Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. My point is not that we are against road building but that there is a better alternative.

Sorry.

A freedom of information request.

You are the source.

My recollection is that it did. It pointed out that although having the building on the peninsula offered people who were in the gym dramatic views of the Clyde outside, its position left it very exposed and prone to flooding and events such as the one that we saw. I cannot recall the exact position, but there are plenty of development opportunities in Helensburgh where the leisure centre could have been placed.

Thank you very much, convener.

I am grateful for the committee’s continuing interest in the petition. The fundamental issue is one of local democracy in planning. I will centre my remarks on Argyll and Bute, because that is the setting for the case that the petitioner brings to you.

For members who do not know the area covered by Argyll and Bute Council, it is very disparate in nature. It includes small rural villages, island communities and substantial conurbations such as Helensburgh. The committee will not be surprised to hear that local elected members understandably take different views in different areas, based on the needs of their local communities. That causes a sense of frustration when local community members are clear about their thinking, but the planning committee, the majority of whose members do not represent their views or their area, takes an entirely contrary position.

I will give a recent example. Helensburgh community council opposed the siting of the new leisure centre in the town, because it felt that that the proposed location was wrong. Members might have seen footage of the same leisure centre losing its roof during storm Éowyn, which was captured beautifully on social media. Unfortunately, open-air swimming is now back in Helensburgh as a consequence of that storm.

On a serious note, that decision was taken by a planning committee the majority of whose members were not from the local area and in the face of almost unified local opposition to the siting. In its petition, the community council suggested that it be involved in planning decisions at local area committee level. I am very sympathetic to that. Indeed, the submission from the Scottish Forum of Community Councils talks about the ability to devolve power to local areas. I am in favour of that, but I understand that the Government does not want to legislate in that area.

I wonder whether the committee could ask a specific question about whether an easier way of achieving that aim—certainly in the case of Argyll and Bute, which would meet the petitioner’s objective—would be to have the local area committee make such decisions. There are four such committees in Argyll and Bute, which are based locally. The one for the town is Helensburgh and Lomond, which is made up entirely of local elected members. I wonder whether final planning decisions could be made there and devolved to them, rather than their being made by councillors who represent entirely different areas.

There is merit in that, if the Government would be willing to compromise even a little to enable local decisions to be taken by local elected members. I note that the convener said that the Scottish Government has issued guidance, but I am not sure that it covers that point. I wonder whether the committee would invite the Government to think again.

Yes, that is absolutely the case. I could not have put it better myself. It is an essential role. We have seen what has happened in the past. We need to reflect on that, and we need to ensure that the legislation that we pass is as robust as possible, which is why I lodged amendment 50E.

Let me move on to amendment 50J. When it comes to care homes fulfilling the duties of the code of practice, we want the following to be considered:

“the presumption of serious harm to residents where visits with their Essential Care Supporters are denied ... the requirement for care home staff and Essential Care Supporters to work together as equals to agree how visits should be facilitated”,

which is not necessarily always the case, and

“the need for consistency of risk management processes for both staff and visitors.”

Amendments 50G and 50I are essential if we are to get Anne’s law right. Amendment 50G would require care providers to seek permission before they can suspend visits. It states that the suspension of visits may only be granted by

“Public Health Scotland on health grounds, or ... the Scottish Ministers (or a body delegated to make the decision on behalf of Scottish Ministers) for any other reason.”

Amendment 50I would put in place important checks and balances regarding the suspension of visits, with any decision to grant a suspension being

“reviewed once in every 48 hour period by the body that granted”

it, and the suspension remaining

“in force for a period of no longer than 7 days”.

As it stands, there is a lack of an appeals process, which is why amendment 50I would allow for an expedited

“appeal to be heard and a decision issued no later than 72 hours after the appeal has been made.”

Amendments 50G and 50I are critical, because the process of suspending essential care supporters from visiting residents should require a high bar and appropriate authorisation. Some people might argue that the renewal process for applications and the appeal process are much too burdensome, but I fundamentally disagree. We need to get this right and ensure that previous mistakes are not made again.

Amendment 50F is consequential to amendment 50G, and amendment 50H would require the Scottish ministers to consider

“what steps are necessary to protect care homes from legal action against them in cases where ... an Essential Care Supporter”

has visited the care home while all visits have been suspended. That is important, because we need to give the sector the confidence and reassurance that it will be backed in taking action to guarantee the right of residents to be visited by their essential care supporter.

The Feeley review identified the need for stronger protections for care home residents to maintain meaningful connections with loved ones, even during challenging situations such as outbreaks of disease. It is therefore crucial that we ensure that stronger protections are enshrined in the bill.

It is important for us to get the balance right. I am not convinced that the minister has yet gone far enough, but I am more than happy to work with her, as she knows. I urge the Government to seriously consider the detail of my amendments. We have been talking about this for years now. The opportunity to strengthen amendments should not be missed. We can and should go further. I will agree to not move amendments 50I and 50J, and I am prepared to not move amendment 50E and all the others if we have further discussions with the minister on the whole suite of amendments prior to stage 3.

I move amendment 50E.

Of course.

I will not move amendment 132, on the basis that there will be further discussion with the minister.

Amendment 132 not moved.

Amendments 82 and 133 not moved.

Amendments 83 to 85 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.