 Good morning, and welcome to the twelfth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2023 and our first meeting after the summer recess, which I hope all colleagues have enjoyed. I hope everybody has enjoyed the summer, actually, notwithstanding the weather. Our first item is a declaration of interests, and as members will recall, our colleague Alexander Stewart has left the committee. We were able to thank him for all his work when he was last with us. Alexander Stewart will be able to join us at the launch of our public participation democracy inquiry next week, but we welcome in his stead our new colleague Maurice Golden and offer him the opportunity to refer to any interests. Thank you, convener. I'd just like to declare that I'm a fellow of the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, which does some work on citizen participation, although I haven't been involved thus far. Well, I think that's the most interesting declaration I've heard in a very long while, so thank you for that. We move thereafter to item 2, which is simply to invite colleagues to agree to take item 6 in private. Are we content to do that? We are. That brings us to the consideration of continuing petitions, the first of which is petition 1905, which is public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sex abuse since 1950, lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UKXJW support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sex abuse allegations since 1950. Since our last consideration of the petition, we've written to the Scottish Government highlighting the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales. As part of that communication, we called again for the Scottish inquiry to have its terms of reference extended or for the Scottish Government to investigate the possibility of establishing an alternative inquiry in order to meet the scope of the inquiries taking place. However, we've since received a response from the then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, restating the Scottish Government's position that widening the inquiry's remit is not practicable as it would make the inquiry unmanageable in scope. The response states that it is imperative that resources are dedicated to on-going work to implement the national guidance for child protection. Do colleagues have any comments or thoughts in light of the Deputy First Minister's latest response? David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I'm reluctant to close this petition down, even though the Scottish Government has said that it will not widen it. I think that we should try again to write to the new Deputy First Minister to write to the committee's recommendations, but the Scottish Government extends the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry terms of reference to include religious organisations or establish a separate public inquiry to address the issues highlighted in the petition. To ask the Scottish Government what work has been undertaken since the submission in January to consider recommendations made in the report on child protection in religious organisations and settings in England and Wales. How has the Scottish Government monitored the implementation of national guidance for child protection? What steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that religious organisations are aware of and adhering to guidance and how the Scottish Government demonstrates its support and challenges function with religious organisations in relation to these issues? Fergus Ewing. Yes, I very much support what Mr Torrance has recommended. Can I just maybe supplement that and perhaps ask that when we do this we draw specific attention to the useful material which the clerks have provided in their note in paragraph 9. What I'm getting at here is that the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales published its final report on October 22. The note then refers to recommendations 2, 9, 13 and 19, all of which appear to have relevance. In Mr Swinney's reply, he said that the on-going inquiry may well consider the issues that are relevant here, but he didn't really go into any specifics. These specifics have been drawn out by the clerk, at least four of them. There may be others as well. The point that I'm making is that it would be useful to give the DFM a steer that in particular, as well as the general points that Mr Torrance has made, it would be useful to hear whether the existing inquiry is going to specifically consider all the pertinent recommendations that have been made by the English inquiry. If we are to accept the Government approach, then it could really only be on the basis that it is going to cover all the relevant issues, albeit in a different way, even if it is perhaps unsatisfactory because we haven't heard evidence etc. I just wanted to make that specific point. That's fair. Are we content with that? I might just also ask that there's a bit of a flavour in here, which is that obviously the Government has made its argument, but the implication or the inference for people who are not covered by the scope of the inquiry is that the abuse that they suffered is not worthy of an inquiry in its own right or further investigation. I think that that's an unfortunate conclusion and it may well be that, as Fergus Ewing suggests, that they're going to touch on this matter in a different way, but I think it will be helpful if we could invite the Government to spell out why they feel that, because it means that we as a committee are going to have to go back to the petitioner to say that, in essence, the issue that they have identified is not thought sufficiently serious by the Government to warrant them investigating it in a formal way, and I think that that isn't a conclusion with which the Government should be comfortable. Are we content? Thank you all very much. That brings us to our second petition, and I gather we have the petitioner with us again this morning in the Public Gallery. That's petition number 1911, review of the Human Tissue Scotland Act 2006 as it relates to postmortems, lodged by Anne Stark. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the Human Tissue Scotland Act 2006 and the relevant guidance to ensure that all postmortems can only be carried out with the permission of the next of kin, do not routinely remove brains and offer tissues and samples to next of kin as a matter of course. Again, in our consideration of this petition, we are joined by our colleague Monica Lennon, NSP. Good morning to you as well, Monica. Members will recall our evidence session with the Lord Advocate and Andy Shanks, head of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which we held just in June. Since that meeting, we have received further information from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and that written submission states that the COPFS is working with pathology providers on a service redesign. Its preference is to have a national pathology and mortuary service established under NHS leadership. On the issue of CT scanning, the submission notes that representations have been made by two pathology providers on the viability of using scanning in postmortem examinations. I think that that is progress on the position that we have understood it to be before. The petitioner, Ann Stark, has provided two written submissions. The first notes the upcoming service redesign and states that there is an opportunity to introduce the use of scanners in murder and suspicious cases and emphasises the importance of taking grieving families' perspectives into account if a national service is to be established. In her second submission, Ann Stark reiterates the importance of families having a choice about what happens with their loved ones and highlights the use of scanners in London to check for prostate cancer, which I think was a very recent news story. In addition to the two submissions that are included in the papers, we have all received numerous email communications directly from the