Official Report 647KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce our first new petition, I begin by highlighting to those who are following today’s proceedings that a considerable amount of work is done in advance of the consideration of a petition. Before a petition’s first consideration, an initial view is sought from the Scottish Government and a briefing is provided from the Parliament’s impartial research service.
Conservation Areas (Local Authority Funding) (PE2063)
Our first new petition is PE2063, which is on increased funding for local authorities to enable better management and protection of conservation areas. The petition, which was lodged by David Walsh of Park Preservation Patrons, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to all local authorities in Scotland, enabling them to better manage and protect the character and appearance of designated conservation areas.
Paul Sweeney has remained with us for the consideration of this new petition.
The petitioner notes that historic conservation areas throughout Scotland are falling into disrepair, and although he recognises the financial challenges facing both national and local government, he requests that the Scottish Government addresses a specific concern regarding funding for conservation areas.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing provides information on the planning process that applies to conservation areas, while noting that the responsibility for upkeep of land and buildings within conservation areas rests with the owners.
The Scottish Government refers in its response to the local government settlement and the policy of allowing local authorities financial freedom to allocate the resources that are available to them. The response goes on to note the support and guidance that are available via Historic Environment Scotland to help promote and protect the historic environment.
Before I go to the committee for recommendations, I ask Paul Sweeney whether he would like to make a statement.
Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to address the members of the committee on this petition. I have been in correspondence with the petitioner over the past few months about issues around enhancement to the Park conservation area in the west end of Glasgow, which speaks to a broader issue around improving the guidance and regulations on conservation areas and the obligations on local authorities.
The petitioner’s particular idea was to reinstate heritage-style lampposts and make various other improvements to the area but there was not, in their view, sufficient support or capacity to help them to achieve their objectives. Similarly, there are concerns that roads authorities and other utilities can scar historic streetscapes, remove street furniture that is of a historic nature and undertake similar interventions without any statutory enforcement or oversight.
11:15In light of some of the flaws in the current legislation as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and some of its adjacent legislation, such as the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, there is an opportunity for the committee to consider inviting stakeholders to feed in on the issue, and to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for improvements to the current legislation or indeed supplementary guidance. Certainly, in my interactions with stakeholders, there have been concerns that the regulations on conservation areas are not sufficiently robust and that there is significant opportunity to establish best practice, or at least to communicate where best practice is being achieved to other parts of the country.
To that end, I suggest that perhaps Historic Environment Scotland, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Save Britain’s Heritage, the Glasgow Building Preservation Trust and the Glasgow City Heritage Trust might be reasonable stakeholders to approach in the first instance to invite to feed in to the exercise and perhaps allow us to establish whether there are opportunities for further improvements to the current legislation. I should declare an interest, as a trustee of Glasgow City Heritage Trust.
That would be a worthwhile way for the committee to move the petition forward.
Thank you. Do members have any suggestions for actions?
I am grateful to Mr Sweeney for giving a bit more colour, information and detail on what is behind the petition. However, the petition simply calls for additional funding to be provided. It does not say how much or what for, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate, because it is lacking in focus, I think.
Be that as it may, the response that we have had from Glasgow City Council is that it does not have the money for this. Frankly, that does not particularly surprise me, given the pressures that local authorities are facing. That seems to be the reality of the situation.
Given that and the lack of specificity, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that it is the responsibility of local authorities to manage their budgets and to allocate the total financial resources available to them on management and protection of conservation areas, and also that responsibility for upkeep of land or buildings in a conservation area rests with the owners.
As highlighted in the SPICe briefing, the Scottish Government has not taken any significant recent action on additional funding for the maintenance or enhancement of conservation areas. Can we ask the Scottish Government if it has any plans to release additional funding?
I support Mr Ewing’s suggestion of closing the petition. It might be helpful for the petitioner, if they so wish, to look at coming back in due course with a more focused petition on the better management and protection of conservation areas. Even if the Scottish Government was to increase funding for local authorities, there is no requirement on said local authority to focus that on the better management and protection of conservation areas. It is unfortunate for the committee and the petitioner, but I feel that closing the petition is the only thing that we can do under these circumstances.
I agree, and I think that we would get a better quality of response if the petition came back in a different form. The reality is that, if we were to contact organisations or local authorities on the current premise, we would move into what would be quite a political space around funding rather than something constructive. From my limited experience of the committee, it works best when there is a defined goal or something that is achievable at the end of the petition.
Mr Choudhury, are you willing to go with the rest of the committee’s recommendations?
If the majority is in favour of closing, yes. However, I still think that, since the Scottish Government has not done anything at all on this, we should write to ask whether it has any plans.
