Chamber and committees

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?

There is quite a lot of information. We will summarise much of that again in our response to the petitioner. I thank them for lodging the petition. In view of the work that is currently being done, the committee has decided that we will close the petition.

Thank you.

The petition is important, and I applaud James Anthony Bundy and his family for the work that they have done in lodging it. As Jackie Baillie was, I was struck by the fact that the taking and promoting of the fairly straightforward action that is proposed could make a material difference. I think that we will certainly want to go back to the minister, but I wonder whether members have suggestions about action that we might take in the interim period.

I would very much like us to pursue that with the minister. In many respects, I would like to think that we could embrace the language of Jackie Baillie, in that what is being called for seems to be common sense. If the Government has considered adopting the BE FAST model and has chosen not to, I would like to know what reasons it had for coming to that conclusion, because I think that that would further assist us in considering how we might pursue the issues raised in the petition.

I thank James Anthony Bundy for lodging his important petition. We will keep the petition open and will return to our consideration of it at a subsequent date once we have received the information that we have requested. I thank our parliamentary colleagues for joining us.

Our next continued petition is PE1995, on improved support for victims of spiking, which was lodged by Catherine Anne McKay. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a multi-agency approach to investigating spiking incidents to ensure that victims are given access to appropriate testing and that incidents are investigated robustly.

We are joined for our consideration of the petition by our parliamentary colleague Clare Adamson, who joins us online—indeed, she has been faithfully with us throughout all our proceedings so far. Good morning, Clare. I will come back to you in a second.

We last considered the petition on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. Police Scotland has confirmed that victims who report a suspected spiking incident will always be asked to provide a urine sample. However, a sample will not be collected if such a report is made outwith the 14-day forensic window or the victim does not wish to provide a sample. Senior investigating officers have been appointed within each territorial police division to act as points of contact for all spiking-related matters and investigations.

The Scottish Government’s response highlights operation precept, which is the name for a national response to spiking that includes guidance for officers and staff. It states that Police Scotland also has a spiking information toolkit, which includes guidance and information for the licensed trade. The response notes that there is no single test that can determine whether a person has been spiked, and that it is not possible to determine whether drugs found as part of any test were taken by the individual or given to them against their knowledge or will. It concludes by noting that a further round-table meeting is due to take place with operational partners.

Lastly, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament’s independent information centre—has produced a summary of the round-table discussion on the topic of drink and needle spiking that was held by the Education, Children and Young People Committee in January 2022. That summary has been included in colleagues’ meeting pack.

Before I invite committee members to comment on further actions that we might take in the light of the evidence that we have received, I offer Clare Adamson the opportunity to make some comments.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. We respect the fact that important issues have been raised but, given the response from the Scottish Government, which has no inclination to undertake work to advance the aim of the petition, I feel that there is little scope for the committee to proceed. We will therefore close the petition.

Yes. Curiously, I see that our colleague Jackie Baillie is in the public gallery, as she is joining us for a later petition. Jackie and I worked together on hospital car parking charges in an earlier parliamentary session. We wrote to the then health secretary—one Nicola Sturgeon—and managed, on a joint Opposition basis, to have hospital car parking charges in NHS-owned car parks abolished. You make the point very effectively, Mr Ewing, that the Government has previously intervened on a matter that it regarded as being in the ownership of the NHS.

The key thing for me is exactly the point that you make, which is that the Scottish Government says that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government. It may not be technically a matter for the Scottish Government, but the Government can have an opinion on it and can show some sort of moral leadership or lead in relation to our evidencing the petitioner’s claim. It seems to me that we are talking about individuals who are community based and who need to use a car to get to the patients or people whom they are assisting. If they are having to pay significant car parking charges, whether that is back at headquarters or when they are with the patient, that is a disincentive to their continuing in the form of employment that they are in. Their loss would be hugely detrimental to that valuable service in the community.

I wonder whether we could also write to COSLA, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, Unite and the Allied Health Professions Federation to see whether we can get further evidence on the statements that the petitioner has made to understand whether it is a widespread experience. I certainly think that we should go back to the Scottish Government and say, “We’d like to understand what your view is on the petition and not just to hear you argue that it’s not a matter for you.” Clearly, it would be a matter for ministers if we suddenly lost all the staff who are providing the service.