Official Report 555KB pdf
Specialist Neonatal Units (Centralisation) (PE2099)
The next item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those joining us or watching online that we still have a considerable number of open petitions to consider before the dissolution of Parliament, following our final meeting in March. Therefore, our focus is very much on the issues on which we feel we can make progress in the time remaining, notwithstanding the hugely important issues that underpin many of the petitions that we have to consider. It will simply not be possible for us to advance, in the current session of Parliament, the work on many of the petitions that we still deem to be of considerable importance, and that may well require fresh petitions to be submitted in the next session of Parliament.
The petition that we are going to consider first, with due deference to one of our guests, who is currently outside in the hall, is PE2099, lodged by Lynne McRitchie, which seeks to stop the proposed centralisation of specialist neonatal units in NHS Scotland. Specifically, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the planned downgrading of established and high-performing specialist neonatal intensive care services across NHS Scotland from level 3 to level 2 and to commission an independent review of that decision in the light of contradictory expert opinions on centralising services.
We considered the petition on 10 December, just before the Christmas recess, and at that point we took considerable evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto. During the evidence session, we covered a number of issues including capacity and resilience, engagement with families, funding and the importance of family-centred care.
The Scottish Government has provided follow-up information on the number of beds in the three units that will be intensive care units under the new model. The submission notes that the modelling work recommended additional beds in each unit: an additional 10 to 12 beds in Glasgow, four in Edinburgh and 1.5 in Aberdeen. I note, however, that those additional increases were anticipated in the plan and did not come about as a result of any further consideration arising from the airing of these issues in committee. I imagine, therefore, that the concerns of clinicians still stand, because they were aware of that potential increase in capacity, notwithstanding the concerns that they have about overall capacity.
The committee has received a new written submission from the petitioner. It highlights sections from “The Best Start Five-Year Plan for Maternity and Neonatal Care 2017–2024 Report”, which emphasises the importance of family-centred care. The petitioner compares that with the Scottish Government’s focus on clinical decision making. She states:
“The Scottish Government continues to cherry-pick the information contained in the report … disregarding the”
parts of it that set out a vision of truly family-centred care. The submission also reiterates concerns about families not being listened to during the focus group sessions and in meetings with the Scottish Government.
Recess has taken place in the intervening period, but I know that our discussions with the minister on these matters are still fresh in our minds. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might now proceed?
I suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, highlighting the areas of concern that remain outstanding as identified through the oral evidence and in the petitioner’s most recent submission.
We discussed the evidence after the previous meeting, and we identified a number of areas of concern. I think that it is fair to the minister to say that she engaged directly with us on the issue, and she and some of the clinicians made a powerful case in some respects. However, areas of concern still remain for the committee. I think that those need and deserve to be pursued, so I am minded that the petition requires to stay open at present.
We have a little time in hand, and I see that Meghan Gallacher is with us this morning. Even though I have said that it might be less likely that other members are going to be called, is there anything that you would like to say, Meghan?
I am very grateful, convener. I just want to convey my thanks to the committee for its work on this particular petition. I know from working with the families, and certainly from being part of the debates on the issue, how sensitive it is. However, that being said, there are still some real concerns that have not been addressed by the minister or by the Scottish Government. Some of those concerns have already been touched on, but I stress the concern about the number of beds, because that is a really important point and I have been trying to pursue it with the minister. At present, in neonatal wards, there is, for every 10 babies born, only one bed for parents to stay over. If the centralisation or downgrading—however you want to term it—takes place, there is a risk that parents will not be able to stay close by their babies, who are very vulnerable and very sick. That is not the right care or the way in which we should be treating families who are in that difficult position. I ask the committee, please, to continue with the petition—for the sake of the families and of any families who need to use these vital services in the future.
11:15
The report also said that there could be between three and five specialised units. It is for the Scottish Government to explain why there are three, not five. If there were five, it would give families more reassurance about where they could go, should their babies need that specialised care.
I appreciate having the time for a short contribution.
Thank you, Meghan. Colleagues, are we content to support Davy Russell’s recommendation that we keep the petition open and pull together the various outstanding themes into a submission to the minister?
