 I rank the name and good morning. Welcome everyone to the ninth meeting of the Citizens Participation and Public Competition Committee of 2023. We have apologies this morning from the deputy convener of the committee, David Torrance. Our first agenda item is actually to agree to take items 4 and 5 in private. Are we agreed? We are agreed. That brings ac ydych i gyd yn y cyddiad rheswm ddech wneud i'r sredig, nes ystod rwy'r tyfnol ychydig.愨au ein anhygau ar gyfer ar ddiweddol tyfnol 18au yw 64au, ac mae'n eitihaddo'r ysgolwyddaeth o'r ddal-fiwn ffordd bwysigol F番ffirmaethrae atsgolwyr. Daddwyr ar F番ffyrnau Alene Jackson oedd ysgolwyr yn Gweinwyr, ac mae cwylwyr yn eitihaddo'r ysgolwyr yr ysgolwyr bydd y pryddo'i and to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, empowering local authorities to ensure local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries. We last considered this petition on 18 January, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government setting out recommendations based on evidence that we've received over the last two years. We were joined this morning by Brian Whittle, MSP, and I'll invite him to comment in just a couple of moments. In response to our submission to the Scottish Government, the new local minister for local and planning has accepted two of our recommendations and committed to exploring the benefits and disadvantages of altering the 50 milliWatt threshold, megawatt even, but if I just take you there, sorry, megawatt even threshold, and the scope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm developments. We've also received a submission from the petitioner which welcomes this commitment, which is good to hear. In relation to our recommendation on ensuring demonstration of local support is a key material consideration in the decision making process, the minister mentions that local opinion and evidence feature strongly in planning assessments and highlights the provisions introduced by the Planning Scotland Act 2019, which are intended to strengthen the voice of communities in the planning process. While the petitioner has welcomed the Government's commitment in relation to thresholds, she remains concerned that there is no definition of what ensuring communities have, and I quote, a meaningful say, looks like in practice, drawing parallels with the First Minister's recent comments in relation to highly protected marine areas and engagement with coastal communities. Before I ask colleagues to comment, I wonder if Brian Whittle has got anything he would like to contribute. Very grateful, convener. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak in this particular petition. As a south of Scotland MSP, I have many wind farm developments in my region, and very often I have letters from constituents complaining about onshore wind and the particular element of planning. I think that the public perception is, and I am very grateful to Mr Ewing's here, because he will be able to clarify this, but the perception from the public is that there is a presumption that planning will be given. Even if it is initially turned down by the local council, it will go in front of the Government and the likelihood that it will get passed. That is the public perception of what is happening. In my dealings with wind farm developers, my recommendation is always that they engage more with the local community. However, as it currently stands, that is not the feeling that the public is giving to me, in that many times it takes them a while to find out whether there is a wind farm development in the offing and offing that is too late. The actual engagement from the wind farm developers is very poor, although they would say otherwise. Given where we are in terms of our need to generate clean energy, I totally understand the need to consider more wind farms. I think that we have to be more considerate about where they are going to be. In my last term, I fought against one that was going to, and it went through anyway, that completely enclosed a town. Everywhere you look out of the town, you see wind farms. That was definitely not what the community wanted. My feeling is that engagement is not what it could be. Because of that, real or otherwise, the perception is that there is a presumption that planning permission will be given for onshore wind and that the public themselves have very little influence on that. I wanted to speak to the petition. I wanted to give you my constituents feelings towards that. My post-bags felly foes, as I said, as a south of Scotland MSP. I think that we spoke last week on the idea that perhaps one of the things that we should be doing is giving areas where presumption will be granted, and that would be away from commercial farming. A better thought process through the planning application would be advantageous for all, because, as I read through the papers, it is correct that the length of time between application and building a wind farm is up to 13 years. That cannot be good for any of the parties involved here. We have to find a better way to do that. Public engagement, as the petition asked for, is a positive way forward. Colleagues, I am interested to know what suggestions you have. It is encouraging that the minister has accepted two of the recommendations, but our continued concern may be a deliberation around the vagueness of the way in which they have responded in respect of the separate recommendation. Does anyone wish to comment? First of all, Mr Whittle has made a number of reasonable points. There is no doubt that many applications for wind farm developments can be extremely controversial. I think that all of us who have rural constituencies or regions are well aware of that, and there are very frequently objections. I think that I made the point that it is quite hard sometimes to detect. I am not coming at this from any preconceived view, but it is difficult to detect to what extent the residents in a particular area, within a reasonable radius of the proposed development, are either for or against. In other words, there is a more basic question about what is acunity and if there are 300 people who live in an area within the radius of the proposed development, if 30 objects out of 300, how significant is that? If 250 objects, I think that probably most people would think that that is very significant. The point that I am making is that it is sometimes quite difficult to detect who is the community and to what extent are the objectors representing the majority view or a minority view of the community, because one or two people can make very vocal objections, as they are quite entitled to do and often do. I think that my recommendation, convener, is that we write to the Minister for Local Government and Empowerment Planning to highlight the submission of 26 April, but seek clarification on the Scottish Government's definition of ensuring communities can have a meaningful say in very common on planning applications and with two particular requests. One, if