Seòmar agus comataidhean

Once again, I thank Mr Choudhury for joining us this morning.

PE1912, on funding for council venues, has been lodged by Wendy Dunsmore. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide councils with the necessary additional revenue to run essential services and venues.

It is worth noting that the SPICe briefing on the petition, the Scottish Government’s submission and the petitioner’s submission were all written before the Scottish Government budget 2022-23 was published, which happened on 9 December 2021. Key points from a separate SPICe briefing on local government finance that was produced following the budget’s publication include the facts that, once additional revenue and capital grants are factored in, the total local government settlement increased by £603 million, or 5.1 per cent, between 2021-22 and 2022-23; and that there will be a real-terms increase in provisional revenue allocations for all local authorities, except Western Isles Council, Shetland Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council, which all experience small real-terms reductions.

In his submission, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth highlights the 2021-22 settlement of £11.7 billion, stating that it provided “a cash increase” in local government spending. The petitioner’s submission is a collective response to the minister from Unite, Unison and the GMB. Although they recognise that local authorities make decisions about service provision and delivery, they note that those decisions are not without

“unfair challenges caused by a real terms reduction of funding”.

The petitioner’s submission also points out that, as much of the £11.7 billion settlement figure is ring fenced for Scottish Government commitments, it is therefore “not technically available” for local authority spending decisions.

I invite comments from colleagues.

Our last new petition is PE1916, which requests a public inquiry into the management of the Rest and Be Thankful project and was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly.

As promised, I am delighted to welcome back Rhoda Grant for the final petition this morning. I will come to her shortly.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which is to provide a permanent solution for the route.

Transport Scotland explains in its submission that, following a number of landslides across Scotland in 2004, a nationwide Scottish road network landslides study was carried out. The study concluded that the A83 Ardgartan to Rest and Be Thankful is one of the most highly ranked debris flow hazard sites in Scotland.

In 2012, Transport Scotland commissioned a study to identify and appraise potential options to minimise the effects of road closures. The final A83 route study, which was published in February 2013, explains that the decision was made to progress with the red option, as it was considered at that time to offer the best performance and the most cost-effective way of meeting the study’s objectives. Those objectives included maintaining the existing alignment of the A83 with a range of landslide mitigation measures such as additional debris flow barriers at locations where the landslide hazard was considered highest; the improvement of hillside drainage adjacent to and under the road; and the introduction of vegetation and planting on the slope.

In its submission, Transport Scotland provided a range of data that shows the number of days on which the various stretches of road in and around the A83 were closed due to landslides. The data shows that the events that occurred in 2020 and 2021 were significantly larger in scale than any of the previous events.

Following that, several new measures were introduced to make it quicker, easier and safer to open the road should it be closed by a landslide. In 2020, a consultation exercise was carried out to consider 11 route corridor options to address issues at the Rest and Be Thankful route. More than 650 people provided feedback, and the Glen Croe corridor was chosen as the preferred route.

The Transport Scotland submission advises that

“timescales for completion of a long term solution to the issues at the Rest and Be Thankful range from 7–10 years”.

In the interim, Transport Scotland advises that work is progressing

“to look at a medium term resilient route through Glen Croe”

and that

“that work will seek to develop a finalised proposal by Autumn”

this year. The submission states:

“Since the A83 Taskforce was set up in 2012, meetings have been held every 6 months”

and that “a substantial project update” is due

“at the next Taskforce meeting in early 2022”.

A project-specific web page has also been launched on the Transport Scotland website.

Against that background, I am happy to invite comments from Rhoda Grant.

I remember standing there on a site investigation with the previous committee. You are absolutely right that the military road sits in the shadow of the principal route. It is hardly a wonderful alternative, but at least it was an alternative, although not when there was a significant landslide. The route in the valley opposite was regarded as being far too steep to be developed for heavy goods vehicles or other larger vehicles. It has been a significant on-going problem.

Our second agenda item is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1723, on essential tremor treatment, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

I am delighted to welcome Rhoda Grant MSP back to the committee to speak to the petition. Before I come to Rhoda, I will provide a little more background. When it last considered the petition in September of last year, the committee agreed to write to the University of Dundee to seek an update on the magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound—MRgFUS—scanner system.

