Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next continued petition, PE1931, from Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 November 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Openreach. After the meeting, we received a written submission from the petitioner highlighting his on-going frustration that people with speeds of below 5Mbps are not being prioritised and expressing that he feels like people are being digitally excluded. I am sure that colleagues will have had letters from constituents on those issues.

The Scottish Government’s response informs us that about 52,000 properties remain eligible for the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme and, as at December 2023, 3,639 connections had been delivered through the use of those vouchers. Since then, around 460 vouchers have been issued, with approximately 100 further vouchers requested.

Openreach has stated that it routinely reviews the sequencing of its build programme to identify additional build that can be brought in. That is linked to the delivery of connections to an additional 8,653 properties through contractual overspill.

That is what we have been told. It remains a live issue. I do not know whether colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might respond in that light.

We thank Jordan Anderson for the petition. I would very much urge that the issues raised within it be pursued through the Scottish Youth Parliament. Of course, the Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body would consider requests actively made through that body.

PE2041, which was lodged by John Ronald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage local authorities to exempt staff working at community healthcare facilities who do not have access to free on-site staff parking from on-street parking charges, to allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without it costing them thousands of pounds per year.

We previously considered the petition on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to write to the health secretary, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Royal College of Nursing, the trade unions Unison and Unite the union, and the Allied Health Professions Federation.

Responses in support of the petition’s ask have been received from the Royal College of Nursing, Unite and the Allied Health Professions Federation. Although being mindful of the need for sustainable travel, the RCN highlighted that parking arrangements

“form part of working conditions for RCN members and impact recruitment and retention rates.”

In its response, the Allied Health Professions Federation noted that, if allied health professionals

“are required to pay for parking, they would effectively be penalised for accessing their workplace.”

The then Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care’s response notes the expectation that all NHS boards in Scotland should have a policy in place that enables staff to be reimbursed for valid expenses, including car parking charges, but the response is clear that such policies should not be extended to

“cover staff who drive to their work and park their car all day at their base of work”.

We have also received a response from the petitioner, who remains concerned that community health staff who use their own cars for work are being discriminated against.

Do members have any comments or suggestions? There is a route for the reimbursement of such charges when community care workers are out in the community and have to use off-street parking, but it is clear that a different view is taken to permanent daily parking at a fixed place of work. Are there any suggestions for actions?

I am content to do that. Are we all content?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Kerr. The issues that are raised in the petition are of considerable interest to colleagues on the committee, and there are a number of things that we might now reasonably consider doing to take it forward. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions?

I thank Mr Stewart and Mr Kerr. Again, I note the presence of the Bundy family. I hope that they will be content that we will progress those issues. The evidence session, together with the further written evidence that we will seek, will give us an opportunity to pursue the issues that are raised in the petition.

We will keep the petition open. We thank Mr Muir for raising the issue with us. We will write to the Scottish Government and see what response we get in the first instance.

That bring us to the end of our public session. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 30 October. We will move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5. I again thank Marie McNair for joining us as a substitute for David Torrance this morning.

Thank you for that unsurprisingly compelling advocacy in support of the aims of the petition. I am old enough to remember the era before multiplex cinemas when the ABC cinema—the Regal—in Sauchiehall Street was a regular place to go. I can recall Charlton Heston going there for the premiere of “Earthquake”, with surround sound, when we were shaken in our seats during the earthquake. It seems that the cinema survived that, but is not surviving the calumnies that have been visited on it by Glasgow City Council’s planning process.

The argument that you make is an interesting one. Most of us are aware of buildings that are being lost without necessarily having fully understood what processes have led to their demolition. Sometimes that will, of course, have been completely necessary and unavoidable, but there is sometimes a suggestion that there is a shiny new model that might better suit the owners and they are keen to pursue it. I am minded, in relation to Glasgow, of the Odeon cinema on Renfield Street, where the magnificent façade was preserved and has been incorporated into the much newer building structure that was allowed to be developed on what had been the site of the auditoria of that cinema complex. There are solutions that can be found if people want to find the imagination to take them forward.

I am quite interested in the petition, and I think that the public is generally interested in it. I do not know whether we have a room in Parliament big enough for all the people whom Mr Sweeney was suggesting, but I am minded to conduct an informed round-table discussion on what is happening with the process and whether legislation might not be more appropriately drafted to give a little bit of weight to the idea of conservation-accredited engineers having a say on this. I think that those arguments were quite interesting.

I wonder whether there is anything that we might do to inform that panel. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what we might do in the first instance?

I should have noted that we received a late submission, which colleagues will have seen, from our colleague Beatrice Wishart on the petition.

Mr Golden has suggested that we keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary. Are we content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2108, which was lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

The SPICe briefing explains that a short-term detention certificate authorises a patient’s detention in hospital for 28 days in order to determine what medical treatment the patient needs and to provide that treatment. The 2003 act specifies the criteria that an approved medical practitioner must confirm have been met in order for a detention certificate to be used, and the act requires that a mental health officer must give consent before it is used. If the patient has a named person, that person must also be consulted and have their views taken into account.

In England, the decision on whether to detain a patient is made by an approved mental health professional following an assessment by two doctors. When the Mental Health Act 1983 was being debated, it was stressed that the independence of the two doctors making medical recommendations was important in order to avoid collusion, influence or interference with clinical judgment.

In her response to the petition, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport outlined the use of short-term detention certificates and highlighted the right of appeal. The submission also highlights that reducing coercion is one of the priorities that emerged from the Scottish mental health law review.

The petitioner has shared his view that the certification process

“does not contain sufficient safeguards”

because the mental health officer who grants consent is not necessarily independent of the approved medical practitioner. His view is that the mental health law review was “not fit for purpose” and that, although the review stated that coercion should be reduced, it is not clear how that will be achieved. The petitioner would like

“supported decision making to be the norm rather than substituted decision making.”

These are important issues. I think that I recognise the name of Andrew Muir—he might have lodged petitions with the committee previously. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?