Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petition
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Alzheimer’s and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
Social Care (Charges) (PE1533)
10:26The next item on the agenda is two continuing petitions. PE1480, by Amanda Kopel, on behalf of the Frank Kopel Alzheimer’s awareness campaign, is on Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness, and PE1533, by Jeff Adamson, on behalf of Scotland against the care tax, is on the abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. Amanda Kopel is in the public gallery—I welcome her to today’s consideration of her petition.
Members will recall that we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport when we last considered the petitions. We discussed a number of issues, including the remit and timescale for the feasibility study. Members will see from the papers that the study is likely to be completed in the summer.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We have to await the results of the feasibility study; we should also request that the cabinet secretary meets the petitioner. We can then consider the results.
I agree.
It is important for us to look at the feasibility study. My sense is that members feel strongly that there is an issue here. There is also the question whether we should separate our consideration of the two petitions. Although they deal with the same area, they might be pursuing slightly different things.
Human rights are an issue in relation to the abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. People need access to services in order to achieve their potential, yet they are being charged for those services. If charges prevent them from accessing services, they may need more support at a later stage. It is a counterintuitive approach, because it does not focus on prevention and early intervention, and it creates more problems further down the line.
There is some recognition that the feasibility study itself is important. We want to be reassured about the timescale and expectations for that study. Also, it has been said that there are cost implications, but it appears that no work has really been done on that issue.
Do members have any further comments?
10:30
The feasibility study is key to how we proceed with the matter. However, I think that there is a strong argument for separating the two petitions.
We might consider that at a later stage.
We should check whether the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport would ask her officials to meet the petitioners to discuss the feasibility study, which I think would give people confidence. Perhaps both petitioners could get the opportunity to focus on their concerns with officials. The campaigns have been particularly effective in highlighting an injustice and there has been some movement, so it is important that that communication continues.
Do members agree with what has been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
We recognise the importance of the myriad issues in the two petitions. We do not want to let go of them at this point and are keen to see the outcome of the feasibility study. We are particularly keen that that is informed by the views and direct experience of the petitioners.
Adult Cerebral Palsy Services (PE1577)
We move on to PE1577, by Rachael Wallace, which is on adult cerebral palsy services. Members will recall that we took evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Sport when we last considered the petition. We have received a submission from the petitioner and members will see that the clerk’s note provides some additional background information from SPICe. I welcome Murdo Fraser MSP to the meeting—he is here for this petition.
Members may also recall that the minister and her officials considered that a national clinical pathway would not be appropriate for a condition such as cerebral palsy. They proposed that developing practice at the local level is the way forward for now. The Scottish Government has been working with Bobath Scotland on a pilot programme in that regard and will consider what learning from that work can be shared with health boards. We understand that Capability Scotland has conducted a national mapping exercise on therapy provision for cerebral palsy in Scotland. As that has only recently concluded, we are yet to have the Scottish Government’s view on what action it will take in response to the findings.
The petitioner takes the view that the Scottish Government should take the lead at a national level, in the form of either a national clinical pathway or another framework, to ensure that adults with cerebral palsy can access continuity in the specialist care and services that they require.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? It might be useful for Murdo Fraser to make some comments to help inform our views.
Thank you for letting me address the committee, convener. I had a discussion with the petitioner about the evidence session that was held with the minister a few weeks ago. Although some very helpful things were said during that session, I think that the petitioner’s biggest concern is that we lose sight of the ambition to have a national clinical pathway. The minister said that the Government was looking at developing local pathways, and the petitioner’s concern is that that might lead to a patchy picture across the country, with some health boards no doubt doing well and taking local pathways forward expeditiously, but other health boards doing less well. We know that many health boards are suffering with financial issues and staff shortages, so they might not see the development of local pathways as a priority.
The petitioner was very keen to reinforce the message that she wants to a national clinical pathway to be taken forward with national leadership from the Scottish Government, rather than that work just being left to the discretion of individual health boards. The on-going work with Bobath Scotland and Capability Scotland has been very helpful, and it will be interesting to see how it develops. It will also be helpful to get feedback from those exercises in due course. However, in terms of getting the impetus that the petitioner would like to see, we are keen that the issue of a national clinical pathway is not lost sight of.
