Chamber and committees

The questions that Bill Kidd asked are important and go to the heart of Stephen Leighton’s petition, so I am glad that we have touched on the matter.

In her submission, Professor Jean McLellan, former director of Autism Network Scotland, highlighted the creation of one-stop shops across Scotland. She thought that the pilot had been “highly valued”, that the space had “lessened social isolation” and “anxiety and depression”, and that it had been informative for people, who gained useful advice and support. However, finances were withdrawn following the pilot, and only some of the spaces that the pilot had put in place had survived. Do you have a view on the success of the pilot and on future accessibility in that respect?

The final new petition is PE1885, lodged by Karen Murphy, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states:

“electricity generation is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. As such the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal competence to change the law for a purpose relating to the regulation of the control of electricity generation”,

as requested in the petition. In the absence of powers to change the law, the Scottish Government has developed best practice documents to encourage community shared ownership for onshore renewable energy developments.

The petitioner’s submission argues that without a mandate to offer community shared ownership, the Scottish Government will not meet its new target of 2GW of community and locally owned renewable energy by 2030. The petitioner suggests using existing land and buildings transaction tax powers to raise a form of tax that requires all developers who do not own the land to offer 15 per cent community shared ownership to locally impacted communities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Do members agree to keep the petition open and make inquiries along the lines suggested by Paul Sweeney and supported by Bill Kidd?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now discuss PE1837, which is a continued petition that was lodged by Stephen Leighton. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder can access support, and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

When we last considered the petition,?we agreed to invite?the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to give evidence at a future meeting. The Scottish Government has advised that the issues raised in the petition are within the portfolio of the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. I am therefore delighted to welcome the relevant minister, Kevin Stewart. He is accompanied by Hugh McAloon, deputy director for mental health complex care; and? Jacqueline Campbell, unit head, learning disability, autism and neurodiversity.?

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement that might help inform our discussion.

Thank you. I was quite struck by the petitioner’s submission, and I am grateful to the petitioner for bringing the petition back. I understand that evidence was taken on the petition in the previous session. I did not hear that evidence, but I was quite affected by the petitioner’s submission. I noted the difficulties that the petitioner continues to experience in relation to family members and other individuals whom she is seeking to support.

I very much take the point that we do not properly understand what additional impact the pandemic may have had on the Scottish Government’s programme and on what the Government is trying to achieve, or the way in which the pandemic has compounded the difficulties that people are experiencing and our ability to deal with them. I start from that position.

That is a good idea and I would be interested to hear whether there has been any enlightenment in the various health boards in relation to alternative medicines and other therapies. I recall from a previous petition that practice was very variable and that some health boards subcontracted the work to other health boards or used their facilities, such as those at the centre for chronic pain or whatever it was that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde had at the time.

It would be useful to get an update from other health boards. Is there anywhere that we could find any evidence on the issue? I ask the clerks to pursue that. When we are told that the evidence is not there, where can we go to find some evidence?

Given that the Scottish Government’s submission makes it clear that it has no plans to review or amend the legal and policy frameworks that would operate around the issue, I am minded to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should certainly, as Paul Sweeney suggests, draw the petitioner’s attention to the new cross-party group that has been established. I take note of Tess White’s suggestion. We could write to the chief pharmaceutical officer about the petitioner’s family member potentially being eligible to participate in the clinical trial that is being talked about. That is a useful, productive and proactive suggestion.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and wait to hear back from those we wish to write to?

Members indicated agreement.

We could write to the Scottish mental health law review asking for an update on its work in relation to compulsory detention and to care and treatment under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

I know that there was a previous petition and that evidence was taken on that. I understand that the petitioner is keen to speak to us again. Do we agree in the first instance to write to seek further clarification on whether there is anything new and substantive, of which we have not been made aware since our consideration of the previous petition?

Members indicated agreement.

In our letter to the Scottish Government, I am quite happy to ask for the scope of the options that are explored to be broadened. The issue can hit any family and, depending on where they are and on accessibility, the incurred costs could be much higher or much lower. If they have to travel regularly but reimbursement is slow, or if they do not have access to funding to undertake that travel, even if the costs are subsequently reimbursed, that can be very prejudicial for families who are already highly sensitive and concerned about their child’s welfare.

I am quite happy to write to the Scottish Government to draw out all those issues. The willingness is often there, but without there being a full appreciation of how complicated the process for accessing funding can be.

Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.