Official Report 564KB pdf
Essential Tremor (Treatment) (PE1723)
Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. First, PE1723, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay in the previous parliamentary session and was carried forward into this one, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.
We previously considered the petition in October 2023, when we agreed to request an update from NHS Tayside on its application for a designated magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound service. In August this year, NHS Tayside advised us that its plan had been to submit a funding application to the national services division in March, but that division advised that there would be
“a change to the funding available in 2024/25 which impacted on the usual annual submission process.”
That led NHS Tayside not to proceed with the bid. It has stated that, should the normal submission process recommence in 2025, it will progress with a bid as planned.
Members will be aware that Rhoda Grant, who has taken an interest in the petition, was hoping to join us this morning but has been unable to do so, although she has provided a written submission.
As I said, the petition was carried forward from one session to another, and the fact that the funding stream has not materialised is quite disturbing.
Do colleagues have any suggestions about how we might proceed?
Would the committee be inclined to write to the national services division to seek clarification on its approach to applications in 2024-25 and to ask for information about its funding position for 2025-26?
Are colleagues content with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
I should have commenced today’s proceedings by saying that, although it might not seem so, the remaining length of the current parliamentary session is diminishing. Something like 126 petitions are still open, which means that there will be a limited number of times when we will be able to consider petitions between now and the dissolution of the Parliament. As we go forward, we will have to think quite carefully about what we can realistically hope to achieve. I say that not to diminish the importance of the subject matter of petitions, but it is important that, in the remaining time available to us, we identify the petitions that the committee believes we can pursue to a conclusion, on behalf of the petitioner, rather than just accepting that the general issue deserves to be explored, worthy as that might be, because, otherwise, we will run out of time. That is not a reflection on the next petition.
Mental Health Services (PE1871)
I am very pleased to say that we are joined, as we have been in the past, by Monica Lennon for consideration of PE1871, which was lodged by Karen McKeown on behalf of the shining lights for change group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland, including consideration of the referral process, crisis support, risk assessments, safe plans, how integrated services work together, first-response support and the support that is available to families who have been affected by suicide.
We previously considered the petition on 25 October 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response to the committee sets out the journeys for individuals who seek help during a mental health crisis in areas with mental health assessment units and in areas with repurposed existing services. The response states:
“the user journeys are similar ... with the exception of the location”
of the senior clinical decision maker and where
“the specialist mental health assessment is performed.”
The minister’s submission highlights the “professional-to-professional pathway” for the Scottish Ambulance Service and Police Scotland in Lanarkshire, which allows them to directly contact senior clinical decision makers, and it states that the changes to mental health unscheduled care have not yet been evaluated.
The petitioner’s written submission details the information that she received after making freedom of information requests to all Scottish health boards and to NHS 24. Karen found that there is “inconsistency” between health boards in how mental health data is gathered, and she believes that there are
“no clear guidelines on how information is collected and stored.”
She has pursued the matter relentlessly. She believes that front-line staff are experiencing burnout and expresses concern about their wellbeing. She suggests that that contributes to long waiting times and puts a strain on mental health services. She states that there are still many unanswered questions and that only a full review will be able to answer them.
We have quite a full agenda, but I invite Monica Lennon to make some brief comments to the committee before we decide on our next actions.
Good morning. I thank the convener for that very helpful summary of the journey that Karen McKeown has been on and of where we are currently. I would like to say that things are improving in addressing Scotland’s mental health crisis, but, sadly, they are not.
It is timely that we are meeting today, following world suicide prevention day yesterday. My thoughts are with everyone across Scotland who has lost a loved one to suicide and with those who are struggling today with their mental health. Help is available but, sadly, there is not always enough help when people need it. It is still very difficult to access services.
On the point about data, Karen McKeown and others continue to do their own research and to ask questions. I will not repeat the information in your packs, but the responses to Karen’s recent freedom of information request show that there are still gaps in how data is collected.