petitioner raising issues relating to her petition. Although I fully understand her desire to ensure that we are fully informed, it is most helpful if the submissions can go to the clerks because it causes confusion among the members if we get them because we are then not sure what the actual operational process is in us dealing with them. However, I can assure you that if they go to the clerks, we do get them in a concise form and that would certainly, I think, just assist us. Before I open us to wider comment and also given that Monica Lennon was with us when we heard our evidence from the Lord Advocate and from Andy Shanks, I wondered if anything Monica would like to say. Thank you, convener. It's lovely to be back and to have the opportunity to be with the committee again. It is good that we have Ann and Jerry Stark in the gallery today. It's a loss of their son, Richard, who's brought us all here and brought all this evidence and discussion into the Parliament arena but also into the public. Ann is a prolific email writer and sender and not to make you feel that you're not special but Ann has been writing to every MSP and has been getting a really warm response and more and more people are coming forward to say the issues that we're looking at are really important. I won't repeat everything I said in summary at the last session in June. It was quite an intense session that we had with the Lord Advocate and Mr Shanks. I think at the point that it was frustrating just to try and find out who is going to take responsibility for this. I think that Mr Ewing and Mr Shoot in particular teased a lot of that out but, in the end, the Lord Advocate acknowledged that we all want a humane and progressive system. We do need to be robust and thorough in investigating deaths where there is suspicion but it needs to be proportionate. I think that what the petitioner has highlighted in prompting this inquiry is that, in Scotland, we're not keeping pace with modern practice elsewhere. Not just in England, we've heard about the experience in Lancashire but practice in Japan, Australia and other examples. We want to keep pace with that. What also gave me some comfort was that the evidence that we heard from the colleagues in Lancashire is that those innovations have been cost neutral to the public authorities. I think that that's important for us as parliamentarians to understand what could be the cost implications. Of course, we all want families to be treated with respect and dignity and compassion. Unfortunately, that's not always been the case. We've heard about some of the workforce challenges. No-one wants to minimise those but, again, the proposals that have come forward to the committee would help with workforce pressures and future workforce planning. I'm sitting here as a central Scotland MSP, the family behind me from Lancashire. They rightly are wondering why families in Lancashire can benefit from this service and that no-one's really been looking at it in Scotland up until now. It is welcome that you have had an update from the Crown Office over the summer on the service redesign. Going back to the title of the petition and the ask of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government has been sitting back on the sidelines in my view while I have been here to figure out what to do. It's really important that the Government is aware that this is something that the Parliament has taken seriously, that ministers are fully engaged because looking back at the notes from the last session, the Lord Advocate said, if I get a steer on what to do next, I will do it, it's the best of my ability, but that isn't really up to me. We do need leadership on this issue. It's a huge credit to Mrs Stark, who's brought forward the petition, but it's been a huge personal cost to her. She spends every waking hour on this and she doesn't get a lot of sleep, I can tell you. It's really important that all of us do the right thing by her and other families. I would be really interested to hear what Government and other partners will do next. Up until now, no-one's really picked a ball up on this. It's been left to families, which is unfair. I really appreciate all the time and effort by this committee, because we started at a place where it was like a blank sheet of paper. No-one really knew what was going on, and now, thanks to the committee, we've got a ton of evidence, not just in the UK, but what's happening internationally as well. I think that's really important. From me, a big thank you to all of the committee. Thank you very much, Monica. You described the evidence session that we had as tenths, and I think that that's a fair description. Having read it, you characterise it correctly in many respects. Although it was a slightly tenths atmosphere, the Lord Advocate was clearly sticking to the view of where her responsibilities lay. Where I think the committee got slightly frustrated was it wasn't really clear thereafter where she thought it was for the committee to go to get the correct answers. I think that's where we have been reflecting, because I believe, given the evidence that we heard from the pathologists in Lancashire and the other evidence that we've heard, that members of the committee are minded to seek to do everything that we can to advance the aims of the petition. I wonder, in the light of those remarks, if colleagues have got any contributions to make. Fergus Ewing? Yes, I do agree with that, and it's very helpful to have Monica Lennon's exposition at the beginning here. Thank you, Monica. I just wanted to refer to a couple of bits of the evidence and then make a couple of recommendations. The Lord Advocate was very clear that it wasn't really her role to deal with matters relating to pathology. She starts off on page 13 by saying that they don't have a role in relation to the recruitment of training of pathologists. On page 15, she says that it's really for the professional body to consider the quality, efficacy and benefits of the imaging and to determine whether imaging should be utilised in the process being undertaken. If the Royal College has identified a means by which postmortems can be less invasive, then I's Lord Advocate would reasonably expect that pathologists advising the Crown would explain that the process was available and should be used. In a sense, the Lord Advocate is saying that it's not my job, but if I'm advised by the experts in the pathology world that this is something that should happen, as it does apparently in England and we hear today in Japan and elsewhere, then that's something that she would pay heed to in her role, which seems to be no more than common sense and entirely logical and correct. Therefore, I do think that with one caveat, I think that we should take up the suggestion of writing to the Royal College of Pathologists to highlight the evidence session, to point out the evidence from the practitioners in England to stress that scanning and other processes appear to be available in England but not here. To ask for an explanation about why that is, to get their views, perhaps orally if necessary, but in the first instance in writing, is to what their view is to these matters, particularly whether as the petitioner very clearly argues that this is something that's a clear gap in the Scottish system, which results in the conclusion that the petitioner makes that nobody appears to care. She struck me in her remarks. The one caveat that the petitioner herself pointed out, I think that the contract, the fiscal service has, the service contract, which the Royal Advocate referred to a couple of times, expires in a certain month's time. If that's the case, then the new service-level contract, we may as a committee feel that that should include specific duties to enable this provision of scanning etc to be available where appropriate and to be specifically referred to in that service-level contract. For that to happen and working backwards from that committee, perhaps we might want to flag up to the minister now