Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2199, which was lodged by Timothy Bowles, urges the Scottish Government to provide robust back-up or alternative means to ensure that remote communities are able to contact emergency services in the event of complete power failure.

The traditional landline telephone network—the public switched telephone network, or PSTN—is being replaced by voice over internet protocol technology across the United Kingdom. VoIP uses a broadband internet connection to make phone calls. That leaves users more vulnerable in a power cut because, as the SPICe briefing shows, the digital system works in a power cut only if battery back-up is available.

Because telecommunications are a reserved power under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Government states that it is unable to intervene directly to provide back-up along the lines requested by the petition, or indeed to instruct providers to do so. However, it points to Ofcom guidance that advises providers to have at least one solution available to consumers to access emergency services for a minimum of one hour in the event of a power outage.

The Scottish Government also mentions that its new national islands plan acknowledges that more can be done to strengthen resilience across Scotland. It adds that the plan includes a commitment to work with local authorities and other key stakeholders to capture and apply learning from disruption affecting island communities, in order to strengthen its preparedness and response planning, including in relation to digital infrastructure.

Finally, the committee received a submission from Consumer Scotland, which highlights the extensive work that it has been doing in this area. It states that it continues to engage with the Scottish Government and local stakeholders to improve data sharing, in order to enable providers

“to more easily identify consumers who need support”.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

I also urge the petitioner to write to his MP, given that the matter is reserved, and to seek to pursue the issue in relation to Ofcom. Although I saw the Ofcom assertion of the support that is meant to be in place, it did not tell me whether it is in place. It is all very well to say that organisations should enable such access, but do they? Unfortunately, there is no scope for us to pursue the issues that are raised by this petition. If I were Mr Bowles, I would write to my local MP and ask him to take the issue up with Ofcom and try to get a satisfactory response. Given that position, are we minded to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Golden. Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2201, which was lodged by Tamara Giocopazzi, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal duty on schools to inform parents and carers by the end of the school day if their child is involved in any incident or allegation that affects their safety, wellbeing or dignity. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it expects schools to work with families on any issue that affects their child’s safety, wellbeing or dignity. It is the cabinet secretary’s expectation that this includes contacting parents or carers in a timely manner when an incident has taken place.

The submission states that schools and local authorities should already have established protocols in place to notify parents of incidents affecting their children’s safety and wellbeing, such as when they have provided first aid as a result of illness or injury. The Scottish Government’s view is that, as it is a local authority’s statutory responsibility to deliver education, it is appropriate that notification protocols are developed and implemented locally.

Mr Torrance has to leave us at half past 10, so I wonder whether he has any thoughts to share on the petition before he leaves us this morning.

PE2202, which was lodged by Rachel Bigsby, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on Sula Sgeir. The guga hunt can take place legally only under a special licence issued by NatureScot—our old friends in NatureScot, which is the least effective organisation in the western world. That is a personal observation.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it truly appreciates the petitioner’s concerns over the protection of this important species. In considering an application for a licence, NatureScot considers two main issues: sustainability and animal welfare legislation.

A licence was granted in 2025 with a limit of 500 birds, which is significantly fewer than in previous years, when the licence granted the taking of up to 2,000 birds. The limit aims to safeguard the sustainability of guga and support its continued recovery following the avian flu. The Scottish Government does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which states that the central question is whether the continued licensed killing of gannet chicks is compatible with conservation science, animal welfare standards and the Scottish statutory obligations. The submission highlights the avian flu outbreak, which many of us will have seen visual evidence of, and coverage of subsequently, and which caused mortality in northern gannets.

The petitioner states that the population modelling used by NatureScot shows that the limit of 500 birds is not a recovery level but a maximum level that avoids immediate population decline. She is also concerned that no independent observer is present during the hunt, stating that there is no independent verification that licence conditions relating to humane killing are being complied with.

10:30

The committee has received a written submission from OneKind, a charity working to protect and improve the lives of animals in Scotland, which highlights a number of concerns and states that tradition does not justify the killing of young gannets. It also states that manual killing depends on the skill of the operator and the conditions that they are working under, so it can vary widely in terms of efficacy and welfare impact.

The committee has also received a late submission against the petition from a resident of the Isle of Lewis, who believes that many of the comments that have been made in respect of the petition are abusive and offensive, that the petition is ignorant of the ways of island life and that there is no merit in its being progressed.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action, bearing in mind our position and the issue of timing with regard to the parliamentary session? Members know my views on NatureScot, but I am not sure where we can go in the time that is available to us.

Yes, any final recommendation would do that.

We will be considering which petitions are likely to be kept open in the committee’s next couple of meetings, so I am content on this occasion to hold the petition open while we consider whether that would be the appropriate action. If it has to close, it will be for the reasons that we have suggested.

PE2204, which was lodged by Candice McKenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national database to record patient outcomes for medications, hormone replacement therapy—HRT—and all other hormone therapies used to treat or manage endometriosis. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that Scotland follows the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on endometriosis diagnosis and management. The guidance outlines best practices in endometriosis diagnosis, referral, pharmacological treatment, surgical management and care co-ordination. It has been used by NHS Scotland to develop the endometriosis pathway, which details the investigation and management of patients.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the proposal would be a positive but substantial project. The submission states that the creation of a national database of this scale and complexity would have significant costs attached for the development and implementation, as well as considerable implications for clinical staff time. The Scottish Government considers that there are mechanisms by which those living with endometriosis are able to access the best possible care and support.

10:45

The Government also states in its submission that action has been taken to support women and health professionals to learn more about endometriosis, the symptoms and the treatment options, and that menstrual health, including endometriosis, will continue to be an area of focus in the next phase of the women’s health plan. That next phase will continue action to improve the collection and use of data, as the Government acknowledges that there are clear gaps in routine women’s health data. The Government also highlights information about current endometriosis research that it has funded.

In her written submission, the petitioner draws on her lived experience and international evidence, which she feels demonstrate that structured outcomes data improves safety, consistency and quality of care. She says that the absence of national data drives inconsistent care, avoidable complications and continued reliance on trial-and-error treatment, and that it contributes to patients being dismissed when they report worsening symptoms, as clinicians lack the evidence that is needed to validate or explain patient experiences. She goes on to highlight international examples of endometriosis data collection and the impact of endometriosis on economic productivity.

In the previous parliamentary session, I well remember our former Labour colleague Elaine Smith, who was very much associated with the issues of endometriosis, attending the Public Petitions Committee on a number of occasions and raising the subject in debate in the chamber.

This is another petition on which it seems to me that there is still more work to be done, but, with only five meetings left, I am not sure what work we could do at this stage.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2206, which was lodged by Jack McConnel, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the single-lane road weighting in the road maintenance funding formula and to either consider increasing it or adapt the formula to reflect static or similar overheads for any road width, and to conduct an assessment of single-lane road overhead costs for rural local authorities and their impact on funding formulas across all road-related allocations.

We received a very succinct response from the Scottish Government, which, somewhat disappointingly, only minimally engages with the core issues of the petition. That is certainly the case with the second ask, which is on assessing costs. Essentially, we are informed that the needs-based formula, which is used to distribute the quantum of funding available for local government, is subject to constant review and is agreed each year with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The Government states that it is always open to suggestions to improve the funding formula but that any such proposals must go through COSLA in the first instance.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?