Chamber and committees

Just to let the witnesses know, the technical staff will operate the microphones.

We move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce the first new petition, I highlight to those who are following today’s proceedings that a considerable amount of work has been done in advance of the consideration of a petition. Before a petition is first considered, an initial view is sought from the Scottish Government and a briefing from the Parliament’s impartial research service is provided.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE2048, which is a review of the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—stroke awareness campaign. It was lodged by James Anthony Bundy, who joins us in the public gallery this morning.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST campaign and ensuring that stroke awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 9 October 2024, when we agreed that, in addition to seeking written evidence from national health service regional health boards, we would hold a round-table discussion on the issues that the petition raises.

I am delighted to say that we have two panels with us this morning to explore those issues. Our first panel includes Sophie Bridger, who is policy and campaigns manager at Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland; Michael Dickson, who is chief executive of the Scottish Ambulance Service; Professor Arshad Majid, who is a professor of cerebrovascular neurology at the University of Sheffield; and John Watson, who is an associate director of the Scottish Stroke Association. I extend a warm welcome to you all.

With the exception of Professor Majid, who joins us remotely, our first set of witnesses have previously had an opportunity to provide written evidence to the committee. If participants are content to do so, we will move straight to our discussion, which will broadly focus on the public awareness campaign on stroke.

How would less-common stroke symptoms be incorporated into a public awareness campaign?

Our next petition is PE2065, which was lodged by Shauna Rafferty, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve and prioritise safety for pedestrians by widening pavements and reducing street clutter, introducing a mechanism to report pavement parking and improving the visibility of pedestrian crossings.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 6 March 2024, when we agreed to write to Transport Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In its response, Transport Scotland said:

“The National Planning Framework 4 highlights that one of the 6 qualities of a successful place is well connected with networks which make a place easy to move around. This includes designing for pedestrian experience including safe crossing, pedestrian priority, reduced street clutter and more.”

Transport Scotland went on to say:

“It is for local authorities to identify streets that are in need of decluttering and utilise available funding to improve safety on these streets.”

Similarly, it stated that local authorities are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement of the pavement parking ban, and that it would be a matter for each local authority to decide whether to set up its own reporting system.

Regarding the visibility of pedestrian street crossings, there is UK guidance on the design of crossings that sets out the key points for consideration to ensure that pedestrians are able to see and be seen by approaching traffic.

In its response to the committee, COSLA noted that it supports the shared goal of eliminating road fatalities and casualties by 2050. However, it also noted the unprecedented financial pressure on local authorities, which is having an impact on their ability to implement the necessary improvements.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you. Do any of the witnesses have anything else to say that we have not covered?

I thank the witnesses for their contributions today. Does the committee agree to consider the evidence that we have heard and the written submissions at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2056, which was lodged by Stephen Gauld, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation providing ministers with the power to call in and potentially override council decisions on the hire of public land for large-scale events.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 6 March 2024, where we agreed to seek the views of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association for Public Service Excellence in Scotland, Event Scotland, the Scottish Tourism Alliance, and the Scottish Showmen’s Guild, on its ask.

Responses from Event Scotland and the Association for Public Service Excellence are similar to the view that the Scottish Government previously provided to us, which was that local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the hiring and use of public land. Indeed, APSE highlighted that

“such decisions are subject to judicial review ... and ... any disputes regarding decision making would be ... for the court to adjudicate on”.

COSLA responded to let us know that it has “no position” on the matter but suggested that we might want to contact the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators Scotland for its view.

The Scottish Tourism Alliance responded to say that it believes that

“where there is no sound reason given in refusing the hiring of land for events and there is a clear case that it delivers a positive local, regional, and national economic impact … it would be fair that the Scottish Government could have the power granted to challenge the local authority’s decision”.

The response goes on to state that

“it is important that there is an open and transparent dialogue with local authorities”

and others, including businesses,

“to reach an informed decision if an event is to take place”.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner commenting on the various responses and setting out his view that the hire of public land is separate from council licensing procedures, as they come into effect once permission to hire the land is granted.

Do any members have comments?

Thank you, Mr Choudhury. Are colleagues agreed that we will take those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

Section 15 of the bill describes assistance as providing a terminally ill adult with a substance to end their life, staying with them until they have decided that they wish to use the substance or removing the substance if they decide that they do not wish to use it. The UK bill contains more detail. It says that someone providing assistance may

“prepare that substance for self-administration by that person ... prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and ... assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

We have heard MND Scotland’s concerns on the issue. Why does your bill not define what actions would be considered to constitute self-administration?

Good morning. My questions are about the act of assisted dying, the means of death and the substance used.

Some respondents to the committee have raised concerns about complications during assisted dying. Evidence from Oregon has been cited that indicates that 7 to 11 per cent of people have complications during assisted dying, which range from vomiting and waking up to prolonged deaths. On the other hand, in evidence from witnesses from Australia and Canada, the committee has been told that there have been minor complications, such as not being able to get intravenous drips in, but nothing major. How would you address that?