Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suspect that the session would be post summer recess, so we would expect to have the information by then. However, given that the Parliament will dissolve in a year’s time, it would also allow us to bring all the various health petitions before us. Given the rate that we are able to discuss petitions, that would ensure that we make progress on a number of them.

We will keep PE2071 open and, as has been suggested, write to the cabinet secretary, with a view to hearing evidence from him later in the year. Are colleagues content with the proposals?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next continued petition, PE2073, was lodged by Robert Macdonald and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require the police and court services to check that address information is up to date when issuing court summons and to allow those being summoned the chance to receive a summons if their address has changed, instead of proceeding to issue a warrant for arrest, as under the current system.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and Police Scotland. As noted in our papers, Police Scotland declined to provide a formal response on this occasion, indicating that the SCTS held the information that we were requesting.

The SCTS response notes that, in cases in which the accused has been released on bail, the onus is on that individual or their legal representative to ensure that the personal information that the court has is current. An application must be submitted to the court if the accused intends to change their address. Where the accused fails to appear at a pre-conviction hearing, having been lawfully cited, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service may apply to the court for a warrant for the apprehension of the accused. It is then a matter for the court to consider whether such warrants should be granted based on the information provided by the COPFS.

The SCTS publishes an annual overview of the number, type and stage of warrants that have been issued by the courts. Indeed, an extract of the latest report is included in our papers.

In view of that direction, do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Agenda item 1 is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1964—committee colleagues might recall our discussing it at some length—which was lodged by Accountability Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, assess the quality of its work and decisions, and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 15 May 2024—it does not feel like it was as long ago as that, as I can remember the conversation quite vividly—when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament Finance and Public Administration Committee.

The Scottish Government has reiterated its view that an independent review of the SPSO, including a review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, is not required—colleagues might recall that that is all in relation to the fact that it has been in existence for 20 years and no review has ever actually taken place. The submission highlights the evolution of the SPSO’s functions and scope since its inception, stating that its powers and responsibilities have not remained static. The Scottish Government also highlights the existing accountability and scrutiny functions. The submission reiterates that the Scottish Government does not have the available resources or capacity to initiate and take forward an independent review due to existing commitments and competing legislative priorities.

The petitioner’s written submission of February last year called for Accountability Scotland to present oral evidence on what an independent review should consist of. Since then, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has held a call for views on the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and has taken oral evidence from Accountability Scotland, alongside other stakeholders, so that opportunity has been afforded. It also took evidence from the SPSO. In her evidence to the committee, the ombudsman shared options for how an independent external review could operate. She said that, although a review would be attractive, there would be costs involved and stated the importance of defining the remit of and outcomes from any such review.

The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has subsequently written to the ombudsman to share its observations. That correspondence raised a number of points, including a lack of available performance data, levels of customer satisfaction and neutrality in external evaluation. It also highlighted the SPSO’s suggestion that it might be time to reflect on the way that the Scottish public scrutinises the SPSO and proposed that the Finance and Public Administration Committee could have a larger role in scrutinising the accountable officer. Since the petition was last considered, the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee was established. It also took evidence from the SPSO in February this year. Its role is to review and develop a framework for Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body supported bodies, and it is expected to sit until 30 September this year.

Do colleagues have any comments?

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. As I always say for the benefit of those who are joining us online to hear about a petition that is being considered for the first time, before a petition is considered by the committee, we take advice on it from the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research body, and we ask the Scottish Government for a general initial view on the petition. We do those things because, historically, they were the first recommendations of the committee and waiting for that information simply added delay into the process. We therefore get it in advance.

The next petition is PE2127, on the development of a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. This is the first example of a poacher turned gamekeeper in the public petitions process, because the petition has been lodged by John Robert Erskine, who was previously the committee’s media adviser and joins us in the public gallery.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands that aims to address digital infrastructure gaps, improve mobile internet coverage, establish public-private partnerships and support economic growth, education and healthcare.

The SPICe briefing highlights Ofcom’s “Connected Nations Scotland Report”, which was published in 2024. The report found that, as of July 2024, 62 per cent of residential properties in Scotland had access to full-fibre networks—an increase of 9 percentage points from September 2023. However, the briefing notes that, although 89 per cent of Midlothian and Glasgow city residences have full-fibre connection, only 14 per cent of residences in Orkney and 11 per cent of residences in Shetland do.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights Scotland’s digital strategy, which aims to ensure

“that no one is left behind in the digital world and that geography should not be a barrier to getting online.”

It highlights that the national strategy for economic transformation 10-year plan includes a

“commitment to provide an efficient and resilient digital infrastructure in Scotland.”

The submission states:

“over 19,000 premises now have access to faster broadband connections thanks to the R100 North contract”.

The Scottish Government has also worked with Building Digital UK on project gigabit to prepare a regional procurement exercise that will cover more than 13,500 eligible premises in Orkney and Shetland.

However, the petitioner believes that the Scottish Government’s actions

“fall short of addressing the fundamental issues of digital exclusion, inequality, and slow delivery in rural Scotland.”