they could respond to the question of what is acunity, is there any guidance to planning authorities about the extent of which the number of people within a particular area affected by development have to object before that is considered meaningful? Secondly, what does a meaningful say mean? It does seem that this is not a particularly clear criteria to include in guidance. Clarity should be the key in guidance, I think, so that everybody knows where they stand. It does somewhat, just finish with this point, that if communities can have a meaningful say, does that mean that other people who wish to make representations, individuals or businesses or charities or NGOs or local authorities, does that mean that they shouldn't have a meaningful say? I wouldn't have thought so. I don't know, because I don't really know what a meaningful say is. That's an entirely reasonable observation. I think that it's a hostage to fortune in any event, because it's a term that allows everybody to be thoroughly dissatisfied in due course, because they'll take the view that their say turned out not to be meaningful. I concur with Fergus Ewing, convener, because I do think that the clarity is not here, and it has been identified by Mr Whittle and Mr Ewing that the confusion that can arise from some of this and the whole idea of individuals and organisations not getting the chance to put their say forward. As we've already identified, some pressure groups and some organisations can be very good at getting that message over, but it may not necessarily be the message for everybody within a community. However, at the same time, the community requires to have an input, and some people are of the opinion that it's going to happen anyway. Local authorities make a decision and that's then overturned, and the community don't want it. There's a lot of effort that goes into some of this, and I do think that the meaningful say is problematic in the extreme as to what happens with that, so I would certainly concur with all of that. How to appoint our nominate advocate for the member's concern in the community? Will this be a Scottish Government official or spokesperson from the community? I think that we need clarification on that. Potentially, not only is there a definition of what a meaningful say is, but are people responding in an official way on behalf of their community or just more personally? If a community council were to put in representation, given that they are generally elected, although there's not always elections if there aren't enough people, should that be given greater weight than the few individuals who are not on the community council? Once one looks at the different options, it becomes more and more difficult to determine what community is. We'll keep the petition open. Thank you very much, Mr Whittle, and we'll proceed on that basis. Petition number 1900, access to prescribed medication for detainees and police custody, lodged by Kevin John Lawson, calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees and police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. Empowering local authorities to ensure that local communities are given sufficient professional help to—I know that I'm now reading the petition—we'll ask to consider this petition at our meeting on January 18. Of course, it is a petition of some long standing, as colleagues will remember. Since that meeting, we've received two written submissions from the Minister for Alcohol and Drugs Policy. The first submission shares that NHS Grampian, who you will recall involved in these matters, has £1,052,919 per year allocated from the £10 million available to fund work on MAT standards. It includes a letter from NHS Grampian stating that there has been a delay in obtaining the controlled drug licence application and that, while it is difficult to give a definitive timescale, it is working to an application being made by the end of April 2023. A recent report has been brought to the attention of the committee in the minister's second submission, and the minister highlights that similar issues exist in NHS Lanarkshire as in NHS Grampian and in response to the minister's committee to conduct a rapid review of each health board to ascertain the extent of those issues across Scotland, which I think is positive. The work will include writing to the chief executive of each territorial health board and police Scotland details of which are included in the Clarke note. The minister has stated that she will monitor the situation closely and provide updates to the committee as they become available, so I think that that's actually quite a constructive response following the engagement that we've had with the Scottish Government. Do members have any comments or suggestions, Mr Stewart? Thank you, Cymru. I do agree that the rapid review is a way forward, and it has been identified that there are some areas within other health boards, and I think that it would be of benefit to note the recent commitment by the minister of alcohol and drugs policy to carry out that rapid review of each health board and keep the petition open pending completion of that exercise, because that will give us a much better overview of exactly where we are. You've identified grampion and others that have a specific issue, and the minister is aware of that, so let's just wait and see what comes back from the whole review and give us that exercise to see how things progress. Okay, Mr Chowdry. Thanks, convener. What systems are in place to receive suggestions, complaints, issues from the health workers in prison regarding their medication? Sorry, I didn't do that. What systems are in place at the moment? Do we have any update on how they co-operate with or how the health workers get involved? Basically, what systems are in place just now? Have we taken evidence on that? I can't recall. No, not particularly. I think that we previously established at an early stage that there were not formally recorded actions. I think that we got a commitment from the Government at an earlier stage in the consideration of this petition, Mr Chowdry, that they would introduce a formal recording of the prescribing of medicines, because it was, I think, an early consideration of this petition where we identified that although it was asserted that these things were happening, there was no way subsequently to demonstrate that that was the case. So I think that the Government in a previous response accepted a recommendation from the committee to change the procedures in order that a new process was put in place at that time. Our next petition is petition number 1906 to investigate the options for removing and reducing the impact of the central Glasgow section of the M8. That has been lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of Replace the M8. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow Cathedral, including specifically complete removal and repurposing of the land. Like the ghost of Christmas past, we are joined this morning by our former colleague Paul Sweeney, who previously spoke in support of this petition when a member of the committee welcomed back Paul. It is nice to see you. We have missed your independent analysis of our considerations. Following with interest your public campaign in relation to these matters, which we will no doubt hear more on the moment, we previously considered the petition on 23 November last and since then we have received a response from the Scottish Government stating that Transport Scotland is happy to work with Glasgow City Council to ensure that all necessary stakeholders are included within any assessment. The submission states that no funding has been allocated by the Scottish Government towards an assessment and that, as discussions on the scope of any work have not taken place, it would not be appropriate to discuss funding at this time. On that note, I am happy to open up and ask Mr Sweeney if he has any comments or, indeed, any suggestions to the committee on how we might advance the interests of the petition. It is a pleasure to be back at the committee. I do miss coming along to participate, so it is great to be able to come back in this instance. As you are aware, the committee last looked at this petition in November last year and since then there has been some positive developments, most notably that Glasgow City Council, at its full council meeting recently, agreed a motion to look at the future of the MA and investigate options for mitigating its impact. It is a question of whilst removing the MA in its entirety as quite a provocative statement, I am sure that some colleagues may think that. It is merely a provocation to a wider discussion. It is a large piece of land that incorporates the equivalent of the entirety of Inverness at the centre. It is a large amount of land in the centre of Glasgow, which can still be utilised as a road for its primary function, but I think that the purpose of the petition is to investigate how we reduce the rather obnoxious design of the road in such a way that it can address its spatial and environmental impacts on the city centre. There have already been substantial amounts of work done on this. Most notably, a levelling up fund bid was submitted to cap the section of the motorway in front of the Mitchell library between Bath Street and Salkhill Street. Unfortunately, that bid was unsuccessful, but it may well be revisited in a future round of the fund. Furthermore, there was a commission for district regeneration frameworks carried out. It was commissioned in 2016 and has produced a series of district regeneration frameworks for the entirety of the city centre, which highlighted particular interventions, particularly on the west flank of the M8 in our ring roads, which could be enabled to reduce the impact of roads such as removing certain slip roads and capping and decking over sections of the motorway, where it is in cutting and aiming to restore areas such as Anderson Cross, which is completely engulfed by a spaghetti junction. Furthermore, there is a large cloverleaf junction at Town Head, which was over-engineered because it was designed for the east flank of the other ring road, which was never built. It was built by Stratoclyde Regional Council in the early 1990s, but it was built to serve a motorway that was never built. Therefore, it is about a third over the size that it should be and incorporates a huge amount of land, which disconnects Royston, Springburn and Salkhill from the city centre. There are options while maintaining the fundamental purpose of the road that could be significant to reduce it in the short, medium and longer term. Although it is good that there is an indicative proposal from the Scottish Government to work with Glasgow City Council, I think that we really need a bit more on this, as we have already been significant public money spent on studies, feasibility and specific interventions. Whilst we are seeing hundreds of millions of pounds spent on repairing the woodside viaducts, probably the biggest infrastructure spend in the city, which has been subject to no public consultation, it is a reactionary spend and reaction to the road physically crumbling apart. We really need a reassurance if you were driving over it. Indeed, it has been reduced to four lanes for some time now, in the speed restriction placed on it. Nonetheless, it demonstrates that the road structurally is reaching the end of its natural lifespan without significant further investment. We are reaching a crux point here, where the Government really ought to be more thoroughly engaged. I think that this Parliament has a role in overseeing that. I think that this committee therefore takes an important position in relation to this petition to exercise that role. Therefore, I would urge the committee to consider inviting key stakeholders from both Transport Scotland, the Scottish Government and Glasgow City Council to present their view on existing studies, such as the MVRDV district regeneration framework, which we commissioned at a significant expense five years ago. The levelling up fund bid for and how we progress those projects, which are kind of shovel-ready to borrow a phrase from John Swinney. I must say that I do find the petition quite an intriguing one. I should say that I was at school with the son of the man who designed it all at the time. I do not think that that associates any personal blame with me in relation to it all, but I do remember it all being constructed with quite fascination in the early 1970s when I was at school. It was quite a long journey prior to its construction. It was then quite a short journey, and then it became a very long journey again as traffic volumes became familiar with it. I have noted with interest your most recent online campaign in relation to the reconstruction of Charrion Cross and the original buildings that I think were demolished over the bit up front of the Mitchell library and along that are potentially open to being capped. Is that correct? In the case of Charrion Cross, the Grand Hotel and a number of other tenements and retail arcades were demolished to create the cutting for the M8. In that instance, there was an area that was decked over, but it was quite small. If you go to Cafe Gandolfi in the merchant city and go through the rotating doors, that was the original door from the Grand Hotel in Charrion Cross that was salvaged. The key point there is that it demonstrates that there is an opportunity to further improve the environment here without damaging the fundamental utility of the road. The question now is half a century on from its first commissioning. We know that international examples show, for example, Boston's Big Dig and other examples around the world. We see what Paris is doing. We see what numerous other cities worldwide are doing. There is a big opportunity for us to enhance the city centre. I also would argue that there is a potential to realise a positive capital net receipt for the public, because this is Government-owned