 Good morning, and welcome to the first meeting of 2022 and the first meeting of the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are obviously operating in a hybrid format this morning with members participating remotely. Before we start, I have the pleasure in welcoming a new member to the committee in Ruth Maguire, not just to the committee but back to Parliament. We are all delighted to have Ruth back with us at Holyrood. Before I ask Ruth to declare her interests such as they may be, can I also thank and pay tribute to Bill Kidd. We veterans must stick together. I have been working with Bill over many years during the time that I have been a member of the Parliament and very much valued his contribution, sound judgment and advice during the months that he has served with us on this committee. I know that he will be serving Parliament in some of that capacity and I wish him well in so doing. I thank him very much for the job that he did with us over the last year. The first item on our agenda this morning is to welcome Ruth Maguire and just for Ruth to establish for the record whether there are any interests that she would wish to declare. Thank you for the welcome. I am looking forward to the work ahead on the committee. I have no registrarial interests to declare. The second item on our agenda today is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is petition number 1723, essential tremor treatment in Scotland. This was lodged by Mary Ramsey and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of focus ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have this condition. I am delighted to welcome back Rhoda Grant MSP to the committee to speak to the petition. Before I come to Rhoda, I will provide a little more background. When it was last considered in September last year, the committee agreed to write to the University of Dundee to seek an update on the MRG-FUS system, an ultrasound scanner system. A response from the University of Dundee has now been received and has confirmed that their focused ultrasound system has been used to treat five patients with essential tremor. Funding approvals have been obtained from the individual NHS health boards for patients to be treated in Dundee over coming months. A committee also wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport requesting an update on plans to submit a proposal to the National Specialist Services Committee to allow that to become a standard form of care and applications to the committee have now been halted due to the pandemic. At present, the majority of those wishing to access this treatment are forced to travel long distances to access care in England. Rhoda Grant, welcome back to—I mean, I do tease sometimes that you are with us more than I think some of our committee members, but it is a pleasure to have you with us again this morning. Is there anything that you would like to further update the committee in relation to this petition? Yes, thank you, convener. I think that it shows how important the committee is to my constituents that I seem to be here a lot of the time because it makes a real difference to people's lives. I hope that with this petition it can have that impact as well. Since the committee last considered the petition, I have obviously spoken and met Mary Ramsey virtually on a number of occasions. Following some of those meetings, with Mary, herself and other stakeholders of an interest, I wrote to Ralph Roberts, the chair of the National Specialist Services Committee. He told me that the National Services Division is due to meet with the clinical team in Dundee by the end of this month to discuss how a formal application for designation and the relevant paper work can be prepared for consideration by both the national patient public and professional reference group, as well as the national specialist services committee. He told me that the next schedule of meetings of those groups are scheduled for February and March, but it is unlikely that they will be discussed at all presound at those meetings. It is more likely to be discussed at the May or June meetings, and there is no guarantee at that time that it will reach a conclusion. It feels to me that there is still no real recognition of the issues that people with essential tremor face having to travel to London for an assessment and also back there if they are assessed as being suitable for the procedure. There is also no acknowledgement of the waiting times that people face and the impact that that is having on their lives. There is a real fear that that decision will be further delayed beyond the spring or summer, and I think that the committee knows how long this petition has been before itself in the previous committee. I share Mary Ramsey's frustration that we appear to be moving at a snail's place to bring as much needed treatment to patients in Scotland, and patients having to consider whether they join a waiting list in London where the treatment is available. Indeed, that is a long waiting list, and NHS England is looking to create another centre to deal due to the level of demand. It makes no sense to me whatsoever that we have the equipment and we have the knowledge here in Scotland, and we are not using it for our patients being and forcing them to travel to access it. It is not good for them, and it is certainly not good for the public purse either. I am not sure whether you are aware, but 80 patients have been referred for assessment to Dundee last year from their own health boards, and around 25 per cent of those patients are considered appropriate for treatment. I would urge the committee to keep this petition open and put pressure on those committees to make sure that the treatment is approved as quickly as possible. I think that you already know that Mary Ramsey and Ian Sharpe, who has had the treatment, are happy to give evidence to the committee about their own experience and show the first hand the difference that treatment can make for those with essential tremor, and maybe the committee could contact the NPPRG and the NSSC to see if they could give priority to considering the treatment of their earlier meeting. As you said, convener, I urge you to call that those committees have not met for a long time. Thank you, convener. Okay, thank you very much, Rhoda. That was very helpful and quite disappointing in some respects. David Torrance Thank you, convener. I would like to keep this petition open, just based on evidence from Dundee University and the success of it. I would like to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the success of the MRG-FUS treatment and ET patients, and ask them for clarification as to when the pause on NSSC applications is likely to be removed. I would also like to write to the Scottish Government how it intends to provide funding for the MRG-FUS treatment that is being made available for more ET patients in Scotland, and how they will raise awareness among the profession about the treatment for essential