If you are not willing to withdraw, I will have to go to a vote, Mr Choudhury.
Right—okay.
I have just been told by the clerk that we can close the petition but also write to the Scottish Government to ask about additional funding. If members agree with that, I am more than happy to go with it. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Sudden Cardiac Death (PE2067)
Our next new petition is PE2067, on improving data on young people who are affected by conditions causing sudden cardiac death. The petition, which was lodged by Sharon Duncan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission research to establish how many people aged 14 to 35 are affected by conditions that cause young sudden cardiac death; clarify the number of people who die annually in Scotland from those conditions; and set up a pilot study to establish whether voluntary screening can reduce deaths.
Members will be aware that the petition has been lodged by the mother of parliamentary staffer David Hill, who tragically passed away while playing in an inter-parliamentary rugby match two years ago almost to the day, on 19 March 2022. I understand that members of the family have joined us in the public gallery, and we extend our condolences and a warm welcome to them.
As the petition notes, there is currently no screening programme for young people for conditions that put them at risk of sudden cardiac death. The SPICe briefing that we have received notes that there are difficulties in reaching agreement on the number of young people who are affected by sudden cardiac death. Those include the way in which deaths are classified and the fact that research focuses on athletes rather than the general population.
In responding to the asks of the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health notes the Government funding that has been provided to the west of Scotland inherited cardiac conditions service and the network for inherited cardiac conditions to deliver a sudden cardiac death project, with a focus on improving clinical pathways for families and enhancing data quality. The minister has also made inquiries to the UK National Screening Committee about plans to review its position on population screening for conditions that are associated with sudden cardiac death in the young.
We have received a submission from the petitioner, Ms Duncan, emphasising the importance of understanding the incidence of those conditions to developing treatment pathways. Ms Duncan also seeks clarity on the coding that is used to inform data on incidence, and highlights that no account is taken of deaths such as David’s, where the death is registered as being from natural causes, despite the post-mortem and follow-ups confirming a previously undiagnosed genetic cardiac condition.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I should say that I know David’s family well and it is lovely to see them in the public gallery. I have the utmost admiration for Sharon, his mother, who in very difficult circumstances has sought to see what she can do to help other families.
I have seen the SPICe briefing but, for me, it comes back to a point that Mr Ewing made on a previous petition: what if Sharon Duncan, the wider Hill family and some of the organisations that they are working with are right, and the National Screening Committee is wrong? Certainly, if it were my child, I would want to know that that question had been exhausted.
I would be keen for the committee to write to organisations with a relevant interest—Cardiac Risk in the Young, Save a Life for Scotland, the British Heart Foundation, St John Scotland and Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland—to seek their views and expertise on what is called for in the petition, and to find out about any work that they may be undertaking on conditions affecting sudden cardiac death.
I would also be keen for the committee to write to the UK National Screening Committee to ask when it expects to review the evidence for screening for sudden cardiac death, and to write to the network for inherited cardiac conditions seeking further details and an update on its sudden cardiac death project.
In addition, I would be keen to go back to the Scottish Government. It has provided quite a helpful response on the petition, but I would be keen to interrogate further its role in informing the National Screening Committee’s work. It is one thing to ask questions and make representations, but I do not know how much more it can do.
Certainly, David Hill’s family and Sharon Duncan, his mother, are not in a unique position. There are families like them in every part of Scotland, as we have seen through activities that have been undertaken in Parliament since David’s death. The least that those people deserve is for us to try to understand how the process works and be absolutely sure that all the evidence has been taken into consideration.
I entirely agree with everything that Oliver Mundell has just said. As he said, the minister, Jenni Minto, gave a fuller and more useful reply than some of the replies that we get, which should be acknowledged, but there are many complex issues raised here.
I want to make one point on the record. The SPICe document refers to a UK Government blog that gives reasons as to why there should not be a screening programme. Those include that people might be unnecessarily anxious, that false reassurance might be provided, or that they might be encouraged to get treatments that may be inappropriate.
I felt uneasy about that reply. There must be many screening programmes where not that many people will be detected as having the particular problem for which the screening is designed, but that does not mean that we do not have screening. I just want to put on the record that those arguments seem very weak and actually pretty offensive to people who have lost a loved one because of the condition. I hope that the minister will take that into account.
In addition to the points that Mr Mundell raised, could we ask for high-level information on what screening programmes are undertaken, to find out whether some are undertaken where there is a serious risk of death but, statistically speaking, not many people in the population are at risk?
I agree with both of my colleagues. I understand that the UK National Screening Committee is conducting a review and that the next review is expected to be completed in 2024. Do we know exactly when in 2024 that will be, and will we be informed of the recommendations?
