Chamber and committees

We will therefore close the petition, but again, progress will become apparent in the next parliamentary session.

Thank you for that. Consideration of areas of deprivation was part of the discussion that we had last week as well.

Minister, is there anything that you or your colleagues would like to add? I think that we have covered all of the ground that was of central concern to the committee.

Thank you. Does the committee agree to that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

The first new petition is PE2186, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team, from whom we heard on another petition that we considered earlier this morning. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the personal footcare guidance to ensure equity of access to toenail cutting services in rural and remote areas of Scotland. It says that everyone should have access to healthcare, including footcare services, no matter where they live, and that to deny people access leaves them vulnerable to infection, less mobile and more at risk of falling, particularly elderly people, which is very often overlooked and underappreciated. It suggests that the personal footcare guidance fails to consider mitigations to ensure equity of access to toenail cutting services.

The Scottish Government makes clear in its response that it has no intention of reviewing the guidance, which was refreshed in March this year. In its submission, the Scottish Government highlights relevant legislation and a host of national policy frameworks and strategies that it considers underpin the current guidance, and notes that it is for individual health boards to take decisions on service delivery, tailored to local populations’ needs and priorities.

Edward Mountain, would you like to say a few words in relation to the petition?

It is very generous of you to anticipate our actions, Mr Mountain.

Can I therefore propose two actions? First, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to review the guidance, as it was refreshed in March 2025 and is underpinned by a wide range of national policy frameworks that promote equitable access to personal care, including footcare, and notes that decisions about service delivery are made at a local level by individual NHS boards. However, in closing the petition and noting that point, I propose that we write to the relevant health board expressing the concern that the committee has heard about the distances that are now required for people in Caithness to travel, as they now have to go to Raigmore for this service, which is beyond the capability of many involved. We will say that, although the committee was unable to do more in this session of Parliament, it anticipates that the petition might re-emerge and it would therefore be helpful if NHS Highland considered these matters in advance of and in anticipation of that fact. Are colleagues content with us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Just for the completeness of the record, what is the existing capacity that those additional units are on top of?

Yes. We have no option but to close the petition, given the Scottish Government response. I hope that it can be resubmitted. The issue seemed to attract some ridicule when it was raised in the chamber, but I think that that was from those who do not represent urban populations and residential areas where, as you say, there is outside dining. I have evidence in my own constituency of young children being attacked by the urban gull population and there being absolutely no remedy open to the council to do anything about it, given the protected status of gulls. That is why I wonder what

“areas where health and safety focus needs are highest”,

means to our friends at NatureScot—I say that, although I have not been all that friendly to them.

Are we minded to close the petition? This is the kind of subject matter that our committee was designed to consider. It is a matter that no party would pursue in a public manifesto, but it is an actual concern to living communities.

I would very much encourage the petitioner to resubmit this petition in the new session because I think that the matter could be pursued more actively. I would very much welcome watching NatureScot—if I am not in a position to question NatureScot myself—being tackled on the issue.

Do members agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

The last of our new petitions today is PE2195, lodged by Willie French and Tam Baillie on behalf of Upstart Scotland, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish in Scottish education a relationship-centred, play-based kindergarten stage for children between the ages of three and seven.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the early level of the curriculum for excellence is designed to support the implementation of a responsive, continuous, play-based curriculum for children from age three until the end of primary 1 for the majority of children. The submission goes on to state that raising the school starting age and introducing a kindergarten stage would represent a fundamental change in the scope of education in Scotland and a significant structural change to the provision of education. The response states that there would be a number of significant delivery implications in raising the school starting age.

The petitioners’ submission notes that children in Scotland start formal schooling at an earlier age than most of their international peers. The petitioners recognise the value of the Scottish Government’s policies in the “Realising the Ambition: Being Me” document, but point to a lack of published evidence regarding the extent to which the guidance has been implemented. The submission highlights that evidence from its group, Upstart, suggests that the adoption of “realising the ambition”—that is the name of the programme—is inconsistent and that other policy drivers may hinder its implementation. The petitioners believe that establishing a kindergarten stage would align better with the priority of reducing the poverty-related attainment gap and would meet the developmental needs of children more effectively than current arrangements.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you. It is an interesting concept, but again it is one that would need far more time—even then, I suspect that such a petition would probably be referred to the education committee in due course. Nonetheless, it could be the subject of some preliminary work by a subsequent committee of this Parliament in the next session. Again, it is worth advocating that the petition be resubmitted when Parliament resumes.

Members indicated agreement.

That is fine. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.