Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the petitioner for raising the issues, and I hope that they can be pursued when Parliament reassembles.

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?

Fine. Maurice, please proceed.

Thank you. I think that Mr Golden raised the location of schools during questioning.

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.

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?

Item 4 is the consideration of new petitions.

Before I introduce the first of our new petitions, I begin, as I always do, by noting that the Scottish Government is invited to express a view on new petitions and that we ask the Scottish Parliament information centre—the Scottish Parliament’s independent research service—to bottom out issues that are raised in the petitions that are before us.

As I explained earlier in the meeting, the committee’s current focus is to identify issues that we feel that we can make significant progress on before the end of the parliamentary session. There are only six meetings of the committee left, and the agenda for most of them is already set.

It would be dangerous for us to broaden the scope of our inquiry at this stage, but we should very much focus on getting results from the issues that we have made progress on. Given that the review took place at the end of the year, there is still a chance for us to get further commitment before the Parliament dissolves. Are we content to proceed on that basis?

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.

It would be very helpful to have any further detail on that review, including the timescales that are envisaged for it.