Members indicated agreement.
Community Link Workers (PE2053)
Private Ambulance Service Providers (Licensing and Inspection) (PE2078)
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (High Schools) (PE2091)
Abortion Services (Availability) (PE2126)
Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction (Waiting Time Information and Funding) (PE2128)
We continue this morning’s meeting by considering a number of petitions that raise concerns and call for action on healthcare matters. Colleagues will remember that, on 24 September, we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social on several themes. After the evidence session, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care followed up in writing to the committee on some outstanding issues.
This morning, we will consider the petitions that sit under the theme of capacity, skills and training. Then, we will consider a petition on the theme of post-Covid-19 impact and response. The committee has explored the specific issues that are raised in the petitions by seeking written evidence from stakeholders and ministers. The thematic issues were also explored in our recent oral evidence session with the cabinet secretary.
I will provide an overview of the evidence that we have received on each petition since it was last considered. We will then decide what action to take on those petitions.
PE2053, which was lodged by Peter Cawston on behalf of Scottish general practitioners at the deep end, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that the number and hours of current community link workers serving the poorest communities are not cut in the next financial year and to take binding steps to secure long-term funding for community link workers in GP practices across Scotland.
The petition was last considered in October 2024, ahead of the oral evidence session with the cabinet secretary. We wrote to the Scottish Government, and the response stated that the Scottish Government was exploring the potential to baseline the primary care improvement fund, via which most community link worker services are funded, starting from the 2026-27 financial year. The written response also confirmed that officials had begun a review of the CLW policy, overseen by the CLW advisory group, and that any changes arising from that two-year review would be introduced in a phased manner. In the evidence that he gave, the cabinet secretary confirmed that the review was still under way.
PE2078, which was lodged by Ryan McNaughton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a new body responsible for the inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers or to encompass the clinical governance management of private companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland.
We last considered the petition in February last year, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In his response, the cabinet secretary stated that engagement with Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the scoping of relevant stakeholders began in 2024 but that it was paused and was due to resume in 2025. At the evidence session on the petition, he stated his understanding that the matter would go to public consultation in 2026, in the next parliamentary session.
PE2091, which was lodged by Kirsty Solman on behalf of Stand with Kyle Now, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to enable a child and adolescent mental health service support worker and a school nurse to be placed in our secondary schools. We considered the petition in April last year and agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response stated that, for the first time, the 18-week CAMHS standard had been met, with 90.6 per cent of children and young people starting treatment within 18 weeks of referral. The submission also highlighted the work that was under way that will create better cohesion between school nursing teams and associated services such as CAMHS.
PE2126, which was lodged by Gemma Clark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all NHS health boards in Scotland. We last considered the petition in February last year and wrote to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health.
The minister states that her expectation is for a service to be established within the national health service, but the Government is not unwilling to consider commissioning a non-NHS organisation to deliver it instead. The minister indicated that a number of private providers were contacted as part of the work of NHS National Services Scotland’s national services division, but they indicated that they would not be able to host the service.
We received a submission from Abortion Rights Scotland, which strongly believes that such a service should be provided within the NHS, by NHS staff.
The petitioner states that, despite the minister’s assurance, back in November 2025, that the Government was working with health boards to ensure that a service was to be implemented as swiftly as possible, no information about the recommended service model has been shared, and she remains concerned about a lack of transparency in the Government’s approach to the matter.
PE2128, which was lodged by Christy Esslemont, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to reduce waiting times for post-mastectomy delayed breast reconstructions, to ensure that waiting time information is accurate and to assess whether the communications section of the waiting times guidance is being followed by health boards.
We last considered the petition on 19 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. During the evidence session that we held with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, he recognised the issue that had been raised by the petitioner and highlighted the demand for cancer treatment services. The cabinet secretary stated that the Scottish Government was working with relevant health boards to ensure the recruitment of specialist surgeons.
In respect of the petitions that I have just identified—PE2053, PE2078, PE2091, PE2126 and PE2128—do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we are now able to do?
In the light of the time that is left to the committee, I wonder whether we could consider closing the petitions under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the committee has progressed the issues raised in the petitions as far as is possible in this parliamentary session and has raised relevant issues, as part of the thematic evidence session, with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.
