���˿���

The next item is a thematic evidence session on emergency cardiac care issues that have been raised in various petitions. The first is PE1989, to increase defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces, which was lodged by Mary Montague. I always make a point of noting that Mary is the provost of my local authority in East Renfrewshire. The petition was tabled prior to her appointment in that position. The next petition is PE2067, to improve data on young people affected by conditions causing sudden cardiac death, which was lodged by Sharon Duncan, who is the mother of David Hill, who was a Parliamentary colleague who died while playing rugby for the Scottish parliamentary team in Ireland. The other is PE2101, to provide defibrillators for all primary and secondary schools in Scotland, which was submitted by Peter Earl on behalf of Troqueer primary school.

We have used the evidence that has been raised in our consideration of the three petitions to date to draw up a series of themes to allow us to explore the issues. In due course, we will hear from the minister but, this morning, I am delighted to say that we are joined by Kym Kestell, policy and public affairs officer at the British Heart Foundation Scotland; Kirsty Morrison, policy and campaigns officer at Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland; and Steven Short, programme lead for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with the Scottish Ambulance Service. A very warm welcome to you all.

There are five themes. Each of us is going to lead on one of them, and other colleagues will jump in with questions. Please indicate if you would like to answer a question. For the Official Report, it will be helpful if the leader of each section says their name as they come in, otherwise it might not be entirely clear who is contributing.

The five themes that we have identified to look at are data, research and guidance; public awareness; the provision of life-saving equipment and emergency preparedness; preventative actions and protection of vulnerable populations—it is striking that the survival rate is a lot lower in deprived areas—and cross-sectoral policy, which means how those things bounce across different areas of responsibility.

The first of the themes is data, research and guidance. Fergus Ewing will lead on that.

Yes—that is a very fair summation of the position. I think that there is absolutely frustration and disappointment—well, probably more than disappointment now. The petitioner looks to the process that exists, which is the petitions system, yet our system is frustrated by our not engaging directly with the issue of the petition when we do not get the responses that would allow us to do so.

If legislation is introduced in the next session of Parliament, there will be an opportunity to directly address the issues that the petition raises in the context of the debate that will take place as that legislation progresses through Parliament. The issue is sufficiently serious that I hope that that will happen.

On that basis, given Mr Fergus Ewing’s comments, are we minded to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or bring forward other regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors. We last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and the Law Society of Scotland.

In providing her response, the minister has consulted the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It suggests that the proposal to give small claims courts powers to dismiss property factors could add a layer of complexity that may not be suitable for simple procedure. An alternative may be to consider the summary application procedure that is available in the sheriff courts as a possible route to removing property factors. However, the SCTS believes that that would not be readily accessible to unrepresented parties and it may involve awards of expenses on a par with the ordinary cause procedure. The Government therefore concludes that it would not be a viable option. I think that it might have been Mr Ewing who floated some of those ideas.

The Law Society of Scotland observes that, if reforms are to be taken forward in this area, consideration would need to be given to what an “excessive charge” means in practice. It considers that proper mediation between residents and factors is essential and may avoid recourse to litigation.

Since we last considered the petition, the Parliament has scrutinised and passed the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Various colleagues lodged final-stage amendments that were directly relevant to the petition’s ask. During the stage 3 proceedings, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing indicated that most of the issues that were raised in those amendments will be addressed in an updated code of conduct for registered property factors that will set out minimum standards of practice. As a result, those amendments were either withdrawn, not moved or disagreed to at stage 3. The cabinet secretary’s amendment, which changed the proportion of owners that is required to remove a property factor from two thirds to a simple majority, was agreed to.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

If we agree to that, we will need to point to the code of conduct that is going to be developed that is supposedly going to address those issues. Expectations that the bill might have been amended to accommodate the petitioner’s points have not been fulfilled. Do we have any other options or is the committee content to proceed on that basis?

The final continued petition for consideration today is PE2131, which was lodged by Professor Louise Welsh and Jude Barber on behalf of the Empire Cafe. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant the River Clyde, and potentially other rivers in Scotland, the legal right to personhood by adopting the universal declaration on the rights of rivers, by appointing a nature director to act as a guardian of the River Clyde, with the responsibility for upholding its river rights, and by considering whether an alternative mechanism should be established to act for the rights of the river, its inhabitants—human and non-human—and society at large. When we last considered this petition on 5 March, we agreed to write to the Glasgow City Region.

The GCR is not able to provide a view on the action that is called for in the petition, as it falls outside the remit of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley cabinet. The cabinet is specifically responsible for decision making in relation to the city deal, strategic economic development priorities as well as any other activities agreed by the authorities.

We also requested more information from the GCR regarding the work to deliver the Clyde mission, as well as any action that could be undertaken to formalise and improve accountability in the management of the River Clyde. The response reminds us that, in August 2023, the Scottish Government transferred lead responsibility for the Clyde mission to the GCR and Argyll and Bute Council, as well as providing funding. Work on a strategic master plan was due to commence this summer, and the GCR indicates that a strategic outline business case was also going to be produced alongside that to strengthen decision making and underpin long-term investment.

The response states that, for the GCR, governance for the Clyde mission has been incorporated into existing regional structures; for Argyll and Bute, any reporting and approval is co-ordinated by council officers, with support from the GCR if necessary. The GCR highlights that a Clyde mission partnership board would in due course also be established and developed in parallel with the strategic master plan.

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We seem to have come to a hybrid position. We are closing the petition but sending the biggest letter of suggestion to the Scottish Government in so doing. We might normally have done that if we were keeping the petition open. Notwithstanding that, we do not expect that there is a lot that we can do in this session, but we want to highlight the issues to the Scottish Government.

I hope that the clerks have been able to discern from that a course of action with which we can proceed. Is that acceptable to members of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

That advice might be generally applied on a number of different occasions. Are there any alternative suggestions to those of Mr Torrance?

Members: No.

Are we content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 16th meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2025.

Under agenda item 1, we simply have to decide whether to consider in private item 5, which covers a discussion on the evidence that we will hear this morning. Are colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.