I wonder whether you can help us with a point that the petitioner refers to in her response. Are there comparable conditions that have national clinical pathways? I think that that is the issue that we are wrestling with. I am not quite clear, even from the evidence, about why there would be resistance to having a national clinical pathway. Are there other conditions for which a national clinical pathway would be expected?
I do not have enough medical knowledge to say how cerebral palsy fits into the hierarchy of conditions. With motor neurone disease, for example, we saw a great deal of impetus over the past year when the Scottish Government provided a lead to make sure that local health boards provided additional support for those who suffer from that condition. That is a sort of parallel example: if the Government determines that something needs to be addressed, it can give a lead and make sure that health boards deliver at the local level and are not left to decide individually what actions to take.
Children with cerebral palsy expect consistency in support across the country, but the transition to adulthood is causing the problem.
That is absolutely the point. According to the petitioner, children’s services are quite robust; children with cerebral palsy are generally well cared for and get the attention that they require. The problem is with the transition to adulthood, where the support for too many people seems to fall off the edge of a cliff.
The baseline is that everybody is an individual with separate needs, but that does not prevent our having a national framework with a robust and consistent approach to establishing those individual needs. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but a framework that enables individual treatment protocols to be established seems realistic.
I was surprised by the petitioner’s evidence that she has to seek out her own physiotherapy and identify whether the therapists have the knowledge to deal with her condition, and that there was no national guidance on the issue.
My sense from the committee is that we want to pursue the matter a little further and ask the Scottish Government for the findings from the pilot programme and the mapping exercise and for a further assessment of the way forward that is informed by that work. That should include consideration of whether it will produce national guidance for health boards. I suspect that, for the petitioner and the committee, the technical nature of the language used—whether it a pathway or something else—is not as important as having a national view of what it is reasonable for an adult with cerebral palsy to expect and to access.
Whether the guidance is national or local, we need to know the timeframe.
We will write to the Scottish Government in those terms and seek a timeframe for the pilot programme. It has just been confirmed that the pilot is finished, so we can get that information.
The important thing, as Murdo Fraser said, is the element of putting something national in place.
The committee has found the argument for national guidance convincing. There may be a compelling argument against it, but we have yet to hear it. We are keen for the Scottish Government to give us information on the pilot programme and the mapping exercise and to tell us whether it will produce national guidance for health boards, precisely to address the point made by Murdo Fraser: when people make budgeting decisions, the context of having national guidance becomes very important. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
School Libraries (PE1581)
The next petition is PE1581, which was lodged by Duncan Wright on behalf of Save Scotland’s School Libraries. The petition calls for a new national strategy for school libraries that recognises the vital role of high-quality school libraries in supporting pupils’ literacy and research skills.
Members will recall that, at our previous consideration of the petition, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills said that he had been persuaded by the petitioner’s argument and that his intention is to formulate such a strategy. The petitioner welcomes the Deputy First Minister’s commitment, acknowledging that it
“fully supports the original aim”
of the petition. He seeks detail on how the strategy will be developed and delivered, who will be involved in any consultation, what the timescale is for the strategy to be in place and whether, as part of the strategy, national standards will be established for schools across Scotland.
The petitioner suggests that the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland should be involved in the development of the strategy and that it would be of great benefit to the future success of the strategy if Mr Swinney explained the rationale behind it to representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The Deputy First Minister’s evidence to us was very positive, and the petitioner has recognised that. There is no issue with that, but it might be an idea to respond to the petitioner’s request for further detail on the strategy. We might pick out certain elements of what was said during evidence. However, I do not think that anyone is unhappy with what is happening at the moment.
We must be close to drawing a line under the petition.
The only question is whether we close the petition now, given that the original request by the petitioner has been granted, or whether we look for further information first. I suppose that the petitioner wants some confidence that it is not just that a strategy may be developed at some point in the future but that there is now a timescale for action and that the Government is addressing the concerns of COSLA and ADES, which were more sceptical.
Yes, the petitioner asks specific questions that he clearly does not know the answers to, so it might worth writing to the Deputy First Minister.
I agree.
Normally, I would suggest that we close the petition, particularly given the Deputy First Minister’s full support for the petition’s original aim and the fact that he has given a commitment to deliver a national strategy. Nevertheless, the petitioner is right to seek further clarification, and I am happy to go along with other members on this.