I have written to NHS Lanarkshire to ask why it is not recording waiting times for adult mental health referrals and on-going waiting times, but I have not had a response. I do not say that to embarrass NHS Lanarkshire. The convener had his finger on the pulse when he talked about Karen’s concerns about staff burnout and wellbeing. I will not give a lot of details but, when I recently attended an appointment with a constituent and one of their family members, I was very aware, in the course of that interaction, that the NHS staff involved in trying to help constituents were extremely stressed and burned out.
I support Karen in pushing the Parliament and the Government for an independent review. I heard what the convener said about the demand on the committee’s time, but, if the committee had time, it would be good if it could go out and speak to staff on a confidential basis, because I am picking up that staff are afraid to speak out. I know that trade unions are doing an excellent job in supporting staff, but we are not hearing from those on the front line.
We need more data and to help people before they fall into crisis. I recently read in Third Force News that some charity leaders have said that, in Scotland, we now have not a mental health crisis but a scandal, because we know that more action is required.
I want to leave the committee with this. From reading some briefings, I know that the Scottish Government has committed to increasing the suicide prevention budget to £2.8 million by the end of this parliamentary session, but experts say that that is nowhere near enough and that there will be more suicides and more people in crisis. I also hear appeals for an early review of the 10-year national suicide prevention strategy, which is a joint endeavour between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. There are good things in the strategy but, without resources, we will not see progress.
I continue to urge the committee to do whatever it can to ensure that we get a proper in-depth review of mental health services in Scotland, which should include consideration of what data we do and do not record and proper evaluation. Having more scrutiny and debate in the Parliament can only be a good thing. I know that committees, including the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, are stretched, but if we do not find space in this parliamentary session to do that work properly and to push the Government further, more of our constituents will lose their lives, and we will have more Karen McKeowns looking to the Parliament and asking what we did.
I thank the convener and other committee members for all their work on the petition over the past three years.
Thank you very much. Before we consider what we might do, I will read into the record the words of the petitioner:
“The evidence suggests that there is something not working. We can no longer put a plaster over it, and we need to take dramatic and brave action if we want to see a fit for purpose mental health service. Luke’s death and others like him cannot be in vain and through their legacy we can save future generations. If action is not taken, there is a fear that wait times will continue to get longer, the NHS will continue to lose good staff and mental health services will continue to be inadequate.”
That is a powerful summary, which is worth reflecting on.
Do colleagues have any suggestions about how we might proceed?
Would the committee consider writing to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to seek an update on the mental health assessment unit evaluation; a timeline indicating when the evaluation work will be concluded; a copy of NHS 24’s mental health hub evaluation findings; an explanation of how the minister can be confident that the data that is collected across NHS boards on mental health services is sufficient, consistent and accurate; information on what consideration has been given to the impact of staff wellbeing on service provision and financial sustainability; and, in the light of the petitioner’s view that more training and guidance are required for Police Scotland, an explanation of how the minister can be confident that a professional-to-professional pathway is an adequate approach to improving the first-response support for those seeking mental health services?
I will ask the clerks to reflect on whether there is any way that we might be able to solicit independent evidence from practitioners. I do not know how that could be done, but we could reflect on how it might be done. Are colleagues content with the proposals as they stand and to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Monica Lennon, and I thank Karen McKeown for her sustained efforts over the life of the Parliament.
Potholes (PE1936)
PE1936, which was lodged by Lesley Roberts, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces by creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and to provide local councils with ring-fenced funding to tackle potholes.
We previously considered the petition in November 2023, when we agreed to write to the then Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Minister for Transport. We received a joint response from the then Deputy First Minister and Minister for Transport, which states that the fiscal outlook for the Scottish Government is expected to remain “challenging” and that “tough choices” will be required to ensure that resources are focused on the critical missions that are outlined in the Scottish Government’s policy prospectus. Since we received that reply, members will have noted that the 2024-25 budget bill included an increase in the budget for motorways and trunk roads.
In the light of everything that we have heard about the petition, do colleagues have any suggestions about what more the committee might do?
