Seòmar agus comataidhean

I detect that the Government is perhaps sympathetic to the idea that the current level is, as you put it, out of date and has perhaps been overtaken by events.

I will return to you, Mr Ewing, but I know that Davy Russell is keen to come in. David Torrance is going to cover another area, and I also want to bring in our guest member—I have always encouraged our colleagues across the Parliament to join us to discuss petitions in which they are interested, and Oliver Mundell is with us today.

I will bring in Davy Russell first.

We discussed the evidence after the previous meeting, and we identified a number of areas of concern. I think that it is fair to the minister to say that she engaged directly with us on the issue, and she and some of the clinicians made a powerful case in some respects. However, areas of concern still remain for the committee. I think that those need and deserve to be pursued, so I am minded that the petition requires to stay open at present.

We have a little time in hand, and I see that Meghan Gallacher is with us this morning. Even though I have said that it might be less likely that other members are going to be called, is there anything that you would like to say, Meghan?

Our next petition is PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

We last considered the petition on 18 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport. In her response, the minister indicates that the Government intends to commission another survey, similar to the rapid review that was conducted previously. That was scheduled to commence in late 2025. The minister added that NHS Grampian had confirmed that opioid replacement therapy was available at the Kittybrewster custody suite, with some logistical challenges being addressed to extend the service to the two remaining custody suites.

In his most recent submission, the petitioner, too, refers to logistical challenges, informing us that NHS Grampian is still not providing methadone to detainees who are in custody at Elgin and Fraserburgh. He also suggests that, at Kittybrewster, detainees do not receive methadone for the first 48 hours so those with a methadone prescription are instead given dihydrocodeine in the first 48 hours.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? There might still be time to do a little bit more with this petition. I suggest that we write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport to highlight the petitioner’s on-going concerns about the issues in NHS Grampian and to request an update before the end of this parliamentary session on the findings of the most recent review, which was to be conducted towards the end of 2025. It seems that people are still having to wait for access to their prescribed medication. That is not what we understand is supposed to be happening, so we could challenge the Government on that in the time that is available to us.

Are our colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

I will draw that conversation to a conclusion.

I am not sure whether we touched on this earlier, but is there a date by which you anticipate the new energy strategy being published?

One issue that we discussed at the meeting that I referred to earlier sits rather apart, so I will discuss it separately. PE2071, which was lodged by Sally Witcher, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to protect people from airborne infections in health and social care settings—specifically, to improve air quality in health and social care settings through addressing ventilation, air filtration and sterilisation; to reintroduce routine mask wearing in those settings, particularly using respiratory masks; to reintroduce routine Covid testing; to ensure that staff manuals fully cover the prevention of airborne infection; to support ill staff to stay at home; and to provide public health information on the use of respiratory masks and high-efficiency particulate air—HEPA—filtration against airborne infections.

We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In a response issued by the chief nursing officer directorate, the Scottish Government reiterated that it has no role in the development of the “National Infection Prevention and Control Manual”, or NIPCM, or the “Care Home Infection and Control Manual”, the CH NIPCM.

The petition notes that antimicrobial resistance and healthcare associated infection Scotland are the national clinical infection prevention and control experts, and it highlights the ARHAI’s response.

During the evidence session in September 2025, the cabinet secretary said that he would write to the committee with a timescale for publication of the infection prevention and control strategy. In his letter of 30 October, the cabinet secretary stated that a 10-year IPC strategic vision and priorities statement was being developed collaboratively by the Scottish Government’s IPC strategic development and oversight group by spring 2026.

In her most recent submission, the petitioner considers that the pandemic and its cumulative health impacts remain on-going and that that is being ignored by the Government. She notes that, this winter, the NHS has again been overwhelmed by airborne infection, and she argues that much of that could have been avoided had the actions and measures suggested in the petition been put in place. She adds that she can still find no evidence of expert input and quality assurance on infection prevention and control, and she questions the accuracy and completeness of ARHAI’s advice.

We have the petitioner’s further submission and the follow-up from the cabinet secretary, which confirms that the infection control strategy will be published by spring this year. Do colleagues have any views on what more we are able to do at this stage, given that the cabinet secretary’s letter says that a document will be published in spring 2026, which will be after the Parliament has dissolved?

We will move on to consider a number of petitions that raise concerns and call for action on issues that are related to emergency cardiac and stroke care. Since the last formal consideration of each of the petitions, the committee has taken oral evidence from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health on the themes that were raised across them. That session took place on 12 November 2025.

PE1989, which was lodged by Mary Montague, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces. We last considered the petition on 7 May 2025, which was ahead of the evidence session. During oral evidence, the minister highlighted the importance of optimal defibrillator placement and pointed to the new PADmap tool, which shows the location of public access defibrillators and identifies the areas where defibrillators are most needed. The evidence session highlighted that the location, ease of access and continued upkeep of defibrillators are all important considerations, and the committee noted that there is a reliance on community fundraising and external sponsorship to provide and maintain public defibrillators. The issue of bystander confidence was raised during the evidence session with the minister, which highlighted the importance of engagement work with stakeholders through Save a life for Scotland.

The minister gave some interesting evidence about how deficiencies in the PADmap tool can be addressed, but she also gave some fairly structured arguments about why taking the blanket approach that defibrillators should be located in any one particular place might not prove to be appropriate. Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed in the light of the evidence that we heard?

We understand the issues that underpinned the submission of the petition in the first place—they are known to us in Parliament. Do members agree to proceed on the basis that has been outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

We could seek to achieve that in the time that remains to us. Depending on the outcome, we might feel that the petition requires a lot of work ahead, so it could be part of the legacy document that we leave to the next committee.

Do colleagues agree to keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting in 2026 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have just six meetings left after this one to deal with what is still a very considerable number of petitions, and it will be a difficult task, given the importance underlying many of them. Therefore, a lot of what we will be trying to do is to identify what we can still hope to achieve in the balance of time left to us.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are members content to take in private item 5, to consider changes to the determination on the proper form of petitions, and item 6, to consider the evidence that we hear today?

Members indicated agreement.