Okay. We can agree to that action while reflecting that the question of whether to close the petition now was finely balanced and that the expectation is that, when we get the information from the Deputy First Minister, that is what we expect to do. We should also recognise both the effectiveness of the petitioner and the fact that the Deputy First Minister moved in a very positive way from the petitioner’s point of view.
Members indicated agreement.
Healthcare Services (Skye, Lochalsh and South-west Ross) (PE1591)
The next petition is PE1591, by Catriona MacDonald on behalf of SOS-NHS, on the major redesign of healthcare services in Skye, Lochalsh and south-west Ross. I welcome Kate Forbes MSP and Rhoda Grant MSP, who are present for the petition. Members have a note by the clerk, along with the most recent submissions from the cabinet secretary and the petitioner.
The cabinet secretary’s submission appears to indicate that she is confident that appropriate consideration has been given to any unintended consequences of the redesign and that she is content that due process has been followed. She also makes clear her expectations of the work that is required by NHS Highland to ensure full engagement with local stakeholders. However, the petitioners appear to still have concerns that they are not being listened to or fully engaged with. That is perhaps a matter for the board to consider.
Before I ask members for their comments or suggestions, I ask Rhoda Grant and Kate Forbes whether they have a view on the progress that has been made or on the response from the cabinet secretary.
The most important thing that you just mentioned, convener, was Shona Robison’s letters about the expectations on NHS Highland. The issue concerns matching up what has been promised and expected and what people feel is really happening on the ground. There is also an issue around the engagement with the community. Most people in the north end of Skye, in particular, still have concerns, and they must have confidence in the redesign and what it will mean for them. We have raised concerns in the past, but the particular issues of concern at the moment are around care beds in the north end of Skye. The last time that I was here, I mentioned the closure of another care home, and there is growing pressure in the area on care beds for elderly people, palliative care and emergency care. That remains a concern. In addition, Ronald MacDonald has previously submitted evidence about the mandatory national guidelines and the need to take account of the density of the population in the north end of Skye.
My role this morning is to represent the views of those who have continued to write to me with their concerns about the current provision of beds and emergency services and about the need for the redesign process to take into account the population density.
10:45I should add that other parts of Skye, such as the south end, which is where the redesign at the moment suggests that the new hospital should be, are content, although they have also made it clear that they would like to see more services being committed to in the north end of Skye. The question for the committee is whether it is worth asking for more evidence or asking the petitioners to come back and make their views known—as a final point—about whether what has been expected and promised marries with what people sense on the ground.
I do not disagree with anything that Kate Forbes has said. I would, however, add that there are concerns about the ambulance service—both patient transport and emergency ambulances—and the fact that people have to go to Broadford. There is an ageing population and public transport is not what it would be in a city—it is pretty sparse. If people are unable to drive, their ability to access health services and, indeed, visit people becomes a big issue. There are promises of better care in the community and the like, but nobody has seen the shape of that, and press reports say that NHS Highland is looking to make more major savings from its budgets. If I was sitting there, I would be wondering how it was going to deliver all those services with a budget that is contracting substantially.
I have tried to think what the committee can do to help, and I throw this out as a suggestion. Would it be possible for the committee to hold a round-table meeting with the health board and the petitioners, to see whether some of the issues that are concerning them could be answered in that way? I feel that the committee is just being passed backwards and forwards, and we do not appear to have resolved very much for the petitioners. I do not know whether that is a way forward that the committee could examine, or, indeed, whether the petitioners and the health board would be willing to participate in such a meeting.
I may be at odds with the petitioner, but I have said all along that we need to get on and have a new hospital in Skye, because neither hospital is fit for purpose any more. Any delay is going to mean that people are going to have to travel not to Broadford, which is bad enough, but to Inverness, which will be even worse. We need the new hospital, but we need to ensure that the whole community is content with the services that they are receiving and know that they will be able to access healthcare without barriers in their way.
I am interested in the committee’s views on what we should do. The Scottish Government has said that it is content that due process has been followed, but the local people clearly do not agree with that, and I am not sure whether a round-table discussion would resolve that issue, although it might highlight the individual anxieties. I would not want to misrepresent the role of the committee—it is not a scrutiny committee in the sense that it could establish X, Y and Z and come to a judgment on what has been done. We do not have that role. We do not want to continue the petition unnecessarily in the expectation that there will be a resolution that we cannot achieve for the petitioners. We have to be honest about what we can and cannot do.