In his written submission, Mr Erskine highlights that Scotland has

“the highest rate of 4G ‘not spots’ in the UK”

and the

“lowest rural residential superfast broadband coverage in the UK.”

There are one or two of those 4G not-spots in my constituency on the south side of Glasgow, which everybody imagines must be incredibly well connected, but such areas exist. The petitioner states that connectivity issues are felt “more acutely” in communities in the Highlands and Islands and that

“that’s why this petition is asking for the Scottish Government to provide a dedicated, new digital connectivity strategy for the region.”

Our colleague Rhoda Grant MSP, who had hoped to join us this morning but is unable to do so, has provided a written submission outlining her support for the petition. Her written submission stresses the importance of digital connectivity and highlights the

“increasing reliance on online services to deliver basic facilities.”

Her submission states that good connectivity is, inevitably, “inherently linked” to attracting workers and families to the Highlands and Islands in a digital age.

Do members have any comments or suggestions about what we might do?

We will keep the petition open on that basis.

PE2128, on increasing funding for post-mastectomy, or delayed, breast reconstructions and ensuring that waiting time information is accurate, has been lodged by Christy Esslemont. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to reduce waiting times for post-mastectomy, or delayed, breast reconstructions in Scotland and to assess whether the communications section of its waiting times guidance is being followed by health boards.

As the SPICe briefing explains, breast reconstruction can take place at the same time as a mastectomy, which is known as immediate breast reconstruction, or it can take place at a later point, which is known as delayed breast reconstruction. In July 2024, £30 million of targeted additional funding was allocated by the Scottish Government to health boards to address long waits across a range of treatment areas. Some health boards received funding specifically to address backlogs of mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction surgery, but delayed reconstruction surgery was not included in the funding allocation. Indeed, I have recollections of such issues being raised in the chamber.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is currently working with health boards on developing a plan for patients waiting for delayed reconstructive surgery. However, the SPICe briefing states that waiting times for breast reconstruction surgery have not been routinely reported since 2020. In October 2024, the First Minister stated that the Scottish Government was currently

“exploring issues on the quality of”

existing

“data”

so that it can

“determine what information can be published.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; c 20.]

The Scottish Government’s written submission explains that there are two types of breast reconstruction—implant based and free flap—and that although implant-based reconstruction is generally a short procedure, the free-flap procedure involves complex surgery requiring highly specialised plastic surgery services and can take many hours to complete. Indeed, in some cases, up to four theatre sessions can be required. The procedure also requires skilled aftercare and intensive monitoring.

The submission states that, because of a growing volume of cancer and clinically urgent cases, efforts have been concentrated on treating patients with trauma or after cancers. The Scottish Government also states that it intends to allocate funding from the 2025-26 budget—that is, the budget that we are currently considering—to delayed reconstructive breast surgery.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That brings us to the last of the new petitions. PE2132 was lodged by the Inverness Courier and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to publish a clear timeline for the dualling of the A96 between Inverness and Nairn and the construction of a bypass for Nairn, by Easter 2025. I presume that the Inverness Courier is known to Mr Ewing, given his earlier intervention.

As the background to the petition reminds us, the Scottish Government committed in 2011 to dualling the full length of the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen by 2030. At that time, the expectation was that work to dual the A96 would follow the completion of the dualling of the A9, which, as the committee knows all too well from our inquiry, has not progressed as originally timetabled—to put it mildly.

In 2018, a public inquiry was held to consider objections to specific proposals in the draft orders for the section of the road between Inverness and Nairn. The outcome of the public inquiry was that Scottish ministers agreed that the orders could be made subject to amendment. The road orders and compulsory purchase order were subsequently made on 22 February 2024, signalling the completion of the statutory process for dualling the A96 between Inverness and Nairn.

In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland referred to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport’s statement in November 2024, in which she confirmed that the Government’s favoured position is to fully dual the A96, and it stated that the dualling process from Inverness to Nairn, including the Nairn bypass, is under way. Transport Scotland’s response also states:

“work is also underway to determine the most suitable procurement option”—

heavens—

“for delivering the A96 Inverness to Nairn including Nairn bypass dualling scheme ... It is expected that the work ... will take a further 12 months”

and will be closely aligned

“with the Mutual Investment Model ... assessment work being undertaken on the A9 Dualling”.

Transport Scotland is appearing to suggest that is only after the procurement option is identified that a timetable for progress can be set.

Well, well. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Do I need to even look up before I call Mr Ewing?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. You intervention was interesting. It might be a little unreasonable to expect the minister to have an immediate response to that. I do not know whether you want to respond, minister? If you want to give it some further thought, would it be helpful for us to make available the Official Report with Mr Ewing’s suggestion at the earliest opportunity?

I suppose that leads to Under One Roof’s view that the Government should seek the views of housing professionals, owners and other organisations on what options might exist for reducing the barriers for owners to replace property factors. Have you given consideration to amplifying, perhaps, the options that others, such as Mr Fergus Ewing, might have for what could be done? Arguably, the number of factors that have been dismissed will be suppressed if people are deterred by the process from bringing forward an action to try to deter the property factor in the first place. Those barriers might limit that number.