Chamber and committees

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. As I always say for the benefit of those who are joining us online to hear about a petition that is being considered for the first time, before a petition is considered by the committee, we take advice on it from the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research body, and we ask the Scottish Government for a general initial view on the petition. We do those things because, historically, they were the first recommendations of the committee and waiting for that information simply added delay into the process. We therefore get it in advance.

The next petition is PE2127, on the development of a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. This is the first example of a poacher turned gamekeeper in the public petitions process, because the petition has been lodged by John Robert Erskine, who was previously the committee’s media adviser and joins us in the public gallery.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands that aims to address digital infrastructure gaps, improve mobile internet coverage, establish public-private partnerships and support economic growth, education and healthcare.

The SPICe briefing highlights Ofcom’s “Connected Nations Scotland Report”, which was published in 2024. The report found that, as of July 2024, 62 per cent of residential properties in Scotland had access to full-fibre networks—an increase of 9 percentage points from September 2023. However, the briefing notes that, although 89 per cent of Midlothian and Glasgow city residences have full-fibre connection, only 14 per cent of residences in Orkney and 11 per cent of residences in Shetland do.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights Scotland’s digital strategy, which aims to ensure

“that no one is left behind in the digital world and that geography should not be a barrier to getting online.”

It highlights that the national strategy for economic transformation 10-year plan includes a

“commitment to provide an efficient and resilient digital infrastructure in Scotland.”

The submission states:

“over 19,000 premises now have access to faster broadband connections thanks to the R100 North contract”.

The Scottish Government has also worked with Building Digital UK on project gigabit to prepare a regional procurement exercise that will cover more than 13,500 eligible premises in Orkney and Shetland.

However, the petitioner believes that the Scottish Government’s actions

“fall short of addressing the fundamental issues of digital exclusion, inequality, and slow delivery in rural Scotland.”

In his written submission, Mr Erskine highlights that Scotland has

“the highest rate of 4G ‘not spots’ in the UK”

and the

“lowest rural residential superfast broadband coverage in the UK.”

There are one or two of those 4G not-spots in my constituency on the south side of Glasgow, which everybody imagines must be incredibly well connected, but such areas exist. The petitioner states that connectivity issues are felt “more acutely” in communities in the Highlands and Islands and that

“that’s why this petition is asking for the Scottish Government to provide a dedicated, new digital connectivity strategy for the region.”

Our colleague Rhoda Grant MSP, who had hoped to join us this morning but is unable to do so, has provided a written submission outlining her support for the petition. Her written submission stresses the importance of digital connectivity and highlights the

“increasing reliance on online services to deliver basic facilities.”

Her submission states that good connectivity is, inevitably, “inherently linked” to attracting workers and families to the Highlands and Islands in a digital age.

Do members have any comments or suggestions about what we might do?

We will keep the petition open on that basis.

PE2128, on increasing funding for post-mastectomy, or delayed, breast reconstructions and ensuring that waiting time information is accurate, has been lodged by Christy Esslemont. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to reduce waiting times for post-mastectomy, or delayed, breast reconstructions in Scotland and to assess whether the communications section of its waiting times guidance is being followed by health boards.

As the SPICe briefing explains, breast reconstruction can take place at the same time as a mastectomy, which is known as immediate breast reconstruction, or it can take place at a later point, which is known as delayed breast reconstruction. In July 2024, £30 million of targeted additional funding was allocated by the Scottish Government to health boards to address long waits across a range of treatment areas. Some health boards received funding specifically to address backlogs of mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction surgery, but delayed reconstruction surgery was not included in the funding allocation. Indeed, I have recollections of such issues being raised in the chamber.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is currently working with health boards on developing a plan for patients waiting for delayed reconstructive surgery. However, the SPICe briefing states that waiting times for breast reconstruction surgery have not been routinely reported since 2020. In October 2024, the First Minister stated that the Scottish Government was currently

“exploring issues on the quality of”

existing

“data”

so that it can

“determine what information can be published.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; c 20.]

The Scottish Government’s written submission explains that there are two types of breast reconstruction—implant based and free flap—and that although implant-based reconstruction is generally a short procedure, the free-flap procedure involves complex surgery requiring highly specialised plastic surgery services and can take many hours to complete. Indeed, in some cases, up to four theatre sessions can be required. The procedure also requires skilled aftercare and intensive monitoring.

The submission states that, because of a growing volume of cancer and clinically urgent cases, efforts have been concentrated on treating patients with trauma or after cancers. The Scottish Government also states that it intends to allocate funding from the 2025-26 budget—that is, the budget that we are currently considering—to delayed reconstructive breast surgery.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That brings us to the last of the new petitions. PE2132 was lodged by the Inverness Courier and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to publish a clear timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and the construction of a bypass for Nairn, by Easter 2025. I presume that the Inverness Courier is known to Mr Ewing, given his earlier intervention.

As the background to the petition reminds us, the Scottish Government committed in 2011 to dualling the full length of the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. At that time, the expectation was that work to dual the A96 would follow the completion of the dualling of the A9, which, as the committee knows all too well from our inquiry, has not progressed as originally timetabled—to put it mildly.

In 2018, a public inquiry was held to consider objections to specific proposals in the draft orders for the section of the road between Inverness and Nairn. The outcome of the public inquiry was that Scottish ministers agreed that the orders could be made subject to amendment. The road orders and compulsory purchase order were subsequently made on 22 February 2024, signalling the completion of the statutory process for dualling the A96 between Inverness and Nairn.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland referred to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport’s statement in November 2024, in which she confirmed that the Government’s favoured position is to fully dual the A96, and it stated that the dualling process from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, is under way. Transport Scotland’s response also states:

“work is also underway to determine the most suitable procurement option”—

heavens—

“for delivering the A96 Inverness to Nairn including Nairn bypass dualling scheme ... It is expected that the work ... will take a further 12 months”

and will be closely aligned

“with the Mutual Investment Model ... assessment work being undertaken on the A9 Dualling”.

Transport Scotland is appearing to suggest that is only after the procurement option is identified that a timetable for progress can be set.

Well, well. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Do I need to even look up before I call Mr Ewing?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. You intervention was interesting. It might be a little unreasonable to expect the minister to have an immediate response to that. I do not know whether you want to respond, minister? If you want to give it some further thought, would it be helpful for us to make available the Official Report with Mr Ewing’s suggestion at the earliest opportunity?

I suppose that leads to Under One Roof’s view that the Government should seek the views of housing professionals, owners and other organisations on what options might exist for reducing the barriers for owners to replace property factors. Have you given consideration to amplifying, perhaps, the options that others, such as Mr Fergus Ewing, might have for what could be done? Arguably, the number of factors that have been dismissed will be suppressed if people are deterred by the process from bringing forward an action to try to deter the property factor in the first place. Those barriers might limit that number.

Our second item is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE2006, which was lodged by Ewan Miller and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or to lay other regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland housing and property chamber powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

We last considered the petition on 13 November 2024. At that point, given all the different bits of evidence that we had received, we felt that, in order to understand matters better, including the position of the Scottish Government, we would invite the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to give evidence. I am absolutely delighted that the minister, Siobhian Brown, is with us this morning, together with a number of Government officials. Rather than my doing so, I wonder whether the minister would like to introduce the officials to us and tell us what they do.

Has the subsequent meeting that you mentioned taken place? Am I correct in picking up that it has?

Is there a proposal in all this?