Chamber and committees

Why do you think that those gaps exist? It is sometimes perplexing that a certain level of service, which seems quite critical, is available to people who present in some health boards but not to people who present in others. Is there any collective thinking between health boards to review the different ways in which they approach these matters, or do they very much operate in their silos and decide everything without reference to more widespread practice? To be fair, we see that issue with regard to some public transport options, which vary depending on which local authority is responsible. However, in healthcare, it is sometimes difficult to explain why somebody who is on the wrong side of a health board boundary feels that they cannot get the same level of service as somebody on the other side.

In that case, I want to look at the centralisation of services, which has become a more common phenomenon in relation to the services that we provide. As you know, this morning, we are not discussing the petition on the Wishaw neonatal care unit, which the committee visited. Leaving that petition aside, how do you assess the centralisation of services such as perinatal care or the absence of services such as full abortion care or other specialised services, and how do you ensure that, in providing what, through centralisation, is arguably meant to be a higher level of service—because of the skill sets that are available—you are not restricting access through boundaries that are then in the way of people who were trying to access those services in the first place? How do you ensure that centralisation does not physically restrict some people from being able to reasonably access a service? The matter comes up in the chamber time and again, and it is a common theme of a number of the petitions that the committee is dealing with.

Okay. I am reluctantly coming to the view that, if that is the case, and given the limited time that we have, the route will have to be that we invite the petitioners to bring a fresh petition to the next session of Parliament. I do not say that happily, but that is the conclusion that I am drawn to. I am not sure that exercising the suggestion of writing to the NZET Committee would progress matters. Are colleagues reluctantly content with that position?

Members indicated agreement.

If I may say so, your specialised knowledge of the contents of bottles on the A1 is impressive, if alarming. I thank you for your contribution.

Do members have any suggestions for action? I note again that Transport Scotland proposes to take forward the aims of the petition.

That comment is duly on the record, as you hoped.

PE2127, which was lodged by John Robert Erskine—who was formerly media officer to this committee—calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands with the aims of addressing digital infrastructure gaps, improving mobile internet coverage, establishing public-private partnerships and supporting economic growth, education and healthcare.

We last considered the petition on 19 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response that we received says that the Government has no plans to develop a distinct digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. It explains that there is substantial on-going activity to improve connectivity across the region but that it is not apparent that developing a separate approach for the Highlands and Islands in isolation would add any immediate value.

The response points out that the Scottish Government will be publishing a refreshed digital strategy, taking into account connectivity priorities and a new national islands plan, that will integrate digital connectivity with other key priorities, making a separate connectivity plan unnecessary.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

The first new petition is PE2159, which was lodged by David Mackay on behalf of Innes community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a moratorium on the production of hydrogen from fresh water until scientific studies are undertaken to understand the impact on the environment, local economies and society.

The SPICe briefing explains that all hydrogen production technologies require water as an input. Green hydrogen production is the process of separating the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom in water via electrolysis. Blue hydrogen production involves steam methane reformation and, thus, also includes H₂O as a fundamental part of the process. The briefing notes that there are different conclusions about how much water is required for different methods of hydrogen production, meaning that there is no single view on which method has the lower water footprint.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that regulations are already in place for any activity that may affect Scotland’s water environment including the use of water for hydrogen developments, which require authorisation from SEPA. The submission also highlights the mechanisms in the planning process, stating that it will be for the relevant authority to interpret and implement relevant planning legislation and guidance in each case as it deems appropriate.

The petitioner’s written submission notes that SEPA is reporting that there are longer, hotter and drier periods in Scotland. The petitioner believes that it will take longer and more rain will be required for groundwater levels to recover. He states:

“any process that abstracts additional groundwater will exacerbate the situation and will have major impacts on the ecology, the environment and the economy.”

The submission goes on to say that the Scottish Government’s response demonstrates a lack of understanding and knowledge of the production requirements for hydrogen and that neither the Government nor the hydrogen industry has calculated the total volume of water that will be required to produce the hydrogen that will be needed for domestic and export markets, nor how groundwater will be replenished.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Mountain is waving at me. I did not know that he had an interest in the petition, but in for a penny, in for a pound.

If you can do that adroitly, it would be helpful.

So, you did not ask 1,000 times.

Thank you, Mr Lumsden. You asked how long the Government needs to reflect on the matter. If you had been with us earlier, during our session with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, you would have heard that we have been reflecting on private ambulance regulation since 2012, so two and a half years might not seem so long after all. However, you have raised important issues. Do members have suggestions on how to proceed?