that this is something that's in our minds to do, subject to getting professional expert advice from the pathologist. The last thing I would say is, and the clerks have flagged this up, that there is a suggestion that pathologists say that some of the medical, clinical decisions may involve radiologists as well as or instead of pathologists. Perhaps the clerks could consider from whom we require to obtain the most relevant evidence here and whether it's one or other or both, I suspect perhaps both. No, no, no, that's incredibly helpful. I think that it might be useful just to refer in the suggestion, including the reference that Fergus Ewing has made, to the fact that they have said themselves that they've received representations from two pathology providers. It might be interesting if we just ask for a bit more detail on that as well as to what that is, because it doesn't really tell us any more other than that we've received a submission. So I think it would be useful to have that and to pull together as Fergus Ewing has suggested. Are there any other suggestions over and above that that colleagues want to make? The reference to Japan and perhaps other countries, if that needs to be followed up, maybe that's something the clerks could consider as well because we wouldn't want to leave any stone unturned. OK. I think we've covered the ground mainly at this stage. Are we going to get that evidence first before I'm just trying to think of the sequentially where we want to be? Because it's seven months, it's not a long time, and it may well be that the meat of the negotiation is being conducted right now. My point is we may miss the chance. Yes, so I think we want the most comprehensive letter at this stage, right? Yes, I think it might be risky to be sequential here. Let's just get it all in there right now. Are we content with that? Can you ask the Crown Office if they have any other alternatives or have they done anything at all to find any solutions? If they have done anything at all since they met us last time, of course we were concerned and we did see the reaction of the Lord Advocate. To me, I don't know if they have done anything or not. Can you not ask them if they have done anything at all, any other alternatives? We can do that. I mean, I suppose the only thing they've said is that they've had these two submissions, but that's not really action. It's just a reflection of the fact of that two submissions. Colleagues, are we content to proceed on that basis? That's great, thank you very much. The petition remains open. I'm hopeful that the Parliament will be able to influence the outcome and advance the aims of the petition as we proceed, so let's hope that we do. Thank you, Monica, for your on-going interest. The petitioner for all the interest she shows, I certainly appreciated having an opportunity to read the response that the petitioner received themselves from the Lord Advocate, which was economical in the respect of the issue. I do think that the opportunity to advance the aims exists, so thank you everybody. Petition number 1955. Colleagues, to make a provision of public toilets a statutory duty, which was lodged by John Wood and calls on the Parliament towards the Scottish Government to ensure local authorities provide good quality, clean and accessible toilets by placing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate such toilets and ensuring sufficient funding is available to meet this requirement for local authorities. Since our last consideration of the petition, we've received information from Highland Council and Aberdeenshire Council about their use of the comfort scheme. Members will recall that this is a voluntary scheme whereby businesses and organisations can obtain grants when they register to become providers of toilet facilities. The written submissions provide information about how many businesses and organisations are registered, the cost of the scheme to local authorities and the approaches to advertising the existence of the scheme. The Scottish Government has provided information about the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund as it relates to public toilets. While that information has been useful for the committee in understanding the current landscape and alternative routes for providing facilities, the petitioner has stressed the importance of the petition's main ask. The petitioner does not feel that the comfort scheme is a satisfactory alternative and that the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund is not an appropriate source of funding for basic public service. He has reiterated that public toilets are a basic requirement of public health and hygiene, stating that only a statutory duty and sufficient revenue will provide this requirement. I wonder if colleagues have got any comments or suggestions to make. I have some buffet with the petition but the Scottish Government has stated that we will not impose a statutory duty on the 32 local authorities because it is up to them to decide whether they fund public toilets or not. As somebody who has seen a comfort scheme working really well along the coastal path, I think that there is no way for us to go because the Scottish Government has been very clear that it will not impose a statutory duty on councils. I am asking the committee if it would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans at this time to make provision of public toilets a statutory obligation on local authorities. Mr Ewing, I would back up what Mr Torrance has said. I would like to add that I think that perhaps I owe the petitioners an apology because I did in my remarks the last time we considered this specifically suggest that we look at the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund and the reason I did that, convener, is that I knew from experience that I had as a minister that this is a practical way of providing funding for something. That is why I suggested it, but seeing the petitioner's response, he made the very fair point that that really was a red herring or a cul-de-sac or whatever he wanted to say. He was concerned about the basic human right of having a public convenience. I just wish to put in the record that I did not mean in any way disrespect the petitioner, but I do think that, for the reasons that Mr Torrance has described, it is plain that, whilst we admire and respect the principle that he is pursuing, it is not something that we can take any further. I did want to make that clear to the petitioner because I fear that he did not understand what I was trying to do, which should be helpful in a pragmatic way. I think that that was clear as the objective. Of course, the petitioner's committee is not making an editorial judgment on the merits of the petition at all. At the end of the day, we seek to advance the aims of the petition as best we can, but the decision ultimately as to whether or not the aims of the petitioner fulfilled is one for the Government, and the Government has come back and said that it does not intend to pursue the statutory route. For that reason, we have Mr Torrance's recommendation that we close this petition. Are members content to do it? I think that it is an ongoing issue. I have been getting quite a lot of emails from constituents from Lothian and Edinburgh, where I had business in Dalrai. I was involved in Dalrai a long time ago. Toilets and everything are closing in the Dalrai area. It is putting extra pressure on the local businesses. People are coming in with pregnant women or people with diabetes, etc. There is no public toilet in that area at all. It is putting extra pressure on the local businesses. Sometimes the staff working are under pressure. If someone wants to use the toilet, allowing it can cause into trouble. I am not really sure. I think that it is an ongoing issue. We do need to consider this. I think that it is a mental health issue as well. I do not know how long the petition has been going on being new in this committee, but I do feel that it is an ongoing issue