I am interested in members’ views on the issue. There is a balance for us. Should we close the petition on the basis that the issue is not going to be resolved through the petitions process, or is there something useful that we can do that would illuminate some of the challenges and bring the community together by providing the services that they are looking for and want to have confidence in?
You have alluded to what I was going to say, convener. The cabinet secretary is content with the process but, at the same time, the concerns of the petitioners or the population in the area have not been allayed. It seems to me that there is a role for someone to play in somehow communicating between the two to try to find some middle ground. My question is whether that is the committee’s role. Is that what we do? At the end of the day, there are two opposing ideas based on the same evidence.
You make valid points, convener, as does Brian Whittle. Initially, I had a great deal of sympathy for the petition, and I have been keen for the committee to do all that it can within its powers to assist the petitioners, given the valid concerns that they have raised and that clearly continue among the population in Skye. Perhaps the concerns are not so much on the Lochalsh side, but they certainly continue in north Skye.
The cabinet secretary has confirmed that she is content that due process has been followed. As Kate Forbes mentioned, the south end of Skye is content and the north end is not so happy. Frankly, I do not see how that will change, no matter how long the committee deliberates on the issue. I think that the process has been exhausted. I do not see any benefit in having the petitioners back in to give further evidence, as Kate Forbes suggested, and I do not see the benefit of having a round-table session, because that would basically just prolong things and, clearly, the hospital has to be built as soon as possible. Given that we will not get the whole of the community to be content, I propose that the petition be closed, although I do so extremely reluctantly because I understand the concerns. As I said, we have exhausted the process, so I move that we close the petition.
I am interested in other members’ comments on that. I have a question for Rhoda Grant and Kate Forbes. We have the analysis that was done by Ronald MacDonald, and there is a sense that the process was not done properly. I get the feeling that specific and definite points have not been responded to. Would people have more confidence in the process if we asked the cabinet secretary to directly address those points, or should we just discontinue the petition? I see the force of what Angus MacDonald has said, but perhaps we can do that one thing as a final shot. My sense is that the petitioners feel that those questions have just been ignored rather than addressed. We can ask the ministers to address them. Do you think that that would help?
Initially, the petition asked for a review. I have asked people whether their main concern is about the process, the outcome of the process—in other words, where the hospital is—or a general sense of downgrading of services. Repeatedly, people have told me that their main concern is about confidence in the process. If the committee asked the cabinet secretary to ensure in whatever way that everything has been followed correctly, that would be profitable.
I will ask the devil’s advocate question. Do people complain about the process only when they do not like the outcome? Even if we were to establish that the process was right, will that change anything for someone in the north of Skye who is not happy? That is not to belittle or demean their concerns. Do we address concerns through looking at process or is there a next stage that allows the concerns to be addressed? It cannot just be about the location of the hospital; it is about all the things around that such as transport and ambulance services.
I broadly agree with Angus MacDonald, except that there seem to be unanswered questions. As Angus said, it is not worth while to have people back in to give evidence, but maybe we should send a letter to the cabinet secretary highlighting the specific concerns on access to primary and emergency care and asking for a response. That is the only reason to keep the petition open, and it would allow us to try to tie up the loose ends. I am not saying that it would give the petitioners the answer that they want, but at least we would ask those questions for them.
I entirely agree with Rona Mackay. In my experience on Mull, where we had exactly the same situation, we resolved the issue by going in and talking about the reduction in access to primary and emergency care, which helped. I do not support closing the petition now, because I believe that we should send one more letter to the cabinet secretary. It is about confidence being felt by the people in the north end of the island. We had the same issue on the Ross of Mull. We got confidence back and we resolved the issue, and the cabinet secretary confirmed that.
I would be content with that course of action.
To respond to Kate Forbes’s point, we should ask the cabinet secretary and maybe also the health board about what measures they are putting in place to build confidence, because the process has stalled and nobody is benefiting from that.
I appreciate what the committee has done in going back and forth, and I know that the petitioners appreciate that, but at times it has felt as if the same answers have been coming back. It would be good if, in your letter, you could press the point about a tangible outcome that can instil confidence.
Okay. We have agreed to continue the petition.
