Official Report 574KB pdf
Student Nurses (Payment on Placement) (PE2039)
We have two new petitions to consider this morning. I explain for those who might be joining us for the first time that, in advance of our consideration of all new petitions and in order to assist that consideration, we invite the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to give some comment on and information in respect of the petitions.
The first new petition, PE2039, lodged by Amy Lee, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pay student nurses for their placement hours. The petitioner’s experience on placement has been challenging: she states that she has been used as a spare member of staff to cover absences during her previous three placements. She also shares that she took a £1,000 pay cut to study nursing.
The SPICe briefing explains that, over the three-year nursing programme, students are required to complete 2,300 hours of clinical practice and 2,300 hours of theory before they are eligible for registration. The briefing also notes that applications to study nursing have fallen from just under 8,000 in 2022 to 6,450 in 2023. That is rather a dramatic drop in a very short space of time.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is not possible for student nurses to be employed as nursing staff before programme completion and entry to the nursing register. Regarding financial support, it states that eligible student nurses and midwives in Scotland receive the highest level of support across the United Kingdom.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I visited nursing classes held at Edinburgh College’s Sighthill campus. The programme leaders expressed concerns about students not taking up nursing and midwifery courses due to the lack of support. We need to make that career path more attractive. One of the points that was mentioned was the need for more financial support for student nurses. Paying student nurses for their placement hours would be a relief and would be beneficial because it would attract more students to nursing in the future. It is one solution to filling the gap in nursing vacancies, not only by helping students with financial support but by promoting nursing and midwifery as a valuable career choice in the long term.
As it is a new petition, we should write to stakeholders to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition. We should ask specifically what the causes may be for the decline in applicants to nursing and midwifery courses. Those stakeholders could include the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Royal College of Nursing and the National Union of Students.
Following Mr Choudhury’s comments and Maurice Golden’s suggestions of organisations for us to write to, do members have any other suggestions for action?
Members: No.
I thank the petitioner, Amy Lee, and welcome the new petition. Does the committee agree to hold the petition open and to seek information from the bodies that we have identified? Once we have those responses, we will consider the position in due course.
Members indicated agreement.
Spaceport 1 Project (North Uist) (PE2054)
Our final petition this morning, PE2054, lodged by Colin Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish an independent review into the proposed Spaceport 1 development on Scolpaig farm in North Uist that focuses on examining: whether there is any conflict of interests for Western Isles Council—Comhairle nan Eilean Siar—as the authority that approved the plans and is taking the project forward; the process for purchasing the land on Scolpaig; potential errors and omissions in the environmental impact assessment of the proposal; and the economic case for pursuing the project.
Mr Anderson tells us that the spaceport proposal has attracted little public support, with public objections outweighing support by a ratio of 45:1. The petitioner also raises concerns that the proposal has been fast tracked, which has limited the public scrutiny of the process.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that a direction requiring planning authorities to alert it to new planning cases for spaceport-related development was issued in June 2020. That allows the Government to have a national overview of such development in the planning system, while offering it the opportunity to put in place additional safeguards and intervene, if necessary, by calling in applications. In this case, it is stated that ministers gave full and proper consideration to the proposal and determined that it did not merit call-in. The response also states that the Scottish Government is supportive in principle of space projects that will contribute to its ambitions to become a leading European space nation and to deliver economic benefits to the local region.
We have also received submissions from the petitioner and from Angus McNab, a local resident, which set out their concerns about the way in which the process to determine the application has been carried out. Those include, but are not limited to, errors in the economic impact assessment, lack of effective and timely public consultation, and a general lack of transparency around the council’s intentions for the Scolpaig site.
Western Isles Council has also provided a submission that responds to the issues raised by the petition, as well as highlighting that a stakeholder and community consultation is due to begin in the new year—in January—as part of the airspace change proposal that has been submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority.
This is clearly a live planning application. In the light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
It is a live planning application. Having pondered that, I really cannot see how it would be correct for us to interfere in a process in which a clear set of rules has been established and the petitioners and others can submit their objections to the local authority for consideration within the determination.
We want to reach out to help petitioners in every case. However, in this instance, and this particular circumstance, I cannot see how—other than by interfering with legitimate existing proceedings—it would be for us to seek review of an on-going process. If people are dissatisfied at the end of it, they can lodge a further petition to Parliament on the perceived defects in that process. We have considered applications of that ilk before.
Lastly, I want to record that I am very grateful to the council for taking the time to give us an extensive briefing, not least on misinformation in the BBC’s reporting of the issue, which is unfortunate. I just wanted to allude to that while expressing our thanks to the council for pointing it out to us
Thank you very much, Mr Ewing. It is open to the committee to take action if the focus of a petition is a national issue. However, the focus here is much more specific to an individual planning consideration that is live. In those circumstances, Mr Ewing, you are probably correct to suggest that we move to close the petition, given that it would be inappropriate for us to involve ourselves in that process. Are members content that we pursue that recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. I understand the depth of feeling in relation to the issues concerned, but I am afraid that, in this instance and at this time, the committee is not able to advance that.
That brings us to the end of our public session. We will next meet on 24 January 2024.
10:54 Meeting continued in private until 11:21.Previous
Continued Petitions