Seòmar agus comataidhean

We continue this morning’s meeting by considering a number of petitions that raise concerns and call for action on healthcare matters. Colleagues will remember that, on 24 September, we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social on several themes. After the evidence session, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care followed up in writing to the committee on some outstanding issues.

This morning, we will consider the petitions that sit under the theme of capacity, skills and training. Then, we will consider a petition on the theme of post-Covid-19 impact and response. The committee has explored the specific issues that are raised in the petitions by seeking written evidence from stakeholders and ministers. The thematic issues were also explored in our recent oral evidence session with the cabinet secretary.

I will provide an overview of the evidence that we have received on each petition since it was last considered. We will then decide what action to take on those petitions.

PE2053, which was lodged by Peter Cawston on behalf of Scottish general practitioners at the deep end, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that the number and hours of current community link workers serving the poorest communities are not cut in the next financial year and to take binding steps to secure long-term funding for community link workers in GP practices across Scotland.

The petition was last considered in October 2024, ahead of the oral evidence session with the cabinet secretary. We wrote to the Scottish Government, and the response stated that the Scottish Government was exploring the potential to baseline the primary care improvement fund, via which most community link worker services are funded, starting from the 2026-27 financial year. The written response also confirmed that officials had begun a review of the CLW policy, overseen by the CLW advisory group, and that any changes arising from that two-year review would be introduced in a phased manner. In the evidence that he gave, the cabinet secretary confirmed that the review was still under way.

PE2078, which was lodged by Ryan McNaughton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a new body responsible for the inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers or to encompass the clinical governance management of private companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

We last considered the petition in February last year, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. In his response, the cabinet secretary stated that engagement with Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the scoping of relevant stakeholders began in 2024 but that it was paused and was due to resume in 2025. At the evidence session on the petition, he stated his understanding that the matter would go to public consultation in 2026, in the next parliamentary session.

PE2091, which was lodged by Kirsty Solman on behalf of Stand with Kyle Now, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to enable a child and adolescent mental health service support worker and a school nurse to be placed in our secondary schools. We considered the petition in April last year and agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response stated that, for the first time, the 18-week CAMHS standard had been met, with 90.6 per cent of children and young people starting treatment within 18 weeks of referral. The submission also highlighted the work that was under way that will create better cohesion between school nursing teams and associated services such as CAMHS.

PE2126, which was lodged by Gemma Clark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all NHS health boards in Scotland. We last considered the petition in February last year and wrote to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health.

The minister states that her expectation is for a service to be established within the national health service, but the Government is not unwilling to consider commissioning a non-NHS organisation to deliver it instead. The minister indicated that a number of private providers were contacted as part of the work of NHS National Services Scotland’s national services division, but they indicated that they would not be able to host the service.

We received a submission from Abortion Rights Scotland, which strongly believes that such a service should be provided within the NHS, by NHS staff.

The petitioner states that, despite the minister’s assurance, back in November 2025, that the Government was working with health boards to ensure that a service was to be implemented as swiftly as possible, no information about the recommended service model has been shared, and she remains concerned about a lack of transparency in the Government’s approach to the matter.

PE2128, which was lodged by Christy Esslemont, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to reduce waiting times for post-mastectomy delayed breast reconstructions, to ensure that waiting time information is accurate and to assess whether the communications section of the waiting times guidance is being followed by health boards.

We last considered the petition on 19 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. During the evidence session that we held with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, he recognised the issue that had been raised by the petitioner and highlighted the demand for cancer treatment services. The cabinet secretary stated that the Scottish Government was working with relevant health boards to ensure the recruitment of specialist surgeons.

In respect of the petitions that I have just identified—PE2053, PE2078, PE2091, PE2126 and PE2128—do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we are now able to do?

We thank all the petitioners for raising their issues with us. We have made greater progress on some than on others, but the time that is left to us in this session does not allow us to do more.

We thank the petitioner for submitting the petition.

If I may return briefly to PE1989, for the avoidance of doubt, I assumed that, when Mr Golden said that his view on the petition was similar to Mr Torrance’s, he meant that he was in favour of closing the petition. Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, we thank Sharon Duncan and the rest of David Hill’s family, including his father Rodger, and indeed all those who have so assiduously pursued the aims of the petition over the course of the parliamentary session.

A lot of schools are being built in out-of-town locations, so defibrillators would not necessarily be accessible to the local community in those circumstances. Therefore, they might not be the most appropriate place for a defibrillator to be sited.

Are colleagues content to agree with Mr Russell’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

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?

On this occasion, action that was supposed to be taking place is still yet to happen.

PE2075, which was lodged by Stewart Noble on behalf of Helensburgh community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise local participation in planning decisions that affect their area by providing a clear and unambiguous definition of the word “local” in so far as it applies to planning legislation; giving decision-making powers to community councils for planning applications in their local areas; and ensuring that the way that decisions and planning applications are taken is compatible with the provisions and ethos of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

We last considered the petition on 19 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Government’s response highlights the statutory position of community councils as it is set out in the 2015 act, which is that they are consultees on matters that affect the area of representation, rather than statutory decision takers. The Scottish Government argues that extending the definition of “planning authority” to include community councils for certain applications would fundamentally change the role of those councils and their relationship with the communities that they represent. In the Government’s view, that could potentially reduce opportunity for community participation in the planning system, contrary to the spirit, aims and intentions of the 2015 act.

The Government adds that its democracy matters process, which involves designing more empowered community decision-making processes, will move to the implementation phase early in the next parliamentary session.

Regarding the committee’s request for the Scottish Government’s view on devolving planning application decisions to the relevant local area committee, the response highlights the fact that existing planning legislation does not prevent a planning authority from adopting such an approach for most applications; it would therefore be an operational matter for the relevant planning authorities to consider.

The petitioner’s additional submission highlights a less than satisfactory experience in his local area, although I note that the committee’s focus when discussing petitions must be on national policy issues.

Do members have any suggestions or comments on how we might proceed?

Fine. Maurice, please proceed.

You referred to the consultation about whether or not the threshold should rise above the 50MW level. The consultation does not give an indication of where the Government thinks it might usefully end up. We know that, in England it is at 100MW for wind and solar, and there are views about whether it might be variable across different energy disciplines. Why was the Government shy about indicating what its thinking is on what the threshold might be?