Chamber and committees

Our final petition is PE2146, lodged by Jamie Connelly, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow couples and individuals to purchase altruistically donated eggs from private clinics for use in NHS-funded IVF treatment, and to instruct NHS Scotland to create a clear clinical pathway to support those using private donor eggs.

The SPICe briefing explains that large NHS-hosted clinics provide both private and NHS fertility treatment, for which there are separate waiting lists. Those in receipt of NHS treatment are fully funded by the NHS, while those who do not meet the criteria for NHS treatment can be offered private, fully self-funded treatment. That self-funded treatment is mostly provided by the NHS service at cost. However, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is slightly different in that it partners with the only private clinic in Scotland in providing paid-for care. That private clinic is not for profit and partners with an egg donation supplier in Spain. The briefing notes that many of the private clinics in the UK will source donor eggs from suppliers abroad. However, there are risks associated with sourcing eggs abroad and with their transportation.

The petitioner and his partner were told that the likelihood of getting donor eggs through the NHS would be “miniscule” as the waiting time is potentially more than 30 years. He reports that the NHS in Scotland operates on an all-or-nothing policy, which means that, if patients source eggs from elsewhere, they will lose all NHS funding for IVF. My goodness—with a wait of 30 years, you would have to register at birth for it to be of any use to you at all.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it has always been clear that couples who are eligible for NHS fertility treatment should not pay for any aspect of their treatment, and this includes the purchase and use of donor gametes. It also states that couples who require an altruistic egg donor may wait between three to four years for treatment. This wait time can change depending on donor availability and we are aware that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is planning several campaigns this year to recruit egg and sperm donors, which will hopefully reduce the waiting times.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???

Thank you all very much.

David, I was just about to give you the opportunity to tell me whether you want to come in with some final questions before I ask whether there is anything that we have not covered.

The next petition is PE1967, lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, seeks to protect Loch Lomond’s Atlantic oakwood shoreline by implementing the high road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbet and Inverarnan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade for the route and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

At our previous meeting, the cabinet secretary referred to improvements that are already benefiting road users and communities along the A82, such as the new viaduct at Pulpit Rock and the bypass at Crianlarich. We also heard that concerns similar to those that the petition puts forward were previously raised with Audit Scotland, which had investigated the issue and confirmed to Transport Scotland that it had considered the requirements contained in the STAG guidance and reviewed relevant evidence, and had concluded that the STAG process had been applied in the initial stages of the work on the A82.

The cabinet secretary was also candid in saying that, because of the interaction between the A83 and A82, it would not be appropriate to work on both roads at the same time, and that as a result of safety issues and economic importance, the A83 would be prioritised.

We explored the process for considering the various options proposed, including at what point in the process the STAG appraisal or DMRB guidance is applied. Officials also indicated that dialogue is continuing with the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority on the detail and make-up of the preferred route option.

The cabinet secretary also told us that consideration is being given to the feasibility of combining with adjacent schemes to make sure that the tree line and other environmental aspects are considered. She emphasised that there is still time left in the process to address issues relating to landscaping and the interaction with Loch Lomond’s natural environment.

In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for how we might proceed?

That draws to a conclusion our consideration of that important petition during the lifetime of this session of Parliament.

PE1916, lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which aims to provide a permanent solution for the route. Again, that was part of our session with the cabinet secretary on 2 April, when we heard that capital funding will be made available when it is needed to progress various stages of the A83 project, and that the estimated cost for the permanent long-term solution is between £408 million and £510 million. The cabinet secretary also told us that the process for commenting on draft orders for the medium and long-term solutions ended in February.

Transport Scotland officials talked about the civil engineering challenges of the project and suggested that the procurement stage could take 12 to 18 months, followed by three to four years for the construction period. That indicative timeline, of course, depends on factors such as whether a public inquiry on the draft orders is required, and weather conditions during the construction period—members will be aware of the particular risk of landslips on the route.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action??

Thank you all very much. We very much appreciate your participation. It has been a fascinating morning for us. We have been able to give the issue the attention that it deserves and have heard from two panels of very high-quality witnesses.

I suspend the meeting briefly before we proceed with the next agenda item.

Item 2 on the agenda is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE2018, which was lodged by Helen Plank on behalf of Scottish Swimming. I gather that she is with us in the public gallery.

The petition was last considered in January this year. It raises issues that I think the whole committee were concerned to see addressed fully, and, at that meeting, we agreed that the right way forward was for us to hold a round-table discussion on the issues.