Are colleagues agreed to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank all the petitioners for raising their issues with us. We have made greater progress on some than on others, but the time that is left to us in this session does not allow us to do more.
Airborne Infections (Health and Social Care Settings) (PE2071)
One issue that we discussed at the meeting that I referred to earlier sits rather apart, so I will discuss it separately. PE2071, which was lodged by Sally Witcher, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to protect people from airborne infections in health and social care settings—specifically, to improve air quality in health and social care settings through addressing ventilation, air filtration and sterilisation; to reintroduce routine mask wearing in those settings, particularly using respiratory masks; to reintroduce routine Covid testing; to ensure that staff manuals fully cover the prevention of airborne infection; to support ill staff to stay at home; and to provide public health information on the use of respiratory masks and high-efficiency particulate air—HEPA—filtration against airborne infections.
We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In a response issued by the chief nursing officer directorate, the Scottish Government reiterated that it has no role in the development of the “National Infection Prevention and Control Manual”, or NIPCM, or the “Care Home Infection and Control Manual”, the CH NIPCM.
The petition notes that antimicrobial resistance and healthcare associated infection Scotland are the national clinical infection prevention and control experts, and it highlights the ARHAI’s response.
During the evidence session in September 2025, the cabinet secretary said that he would write to the committee with a timescale for publication of the infection prevention and control strategy. In his letter of 30 October, the cabinet secretary stated that a 10-year IPC strategic vision and priorities statement was being developed collaboratively by the Scottish Government’s IPC strategic development and oversight group by spring 2026.
In her most recent submission, the petitioner considers that the pandemic and its cumulative health impacts remain on-going and that that is being ignored by the Government. She notes that, this winter, the NHS has again been overwhelmed by airborne infection, and she argues that much of that could have been avoided had the actions and measures suggested in the petition been put in place. She adds that she can still find no evidence of expert input and quality assurance on infection prevention and control, and she questions the accuracy and completeness of ARHAI’s advice.
We have the petitioner’s further submission and the follow-up from the cabinet secretary, which confirms that the infection control strategy will be published by spring this year. Do colleagues have any views on what more we are able to do at this stage, given that the cabinet secretary’s letter says that a document will be published in spring 2026, which will be after the Parliament has dissolved?
In the light of the evidence before us and given that the document will be published after the parliamentary session has finished, I wonder whether we could close the petition under section 15.7 of standing orders but ask the petitioner whether he would like to bring the petition back in the new parliamentary session.
I believe that the petitioner is with us in the public gallery today. The issues continue to be important, but, given the cabinet secretary’s response, I suspect that we can do nothing further in the time that is available to us. Do colleagues agree with the suggestion that the petition be resubmitted in the new parliamentary session but that we reluctantly close it at this point?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner for raising the issues, and I hope that they can be pursued when Parliament reassembles.
Defibrillators (Public Spaces and Workplaces) (PE1989)
We will move on to consider a number of petitions that raise concerns and call for action on issues that are related to emergency cardiac and stroke care. Since the last formal consideration of each of the petitions, the committee has taken oral evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health on the themes that were raised across them. That session took place on 12 November 2025.
PE1989, which was lodged by Mary Montague, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces. We last considered the petition on 7 May 2025, which was ahead of the evidence session. During oral evidence, the minister highlighted the importance of optimal defibrillator placement and pointed to the new PADmap tool, which shows the location of public access defibrillators and identifies the areas where defibrillators are most needed. The evidence session highlighted that the location, ease of access and continued upkeep of defibrillators are all important considerations, and the committee noted that there is a reliance on community fundraising and external sponsorship to provide and maintain public defibrillators. The issue of bystander confidence was raised during the evidence session with the minister, which highlighted the importance of engagement work with stakeholders through Save a life for Scotland.
The minister gave some interesting evidence about how deficiencies in the PADmap tool can be addressed, but she also gave some fairly structured arguments about why taking the blanket approach that defibrillators should be located in any one particular place might not prove to be appropriate. Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed in the light of the evidence that we heard?