land. The land was all compulsory purchased by the Scottish office at the time to construct the road. Therefore, by utilising the airspace over it where possible, there is a potential for development to take place, which could return a positive net receipt to the public funds, which would not only enhance the city centre's immunity but would also be financially sustainable as well. It is not just this quixotic idea about an urban plan and utopianism. It is about a serious and incredible intervention based on international best practice. I understand that. In fact, I was on a visit just a couple of weeks ago to the Jewish Archive at Garnethill. Of course, when you are up at that height and actually trying to leave, you are aware that the brutal truncation of a lot of the infrastructure around about there, which persists, had quite a detrimental effect on the kind of heart of that whole area of the city, which at one time was quite central to Glasgow and now is almost quite peripheral to it with the centre having shifted much further in the other direction, because the road really brutalised what was quite a significant part of the city at the time. Well, this is a fascinating conversation that we could enter into. I'm just going to make a comment really just about the process and having listened very carefully to what Paul Sweeney has said and respecting his considerable interest in this matter and work that he's done on it. He makes a suggestion that we should take evidence, but I do wonder if he might feel that, given that he also states that Classical Council is looking at options, whether the practical option for us as a committee may be to wait to see what the results of that work by Council is in order to hear their view as the local authority, who after all are, I guess, well placed to voice the views of Glasgow alongside other representatives. Because if we first see what they recommend, then I think that gives us some clearer thesis on which to proceed. Perhaps if that is procedurally an appropriate way to proceed—I'm not making any judgments on the merits at all—we could perhaps keep the petition open pro tem until that work is done. I don't know, as Mr Sweeney might be able to tell us, how long that work is going to take. It could take three months or it could take three years, who knows. I wonder if Mr Sweeney felt that that might be—rather than to shut the petition now, but to keep it open to see what the local authority has got to say about the options, because I think that you said that they are looking at a variety of different options. The issue, I'm quite sure, is absolutely not straightforward by any means. That's a fair comment. That was merely a motion passed by councillors, so the actual detailed timeline or sequence of activity subsequent to that by officers hasn't been fully articulated yet. Furthermore, the point that the convener made about Transport of Scotland saying, whilst they're interested in working in principle, that there's no resource to exercise that activity, I have concerns about how that will be expedited. That's where the committee does have a role. Maybe it is slightly premature to invite everyone together to present a pathway to how that would be carried out. Maybe the committee ought to consider writing to Transport of Scotland and Glasgow City Council to say, please indicate to us when you have undertaken a firm plan so that we might have an opportunity to talk about it or really scrutinise it to some extent, so the Parliament has a role in overseeing that these stakeholders are working together, because I do detect a bit of animosity between Transport of Scotland and Glasgow City Council with respect to that policy and how that evolves. Transport of Scotland is very much programmed to it's a trunk road, we just want to operate a trunk road, we're not really interested about it's aesthetic value whereas obviously there's wider considerations with respect to Glasgow City Council and our parliamentary representatives. Mr Stewart? Mr Stewart makes some very valid points convener about where that could go and there is an issue about timescale and there is an issue about the resource that may be required and we acknowledge that but I do think that we need to get more clarity as to where and how so a plan that Glasgow City Council have in mind and Transport of Scotland will be very useful just to ascertain exactly where we are because I think that there is real merit in some of this for the location that's been identified and that as I say should be examined and given more time for clarity to come back and if that is the case then that gives us a bigger option at the time if there are other options on the table that we are going to receive from them if they think about the timescales, the resource implications and what might happen in the location because as you identify Mr Stewart the life expectancy of the location will have to be managed in some shape we have formed and it's as well to look at all options rather than just putting something systematically through you could achieve a lot more and make something of it where the location is because of that and I think that that is certainly something that I think we have an opportunity convener to develop as a committee and as this petition. On that basis can I suggest I mean I take the point that Mr Sweeney made that in some ways the petition itself is there to provoke some sort of progress in a wider sense so and I do find some of the issues that raises quite intriguing and from small seats big you know big outcomes can follow if we show an interest in a commitment so can I suggest that we do right to Glasgow City Council saying that we are very interested in the aims of this petition we're minded at some stage potentially to facilitate a wider discussion but that it would be useful at this first phase if they were able to give a little bit more detail or flesh out their own ideas as to what might follow and to indicate that you know we're not we're not necessarily requiring an immediate timescale to that we recognise that this might require them to just do a little bit of thinking before they come back to the committee but that on the back of that that would allow us to have a better idea of how we might advance the aims of the petition uh the committee agreed with with that that seemed fair that's great thank you very much that's how we'll do we'll keep the petition open on that basis thank you very much for joining us mr Sweeney that brings us to petition number 1953 to review education support staff roles and this calls on the uh lodged by Rozen Taylor Young and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support yes staff roles in order to consider urgently raising wages for education support staff across primary and secondary sectors to 26 k per annum to increase the hours of the working day for yes staff in 27.5 to 35 hours and to allow allowing ESS to work on personal learning plans with teachers taking part in multilingual