³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

PE1933, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, is on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme. I think that I detect the petitioner and some supporters in the public gallery. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

Members will know that we have been actively engaged with the petition for some considerable time. It was most recently considered at our meeting on 26 June last year, when we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister to set out our unanimous view that individuals who experienced abuse in a relevant care setting should be able to access the redress scheme, regardless of the length of their stay or whether there was parental consent for their placement.

The response that we received from the Deputy First Minister in August restated the Scottish Government’s position that the existing eligibility criteria reflect the core purpose of the scheme, which was designed primarily for vulnerable children who were in long-term care, often isolated, with limited or no contact with their families, and that it is not minded to change the criteria in either the primary act or secondary legislation.

We have received further information from Redress Scotland on the legislation, regulations and statutory guidance that were referred to during our discussions on 12 June lat year. Information has been provided about the decisions to deny redress. The reasons include there being insufficient supporting information and the care setting not being covered by the scheme because the application related to short-term care.

The petitioner has responded by highlighting the evidence that suggests that Fornethy house was a residential school rather than a short-term respite or rehabilitation setting, and has questioned why the onus is on survivors to produce records that were either kept by Glasgow Corporation, or lost or destroyed.

Following receipt of the Deputy First Minister’s response, members will recall our work programme discussion on 11 September last year, when we agreed to seek a chamber debate on the substance of the petition. Members might be aware that Alex Rowley has lodged a motion that was marked for members’ business; however, I think that he has withdrawn the members’ business motion on the basis that the committee is minded to seek a chamber debate on the subject.

Subsequently, we received an update from the Deputy First Minister that provided information on the meeting that she had with the Fornethy Survivors Group. A copy of that update is included in our papers for today’s meeting. It sets out a number of action points that the Deputy First Minister committed to taking, such as signposting survivors to emotional support, requesting that the leader of Glasgow City Council meet survivors, providing details of how to contact the Scottish child abuse inquiry and committing to meeting the group again after the criminal case relating to Fornethy house has been heard.

We have received a submission from the petitioner that responds to the various action points and draws our attention back to the ask of their petition—namely, that the eligibility criteria of the redress scheme be amended to ensure that Fornethy survivors can seek redress. The survivors also request that the petition be considered for a parliamentary debate.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I am certainly minded that we do not resile from our commitment to take the issue forward for a chamber debate, but, in the light of everything that has been going on ahead of that, is there further action that it would be useful for us to take that would inform that discussion?

A way forward on your latter point might be for me to raise the matter with the Conveners Group and find out whether other committees and conveners have been finding the same thing, and, if that is the case, to explore with them whether they think that it might be an idea to write to the permanent secretary. Could we perhaps approach your suggestion in that way?

Thank you very much, Tess. That was very helpful.

Given the letter that we received back in April after our consideration of the petition last year, and the matters that Tess White has just raised, I think that the minister has some explaining to do. I do not like to put it so bluntly, but it does not seem to me that progress has been forthcoming. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Well, we obviously want to make the Scottish Parliament great again, Mr Ewing.

Thank you very much for the suggestion, Mr Ruskell. That is how we will proceed. We will keep the petition open and we will refer it to our colleagues on the NZET Committee, which is led by Edward Mountain.

We thank the petitioner, who will, I hope, understand why we have acted as we have, given the options that are available to us.

That concludes the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will take place on 5 February.

The only question in my mind is the time that is left to us in this parliamentary session. I am slightly concerned that it could be another six to nine months before we consider the petition again, which would then leave us up against the dissolution of Parliament. To give the petition some chance of life, I think that we would be better making the referral to the NZET Committee now so that the committee has some headroom within the life of the parliamentary session to advance the petition’s aims and objectives. That is just one thought.

Yes, and I might have expected there to have been more representations, but clearly there have not been. Are colleagues content to support Mr Ewing’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any other suggestions, or is the committee content that we close the petition on the basis that has been detailed by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1952, which was lodged by Jane Clarke, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland’s national health service to form specialist services, training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction—dysautonomia.

We last considered the petition on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We have since received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, stating that there are no current plans to develop a dedicated specialist autonomic nervous system service in Scotland. It also says that most people with autonomic nervous system symptoms experience them as part of other underlying conditions, and that they are cared for within existing pathways for their underlying condition.

The minister also explains that she has been advised that it is well within the remit of neurologists to diagnose and manage such symptoms as part of their routine practice, in the majority of cases. The submission also states that cardiologists might also see people with autonomic nervous system symptoms for assessment and investigation, including in circumstances when symptoms do not occur as part of a separate neurological disease.

The petitioner and Lesley Kavi, who is a trustee and chairperson of PoTS UK, have provided a joint submission to the committee. The submission states that PoTS UK has seen no evidence of investigations into the needs of people with postural tachycardia syndrome and related dysautonomia. They are confident that the majority of general neurologists in Scotland would not want to accept referrals for PoTS and they are keen to receive evidence from the minister that would prove otherwise.

The submission also provides personal testimonies from across Scotland that highlight the difficulties that individuals have faced when seeking appropriate treatment for their condition.

The petitioner’s submission and the testimonies that we have received contradict the view of the minister, as expressed in her earlier submission. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?