My comments are very similar to those of Mr Torrance on the previous petition: we are at the stage where we have explored the issue as much as we can. I urge the petitioner to bring it back in the new parliamentary session, if she so wishes.
Okay. We raised the matters with the minister, who supports some of the petition’s aims, so it is a case of demonstrating progress.
Do colleagues support the recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
FAST Stroke Awareness Campaign (PE2048)
11:30
The next continued petition is PE2048, which was lodged by James Anthony Bundy. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—campaign and ensuring that stroke awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke. We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 25 February and agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, NHS Fife, NHS Ayrshire and Arran, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Chartered Institute of Marketing. The committee previously heard concerns, which are not universally shared, that moving from FAST to BE FAST—balance, eyes, face, arms, speech, time—could produce false positives and have a concerning impact on clinicians’ ability to treat strokes.
A submission that was received from NHS Forth Valley mentioned a range of FAST stroke awareness initiatives that it has been supporting locally, and it highlighted that its emergency department has been using the BE FAST stroke assessment tool since early 2024. However, it underlined that it has not yet been able to undertake any formal evaluation of the impact of those initiatives.
At the evidence session in November, the minister, Jenni Minto, said that the Government
“will converse with the health board to understand what it is doing, where it is in the pilot and when we can expect the report.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 12 November 2025; c 18.]
We found the minister’s suggestion that the Government is keeping its current position under review quite encouraging, because that had not been expressed to us in writing. Additionally, we were impressed by the fact that the minister had been actively engaged with the issue and had met a number of the individuals concerned with the proposal.
The minister highlighted that, following a meeting with the petitioner, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care asked the stroke specialty adviser to the chief medical officer to review stroke awareness education for clinical staff. That led to the Scottish Government developing and funding an education package for general practices, emergency departments and the Scottish Ambulance Service that also covers the less common but important presentations of stroke, including symptoms relating to certain presentations of loss of balance and visual field defects—the B and E aspects of BE FAST.
This is another important petition that we have considered. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?
I thank the petitioner for submitting the petition. I believe that significant progress has been made by the Scottish Government, so I ask that the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the committee has raised relevant issues as part of the thematic evidence session with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health; that, following engagement with the petitioner, the Scottish Government funded a stroke education package for NHS staff, which also covers the less common presentations of stroke; and that the Scottish Government has committed to undertaking an assessment of NHS Forth Valley’s use of BE FAST for stroke screening, to understand what learning can be applied to stroke awareness work more generally.
In closing the petition, the committee could write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the substantive work that has been undertaken by the committee on this and other relevant petitions.
I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I add that the work that was done by NHS Forth Valley, which I think has been described as the best-performing health board in the area of stroke care, will inform further procedures with regard to whether FAST should be changed to BE FAST, inter alia. As I understand it, the relevant work on that began in October and will be completed fairly soon. It will then be open to the petitioner to review whether to lodge a new petition in the next session of Parliament, because I think that some of the achievements that you have described, convener, have come about as a result of the petitioner’s efforts and the consideration of this committee. It is very much a developing story in terms of policy making in the next session of Parliament, I hope.
We understand the issues that underpinned the submission of the petition in the first place—they are known to us in Parliament. Do members agree to proceed on the basis that has been outlined?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for submitting the petition.
If I may return briefly to PE1989, for the avoidance of doubt, I assumed that, when Mr Golden said that his view on the petition was similar to Mr Torrance’s, he meant that he was in favour of closing the petition. Are colleagues content with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Sudden Cardiac Death (PE2067)
The next continued petition is PE2067, which is another one concerning an issue that is well known to the Parliament. It was lodged by Sharon Duncan following the death of her son and our colleague David Hill. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission research to establish how many people aged 14-35 are affected by conditions that cause young sudden cardiac death; to clarify the number of people who die annually in Scotland from those conditions; and to set up a pilot study to establish if voluntary screening can reduce deaths.
We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and to the Italian embassy. We then took evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health on 12 November and agreed to consider the evidence at a future meeting.
