Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mindful of the fact that time is against us, are we content to keep the petition open, to pursue those two lines of inquiry and to seek to make some further progress on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We received a late submission from McGill’s, but I imagine that it might be one of the parties to which Mr Harvie referred earlier—I say that just because he might have tried to catch my eye otherwise. Do any other colleagues want to comment?

Mr Harvie would never have guessed. We will quickly move on to welcoming the colleagues who have joined us to consider this petition: the aforementioned Patrick Harvie and Paul Sweeney. Good morning to you both.

We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the seven statutory regional transport partnerships, the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland, Bus Users Scotland, the traffic commissioner for Scotland, the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, Transport for Wales, UK ministers, the Law Society of Scotland and key bus operators in Scotland. I am sure that some of those suggestions were made to us at the time by Mr Sweeney, who was never short of a list of people who we might like to contact.

Many of the submissions that we received recognised the value of franchising, although several of them highlighted work to explore more appropriate avenues within the broader

“toolbox of options for improving bus provisions”

that was included in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. Some submissions suggested that no one model would fully satisfy local needs, and the view was expressed that bus franchising was less likely to be the most appropriate option for rural areas.

Views were mixed on the petition’s ask to remove the requirement for proposed franchising frameworks to be approved by a panel appointed by the traffic commissioner. SWestrans supported that, while Strathclyde Partnership for Transport recognised that the process is now enshrined in law and expressed some concern that any change might result in further significant delay and introduce more risks for any local transport authority that is considering a franchising framework. The Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland argued against a local transport authority approving its own proposal and suggested that more robust guidance regarding panel members would be a better solution.

Many welcomed the reintroduction of the bus infrastructure fund for 2025-26, although the Confederation of Passenger Transport Scotland argued that, with any financial support that is provided to Scotland’s local transport authorities, all options should be considered with a view to meeting local needs.

The Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee undertook extensive scrutiny of the issue of franchising, including in relation to the secondary legislation that the petition asks for, when the most recent regulations were introduced ahead of the summer recess.

In a response to the convener of the NZET Committee on 25 June 2025, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity explained that the draft statutory guidance was undergoing an internal review ahead of final engagement with stakeholders. The minister added that final timescales for publication

“will depend on the capacity of these stakeholders to consider and engage with the draft document.”

The minister also indicated that the Government has no plans to modify the franchising process, arguing that the current model

“provides for rigorous scrutiny of local transport authority franchising proposals to safeguard the protection of passengers and the wider bus network from potential damage of a poorly developed franchise.”?

Before I invite committee colleagues to consider how we might proceed in the light of all that I have said, I invite Patrick Harvie and Paul Sweeney to make some comments to the committee.

Colleagues will note that we have enjoyed the presence of the convener of said committee during our consideration of matters this morning.

Do colleagues have suggestions of how we might proceed in the light of the responses that we have received and the appeals that have been made to us?

This is quite an interesting petition, which is why it has attracted a considerable degree of interest and engagement. The Scottish Government has reiterated that it has no plans to modify the current franchising process, so there does not seem to be any movement from the Government at this point on that aspect of the petition.

I hear what colleagues have said. Is it our view that it is likely that we will be unable to take the petition forward but that another committee of the Parliament might be able to pick up on aspects of it in the lifetime of this parliamentary session? If so, as Mr Golden suggests, we would write to the convener of that committee while closing the petition and would potentially suggest to the petitioner that it might be useful to return to Parliament with such a petition in the next parliamentary session. We have only something like half a dozen further meetings of the committee, so we are quite constrained. Are we agreed on that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we are, although it is not entirely the outcome that our colleagues would have wished for. I am slightly reluctant about our conclusion.

Mr Harvie is keen to come back in.

Item 2 is a healthcare thematic evidence session. People are joining us for the meeting because, as we move towards the end of the parliamentary session and realise that time is running out, we are seeking to get some final evidence on a number of petitions from various senior ministers and their colleagues. There are 16 health petitions that are incorporated in the range of areas that we might end up discussing this morning.

I am delighted that, to discuss those issues, we are joined by Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, who says that this is his first gig in recent times with the petitions committee. From the Scottish Government, he is joined by Alan Morrison, who is the deputy director of health infrastructure and sustainability, and Douglas McLaren, who is the deputy chief operating officer for performance and delivery. We are also joined by three of our parliamentary colleagues: Clare Haughey, Jackie Baillie and Edward Mountain. Good morning to you all.

We will try to draw the various petitions into five thematic sections. I think that Edward Mountain’s particular interest might be in theme 1—I am saying that as I scrunch around for my notes when the most obvious answer is in front of me. Please feel free to catch my eye or the eye of the clerks. I am happy for any of my parliamentary colleagues to join in at any point this morning, simply because we have such a long series of sections. As we get towards the end of each thematic section, if there are questions that they would like to put in addition to those that the committee has put, I am happy to hear what they might be.

The five areas that we have brought things together under are patient experience; diagnostic and treatment pathways; capacity, skills and training; sustainability of funding and health service infrastructure; and post-Covid-19 impacts and response. One of my committee colleagues will act as a kind of chargé d’affaires for each of the sections as we proceed through them.

I will begin with questions on patient experience. A number of petitions demonstrate that there is a gap between policy, strategies and plans and how services are experienced. Do you accept that there is a gap? If so, why do you think that the gap exists, particularly at critical points of people’s lives, such as a mental health crisis, when vulnerable around the birth of a baby, or when feeling very unwell? Cabinet secretary, if you wish to bring in any of your colleagues at any point, that will be fine.

I apologise to the petitioner. Writing to the NZET Committee would have been our strong recommendation, but I feel that we are boxed in on this particular issue. There are one or two other petitions that are still open, which we can directly make progress on, and it would be at their expense if we were not now to come to some difficult decisions.

I thank everybody for their contributions on the petition, but that is the decision of the committee.

Petition PE2118, lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and to improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Government. The Government’s response confirms that its approach to flood risk management planning complies with the European Union floods directive and that its approach to river basin management planning complies with the EU water framework directive.

On our question regarding a single body being responsible for, and appointed to provide leadership on, river basin management, the Government reiterated that SEPA is responsible for the preparation of river basin management plans on behalf of Scottish ministers and that it is legally required to engage with stakeholders and consult with communities on flood risk management plans.

The response concludes that ministers are satisfied with the current strategic framework, and it highlights the publication of the Government’s flood resilience strategy last December.?The strategy will establish a flood advisory service that is designed to provide the framework and process for flood protection schemes, as well as support to communities.

On our question regarding membership of local advisory groups, SEPA showed that those include representatives from various disciplines and organisations but not engineers, economists or geomorphologists as stand-alone members. However, SEPA indicated various ways in which it collaborates with such technical experts throughout the flood risk management planning process.

In his latest submission, the petitioner suggests that SEPA’s flood maps are inaccurate and have no community input and that locally commissioned reports are ignored despite containing more flood scheme options. The petitioner highlights that SEPA consults with organisations that have no legal responsibilities for flooding but does not engage major landowners in the process.

It is always a pleasure to shine a light on the events of 1837.