³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Following on from those points, I noted that the petitioner highlighted the work of surgeons at the Shouldice hospital, who are pioneering alternative treatments in natural tissue repair. There have been interesting outcomes from that technique and the study of the technique. What is your view of it? What are we doing to train surgeons in Scotland in it? Are we developing a critical mass of knowledge, so that we can use it as an alternative means of treatment?

I am conscious of the significant inertia in the medical profession in relation to the use of mesh. The technique is long established and has been normalised in Scotland, so trying to move away from it is bound to meet with some resistance. Are there better ways to embed and build up alternative, pioneering techniques?

I think so. I just note that it is interesting that the onus seems to be on the patient to demand an alternative. That goes back to the issue about the power imbalance when it comes to knowledge and the need for people to be quite robust in their challenges. I wonder whether that is a potential concern.

I thank the minister for helpfully outlining the Government’s intentions. One thing that I noted in the petition and the background reading was the reference to the independent review, which reported to ministers in December 2019. A key finding of that review was that the current legislation was indirectly discriminatory towards autistic people. I welcome the fact that new legislation is in the pipeline, but in the meantime it is important that we consider what actions you as minister might take to protect the human rights of autistic people until that new legislation can kick in, given that that will obviously take quite some time.

I agree that an evidence-led approach is critical, and I concur with colleagues that the routes of research that have been identified and proposed are appropriate, and I support our taking those actions.

I found this petition quite interesting, as it sets out an interesting interface. Although the Scottish Government’s prima facie case is that the matter is reserved, we know of cases in the past—for example, the development of atomic power stations in Scotland—where planning powers have effectively been used to direct or influence policy decisions. An element of leverage could be deployed here, and we could look at opportunities to create greater incentives for community ownership.

I therefore think that the petition is worth further exploration and evidence gathering. The Scottish land fund and other stakeholders that operate in this field might have some interesting and innovative suggestions about how policy could be developed, particularly with regard to potential changes to planning legislation in Scotland, which is a devolved matter and could lead to the introduction of incentives that are indirect but would be nonetheless effective. As I have said, the matter is worth further exploration.

I share concerns regarding the level of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the instrument, particularly in light of the logistical difficulties that have been encountered in the past few days, which demonstrate that the policy was immature in its delivery and would have benefited from parliamentary oversight.

In light of constituency representations that I have received regarding international compatibility, as well as the value for money of the technical solution that ministers decided upon, I say that the policy merited greater debate in the Parliament, regardless of whether we support the principle of vaccination passports. Therefore, I agree that the regulations would be better suited to the affirmative procedure than the made affirmative procedure. In particular, although it is valid to talk about a serious and imminent threat in relation to the broad context of the pandemic, the primary purpose of the vaccination passport system is, as far as I can see, to create a negative incentive structure for vaccine uptake rather than an immediate need to deal with transmission, which is more readily dealt with through test and protect.

For those reasons, the regulations would merit greater parliamentary scrutiny and I support using the affirmative procedure.

I echo the moving testimony from Monica Lennon in representing her constituent; it is an incredibly touching issue. We have all had interactions with constituents and others in the past, with the same themes repeated around how, when people feel that they are in a crisis situation, help is not there. That is a devastating realisation for a lot of people, who perhaps assumed that, if the worst came to the worst, someone would be there to help.

I echo the useful points that Tess White made about the need to widen our investigation and inquiry. I think that we should pursue that.

I suggest that we also include prisons in the scope of our inquiry. I visited Barlinnie relatively recently and experienced the mental health crisis in the midst of our prison system. People who are suffering severe mental disability and mental health problems are incarcerated in conditions that are not appropriate for their condition. People who are suffering acute mental illness are, in effect, being warehoused in prisons. That is another element that needs to be discussed. I therefore suggest including the Scottish Prison Service in the organisations that we invite to discuss the issue with us.

I have a further reflection on reimbursement. Many families will not have the cash flow to fund the costs up front. Given that, under the Scotland Act 2016, the Scottish Government has greater latitude to introduce new benefits, consideration could be given to setting up a special grant for the very small number of families who are affected. Such a grant could support families with up-front payments to enable them to travel and stay in a location that is quite far from home.

I note that the Government says that it is up to individual health boards to determine the appropriateness of that service provision. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for us to invite health boards to make submissions on the provision in their areas so that we can see their views.

I agree. There is a potential reconsideration of the regulations on cannabidiol—CBD—products, although they are currently legal, so the point about the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a bit of a red herring. Further investigation of safe dosage levels is needed, and we could undertake potentially informative clinical trials in Scotland. Furthermore, a cross-party group on medicinal cannabis has recently been established, so it might be useful for the petitioner to consider participating in that as a way of furthering his objectives.