and we do need to consider and support the local businesses. If you go to all the public toilets, Edinburgh is more or less closing there. Where do people go? If I can coalesce your view, you would prefer to see us keep the petition open and go back to the Scottish Government, highlighting the petitioner's latest evidence. Perhaps in your words, if I can paraphrase them, saying that there appear to be further public service toilet closures taking place and that this is placing a burden of expectation on local businesses, which is unreasonable. For those reasons, the Government should have a further think as to whether or not it would be prepared to consider its position. I am quite happy to push it. We close it under rule 15.7 of stand orders. The Scottish Government is not going to change its mind about imposing anything on local authorities because they are autonomous to make up their own decisions. Will you be content, Mr Charger, if we close the petition but send a further letter to the Government in doing so, highlighting the issues as you have described them? Obviously, we have noted what the Government has said. We recognise that it is unlikely that it is going to change, but this is a matter of concern and we think that it is worth them being aware of the continuing difficulties that are arising. Would that help? That would, but I think that we do need to support the local businesses as well and the staff working as well. As I said, there is a big mental health issue and I do know because I was involved in catering industry and entertainment. I am happy if you want to take this forward. Mr Torrance's conclusion supported by Mr Ewing that it does not look like the Government is going to change its view on the statutory matter. We have now come back twice to tell us that, but we could draw to their attention why it is a matter of on-going concern. I think that that is a sensible course of action. It would be useful to get the Scottish Government's view as part of that letter on the point that toilet provision is a basic requirement of public health and hygiene and what their thoughts are on that. Well, then we are not closing the petition. Mr Ewing, do you have any further reflection here because we have now got two colleagues suggesting that we close and two colleagues who prefer to have a further go drawing these latest matters to the attention of the Government? I absolutely understand the points that my colleagues who have proposed a different method make. At the end of the day, I think that the argument that Mr Torrance put that the Scottish Government is not going to change its position seems to me to be pretty much correct and not really open to doubt. I do think that the views that my colleagues have expressed are perfectly legitimate views, but they perhaps need to be pursued in the political arena because I feel as a committee that I am not sure that we will really get any further with that. I do absolutely agree that we could write to the minister setting out the reservations that perhaps we all have about this as an approach, but I do not think that the approach is going to change. I am certain that the approach is not going to change and therefore I do think that we should probably close the petition subject to your helpful suggestion of writing to the minister. I do share the concerns that I think we all do and there is a particular problem in the Highlands because of the distances involved between available opportunities, shall we say? Rather unusually over the issue of public conveniences, I am invited to come to a casting position. I think that I am minded to close the petition but to accompany that closure with a directional letter to the Government on the concerns that we have about the approach that they have decided to adopt, but recognising that it does appear that they are not prepared to reconsider it and I think that that will be for others to pursue in a different environment. I am going to jump because we have Rhoda Grant with us. I am quite happy to try and facilitate Rhoda's morning by bringing the petitions with which I know she has an interest this morning forward to this point. They are petition number 1974 to adopt the A90 as a trunk road and petition 1980 to adopt the A832 between Agnashian and Ghorston as a trunk road. We have both been lodged by Derek Noble. 1974 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A90 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems associated with the Strumferry bypass. The petition number 1980 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Agnashian and Ghorston as a trunk road, connecting that route into the existing trunk road network. We considered those petitions on 18 January, where we agreed to write to a range of stakeholders to seek further information on the issues raised. As I said a moment ago, we are joined this morning by our colleague Rhoda Grant. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from Larkaron Community Council and the Plockton and District Community Council, which highlight the disruption residents in others face when rock falls cause a closure of the A90, as well as their support for action to recognise the increased volume of traffic on this route and improve the quality of road surface. We also received a response in February from the then Minister for Transport, which suggests that although there is linkage between criteria set out in the strategic transport projects review and the A890, it is the Government's assessment that the A890 does not sufficiently meet the criteria to be incorporated into the motorway and trunk road network. The Minister also suggests that transferring the route to the trunk road network would not solve the investment challenges associated with addressing road safety and maintenance issues on this stretch of road. On a related point, the Visit Scotland response states that it considers road infrastructure an important part of the visitor experience, but that it would be for the Scottish Government to consider whether or not adopting the A832 as a trunk road would improve outcomes for both residents and visitors to the area. The response from Highland Council notes that it has done no further work on the Strumferri options appraisal since December 2019, given that the project has no capital programme support and no preferred option has been identified. The response also states that, although parts of the A832 may not meet today's design standards, the issues of the A890 Strumferri section outweigh those significantly. A range of responses, not altogether encouraging from the point of view of the petition, unfortunately. Before we ask the committee to reflect on what we have heard, I invite Rhoda Grant to comment on the things that she feels would be appropriate. I do not think that I can really stress how vital those links are to the West Highlands. They link Scotland and the Highland Council area to the Western Isles because it is seen as a link through to Ewing and Sky and from Ewing to the Uist. They are incredibly important. You quoted the then transport minister talking about the strategic transport projects review and how it did not meet the criteria wholly. I do not understand that because not only is it for local communities to access healthcare and education for tourism, farming, agriculture and renewables. It is also a freight link to the Western Isles. It is on the NC500, which we all know has been incredibly successful in encouraging tourists into the area, but that has put huge pressure on that road. I believe that it is of national significance because of that. You quoted the submissions from Luchcarran and Plopton community councils. They highlight how important the route is to the area. If it is closed, the detour goes from west coast to east coast and back. That is what you have to do. That is 140 miles of a detour. If you have a child going to Plopton high school from Luchcarran, you have to double that for a daily commute. That is 280 miles to get to high school. That is totally