Chamber and committees

Obviously, the Government has not yet published a response, but what, in general terms, is your overall reaction to the report?

PE1933 is entitled “Allow the Fornethy Survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme”. The petition was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to the redress scheme in order to allow the survivors to seek redress.

Iris Tinto notes that

“Survivors need acknowledgement, closure and compensation.”

She states that, despite being

“‘in care’ of Glasgow Corporation”

the decision to exempt groups such as the Fornethy survivors group has “magnified that suffering.” The group has provided a powerful and detailed account of the range of abuse that they suffered and the outcomes associated with that in the written submission that members will have seen among their papers. In its submission to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it

“recognises that the abuse of children in all circumstances ... is wrong and harmful.”

Despite that recognition—I am thinking of a petition that we heard not long ago; herein lies a common theme—the Scottish Government states that the exclusion of people who were abused in short-term respite or holiday care is

“in keeping with the core purpose of the redress scheme”.

It states that

“eligibility for the scheme is not based on how long a child was in care ... Instead, it is based on how the child came to be in care and the type of care setting”

that they were in.

Members will recall the petition that we have been considering about the abuse inquiry and the terms of reference in relation to that. Although this is a different petition and a different set of circumstances, I was struck when reading the notes that it seems again to be the case that drafting of regulations is tight and allows groups to fall through the net, which is acknowledged but not followed by any resolution. What views do colleagues have, having read the notes?

We now move to new petitions, the first of which is PE1932, which is entitled “Ban smoking in Scotland and develop a strategy for vaping”. The petition was lodged by Doug Mutter on behalf of VPZ. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to impose an outright ban on smoking and to develop a transformative public health strategy for vaping.

Doug Mutter notes that

“The Pandemic has triggered an increase in smoking rates.”

He suggests that “Scotland has lost momentum” in creating a tobacco-free generation by 2034. He suggests that

“Vaping is the best way to quit smoking”

and “strongly believes” that a public health strategy for vaping will help to realise that target.

In its submission, the Scottish Government indicated that, as yet, there is little evidence on the long-term effects of vaping because of the relatively short time for which these products have been available, although evidence has been growing over the past decade. There has been some time in which to collect evidence, but it is a short time. As such, the Scottish Government is not considering an outright ban on smoking in favour of a pro-vaping policy. Do colleagues have any comments?

Please could the clerks encapsulate the essence of the discussion and members’ reflections on the evidence this morning in such a way that we can offer that to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its further consideration? Rhoda Grant has a final thought on the matter.

Mr Kinnaird, I heard you say that a second public event was to be incorporated. Is there a definition of what constitutes a public event?

Welcome back. Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions.

Members will recall that, at our meeting on 8 June, we held a round-table discussion that embraced four petitions related to rural healthcare. We heard from all four petitioners: Gordon Baird, Maria Aitken, Billy Sinclair and Rebecca Wymer. We also welcomed the participation of our MSP colleagues Emma Harper, Rhoda Grant and Colin Smyth.

During that round-table discussion, we heard about a range of challenges that face rural communities in accessing health services, including the distances that are involved in travelling to appointments, particularly in emergency situations. It was vividly demonstrated in a way that we, sitting here in the central belt, might more easily understand, when it was said that a journey would be the equivalent of us going to Newcastle and back for a minor check-up. That brought home the difficulties that are faced, with which we are not familiar, because of the distances that are involved.

We heard about problems in recruiting and retaining staff, which has become an issue, and we discussed how to ensure that, as new services are framed and developed, the voices of communities are properly heard, rather than new policies being imposed on them without proper consideration.

We agreed to consider at this meeting the evidence that we have heard on all four petitions. I am delighted that Rhoda Grant joins us again, in particular for consideration of PE1890, which we will come to shortly.

We considered the four petitions together, and one of the options that we were asked to consider was the potential to refer the petitions on. I will summarise the four petitions, then we will take a collective view.

