Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much. I also record the apologies of the deputy convener, David Torrance, who is unwell and therefore not able to be with us.

PE1926, which was lodged by Alison Dowling, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April 2024, when we agreed to write to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills for an update on the phased roll-out of free school meals provision in primary schools and to confirm the Scottish Government’s position on a pilot for universal free school meals in secondary schools.

In her response in May, the cabinet secretary stated that the roll-out of free school meals to primary 6 and 7 pupils who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment remained her priority. She also provided information about the funding that was given to local authorities to support the expansion of the free school meals programme, which is expected to come into effect this month.

Although the cabinet secretary’s priority is building towards the universal provision of free school meals for primary pupils, she went on to say in her response that the Scottish Government was considering initial views from local authorities on a pilot for secondary schools. Members will be aware that, since we received that response, Parliament debated the provision of free school meals for primary school pupils, in September 2024. Although the motion was non-binding, the Parliament agreed that free school lunches should be provided for all primary school children, including in the school holidays, in the current parliamentary session, as promised by the Scottish Government.

In the light of that, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am inclined to agree. I think that the failure to deliver such provision is a matter that now rests with colleagues elsewhere and with the public. However, with regard to our ability to advance the petition, are colleagues content that we thank the petitioner and close the petition, on the basis outlined by Mr Golden?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. We will hold the petition open and make inquiries as suggested.

Our first new petition is PE2126. I have advanced it in the list of new petitions that we will consider this morning because we hope that Paul Sweeney will join us to discuss another petition but he has not materialised yet.

PE2126, which was lodged by Gemma Clark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all NHS boards in Scotland.

Members may recall that that ask formed part of a previous petition from Gemma Clark that the committee agreed to close on 23 November on the basis that the Scottish Government had committed to reviewing the law on abortion with the intention of publishing proposals for reform before the end of the current parliamentary session. Although the Government has committed to reviewing the law on abortion, the petitioner remains concerned that abortion services up to the existing legal limit of 24 weeks are not available across the country, with reports that only one doctor in Scotland is trained to provide surgical abortions, resulting in vulnerable individuals travelling to England to end their pregnancies.

We have been provided with a comprehensive briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre that details the prevalence, procedures and provision of later-stage abortions in Scotland, which means those that are carried out between 20 and 24 weeks’ gestation. It is clear that health boards have variable policies on interaction with the individuals concerned and what they will fund in relation to provision of the service in England and any other associated costs.

It is also noted that no Scottish health board offers what the Abortion Act 1967 defines as “ground C” or “ground D” abortion services up to the legal limit of 24 weeks.

The requirement to travel to England to access services can carry emotional, physical and financial implications for pregnant women and girls. Examples of those implications are provided in the joint submission that we have received from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Back Off Scotland, which is included in the papers for today’s meeting.

It is important that we draw a distinction between the ethical issues that some may wish to raise, the existing legal position, and the provision of services to support that position.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service’s submission also raises concerns about systemic abortion stigma in the NHS and an unwillingness on the part of the Scottish Government to consider commissioning services outwith the NHS to deliver surgical abortion services in Scotland.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government says that it is

“working urgently with NHS boards and other stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way of ensuring abortion services are available in Scotland, up to 24 weeks' gestation, for all patients who require them.”

The response refers to work by the NHS National Services Division to develop the optimal delivery proposal for later-stage abortion services. However, as no health board has volunteered to host the national service, a short-life working group was established to recommend the most attainable and sustainable way of delivering services in Scotland. The response goes on to state:

“The Scottish Government is committed to providing funding to any commission that wishes to train to provide later-stage abortion services within Scotland.”

As we all consider the implications of the petition, does anybody want to offer a comment or a suggestion for action?

I suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to highlight the submission from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Back Off Scotland and to seek clarification of the Scottish Government’s unwillingness to commission an organisation outwith the NHS to deliver a surgical abortion service in Scotland, particularly as no health board has volunteered to host such a service. It is important to understand the distinction for women between a surgical abortion service and having to go through a natural delivery, which some women will find very difficult in those circumstances.

