���˿���

It would be also useful to gather more information from organisations that you have talked about in the past. The Law Society of Scotland has a role, as do the Family Law Association and Shared Parenting Scotland. Their views and opinions would be useful, in addition to what David Torrance said we should ask the Scottish Law Commission.

I go back to my original question about the Scottish Government introducing a national standard to try to placate people about some working practices. As you have identified, this is taking place not just within your council area but across a number of graveyards in various locations at different times.

Thank you for your comments so far. NICE has already done some appraisals and some technological outlook work to see what has been happening with the product in question. Are you aware of any other countries that are using Evusheld that have carried out appraisals or technological processes that are similar to those that are being undertaken by NICE?

I agree with that. I think that the petitioners have found that there is a gap, and there is no doubt that the process is confusing and complex. A whistleblower might well be what is required. By getting information from those organisations, we will get a better flavour of how the process is working. There is guidance in place but, as I said, I think that there is a gap in the process, which that action might help us to understand. Also, we should ask the Government how it plans to progress the issue, if the gap is perceived to be real, and we should ask to what extent it is focused on addressing it.

There was a health authority in one country—was it Ontario Health?—that had some issues with Evusheld. I think that Ontario Health would not recommend its being used routinely. Are you aware of any other countries that have withdrawn it or are having difficulty with it?

I agree that the sessions were very informative, but it is now time to follow up on some of that information.

I suggest that we seek details of the 2018 suicide prevention action plan evaluation. It is important that we try to establish where we are and when the outcome framework for the new suicide prevention action plan will be published. It is also important to have specific information on mental health assessment units, including locations, funding, patient uptake and any expansion. We felt very strongly about that, and there is room for more detail on that and for it to be expanded. It would also be useful to have an update on whether the Scottish Government will publish its response to the Scottish mental health law review before summer recess.

Those are some recommendations that I would make on the petition.

I am perplexed by this in some ways. I appreciate what the Scottish Government is saying about what it is attempting to do, but, in my view, there are still areas of responsibility that may require some clarity. I think that the time lapse on this is also stressful. I note what the petitioner says about being let down and the complexities of such issues. There is no doubt that there is exposure of individuals to potential abusers in the process.

I would seek some clarity. I would like to see more information from organisations that may be able to give us a little bit more advice and support. I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland. I think that Scottish Women’s Aid, Shared Parenting Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland have a role, too.

I acknowledge what the Government is saying. In due course, things may improve, but at the present time I do not see that being the reality.

I understand where we are with all this, convener. It is an important issue. At the outset, we said that we needed to be sensitive to members and to understand how the scheme would work in practice, and it is now working in practice. That is giving us an insight into the complexities that require to be managed when someone is in circumstances in which they need to use the scheme.

Like Bob, I think that we should be realistic about what we are trying to achieve. We are not trying to put up barriers or to set areas where we think that the scheme should not be used. At the same time, we need to be sensitive to what is required not just for the Parliament but for the member.

As Bob said, the scheme should provide the opportunity to not have to rush back to do things and continually think, “Is this going to happen?” Having someone who you know and trust to give you that support takes some of the pressure off. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to alleviate the pressure on the member so that not only can their work be done, but they can have the confidence of knowing that they are supported with regard to voting and the practical side of things, and that that is being done on their behalf. That is what I wanted out of this whole process, and that has been achieved.

Those are sensible suggestions, convener.

At stage 3, we have groupings of amendments, so it might be advantageous to announce something at the beginning or end of each group to the effect that proxy voting will take place. That would cover all the votes in the group, which might alleviate the timescale issue. Such a suggestion could be thought about.

As Edward has indicated, time is precious for ���˿���, but we have spoken about the need for cross-party groups on a number of occasions in the past and there are some very worthwhile groups. CPGs provide a great opportunity to ensure that the Parliament recognises and supports many organisations and individuals. However, there are issues when it comes to workforce, timing, the focus of the groups and parliamentary business, all of which have an impact on cross-party groups. I am a co-convener of three cross-party groups, and I know how much time that takes. I need to ensure that I manage my work-life balance in order to do that work.

I am concerned about the number of yellow and red warning lights that appear in the annual monitoring report, because that is a red light to us that there is a problem. The problem might well be related to timing, work focus and parliamentary business. The presence of warning lights might be an indication that the cross-party group has run its course and needs to be re-thought, if it is to continue. It is important for us to analyse some of the groups in question and to consider their focus and procedures, if they have got to that stage.

There is also the discussion about how many cross-party groups’ remits overlap, which can dilute their work. Maybe we do not need three groups that cover one area each but one group that deals with that whole area. The report is a useful document, but there is a lot more work to be done to ensure that we get the best out of the CPG system. As I said, I am a great supporter of cross-party groups, as many members are, but they need to be relevant and progressive and must fulfil the standard that we set in the committee and the Parliament. If they are not doing that, they need to be looked at.