Chamber and committees

Paul O’Kane, would you like to comment on what we have heard this morning?

Thank you very much. I will now suspend the meeting.

That does not explain to me how stones and lairs were maintained historically. What has changed? Have family lines simply run out, or are people now much more transient and have moved away, so there is nobody left to accept responsibility for such things? Is it that families have inherited the responsibility for maintenance of headstones, which is now quite a costly exercise? I understand that there was a fatality, but was that the first time that that had happened? Had headstones not been toppling over before that, or was it that there was a fatality that brought it forward as something that is of considerable public concern, which led the Government to introduce regulations?

What should be the main consideration for a local authority in considering whether memorials are safe? What should be the criteria based on which they set that standard?

So, it is not done by exception; a cemetery would be assessed by somebody who goes around and identifies issues. In some cases, it seems that a blanket approach has been taken and they have just knocked all the headstones flat. However, it should be that the council establishes, on a bespoke basis, what is necessary on a particular plot.

PE1723, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the national specialist services committee on a number of outstanding issues. We have considered the petition on a number of occasions and we are quite engaged with it.

In response, the Scottish Government has provided information about the role, membership and operation of the national professional, patient and public reference group. The national services division has now responded to the committee, setting out the current service provision and how it operates with the national specialist services committee. The response states that, at the time of writing, no formal application for a national magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound service had been submitted by NHS Tayside.

We are joined for our discussion of the petition by Rhoda Grant. I ask her whether she would like to say anything before we consider the various representations that we have recently received.

The submissions that we have had have all been about how that might happen but, now that it has happened, we might want to know, from all those who have an active part in the resolution of the matter, about the timescale and likely progress of the application. Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1871, which was lodged by Karen McKeown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland, to include the referral process; crisis support; risk assessments; safe plans; integrated services working together; first response support; and the support that is available to families affected by suicide.

Members will, of course, recall that we held evidence sessions on the petition with the petitioner, Karen McKeown, and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care at the end of last year. I thank Karen for coming forward at the time to give evidence to the committee on this difficult subject.

At the session with Karen, we heard about the importance of evaluating and reviewing how Scotland’s mental health services perform, and the need for dedicated facilities for people waiting to get mental health support. Then, with the cabinet secretary, we discussed the broader policy context with a focus on the previous and current suicide prevention action plans. The committee also explored waiting times and new pilot services. They were both very enlightening and productive evidence sessions.

In the light of that, the submissions that we have received and the reflections that we have had, and having thought about the evidence, do members have any suggestions?

In relation to the information on the mental health assessment units, it occurs to me that what is available in the public domain seems to be extraordinarily vague. I understand that there are now 13 of those units established, but there does not seem to be any public record of where they are or how they operate, or any more general information regarding them at all. It seems to be lacking the transparency that we would hope for and expect as part of our proper consideration of the actions that have been taken. I particularly want us to emphasise that point that you made, Mr Stewart.

I again thank Karen McKeown. We are keeping the petition open and we will be pursuing some of the issues arising out of the evidence sessions that we had with Karen and with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.