The submission from the consulate general of Italy in Edinburgh highlights evidence of screening leading to an 89 per cent decrease in the incident rate of sudden cardiac death among young competitive athletes—a figure that I think the committee found quite compelling. The Scottish Government has reiterated that it adheres to UK National Screening Committee guidance in this area; the UK NSC evidence summary shows that international guidelines do not recommend population-level screening, although they support pre-participation screening in competitive athletes. We understand that the UK NSC considered the study highlighted by the consulate general of Italy in its 2019 review, and it is now conducting a new review of relevant evidence over the following three years.
At the evidence-taking session in November, the minister informed us that the 2025 Scottish cardiac audit programme has included
“data on inherited cardiac conditions for the first time”.
Additionally, we heard that work is on-going
“to develop a proof of concept for a sudden cardiac death registry”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 12 November 2025; c 3.],
with the aim of including preliminary data in next year’s Scottish cardiac audit programme.
We also heard from the British Heart Foundation that it has funded clinical nurse specialist sudden cardiac death roles in order to expand and roll out a successful west of Scotland pilot to implement a new clinical pathway for sudden unexpected death, sudden cardiac death and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The aim is to achieve full national coverage by the end of the 24-month period, with progress being monitored throughout.
In the light of all that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed with the petition?
In the light of the evidence before us, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the committee has raised relevant issues as part of a thematic evidence session with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. Moreover, the most recent Scottish cardiac audit programme includes data on inherited cardiac conditions for the first time, and work is on-going to develop a proof of concept for a sudden cardiac death registry, with the aim of including preliminary data in next year’s Scottish cardiac audit programme.
Finally, I note that the Scottish Government adheres to UK National Screening Committee guidance, and that the UK NCS will review relevant evidence over the next three years. In closing the petition, the committee could write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the substantial work that has been undertaken by the committee on this and other relevant petitions.
This is another painful petition that we have wrestled with over the lifetime of the Parliament, but, given the situation that we are in, do colleagues support the proposal?
This is yet another tragic case, and I would just note the statistics on the number of people who lose their lives as a result of having heart attacks outwith hospital, how access to cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillators massively increases the chance of survival, and how every minute without that treatment reduces the level of survival by a staggering 10 per cent. I just thought that I would mention that, given that 3,752 people’s lives are at stake if they do not have such access.
I am quite sure that this issue will come back to our successor committee, and rightly so. The work that has been done has allowed a real focus to be put on the detail of the issues, which is to be welcome. I would just say that our hearts go out to the families involved in these cases.
Yes, we thank Sharon Duncan and the rest of David Hill’s family, including his father Rodger, and indeed all those who have so assiduously pursued the aims of the petition over the course of the parliamentary session.
Mr Mundell has been particularly dogged in his pursuit.
Are we content with the suggested course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Defibrillators (Schools) (PE2101)
PE2101, on providing defibrillators for all primary and secondary schools in Scotland, was lodged by Peter Earl on behalf of Troqueer primary school.
We last considered the petition on 7 May 2025, when we agreed to invite the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to give evidence.
During the oral evidence, the minister highlighted the importance of, as I said a short time ago, optimal defibrillator placement and pointed to the new PADmap tool, which shows the location of public access and identifies the areas where defibrillators are most needed.
The minister stated that, during a meeting with the First Minister and Rodger and Lesley Hill, the proposal in the petition was discussed. The DH9 Foundation, which is funded by Rodger and Lesley Hill, and the Save a Life for Scotland partnership subsequently recommended taking a data-driven and localised approach to increased defibrillator access.
The committee asked whether all children could be taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation in schools. The minister committed to discussing that with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills.
Are there any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
In the light of the evidence that we have received, I recommend that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, the committee closes the petition on the basis that it has raised relevant issues as part of the thematic evidence session with the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, who is the responsible minister.
Although there are potential benefits to providing schools with public access defibrillators, that might have a limited impact in some local authority areas. The Scottish Government supports using the strategic PADmap tool to ensure that pads are placed where they are most likely to be used.
In closing the petition, the committee could write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the substantive work that the committee has undertaken on this and other relevant petitions.
Thank you. I think that Mr Golden raised the location of schools during questioning.
Yes.