We heard evidence on PE1845, which was lodged by Gordon Baird and calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues. I was struck last week by what Mr Baird said about what he felt were the inadequacies of the existing routes for ensuring that the views of rural residents are heard by decision-making bodies.

Mr Ewing tackled the question whether a single agency can manage the responsibility that could arise from issues that are common across health boards that are far flung across Scotland. Dr Baird also welcomed the Government’s commitment to establishing a national centre of excellence for remote and rural health and social care, but felt that that would address only part of the issue that he raised because, without his proposal, there would be nobody advocating for such services, as opposed to being part of their delivery.

PE1819, in which Rhoda Grant is interested, calls on Parliament to urge the Government to provide more localised training, and to find ways to recruit and retain healthcare staff in difficult-to-recruit positions. Often, communities have limited housing and other services, which means that it can be unaffordable for some people to contemplate accepting positions that are on offer.

The petitioner highlighted how technology had enabled distance and remote learning for teachers, which has supported recruitment of teaching staff to rural areas. She suggested that a similar approach be taken to training, recruitment and retention of healthcare staff to positions in rural Scotland.

Members will also be aware that Rhoda Grant secured a members’ business debate on NHS staff recruitment and retention last Thursday. As she has joined us, I invite her to contribute to our reflection before I touch on the other two petitions.

This little exchange is showing the benefits of classical education all round. I am very impressed.

The minister might have heard me say in opening that the first of the two petitions is keen to appoint an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not, in its words,

“bullied and intimidated during public inquiries”.

We have received written evidence that suggests that some individuals participating in public inquiries feel that they have been treated with contempt and abused by some of the legal representatives of wind farm developments and that, somewhat to their disappointment, the reporter has not intervened when that has happened. Is the Scottish Government aware of such instances? This sort of thing is always difficult—individuals have made submissions to us that this has been a practice and that the reporter has not intervened. Can anything be done to validate that evidence and, if indeed such a practice is taking place, to ensure that there is a remedy for it, given that it seems unreasonable?

We might well summarise the evidence that we have received so that the Government is made aware of the experience of those who have written to us. You might care to have a look at that, minister.

As I have said, Mr Whittle is with us for this item. It has been my practice as convener to invite colleagues joining us to make a statement. However, before we hear finally from our witnesses, if anything has occurred to Mr Whittle that he would like to put by way of a question, I am content for that to be the case, too.

Thank you. I think that the committee agrees to refer the four petitions to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in the context of its wider consideration of health inequalities. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Welcome back. Item 4 is consideration of continued petitions. We will cover two petitions together, which focus on planning proposals and decisions on wind farm developments.

The first is PE1864, which was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, to empower local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process, and to appoint an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not

“bullied and intimidated during public inquiries”.

We last considered the petition on 2 February, when we agreed to write to the Local Government Association. Unfortunately, the LGA has not been able to respond to us ahead of today’s meeting.

We have coupled that petition with PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make offering community shared ownership a mandatory requirement of all wind farm development planning proposals.

Our last consideration of PE1885 also took place on 2 February, when it was agreed that we would invite the relevant minister to join us this morning to give evidence on both petitions. Therefore, I am delighted to welcome Tom Arthur, Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth; Andy Kinnaird, head of transforming planning, Scottish Government; and Neal Rafferty, senior adviser on the heat in buildings strategy, Scottish Government. Good morning to all three of you. The minister has made a hot dash across the Parliament campus from another committee in order to join us. We very much appreciate that effort; the timings have all worked out very nicely.

We also welcome back our MSP colleague Brian Whittle, who has a particular interest in the latter petition. I will turn to Brian once the committee members have had the opportunity to put their questions to our guests. He will be well used to the format and protocols of our procedures.

Members have a number of questions that they would like to explore this morning, so we will go straight to those. Some of it is familiar territory, so we are trying to focus the questions on the issues that are specifically raised in the petition.