���˿���

I say to Mr Ross that we are going to close the petition on the basis that the Government has no plans to do away with the subject. However, there is an issue at the heart of what he has said about the contemporary relevance of the subject at any given point, and we will draw that to the Government’s attention.

PE2078 is the last of our new petitions today. It was lodged by Ryan McNaughton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a new body to be responsible for the mandatory inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers, or to encompass the clinical governance management of private companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

The SPICe briefing that we have received explains that the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 includes independent ambulance services in the definition of an “independent healthcare service”. The act sets out that Scottish ministers must

“prepare and publish standards and outcomes applicable”

to independent health care services and that Healthcare Improvement Scotland may inspect

“any independent health care service.”

However, HIS has confirmed that regulation of those services has not yet been commenced and that it is unable to undertake any regulatory activity in respect of that type of service.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the next step is for officials to continue engagement with stakeholders to explore whether the definition of “independent ambulance services” should be amended before the provision is commenced, in order to ensure that any regulation adequately reflects services today and in the future. The response also states that the commencement of HIS’s functions in relation to the regulation of independent ambulance service provision will be considered and prioritised as part of a suite of proposals regarding the regulation of independent healthcare.

The act was passed in 2010, but it seems that we have not yet commenced its provisions, which is certainly some lead time by any standard.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action??

Thank you, minister. That is encouraging. If I look over your shoulder, I can see the petitioner, who is in the public gallery this morning and will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that, too.

I was trying to understand the pathway. At our last meeting, having read the previous submissions that we had received, I noted an understanding that, given that Scots law is rooted in different traditions and precedents to law elsewhere in the UK, the assumption underpinning the petition—that there would be tourist destination travel to Scotland for such litigation—was perhaps more of a theory than a determined outcome. The Scottish Government’s thought process at that point was that it would prefer to be in a slightly reactive position if that happened rather than in a proactive position simply because it might happen, given everything else that the Government has to consider. Was that part of the thinking? Has the fact that action has now been taken in other jurisdictions compounded the potential risk—which might otherwise have been theoretically less likely but is now potentially more likely—that such litigation could occur, meaning that the Government perhaps feels that it needs to take more decisive and direct action on the matter, proactively rather than reactively?

I would be very grateful for that.

Thank you. You make a very powerful case in respect of the petitioner and the aims of his petitions. The issue that the committee must wrestle with is the—as you have said, profoundly disappointing—closed door that was presented to us by the Scottish Government.

Mr Ewing, are you indicating that you have thoughts on the matter?

I was going to suggest that, if we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal to close the petitions, we couple that with writing to the Scottish Government to, as well as confirm our decision, summarise the practical consequences that Rhoda Grant detailed quite accurately and encourage the Government to consider the option of bringing together parties to advance a bespoke solution, rather than simply, as it has done, refusing to entertain further consideration of the idea.

I do not think that there is any dramatic action that we can take, but we could embrace Rhoda Grant’s suggestion by writing to the Government at the same time. Does that meet the committee’s approval?

I agree. We could also write to Public Health Scotland to seek an update on its modelling work on the timescales that it anticipates for completion.

We should keep the petition open and seek further explanation of what progress is being made in that regard. It all looks a bit piecemeal and of secondary consideration, but women in Scotland should not feel that they are subjected to bias or discriminated against compared with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

My voice has been a little shaky today and I now have a lot to say about sheep. Please bear with me.

Our next continued petition, PE2021, on ensuring that the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 applies to the sheep on St Kilda, was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals, as contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 28 June 2023, when we agreed to write to the National Trust for Scotland, the St Kilda Soay sheep research project, NatureScot and OneKind. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from all those organisations, copies of which are included in our papers for today’s meeting.

The animal welfare charity OneKind expressed concern about the welfare of the sheep on St Kilda and suggested that it is necessary to clarify the status of the sheep in order to establish what level of protection they should be afforded, and by whom. OneKind’s response also suggests that, given that there is no option for the sheep population to disperse, there is a moral obligation to address the high levels of winter starvation but cautions that any proposals to reduce levels of winter starvation should be subject to animal welfare impact assessments.