tremors. I do not have an indication that any other committee member wishes to commit, so on the basis of David Torrance's suggestions and the contribution from Rhoda Grant, we are proposing to write to the Scottish Government highlighting the success in Dundee, and to ask when the pause is likely to be removed. To ask the Scottish Government whether it intends to provide dedicated funding to ensure ultrasound scanning can be made available to more patients in Scotland, and how it plans to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals. I would also like to take on board a couple of the organisations to which Rhoda Grant suggested that we write. Sorry, Rhoda, I did not actually get the acronyms fast enough, but they will be noted by the clerks, but there were two specific committees. I think that you were quite keen that we write to as well, so I would like to include them in our further submission. Are we all content with that? We are. Thank you very much. I think that we will see you again a little bit later on, Rhoda, so I look forward to that. Our second continued petition is petition number 1855, which is to pardon and memorialise those convicted under the witchcraft act of 1563. This is a petition lodged by Claire Mitchell QC, and I just, in the first instance, apologise in behalf of the committee to Claire Mitchell, who may now be joining us in that by way of an oversight, appropriate notice was not given that the petition was coming back to the committee this morning, and therefore an opportunity to submit further evidence to us was lost. I think that we will be later in the proceedings seeking to keep the petition open in any event and look forward to that submission being received. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the witchcraft act of 1563. We last considered that position at our meeting on 1 September last year, and we decided to seek further information from the Scottish Government and the petitioner, and that was in relation to whether the royal prorogative of mercy could be used to achieve a pardon. The petitioner is seeking three things—the pardon, an apology and a national memorial for those convicted under the witchcraft act in 1563, and further detail about that is provided to colleagues in their papers pact this morning. In relation to the pardon, the petitioner suggests that the royal prorogative of mercy is not a suitable vehicle to achieve their petitioner's aim, stating, and I quote, that we are not looking for a pardon in individual sequences by our Majesty the Queen, as the prosecutions were carried out by the Scottish State. The petitioner also states that an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, the SCCRC, to pardon individual people would not be competent, as there would be no one who could be considered to have a legitimate interest in the criminal procedure Scotland act of 1995, quite obviously given the centuries of time that have passed since. Instead, the petitioner suggests that there is a need for the Scottish Government to legislate to provide a pardon for all those convicted. The petitioner draws parallels with historical sexual offences pardons in disregard Scotland act 2018, in that it provided a collective and posthumous pardon. The petitioner suggests that the committee should ask the Scottish Government to provide a public apology to those convicted of witchcraft, making it clear that those convictions ought not to have happened and that those people were not witches. In its submission dated 4 November last year, the Scottish Government accepts that, while the SCCRC can consider posthumous applications made on behalf of a convicted person, made by someone who would have standing to bring an appeal on their behalf, in practice this will almost certainly not be possible. In terms of the raw prerogative of mercy, the Scottish Government advises that the First Minister will not generally consider recommending to Her Majesty a free pardon under the RPM process until that person's appeal against their conviction has been dismissed or leave to appeal has been refused and any application to the SCCRC seeking to have the case referred to the appeal court has been rejected. In a further submission from the petitioner dated 5 December 2021, the petitioner suggests that the committee may wish to consider a committee bill on this topic. Since then, we have received a submission from our colleague Natalie Dawn, who has indicated that she does intend to bring forward a member's bill to allow a pardon to take place. However, she notes that the two other asks in respect of the petition, i.e. to seek a public apology and to create a national monument, will not, as matters stand, fall within the scope of her bill. This is where I hope that my microphone has been working for the last several minutes, otherwise there is a lot to be repeated. However, on the assumption that it has been, I am going to ask of members of any comments for action. In the first instance, I am going to go to Alexander Stewart. Thank you very much, convener. There has been quite a lot of correspondence back and forward on this topic, and I note what the Scottish Government has said, with reference to the process and the proceedings. As you have already indicated, Ms Dawn MSP has also come forward with her member's bill. I think that it would be at this stage appropriate for us to keep the petition open until we can establish what the member's bill is likely to proceed on which topics. You have indicated that it may not be as broad as Ms Mitchell herself wants to progress, but I think that it would be useful for us to have that in any case. Then, to consider inviting the petitioner to provide evidence to the committee at a future date, depending on whether the member's bill will be allowed to progress under the auspices that Ms Dawn is trying to do. I recommend that that is what we would try to achieve with that. It is not going to be easy, convener, as you have already indicated. The Scottish Government has made some quite strong views and opinions with reference to it, but I think that it is important that, at this stage, we continue to progress it. Thank you, Mr Stewart. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I know that Natalie Dawn will bring the member's bill, and we do not know what it looks like, but I would still like to invite the petitioner to the committee to give evidence so that we can base any future outcomes about the petition on that and take it forward. Thank you, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Mr Torrance. No other members of the committee have indicated that they wish to comment, so I think that if I may summarise that we are keeping the petition open, it does as Luke as though Natalie Dawn will be bringing forward a member's bill. I think that we might require some clarification on our ability to progress the petition if a legislative bill is tabled and proceeding, but it looks in any event as if the scope of that bill might not be entirely comprehensive in relation to the scope of the petition. Therefore, I think that we will keep in mind a desire to hear evidence from the petitioner at a future meeting and perhaps just clarify with Ms Dawn when she might be likely to table that member's bill and to invite her to participate in the consideration of the petition on that date. Does that course of action meet the approval of the committee? Thank you. Our third petition this morning, petition number 1873, is to provide hit the therapy for the treatment of mental health, psychosomatic disorders and chronic pain. It was lodged by Graham Harby and considered last in September. It calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to instruct the national health service to provide hit the therapy for the treatment of certain conditions. The Scottish Balanced Research Centre has produced a summary of the available research on hit the therapy conducted in other countries. It concludes that irritable bowel syndrome appears to be the condition with the most research on efficacy of hit the therapy and that evidence of other conditions is more mixed. Submissions from the leads of clinical health psychology, NHS Orkney and North Ayrshire Health and Social Care Partnership highlighted a lack of available evidence on the merits of hit the therapy. The petitioner's recent submission reiterates various forms has been used for thousands of years. He also highlights that mindfulness and meditation are practices that are not new and have always been a part of hit the therapy treatments. I should say that I am myself a former convener of the cross-party group on chronic pain, which is considered those issues, and I believe that Ruth Maguire is going to comment. Thank you convener. I should probably mention for the record, although it is not on my register of interest that I am a former complementary therapist and used hit the therapy in my practice. I have not been practicing for a number of years, but it may well again in the future. Taking on board the evidence and the feedback that we have from stakeholders, as you highlighted in your opening, unfortunately there just is not a lack of quality evidence at the moment that would enable them to recommend the therapy as treatment on the NHS. The Scottish Government has stated that it is up to individual NHS boards to decide which complementary and alternative medicines they use. I think that we probably have to, on that basis, close the petition. However, I wonder if committee would be supportive of us writing to Sign and Nice and perhaps encouraging them to undertake a review of scientific literature to help healthcare professionals and patients to understand the medical evidence relating to the issue of hit the therapy for treatment of mental health, oposomatic disorders and chronic pain. You mentioned the cross-party group on chronic pain, and I know that a number of us will have anecdotal evidence of that being an effective tool and treatment for people, so I think that it won't be a little more explanation. Thank you Ruth Maguire for saying that. I associate myself with those remarks. A course of action has therefore been recommended to the committee. I ask members if they are content with the recommendation, as presented by Ruth Maguire. We move to petition 1877 to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff, tabled by Alex Wallace. We looked at that in September last. The petition calls on Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland. Members should note that the Public Petitions Committee considered a similar petition from the same petition in session 5. The committee wrote to stakeholders seeking their views. The British Medical Association has sent us a submission raising concerns about how body cameras might affect confidentiality and patient trust, suggesting that body cameras could prevent a patient from seeking help or being honest about their situation, were they to think that their remarks were being filmed. The clerks note accompanying the petition sets out data provided by the Scottish Ambulance Service on reports of physical or verbal abuse against their staff. The service notes that it is recently considered and approved a limited trial of body cameras. The services submission sets out a number of perceived benefits to using these body cameras, including a potential reduction in staff absence due to assault, better quality footage supporting prosecutions and wider improvements to staff wellbeing. Paul Sweeney, can I come to you in the first instance? Thank you, convener. I noted the petitioner's requests and the feedback that we have already received. I note the feedback from the Scottish Government that they do not believe that body cameras would necessarily be appropriate for all front-line clinical staff, given safety risks across different job roles and patient confidentiality issues. That concern has been reiterated by the British Medical Association. That issue around confidentiality breaches the sensitivity of data protection appropriately wide. However, there are instances in which it may well be worth considering it more thoroughly and where it might be appropriate to apply such a device. To that end, I propose that we write to the Scottish Ambulance Service to request more information on the trial of body cameras when it expects its trial to conclude on how those findings of the trial will be utilised and to further write to the Scottish Government to ask what engagement and plans it has to review the findings of the Scottish Ambulance Service trial and then consider what plans it has to scale up such a measure or a trial should it prove to be successful and its conclusions seem to be appropriate to do it more widely. I see some merit in looking at the limited trial that is being put forward by the Scottish Ambulance Service, because, as Mr Sweeney has already indicated, the risks and confidentiality that are there for the others would possibly be too far. However, I believe that there is merit in seeing what the trial is looking at and how that might progress. Therefore, I am keen to continue and we will be happy to support Paul Sweeney and the recommendations that he has put forward. We have taken note of the submission from the British Medical Association, but our mind needs to keep the petition open and to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish Government on the basis and terms suggested by Mr Sweeney and supported by Mr Stewart. Are we all agreed? I believe we are. Our next petition is petition number 1878, The Investigate Prosecutions under the Mental Health Care and Treatment of Scotland Act 2003. The petition was lodged by Andrew Muir and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate why there have been so few prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment of Scotland Act 2003. We considered to get the petition last on 22 September and we decided then to write to the petitioner and to write the Scottish Mental Health