unacceptable. That happens often and often for long periods of time. I really do not understand the then minister's reluctance. We are also afraid to go in that route if you think of the carbon emitted just for that additional 280 mile journey. That is certainly not good for the planet. The island council has been clear that they are keen to do something about that, but they simply do not have the money. Last year they spent £700,000 over £700,000 just trying to deal with their upfalls. This year they are looking at spending £1.5 million as well. They have not been able to make any progress on the options appraisal that they carried out. I believe that those roads fulfil the national strategic link that the Government should be considering for them to become trunk roads. Given where two transport ministers since the last one responded to that, I wonder if the committee could go back to the current transport minister and ask her to consider the petition. It is of national significance, and it is also of significance to the duties of the Scottish Government to ensure that children are educated now. I would have to say that this was an issue when I went to school. This has been going on for some time where children cannot get to school because of rock falls. At some point there is going to be a horrendous accident because it is dangerous. You take your life in your hands going across that road and it is simply not good enough. The local people really do not care who is responsible, but what is very clear is that the island council does not have the money to do that. We have seen cuts in local government finance. People need safe roads, so if the Scottish Government is not willing to adopt, it should be looking to make capital available to make this road safe or to re-root it into a safer road. I know that the committee will be tempted to close the petition because it has had a response from the Scottish Government, but I would ask it to prevail on the Scottish Government again, given the national significance of the route and its importance to education, to change its mind and at least look at how it can assist. Thank you very much, Rhoda Grant. Fergus Ewing, you engaged in the discussion that we had when we last considered the petition. I can see that you are keen to commend us now. Thank you, Andy. I would endorse what Rhoda Grant has said. If she does not mind me saying so, if this has been a problem since she was at school, then it is not something that is servicing yesterday. If I can put it no more candidly than that. To be serious, that is a highland problem, and it has been highlighted very well. The community councillors have replied when they pointed out that, when the road is closed, there is 130-mile diversion. Who would put up with that in the central belt? They refer to the closures because of rock landslides that Rhoda Grant has mentioned today. The road surface is an embarrassment potholes that look like World War 1 shell craters. I do like unvarnished prose, uncluttered by euphemism and government jargon. The serious point is that Transport Scotland has said that it does not meet the criteria, but they have not said why. They have listed the criteria. Some of the criteria appear absolutely to ply, and Rhoda Grant has covered that. That does link remote communities, and that links key tourist areas. Those two criteria are clearly met. Transport Scotland said that, deploying said government style of prose, although there is a linkage with some of those criteria, it is our assessment that it does not sufficiently meet the criteria to be incorporated into the strategic motorway in Trunk Road. They do not say why. I think that our job is to tease out why and why not. The last point that I make is that, which I made in the previous session, the Highland Council covers an area larger than Belgium and 20 per cent larger than Wales, and with far, far more of a road network than any other local authority, even the borders, which is a substantial one. Therefore, the burden of maintenance of those local roads is absolutely massive. Therefore, if it is subsumed as a national trunk road, which I believe it should be, it slightly diminishes the impossible burden that the Highland Council roads department has in dealing with these pothole situations, which appear all over. I would strongly endorse what has been argued today by Rhoda, and I think that we do need to pursue this more. It may be that it is difficult, but at the end of the day, Transport Scotland has got to show that it understands, is sympathetic to the interests of the Highlands, and at the moment, the very strong feeling in the Highlands is that that does not exist at the current time with a Glasgow-based quango. I am going to assume that there was no connection between your observations about misgramping at school and world war one potholes. That was just an unintended… I would have thought that it would have been very much so. I wonder who has left to actually evidence that it looks like a world war one pothole, but maybe there is somebody in the Highlands where, of course, they are all long lived. Essentially, Mr Ewing, your view is that… You are right. We have simply been told that the Government does not consider that it does, but does not really, in the light of the actual evidence that has been attested, explain why they have come to that view and justify it, they have simply asserted it, and that we should ask them to do so. I would be happy with that if other members feel that that is appropriate. Would other colleagues be prepared for us to proceed on that basis? I agree to that. I agree to that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Rhoda Grant. I think that you did contribute to a different outcome being achieved in our consideration of the petition this morning, so thank you for that. That brings us to petition number 1973, which is to end the use of sheriff's discretion when ruling in civil cases and provide clear legal guidance on division of assets. This has been lodged by Sandy Isaac, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law Scotland Act 2006 and to provide greater clarity on the division of assets and cases of cohabiting couples who are separating by removing the use of sheriff's discretion rulings in civil cases, providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples, allowing appeals to be heard where it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong, but have used their discretion to prevent an appeal at no cost to the appellant and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance. Last considered on 21 December, when we agreed to write to a number of organisations including the Scottish Government, the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, and we've received submissions from the Scottish Law Commission and the then Minister for Community Safety and the Law Society of Scotland. The Scottish Law Commission confirmed that judicial discretion was considered as part of its work on reform of the law relating to cohabitation with its final report and recommended reforms having been published on 22 November. In her response, the minister was unable to commit to a timescale for bringing forward legislation in relation to the commission's recommendations but said that the Government was considering how to implement a number of commission reports including the one in cohabitation during this parliamentary session. The Law Society of Scotland's response indicates that it would not support the removal of discretion in civil cases, noting that every court decision involves an element of discretion or judgment on part of the sheriff. The response goes on to state that the society is broadly supportive of the reforms proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. Colleagues, does anyone have any comment or suggestion to make? Mr Torrance? Are you thinking of contributing to this one, Mr Ewing? Maybe it comes to you first then, Mr Ewing. As it happens by sheer coincidence, I have spent many hundreds