A lot of schools are being built in out-of-town locations, so defibrillators would not necessarily be accessible to the local community in those circumstances. Therefore, they might not be the most appropriate place for a defibrillator to be sited.
Are colleagues content to agree with Mr Russell’s recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
Detainees in Custody (Access to Medication) (PE1900)
Our next petition is PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.
We last considered the petition on 18 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport. In her response, the minister indicates that the Government intends to commission another survey, similar to the rapid review that was conducted previously. That was scheduled to commence in late 2025. The minister added that NHS Grampian had confirmed that opioid replacement therapy was available at the Kittybrewster custody suite, with some logistical challenges being addressed to extend the service to the two remaining custody suites.
In his most recent submission, the petitioner, too, refers to logistical challenges, informing us that NHS Grampian is still not providing methadone to detainees who are in custody at Elgin and Fraserburgh. He also suggests that, at Kittybrewster, detainees do not receive methadone for the first 48 hours so those with a methadone prescription are instead given dihydrocodeine in the first 48 hours.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? There might still be time to do a little bit more with this petition. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport to highlight the petitioner’s on-going concerns about the issues in NHS Grampian and to request an update before the end of this parliamentary session on the findings of the most recent review, which was to be conducted towards the end of 2025. It seems that people are still having to wait for access to their prescribed medication. That is not what we understand is supposed to be happening, so we could challenge the Government on that in the time that is available to us.
Are our colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
I strongly support that. The lack of response has been lamentable—woeful, actually—and not good enough. I very much endorse your recommendation, convener.
I truly hope that bodies will respond to the committee more timeously in future, in the next session of Parliament, and that, if they do not, they will be named and called out, because it is not fair to the petitioners that, when they come to us to be their voice, they do not get reasonably prompt, detailed and relevant answers. That has been too frequent an occurrence in this session of Parliament.
On this occasion, action that was supposed to be taking place is still yet to happen.
Another thing is Police Scotland’s involvement, since the detainees are held on their premises. It might be worth while—
It would be dangerous for us to broaden the scope of our inquiry at this stage, but we should very much focus on getting results from the issues that we have made progress on. Given that the review took place at the end of the year, there is still a chance for us to get further commitment before the Parliament dissolves. Are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Local Participation in Planning Decisions (PE2075)
11:45
PE2075, which was lodged by Stewart Noble on behalf of Helensburgh community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise local participation in planning decisions that affect their area by providing a clear and unambiguous definition of the word “local” in so far as it applies to planning legislation; giving decision-making powers to community councils for planning applications in their local areas; and ensuring that the way that decisions and planning applications are taken is compatible with the provisions and ethos of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.
We last considered the petition on 19 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Government’s response highlights the statutory position of community councils as it is set out in the 2015 act, which is that they are consultees on matters that affect the area of representation, rather than statutory decision takers. The Scottish Government argues that extending the definition of “planning authority” to include community councils for certain applications would fundamentally change the role of those councils and their relationship with the communities that they represent. In the Government’s view, that could potentially reduce opportunity for community participation in the planning system, contrary to the spirit, aims and intentions of the 2015 act.
The Government adds that its democracy matters process, which involves designing more empowered community decision-making processes, will move to the implementation phase early in the next parliamentary session.
Regarding the committee’s request for the Scottish Government’s view on devolving planning application decisions to the relevant local area committee, the response highlights the fact that existing planning legislation does not prevent a planning authority from adopting such an approach for most applications; it would therefore be an operational matter for the relevant planning authorities to consider.
The petitioner’s additional submission highlights a less than satisfactory experience in his local area, although I note that the committee’s focus when discussing petitions must be on national policy issues.
Do members have any suggestions or comments on how we might proceed?
In the light of evidence from the Scottish Government, I wonder whether the committee will consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not believe that extending planning decision-making powers to community councils is compatible with the role and aims of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Existing legislation allows for decisions on planning applications to be made by relevant local area committees, and such an approach is an operational matter for individual local authorities. The committee has pursued the aims of the petition as far as is possible in the current parliamentary session.
Are members content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner.
Previous
EnergyNext
New Petitions