Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, and welcome to the 13th—lucky for us all—meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our first agenda item is a decision on whether to take items 4 and 5 in private. One of those items relates to the draft report on our inquiry into the A9 dualling project, which we hope to approve and, thereafter, publish in the near future. Are members content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. First, PE1723, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay in the previous parliamentary session and was carried forward into this one, 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.

We previously considered the petition in October 2023, when we agreed to request an update from NHS Tayside on its application for a designated magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound service. In August this year, NHS Tayside advised us that its plan had been to submit a funding application to the national services division in March, but that division advised that there would be

“a change to the funding available in 2024/25 which impacted on the usual annual submission process.”

That led NHS Tayside not to proceed with the bid. It has stated that, should the normal submission process recommence in 2025, it will progress with a bid as planned.

Members will be aware that Rhoda Grant, who has taken an interest in the petition, was hoping to join us this morning but has been unable to do so, although she has provided a written submission.

As I said, the petition was carried forward from one session to another, and the fact that the funding stream has not materialised is quite disturbing.

Do colleagues have any suggestions about how we might proceed?

PE2026, which was lodged by Sam McCahon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to eliminate council tax discounts for second homes and vacant properties and to make the property owner, rather than a tenant, liable for the payment of council tax.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Shelter Scotland and Citizens Advice Scotland. The Scottish Government’s response highlights the recent legislation, of which members will be aware, that provides local authorities with the power to increase council tax on second homes—not just to remove the second-home discount but to increase council tax on second homes. Many councils have now introduced a 100 per cent premium. The submission states that the legislation aims to ensure that the tax system prioritises homes for living in.

In the light of the Scottish Government’s response, which points out what it has done, and the lack of any progress on the other aims of the petition—although it goes beyond the aim of the petitioner in one respect—do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Our next new petition, PE2095, which was lodged by Margaret Tracey Smith, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and seek to update section 3.2 of the energy consents unit’s “Good Practice Guidance for Applications under Section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989”—that was a mouthful—to address the concerns of communities about the lack of meaningful, responsible and robust voluntary and pre-application consultation by transmission operators on energy infrastructure projects, and to explore all available levers to strengthen community liaison and public participation for the life cycle of energy infrastructure projects.

We are joined for our consideration of the petition by another of our colleagues, Tess White, who is a former member of the committee. Good morning, Tess.

The petition has been prompted by concerns about the quality and transparency of the public consultation accompanying SSEN Transmission’s east coast 400kV upgrade project, which the petition has described as rushed and inconsistent.

The SPICe briefing highlights that there are no statutory pre-application consultation requirements for energy consent applications under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. Instead, the carrying out of pre-application consultation with the public is considered good practice, with the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit having published guidance on what that should include.

In responding to the petition, the then Minister for Climate Action told us that, although the Scottish Government has made repeated requests of the United Kingdom Government for additional regulatory powers to place pre-application engagement on a statutory footing, electricity transmission remains a reserved matter. The minister also stated that, although current good practice guidance is considered appropriate for most forms of electricity development, the scale and linear nature of transmission development potentially requires a more detailed approach to be set out in guidance. The response went on to say that Scottish ministers will consider how to take forward development of pre-application guidance specific to transmission line applications, with the intention of giving affected communities clear and meaningful opportunities to influence the process of developing route options.

There is some interest in progressing some of the aims of the petition, which I think is significant, but, before we proceed to comment further, I ask Tess White whether she would like to speak to the committee.

Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I should have commenced today’s proceedings by saying that, although it might not seem so, the remaining length of the current parliamentary session is diminishing. Something like 126 petitions are still open, which means that there will be a limited number of times when we will be able to consider petitions between now and the dissolution of the Parliament. As we go forward, we will have to think quite carefully about what we can realistically hope to achieve. I say that not to diminish the importance of the subject matter of petitions, but it is important that, in the remaining time available to us, we identify the petitions that the committee believes we can pursue to a conclusion, on behalf of the petitioner, rather than just accepting that the general issue deserves to be explored, worthy as that might be, because, otherwise, we will run out of time. That is not a reflection on the next petition.

I am very pleased to say that we are joined, as we have been in the past, by Monica Lennon for consideration of PE1871, which was lodged by Karen McKeown on behalf of the shining lights for change group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland, including consideration of the referral process, crisis support, risk assessments, safe plans, how integrated services work together, first-response support and the support that is available to families who have been affected by suicide.

We previously considered the petition on 25 October 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response to the committee sets out the journeys for individuals who seek help during a mental health crisis in areas with mental health assessment units and in areas with repurposed existing services. The response states:

“the user journeys are similar ... with the exception of the location”

of the senior clinical decision maker and where

“the specialist mental health assessment is performed.”

The minister’s submission highlights the “professional-to-professional pathway” for the Scottish Ambulance Service and Police Scotland in Lanarkshire, which allows them to directly contact senior clinical decision makers, and it states that the changes to mental health unscheduled care have not yet been evaluated.

The petitioner’s written submission details the information that she received after making freedom of information requests to all Scottish health boards and to NHS 24. Karen found that there is “inconsistency” between health boards in how mental health data is gathered, and she believes that there are

“no clear guidelines on how information is collected and stored.”

She has pursued the matter relentlessly. She believes that front-line staff are experiencing burnout and expresses concern about their wellbeing. She suggests that that contributes to long waiting times and puts a strain on mental health services. She states that there are still many unanswered questions and that only a full review will be able to answer them.

We have quite a full agenda, but I invite Monica Lennon to make some brief comments to the committee before we decide on our next actions.

PE1936, which was lodged by Lesley Roberts, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces by creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and to provide local councils with ring-fenced funding to tackle potholes.

We previously considered the petition in November 2023, when we agreed to write to the then Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Minister for Transport. We received a joint response from the then Deputy First Minister and Minister for Transport, which states that the fiscal outlook for the Scottish Government is expected to remain “challenging” and that “tough choices” will be required to ensure that resources are focused on the critical missions that are outlined in the Scottish Government’s policy prospectus. Since we received that reply, members will have noted that the 2024-25 budget bill included an increase in the budget for motorways and trunk roads.

In the light of everything that we have heard about the petition, do colleagues have any suggestions about what more the committee might do?

That might be going a bit beyond the reach of the petition. Mr Ewing has suggested a way of providing additional funds to support the petition’s aims. It is a reasonable suggestion, and I am happy to support it. We can share that view with our colleagues across all the various parties in the Parliament. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Jackie Baillie. I should say that we, too, welcome Alfie. The tones of the committee members were soporific and he was very quiet earlier, but I notice that he has become very animated since you were speaking, Ms Baillie. I do not know what the moral conclusion from that might be.