meetings requiring ESS to register with social services uh Scottish social services council and paying ES staff monthly and we previously considered this petition at our meeting on the ninth of november last. Cosless submission states that there are no national rates for non-teaching staff and pay levels are determined through job evaluation the submission notes that a separate salary increase for one group would have a wider impact in other roles and raise affordability concerns similarly the submission explains that pupil support assistance work varying hours based on pupil needs and changing this would have financial implications for various roles within councils and it notes that involvement in personal learning plans and multi-agency meetings varies locally and is determined by school and teacher discretion and lastly cosler notes that the issue of pay periods and its impact on universal credit falls under the responsibility of UK benefits now the committee has also received a response from the then cabinet secretary for education and skills which indicates that the bute house agreement exploration group will share its recommendations on a qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistance by the autumn of this year and we've received a written submission from the petitioner which has been shared with the committee this morning a late submission and i'm aware of a technical issue unfortunate which caused the submission to be received late through no fault of the petitioner so thank you to her particularly for working with the clocks to get this submission to us in time for us to consider it this morning and the petitioner submission raises a number of points in response to the submissions we've received to which i've just alluded she asks that the bute house agreement exploration group consider recommending national rather than local agreements for the registration and accreditation of education support staff in schools the petitioner highlights the school support staff the way forward that's the name of the document agreement produced by the national education union in england which is considered similar issues in fact to those of the exploration group the petitioner highlights in response to causal submission that the single status agreement is almost two and a half decades old and that pay disparity exists between areas such as edinburgh and glasgo the harper trust versus brazil case from 2022 is highlighted and put into the context of this petition with cautionary points about the potential implications of backdated unfair pay claims the petitioner concludes by suggesting a number of options for the committee to pursue and i wonder on that basis for members of any comments or suggestions mr stewart thank you can you and i i do think we should continue to keep the the petition open at this stage the the petitioner in the submission they've given does make some very valid points about where we are in this whole process so i would suggest to be right to the scottish government seeking an update on the bute house agreement exploratory group recommendations when they're available in autumn of this year because i think by doing that the petitioner also talks about what's cause there's been involvement in all of that too and i think that it would be good to get some clarity with reference to that so i would i would propose that can be at this stage are we content to pursue so thank you very much again to roizen for her additional work and allowing us to consider matters this morning and we will move forward on that basis is there any that anything else we can think to do are we content with that it is okay fine thank you very much that brings us then to petition number 1958 extend after care for previously looked after young people and remove the continuing care age gap and our this petition was lodged by jasmine and casiah pilling and i'm not sure yes my eyesight is sometimes a little bit dodgy shape i thought i spotted her joining us this morning so welcome to you in the gallery on behalf of who cares scotland and the petition calls on the scottish parliament to urge the scottish government to extend after care provision in scotland to previously looked after young people who left care before the 16th birthday on the basis of individual need extend continuing care throughout care experience people's lives on the basis of individual need and to ensure care experience people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care experience people and this includes ensuring that the UN convention on the rights of the child and the findings of the promise are fully implemented in scotland and you'll recall colleagues we previously discussed this at our meeting on the 19th of april where we heard evidence from the petition a jasmine and representatives from who cares scotland celsis the centre for excellence for children's care and protection the children and young people's commission of scotland and the promise scotland at the time members will also recall that ahead of our last consideration there was an informal discussion with care experienced individuals and their advocates and a note of that discussed discussion has now been published on the petition's website page and during those evidence sessions we heard about the importance of ensuring individuals are aware of their rights and that seemed to be a major concern and particularly the consequences have been removed from supervision orders before their 16th birthday we also heard about the inconsistent application of existing support both within local authorities and across the country and the need to ensure the provisions of the children and young people scotland act 2014 are fully implemented and i think that you know we've all had time to reflect on the evidence that we heard and i'm pretty certain there's considerable additional work for us to consider now doing having done so i wonder if there are any suggestions from the committee as to what we might do i mean i think at some stage down the line here we would want to hear from the minister for children young people and keeping the promise but i wonder if there's anything we might think to do in advance of that mr steward i agree with you i think you know that the this petition has opened up a much bigger options and it is about rights and it is about the inconsistencies that we have now found so i would concur with you convener that the minister should come and give us some evidence and it might be useful for us to to seek from the the Scottish government what action it's addressing and the capacities of work for issues to ensure care experiences people can access support when they need to do that and as you've already said i think plans to bring forward legislation on the promise are also vitally important in in this whole process so i think the minister coming and getting some more clarity on both of those areas i would suggest is a another start for us to to take this whole process because i do believe that we will