At the meeting in January, we also agreed to seek further information from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and individual local authorities. In advance of today’s meeting, we received written responses from COSLA and Dundee City Council and another submission from the petitioner. We have also received representations in support of the petition from MSP colleagues Tim Eagle and Beatrice Wishart. All of those submissions are in the committee meeting papers.

We have two panels of witnesses with us this morning. On the first panel are John Lunn, who is the chief executive of Scottish Swimming; Derek McGown, who is a coach at the East Kilbride amateur swimming club; Duncan Scott OBE, who is an Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer and Scotland’s most decorated Olympic athlete, adding a touch of lustre to the rather dry proceedings of the Scottish Parliament; and Abi Thomson, who is a young volunteer programme champion with Scottish Swimming. We will hear from the second panel of witnesses later.

We are also joined by our colleague Neil Bibby, who has taken an interest in the petition. He was with us when we last considered it and decided that we would go with the round-table discussion. Mr Bibby joins us for the first panel of witnesses and will, I think, leave us after that.

We will move straight to questions. Please indicate to me if you would like to speak, or you can nod to one another and decide whether you are going to speak. It helps if we say who is to speak, because the Official Report folk will not necessarily know who is speaking, and it will allow me to invite you to contribute, through the chair.

I turned 66 over the recess. When I was at school, swimming was not seen as just a recreational hobby, as some people seem to think of it now. Learning to swim was seen as a vital and essential life-saving tool. We learned to swim because we might be in a circumstance that meant that we needed to know how to swim, given that we are an island nation that has always had great interest in water and the sea. Therefore, I was very surprised to find, when we first considered the petition, that that is not now normally the case.

I had a look around my constituency of Eastwood, and it seems that we are quite well served there. We still have school swimming pools, and all the schools have programmes whereby everybody is encouraged and has the opportunity, as part of the curriculum, to learn how to swim. I am pleased about that, but it is not necessarily the norm any longer.

We understand that 40 per cent of children now leave primary school unable to swim. Why is the focus on swimming no longer there? In the future, what effect will the closure of swimming pools around Scotland have on the ability of young people to swim? In some cases, we are now talking about fairly significant geographical distances between where somebody lives and the nearest available pool. I would be interested to get your perspective on your experience of coming into swimming and what you think the consequence of that might be.

Our next petition is PE1962, lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are parked only in designated and regulated locations.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 15 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee highlights the £4 million budget allocation for the rural tourism infrastructure fund, and the £2 million that was delivered through VisitScotland, which includes support for activity to spread visitor numbers more equally across Scotland.

On the visitor levy, the Scottish Government states that it remains open to discussion with stakeholders on the issue of a levy on motorhomes and camper vans, and will consider any developed proposals that work to support the visitor economy. The submission states that discussions with council and land management stakeholders have highlighted significant issues with such a levy, including potential difficulties with its application, with administration and with compliance.

A written submission from the petitioners highlights a number of concerns about safety and what they believe is a disparity between the licensing requirements for campsites and a lack of regulation for landowners. The petitioners call for all locations that offer overnight motorhome parking to be required to obtain a licence, including car parks and laybys.

The committee has also received a written submission from an individual, Mr Ed Hall, who raises questions about when land should be considered a campsite with the requirement to obtain a licence under existing legislation.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of existing petitions, beginning with an evidence session on a compendium of petitions with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop. I am delighted that she is with us along with Transport Scotland officials: Lawrence Shackman, the director of major projects, whom I think we have had the pleasure of meeting before at some point; Nicola Blaney, the head of strategic transport planning; and Alasdair Graham, the head of design, procurement and contracts. I warmly welcome you all. Thank you very much for attending the meeting.

The committee recognises that we are moving into the last year of the parliamentary session, so, in order to expedite a number of petitions, we hope to meet with cabinet secretaries in different disciplines to try to work our way through the petitions. Otherwise, we will not be able to do justice to them in the time that we have left.

PE1610, which was lodged by Matt Halliday, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 Euro route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible.

PE1657, which was lodged by Donald McHarrie on behalf of the A77 action group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr’s Whitletts roundabout south to the two ferry ports located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75.

PE1916, which was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry into the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project to provide a permanent solution for the route. The petition has stretched across various parliamentary sessions and, in a previous session, I and, I think, David Torrance paraded around the ground ourselves to see what was what.

PE1967, which was lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensburgh and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan, and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges-based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance.

Finally, PE2132, which was lodged by the Inverness Courier, 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, and to ensure that that timeline is made public by Easter 2025. We would be going some, I suppose, to achieve that.

My eyesight is never quite clear, but I think that we are joined by petitioners in the public gallery. We are also joined by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Jackie Baillie, who has had an on-going and particular interest in PE1916 and PE1967, which is on the A82—