Law Review to ask for an update on its work in relation to compulsory detention and care and treatment under the 2003 act. The Scottish Mental Health Law Review responded to say that, as part of its remit, it was considering patients' experiences of care and treatment while subject to compulsion. Why there has been an increase in compulsory detention and treatment and the reasons for variation in compulsory orders across Scotland. That includes issues of concern around accountability, complaint systems and strengthening advocacy rights. A link to the full submission from the review can be found in members' papers and I therefore invite comments and suggestions in the first instance. I will go to David Torrance. Thank you, convener. We were previously dealt with this petition last year in petition P1786 and I cannot see any difference in the petition that we are dealing with, so my recommendations would be to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standard honours with the basis of issues in the petition versus all within the scope of the Scottish Mental Health Law Review. We have had a really in-depth submission from them on it, so I cannot see if the committee is taking this anywhere else, so I am happy to close it. Thank you, Mr Torrance. Members, the recommendation from Mr Torrance is to close the petition under rule 15.7. Are we agreed to do that? We are. Thank you very much. Our next petition is petition number 1881, longer sentences for pedophiles and sexual predators lodged by Carol Burns and last considered in September 2021, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the length of time sexual predators serve in jail. At that meeting, the committee requested an update from the Scottish Sentencing Council on progress, developing sentencing guidelines on relation to rape, sexual assault and indecent images of children. The committee also saw an update from rape crisis Scotland in Victim Support Scotland. We have now received a submission from the Scottish Sentencing Council, which provides information about the development of three general guidelines. Those will create a high-level framework for sentencing and a foundation for the development of offence-specific sentencing guidelines. Work on the development of guidelines on rape, sexual assault and indecent images of children is now at stage 2, which focuses on engaging with key stakeholders, gathering evidence and developing a first draft for each guideline. The SSC is not yet in a position to set out a definitive timescale for the publication of the guidelines. In its submission, Rape Crisis Scotland shares the petitioners' concern that some sentences feel disproportionately short to those affected by the crime, and Rape Crisis Scotland welcomes the SSC's review of sentencing guidelines. Can I come to members for comment and, in the first instance, to Alexander Stewart? Thank you, convener. There is no doubt that the high-level framework is progressing, and I think that the Scottish Sentencing Council has put a huge amount of effort into it. I suggest that, at this stage, we close the petition under rule 15.7, and the Scottish Sentencing Council is developing a set of sentencing guidelines that you have already indicated with reference to rape, sexual assault and indecent images. In closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner suggesting that she engages with the development of the guidelines, specifically when it comes to the research project on rape and sexual assault. With that process in mind, the committee could share the petitioner's details with the Scottish Sentencing Council to ensure that there would be that dialogue and discussion between the petitioner and the council itself. That is the best way forward at this stage, on this whole process. Thank you, Mr Stewart. I take note of the recommendation that you have put in addition to your suggestion that we close the petition. I turn to the committee to see if they are in agreement with that course of action. We are, so I thank the petitioner, Carol Burns, in closing the petition and very much hope that she does engage with the Scottish Sentencing Council in relation to the development of the guidelines now under way. Petition number 1883, open all toddler and baby activities within tier 3 of Covid-19 future pandemic lockdowns, lodged by Katrina Clarke and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow baby and toddler activities to be considered equally with other outdoor activities in tier 3 of future lockdowns, last considered by us in November. We wrote to the Scottish Government a range of the issues highlighted. The Scottish Government stated in response that no formal analysis has been carried out in relation to baby and toddler groups. However, engagement has taken place with member organisations. Small grant funds were set up to support smaller organisations and children's rights impact assessments and business regulatory impact assessments were undertaken at each stage of the pandemic. The Scottish Government Public Health Scotland is currently working to understand what impacts from the pandemic might be on children aged up to three years of age and what actions could be taken to improve that impact. The petitioner has subsequently highlighted that there are similar risks associated with baby and toddler groups to those assessed for soft play centres. Yet soft play centres were allowed to open in tier 3 and baby and toddler groups were not. I ask if any of the committee has any comments to make and, in the first instance, turn to Ruth Maguire. Obviously, we are seeing a bit of light at the end of the tunnel in terms of the pandemic, but we know that from the Scottish Government that they are unable to completely rule out further Covid-19-related restrictions or advise what they might be in the future. I think that this is a really important topic. There will not be many families that have not been impacted. Anyone who is as young as a child or has older children and can remember will appreciate how important those activities are for children's development and for their wellbeing, and indeed the wellbeing of the mums and dads that are going to them. However, I think that, based on the fact that the Government cannot rule out further restrictions, we probably have to close the petition. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government and explore the further issues that Sheena Clarke raised with the committee. I would also like to highlight to her the inquiry into the handling of the pandemic. I think that, in raising the petition, there is an example of a group of society, be it children and babies and their parents, who have been impacted by actions that have taken place. It is a legitimate area for the inquiry to look into. I think that we are going to close the petition. Is that what you are recommending? The issues are sufficiently important that we would very much encourage the petitioner, Sheena Clarke, to contribute to the inquiry, which will no doubt encompass the issues related when it is in due course convened. Is that correct? That is absolutely correct. I am sure that individual MSPs will all be mindful of the matters that Sheena has raised. Are the committee contents proceeding on the basis of Ruth Maguire's recommendation? We are. Our next petition is petition number 1, 888, full legal protection for hedgehogs and moles, which was lodged by Joseph Allen and calls on the Scottish Parliament to earth. The Scottish Government to grant full legal protection to hedgehogs and moles and was last considered on November 3 last at that meeting. We agreed to write to Hog Watch, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Mammal Society, and we have had responses from Hog Watch Scotland project operated by the conservation volunteers in Scotland. In their submission, Hog Watch Scotland reiterated that hedgehog numbers in Britain have fallen from an estimated £30 million in the 1960s to just £1.5 million in recent years. Hog Watch Scotland notes with concern that, while the Scottish file diversity list categorises hedgehogs in the watching grief only category, that means that hedgehogs are considered of less concern and only require monitoring. Hog Watch Scotland considers that the declines already shown by current estimates require a more proactive approach. It also believes that increasing the labour protection afforded to hedgehogs in Scotland and raising awareness about their conservation could drive conservation efforts from the public, particularly in urban settings. In its submission, the Scottish Wildlife Trust here after the trust explains that it is very concerned about the decline in hedgehog numbers, which is highlighted by the fact that it is currently considered vulnerable to extinction on the red list for Scottish mammals. Furthermore, the trust would like to see concerted action to protect hedgehogs and other vulnerable species by increasing legal protection and directly addressing the causes of their decline. The trust's view is that there does not seem to be evidence to suggest that moles have experienced similar declines to those of hedgehogs. However, the trust believes that more needs to be done to mitigate the impact that human activity has on all biodiversity. The trust believes that that is essentially, especially important, if we are to achieve the Scottish Government's ambition to address both the nature and climate crises together. The fact, colleagues, is that we have been advised by the Scottish Government that they are awaiting the outcome of the JNCC review, which is not due for publication until early spring. We will then require scrutiny before any policy actions can be taken, albeit that there clearly is very widespread concern supporting the issues that the petitioner has raised. I am therefore minded to recommend that, notwithstanding that, we close the petition and very much look forward to the consideration of the JNCC review. Our colleagues are minded to support that course of action. I also inform the committee that, sadly, our colleague Collette Stevenson MSP has hinted to the committee that the petitioner, Mr Allan, has died since we last considered the petition. I am very sorry to receive that news. I would very much like to pass on the committee's sincere condolences to Mr Allan's family and to thank them for the petition that Mr Allan raised and brought to the committee's attention, which I hope will receive appropriate consideration when that review is forthcoming. We now move to petition number 1889, financial support for self-employed people in the travel industry. This is lodged by Nicky Peachey and encourages the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide tailored financial solutions for self-employed individuals working in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and who have been on the campus of the Scottish Parliament lobbying MSPs directly. We last considered the petition in November last and, at that meeting, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and industry representatives. A response that has been received from the APTA, the Travel Association, and in its submission states that summer 2021 failed to deliver a meaningful restart for the travel sector. APTA recently conducted a survey on behalf of the Save Future Travel Coalition, which reported that the value of new bookings taken across summer and early autumn last year represented, on average, only 31 per cent of the value of new bookings taken over the pre-pandemic period in 2019. APTA notes that the self-employed travel agents operate a variety of different business models and, as such, are only able to access part of the grants that have been made available, as the mission explains that some staff have been required to issue refunds and manage booking requests on behalf of clients. HMRC's data shows uptake of furlough by travel agencies and tour operators at 30 April 2021 was only 49 per cent compared to 70 per cent in hospitality. APTA believes that many of the grant funding schemes in Scotland have failed to recognise the impact of unique restrictions placed on travel. Many local authority administrative schemes focused on physical constraints of Covid-19, such as the closure of premises or social distancing measures. The submission explains that schemes such as temporary closure grants were only applicable to retail travel agents when premises were required to close, whereas online travel agents, tour operators and travel agent home workers were ineligible for this funding. As such, travel businesses without a rateable premise were not eligible for one-off travel agent fund payment launched by the Scottish Government in January 2021 or the restart grant scheme. Furthermore, APTA advises that it is aware that many independent agents within their membership have had to remortgage or sell homes in order to keep their businesses alive. APTA highlights support schemes offered by the Northern Ireland Assembly, such as the Northern Ireland Executive's limited company director's support scheme, LCDSS, which provided an initial one-off taxable grant of £3,500 to eligible company directors in January 2021. It also highlighted the Northern Ireland travel agent coronavirus financial assistance scheme 2021, which included a one-off single payment of £3,500 for self-employed travel agents working from home, which was clearly a different approach. I come to Paul Sweeney in the first instance among colleagues to comment. I share the concerns raised by the petitioner dealing personally in the constituency basis with Barhead travel, one of the largest travel agents in the UK. They have raised concerns that the package of support that was designed largely for in-bound tourism, such as hotels and hospitality venues that might be affected by the cessation of inbound tourism in Scotland. However, there has to be similar consideration given to businesses that are involved with outbound tourism, particularly travel agents