���˿���

That seems a sensible recommendation, in light of the petitioner’s further explanation of his concerns. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2164, which was lodged by Tabitha Fletcher, calls for a ban on all non-essential single-use plastics. The SPICe briefing on the petition explains that single-use plastic products are used once, or for a short period of time, before being thrown away, and highlights the scale of the issue and its negative impact on the environment and on health, quoting the OECD’s description of it as one of

“the great environmental challenges of”

this

“c��Գٳܰ���”.

In summarising the Government’s actions to date, the briefing mentions that some new product restrictions might require either a United Kingdom-wide approach or an agreed exclusion from the principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

The Scottish Government points to past and on-going action that it has taken on many of the asks within the petition’s broad scope. For example, the circular economy and waste route map sets out actions for accelerating progress towards a circular economy, including on problematic single-use items. As for more targeted approaches, the Government points to legislation to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds; the proposal for a minimum charge on single-use cups; minimising plastic pellets in the environment; and the ban on single-use vapes. It also refers to the four-nation work that is under way on tackling packaging waste, plastic wet wipes and aquaculture gear, while reiterating its commitment to the deposit return scheme.

The Government also states that further detailed evidence gathering, consultation and impact assessments would be required to assess the petition’s asks on any actions not yet being taken. In an additional submission, the petitioner, too, acknowledges the complexity of the action being called for, while underlining that the existing pieces of legislation that target specific items only go to show the petition’s viability.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

We thank the petitioner, but, for the reasons identified, we feel unable to take her petition forward in the time available to us.

Finally, PE2165, which was lodged by Michelle Moir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help improve awareness of functional neurological disorder by providing funding for training and educational resources for medical professionals, including general practitioners, paramedics, call handlers, employers and wider society, on the symptoms and impacts of FND.

From the SPICe briefing, we find that functional disorders include dissociative seizures, functional movement disorders such as tremors or spasms, and functional limb weakness. The briefing helpfully points to the introduction of a national FND pathway in Scotland in 2024, but suggests that it is not clear what training is available to primary care medical and nursing staff to assist with diagnosis in primary care.

The Scottish Government considers the asks of the petition not to be achievable, as

“Developing and disseminating new resources to provide training and education to medical professionals requires additional budget not currently available”.

The Government also considers that the concerns raised in the petition are addressed in current work such as the FND pathway; a project for a dedicated clinical network in NHS Lothian that is due to conclude this autumn; and a pilot study in NHS Grampian that looks to enhance knowledge and diagnosis of FND. The additional submission from the petitioner, however, contains a series of questions stemming from the Government’s response, including on the need for mandatory rather than just voluntary training, on the public sharing of data from the two regional projects that are under way, and on the Government’s next steps.

Are there any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The suggestion is that we keep the petition open and seek further information on that basis. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of our meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 October. Thank you for joining us.

Item 2 is a healthcare thematic evidence session. People are joining us for the meeting because, as we move towards the end of the parliamentary session and realise that time is running out, we are seeking to get some final evidence on a number of petitions from various senior ministers and their colleagues. There are 16 health petitions that are incorporated in the range of areas that we might end up discussing this morning.

I am delighted that, to discuss those issues, we are joined by Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, who says that this is his first gig in recent times with the petitions committee. From the Scottish Government, he is joined by Alan Morrison, who is the deputy director of health infrastructure and sustainability, and Douglas McLaren, who is the deputy chief operating officer for performance and delivery. We are also joined by three of our parliamentary colleagues: Clare Haughey, Jackie Baillie and Edward Mountain. Good morning to you all.

We will try to draw the various petitions into five thematic sections. I think that Edward Mountain’s particular interest might be in theme 1—I am saying that as I scrunch around for my notes when the most obvious answer is in front of me. Please feel free to catch my eye or the eye of the clerks. I am happy for any of my parliamentary colleagues to join in at any point this morning, simply because we have such a long series of sections. As we get towards the end of each thematic section, if there are questions that they would like to put in addition to those that the committee has put, I am happy to hear what they might be.

The five areas that we have brought things together under are patient experience; diagnostic and treatment pathways; capacity, skills and training; sustainability of funding and health service infrastructure; and post-Covid-19 impacts and response. One of my committee colleagues will act as a kind of chargé d’affaires for each of the sections as we proceed through them.

I will begin with questions on patient experience. A number of petitions demonstrate that there is a gap between policy, strategies and plans and how services are experienced. Do you accept that there is a gap? If so, why do you think that the gap exists, particularly at critical points of people’s lives, such as a mental health crisis, when vulnerable around the birth of a baby, or when feeling very unwell? Cabinet secretary, if you wish to bring in any of your colleagues at any point, that will be fine.

The reason why the petition remains open is that the committee has continually been impressed by both the perseverance of those who have raised the issue and by what we thought was the unarguable substance of the request. I suppose that the best way of describing it is that we have declined to be fobbed off over quite a long period of time. In the event that you are able to have a chat with the petitioner, who, as we have identified, is with us today, will you be able to offer her some positive assurance?

There is a national specialist services committee, and we would be interested to know how many requests to take forward a national specialist service that committee has considered in the lifetime of this Parliament.

For which we give thanks.