Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2188, which was lodged by Clare Sparrow, calls on the Scottish Government to extend the national entitlement card scheme to include ferry travel for people aged 60 and over. The petition was last considered on 26 November, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport.

The cabinet secretary’s response states that the Scottish Government provides significant funding to keep ferry fares low for everyone, including over 60s. Islander fares and funding of local authority ferries are also designed to allow frequent travel at a lower cost for islanders’ daily needs. The response highlights that eligible residents of Orkney’s outlying islands receive 24 free journeys per year for travel to mainland Orkney, and that older and disabled Shetland residents receive free or discounted interisland ferry travel.

The cabinet secretary states that the Scottish Government looked closely at ferry fares as part of the fair fares review and the islands connectivity plan. On 2 May, the Scottish Government published its strategic approach document, which confirmed that concessionary ferry travel will be extended only to under-22-year-olds. The cabinet secretary states that she understands the calls to include over-60s, but that the Government is not currently able to expand concessions further within current budgets.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

11:00

PE1900, which was lodged by Kevin John Lawson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

We last considered the petition on 14 January 2026, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy and Sport. The minister’s response to the committee confirmed that, in November, the Scottish Government sent a survey to health boards. The survey gathered information on controlled drug licences for custody suites and when licences are renewed; whether policies ensure that detainees can access all prescribed medication; whether adverse events, complaints and feedback are constantly recorded; where gaps exist; and what plans and timescales are in place to achieve full compliance.

The vast majority of boards hold the required controlled drug licences for police custody suites and have stable governance arrangements in place. Three health boards reported delays in licence renewals due to Home Office processing times. However, continuation letters or formal acknowledgements ensured that services could continue safely in the meantime.

The Government’s submission states that NHS Grampian patients on a methadone prescription that can be confirmed by their pharmacy and community prescriber will be administered methadone within the first 48 hours following clinical assessment and decision making. Currently, methadone can be administered only at Kittybrewster custody suite. NHS Grampian has been able to identify further community pharmacies in Grampian that will support the delivery of schedule 2 medicines to allow opioid replacement therapy for patients. A working group is progressing that work, and it is expected that progress to roll that out across Elgin and Fraserburgh will now happen at pace. Any patient for whom a prescription cannot be confirmed and who is actively in withdrawal while in police custody will be assessed and given dihydrocodeine to alleviate withdrawal symptoms.

10:00

To ensure robust and consistent monitoring, the Scottish Government will request an update from all health boards each November as part of an annual review process. The Scottish Government will also seek updates to confirm the completion of the roll-out of the opioid replacement therapy pathway across NHS Grampian.

The petitioner’s written submission states that

“detainees are not allowed the legal requirement of informed consent”,

which he states is

“a legal right and not a privilege.”

He notes his on-going concern that NHS Grampian has been providing dihydrocodeine to detainees in police custody without their explicit informed consent.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you. Do any colleagues have anything further to add?

I would not bet against it.

We can discuss these matters further over a game of Monopoly.

You normally have something to contribute on such matters, Mr Ewing.

Are colleagues minded to accept Mr Russell’s recommendation to close the petition—again, with progress having been made by the committee during the course of this parliamentary session?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay, but we are agreed to close the petition.

The water will be much purer because of that.

Thank you Mr Ewing; I think that the whole committee can agree with that. While there is still life in the current parliamentary session, we might have wanted to see a little more progress, but we would probably have come to the same result. I therefore thank the petitioners and echo everything that Fergus Ewing has just said. Progress has been made, and we can be pleased that that is the case. That is entirely down to the pressure that has been brought, not just through the raising of the petition but by all the work associated in promoting its aims and the meeting with the cabinet secretary.

I take it that colleagues therefore agree that we will close the petition at this point, in the expectation that focus on the issue will not be lost and it will come back to us in the new parliamentary session, reframed to ensure that the aims are met. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE2118, which was lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and to improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

We last considered the petition on 24 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. We have received substantial responses from the cabinet secretary and SEPA that cover the various monitoring and engagement mechanisms that are used and include a breakdown of the specific engagement that has taken place between SEPA and the petitioner over several years. SEPA has also provided a detailed response to the petitioner’s concerns regarding its role in a number of flood prevention actions, the accuracy of its flood maps, its engagement with communities and its approach to future flood risk in Scotland.

The Scottish Government and SEPA have reiterated that it is the responsibility of local authorities to develop and build flood protection schemes. Colleagues may remember from previous evidence that the Scottish Government’s national flood resilience strategy indicates that a flood advisory service will be established to provide the framework and process for flood protection schemes and for supporting communities.

As members will have seen in the cabinet secretary’s response, every six years, SEPA develops flood risk management strategies and plans for implementation by local authorities. The Scottish ministers review, approve and monitor those plans. SEPA is currently consulting on flooding issues and priorities in “potentially vulnerable areas”—that is a formal term—to inform the development of the 2028 to 2034 flood risk management plans. That consultation will close on 26 April.

Wearing my constituency hat, I point out that the flood maps that SEPA currently uses for its forecasting use a different matrix from that which is used by any other agency elsewhere in the world. According to that matrix, this Parliament—believe it or not—is one of the few buildings that SEPA does not think will be under water in early course. I have heard from constituents who have found it difficult to get domestic insurance, because insurance companies look at SEPA’s flood risk plans, albeit that SEPA has advised me that it specifically states that the plans should not be used for that purpose.

That little vignette notwithstanding, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?