that are very much geared to travel agencies with premises. Even then, the way that the scheme is constructed, even businesses with multiple premises do not necessarily qualify for support, even though a company such as Barhead travel, for example, employs nearly 500 people. There is a major concern that there is a gap in the way that the system and the schemes have been designed. The Northern Ireland model certainly holds up a benchmark that is well worth investigation. I raised the matter with Ivan McKee, the minister, before Christmas, and I was not convinced by his response. He made a point about being engaged with Barhead travel, and they were effectively disputing the fact that they were being engaged by him. There is clearly a bit of an issue there about the level of engagement with the industry, and not to mention the design of the support structures that people are feeling that they are being let down. It is very appropriate for us to interrogate the matter further. I would consider writing to the Scottish Government to raise the specific issue of the Northern Ireland scheme and why that has not been emulated. Perhaps seeking evidence from stakeholders further afield, I would nominate Barhead travel, for example, but there might be other examples of a major participant in the sector that would be worth investigating their position on that as well. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. That was quite comprehensive. I have not learned an indication of the moment of any other colleagues wishing to intervene. I think that we are going to hold this petition open and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Economy on the basis that Mr Sweeney suggested and, in particular, drawing to her attention the package of support measures that were implemented in Northern Ireland, which seem to have maybe more directly responded to the aims of the petitioner. Are colleagues agreed with that course of action? We are. Thank you all very much. Our next petition is petition number 1891, making swimming lessons a statutory requirement in the primary school curriculum lodged by Lewis Alexander Conde and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all children will have had the opportunity to learn to swim by making it a statutory requirement to provide lessons in the primary school curriculum. I am delighted to say that we are joined by our colleague Foisal Chowdry MSP to the committee this morning. Good morning, Mr Chowdry, and I will be inviting him to speak in a second or so, but before I do, let me just provide a little bit more background to those following proceedings. We last considered the petition in November, where we agreed to write to COSLA seeking data on how many schools provide swimming lessons part of the curriculum, and we also wrote to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Scottish Swimming. In COSLA's submission, it states that currently there are no local or national mechanisms in place to collect this data, noting that delivery-assuming lessons can depend on factors including access to facilities, cost and delivery model. The latest figures held free pandemic 2018-19 suggest that 21 local authorities were offering swimming activity through the active schools network. Scottish Swimming notes in its submission that there were over 106,000 children enrolled in learning to swim programmes prior to the pandemic. It also highlights data that suggests that there is a direct correlation between a child's socioeconomic background and their opportunity to learn to swim. Scottish Swimming states that it has submitted a proposal to the Scottish Government in support of a programme of school swimming and is currently involved in discussions with Sport Scotland over its potential development. We also received a submission to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which highlights the need for any swimming programme to include consideration of outdoor water survival skills. The petitioner suggests that the current policy of allowing councils to choose whether to provide swimming lessons is unfair, leading to many children missing out or being forced to take private lessons, which may be inaccessible to lower-income families or those who are living in rural areas. Before I turn to members of the committee, I welcome Mr Chowdry. Would you like to comment on the aims of the petition? Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the panel. I would like to again thank my constituent, Lewis Condi, who has brought an important issue to the Parliament's attention and provided a considerate response to the Scottish Government's submission. This is a good example of positive citizen engagement with the Scottish Parliament. Lewis has, throughout, emphasised the importance of equality of access to swimming lessons. Inquality of access is a big problem, as highlighted repeatedly in the response to the committee and a key failure in the current situation. I would like to thank all those who signed the petition and those organisations that have responded to the committee's request for more information. They have provided a wealth of evidence about the value of swimming lessons and the factors influencing the inequalities in access to them. In the response from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I note the following points. The Scottish Government has previously answered a written question in Parliament from me, asking about swimming lessons and about competency level in primary school children, which said that information was not held centrally. I am very much concerned and disappointed to learn that. COSLA confirms that not only is there no data to indicate the presence of swimming lessons across Scotland, there is not even a mechanism to collect data. They also note that variations in swimming lessons provisions across the country with the availability of facilities that cost of lesson being a significant factor driving unequal access. Although extra circular support of the active schools network is highlighted, only 21 local authorities are offering swimming activities through the network, and it is not known how many children that actually reaches. The response from Scottish Swimming confirms that concerns raised by the petitioner Lewis Condi, Scottish Swimming literature, Mr Condi's initial concern that over 40 per cent of children level primary education are unable to swim. Furthermore, they note that only just over 10 per cent of children in swimming lessons through their Learn to Swim framework come from the most deprived areas of Scotland, and that there is a direct correlation between a child's social economic background and their opportunity to learn to swim. If they are serious about tackling inequalities, we need a very different approach. Finally, rural society of the prevention of accident ROSPA note that, in England, despite swimming being a statutory part of the national curriculum, a significant number of children leave primary education without