we will learn more from the Scottish government side of things when we do have the minister actually here giving evidence on behalf of this petition and obviously there are a number of questions we could put to the minister in advance or we can put to the minister in evidence i mean is there a preference on the committee i mean do we ask for some more detailed information in advance so i mean i think we could also write as you write the identify we could write to the minister asking what is to be considered by the Scottish government and local authorities to ensure that the end of the practice of of removing the compulsory supervision orders and seek information on the Scottish government will consider attending the the children scotland act 1995 to ensure that the duty to provide consultions care applies to care experienced people who need even if that has ceased to be looked after after the 16th birthday so i think all of that that we had a very good discussion from the when we took evidence previously that i think could also be be ascertained prior to the minister arriving to the committee or i suppose we could write saying those will be the areas that the committee will be very particularly interested in focusing on so i think if we if we pull together i think the information and the concerns that the committee had and flag up to the minister that those will be areas that we are seeking to actually address when we take evidence from the minister directly so we content to proceed in that basis we're keeping the petition open we're inviting the minister to join us at a future meeting post the summer recess obviously now at which we will take more detailed evidence on behalf of this petition and see what further progress we can make okay thank you all very much at petition number 1960 to formally recognise private hire cars and taxis as modes of public transport now this is a petition lodged by edward grice and he is also the protagonist of petition number 1961 which we'll consider in a moment and it is lodged on behalf of the scottish private hire association calling on the scottish government to formally recognise private hire cars and taxis as modes of public transport and to enshrine such recognition and law we previously considered this petition at our meeting in the seventh of december where we agreed to write to the scottish government the society of chief officers of transportation scotland the confederation of passenger transport and heads of planning scotland and we've since received responses from the confederation of passenger transport and the scottish government and as noted in papers for today's meeting heads of planning scotland declined to provide a formal response indicating that they would defer to the views of the society of chief officers of transportation on this matter and unfortunately a response from that organisation our society has not been forthcoming so we're none the wiser the scottish government has responded with information on the short life working group which was tasked with reviewing and updating the taxi and private hire license car licensing best practice for licensing authorities document and we understand that the petitioner was a member of this working group whose work has now concluded cpt's response states that it only represents the bus and coach sector there is no formal role for taxi and private hire in its organisational structure which really goes to the heart of the issue and it goes on to say that while it's sympathetic to the petitioners concerned that the sector is not being fully consulted with on transport issues it does not agree that classifying taxi and private hire vehicles as boards of public transport would help achieve the scottish government's stated desire to reduce car kilometres who are the confederation of public trans passenger transport i'm inclined to ask the petitioner has responded to dispute cpt's interpretation of the term private vehicle and has drawn our attention to the taxi trades classification as public hire as well as licensing provisions that can enable taxi and private hire cars to offer taxi bus services i'm genuinely in the first instance unsure now who or what funds the confederation of passenger transport is this an agency of the government because coming back to i just feel their response and coming back with what i would say is a politically provocative judgment about why the petitioner's aims can't be accommodated because they contradict something for which they don't have a responsibility is a bit striking any suggestions i think there's no doubt there continues to be a loophole in this whole process for for that sector and private hiring taxis so i think we we once again continue to ask for more clarity and we write to the Tlavett Commission of Scotland to seek their views on the action called for in the petition and how many special restriction licences are currently registered within Scotland because i say i i do think that they have a very valid point here in in asserting what they are and yes the short life working group may have concluded but it hasn't come back with anything specifically for the sector so the sector is still being left in in some kind of Thank you. I wonder also if we could ask spies or someone to investigate CPT just to find out. I'd like to know who funds them because there may be a conflict of interest there which hasn't been made obvious to us in the submission that they've left us with. Are we content on that basis with that position? We are. Moving on to position 1961 to make it a specific event to assault, threaten or abuse y private hire a taxi driver while at work, as I mentioned a moment ago also in the name of Edward Gries on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association. This position calls on Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the protection of workers' retail and age-restricted goods and services Scotland Act 2021 to include private hire and taxi drivers by creating a specific criminal offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they are engaged in private hire or taxi work and considering such offences as aggravated when the offence is committed whilst the driver is enforcing a licensing or operational condition. We again considered this petition along with the previous one on the 7 of December when we agreed to seek further information from Police Scotland, the Scottish Taxi Federation and also from the Trade Union Unite and since then we have received a response from Unite in support of legislating to protect private hire and taxi drivers but recommending that the scope of any such legislation be extended to include all transport workers. The petitioner has indicated that they would be agreeable to this suggestion. Police Scotland has provided data on the number of breach of the peace and threatening or abusive behaviour offences recorded over the past 10 years but were unable to provide occupational breakdown. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I do think that we have taken this petition to a level that I think is probably, as far as we probably can take it, in some respects. There is some common law and there is some statutory offences in other areas that fall into this. I would be at this stage proposing that we close the petition under a 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the type of behaviour referenced in the petition may already be prosecuted under common law and existing statutory offences. Any other thoughts? Shelf, for a new bill, similar to Daniel Johnson, that would cover transport workers considering retail workers and taxes. I think that the route would be whether a route to pursue to amend the act, the 21 act, to include private hire and taxi drivers, which is the suggestion that Unite, if now suggested, would support. It would require a bill to amend it. It is not just a case of waving a wand and us all saying aye. It requires a bit more of a process to it. I am inclined to give it one last hurrah in the sense that Unite has come in support of the petitioner who has said that he would be agreeable to the suggestion that they have made. I think that I can anticipate the Scottish Government's response, but, nonetheless, I think that, given that it has had that additional level of support, and I think that we can flag up that that is the case in any submission, to say that we are minded to see specifically again whether the Government might be prepared to contemplate that, if even only in the longer term. You can sit with that, Mr Stewart. That is fine. Thank you very much. That takes us to item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. Of course, as I usually and customarily do, just for those who might be joining us for the first time this morning to see the progress of a petition, to make clear that, ahead of our consideration of it, we do invite the Scottish Government to comment and also the Parliament's independent research body spice to have a look at it as well. That just in helps inform the committee so that we can proceed to discuss matters in a meaningful way. The first of those petitions is petition number 2012, which is to remove the need for follicle-stimulating hormone FSH blood tests before prescribing hormone replacement therapy HRT. It has been lodged by Angela Hamilton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the need for follicle-stimulating hormone blood tests in women aged 40-45 who are experiencing menopause symptoms before hormone replacement therapy can be prescribed to relieve their symptoms and replenish hormone levels. Angela tells us that she is aware of many women aged 40-45 who have all the symptoms of perimenopause, but because their blood tests do not confirm that, they are dismissed by doctors and left to endure debilitating symptoms, which affect all aspects of their lives. In responding to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health highlights nice guidance that HRT can be offered without the need for a blood test when other symptoms are present but a blood test may be required to rule out other illnesses. The minister also mentions that NHS education for Scotland has been commissioned to create a bespoke training package focused on menopause, including perimenopause and menstrual health. There is now a specialist menopause service in every mainland NHS health board with a buddy system in place for island health boards. The petitioner Angela has also provided a submission that shares the experiences of women with perimenopause symptoms seeking help from their GPs and who have been left feeling dismissed and let down. Colleagues will remember that this is very often a common theme in petitions. The petitioner also raises concerns about nice guidelines not being consistently followed by local health boards with a specific concern about the prescription of antidepressants for women with menopause symptoms. A different area of women's healthcare is unfortunately some similarities in terms of the patient experience and an appeal to this committee to see what more we might be able to do about it. I think that we would want to keep it open in the first instance and write, I might suggest, that we write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and gynaecologists to seek their view on the action called on the petition. Are there any other suggestions, is that Mr Stewart? As you identify, convener, this is a major problem or it would appear to me a major problem. Women are being let down. My bail bag over the last seven years and even prior to that has had many of this. I think that this is something that is further moving up the agenda within women's health. I think that what you are suggesting, I would also suggest that we write to the NHS education to Scotland to seek information on the development of that bespoke training that has been discussed and the framework focused on menopause and how the training is being rolled out to GPs and primary healthcare providers because that is the biggest problem that we seem to have at the moment. There is not a consistency and there seems to be that they are dismissed and have to endure and suffer for a number of years. By doing both of those, that will give us an opportunity to see where we are. Mr Stewart? I agree with Mr Alexander. I mean why the training programme is not mandated, I think that should be because that is going to affect half of our population and I think the training programme should be mandated. Okay, thank you. We are content to proceed with the suggestions as have been made by colleagues. We are. The second of the three new petitions were considering this morning, petition number 24 team, revert to the appeal system used in 2022 for SQA exams. This has been lodged by Elliot Hepburn on behalf of Moffat Academy students calling on the Scottish Government to implement a revised SQA appeals process, which takes into account evidence of the pupil's academic performance throughout the year, particularly prelim results. The spice briefing states that the Scottish Government intends to replace the SQA, and it is expected that a bill will be introduced later this year for the purpose. The briefing outlines the appeal system used in 2022 and notes that the SQA described the 22 appeals process as an emergency response due to the Covid-19 disruption. The SQA conducted a review of the certification appeals processes, including a consultation with learners, teachers, parents and others. The review found several issues, including increased workload for teachers and perceptions of unfairness in the process, which all MSPs probably received representations in relation to. Views on the approach for the 23 appeals were mixed. The SQA appeals process for 2023 will involve a marking review by a senior marker focusing on the correctness and consistency of the initial marking, and it no longer considers alternative assessment evidence. The process is free and individuals can apply directly to the SQA. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills responded to the petition stating that the SQA is responsible for its operational decisions, including its approach to the appeals process for 2023. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlights the exam's exceptional circumstances consideration service, which supports pupils who are unable to attend their exams due to reasons outwith their control or whose performance may have been affected by personal circumstances. I am struck. The appeals process now is simply that a senior marker focuses on the correctness and consistency of the initial marking and no longer considers alternative assessment evidence, which I previously thought was often the principal thing that many schools submitted in behalf of pupils was here as evidence to suggest that the individual had done better than this process. However, notwithstanding that, that is what is happening in 2023. I imagine that colleagues elsewhere intimately concerned with those issues will have debated them thoroughly. We are in a situation in which the Scottish Government is indicating that a bill is going to be forthcoming, which is going to alter the situation, so I am not sure that there is terribly much more that we can do at this stage. Mr Ewing? Well, it is relatively early in the life of the petition, I suppose. It is not. At the point that you make, convener, that it seems on grounds of equity that, in some cases, looking at other evidence such as continuous assessment and the progress made by pupils over the course of the period in respect of which the examinations relate, would be helpful. I think that we are all conscious that for every child, for every pupil, the results of their qualifications can determine the future at lots at stake, and this is something of a huge moment to children and their families. Therefore, I did notice that the cabinet secretary for education stated that alternative evidence will not be needed for the appeals service this year. That is a statement as an assertion, but I wonder whether we might invite her to just flesh that out and state with a bit more detail in why that view should now be the case where previously it was not. Are there not circumstances, particularly where there is an element of difficulty, problems, trouble in the life of the child such as an interruption to education through ill health or other issues of that ilk, which may well merit consideration of alternative evidence? Maybe the system provides for that separately. I do not know that I am not an expert in it at all, but I am sure that we have all had cases over the years where the outcome of an examination has been very much out of line with the prediction, and that in turn has led to lots of soul-searching and problems in individual cases. Because of the importance of this to children in general, I would not want just to close the petition now, but rather seek from the cabinet secretary a much greater explanation of why it is that alternative evidence would not appear to be relevant this year when, in principle, prima facie, there are surely many circumstances where the consideration of alternative evidence is not only appropriate but essential. Yes, I am content that we should do that. I wonder whether we might also ask the SQA the very same question. I think that we would be interested to know the basis in which they have concluded that simply the academic review of the correctness of the marking is sufficient, because the exam diet is now coming to a conclusion and results will be forthcoming in the next few months, and this therefore will become a very live issue for a considerable number of people. I think that it would be interesting for us to take the petition forward at least to that extent, to have a greater clarity as to why that would be the case. I think that maybe we might ask what practical implication they believe that will have in relation to the outcome of appeals this year in comparison with previous. Are we content to do that? Mr Chowdry? The question is, will they be publishing the final report? I mean, do they have any independent reviews? Right, and we'll ask that of the Scottish Government. That's correct here. Well, if they maybe just discern what that might lead to and we'll see how we can check that forward. Okay, thank you. And the final new petition we're considering today is petition number 2015 to extend the right to vote in Scottish local government and Scottish Parliament elections to all prisoners. This has been lodged by Irene Krusmanovic. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the right to vote in Scottish local government and Scottish Parliament elections to all prisoners held in Scottish prisons. On 4 May, this year, ministers laid a copy of the report of the review of the operation of section 5 of the Scottish elections franchise and representation act 2020. The report concludes by stating that the Scottish Government's position remains that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights to enfranchise all prisoners, but that the correct balance is found in extending voting rights to those prisoners serving shorter sentences. It states clearly that the Scottish Government does not plan to revisit the 12-month threshold for prisoner voting. That's a fairly expressed direction. Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed with the petition? Mr Ewing? Well, the Scottish Government have replied very clearly on the considerable length and this issue has been looked at considerably before. It seems to me that there's very little prospect of any of any change. I would just comment that some people take the view, certainly from work that I've done over the years, that those people who are subject to a long-term imprisonment by virtue of having committed crimes for which they are required to be incarcerated and have their liberty withdrawn means that they should not enjoy the benefits of freedom, which include the right to vote. I just make that for the record because it has been a view expressed to me by many over the years very strongly indeed. I believe that it has also been very much at the heart of the debate that's been held in Parliament. Given the expressed direction that we've received to the Scottish Government, it's got no plan to revisit the 12-month threshold under rule 15.7 of standing orders that we move to close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Government's position remains that it's neither appropriate nor necessary to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights to enfranchise all prisoners but that the correct balance is found in extending voting rights to those prisoners serving shorter sentences. Are we content to do that? We are, thank you all very much. The next meeting of the Public Petitions Committee will be on Wednesday 14 June 2023 when we'll be taking evidence from among others Scotland's Lord Advocate, but that concludes the public section of this morning's meeting and we now move into private session. Thank you very much.