of hours on dealing with the family law of Scotland at 85, which I think most practitioners feel is a very good piece of legislation that clearly set out clear rules for the division of matrimonial property on divorce. Therefore, it does not have the problems associated with the family of Scotland 206, which deals with cohabitants as opposed to married couples. Not all cohabitants may necessarily want to make a lifelong commitment, so they cannot be equiperated. At the time of the passage of the 206 act, I think I did opine that the Parliament perhaps felt that cohabitants were getting the same rights as married couples, they weren't. Of course, the format of the act was to provide very clear discretion to sheriffs to determine what financial settlement was suitable. The sheriff's pile, for example, and others, and in court of session judges have said that the discretion is very, very wide, and that makes it difficult for lawyers to advise, because it's not clear really what the fair outcome should be. All of that means that it would be desirable to have law reform after all is the purpose of this place. The suggestion that I was going to make was that, in the recommendation that was suggested to us that we might think of closing, it's because the Scottish Government anticipates bringing forward legislation in the current parliamentary session. I checked yesterday in the programme for government that it's not one of the acts that is in the 23-24 legislative programme. That then means that we would probably be at the coup's tail if it's going to be at it, and perhaps not even at the coup's tail. My suggestion is very simple, cutting through all the complexities here of the issues, the substantive issues, and just ask that we write to the Scottish Government before we close it saying, we understand that this is to be a bill in this session of Parliament, is that still the case or not? If not, can we get a view from the Law Commission and others, including the Scottish Government officials, as to when the bill is likely to be ready? That will be a bill that will, I think, be substantially dependent upon the commission and the law society and practitioners coming with the thesis. I don't think that MSPs can be expected to bring forward. It's highly technical, highly complicated, and a lot of work has been done, but it looks to me as if this bill won't be before us in this session of Parliament. Therefore, out of respect for the petitioner, we should find out what the facts are given the absence of this bill in the programme that was announced yesterday for this coming year. Thank you, Mr Ewing. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis? Yes, they are. Thank you. Well, we will seek to get that information. Thank you very much. That brings us to consideration of item 4 on the agenda, which is new petitions. Since this is the start of the session, and as I do ahead of each petition when we consider it, just to say that those people who might be looking in and our proceedings who have lodged a petition or simply following how a petition might be prepared, that, ahead of our consideration of the petition for the first time as a committee, we do seek the views of the Scottish Government and also of SPICE, our independent research operation within the Scottish Parliament to assist us. Therefore, we aren't considering the petition for the first time without any views having already been received. The first petition that we have received under this item is petition number 2023, as it happened, which is to stop the deposit return scheme lodged by Jim Foster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the introduction of the 20p deposit for consumers and the roll-out of the deposit return scheme. It is the petitioner's view that introducing the scheme will increase costs to the consumer, punishing those who already recycle and result in additional journeys to recycling centres. The minister's response to the petition received in May reaffirmed the Scottish Government's commitment to launching the scheme in March 24. However, as can happen with the consideration of petitions from time to time, events have overtaken us. Members will be aware that the minister announced before the summer recess that the introduction of the deposit return scheme would be delayed until October 2025 at the earliest. Although I don't think that we've heard from the minister directly as a committee, that's simply our reading of the matters in Parliament. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in relation to this petition? I hesitate, Mr Torrance. I consider the Government's position and the scheme has been delayed until October 2025. I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 on the basis that the Scottish Government has paused the introduction of the deposit return scheme until October 2025. The petitioner would have the opportunity to lodge a fresh petition for consideration by the committee at that time, depending on the Government's decision there at. Mr Ewing? It's ironic that, in one respect, at least, we've achieved what the petitioner wanted before the petition was even considered, so that must be something that is perhaps not a triumph, but certainly unusual. I agree with Mr Torrance for the reason that my understanding is that the lead to committee is still considering this issue as live and is unlikely to cease so doing. It's got the bit between its teeth that's been considering this in detail. I think that it would be wrong for us to start to take on any serious consideration of a matter where a lead committee has devoted a huge amount of time and effort to it. I don't know whether it's still live, but certainly there's still public debate about it. Most recently, the UK Government has suggested it would be 226, not 225. That's been resisted by the minister, I believe. I think that all those matters will almost certainly be raised by members in the lead committee. I think that it would be othios for us to come along and stick our neb in. Therefore, the petitioner is quite entitled to go to the lead committee and make representations to her MSP to that effect, and they would be the more appropriate vehicle within which to raise these issues. I don't know. I did work with Mr Golden and other members on this matter, and I would be interested to hear what he thinks. That's my honest view, despite the fact that I would very much like to question the minister, but perhaps another time, another day. Mr Golden? I would agree that we should close at least partly on the basis that we don't know for sure what we're stopping, the scope and form of that. There's quite a changing landscape in terms of extended producer responsibility, a delay to the RUK scheme to 2026, which may or may not have implications for us in Scotland. There's also a potential for a different form of deposit return scheme via the circular economy bill, which we wait to see subsequent amendments regarding that. Therefore, it's not clear to me exactly what we're stopping. It may be that a new form of deposit return scheme, the petitioner may look kindly on that, if it was a digital one, something around refills, so until we know what we're stopping and the petitioner knows what we're stopping, then I think we have no option other than to close it. I think that that seems fairly consensual amongst colleagues, so are we content to support Mr Torrance's proposal? We are. We will write the petition, I think, just offering the opportunity, but I think also just reflecting on some of the points that Mr Golden made as well about the committee not absolutely being certain of what it would be that we would be stopping at this stage. That brings us to the second of our new petition, petition number 2024, to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators and other performance enhancing drugs. This has been lodged by Cale Scott. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of using steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators, SARMs and other performance enhancing drugs, I'm not sure whether it's a PEDs or PEDs, which should include a particular focus on the impact on young people aged 16 to 25, working with community learning and development practitioners, gyms and community coaches to raise awareness and developing a public health campaign to highlight the negative impacts of PEDs, encourage regular health check-ups for users and a screening programme allowing users to test the safety of their PEDs. Cale tells us that one of his friends was admitted to hospital with a life-threatening issue resulting from steroid use and having seen many people at his gym used performance enhancing drugs without any apparent impact, Cale's friend had been unaware of the severity of the impact that they can cause. Cale notes that this was not an isolated incident and raises concerns about how easily and widely promoted these drugs are with information about negative impacts not being provided. The SPICE briefing sets out the distinction between anabolic steroids, which are class C drugs, that can be prescribed by pharmacists for personal use and selective androgen receptor modulators, which can be legally purchased in the UK without age restrictions. It is the latter that are gaining popularity partly due to a heavy promotion on social media. The Scottish Government response outlines the work being done by the Scottish Drugs Forum to provide information and training. Its response also states its commitment to developing public health surveillance data to better understand drug trends, saying that the work could be further enhanced to include the substances highlighted by the petition. It refers to a multi-agency working group whose work includes the development of a set of standards to support young people with their drug use. We have also received a further submission from the petitioner, which welcomes some of the activity set out by the Government, but it also raises concerns that the current approach does not address the main harms that are associated with performance enhancing drugs, namely hepatic and kidney disorders and cardiovascular disorders. Quite an important issue that has been drawn to the committee's attention by the petitioner, and I wonder what thoughts colleagues might have on how we would approach that. I wonder if the committee would like to continue its petition and write to the UK anti-doping, anabolic steroids UK and the Scottish Drugs Forum seeking their views on the action called on the petition. I would also like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the petitioner's submission and seek clarity on the membership and terms of reference of a multi-agency working group. I endorse that. I am just looking at the petitioner's response to the Scottish Government's main response. I was struck by the very detailed response that the petitioner has given to that. As well as saying that the Scottish Government does not seem to be covering the issues that he believes are relevant, he also says that the multi-agency group that is referred to by the Scottish Government may not include the right people and he goes through who they may be. Now, this is not an area that I know much about, but what he is basically saying is that there are young people between 16 and 25 that go to gyms that give access to these steroids with really no guidance or information about how to use them, what the risks are. Therefore, I think that he is saying that people in that world, perhaps with experience of being in charge of running the gyms and having a medical background or whatever, should be involved in the multi-agency group. I wonder if, when we do write to the Scottish Government, we could specifically ask about the range of suggestions that the petitioner has made so that we can get answers on them now, because I suspect that if we didn't, we would probably just come back and get the same points from the petitioner again who may feel that we haven't pursued the quite substantive and concrete points that he made in his response. That's great. Thank you very much. The petition will remain open and we will write to the various organisations as suggested. Petition number 2025 to improve the support available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee their home, lodged by Bernadette Foley calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee their marital home, by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor, ensuring that victims are financially compensated for the loss of the marital home, including loss of personal possessions and furniture left in the property, and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders. In the background to the petition, Bernadette explains that her sister faced threats and harassment for her ex-husband, whose family emptied their marital home of all furniture, fixtures and fittings, with the police seemingly unable to take any action to prevent that. Bernadette also tells us of the mental and physical impact that this experience has had on her sister and how she has been unable to assess financial support to help to replace her possessions and start over. At the spice briefing, it notes that the Domestic Abuse Protection Scotland Act 2021 introduces two short-term civil protection orders, both of which could exclude a perpetrator of domestic abuse from where the person at risk lives. However, that part of the act is not yet in force. In responding to the petition, the Minister of Victims and Community Safety notes that civil legal aid is available to a wide range of actions, including contested divorce, and that around 70 per cent of the population are eligible for some form of legal aid. The minister also highlights other options such as the Scottish Women's Rights Centre, which offers free legal information and advice to those who have experienced gender-based violence. The minister also refers to the work undertaken on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse, including options for financial support for women leaving an abusive partner. As the committee is aware, our consideration of related petitions, the minister also refers to the Scottish Law Commission's plans to review civil remedies available for domestic abuse as part of its work on family law. In the light of all that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? Mr Torrance. I hope that the committee will keep the petition open and dig a wee bit more into it. If we are going to do so under my recommendations, I hope that we will write to the Scottish Women's Aid, the Scottish Women's Rights Centre and the Law Society of Scotland seeking reviews on the action call for any petition. I would also like the committee to write to the Scottish Law Commission to seek an update on the review of civil remedies for domestic abuse, including clarification on whether the issues raised by a petitioner will be included in the scope of a review. I would also like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on when part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Protection Scotland Act 2021 will be fully implemented. Do we have any other suggestions? Are we therefore content? We are. The petition will remain open and we will again endeavour to understand the thinking of the various organisations to whom we will now write in the first instance. Petition number 2026, to eliminate council tax discounts for second homes and vacant properties lodged by Sam McCahon. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament, or the Scottish Government, to amend the Local Government Finance Act of 1992 to eliminate council tax discounts for second homes and vacant properties to make the property owner rather than a tenant liable for payment of council tax. The Scottish Government's response provided may encourage the petitioner to contribute to a public consultation on the council tax treatment of second homes and empty properties and this closed in July. The submission states that a joint working group and sources of local government funding and council tax reform has been convened and is considering targeted changes to council tax. The petitioner makes the case for the property owner rather than the occupier to be liable for council tax, saying that this would promote justice and equity and reduce the cost of living for all residents in Scotland. The petitioner's view is that the council tax reduction scheme leads to significant revenue loss for councils and increases the burden on tenants and homeowners who do not qualify for the means-based tax reduction. The petitioner believes that the existing approach is effectively subsidising property owners' investments. Do members have any comments or suggestions? David Torrance, I wonder if a committee would be inclined to write to the Scottish Government seeking a summary response of a recent consultation on council tax for second and empty homes and details of a future relevant work planned by a joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform and its views on making the property owner liable for payment for council tax. In light of the points raised in the petitioner's recent submission, I wonder if a committee could also write to Citizens Advice Scotland and share to Scotland seeking their views on the action called for in the petition. Colleagues, are we content to support that suggestion? We are. It brings us to the final of our new petitions for consideration this morning, and that is petition number 2027. The Changing Places Toilet Fund, launched by Sarah Heard on behalf of the Tindrum Infrastructure Group, calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch the £10 million Changing Places Toilet Fund that was pledged in the 2021 SNP manifesto without further delay and make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups trying to build these much-needed facilities. The response for the Minister for Social Care, Mental Well-being and Sport states that due to budget constraints, funding for the construction of changing places toilets has not yet been allocated and specific timelines for distribution remain unannounced. The submission emphasises the need to prioritise spending efficiently to benefit those in greatest need and states that further details of this investment will be provided over the parliamentary term. The petitioner's submission details the group's work to obtain the necessary permissions for changing places toilets and notes that the only thing preventing them from building the facility is a lack of capital funding. She highlights the hardships faced by disabled individuals and their carers due to the absence of changing places toilets, including in dignity, isolation and health risks. The positive impact seen in England, where similar funding has expanded access for disabled individuals, is cited. She notes the benefits seen in the local economy by tapping into the purple pound of potential tourists and customers in the disabled community. I forgot to remind myself that we are joined, even though I directed them, to the appropriate seat by our colleague Paul O'Kane MSP this morning, who has an interest in the petition. Before we move to consideration by the committee of potential options, I wonder whether Paul would like to comment in support of the petition. I am very grateful to committee members for hearing me this morning. I am a convener of the Parliament's cross-party group on changing places toilets, a newly established cross-party group in this session. I have had the opportunity to hear from a number of interested stakeholders in the provision of changing places toilets across the country. I am sure that colleagues are aware of the great benefit of those facilities in their own communities across Scotland. Not only because it is fundamentally the right thing to do, but because it benefits the whole of the community, where a facility is put in place, particularly because many families feel that they cannot be spontaneous and enjoy the same access to tourism and leisure activities that other people do if those facilities are not in place. I think that there is a benefit to the wider economy in terms of the provision of changing places toilets. Indeed, the convener may be aware, in his constituency, of Rooking Glen Park's changing places facility, which was only recently opened, and has added to the number of visitors that are coming from families, particularly those who have disabled children. The challenge, speaking to the petition before us, is that there was a pledge made. It was obviously a party political pledge in terms of manifesto, but it did feature in the 2021-22 programme for government. A £10 million fund would be rolled out. Evidently that has not yet happened. I appreciate what the minister has said in terms of the financial constraints and challenges. However, I believe that there is still a commitment to roll out funding by the end of the Parliament. I think that what people really want to see is detail from Government about its intentions for this fund, how, for example, applications might be made to the fund and what structure that might take. I think that that would certainly go away to help people to feel confident that the fund will be in place. Again, the petitioner is someone who runs a business but is very keen to make her contribution as a business owner and be supplemented and supported by capital funding for the wider community. I think that there are many people, whether they be third sector organisations or businesses, who are interested in putting in some of their own capital and their own funds in order to make a changing place in toilet reality but require additional funding from Government. I think that there is a huge opportunity here. I think that people are concerned that, as we meet the midway point of the Parliament, there does not seem to be progress. Of course, there has been progress in other parts of the UK. A £30 million fund in England has been distributed and is actually looking to its phase 2 now. What we are seeing is perhaps Scotland falling behind in terms of where changing places of toilets are available. That, again, goes back to the economic point that people may choose to holiday in other places where there is greater provision. Just to represent the views of the members of the CPG and to ask the committee to give it serious consideration, at least in terms of progress of how that might be structured. Thank you, Mr Cain. I think that you are quite right. The Government lit the fuse of expectation without the bang of delivery in terms of the public expecting progress on this issue. I wonder if colleagues have got any suggestions. I wonder if we could write to Minister for Social Care, Mental, Wellbeing and Sport highlighting the quality and welfare issues raised by petitioners in recent submissions and asking when the promised £10 million will be allocated to the fund and when it will be distributed. I wonder if we could highlight to petitioner the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund, because that is available to build new toilets or provide upgrades. It might be a place for him to go as well. Thank you. Any other suggestions from colleagues? Mr Ewing? I would very much endorse that and I support the comments that we have heard from Paul Cain. I have certainly had constituents, parents of a child with profound disabilities, that feel that they cannot travel south of Inverness because there are no facilities. There are facilities on the A9 that are suitable for their child. I just thought I mentioned that because the petitioner is relating to Tindrum, which is over on the A82 on the west, but this affects substantially, I think, rural Scotland at a point that the petitioner makes. Are we content to welcome the petition, to keep it open and to begin our investigative inquiry with the suggestions that have been made? We are, thank you all very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting this morning and we will resume again on Wednesday 20 September and will now move into private session for consideration of items 5 and 6.