being able to swim. They highlight that no issue regarding equality of access, including that it is affected by family affluence and location. The ROSA evidence indicates that swimming lessons as a statutory requirement might not in itself be a pan-safe. Making swimming lessons mandatory without support for and from the organisations that would need to be involved in delivery may not have the desired effects, so a whole package of measures require consideration. There is also evidence available through other sources in England and Wales that identifying particular barriers to access in swimming regularly. Among some ethnic minority communities, the proportionality of fewer children is able to swim and be confident in water safety. In conclusion, I thank committee colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to speak. We have seen a form of responses from my constituent's petition. There is widespread support with the sector for doing more on this issue. The committee has heard that there is no statutory curriculum in Scotland. However, the Scottish Government has previously found means to mandate an inclusive education in other areas where it has deemed this necessary. This is, at the SSHeart, a question of social justice as much as it is a question of education. The committee has heard that there are significant social disparities in the provision of swimming lessons. We know that access to swimming lessons give people a benefit to their safety and around water and to their health, fitness and wellbeing. Resolving their disparities is a matter of equality of opportunity. This is an issue that this public clear support from the sector involved and would provide a significant benefit to the society if properly addressed. I would finally suggest that there have been many points raised by the organisations involved in the area in which the committee might wish to put to the cabinet secretary herself for further comments. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. Thank you very much, Mr Chowdry. A number of important issues have been raised and thank you again for contributing to your constituent's petition this morning. I turn now to members of the committee and, in the first instance, to David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I would like to thank the positioner for bringing this petition forward. It is a real important issue. We just need to see from the number of tragedies this summer this year in Scotland, the number of people who could not learn to swim. Learning to swim could be a lifesaver, and that is why it is so important. There cannot be difficulties around locations, geographical, laggy swimming facilities, but I would like to explore a sport. When you see the evidence from Coslar Scottish Women and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, it is really important that we try to encourage every primary school child to learn to swim. As I said before, it was a lifesaver, so I would like to ask for an update from the Scottish Government on the proposals to work with Scottish Women and Sports Scotland on a programme of school swimming, including who might benefit from this. I would also like to comment from Mr Chowdry about data exploring with the Scottish Government how we could clear data on the number of primary school children who are able to swim at the end of a primary school and how it can be collected. However, I would also like to account for the factors of the child's geographical location, social economic background and ethnic background, because I think that they are really important as well, and I will highlight where we are missing out. Mr Swinney, I congratulate Mr Chowdry for making such an eloquent case on behalf of his constituent, the petitioner, and I thank him for coming to the committee. I agree with the points that he raised and also Mr Torrance in his comments as well. Certainly, it is an issue that has been brought up time and time again with me and my time as a representative in Glasgow, particularly the Spears family, who have tragically lost their son, and have launched the Christopher Saving Life campaign the last few years after their son tragically drowned in the River Clyde. Having met the Glasgow Humane Society as well, they have raised a number of recurring issues about a lack of confidence when people encounter difficulty, particularly in open water and tidal waters, as well as the lack of respect for life-saving equipment that is often frequently vandalised and removed by often young people. There is an issue around general education in this area. Teaching kids to swim is a fundamental life-saving exercise. It is not a recreational activity necessarily, and that is the fundamental consideration. It is a public safety matter rather than a sporting matter. That needs to be the consideration and the basis in which we take that forward. Furthermore, I think that the issue around infrastructure in certain councils may well be a valid concern. Not every school now has a swimming pool or ready access to leisure centres, et cetera. However, we might also want to consider education in the form of open water swimming and open water confidence. Certainly, outdoor education was a big part of my primary education, and that might well be a consideration, because it is confidence in open water that is the main issue. We saw the tragedy that was mentioned at Loch Lomond in the summer when young people get into difficulty. That is a major consideration that we need to cognise from here. That may well not have the same issues in terms of physical infrastructure, because there are plenty of opportunities to experience open water swimming in Scotland at relatively low cost. It is just a matter of introducing children to that environment and also explaining some of the hidden dangers of those waters. I am certainly speaking to the Glasgow Humane Society. For example, it describes how mud is one of the main safety issues in the river. A lot of people drown because it is not because they cannot swim, but because they get stuck in the mud and they cannot physically remove themselves from the river and they drown in that face, which is a distressing situation for someone to be in. It is not for one to be able to swim. It is an awareness of how treacherous the riverbanks can be. That is the broader spectrum of education that we really need to introduce to our schools. Thank you, Paul. That was very helpful as well. I think that there is quite a comprehensive discussion this morning. I do not have an indication of other members of the committee who wish to come in. I thank Faisal Chowdhry for joining us. We are keeping Mr Condi's petition open and we will write as David Torrance has suggested. We might also include some of the themes that Paul Sweeney has introduced in relation to swimming in the way that most people traditionally have thought of people being taught to swim in a controlled environment in a swimming pool, but the life-saving benefits of