetings before the dissolution of the Parliament, we may feel that there is little that we can do to advance the aims of a petition, given the very limited time still open to us, but that is no reflection on its merits.

Our consideration of the sequence of petitions under this item follows on from our evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on 24 September, at which we explored a number of themes: patient experience, diagnostic and treatment pathways, capacity skills and training, sustainability of funding and health service infrastructure, and post-Covid-19 impacts and responses. After the evidence session, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care followed up in writing on a number of the outstanding issues.

This morning, we will consider the petitions that sit under the theme of diagnostic and treatment pathways, and then we will consider a petition on the theme of sustainability of funding and health service infrastructure. The committee has explored the specific issues raised in the petitions by seeking written evidence from stakeholders and ministers. The thematic issues have also been explored in our recent oral evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.

During the thematic evidence session, we raised that a number of the petitions have highlighted issues with diagnostic and treatment pathways, particularly in relation to conditions that may not be easily understood or easily diagnosed. The cabinet secretary stated that a balance needs to be struck, as decisions about pathways might need to take place at a national level while at other times it will be for local boards to determine how best to deliver services. I will provide an overview of the evidence received on each petition since it was last considered, and we will then move to consider what action should be taken on the petitions.

We have been joined by our colleague Edward Mountain, who has an interest in the petitions in this group. I will be able to invite only very brief comments, given the volume of business that we have before us this morning.

PE1952, which was lodged by Jane Clarke, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s NHS to form specialist services, training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction—dysautonomia. We last considered the petition on 11 December, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, from whom we have just heard.

The minister’s response reiterates that autonomic disorders are part of the neurology speciality training curriculum, and it is within the remit of neurologists to diagnose and manage symptoms as part of their routine practice in the majority of cases. The submission also highlights the training resources on autonomic nervous system dysfunction that are available for our practitioners on the NHS learning platform. The petitioner and Dr Lesley Kavi have provided a joint submission, which states that PoTS UK is not aware of any neurology specialists in Scotland who manage postural tachycardia syndrome and related conditions.

The submission highlights a 2025 survey of people with suspected and diagnosed autonomic dysfunction, which revealed that 90 per cent of patients experienced difficulty accessing NHS healthcare, and 59 per cent reported that their GP had not heard of PoTS or did not believe that it existed.

PE2031, lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that children and young people in Scotland who have type 1 diabetes and would benefit from a life-saving insulin pump are provided with one, no matter where they live.

We last considered the petition on 29 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and NHS Highland. In his correspondence following the evidence session, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care highlighted significant progress made since the petition was lodged. In 2024, the Government committed £8.8 million to expand access to closed-loop systems—CLS—partly to ensure that all children and young people living with type 1 diabetes in Scotland could access CLS. By early this year, approximately 75 per cent of the under-18s affected had CLS access. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care reiterated that NHS boards are expected to offer hybrid closed-loop systems to all eligible under-18s within a year of referral. He also points to specific targeted funding for NHS Highland to support access to diabetes technology, including for insulin pumps.

Mr Mountain has an interest in the petition. Is there anything that you would like to contribute, Mr Mountain?

PE2081, which was lodged by Professor Jeremy Hughes on behalf of Kidney Research UK in Scotland, calls on the Scottish Government to make chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority. We last considered the petition on 7 May 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. We then heard from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, who reiterated that the Scottish Government does not designate certain conditions as key clinical priorities. The minister explained that, although there is a long-term conditions policy unit in the directorate general for health and social care, it works on the implementation of specific policies and does not cover all major conditions. A separate unit, the long-term conditions strategy unit, is leading on the Scottish Government consultation for the new long-term conditions framework.

During a chamber debate in September, the minister suggested that work on developing the framework was very much in progress, with the governance arrangements due to be finalised. The consultation analysis has also been published. The minister encouraged continuing engagement from relevant organisations, highlighting its importance to the way in which the Government would develop the framework in order to improve services for people with long-term conditions, including chronic kidney disease prevention, diagnosis and care.

In an additional submission, the petitioner reiterates his concern that there is still no named national clinical lead for chronic kidney disease and no dedicated civil service team member responsible for driving forward improvements.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content with the recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.