Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our first new petition is PE2126. I have advanced it in the list of new petitions that we will consider this morning because we hope that Paul Sweeney will join us to discuss another petition but he has not materialised yet.

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 boards in Scotland.

Members may recall that that ask formed part of a previous petition from Gemma Clark that the committee agreed to close on 23 November on the basis that the Scottish Government had committed to reviewing the law on abortion with the intention of publishing proposals for reform before the end of the current parliamentary session. Although the Government has committed to reviewing the law on abortion, the petitioner remains concerned that abortion services up to the existing legal limit of 24 weeks are not available across the country, with reports that only one doctor in Scotland is trained to provide surgical abortions, resulting in vulnerable individuals travelling to England to end their pregnancies.

We have been provided with a comprehensive briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre that details the prevalence, procedures and provision of later-stage abortions in Scotland, which means those that are carried out between 20 and 24 weeks’ gestation. It is clear that health boards have variable policies on interaction with the individuals concerned and what they will fund in relation to provision of the service in England and any other associated costs.

It is also noted that no Scottish health board offers what the Abortion Act 1967 defines as “ground C” or “ground D” abortion services up to the legal limit of 24 weeks.

The requirement to travel to England to access services can carry emotional, physical and financial implications for pregnant women and girls. Examples of those implications are provided in the joint submission that we have received from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Back Off Scotland, which is included in the papers for today’s meeting.

It is important that we draw a distinction between the ethical issues that some may wish to raise, the existing legal position, and the provision of services to support that position.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service’s submission also raises concerns about systemic abortion stigma in the NHS and an unwillingness on the part of the Scottish Government to consider commissioning services outwith the NHS to deliver surgical abortion services in Scotland.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government says that it is

“working urgently with NHS boards and other stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way of ensuring abortion services are available in Scotland, up to 24 weeks' gestation, for all patients who require them.”

The response refers to work by the NHS National Services Division to develop the optimal delivery proposal for later-stage abortion services. However, as no health board has volunteered to host the national service, a short-life working group was established to recommend the most attainable and sustainable way of delivering services in Scotland. The response goes on to state:

“The Scottish Government is committed to providing funding to any commission that wishes to train to provide later-stage abortion services within Scotland.”

As we all consider the implications of the petition, does anybody want to offer a comment or a suggestion for action?

I suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the submission from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Back Off Scotland and to seek clarification of the Scottish Government’s unwillingness to commission an organisation outwith the NHS to deliver a surgical abortion service in Scotland, particularly as no health board has volunteered to host such a service. It is important to understand the distinction for women between a surgical abortion service and having to go through a natural delivery, which some women will find very difficult in those circumstances.

Might we also ask what consideration the short-life working group has given to the suggestion that systemic abortion stigma within the NHS is a barrier to the provision of later-stage abortion services in Scotland, including any action to address the perceived stigma?

Are colleagues content for us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As a former resident of South Ayrshire, I can say that I am sure that my friends and neighbours were sufficiently erudite and compos mentis to absorb those additional two letters. That was my experience.

I wonder whether the minister has seen the evidence that we received from the witness panels. Notwithstanding the slight lack of enthusiasm that was expressed, we could also go back to the minister to highlight Ayrshire and Arran health board’s willingness to undertake a pilot, about which the minister was sympathetic. As well as writing to that health board, we could facilitate that discussion.

In light of other recommendations by colleagues, we will keep the petition open and will seek to advance the aims of that petition on the basis that we have just described. I thank Mr Kerr as I do Mr Bundy, who joined us in the public gallery.

We move to petition PE2078, which was lodged by Ryan McNaughton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a new body to be responsible for the inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers, or to encompass the clinical governance management of service companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care.

Members will recall that we heard that, although the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 covers independent ambulance services, Healthcare Improvement Scotland confirmed that regulation of those services had not yet commenced, which means that HIS is unable to undertake any regulatory activity in relation to them. The Scottish Government’s initial response to the petition stated that it would prioritise the commencement of HIS’s functions in relation to the regulation of independent ambulance service provision.

In his written submission to the committee, the cabinet secretary recognises that, although private ambulance services must comply with Health and Safety Executive responsibilities, the broader regulatory framework does not currently offer adequate assurance. The cabinet secretary states that officials are engaging with HIS on regulation of independent ambulances and that the next steps include stakeholder engagement and a public consultation, but he is unable to confirm a timeline for when provisions will be in place.

Do colleagues have any suggestions about how we might proceed?

To be clear, what will that do?

Am I correct to say that, in support of the Government’s view that separate legislation is not needed, the initiative is designed to illustrate how individuals would navigate the current process, which the Government believes ought to be satisfactory to meet the issue of dismissal?

Thank you very much, Mr MacGregor. I will bring in colleagues in a second but, unusually, I would like to take the initiative here. The Scottish Government’s response is a cop-out, and I think that it is a dangerous cop-out. I will spare Mr Torrance, but I did not realise that Mr Ewing and I grew up in a golden age of public availability of swimming. I can recall swimming pools in communities everywhere back in those days, as well as outdoor pools. It is a great shame to revisit some of the places that used to have outdoor pools to find that they are now car parks or something completely different.

Touching on Mr MacGregor’s point about learning how to swim at primary school, I particularly remember that quite a lot of my classmates were terrified, but they were learning to swim together at an age when they could overcome that fear and learn how to swim. If you do not do it then, the peer-group pressure that builds up on you as an older person having to admit that you cannot swim or trying to learn to swim at a much later date is probably an obstacle to a number of people seeking to learn how to swim.

We are an island nation. We are surrounded by water, and people should have the ability to swim for their own self-preservation and because it might be vital in the saving of somebody else’s life—simply not having a fear of the water might mean that they could be moved to assist.

I am interested to hear colleagues’ contributions, but I am minded to keep the petition open and, potentially, to convene a round table on the subject at hand, to include Scottish Swimming. It would be helpful to have such a meeting, and I would be grateful for some suggestions from Mr Bibby and Mr MacGregor of others that we might think to include.

It would also be useful to have some idea from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities of the pressures that councils feel are uniquely associated with swimming pools and the costs associated with that, because there will be a balance between long-established and newer facilities and those that are in schools.

We could give some additional thought to others that we might contact.

We can certainly do that. Scottish Swimming is underwriting the petition.

On a point that Mr Bibby made in his advice, the clerks inform me that, in its response to the petition, the Scottish Government told us that the Barnett consequentials were spent on a range of measures, including local government pay offers, additional costs relating to the resettlement of Ukrainians and additional capital funding for the national health service.

I gather that we are all content with those actions.

That brings us to PE2068, which was lodged by John Dare, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of public sector salaries of more than £100,000 per annum and to introduce an appropriate cap.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 20 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking a fuller response to the issues that are raised in the petition. The Government response reiterates that pay restraint for the highest paid, and targeted uplifts for the lowest paid, have been key principles of the Scottish Government’s approach to public sector pay for many years and states that many public sector staff earning more than £100,000 are highly qualified and experienced.

The Scottish Government’s review of the chief executive framework was published in October 2024 and states that the framework will be updated with the review’s recommendations. The review found that pay restraint for higher-paid employees has been achieved and recommends that restraint should continue on a looser basis. The Scottish Government is of the view that undertaking an independent review of all senior pay of more than £100,000 across the public sector would, it itself, come at a significant cost and therefore does not feel that conducting an independent review would be a good use of public money at this time.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In the light of that, are we content to close the petition?