Chamber and committees

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.

I suggest that we write to the UK Covid-19 therapeutics advisory panel, to seek information on the considerations that it has given to making Evusheld available as an antibody treatment to patients. We should also write to Blood Cancer UK and Kidney Research UK, to seek their views on the issues that have been raised by the petitioner. In addition, we should write to the Scottish Medicines Consortium to request the review of its decision to wait for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence report to provide access, via the NHS, to the Evusheld treatment for people who have zero or limited response to Covid-19 vaccinations. Finally, we should invite the petitioner and patient groups that campaign on the need for access to Evusheld to give evidence.

The Scottish Government has launched a new suicide prevention strategy, which is its blueprint for what it wants to happen. Do you have any confidence in it?

Who should the Scottish Government be talking to? You have given some compelling evidence, as an individual who has experienced trauma, but who else should the Scottish Government try to embrace to capture the real situation and circumstances out there?

I thank the petitioner for her evidence and for her courage in saying what she has said today.

You have talked about failures such as being abandoned and being let down by the whole process, and you want to see changes and a review. The Scottish Government has already put in place some measures that you are probably well aware of. We have talked about suicide prevention, and there is also the final report of the Scottish mental health law review. You have probably seen all of those things.

What else would you like to see? You have talked today about some of the experiences of individuals. As we know, men seem to make up a much larger percentage of those who experience suicide situations and circumstances. You have touched on what you would like the review to deal with. I want to go back over where you think the gaps are, and where you would want to see the review progressing.

As you have said, it has been quite a journey, but a very informative one. It is good that a reasonably large number of local authorities have come back to us to indicate where they stand and what the situation is.

It is appropriate that we now write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence that we have received and to set out recommendations for addressing the issues raised in the petition. I suggest that we also write to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee to share the evidence and our recommendations.

Members can clarify that with the committee clerks, who can put the information together. As I said, we have all been involved in what has been a very in-depth process, and it has been really quite successful. As a committee member, I have certainly learned a lot more about the whole issue, and it is vitally important that we can now give the evidence to the Scottish Government to highlight the issues that we have found.

You have all identified that the victim in the process is the person who has to go through the trauma again when they go to court. They are being abused in another way, because for them the whole situation re-emerges. How that is managed and how the person is supported is another big issue that we need to think about.

You have identified that training requires to take place, but at the same time, the focus should be on making sure that the victim gets the support that she requires from the agencies that provide such support. We are hearing that, at times, women do not have confidence in what is happening with the police. They do not have that confidence because they feel that they will have to go through the trauma again, which prevents them from dealing with the situation. They then end up staying in the relationship because they feel that they cannot get out of it or because they are bound, financially, and the coercive behaviour continues.

Yes, absolutely.

We are now at the stage that, under standing order 17.5, the petition can be closed, on the basis that NatureScot routinely issues licence refusals, and that it has stated that its approach

“is always to explain to the applicants the reasons for the refusals against the relevant legal tests”,

which can include the objectives.

Also, a conservation objective would not apply to every licensing refusal, and therefore setting a mandatory requirement for NatureScot to include that in every refusal would not be appropriate.? For those reasons, I think that the petition should be closed under standing order 17.5.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. You have touched on underreporting and said that the victim is the most important person. When Nicola Murray gave evidence, she spoke about the difficulties in reporting in relation to the co-operation that is required between the police and the individual who has been abused. She also talked about the knock-on effects. We know that Police Scotland has looked at domestic abuse and views tackling it as a priority, but she explained that more training and more support are required. She felt that the police were not able to deal with coercive behaviour as well as they should. When someone who has been abused tries to progress their case, they have to go to the first authority—the police—before there are court proceedings, and she, as a victim, identified a gap in that regard. As I said, Police Scotland has a role in managing such situations and supporting victims. As Mr Tidy knows, the victim is the most important person—we acknowledge that—but that might not always be the case when it comes to how they are managed and processed by the authorities that are there to protect and support them. It would be useful to hear the witnesses’ views on that.