Thank you for that. Is the committee agreed with all those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. I thank the members of David Hill’s family for attending.
Public Sector Senior Management Salaries (PE2068)
PE2068, which was lodged by John Dare, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of public sector salaries over £100,000 per annum and introduce an appropriate cap.
The SPICe briefing explains that the Scottish Government’s public sector pay policy directly affects around 10 per cent of those who work in the public sector and that large parts of public sector pay are determined separately, although they are often in line with the Scottish Government’s public sector pay policy.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that pay restraints for the highest paid and targeted uplifts for the lowest paid have been central to its approach to pay for many years. The submission notes that, in recent years, progressive pay awards have capped uplifts above a threshold of £80,000 and that an internal review of the chief executive framework is currently being undertaken. The review is due to conclude in spring 2024.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
This new petition raises extremely serious points of principle that have concerned a great many people, including myself, for a long time. As the petitioner points out in their central argument, there are vast numbers of people in the public sector who are paid in excess of £100,000. People doing various jobs—I will not mention any of them particularly, although some are going through my mind—are paid far more than the First Minister. We wonder whether the balance has somehow gone seriously askew.
11:30This new petition raises an issue of considerable public interest, especially at a time of real financial pressure. It is hard to explain to people the pay of some chief executives. They are often the most invisible people in an organisation and you cannot actually get to meet or see them, although I had better not name any, or I will get myself into trouble. The reply from the Scottish Government is completely hopeless and does not answer the point at all, but the issue is not going to go away. Personally, I find the level of salary paid to some people in quangos to be incomprehensible.
I hope that I have made my position clear. We should keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to demand a little bit more substance to the reply. Will the Government ever tackle this problem, or do we just accept the situation and thole it, warts and all, obvious injustice though there is?
Thank you for your comments, Mr Ewing. Do members agree with that?
I would not dare disagree with it.
Members indicated agreement.
On that note, we will move to the next petition.
General Practitioner Appointment Booking Systems (PE2070)
PE2070, which was lodged by Lorraine Russo, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop general practitioner surgeries from allowing only same-day appointment bookings and to enable patients to also make appointments for future dates.
The SPICe briefing highlights the 2021-22 health and care experience survey, which reported a sharp drop in the percentage of people finding it easy to contact their GP practice in the way that they want to. The briefing also notes that NHS England amended the 2023-24 GP contract to make clear that patients should be offered an assessment of need, or signposted to an appropriate service, at first contact with the practice. Practices will therefore no longer be able to request that patients contact them at a later time.
In 2023, the Scottish Government published the general practice access principles, which state that people should have a reasonable choice about how they access services, and that the method should be clear, understandable and transparent. The Scottish Government notes that the Healthcare Improvement Scotland primary care access programme has worked with more than 100 general practices to improve access arrangements.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I strongly support the aims of the petition. I see the problem regularly as a constituency MSP, particularly with vulnerable and elderly patients, including those who have to travel, and those with long-term chronic conditions, who are all struggling to interact with the same-day policy.
It would be worth while trying to find out how prevalent the issue is across the country. We could achieve that by writing to the Scottish Government to ask how many GP practices are now operating with a same-day-only appointment system. We should also seek its views on the health and care experience survey results and on NHS England’s recent change to the GP contract, which now states that patients should be offered an assessment of need or signposted to an appropriate service at their first contact with the practice, with practices no longer being able to request that the patient contact them at a later time. We could ask the Scottish Government whether it is looking at a similar approach and, if it is, whether there is flexibility to make a similar change in the existing general medical services contract.
I do not want to add unduly to the committee’s workload, but I would also be interested in knowing the views of health boards across Scotland on the issue, as they have a responsibility in relation to primary care. There are examples around the country of poor access to primary care causing wider challenges in the health service, with higher numbers of people than average presenting, for example, at accident and emergency. I would be keen to ask health boards whether this practice is happening in the areas that they are responsible for and how common they think it is.
I totally agree with Oliver Mundell. Quite a lot of constituents have been saying to me that they cannot sleep at night if they have to make a phone call in the morning. The time window to call is between 8 and 9, and people cannot get through. Sometimes they are told to go online, but many people cannot go online. It is time for the Government to step up, talk to the GPs and find a solution, because it is a major issue.
There are not many members round this table whose mailbag will not be continually filled with letters about on-the-day appointments.
Is the committee happy with those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will take place after recess, on Wednesday 17 April 2024.
We now move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5.
11:35 Meeting continued in private until 12:03.Air ais
Continued Petitions