Would the committee consider closing the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the motorway and trunk road budget increased in real terms as part of the 2024-25 budget? Transport Scotland has previously provided information about operating companies’ obligation to inspect the trunk road network twice weekly, with all category 1 defects required to be made safe by 6 am the following morning and to be permanently repaired within 28 days, with repairs being fully funded by the Scottish Government. It is the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources that are available to them.
Are colleagues content to close the petition?
Yes, I am content with that. I think that the petition should be closed, but I point out that, although the increase in funding has been welcome, the people who are most in danger from potholes are probably not motorists but cyclists, so the Government should consider diverting some of the massive amount of money that is devoted to active travel—I think that it might be as much as £200 million—to filling in potholes. After all, if a cyclist dies, there is no more active travel, is there? That might be a better and more effective method of spending public money to ensure an all-round safer experience for road users, including cyclists.
09:45
In closing the petition, are colleagues interested in writing to the Scottish Government to express the view that, if the Government moved funding from the active travel budget, additional funding could be directed towards filling potholes? Does that view have wider sympathy, or is that just Mr Ewing’s reflection?
I agree with Mr Ewing. I think that we should also ask the Government to provide local councils with ring-fenced funding for that.
Ring fencing?
That might be going a bit beyond the reach of the petition. Mr Ewing has suggested a way of providing additional funds to support the petition’s aims. It is a reasonable suggestion, and I am happy to support it. We can share that view with our colleagues across all the various parties in the Parliament. Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
I do not think that the issue will go away, so, in closing the petition, I point out that it would be perfectly possible for a fresh petition to be lodged in the next parliamentary session. The response of the Government of the day at that time might or might not be different, but I suspect that there will still be potholes that need to be filled. They were there when I was born, and they will be there when I am gone. It is a question of how active we are in dealing with them. I applaud the petitioner’s aims in trying to make roads and transport safer.
National Dashcam Safety Portal (PE2013)
PE2013, which was lodged by Neil McNamara, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce, without delay, a national dashcam safety portal, as already agreed by Police Scotland. The petition was last considered in October 2023. Following that meeting, we wrote to Police Scotland and the National Police Chiefs Council. Police Scotland’s response states that its digital evidence-sharing capability programme is fully funded for a period of 10 years. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions for action?
I ask the committee to consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is working in partnership with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to deliver digital evidence-sharing capability, and that it plans to fully fund that work for 10 years.
Are colleagues content?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for the petition. In light of the evidence that we have received, I believe that we can safely close it. We thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us.
Council Tax Discounts (Second Homes and Vacant Properties) (PE2026)
PE2026, which was lodged by Sam McCahon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to eliminate council tax discounts for second homes and vacant properties and to make the property owner, rather than a tenant, liable for the payment of council tax.
We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Shelter Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. The Scottish Government’s response highlights the recent legislation, of which members will be aware, that provides local authorities with the power to increase council tax on second homes—not just to remove the second-home discount but to increase council tax on second homes. Many councils have now introduced a 100 per cent premium. The submission states that the legislation aims to ensure that the tax system prioritises homes for living in.
In the light of the Scottish Government’s response, which points out what it has done, and the lack of any progress on the other aims of the petition—although it goes beyond the aim of the petitioner in one respect—do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
The committee could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has introduced legislation that gives local authorities the powers to increase council tax on second homes and empty homes.
In view of the way in which legislation has moved in the interim and that being the view of the Government, I do not think that there is much more that we can expect to progress on the petition. Are colleagues content?
Members indicated agreement.
Clydeport (Public Ownership) (PE2029)
PE2029, on nationalising Clydeport to bring the ports and harbours on the River Clyde into public ownership, was lodged by Robert Buirds on behalf of the campaign to save Inchgreen dry dock. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use the powers under the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to revoke the status of Peel Ports Group’s Clydeport Operations Ltd as the harbour authority for the River Clyde and its estuary; to establish a municipal port authority in Clydeport’s place and bring the strategic network of ports and harbours along the River Clyde into public ownership; and to compulsorily purchase Inchgreen dry dock for the benefit of the Inverclyde community.
