³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Before we begin our proceedings, I welcome our new clerk, Jyoti Chandola, and, in so doing, very much thank Andrew Mylne, who acted as clerk to the committee during the past year. He stepped in for Lynn Tullis, whom we still hope to see back with us in early course. Andrew did a fantastic job, and I place on the record my thanks and the thanks of the committee for everything that he did, particularly in supporting us through our recently completed inquiry, which will be the subject of a debate in the chamber later this week.

Under our first agenda item, we must decide whether to take in private agenda items 5, 6 and 7. In addition to the consideration of petitions today, a number of related issues require our attention. Agenda item 5 relates to budget scrutiny, agenda item 6 relates to the policy on the publication of previous actions in relation to information in petitions, and agenda item 7 relates to the A9 dualling project inquiry and will give us an opportunity to consider where we go next and the evidence that we heard from Alex Neil, our former colleague, at the previous meeting. Are members content to conduct items 5, 6 and 7 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

We have received a response from the Scottish National Investment Bank, which states that it has been working with the Scottish Government and Local Energy Scotland while engaging with communities and developers on shared ownership. Local Energy Scotland conducted research on developer and funder appetite for shared ownership models and ways in which barriers can be overcome.

The Minister for Energy and the Environment’s submission to the committee highlights that the Scottish Government would be interested in exploring the possibilities of utilising tax powers as a lever to support wider policy objectives. In response to the minister, the petitioner notes that there is no indication of how discussions on the Scottish Government’s work will take place or how she and others might engage.

The Government has shown some interest in the issue. Members, do you have you comments and suggestions?

Could we write to the corporate body to draw its attention to the petition? We could say that the committee would be interested to know whether the corporate body has had any engagement with the Scottish Youth Parliament as to whether it might be possible to facilitate more regular sessions of the SYP in Holyrood. Are members content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to anybody who might be following our proceedings that, before we consider a petition, the Parliament’s independent research unit, SPICe, is given an opportunity to brief colleagues, and we write to the Scottish Government to get its initial thoughts on the petition, so that we are considering it with some understanding of the underpinning issues and the Government’s likely view.

The first of the new petitions is PE2035, which has been lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially recognise legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition recognises that predator control is an important component of species conservation alongside other techniques such as habitat management and translocation. In response, the petitioner has asked how the Scottish Government’s response might be published for wider parliamentary record, stating that a bigger recognition would provide clarity to professionals carrying out legal control of generalist predators.

The petitioner highlights a relevant example to demonstrate a lack of clarity for professionals. The submission explains that NatureScot had recommended predator control as the number 1 measure to save capercaillie. However, a ministerial statement on the issue focused on habitat improvement and did not mention predator control.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. I am delighted to say that we are joined by our very good supporters and petition champions, Rhoda Grant and Monica Lennon.

Rhoda Grant joins us in relation to the first continued petition, PE1723, on essential tremor treatment in Scotland. The petition, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay, 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.

In her written submission, the petitioner states that the current treatment for essential tremor—deep brain stimulation—costs a minimum of £30,000, whereas the magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound service costs £10,000. Twenty-five patients were treated in Dundee with the MRgFUS over 18 months, with 14 of them being eligible for DBS but facing a two-and-a-half-year waiting list.

The national services division has shared that it received an updated application from the lead consultant neurologist working in NHS Tayside for a new MRI-focused ultrasound functional neurosurgery service to treat patients with essential tremor. The NHS Tayside executive leadership team advised that it was supportive in principle of the application but that a paper outlining the proposal in detail had not yet been submitted for executive approval so could not be progressed. The NSD advised that an application should be resubmitted for consideration in 2024-25.

I have to say, before I ask Rhoda Grant to speak, that I am quite sympathetic to what the petitioner said in her most recent submission. She does not put it in this way, but, as has been the case with other health-related issues, those affected being able to present evidence to the committee can sometimes be a powerful additional stimulant in our seeking to progress the aims of a petition.

Rhoda, over to you.

The very actions that the committee was considering taking are the ones that you have just proposed, so thank you very much for those suggestions. Are we happy to incorporate Rhoda Grant’s suggestions in relation to NHS Tayside?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Monica Lennon for her contribution.

The second petition, PE1871, which was lodged by Karen McKeown on behalf of the shining lights for change group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland, including the referral process, crisis support, risk assessments, safe plans, integrated services working together, first response support and the support that is available to families affected by suicide.

Following our evidence session with the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, the committee received additional details on the suicide prevention strategy, such as information about the outcomes framework and the reporting cycle.

Information about the mental health assessment units is provided in the submission. NHS Forth Valley, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS Lothian and NHS Highland have dedicated units, whereas the remaining health boards have repurposed existing services or resources to provide 24/7 access to a senior clinical decision maker. It is noted that the redesign of urgent care programme will work on improving unplanned access to urgent assessment and care to provide support quickly, at the first time of reaching out and, where possible, close to home.

The recent submission from the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport indicates that the first annual report on the suicide prevention strategy outcomes will be published in July 2024.

The petitioner has provided another written submission, which, once again, urges the committee to call for a review of mental health services. She feels that that is the only way to determine what is and is not working. She shares concerns about mental health support falling to the third sector, expressing that that is not appropriate in all cases, particularly for people in crisis. There has been some reaction from the Government in how it has moved forward with the petition’s aims.

We are joined by Monica Lennon, who has followed the petition with us through its various iterations. Is there anything that you would like to say to the committee before we consider our next move?

In which case, with that very entertaining polemic, are we content to embrace those suggestions? I quite like the idea that we encapsulate, in our further inquiries, the point about missed opportunity. This petition has been with us now since—when was it first lodged?—August 2021. Two years have gone by. Mr Ewing makes the point about applications being granted but nothing happening, which means that there have been two years of lost opportunity. There we go.

Obviously, 2023 is fast disappearing and nothing has materialised yet. Are we content to close the petition?