Chamber and committees

Thank you. Colleagues, there is an opportunity for us to consider this. I note that our colleague Daniel Johnson will have a members’ business debate on transvaginal mesh tomorrow in the chamber. However, that does not touch directly on the issues arising from the broader extension of mesh, which has been the focus of the petition and our inquiry.

We raised with the minister, in passing, suggestions that there was a campaign to have the ban on transvaginal mesh lifted. However, if I recall correctly, we got assurances from the minister that there were no immediate plans to do anything in relation to that.

However, in relation to the issue in this petition, we have heard a mixed bag of evidence, together with the Shouldice hospital evidence, which suggested that there were alternatives that might yet be useful, albeit that the individuals concerned would require quite rigorous discipline before they would be physically capable of withstanding the rigours of the technique. There was some concern from the Scottish Government that there might be something of a cherry-picked waiting list of people who would only get treatment under certain circumstances, although I was not sure whether there was not a way to get around any of that.

What thoughts do colleagues have?

I am content to do all of that. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write as Mr Torrance has suggested, keep the petition open and consider it afresh when we hear from those bodies.

That concludes the public section of our meeting. We will next meet on 26 October.

We now move into private session for consideration of item 4.

I do not see anything in the briefing that we have received that would change the fact that the product is not approved. We might have asked to see the system in practice, but that would not have changed the fact that it has not been approved as meeting the standard.

I do not see that we can take this any further, so I am inclined to agree, in view of the evidence that we have received, that we must close the petition. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

Personally, I am reluctant to close the petitions without trying to drill down on that information. I accept that we need to get some sort of date. I wonder whether the clerks could verify that information from Mr Whittle in relation to Belfast. If we are asking for a timeline, it would be good to couple that with evidence that the delay in establishing a timeline is leading to a transference of the potential business that would use that route, which could have a compound effect in due course and undermine the financial viability of the region and the route. That is why we think that the delay in getting any firm timescale is unhelpful.

Okay. There is only so far that a committee can take things, but I think that it is worth pursuing, because there is a commitment to do something but no commitment as to when it will be done. We might want to try to get the latter.

Members indicated agreement.

There is certainly an opportunity to do that.

PE1884, which has been lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the national health service, or provide funds, for private access for severely epileptic children and adults, where all other NHS epilepsy drugs have failed to help. We last considered the petition on 23 March, when we agreed that we would write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Drugs Policy. We have received two responses on the petition.

The first response indicates that NHS England remains in discussions on the establishment of two clinical trials to further the evidence base for cannabis-based products for medicinal use—CBPMs—and that patients in Scotland will be eligible to take part in such trials. However, due to the commercially sensitive nature of those discussions, there are limits on what can be shared publicly, at this stage. The response also sets out the process and timescales for licensing a new medicine.

The second response states that information is not—I suppose, self-evidently—held on the number of people who access illicit cannabis for medicinal purposes. It also highlights that programmes to allow people to self-medicate with cannabis in a controlled environment would be in breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

My recollection is that the committee was quite sympathetic to some of the evidence that we heard on the petition and on the positions that we asked the Scottish Government to clarify. We have evidence that the trials would potentially be open to Scottish patients.

Do members have any views on how we might proceed?

When the committee has a slot, we can consider taking that forward. Thank you. We will continue the petition on that basis.

The next petition is PE1870, which relates to ensuring that teachers of autistic pupils are appropriately qualified. The petition was lodged by Edward Fowler, and the committee last considered it in March. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation requiring teachers of autistic pupils to be appropriately qualified to improve educational outcomes.

We have had lots of correspondence, and the committee asked the Scottish Government whether it intends to undertake a children's rights impact assessment of initial teacher education. In response, the Scottish Government stated that it does not consider that such an assessment is required at this point, due to the on-going work to improve relevant teaching support and guidance. That work includes the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s revised national standards, which specifically reference autism; a suite of guidance on the additional support needs hub; and the establishment of a working group to develop new guidance to minimise use of restraint in schools.

Therefore, the Government believes that it is taking a number of initiatives that address the points that the petitioner gives as substantive causes of concern, and it does not believe that it needs to take the mandatory route that the petitioner is looking for. Do members have any views on that?