Chamber and committees

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.

Moving on to PE1995, I must first of all offer an apology. I regret to say that there are two petitions that have rather slipped under the radar.

The first is this important petition, which was lodged by Catherine Anne McKay, on improving support for victims of spiking. The petition, which we heard about at a previous meeting, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a multi-agency approach to the investigation of spiking incidents to ensure that victims are given access to appropriate testing and incidents are investigated robustly.

Rather unusually, the committee has not considered this petition since 6 December 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. Police Scotland has since confirmed that it monitors all occurrences of spiking and the progress of relevant investigations, including forensic ones. Current data allows Police Scotland to identify whether forensic samples have been obtained, refused or not obtained for other reasons, and it also allows for comparative analysis of reported incidents, recorded crimes and the number of forensic samples submitted.

The response also points to Police Scotland’s investigative strategy, which provides guidance and direction to all staff who respond to or investigate spiking. Additionally, senior investigating officers are appointed within each territorial police division to act as divisional single points of contact for all spiking-related matters.

From the Scottish Government’s very recent update, we understand that the Minister for Victims and Community Safety has continued to chair regular multi-agency round tables on spiking, most recently just last month, not just with partners in policing, health, victims organisations and prosecution, but with representatives of colleges and universities, community safety organisations and the night-time economy sector. The Government highlights that there is now a consistent national approach that has been designed to ensure that individuals who present to accident and emergency departments receive clear advice regarding the roles of health professionals and the police when they report incidents of spiking.

Additionally, since October, the NHS digital system has been allowing for the recording of those who present to A and E as potential victims of spiking, with the aim of improving understanding of the extent to which such incidents also lead to formal police reporting. The Scottish Government highlights that although proposals relevant to spiking are included in the United Kingdom Government’s Crime and Policing Bill, existing legislation in Scotland already enables the police and prosecutors to tackle perpetrators of the crime effectively.

I think that an awful lot of work has taken place since 2023 to directly address the issues raised in the petition, but do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

The second item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. The first petition is PE2099, an extraordinarily important petition on which the committee has previously engaged and has undertaken a site visit to the neonatal intensive care unit in Wishaw, where we were pleased to meet the petitioner, Lynn McRitchie.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the planned downgrading of established and high-performing specialist neonatal intensive care services across NHS Scotland from level 3 to level 2 and to commission an independent review of that decision in the light of contradictory expert opinions on centralised services.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to take evidence from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s best start perinatal sub-group, and the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. We will hear from the minister at a subsequent meeting, but at today’s meeting we will take evidence first from Dr Stephen Wardle, the president of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, who joins us online, and then from members of the best start perinatal sub-group.

Good morning, Dr Wardle. I see that all the graphics on your background image have been reversed, so we are seeing all the text behind you the wrong way round. It is difficult to work out what it all says—those who are following the proceedings can puzzle over what it means.

We are also joined by our colleagues Clare Adamson and Monica Lennon. If there is time after committee members have asked their questions, I will invite both of them to put their questions to the witness.

Dr Wardle, is there anything that you would like to say by way of introduction?