Chamber and committees

The next petition is PE2081, which was lodged by Professor Jeremy Hughes on behalf of Kidney Research UK in Scotland, and it calls on us to do exactly what it says on the tin, which is to urge the Scottish Government to make chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority.

When we previously considered the petition, on 15 May 2024, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek further clarity on the Scottish Government’s approach to the designation of clinical priorities. We have received a response from the cabinet secretary that states that the Scottish Government does not have a list of conditions that are clinical priorities and that there are, therefore, no criteria for the designation of clinical priorities.

The cabinet secretary goes on to say that,

“even ... where there is no specific policy or strategy”

for an individual condition,

“the Scottish Government is still undertaking work to support all people living with long-term conditions to access the best possible care and support”.

That includes, for example, a

“national policy on the reimbursement of electricity costs for home dialysis”.

It is the Scottish Government’s view that publishing more strategies for individual health conditions would not be the most effective way to improve care.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. The first responds to the cabinet secretary’s letter and draws our attention to the existence of a clinical priorities team in the civil service with staff aligned to particular clinical conditions.

The petitioner’s second submission provides an update on the work that Kidney Research UK has been doing to improve awareness, prevention, early detection, treatment and monitoring of chronic kidney disease in Scotland. That includes the launch of an action plan for Scotland and efforts to work constructively with the national health service and Government bodies to improve the lives of people with chronic kidney disease.

The petitioner remains concerned that there is no named civil servant to help to oversee and support the changes that are proposed in Kidney Research UK’s action plan, and he has invited the cabinet secretary to intervene directly in the matter by attending a summit on chronic kidney disease. This is the first time that such an event has been convened in Scotland.

Those are two significant contributions from the petitioner in response to the cabinet secretary. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE1989, lodged by Mary Montague, is the first of two petitions concerning defibrillator provision that the committee is considering this morning. I declare an interest in that Mary Montague is the provost of East Renfrewshire Council, which is the presiding local authority in which my Eastwood constituency sits. 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 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. The minister’s response highlights the Scottish Government’s participation in the Save a Life for Scotland partnership and the increase in defibrillator deployment by the public in recent years. The minister also points to a number of relevant factors that go beyond the availability of defibrillators, such as optimal placement, accessibility of the equipment and bystander confidence to use defibrillators.

The committee pressed the minister on engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding defibrillator provision through the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Scottish Government’s response explains that there is a lack of strong evidence for the effectiveness of legislation to mandate defibrillators in designated places and that, as such, the Scottish Government is focusing efforts on its established approach to improving survival rates.

The committee will recall that we were a bit concerned about the Scottish Government’s response. Defibrillators are now being provided everywhere else in the United Kingdom. I think that I recall that a Barnett consequential had even been provided in respect of that. I cannot remember whether that is correct, but that is my vague recollection. Nonetheless, it appears that Scotland is taking a unique position by not progressing provision, and I do not think that the committee was entirely convinced by that approach. Do colleagues have suggestions for how we might proceed?

Our next petition is PE2090, lodged by Stephen Henson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) (Regulations) 1984 to require application for express consent to advertise using a digital display, including where a site has been upgraded from a traditional paper-based display.

We previously considered the petition on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the heads of Planning Scotland, the Royal Town Planning Institute and Outsmart.

We have received a submission this morning from our colleague Paul Sweeney, who had hoped to be with us as we consider the petition further.

Outsmart, the trade association for the out-of-home advertising industry, has provided its views on the petition. Outsmart’s response explains that applications for advertisement consent require public consultation and that planning authorities determine applications case by case. Outsmart’s view is that the existing provisions are proportionate and appropriate. The submission explains that out-of-home media owners can work with local authorities to investigate and resolve matters where there is an issue with the luminescence of digital advertising screens.

As members will see, Mr Sweeney has lodged a submission that considers global best practice. He says that the best example of that comes from Melbourne city council. That is all detailed in his submission. Notwithstanding that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

I am content with that. I am pleased that, in some respects, the aims of the petition have been achieved. However, in that letter to the Government, can we emphasise the evidence of a fivefold increase in cot death from sharing beds? I do not think that we want to leave that as a lightly laid message—it should be strongly emphasised to the Government. On that basis, are we content?

Absolutely—I could not agree more. That is why, albeit that there is probably nowhere further for the committee to take the petition, that particular point should be heavily emphasised to the Government.

