Chamber and committees

I thank Monica Lennon for her contribution to the aims of the petition. You gave a heartfelt tribute on behalf of your constituent, who is the petitioner. You are quite right that over the years, the committee has been fortunate in the number of courageous people who have come forward to lodge a petition on the back of their experience. The committee has been able to give additional voice to the aims of those petitions, profile them and take them forward. Of the long list, you alluded to Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy on transvaginal mesh, but we should also acknowledge Amanda Kopel, who was successful in lobbying for changes to legislation in support of those who are diagnosed early with dementia, and our former colleague Elaine Smith, who was proactive on issues relating to women’s health and took those issues forward with the committee.

The petitioner is in the excellent company of women who have been at the forefront of ensuring that we are able to advance issues that have resulted in a material change in the way that the Scottish Government and Scottish public life approaches them. In light of that, we should write to the United Kingdom National Screening Committee to seek an update on its work to gather further evidence on the benefits of HPV self-sampling, including work to assess and validate a test for HPV self-sampling in the UK. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues?

PE1902, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 4 October 2023, although it is very vivid in my mind.

Although we would not ordinarily intervene in an individual case that prompted a petition, our parliamentary colleague Edward Mountain suggested that we pursue the issue directly. We have now received a response from NHS Highland, which is available in the meeting papers. In the light of that response, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Okay. At this point, I welcome Fergus Ewing, who has joined us. I explained earlier why you would be a little bit late to join us. It is good to see you now.

No—that is fine.

I do not want to lose sight of the issue of consent. The research that Dr Fossey put together came to the view that there was no evidence of parental consent—at least, no documented evidence. Have you come to the conclusion that there is such evidence?

I also note that 78 per cent of land managers in Perth and Kinross were against a national park. At present, the issue that probably has most traction in the minds of many people is that of the Flamingo Land park, which is being proposed within the national park in that area. Something like 94,000 people have objected. People then wonder just exactly what the basis of a national park is. I suppose that it is open to the committee, through our interrogation of other witnesses beyond even the petitioners, to potentially establish an independent assessment of how these matters are progressing.

Are colleagues content to write to the Scottish Government in the first instance, on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

I will just say in conclusion that your empathy with the position that people find themselves in is apparent from the evidence that you have given. I am very grateful to you for everything that you have volunteered to us. As Mr Ewing said, and as you have almost said, the responsibility maybe lies with the committee to be much more directional with the Scottish Government in our findings on these matters. However, I am grateful to you for everything that you have volunteered this morning.

Is there anything further that you would like to say that you feel has not emerged during our conversation?

In that case, thank you both very much. We agreed to consider the evidence that we have heard later. In the meantime, I suspend the meeting briefly to allow everyone to settle.

We proceed with our consideration of continuing petitions. The next petition is PE1877, whch has been lodged by Alex Wallace and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line national health service staff and paramedics in Scotland.

When we previously considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service to request information about the outcome of its evaluation of a trial of body cameras. The Scottish Ambulance Service’s response explains that a plan was being developed to trial body camera equipment; however, it did not progress to a live trial because of staff concerns. The submission states that

“The full purchase and roll out of equipment ... would likely attract a capital cost in excess of £1,500,000 and a recurring revenue cost of around £400,000”.

As a result of the cost and staff concerns, the work on body cameras has been “paused” by the Scottish Ambulance Service. In the light of that, what action do members feel that we might consider taking?

Mr Wallace has not responded. He is aware of the submissions that we have received and has had the opportunity to make a further submission, but has chosen not to. I am slightly reluctant to establish a precedent that, if a petitioner does not come back in response to evidence that the committee has heard, we will actively solicit a further response. I do not think that that is our normal practice.