As is happening across the country, the Parliament will reflect on the tragic events in Manchester with a minute’s silence at 11 o’clock. I want us to participate in that, so I suspend the meeting now.
10:56 Meeting suspended.11:03 On resuming—
Armed Forces (School Visits) (PE1603)
We move on to the penultimate petition on the agenda, which is PE1603, on ensuring greater scrutiny, guidance and consultation with regard to armed forces visits to schools in Scotland. I understand that Mairi Campbell-Jack, who is one of the petitioners, is in the public gallery. I welcome her to the meeting.
Members will recall that we took evidence from the Deputy First Minister when we previously considered the petition. Having had the chance to consider that evidence, the petitioners have made a further submission, which we have in our papers.
The petitioners’ submission covers a range of issues, including the content of careers advice information and data that they have compiled about armed forces visits to special schools in Scotland. The petitioners urge the committee to recommend that no such visits are made, that a child rights and wellbeing impact assessment is applied to armed forces visits and that good-quality data on armed forces visits to schools is requested.
Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we might take forward the petition?
I think that we are going to take evidence from the armed forces about visits to schools.
We were offered a briefing. We would need to think about what form that information would come in, but it would be useful. We could usefully test with the armed forces questions that the petitioners raise, particularly on special schools, data about visits and a child rights and wellbeing impact assessment.
We had a really positive evidence session with the Deputy First Minister, but we could do things to follow that up, given some of the things that he committed to. I am concerned about the response to the freedom of information request that shows that the armed forces made 13 visits to special schools. We could certainly bring that up if we have another evidence session.
One of the commitments that the Deputy First Minister made was on the petitioners’ request for good-quality data on armed forces visits to schools. He asked the committee to specify what data would help. I am not sure whether we have provided that information so that he can carry out that commitment. We need to address that aspect, because he made an important commitment on it.
Do you have any specific suggestions about information that we should have, Rona?
There should be information about numbers and areas—for example, on what schools have been visited in what postcode areas—so that we can see whether any pattern emerges.
The petitioners requested that a child rights and wellbeing impact assessment be applied to armed forces visits to schools. We could also press for that, but it might come after we have had a briefing from the armed forces. The data point could certainly be followed up now.
I wonder whether the purpose of the visits is also an issue. That came out of the Deputy First Minister’s evidence. To an extent, he addressed the question of careers visits, but one of the petitioners’ concerns is that softer visits by the armed forces are used for recruitment purposes. The other side of the argument might be that those visits are about facilities and about knowledge and information opportunities that the armed forces can bring into a school around health and fitness or whatever. I think that the issue that is at the heart of the petition is about pulling out whether the visits are used for recruitment purposes.
The Welsh Government has implemented some things around this issue. In my work as convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on the armed forces and veterans community, I have found out useful information on that. I would like to see what the Welsh Government has come forward with, because that might help us.
I presume that there is a spectrum of views, from the view of people who think that the armed forces should not go into schools at all to that of those who think that, if there is a connection between a school and the armed forces, that should just go ahead. However, we want information and data to give us an idea of what the patterns are and where the balance is. To inform our views, perhaps it would be useful to know how the Welsh Government has responded to the question.
I am not quite sure where we are on having a briefing from the armed forces.
That is in hand, and we will pursue it.
So it will happen.
The armed forces offered a briefing, but the question is about the format that it will take.
We can ask for the director of recruiting for Scotland for the three armed services to come to the briefing—there are appointed seniors in that regard—because we do not want just a generic report. That would give the briefing some substance.
That is helpful. Again, the committee is alive to the balance that we want to strike. We could have greater confidence in the process if we knew where the armed forces were going and why they were going there. For example, is there an issue about the work that is done with special schools? The purposes and cohorts of those schools vary, and there might be different work with different schools.
From the petitioners’ point of view, part of the problem has been that getting information about armed forces visits has been difficult. If we could make that information more open and transparent, that would be a first step in dealing with the petition.
We will defer further consideration until we have had the briefing on armed forces visits to schools by a representative of the armed forces. Maurice Corry’s point about who we hope will do that briefing is useful. In the meantime, we can forward to the Deputy First Minister our suggestions on data. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Enterprise Agencies (Boards) (PE1639)
The final petition is PE1639, by Maureen Macmillan, on enterprise agency boards. I welcome back Rhoda Grant for this item.
