I concur with Mr Ewing. He identifies an area that requires to be considered. As Mr Whittle said, it is difficult not to include those individuals because of the circumstances that they found themselves in, so I am very supportive of Mr Ewing’s proposal that we attempt to move the issue into that area. Doing that will give some redress to those individuals.

The petitioner makes some valid points. Adaptations have been discussed in the past in the Parliament, and various committees have looked into the current situation and how it can be appraised.

I think it important that we continue with the petition, so I suggest that we write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations to seek information on the progress that is being made to deliver more wheelchair-accessible homes across Scotland, in particular. We can also seek confirmation from the Scottish Government on issues that the petitioner has raised. For example, in the petitioner’s view, there are issues with the current housing adaptations system—as I have said, the system has been looked at by committees in the past—in respect of the management of adaptations, the backlog and any difficulties in that respect. Seeking confirmation from the Scottish Government would give us an update on the current situation.

You have summarised the process well, convener. At this stage, there is not much requirement for the committee to take things further. It would therefore be appropriate to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders. As you have indicated, the First Minister has apologised to the women who were convicted, Natalie Don is continuing to progress her member’s bill, and the petitioner has indicated that plans are being taken forward for a national memorial. Under those circumstances, there is not much point in the committee progressing things, because they have already moved on considerably since the petition was lodged.

I note the petitioner’s comments, and it is also interesting to see the information that has come back from the Scottish Government. Looking at the permitted development rights on digital infrastructure, I am not sure that, in reality, we can take the petition much further. Therefore, I propose that we close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has recently reviewed and updated the permitted development rights for digital infrastructure, considered its position and struck “an appropriate balance” and that there are no current plans for further amendments to those rights.

I, too, thank Monica Lennon for her presentation; she made some very valid points on the petitioner’s behalf about the way forward.

Convener, you have identified that advertising is one of the biggest issues. There is a need to find out what action is being taken. These days, when someone purchases a ticket, nine times out of 10 it is not from an individual but through a machine. The machine tells them what the price of the ticket is, so they are not necessarily able to understand what options are available. They hit the button and it tells them what they can have. That process may not give them the cheapest or best-value ticket. Some of that needs to be looked at.

We have talked about technology and ensuring that developments can be made, but there is room for improvement as to how that can be managed on the ground.

You have already alluded to the fact that potential gaps still exist around the MAT standards. Is anything still needed to ensure that the standards are fully implemented and working as intended?

Did the Scottish Government consult with the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce on the evidence gap that was identified regarding prescription medication being made available to individuals who are in custody? If so, what progress has been made on that?

I concur. As you have identified, the petition has been quite a harrowing one for the individuals involved. Without question, a gap seems to have arisen, and it would be appropriate for us to recommend that we have a specific statutory offence to alleviate some of the problems that have been identified.

Fergus Ewing is correct when he talks about the difficulties that individuals have suffered in going through this process. The difficulties have been exacerbated and aggravated by circumstances and situations in the agencies that are there to provide support. There needs to be some clarity there. Going down this route might give us the opportunity to ensure that some of the problems are ironed out and that individuals who go through the process do not suffer the same consequences that others have.

The Scottish National Party pledged to have the R100 scheme completed by 2021, but now, after the failure to meet that target, the new estimated date is 2026. I have a response to a freedom of information request that shows that the R100 scheme has cost £21 million since it should have been completed last year. That is an enormous cost to the taxpayer and shows that the SNP pledge for 2021 has not taken place. Does the minister agree that that failure will ruin rural communities’ chances of ever getting the broadband connections that they deserve, just as the ferries fiasco did with transport connections?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is investing in rural broadband. (S6O-01585)