Researchers from the Soay sheep research project state that there is no clear biological evidence that the sheep are meaningfully different from other wild mammal populations and go on to note that wild animals often die in large numbers as a result of natural processes, including starvation and exposure to harsh weather, but that, in most cases, those deaths are unseen. The researchers also suggest that measures to manage winter mortality, for example through a large-scale regular cull, could have welfare implications for the remaining sheep.

The response from the National Trust for Scotland highlights the fact that the retention of wild traits in the Soay sheep population has allowed for their survival in the often harsh conditions of the archipelago. The trust follows Scottish Government advice that the sheep should be regarded in the same way as unowned and unmanaged animal populations such as wild deer. Although there is a presumption against intervention, the trust notes that it might consider intervention in exceptional circumstances in response to animal welfare needs.

Although NatureScot’s remit does not specifically cover animal welfare, its response notes that any change to the guidance on the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 would be likely also to apply to feral goats and feral cats, potentially leading to unintended consequences if landowners decided to remove populations of feral livestock from their land rather than taking on the burden of their welfare.

Those are the responses from the organisations to which we wrote.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which addresses the responses that we have received—and to which I have just referred—and notes the importance of clarifying whether the Soay sheep are to be considered wild or feral. The petitioners also make a comparison with the winter starvation of cattle and horses in Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands, where, similar to the situation on St Kilda, the feral animals have no predators and cannot disperse or migrate. In that case, images of starving animals led to public outrage and welfare interventions were rapidly introduced.

The petitioners’ most recent submission disputes the validity of the information that has been provided by the National Trust for Scotland and invites us to request sight of the correspondence between the trust and the Scottish Government in relation to the status of the Soay sheep.

We have also received a submission from Dr Mary Harman, offering further information on the history of the sheep on St Kilda, noting accounts by the archipelago’s inhabitants of the sheep being used for food and suggesting that a number of ram lambs would have been castrated to reduce fighting and to limit the population.

We have a fairly comprehensive set of responses, including two challenging additional responses from the petitioners, on an issue of major concern about wildlife conservation on St Kilda. In the light of all that, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am not sure whether one of the petitioners is with us today—I wondered whether I recognised him. Yes, he is in the gallery. Forgive my eyesight—you are as far away from me as it is possible to be, but I thought that you might be here. I hope that you are pleased that we have decided to keep the petition open. In the light of your responses, we will pursue the actions that you have suggested.

PE2074, which was lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care, and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.

Ms Stoddart draws our attention to research that suggests that as many as one care home a week is closing, in part due to cuts to health and social care budgets. The petition has also been prompted by proposals to close two local authority-run care homes in South Lanarkshire.

It is perhaps worth noting that, since the petition was lodged, South Lanarkshire integration joint board has passed plans to close both care homes. However, it has also written to the Scottish Government in an attempt to secure funding that would enable the closures to be reconsidered.

The SPICe briefing notes that it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to allocate funding provided by the Scottish Government based on local needs and priorities. The briefing also notes the Accounts Commission publication, “Local government in Scotland: Overview 2023”, which includes reference to a UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers that found that 44 per cent of respondents identified adult social care as a service at risk of cuts. I think that any MSP would be aware of the pressures on all health and social care partnerships in their constituencies and the particular cuts that are being imposed unless care is defined as critical or essential.

The Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has responded to the petition, stating that this is

“not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in”,

and that it is up to each democratically elected council how it manages the spending of discretionary budget allocations. In doing so, the minister notes

“record funding of over £13.9 billion”

being delivered as part of the latest local government settlement.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am minded to say that I am inclined to write to the Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning to seek his reflections on the UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which found that 44 per cent of council chief executives and senior managers had identified adult social care as a service that was at risk of cuts due to very large gaps in local government budgets. I am not prepared to sweep the issues that are raised by this new petition under the carpet on the back of what we have heard from the Government so far. I suspect that the position has deteriorated even since the petition was lodged. Do colleagues have any views?