���˿���

PE2070, lodged by Lorraine Russo, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop general practice surgeries from allowing only same-day appointment bookings, enabling patients to also make appointments for future dates. In written evidence on same-day GP appointments, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care highlighted that how services are provided is left to the judgment of the responsible clinicians and that practices are not required by the Scottish Government to provide a particular type of service.

As I set out in my opening remarks, we are now limited in the time remaining in this parliamentary session—that is just the blunt reality. We must focus our efforts on issues on which we can make further progress. By that rather hard and unfortunate criteria, I wonder whether colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed in respect of the petitions that I have just outlined and we have heard spoken to by our colleagues.

I recognise that, on the essential tremor treatment in Scotland petition, the aims of the petition have been achieved, which is good to hear. I remember our consideration of that earlier in this session, when people were still being sent to England. It is good to know that we now have a centre in Scotland.

Are members minded to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Notwithstanding that, are colleagues content that we proceed with closing the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Of course, one cannot predetermine whom the Government of Scotland will be after the next election or whether the complexion of that Government might lead to a different view being taken were a fresh petition to be lodged.

Are colleagues content—however reluctantly—to pursue Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

We are content to do so. We thank the petitioner very much and anticipate that she will ensure that the Parliament remains alert to the issues in the next session.

Our next petition is PE1962, lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are parked only in designated and regulated locations.

We last considered the petition in April, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, in the interests of safety and parity with formal campsites and aires, landowners who allow overnight motorhome habitation on their land should be required to obtain a licence for that activity.

The Scottish Government’s response to the committee sets out that schedules 1 and 6 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 make reference to allowing overnight motorhome and caravan habitation. Under the legislation, a landowner does not require a licence if they allow three or fewer caravans, at any given time, to stay for a maximum of 28 days within a 12-month period. A licence would be required if more than three caravans were sited on the land or if the land was in use for more than 28 days in a 12-month period. The exemption that is set out in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 applies only if the total period of occupation by caravans is less than 28 days in any 12-month period. The 28-day limit does not reset after a period of occupation by one to three caravans ends.

The Scottish Government’s submission notes that decisions as to whether any particular use would be material in planning terms are made by the relevant planning authority on a case-by-case basis. The submission states that, because of the existing licensing and planning rules, the Scottish Government’s view is that there is no requirement to change the existing legislation.

The petitioner’s response to the information that is provided in the Scottish Government’s submission is that people are making up their own rules rather than following what is set out. The submission highlights instances in which sites are operating without a licence but authorities

“do not seem to care about it”

and cases in which people are operating in grey areas where overnight stays could technically be allowed.

Edward Mountain MSP has provided a written submission that states that there is no control of the use of parking sites over the 28-day period that is set out in the legislation. He states that, in fact, parking sites are available for 365 days of the year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that that is understood, but do you agree with Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I was slightly confused, I have to say. Interesting as those recommendations were, Mr Torrance, I think that they strayed a little from the asks of the petition.

In light of that, do you have a recommendation that directly speaks to the petition?

Our next petition is PE2187, lodged by David Corner, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reinstate six-monthly dental check-ups for state pensioners.

The SPICe briefing explains that, in November 2023, substantial reforms were made to the treatments that dentists offering NHS care provide. Prior to the reforms, patients would be sent a reminder to visit their dentist annually, although a number of dentists did that every six months. The reform introduced the extensive clinical examination, which is intended to be more thorough, and for which most people will be recalled annually, rather than within a shorter time. However, dentists can still use their discretion to determine whether a patient should additionally attend a review exam between those thorough annual examinations.

In its response, the Scottish Government explains that the extensive clinical examination is based on clinical guidance on the appropriate recall for dental check-ups, which is produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The response confirms that dentists can still see patients more frequently than every 12 months, based on their assessment of patients’ individual oral health needs. The Government therefore concludes that the issues raised in the petition do not require remedial action. Are colleagues content with that?