Again, it is some time since we last considered the petition—it was on 20 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to stakeholders, including maritime trade bodies, regional councils and major industrial companies along the River Clyde. I know that Paul Sweeney, our former colleague, had hoped to meet us this morning but was unable to do so. However, he helpfully suggested a number of the stakeholders from whom we were able to gather evidence. In total, we have received 13 new submissions, all of which are detailed in the papers that members have received for today. Those include two submissions from the petitioner, which share their comments on the responses that we have received and their continued concern about the performance of Peel Ports as the harbour authority.
Although the Scottish Government has stated that its aim is to bring more ports and harbours into the ownership of Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd where the primary function is the provision of lifeline ferry services, it is also the Scottish Government’s position—this is the difficulty—that nationalising Clydeport would not be appropriate and that it has no plans to take such action.
That is the bold position in relation to the petition’s ask, notwithstanding all the efforts and the considerable number of submissions that we have received. If the Government is saying that it will not do this, what more can we do to try to promote the aims of the petition? There are a couple of potential routes, but I invite comments from colleagues on our best course of action.
Considering that the petition has a specific ask and that the Government’s response is that it is definitely not going to do it, I do not think that the committee can take the petition any further. I ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that Scottish ports operate in a commercial environment; that the Scottish Government does not believe that it would be appropriate to nationalise Clydeport and nor does it have any plans to do so; and that the use of compulsory purchase powers requires a clear development plan for the site.
It is that bold determination by the Scottish Government not to engage in a discussion on the principal ask of the petition, whatever the merits of many of the arguments that have been presented to us, that makes it difficult for us to pursue it. Colleagues, are there any alternative suggestions or are we, with some reluctance, inclined to support Mr Torrance’s proposal? I believe that we are.
I commend the petitioner for bringing the petition to us. I thank him and the others who have made detailed submissions to us. However, given that the Scottish Government has firmly rejected the principal ask of the petition, unfortunately, there is nothing more that the committee can do to advance its aims. We are not the Government and we cannot instruct it to engage. Are colleagues content?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Funding) (PE2040)
PE2040 is on increasing funding to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to prevent serious cuts to the services that are provided to the public. The petition, which was lodged by Anthony McManus, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the annual budget that is provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and to take action to prevent job losses and the removal of front-line fire appliances from fire stations across Scotland.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 25 October 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Fire Brigades Union. I think that the matter was highlighted by the fire that took place at the old Ayr station hotel, where fire appliances were not immediately available.
The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service response tells us that the temporary withdrawal of fire appliances was based on data and modelling that helped to identify which appliances would have the least impact on its emergency response, while helping the service to meet financial savings. That is in the context of the service requiring to make £11 million-worth of savings in the financial year 2023-24.
The Fire Brigades Union has highlighted that the flat cash budget provided to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has resulted in real-terms budget cuts to the service that it believes risk compromising firefighter and public safety.
As we reflected at the previous consideration, the issues that are raised by the petition were looked at by the Criminal Justice Committee as part of its pre-budget scrutiny work last year. As members may be aware, the Criminal Justice Committee is continuing to look at the area ahead of this year’s pre-budget scrutiny. In view of the direct attention on the issues of the petition by our colleagues in that committee, do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?
Considering that the Criminal Justice Committee is looking at the issue as part of its pre-budget scrutiny and will continue to do so and take evidence, I ask the committee to consider closing the petition under rule 15.7, on the grounds that the issues that are raised by the petition were explored by the Criminal Justice Committee as part of its pre-budget scrutiny for the 2024-25 budget, with the committee gathering further evidence on the current challenges and proposed reforms of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in September 2024.
Are we content, given that our colleagues are pursuing these matters elsewhere? I do not think that there is anything that we can usefully forward to the Criminal Justice Committee, which appears to be directly addressing the issue. Are we content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
New Petitions