Might we also ask what consideration the short-life working group has given to the suggestion that systemic abortion stigma within the NHS is a barrier to the provision of later-stage abortion services in Scotland, including any action to address the perceived stigma?

Are colleagues content for us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As a former resident of South Ayrshire, I can say that I am sure that my friends and neighbours were sufficiently erudite and compos mentis to absorb those additional two letters. That was my experience.

I wonder whether the minister has seen the evidence that we received from the witness panels. Notwithstanding the slight lack of enthusiasm that was expressed, we could also go back to the minister to highlight Ayrshire and Arran health board’s willingness to undertake a pilot, about which the minister was sympathetic. As well as writing to that health board, we could facilitate that discussion.

In light of other recommendations by colleagues, we will keep the petition open and will seek to advance the aims of that petition on the basis that we have just described. I thank Mr Kerr as I do Mr Bundy, who joined us in the public gallery.

We move to petition PE2078, which 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 inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers, or to encompass the clinical governance management of service companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care.

Members will recall that we heard that, although the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 covers independent ambulance services, Healthcare Improvement Scotland confirmed that regulation of those services had not yet commenced, which means that HIS is unable to undertake any regulatory activity in relation to them. The Scottish Government’s initial response to the petition stated that it would prioritise the commencement of HIS’s functions in relation to the regulation of independent ambulance service provision.

In his written submission to the committee, the cabinet secretary recognises that, although private ambulance services must comply with Health and Safety Executive responsibilities, the broader regulatory framework does not currently offer adequate assurance. The cabinet secretary states that officials are engaging with HIS on regulation of independent ambulances and that the next steps include stakeholder engagement and a public consultation, but he is unable to confirm a timeline for when provisions will be in place.

Do colleagues have any suggestions about how we might proceed?

To be clear, what will that do?

Am I correct to say that, in support of the Government’s view that separate legislation is not needed, the initiative is designed to illustrate how individuals would navigate the current process, which the Government believes ought to be satisfactory to meet the issue of dismissal?

I deferred our consideration of PE2125 to allow for the arrival of our esteemed former colleague Paul Sweeney, who might want to find his nameplate and join us at the table.

Petition PE2125, which was lodged by Victoria Shotton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to restart overdue work on NHS Scotland buildings and prioritise funding for primary care building projects to ensure that community health teams have the physical spaces and renovations that are required to treat their patients efficiently and safely.

As I indicated, we have been joined by our former colleague Paul Sweeney. Welcome back to the committee, Mr Sweeney.

The petitioner tells us that funding for general practice has always been too low for service provision, with many primary care buildings across Scotland being well overdue for renovation or complete replacement. The situation has been exacerbated by the Scottish Government’s decision in February last year to pause all new NHS capital projects, which might be contributing to widening health inequalities and poor health outcomes for communities.

Our SPICe briefing notes indicate that a recent Audit Scotland report on the finances and performance of the NHS in Scotland recommends that the Scottish Government produces a national capital investment and asset management strategy. According to data published by Public Health Scotland, payments from NHS Scotland to general practices increased by 5.5 per cent in 2023-24 compared with the previous year. It is also noted that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has announced £13.6 million of additional funding for general practice, although that is intended to support retention and recruitment of staff.

Despite the Scottish Government indicating that it would publish a reset of the infrastructure investment plan project pipeline along with the 2024-25 budget, that did not happen. It has been delayed until after the UK Government’s spending review, which is due to conclude in the spring of 2025.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights an additional investment of £139 million for NHS infrastructure as part of the 2025-26 budget proposals, which it says will be the first step in lifting the pause on capital projects. The response goes on to state that the Government is working with health boards to develop a whole-system NHS infrastructure plan, which will include the needs of the primary care estate.

I am sorry—that was quite a long preamble. Mr Sweeney, would you like to comment on the petition before I invite the committee to consider what we might do next?