We thank the petitioner for bringing forward a very significant petition which, as Mr Ewing says, was motivated by circumstance. We hope that, given that the aims have in part been addressed, the future action that is proposed will lead to a significant reduction in the incidence of cot death, which, of course, is a tragedy for any family who experiences it.

PE2083 is on reviewing the rules to ensure that no dog becomes more dangerous as a result of breed-specific regulations. The petition, which was lodged by Katrina Gordon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and to ensure that breed-specific regulations do not restrict responsible dog owners from undertaking exercise and training routines that support the dog’s welfare and reduce the risk of their dog becoming dangerous.

When we previously considered the petition, which was at our meeting on 12 June 2024, we agreed to write to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, following comments made during the stage 1 debate on the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. The committee received a response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, who has portfolio responsibility for policy matters relating to dog control and dangerous dogs. The minister restated the Government’s position that the introduction of safeguards in relation to XL bully dogs in Scotland followed as a direct result of the UK Government decision to introduce controls on XL bully dogs in England and Wales. The minister went on to state that the Scottish Government recognises the importance of engaging with and hearing from XL bully dog owners on the impact of the safeguards and that officials have previously met the petitioner. Advice and support for XL bully dog owners have also been provided in response to correspondence that is received via the XL bully dog inquiries email mailbox—heavens!

In response to our question about the verification of XL bully dog characteristics, the minister states that Scotland is using the breed definition confirmation standard that was developed in England and Wales to ensure a consistent approach across the United Kingdom. However, it is noted that it is the responsibility of owners to check whether their dog is an XL bully and, if there is doubt, to follow the XL bully safeguarding rules as a precaution.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which responds to the minister and highlights the impact of the regulations on the welfare and safety of dogs in private homes. The petitioner also draws attention to advice provided to the Scottish Government, in advance of the safeguards being introduced, to avoid breed-specific legislation and explore alternative ways forward.

The petitioner’s most recent submission comments on the report that was published following the summit on responsible dog ownership. Although the petitioner welcomes recommendations to provide more funding for dog wardens and Police Scotland, and to continue ministerial engagement with stakeholder groups on this matter, she remains concerned that little is being done to address the consequences of those breed-specific regulations, which in her view are resulting in otherwise healthy and well-behaved dogs becoming more dangerous, particularly in their own homes. The petitioner repeats the call for the regulations to be repealed and offers some potential actions aimed at supporting the welfare of dogs who are restricted by the rules.

We will now go to our Crufts expert, Mr Golden.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first is PE1931, lodged by Ian Barker, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion of rural properties and households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with poor internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second.

The committee last considered the petition in October 2024, at which time we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Its response states that, through the three strands of activity, its R100 commitment to extend superfast broadband access to 100 per cent of premises in Scotland has been met. It also states that its voucher scheme performs favourably when compared to other publicly funded demand-led interventions. In view of that response from the Scottish Government, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are members content with those suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a proposal to close the petition, in view of the fact that the petition’s aims have been largely met, although, in one respect, the Government will not be taking action forward. Are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Ewing has referred to the next petition, PE2101, which was lodged by Peter Earl on behalf of Troqueer primary school. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide primary and secondary schools with automated external defibrillators. When the committee last considered the petition, in September 2024, we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. Members will recall that we highlighted the UK Government’s provision of defibrillators to all schools in England and asked whether the Scottish Government would provide direct funding to do the same. I think that that might have been the example to which I was referring a moment ago.

The minister’s response reiterates that local authorities make decisions on purchasing, installing and maintaining defibrillators for schools in their area. The response also states that solutions to improve survival from cardiac arrest may differ between areas. The Save a Life for Scotland partnership takes a data-driven approach to working with local authorities to understand the chain of survival in their areas and how to improve it.

The committee has also received a written submission from Rodger Hill. Rodger, as most of us will now know, is the father of our late parliamentary colleague, the researcher David Hill, who died while playing rugby for the Scottish Parliament rugby team in Ireland. The submission outlines the work undertaken by the charity set up in David’s memory, the DH9 Foundation, which includes facilitating the installation of 42 defibrillators in Dumfries and Galloway. Mr Hill’s freedom of information requests reveal that, of 2,446 schools, 893 have defibrillators on site. The submission calls for a renewed commitment from the Scottish Government to deliver cardiopulmonary resuscitation training to every child in schools biennially, and it calls for grant funding to provide defibrillators in schools across Scotland.

Mr Ewing has suggested that we couple the petition with the previous one and advise the minister that we would like to take evidence on both of them. Do members agree with Mr Ewing’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.