���˿���

I am particularly interested in Mr Choudhury’s suggestion in relation to the Care Inspectorate, which I think is quite right. “Adequate and suitable” is very vague terminology, and I would have thought that it is certainly not a benchmark against which any definable standard introduction could be monitored.

We will close the petition. Unfortunately from the petitioner’s point of view, we have to have a realistic expectation of taking matters forward, and the Government advice is very clear in relation to vaccinations and the empirical evidence basis for them.

Fergus Ewing mentioned his association with you over 25 years. Have you seen a change in the centres of gravity in organisations such as NatureScot in the time that you have been engaging with them?

You said that you were in Teesdale yesterday. I have visited Teesdale and I seem to recollect that it is renowned for its waterfalls. Am I in the right place?

PE1952, which was lodged by Jane Clarke, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s NHS to form specialist services, training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction, or dysautonomia. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 May 2023.

A recent submission from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health highlights the results of a questionnaire to a sample of general practices, which included questions on the clinical guideline “Managing the long-term effects of COVID-19”. The survey found that 60 per cent of responding practices were aware of the guideline and 25 per cent were aware of the implementation support note. The content of the implementation support note is being reviewed and updated.

The University of Leeds has been contracted to support the initial evaluation of long Covid services in Scotland. That work will provide an analysis of demand and capacity and of longer-term outcomes for patients, and will compare differences in service models where possible.

The petitioner has stressed that the petition concerns all patients with dysautonomia and not just those with long Covid. She notes that there are no specialist autonomic clinics in Scotland and that cardiology consultants have told PoTS UK that they do not have the expertise to manage patients with dysautonomia. The petitioner welcomes the training resources that are available to healthcare professionals but would like to make it clear that those are not a suitable substitution for specialist services.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

If there no other suggestions, are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1967, on protecting Loch Lomond’s Atlantic oakwood shoreline by implementing the high road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbet and Inverarnan, was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and The Trossachs. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

When we last considered this petition at our meeting on 17 May 2023, we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, and we also looked at the suggestion made by Jackie Baillie, who joined us at that time, with regard to options for a site visit. We have received a response from the then minister and now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, which refers to previous submissions setting out the development and assessment of the A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan scheme, and the Scottish Government’s view that the STAG-compliant assessment has already been completed. The minister states that the Government is not willing to carry out a reappraisal of its preferred route option, as that would repeat work already carried out and would likely lead to considerable delay and additional costs. The minister also notes that Transport Scotland has considered the alternative option put forward by the petitioner, with the Government not considering it as a viable alternative to its preferred option.

The petitioner has commented that the minister’s response does not add anything new to the evidence that we have gathered so far, and notes that both route options pose considerable engineering and environmental issues, with the Scottish Government’s preferred option requiring the extension of viaducts affecting the tree line and wildlife along the banks of Loch Lomond. However, the petitioner does welcome the minister’s assurance that stakeholders will have an opportunity to make formal comment or objection during the statutory consultation period and offers once again to facilitate a visit to the site. The committee has also received a submission from Stuart Cordner in support of the petition, which shares concerns about the likely impact of the low road option on local tourist businesses.

I am not certain that a site visit would assist us, given the fairly strong direction that we have received from the Scottish Government. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

PE1979, on the establishment of an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies, has been lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. I think that I see at least some of the petitioners in the gallery this morning.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding, and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council Scotland as well as concerns about gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries in the future.

We last considered the petition a month ago on 7 February, when we held a round-table discussion with the petitioners—Bill Cook, Alison Dickie and Neil McLennan—and the whistleblower, Brendan Barnett. Three were present, and one was online. During that round table, we heard about a need to robustly investigate and resolve safeguarding allegations before undertaking policy reviews, and about the failure of public bodies to follow national guidance due to its non-statutory status and an inconsistent approach to information gathering and sharing between relevant agencies.

We also heard about concerns that allegations are not fully investigated at the time, with inquiries taking place many years after the event; the impact of that on confidence in local authorities and public bodies; how the role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner in Scotland could be strengthened; and how the creation of a national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services could provide a route for individuals to access guidance, support and a structured procedure when raising concerns. Following the evidence session, we have received a new submission from the petitioners, requesting a private evidence session to further explore issues that they felt constrained from detailing more fully in a public setting.

There are two key asks of this petition, the first of which is the call for an independent investigation of unresolved allegations about child protection. The petitioners have given us a flavour of those outstanding allegations and the challenges experienced in resolving them through the existing process. However, it might well be that the committee does not offer the appropriate forum for taking forward detailed consideration of that particular ask. The petition also calls for the creation of an independent whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services, with the petitioners indicating in their most recent submission that they will provide further follow-up information on the accountability and resourcing issues that we discussed.

Having had the opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we heard last month from the petitioners, do members have any comments or suggestions for immediate action that we might consider taking? Members might be aware that there was also a late submission, which you will have received with your papers for today’s meeting.

Mr Ewing, I recall that you drew particular attention to the issue in our questioning. Indeed, I think that you cited the Edinburgh academy case, suggesting that it would be useful to incorporate that, too.

If there are no other suggestions from members, do we agree to keep the petition open and pursue with the minister and the ombudsman these particular issues?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2009, on ensuring fair access to Scottish universities for all residents in Scotland and the United Kingdom, which was lodged by Caroline Gordon. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure fair access to Scottish universities for residents in Scotland and the UK by reviewing university business models and Scottish Government funding arrangements. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 May last year, when we agreed to write to Universities Scotland, the Scottish Government, the Commissioner for Fair Access and individual universities in Scotland.

While Glasgow Caledonian University states that its aim is to be allocated more funded places, it notes that growth would be focused on increasing and widening participation in Scotland. Edinburgh Napier University accepts that the funding arrangements mean that the approach could be described as an upper cap on the overall number of places. However, it states that it does not recognise the scenario that is presented in the petition, in which all places for Scottish-domiciled students on a degree programme are filled by students from a widening participation background.

The response from the Commissioner for Fair Access notes that he intends to review funding arrangements but has not found evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s concerns that funding arrangements block access for Scottish-domiciled students or that such arrangements lead to students pursuing higher education elsewhere in the UK. Universities Scotland’s submission recognises that, for some courses, demand will be so high that suitable applicants are unable to achieve their first choice. However, the submission also notes that the data indicates that applicants are not missing out on accessing Scottish universities on funding. It highlights that public investment in each Scottish undergraduate has fallen by 27 per cent in real terms since 2014 and that spending per student should be the focus rather than increased places.

Robert Gordon University, Universities Scotland and Edinburgh Napier University state that there is not an issue of too few funded places, with some highlighting the need for increased funding allocation per student. On that point, Robert Gordon University’s submission points out that the Scottish Funding Council reduced the number of non-controlled funding places by 1,000 in the 2023-24 academic year in response to underrecruitment of students across the sector.

The petitioner’s written submission requests that the committee seek data from each university on a number of points relating to the number of applicants from different backgrounds who are being accepted into specific courses across Scotland.

We were joined at the previous hearing of the petition by our colleague Michael Marra, who is with us again this morning. Before the committee considers what action we might further take, I would be interested to hear again from Mr Marra.