Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

David Torrance will come back in on the point about hydrogen. However, Mr Mundell, do you want first to come in on the areas that we are currently discussing?

Do you think that it might be published before the autumn of 2027?

I believe that the petitioner is with us in the public gallery today. The issues continue to be important, but, given the cabinet secretary’s response, I suspect that we can do nothing further in the time that is available to us. Do colleagues agree with the suggestion that the petition be resubmitted in the new parliamentary session but that we reluctantly close it at this point?

Members indicated agreement.

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 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.

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