Chamber and committees

We are back. Our next continued petition is PE1930, which was lodged by George Eckton. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course and recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on this aim.

We last considered the petition quite some time ago: 17 May 2023. At that point, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and ScotRail. The response from ScotRail notes that, although it has no current plans to upgrade the retail infrastructure to support the use of bank cards for tap-on-tap-off rail journeys—which is how you get around the London Underground—it is actively pursuing a pilot scheme for a mobile phone app to achieve a similar outcome. That is the modern way of getting around the London underground—as long as you have a signal.

Transport Scotland responded to tell us that it anticipated the national smart ticketing advisory board to be operational by the end of 2023, and I understand from the clerks that the board commenced operation in November. The Scottish Government has also confirmed it has no plans to remove paper rail tickets, noting that paper tickets now include a QR code that can be scanned to validate the ticket.

The Government’s response also makes reference to the much-anticipated fair fares review, which had been expected by the end of 2023 but has yet to be published. Members may be aware that the Minister for Transport indicated on 18 January 2024 that the review would likely be published at the beginning of this month.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner sharing his disappointment at the lack of detail or urgency in addressing the issues raised by the petition. Mr Eckton also wanted to draw our attention to the recent research that found that train station ticket machines can charge more than double the price of booking the ticket online. It is worth noting that that research did not include stations located in Scotland. That comes as a relief—certainly to me.

Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

PE1945, on banning the extraction and use of peat for horticulture and all growing media by 2023, has been lodged by Elizabeth Otway and calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat, peat imports, exports and sales in order to protect peatlands both in Scotland and worldwide.

Since we last considered the petition on 3 May 2023, the Scottish Government has published its analysis of responses to its consultation on ending the sale of peat in Scotland. The analysis, an extract of which is available in today’s papers, concludes that among individual hobby gardeners, there is broad support for introducing a ban on the sale of peat in Scotland. Among organisations, however, support was more limited, with several negative impacts anticipated. The most common year suggested for introducing a ban on the sale of peat for retail horticulture was 2023, with organisations preferring a later date of 2028 to 2030.

On the use of peat for cultural purposes, the Scottish Government’s written response to the committee states that it is mindful of the needs of crofters and islanders and is working to determine the impact on those groups as a result of ending the sale of peat. The submission states that outcomes from the consultation, stakeholder engagement and impact assessments will form robust evidence that will guide Scottish ministers as to the scope of any sales ban.

Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments?

Yes, all types of crofters, humble or otherwise.

PE2006 is on reviewing and simplifying the legislation in relation to dismissal of property factors. I am delighted to see that we have been joined by our parliamentary colleague Sarah Boyack, who will speak to this petition—we will hear from you in just a moment, Ms Boyack.

The petition, which has been lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 in order to cover dismissal of property factors, or to bring forward other regulations that would achieve the same aim. Such actions could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland powers to resolve disputes relating to the dismissal of property factors.

When we last considered this petition on 3 May 2023, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and other relevant stakeholders, and we have received responses from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, the Property Managers Association Scotland and the charity Under One Roof. Those responses, which are set out in the papers that colleagues received ahead of today’s meeting, note the instruments that are already available to home owners to challenge property factors via the First-tier Tribunal, which I referred to a moment ago, and the courts process more widely. In a response in June 2023, the minister also committed to providing an update on progress towards the publication of the voluntary code of practice for landowning maintenance companies by early this year.

We have also received submissions from the petitioner and Shelagh Young, highlighting their own experiences of the difficulties and challenges involved in trying to remove their property factors—I suspect, too, that many of us as MSPs have been contacted by constituents with individual and specific issues—and they have also expressed concern that the gravity of the situation facing home owners across the country is perhaps not being fully understood.

Before I ask members to comment, I wonder whether Sarah Boyack would like to assist the committee in its consideration.

Our last on-going petition is PE2008, which was lodged by Kirsty Solman. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to create a separate accident and emergency for children and young people presenting with mental health issues.

Following the previous consideration of the petition, the committee put points raised by the petitioner to the Scottish Government. The submission from the Scottish Government outlines a number of workstreams including work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service to improve unscheduled care pathways.

The minister’s response notes that attendance at a children’s hospital instead of general A and E may be advised where that is available and appropriate. In response to the petitioner’s concerns about the efficacy of phone assessments, it states that a patient-centred approach is adopted when considering the suitability of digital technology and that that is included in the national guidance for clinicians. The minister’s response recognises that the child and adolescent mental health services target of all boards achieving a 90 per cent standard by March 2023 was not achieved and points to on-going work with health boards to develop CAMHS out-of-hours service provision.

The petitioner has responded to the minister raising questions about the impact of significant staff cuts on the planned work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service. She has asked how many psychiatric teams there are, as her experience involved waiting for several hours because the team was not based in the hospital. The petitioner shares that many families have reached out to her to say that their child could not get help through the mental health hubs because they were under 12. She asks for clarity on what services are available for children under the age of 12.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open, and we will investigate further and return to it when we have those responses from the minister.

I would like to ask the Scottish Government whether it thinks that the current law of trespass in Scotland is worth the paper that it is written on. [Laughter.] I say that in all seriousness, because I was not quite sure what somebody’s remedy is under it. We will keep that petition open, and I can say to our petitioner that the briefing seems to recognise some of the issues raised.

PE2062, on introducing a national screening programme for prostate cancer, has been lodged by Bill Alexander. It clearly has a topical flair to it, because it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. The SPICe briefing states that there is no one test used to diagnose prostate cancer. The most common tests include a prostate-specific antigen blood test, a physical examination of the prostate and a biopsy. The briefing points out that PSA blood tests can sometimes miss cancer in some patients and can just as easily falsely diagnose others. A heightened PSA is not the same thing as prostate cancer. However, advancements in magnetic resonance imaging technology and biopsy techniques could facilitate the development of a national screening programme.

The Scottish Government response notes that the United Kingdom National Screening Committee considered whether to recommend population screening in November 2020 and, frankly, concluded that it could not happen based on the available evidence. However, the screening committee will review that recommendation in the next 12 months. The response highlights a large prostate screening study called TRANSFORM—I think that that is a large study rather than a study of large prostates; I assume that it is that way round—which will look at potential innovative screening methods with hundreds of thousands of men due to be recruited for the study. I comment on all of this as somebody who has had a heightened PSA test, an MRI and biopsy myself for the matters at hand. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

What does that mean?

That takes us to the end of our public business this morning. I look forward to welcoming those who follow our proceedings back at our next meeting. Thank you.