³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Absolutely. My point is not that we are against road building but that there is a better alternative.

Sorry.

A freedom of information request.

You are the source.

My recollection is that it did. It pointed out that although having the building on the peninsula offered people who were in the gym dramatic views of the Clyde outside, its position left it very exposed and prone to flooding and events such as the one that we saw. I cannot recall the exact position, but there are plenty of development opportunities in Helensburgh where the leisure centre could have been placed.

Thank you very much, convener.

I am grateful for the committee’s continuing interest in the petition. The fundamental issue is one of local democracy in planning. I will centre my remarks on Argyll and Bute, because that is the setting for the case that the petitioner brings to you.

For members who do not know the area covered by Argyll and Bute Council, it is very disparate in nature. It includes small rural villages, island communities and substantial conurbations such as Helensburgh. The committee will not be surprised to hear that local elected members understandably take different views in different areas, based on the needs of their local communities. That causes a sense of frustration when local community members are clear about their thinking, but the planning committee, the majority of whose members do not represent their views or their area, takes an entirely contrary position.

I will give a recent example. Helensburgh community council opposed the siting of the new leisure centre in the town, because it felt that that the proposed location was wrong. Members might have seen footage of the same leisure centre losing its roof during storm Éowyn, which was captured beautifully on social media. Unfortunately, open-air swimming is now back in Helensburgh as a consequence of that storm.

On a serious note, that decision was taken by a planning committee the majority of whose members were not from the local area and in the face of almost unified local opposition to the siting. In its petition, the community council suggested that it be involved in planning decisions at local area committee level. I am very sympathetic to that. Indeed, the submission from the Scottish Forum of Community Councils talks about the ability to devolve power to local areas. I am in favour of that, but I understand that the Government does not want to legislate in that area.

I wonder whether the committee could ask a specific question about whether an easier way of achieving that aim—certainly in the case of Argyll and Bute, which would meet the petitioner’s objective—would be to have the local area committee make such decisions. There are four such committees in Argyll and Bute, which are based locally. The one for the town is Helensburgh and Lomond, which is made up entirely of local elected members. I wonder whether final planning decisions could be made there and devolved to them, rather than their being made by councillors who represent entirely different areas.

There is merit in that, if the Government would be willing to compromise even a little to enable local decisions to be taken by local elected members. I note that the convener said that the Scottish Government has issued guidance, but I am not sure that it covers that point. I wonder whether the committee would invite the Government to think again.

I welcome the opportunity to bring to the committee six amendments that seek to amend amendment 50, in the name of the minister. Taken together, my amendments would strengthen the rights of residents living in care homes to receive visits from people who are important to them.

I welcome the Government’s amendment 50, as it is better than the original provisions in the bill, but I genuinely do not believe that, as it stands, it goes far enough in protecting the rights of care home residents to see their loved ones. I am genuinely worried that too much onus is being put on care home providers to make judgments and that the checks and balances that are in place are insufficient. We absolutely must get that area right, which is why I have lodged my amendments.

As we know, Anne’s law is the result of campaigning by family members of people in care homes who were separated from their loved ones for long periods during the Covid-19 pandemic, which had devastating impacts on people’s health and wellbeing. One of the greatest and most costly failures of the pandemic took place in Scotland’s care homes. The cost in human lives was tragic, and the suffering that was caused was unimaginable. Even as restrictions for the rest of the country eased, care homes remained under repeated lockdowns, which caused harm and trauma for the residents and their families.

For many years, campaigners have been seeking a change in the law to prevent that from ever happening again, and it is imperative that we pass legislation that will end that preventable harm. I thank the care home relatives Scotland group for its continued efforts to see that change become a reality.

I will now address my amendments in turn. Amendment 50E seeks to strengthen the duty on care home providers to identify an essential care supporter for each resident to ensure that that is not an optional extra or a tick-box exercise. Amendment 50E is a serious amendment that seeks to effect change.

Amendment 50J would require that the code of practice on care home residents’ right to visits must provide that, in following those duties, the following are considered—

Of course.

I will not move amendment 132, on the basis that there will be further discussion with the minister.

Amendment 132 not moved.

Amendments 82 and 133 not moved.

Amendments 83 to 85 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.