Chamber and committees

PE1890 is on finding solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland. The petition, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to find ways of providing localised training, recruitment and retention of healthcare staff in difficult-to-recruit positions in Scotland. Members will have received a late submission on the petition from our colleague Edward Mountain MSP, which was circulated yesterday.

The committee is currently considering PE1845, which is on an agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland and explores similar issues in relation to rural healthcare. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the remote and rural general practice short-life working group and rural health boards. We have already received some submissions, and we are expecting the remainder later this week.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it recognises the training, recruitment and retention issues that are faced by health boards that operate in rural areas across Scotland. The submission details a number of training and recruitment initiatives for doctors in difficult-to-recruit areas, including remote and rural settings. Wider initiatives are also highlighted as contributing to the improvement of rural healthcare or tackling employment challenges that are specific to rural areas. NHS Highland funding is highlighted, including recovery and renewal investment, which allocated £2.2 million to NHS Highland in 2021-22, and funding of £54,625 for the recruitment of a full-time director of psychology.

The petitioner’s view is that the Caithness community does not appear to benefit from funding that is provided to NHS Highland, and the petitioner believes that health services are centralised to Raigmore hospital.

Mr Mountain has written in support of the petition. I am sure that he would have wished to be with us today and that he would have asked us to pursue the issues that are raised in the petition.

Do colleagues have comments to make on the petition?

PE1895, which was lodged by Gary Wall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision making within the framework of the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and the Scottish Government guidance, “Right First Time: a practical guide for public authorities to decision-making and the law”.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that NatureScot, which was formerly known as Scottish Natural Heritage—I thought that it still was, so I am a bit behind the times—is Scotland’s statutory nature conservation body and advisor to the Scottish Government. NatureScot is classified as a non-departmental public body and is subject to NDPB accountability and governance frameworks.

The submission explains that licensing decisions are delegated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. The Scottish Government states that the legislation does not provide for an appeals procedure for licensing decisions. However, all decisions by NatureScot are subject to challenge through the public sector complaints handling system, which includes recourse to the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman.

The submission concludes that NatureScot ensures that its decision-making process complies with the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and Scottish Government’s guidance, “Right First Time”, through application of transparent, proportionate and consistent processes. With that taken into consideration, the Scottish Government does not consider that additional accountability measures are required over and above those that are already in place for NatureScot.

The petitioner suggests that the terminology that the Scottish Government uses in its submission to describe NatureScot’s processes is different from that used in the legislation and, therefore, incorrect. He also suggests that NatureScot’s practices are inconsistent with case law. The petitioner believes that it is currently impossible for a citizen to hold NatureScot to account and suggests:

“if it was made mandatory that they have to explain their ‘objective’ for decisions in the context of the aims of the legislation, especially for refusals, it would go some way to explain how they have applied ‘proportionality’’’.

The petitioner has responded specifically to the Scottish Government’s position, so I am happy to write back to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the challenge that the petitioner has made. That is a reasonable thing to do. If there are no other suggestions, we will do that in the first instance.

Members indicated agreement.

PE1899 is the last petition that we are considering today, on conducting a risk benefit analysis prior to providing those under 16 with a Covid-19 vaccination. The petition, which was lodged by Mary Henderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the risks and benefits of providing Covid-19 vaccinations to those who are under 16 years old.

The Scottish Government submission confirms that the chief medical officers from the four UK nations recommend that

“all healthy children aged 12-15 should be offered one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.”

In reaching their decision, and in addition to the wider health issues, the UK chief medical officers took into consideration issues such as disruption to education, reduction in public health harm and mental health issues.

The Government’s submission explains that, in deciding to offer vaccinations to children and young people aged 12 and over, the chief medical officers

“have been informed by the independent expertise of leaders of the clinical and public health profession from across the UK.”

In her response, the petitioner highlights several international articles that support her concerns regarding the vaccination of children. She feels that

“Natural immunity does not appear to have been fully investigated and the longer-term effects are unknown for all four Covid 19 vaccines.”

She is concerned that the

“move to vaccinate those under 16 is being driven more politically rather than medically.”

I invite members to comment on how we should proceed with the petition.

Indeed. We might ask SPICe to do a bit of work for us on how the position in Scotland compares with that in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, to see whether there is any significant variation in the protection for homeowners. Different laws will be in place, but we can ask whether there is any significant difference. Are we agreed to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That is fine. We could ask whether the Government is considering any further offences, because it would be interesting to know its position on that.

Mr Kidd, are you trying to intervene?

Well, I have never known you to do that, Jackie—that is certainly true. [Laughter.]

PE1888, which is on full legal protection for hedgehogs and moles, was lodged by Joseph Allan. He has tabled a handwritten submission this morning, which I think members should have received. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant full legal protection to hedgehogs and moles.

The Scottish Government has confirmed its commitment to enhancing biodiversity and to protecting vulnerable species in Scotland. Its submission confirms that the hedgehog is listed in appendix III of the Bern convention—the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats—and schedule 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it illegal to kill or capture them using specified methods. The submission states that there are no plans to extend the legal protection for hedgehogs, or to their breeding sites. It highlights steps that are being taken to halt the decline of hedgehogs, although it states that it does not have any information to suggest that the species is in danger of extinction in Scotland.

Similarly, it states that the Scottish Government does not have any definitive data that shows that mole populations are declining, or on the desirability or otherwise of such a decline. It has asked the petitioner to provide further information to explain the exact nature of his concerns, which the petitioner has done this morning, in that he has identified that moles are particularly vulnerable at one point in their breeding season.

The Scottish Government notes that it will carefully consider any recommendations that are made by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for potential changes to the animals and plants that are listed under schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

My anecdotal observation—I speak as an old man—is that, when I was younger, hedgehogs were quite a common sight. They are less so, now, and that is as much as anything because neighbourhood hedgerows—the natural habitats in which hedgehogs used to thrive—have decreased in number over my lifetime, although there is now a conspicuous effort to restore hedgerows, to rewild and to reintroduce more of what I imagine are natural habitats of the hedgehog.

Do colleagues have any comments?

A lot of voluntary groups and societies are certainly concerned with the welfare of the hedgehog, although the mole is slightly new to me as a feature of such a petition.

We have agreed to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that has been outlined.

It strikes me that, at some point, there will be an inquiry into the pandemic. We have already been told that the inquiry will be fully comprehensive and will look at the pandemic from every conceivable perspective, so we could keep in reserve the petitioner’s submission and any final conclusions that we come to as a committee to submit to the inquiry at a future date, should the opportunity present itself.

In the meantime, I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government because I take the point—and I imagine that the Scottish Government will accept it—that, in this first effort to address issues arising from the pandemic, there will have been inconsistencies. I would like to think that there will be a review or that the Scottish Government will undertake a review of what those inconsistencies were and whether, in hindsight, they were necessary or well judged.

I have my own reservations about whether the Scottish Government could make formal guarantees that nothing similar would ever be put in place in a future pandemic, but it seems sensible to write to the Government on that basis in the first instance. Does that seem sensible? Does anyone have any other proposals? Bill Kidd is indicating that he wants to speak.

I am happy to include that suggestion as well.