Members will recall that we agreed to seek the petitioner’s view on the ministerial statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work. We have now received the petitioner’s views. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I know that Rhoda Grant has liaised with the petitioner.
I have a couple of points. Given the outcome of the review, people are pleased that the board of Highlands and Islands Enterprise has been retained, but it is not clear what will happen as a result of the review. We know that there will be an overarching, cross-cutting board, although we do not yet know its membership or its role, other than that it will be statutory. Could the petition be kept open to see what happens and what the impact will be? I am afraid that some of the local information that I have had is that people are afraid that what will happen will occur by the back door rather than up front and publicly.
Another concern that has been expressed to me and which the petitioner has spoken to me about is that, when the original proposal was made, the board was seen as the last part of HIE that remained. People were concerned that, as a result of budget cuts, HIE’s reach had diminished over the years, and they wanted a return to the HIE of the past. Given Brexit and the amount of money that has flowed from Europe to the Highlands and Islands, there is real concern that the Highlands and Islands will suffer and that it needs a strong voice in its corner to speak to the Government about the allocation of resources and ensure that it understands peripherality in the way that Europe did but in which neither of our Governments has ever done, regardless of their political shade—I am not making a political point. There is a role for a strengthened HIE in representing the area—otherwise, we could find ourselves in a difficult situation.
I suggest that the committee pass the petition on to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for it to look at HIE’s role in more depth or simply hold on to the petition and see the outcome in relation to the cross-cutting board before deciding what to do with it.
The petition has been successful in that HIE has been saved. Personally, I support a strong HIE with a strong social remit. All enterprise boards should have a social remit because they are about people and place, but that is particularly important in the Highlands and Islands. The question for the committee is whether that argument should be located with us. My sense is that the petition cannot be the vehicle for that debate, because it is specific, but nothing would preclude someone from bringing another petition to the committee on those questions.
Does Angus MacDonald have a view on what the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is doing on the issue?
I am not on that committee—I am on the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee—but I whole-heartedly agree with you, convener. I was delighted that the Government performed a volte-face in the afternoon of 20 April following the Public Petitions Committee’s evidence session that morning. That was the right thing to do. The Government’s decision to ditch the previous plans was a result of pressure from members on all sides.
As I said on 20 April, I believe, having had direct experience of HIE and the Highlands and Islands Development Board before it, that it is imperative to retain the board of HIE. Having said that, the petition has done its job—as have the members who campaigned on the issue—and, as you have said, convener, it is perhaps time for it to be closed. However, there is an opportunity for the petitioner to come back at a future date should there be any back-door actions, as Rhoda Grant mentioned. I hope that that will not be the case, given that consensus broke out in Parliament on 20 April. I suggest that we close the petition.
11:15
Are there any other views?
I agree that we should close the petition, because we have gone as far as we can. The outcome was good. I echo what Angus MacDonald said; there is no point in my repeating that.
It seems that the petitioner has been successful. Rhoda Grant’s question is about implementation, which is different from the question that is asked in the petition.
As a committee, we would be gravely disappointed if the Government was buying time and it simply did the same thing in a different way, and members from across the parties would be gravely disappointed if there was a sleight of hand rather than a change in policy position.
I agree. It is time to close the petition because it has achieved the petitioner’s objective. Parliament will keep a watching brief on the matter—it may be the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee or another committee—to see whether it comes back in a different form later on.
We heard compelling and powerful evidence from the petitioner about what had been done historically in the Highlands and Islands by an agency with such a remit and responsibility. I have talked before about the generational change and the current opportunities for young people to stay in the islands—such opportunities were lost to my parents’ generation. I hope that the petitioner’s evidence on that had an effect—it certainly had an effect on the committee. That evidence was on the broader context rather than just a theoretical shifting of chairs around a table. We will make it clear to the petitioner that we appreciate the broader questions that the petition highlights and that there is always an opportunity for a petitioner to lodge a new petition that could address those concerns, if necessary.
Does the committee agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has decided to retain enterprise agency boards as part of its enterprise and skills review and, in doing so, has addressed the petitioner’s specific concerns about HIE?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Rhoda Grant for attending the committee.
Meeting closed at 11:17.Previous
New Petitions