Chamber and committees

Colleagues will note that we have enjoyed the presence of the convener of said committee during our consideration of matters this morning.

Do colleagues have suggestions of how we might proceed in the light of the responses that we have received and the appeals that have been made to us?

This is quite an interesting petition, which is why it has attracted a considerable degree of interest and engagement. The Scottish Government has reiterated that it has no plans to modify the current franchising process, so there does not seem to be any movement from the Government at this point on that aspect of the petition.

I hear what colleagues have said. Is it our view that it is likely that we will be unable to take the petition forward but that another committee of the Parliament might be able to pick up on aspects of it in the lifetime of this parliamentary session? If so, as Mr Golden suggests, we would write to the convener of that committee while closing the petition and would potentially suggest to the petitioner that it might be useful to return to Parliament with such a petition in the next parliamentary session. We have only something like half a dozen further meetings of the committee, so we are quite constrained. Are we agreed on that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we are, although it is not entirely the outcome that our colleagues would have wished for. I am slightly reluctant about our conclusion.

Mr Harvie is keen to come back in.

Item 2 is a healthcare thematic evidence session. People are joining us for the meeting because, as we move towards the end of the parliamentary session and realise that time is running out, we are seeking to get some final evidence on a number of petitions from various senior ministers and their colleagues. There are 16 health petitions that are incorporated in the range of areas that we might end up discussing this morning.

I am delighted that, to discuss those issues, we are joined by Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, who says that this is his first gig in recent times with the petitions committee. From the Scottish Government, he is joined by Alan Morrison, who is the deputy director of health infrastructure and sustainability, and Douglas McLaren, who is the deputy chief operating officer for performance and delivery. We are also joined by three of our parliamentary colleagues: Clare Haughey, Jackie Baillie and Edward Mountain. Good morning to you all.

We will try to draw the various petitions into five thematic sections. I think that Edward Mountain’s particular interest might be in theme 1—I am saying that as I scrunch around for my notes when the most obvious answer is in front of me. Please feel free to catch my eye or the eye of the clerks. I am happy for any of my parliamentary colleagues to join in at any point this morning, simply because we have such a long series of sections. As we get towards the end of each thematic section, if there are questions that they would like to put in addition to those that the committee has put, I am happy to hear what they might be.

The five areas that we have brought things together under are patient experience; diagnostic and treatment pathways; capacity, skills and training; sustainability of funding and health service infrastructure; and post-Covid-19 impacts and response. One of my committee colleagues will act as a kind of chargé d’affaires for each of the sections as we proceed through them.

I will begin with questions on patient experience. A number of petitions demonstrate that there is a gap between policy, strategies and plans and how services are experienced. Do you accept that there is a gap? If so, why do you think that the gap exists, particularly at critical points of people’s lives, such as a mental health crisis, when vulnerable around the birth of a baby, or when feeling very unwell? Cabinet secretary, if you wish to bring in any of your colleagues at any point, that will be fine.

I apologise to the petitioner. Writing to the NZET Committee would have been our strong recommendation, but I feel that we are boxed in on this particular issue. There are one or two other petitions that are still open, which we can directly make progress on, and it would be at their expense if we were not now to come to some difficult decisions.

I thank everybody for their contributions on the petition, but that is the decision of the committee.

Petition PE2118, lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and to improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Government. The Government’s response confirms that its approach to flood risk management planning complies with the European Union floods directive and that its approach to river basin management planning complies with the EU water framework directive.

On our question regarding a single body being responsible for, and appointed to provide leadership on, river basin management, the Government reiterated that SEPA is responsible for the preparation of river basin management plans on behalf of Scottish ministers and that it is legally required to engage with stakeholders and consult with communities on flood risk management plans.

The response concludes that ministers are satisfied with the current strategic framework, and it highlights the publication of the Government’s flood resilience strategy last December.?The strategy will establish a flood advisory service that is designed to provide the framework and process for flood protection schemes, as well as support to communities.

On our question regarding membership of local advisory groups, SEPA showed that those include representatives from various disciplines and organisations but not engineers, economists or geomorphologists as stand-alone members. However, SEPA indicated various ways in which it collaborates with such technical experts throughout the flood risk management planning process.

In his latest submission, the petitioner suggests that SEPA’s flood maps are inaccurate and have no community input and that locally commissioned reports are ignored despite containing more flood scheme options. The petitioner highlights that SEPA consults with organisations that have no legal responsibilities for flooding but does not engage major landowners in the process.

It is always a pleasure to shine a light on the events of 1837.

I will add the observation that SEPA has not been responding to the petitioner’s submissions or directly on the issues that have been raised, which is not atypical. The Scottish Government should understand that that is so.

Yes, it appears to be typical.

Are we content to proceed on the basis that has been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2121, which was lodged by Carolyn Philip, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to run a campaign targeted at companies to raise awareness of the harms that are caused by roadside litter and the penalties that can be brought against responsible parties. We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

We are joined by our colleague Rachael Hamilton. Welcome, Rachael—I spotted you in the gallery, waiting for the sun to burst forth on the interest that you take in the matter.

We have received a written submission from Transport Scotland that states that, as there has been an increase in discarded litter over the past few years, it believes that there needs to be a change of mindset and a campaign undertaken to discourage people from dropping litter. It continues:

“We will work with our Operating Companies, Keep Scotland Beautiful and Zero Waste Scotland to run a campaign targeted at companies and also the public to raise awareness of the harms caused by roadside litter and the legislation that is in place to penalise those who drop litter.”

The Scottish Government’s response lists the organisations that have delivered publicly funded litter prevention campaigns and details the funding that has been provided to roadside litter campaigns since 2007. The response also states that the Scottish Government remains committed to the principle that extended producer responsibility—EPR—for packaging should cover the full net costs of both binned and ground litter clear-up and disposal. The submission notes that the EPR scheme administrator is expected to set out its plans for public information campaigns and its strategy, and the specific activities that it proposes to conduct for the coming year in its operational plan.

Before I invite colleagues to decide what we might do with the petition—I note that it would appear that Transport Scotland wants to take forward the objective that is contained in it—I invite our colleague Rachael Hamilton to say a few words.