Chamber and committees

No.

I agree with your suggestion that the petition should remain open, convener. The key criterion here is that the committee has had only limited time to consider it and a considerable number of issues still need to be resolved. Entirely because of that timing issue, I think that the petition should be held over for our successor committee to consider in the next session of Parliament.

Yes.

I agree with all the comments that have been made. There are probably two aspects that the committee should consider. First, there is new evidence today in the Press and Journal and The Courier, uncovering really concerning information about Aberdeen maternity hospital and whether it has capacity to absorb patients from elsewhere. That is incredibly relevant, and the proposed plans are really worrying.

The second aspect is that the scope of the petition is such that, even though the committee has done so much work on it, it will still be very much applicable in a new parliamentary session. With petitions, the debate and the information often move on and the scope might not be so useful in a future parliamentary session, but, in this case, it is still entirely relevant. On that basis, keeping the petition open is worthy of consideration.

It is a dilemma for the committee because the process has not concluded. All we have to offer the petitioner from the Scottish Government is potential, in the form of a series of reviews and considerations, which may or may not yield the results that the petitioner wants. It is difficult to see how we can adequately conclude on the basis of that.

Nevertheless, I think that the best outcome for the petitioner is to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders and then allow the petitioner—if, heaven forbid, these reviews do not yield the results—to come back with a petition that is specifically targeted at the remaining asks. That is probably the best way forward because—we would hope—there should be some movement in terms of the various reviews and considerations that are going on.

:It feels as though the committee has not got to the bottom of the issue, but the central point is to do with the number of different responsibilities that are split across different agencies and different parts of Government. For example, we have SEPA, the Scottish Government’s national flood resilience strategy and local authorities, of which there could be several along a riparian basin. The nub of the petition is that the petitioner would like there to be someone who holds responsibility and accountability for flood risk management, but that is not the approach that is taken in Scotland. That is a potential problem. In the north-east, I have seen that communities want support, but everyone blames someone else.

Nonetheless, although I am loth to close the petition, I struggle to think of anything that the committee could reasonably do, given the substance of the ask and the Scottish Government’s comprehensive responses. Unfortunately, the petitioner might have to go back to review the position and resubmit the petition. The committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

:I was reminiscing about working for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority 20 years ago. That is another story.

:I think that the Scottish Government’s response is deeply inadequate, if I am honest. I think that the Scottish Government has determined that there is a series of definitions that it is seeking to make around fresh produce and ultra-processed food. However, ultimately, the petitioner’s aim is to provide our children with healthier options at school and I honestly think that the Scottish Government has missed the point.

That said, I also feel that there should be consideration of local authorities and those who provide school meals and data should be gathered. However, I struggle to see how it is possible for us to do that. Perhaps more worryingly, were we to keep the petition open, given the aim of the petition to ban ultra-processed foods in school meals, we might end up with those who provide the meals—whether it is food service providers or local authorities—mimicking the Scottish Government and going down the definition route, rather than ultimately trying to help our children to have the healthiest possible start that they can have during school time.

Therefore, unfortunately, I think that the petitioner’s aims would be best served by closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders and for the petitioner to look at the issue again, perhaps with a petition that is more focused on healthier options and not focused on terms such as “ultra-processed”, in order to let the new committee in the new session of Parliament look into the issue in some detail.

:I think that the Scottish Government’s response is deeply inadequate, if I am honest. I think that the Scottish Government has determined that there is a series of definitions that it is seeking to make around fresh produce and ultra-processed food. However, ultimately, the petitioner’s aim is to provide our children with healthier options at school and I honestly think that the Scottish Government has missed the point.

That said, I also feel that there should be consideration of local authorities and those who provide school meals and data should be gathered. However, I struggle to see how it is possible for us to do that. Perhaps more worryingly, were we to keep the petition open, given the aim of the petition to ban ultra-processed foods in school meals, we might end up with those who provide the meals—whether it is food service providers or local authorities—mimicking the Scottish Government and going down the definition route, rather than ultimately trying to help our children to have the healthiest possible start that they can have during school time.

Therefore, unfortunately, I think that the petitioner’s aims would be best served by closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders and for the petitioner to look at the issue again, perhaps with a petition that is more focused on healthier options and not focused on terms such as “ultra-processed”, in order to let the new committee in the new session of Parliament look into the issue in some detail.

:I have lodged probing amendments on two areas, the first of which is permitted premises. The rationale behind those amendments is that they would allow permitted premises to be outwith a healthcare setting if they were able to meet the safety criteria, which is where I believe the committee and the Parliament are coming from.

The route of allowing licensed non-healthcare premises could be aligned to risk level, infection control standards and inspection requirements. That would allow services to operate safely while maintaining accessibility for communities. Aligning premises requirements with the risk and complexity of procedures would support patient safety while avoiding unnecessary service closures or market consolidation.

My second set of amendments is about prescribers on premises and explores the idea that the default model of requiring a prescriber to be physically present on premises risks creating barriers to service provision. The amendments acknowledge that patient safety is determined not by physical presence alone but by clear governance, accountability and access to appropriately qualified prescribers when clinically required. A named prescriber model within a defined geographical radius, supported by robust protocols, escalation pathways and remote availability, would reflect how prescribing oversight already functions safely and lawfully in the majority of healthcare and aesthetic settings.