Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

For the benefit of colleagues, item 1 is to agree to take agenda items 4 and 5, which is consideration of revised guidance and written submissions, in private. Are members happy to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

It would be better to talk in general terms about the policy, because I am worried that we will prejudice in some way the wider consideration of these issues.

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. As I hope that you will understand, the response from the Scottish Government means that there is little scope for the committee to pursue the petition further. On that basis, we will close it.

I understand your point, and I understand the point that you make about the committee. I have a long experience with this committee. In 2013, women came forward on the transvaginal mesh scandal. It must have been an incredibly difficult presentation to make at that time, to identify what was not an area of public health policy and to discuss it in detail. I hope that the Parliament—certainly, those of us men who were on the panel at the time—understood and pursued that case very actively on behalf of those women. I hope, and I believe, that we are capable of doing that but, from that experience, I have long understood that some of those issues are very difficult to present and discuss.

I thank you both very much for your evidence this morning. We will have a short suspension to allow us to reset.

Our second continued petition this morning is PE1928, which is on providing free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. The petition was lodged by David Gallant and was last considered by us on 3 May, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government has responded to confirm that the remit of the fair fares review includes consideration of the scope and extent of existing concessionary travel schemes, including the provision for disabled people and their companions travelling by rail.

Colleagues may remember the issue in relation to companions who may have been getting on at one stop where there was a concessionary scheme and getting off at another where there was not. The response also indicates that the review will report by the end of this year, with the expectation that a package of measures will be considered for implementation from 2024-25 onwards.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, drawing our attention to provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and suggesting that the legislation be used to compel the Scottish Government to ensure that disabled people have equitable access to public transport. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I think that the Government’s argument in relation to the termination of a pregnancy at 24 weeks would have to be the primary source of any debate from which a consequential action would arise, were any change such as the one that the petition seeks to establish to be made at some point. However, I understand the Government’s concern that moving on that area first could have consequential impacts on the legislation that might not be intended by the petitioner. For those reasons, I agree that the proposal to close the petition is the correct one. Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with that approach?

The next petition is PE1989, which is on increasing the number of defibrillators that are in public spaces and workplaces. The petition was lodged by Mary Montague, who I should acknowledge has subsequently become the provost of my local authority in East Renfrewshire.

The petition 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 8 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the British Heart Foundation and the Order of St John. The petitioner highlights a recent UK-wide survey on the factors affecting public access to defibrillators, which found a strong desire for public funding to support placement of PADs, as there is currently a reliance on communities, charities or local organisations.

The petitioner has suggested that the Scottish Government makes representations to the UK Government to appropriately update health and safety at work legislation, with the inclusion of reasonable defibrillator provision in first aid requirements. We received information on survival rates—there is a 60 per cent greater chance of survival if there is access to a defibrillator, and that is a very meaningful difference.

The Scottish Government’s response states that the Scottish out-of-hospital cardiac arrest report 2022-23 was due for publication in October. However, the clerks have become aware that publication of the report has now been delayed until later in the year, although there is not much of the year for it to be delayed to; I presume that it must therefore be imminent.

St John Scotland’s written submission highlights growing financial concerns among community groups in relation to purchasing batteries and meeting rising energy costs. It also shares challenges in engaging with some local authorities whose response is a bit uneven, stating that some refuse to provide the relevant planning permission and that they will not enter into a dialogue to address the issues.

The British Heart Foundation Scotland has highlighted Government funding in Wales and England to assist with the provision of defibrillators in areas of need, and notes that it would support a similar programme in Scotland.

Mary Montague has brought a very important health issue to the committee. We received interesting evidence from the various organisations to whom we have written. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

We will keep the petition open. I thank Catherine Anne McKay and Clare Adamson for their work. We will take forward the suggestions that have been made by the committee.

Thank you very much for that testimony on behalf of your constituent and in support of the petition; it is much appreciated, Ms Adamson.

Colleagues, we have had an opportunity to consider various responses to the petition. Do you have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?