Hansard

We are getting a wee bit ahead of ourselves. All petitions come back to the Public Petitions Committee ahead of the end of a session. We get reports back from all the committees to which we have referred petitions. We are still responsible for them whether other committees have done work on them or closed them—we have information on whether they were closed. We cannot refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee, because it is too late, and I do not think that we can define what we want the next health committee to do with it. If we refer the petition to it, it becomes that committee’s responsibility and it responds as it chooses. The main thing is that petitioners could come in with a new petition on questions around compensation and other issues that were not highlighted in the original petition. The petitioners can bring a new petition with a new focus if there is no progress on a petition and things look as if they have stalled. I think, however, that there is general recognition that work has been done on this petition. The downside of referring the petition to the next health committee is that we have no control over what it does with it. The upside is that that committee then has a specific focus on the work that has been done and on whether there is a need for an inquiry. We have to recognise that there are limits to that process, but that is balanced by the fact that the petitioners can lodge a new petition if they feel that there is a delay, a drag or other issues that they want to highlight, and that gives me comfort. At this stage, we cannot technically refer the petition to any committee, because nothing will be done; we can only make recommendations to the next petitions committee. Unless I am misreading the committee, we want to hold on to the petition, although we recognise, as Jackson Carlaw says, that eventually a petitions committee will have to let it go. However, there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed, and new issues have emerged that could be part of a new petition. We believe that the new health committee could focus on those outstanding issues, but obviously that is a matter for the new petitions committee to decide. 10:00 My feeling is that we should continue the petition, but make a recommendation in our legacy paper to the new petitions committee that the petition does not just sit but is referred to the new health committee. We also recognise that new issues might emerge in a new petition, and the context for that will be all the work that has already been done. I hope that members are content with that approach, if it is clear to them what I have suggested. All the things that have been said about the petition remain true: that this is a scandal, that there are huge issues, and that there are women who are living with pain daily and who have lost confidence in the system. That is the other reason why the petition should be held on to—because they do not have confidence to let it go. Whether it was the review or other issues, the system so far has let them down. We need to give them confidence that there will still be parliamentary scrutiny, while recognising that that does not necessarily have to be done through a petitions committee. The specific emerging issues that Neil Findlay and others have highlighted, including compensation and so on, might be part of a further petition at a later date. I think that we are agreed that we will continue the petition, and that we will put in our legacy paper commentary on where the petition might usefully go. We will also say to the petitioners, in relation to the specifics of issues that have emerged from the petition, that they might want to bring a further petition. Do members agree to that approach? Members indicated agreement.