Seòmar agus comataidhean

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from all those that I have just listed, which are detailed in our meeting papers, to which I turn.

The minister tells us that work is on-going to establish existing levels of awareness of stroke symptoms and FAST, with consideration also being given to how awareness of less common symptoms can be increased. The minister also indicated that there are no plans to deviate from supporting the use of the FAST approach, though this position will be regularly reviewed based on the best available evidence.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner expressing disappointment that the Scottish Government has no plans to deviate from the FAST approach. The petitioner has also highlighted that, where clinicians are reliant on the FAST test, that can have devastating effects for patients presenting with less common symptoms, as was the case for his father.

Responses from the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland highlight the need for further research before committing to the use of the BE FAST—balance, eyes, face, arms, speech, time—approach in a new nationwide campaign.

Before I ask the committee to comment, would Mr Kerr and Mr Stewart like to address us?

Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. Mr Kerr, do you have anything that you wish to add?

I do not know whether colleagues are so minded, but this might be a petition on which we are prepared to take further oral evidence. I wonder whether we might consider convening a round-table discussion of relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues with the committee. That might include the Stroke Association and Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland. The clerks and I could agree which organisations to invite, if the committee is content to leave that task to us. We might then be able to have a more detailed discussion to tease out the issues, all of which might then put us in a stronger position as a committee to address them directly with the minister.

Are colleagues content that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are we content on that basis to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of a number of new petitions. As I always do before we begin consideration of new petitions, I point out to those who might be watching or following the proceedings, or to any petitioner who may have tuned in to see us discuss their petition, that, in advance of this consideration, we invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to provide us with a briefing on the issues that have been raised in it. We also ask the Scottish Government for its preliminary view. We do that simply because, historically, the committee, on our first consideration of a petition, would instruct those bodies to respond. Our current approach allows us to shortcut that and get to a meaningful discussion.

The first new petition, PE2103, from Dr Julie Badcock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to standardise the prescribed learning hours for primary and secondary establishments across all local authorities in Scotland.

The SPICe briefing explains that the length of the day and the number of learning hours is a matter for each local authority. It also explains that ministers have the power to make regulations that would set the minimum number of learning hours that each pupil should receive.

In 2023, the Scottish Government consulted on using those powers to prescribe the minimum annual number of learning hours. The consultation closed in June 2023 and the Scottish Government is yet to set out what its next steps will be. The Government’s submission states that it is carefully considering the very large number of responses and that it intends to publish its analysis of the responses in due course.

Its submission also states that Government does not support any reduction of learning hours in any local authority. That view was expressed in a letter to all local authorities last year. Ministers are working to reach an agreement with local government on the issue. The submission states:

“If no agreement is reached, Ministers remain open to taking steps towards utilising”

its powers to regulate the number of learning hours.

The issues in the petition are live, presently. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions??

We might specifically ask whether that would include the use of a registered conservation-accredited engineer. I think that would be useful.

Are members content that we should write to the Scottish Government in the first instance?

Members indicated agreement.

It would then be useful to have a round-table discussion on the issue. The clerks have noted the various recommendations. In this instance, I will invite the clerks to liaise with the committee and with Mr Sweeney, to see whether we can identify the key individuals who might be able to participate. I think that if we had all the people that he suggested, they would get a minute each and we would still not have enough time.

We will keep the petition open—it is one of enormous public interest—and we will pursue the recommendations that the committee has made and that we have heard from Paul Sweeney and Carol Mochan, whom I thank very much for joining us this morning.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. We have eight such petitions to consider.

The first, PE1862, from Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner, on behalf of Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities.

This is a long-standing petition, which we last considered at our meeting on 24 January 2024, when we agreed to write to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, the then Minister for Transport and local authorities and community councils representing island communities.

The commissioner, although not responsible for defining what attributes might be required for those undertaking a board position, tells us that there is nothing in the “Code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies in Scotland” or accompanying guidance that would preclude ministers from including “island knowledge” as a requirement for board membership.

We have also received responses from the Shetland Islands Council, the Western Isles Council and Orkney Islands Council, which support the principle of adding “island knowledge” or “lived island experience” as essential criteria to the skills matrix for boards that are delivering lifeline services to island communities.

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport tells us that, although the skills matrix will vary depending on the skills of the current board membership and the specific board vacancy, on every occasion, applicants are asked

“to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of how lifeline services affect our island communities.”

We have also heard from the cabinet secretary and her officials that more needs to be done to attract and appoint island residents to boards, with an emphasis on advertising vacancies as widely as possible.

We have pursued the aims of the petition quite well. That is the position, and there is nothing precluding those aims. The Government agrees that it still needs to try to achieve more. Do we have any recommendations for action?

Petition, PE1934, from Craig Scoular, on behalf of Greenfaulds high school rights and equalities committee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. The resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help them to create a safer society for women.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 8 November 2023, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the University of Glasgow. At that time, the cabinet secretary indicated that the gender-based violence in schools working group was expected to publish its national framework to help schools to tackle sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

The framework has been published, and the cabinet secretary has stated that the Scottish Government has committed to commissioning an independent review to establish positive practice and further areas for improvement during this parliamentary session. The submission also highlights the revised statutory teaching guidance, which includes a section to support learning and teaching on consent and healthy relationships. The Scottish Government consulted on the guidance last year and is analysing the responses.

Meanwhile, the University of Glasgow’s written submission provides details of its evaluation of the equally safe at school intervention. The aim of the evaluation is to determine whether the intervention is effective, including cost effective. Its work will take place with six schools over two years, with the full results expected in December 2026.

Colleagues, do you have any suggestions?

We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition to us. It has been an interesting topic, and we have clarified issues to some extent. We will now see what difference it has made. If, in the next session of Parliament, it still seems that the issues are as they were, without improvement, we would very much welcome the petitioner considering whether it would be worth while lodging a fresh petition at that time.