A response from the University of Dundee has now been received, which confirms that its focused ultrasound system has been used to treat five patients with essential tremor. Funding approval has been obtained from individual national health service boards for patients to be treated in Dundee over the coming months.

The committee also wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport requesting an update on plans to submit a proposal to the national specialist services committee to allow the treatment to become a standard form of care. Applications to the committee have now been halted due to the pandemic. At present, the majority of those wishing to access the treatment are forced to travel long distances to access care in England.

Although I sometimes tease that she is with us more than some of our committee members, it is a pleasure to have Rhoda with us again this morning. Would you like to update the committee on anything in relation to the petition?

No other members of the committee have indicated that they wish to comment.

To summarise, we are keeping the petition open. It looks as though Natalie Don will propose a member’s bill. We might require some clarification on our ability to progress the petition if a bill is introduced and proceeds but, in any event, it looks as though the scope of such a bill will not comprehensively cover the scope of the petition. Therefore, we will keep in mind members’ desire to hear evidence from the petitioner at a future meeting, clarify with Ms Don when she might be likely to lodge the proposal for the members’ bill and invite her to participate in our consideration of the petition on that date.

Does that course of action meet with the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1877 was lodged by Alex Wallace. We considered the petition in September of last year. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland. Members should note that the Public Petitions Committee considered a similar petition from the same petitioner in session 5.

The committee wrote to stakeholders to seek their views. In its submission, the British Medical Association raised concerns about how the use of body cameras might affect confidentiality and patient trust and suggested that, if a patient thought that their remarks were being filmed, that could prevent them from seeking help or being honest about their situation.

The clerk’s note that accompanies the petition sets out data that the Scottish Ambulance Service has provided on reports of physical or verbal abuse against its staff. In its submission, the service notes that it has recently considered and approved a limited trial of the use of body cameras and sets out a number of perceived benefits, including a potential reduction in staff absence due to assault, the provision of better quality footage that would support prosecutions and wider improvements to staff wellbeing.

I invite comments, starting with Paul Sweeney.

Before I close the meeting, I will come back to Mr Sweeney on an issue relating to PE1912, on funding for council venues. When you said that you wanted one of the stakeholders to be contacted on the points that you made, the clerks were not entirely clear which stakeholder you meant. Can you confirm who you want us to contact with the concerns that you highlighted?

PE1894, which was lodged by Kenneth Robertson, is on permitting a medical certificate of cause of death—or MCCD—to be independently reviewed. The petition was last considered in November 2021, when we agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Healthcare Improvement Scotland for their views.

The petition calls on the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death (Scotland) Act 2011 to permit an MCCD to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service, where the case has already been reviewed by the procurator fiscal but not by a medical professional expert. The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that

“DCRS ... checks the accuracy of approximately 12% of all Medical Certificates of Cause of Death in Scotland”

and also

“carries out Interested Person Reviews in cases where questions or concerns about”

certificates

“remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor”.

The Government suggests:

“Given that COPFS is independent and has the responsibility to investigate these cases, it would not be appropriate for”

the death certification review service

“to review”

medical certificates of cause of death

“in cases already investigated by COPFS.”

In its submission to the committee, Healthcare Improvement Scotland provides further information about the work of the review service, including as part of that its inquiries service to support certifying doctors. It also notes:

“Since the service was established in 2015, the monthly median percentage of cases ... where the certifying doctor has made a clinical or administrative error ... has reduced from 44% to 24.4%.”

The submission also sets out the circumstances in which a referral might be made to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The Lord Advocate states in her submission that, in establishing what should be stated on a medical certificate of cause of death,

“the Procurator Fiscal may seek an independent medical opinion, for example from a pathologist for their view on the appropriate MCCD or whether anything would be gained from conducting a post mortem examination.”

She also suggests that

“it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCS in cases already investigated by Procurators Fiscal.”

In light of the submissions that we have received, I would welcome comments from colleagues.

No other member has indicated that they wish to come in. I thank Mr Robertson for lodging the petition, which raises an important matter. However, given the responses that we have received from the Scottish Government and the various legal bodies, I seek committee members’ support for Mr Stewart’s recommendation that we close the petition. Do members agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.