Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do members agree to that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content to proceed with the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank all of you very much.

The next meeting of the committee will be on Wednesday 14 June 2023, when we will take evidence from the Lord Advocate among others.

That concludes the public part of this morning’s meeting. We will now move into private session.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. For those who might be joining us for the first time this morning to see the progress of a petition, I want to make clear, as I usually do, that, ahead of our consideration, we invite the Scottish Government to comment and the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe, to look at the petition. That helps to inform the committee so that we can discuss matters in a meaningful way.

The first new petition, PE2012, which was lodged by Angela Hamilton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the need for follicle-stimulating hormone blood tests in women aged 40 to 45 who are experiencing menopause symptoms before hormone replacement therapy can be prescribed to relieve their symptoms and replenish hormone levels. Angela tells us that she is aware of many women aged 40 to 45 who have all the symptoms of perimenopause, but, because their blood tests do not confirm that, they are dismissed by doctors and left to endure debilitating symptoms that affect all aspects of their lives.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health highlights National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance that HRT can be offered without the need for a blood test when other symptoms are present but that a blood test may be required to rule out other illnesses. The minister also mentions that NHS Education for Scotland has been commissioned to create a bespoke training package focused on menopause, including perimenopause and menstrual health, and that there is now a specialist menopause service in every mainland national health service health board, with a buddy system in place for island health boards.

Angela has provided a submission that shares the experiences of women with perimenopause symptoms who have sought help from their general practitioners and been left feeling dismissed and let down. Colleagues will remember that that is a common theme in petitions. She also raises concerns about NICE guidelines not being consistently followed by local health boards and a specific concern about the prescription of antidepressants for women with menopause symptoms.

This is a different area of women’s healthcare. Unfortunately, there are similarities in the patient experience. There is an appeal to the committee to see what more we might be able to do about that. I suggest that we keep the petition open in the first instance and write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to seek its view on the action called for. Are there any other suggestions?

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have apologies this morning from the committee’s deputy convener, David Torrance.

Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We will work something round that. We will keep the petition open, and we will proceed on that basis. Thank you very much, Mr Whittle.

I understand. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, I was on a visit to the Jewish archive at Garnethill. When you are up at that height and trying to leave, you are aware that the brutal truncation of a lot of the infrastructure around there, which persists, had a detrimental effect on the heart of that area of the city. At one time, it was quite central to Glasgow, and now it is almost peripheral to it, with the centre having shifted much further in the other direction. The road really brutalised what was a significant part of the city at the time.

This is a fascinating conversation, but I will move on.

Our second item is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those, PE1864, which was lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, is on increasing the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to achieve that by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments; empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process; and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries. When we most recently considered the petition, on 18 January, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government setting out recommendations that are based on evidence that we have received over the past two years.

We are joined by Brian Whittle MSP. I will invite him to comment in a couple of moments. In response to our submission to the Scottish Government, the new Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has accepted two of our recommendations and committed to exploring the benefits and disadvantages of altering the 50MW threshold and the scope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm developments. We have received a submission from the petitioner that welcomes that commitment, which is good to hear.

In relation to our recommendation on ensuring demonstration of local support as a key material consideration in the decision-making process, the minister mentions that local opinion and evidence feature strongly in planning assessments, and he highlights the provisions introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 that are intended to strengthen the voice of communities in the planning process. Although the petitioner has welcomed the Government’s commitment on thresholds, she remains concerned that there is no definition of what ensuring that communities have “a meaningful say” looks like in practice, drawing parallels with the First Minister’s recent comments on highly protected marine areas and engagement with coastal communities. Before I ask committee colleagues to comment, does Brian Whittle have anything to contribute?

That is an entirely reasonable observation. It is a hostage to fortune in any event, as it is a term that allows everyone to be thoroughly dissatisfied in due course, because they will take the view that their say turned out not to be meaningful.

Okay. Potentially, not only is there no definition of what “a meaningful say” is, it should perhaps be clear whether people are responding in an official way on behalf of their community or more personally.