wild water swimming, for one to a better description, in its widest sense, has described during the conversation that we have just had to seek, maybe slightly broader than the range of the petition. However, what more could be done to try and progress the issue in a way that would save lives, even if, ultimately, the objective of the petition in relation to swimming pools is slightly impractical for certain local authorities? However, I think that there is a very important issue at the heart of this. We keep the petition open and progress further information on that basis, as the committee agreed. We are. Thank you again, Mr Chowdhry, for joining us this morning. Our next petition is petition number 1894 to permit a medical certificate of cause of death to be independently reviewed, lodged by Kenneth Robertson. The petition was last considered in November and, at that time, we agreed to write to the Crown Office and the Procurate of Physical Service and Healthcare Improvement Scotland to seek their views on the petition. It calls on the Scottish Parliament Government to change the certification of death Scotland Act 2011 to permit a medical certificate of cause of death and MCCD, to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service, where the case has already been reviewed by the Procurate of Physical Service, but not by a medical professional expert. The Scottish Government's submission highlights that the death certification review service, the DCRS, checks the accuracy of approximately 12 per cent of all medical certificates of cause of death in Scotland. It also carries out interested person reviews in cases where questions or concerns about certificates remain after speaking with the certifying doctor. The Scottish Government suggests that, given that the COPFS is independent and has the responsibility to investigate it, it would not be appropriate for death certification review service to review medical certificates of cause of death in cases already investigated by the Crown Office and Procurate of Physical Service. Healthcare Improvement Scotland, in its submission to the committee, provides further information about the work of the review service, including, as part of its inquiries, service for certifying doctors. It also notes that, since it was established in 2015, the monthly median percentage of cases where the certifying doctor has made a clinical or administrative error has reduced from 44 per cent to 24.4 per cent. The submission also sets out the circumstances in which a referral might be made to the Crown Office and Procurate of Physical Service. The Lord Advocate states in her submission that, in establishing what should be stated on a medical certificate of cause of death, the Procurate of Physical, and I quote, may seek an independent medical opinion, for example, from a pathologist, for their view on the appropriate MCCD or whether anything would be gained from conducting a post mortem examination. The Lord Advocate suggests that it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCS in cases already investigated by Procurators Fiscal. In the light of the submissions that we have received, I welcome comments from colleagues and, in the first instance, go to Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. You have outlined and the information that we have received outlines where we are with this process. At the last time of us dealing with this back in November, as I say, we did write, and we have had correspondence that you have gone through from individuals and organisations who have got some very strong views as to where we are with the petition. I note all those, and I believe that, under the circumstances, the petition should now close under rule 15.7 of standing orders, because we have sought views from the Lord Advocate and the Health Improvement Scotland, and both of those organisations and individuals believe that it would be inappropriate for the death certificate review service to review medical death certificates and the cause of death in the cases that they have already been investigated by the Procurator Fiscal. I think that we have exhausted most of what we can do as a committee on this occasion, and, because of that, I would suggest that we close the petition at this case. Yes, thank you, Mr Stewart. No other member has indicated the wish to come in. I thank Mr Robertson for bringing the petition to us. I think that it raised an important matter. However, I think that the responses that we have now received from the Scottish Government and from the various legal bodies is such that Mr Stewart's recommendation that we close the petition is one that I am putting to committee members to seek their support for, are we agreed, and it appears that we are. Thank you all very much. That is the conclusion of item 2. We now move to item 3, which is the consideration of new petitions. Again, I say to anybody shooting in this morning to see their petition considered for the first time that, before the committee does consider it, we seek the views of the Scottish Government on all new petitions before we formally consider them. The responses that we have received in advance do form notes to members in their papers ahead of the consideration at committee. The first of this morning's new petitions is petition number 1909 to remove the and inverted commas gender-based crime domestic abuse narrative and make it gender-neutral and equal, and has been lodged by William Wright. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make domestic abuse policies, guidance agendas and practices gender-neutral to introduce equal domestic abuse provision and funding for everyone in Scotland regardless of any protected characteristic and to ensure all domestic abuse joint protocol guidance, policies and practice for Police Scotland and the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service are gender-neutral. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government outlines a number of key statistics in her submission, evidencing that domestic abuse is predominantly perpetrated by men against women, such as women who were nearly three times more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner, and 95 per cent of charges reported by the Police to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in 2021 involved a male alleged perpetrator. However, it is acknowledged that the statistics do not mean that men and boys cannot be the victims of domestic abuse. The submission also points out that the provisions in criminal law used to prosecute domestic abuse are gender-neutral and apply equally to all perpetrators. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice also highlights several funded services for male victims and notes that the 2021-22 programme for government included a commitment to establishing a national strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men and boys. The petitioner suggests that the Scottish Government's equally safe work, which describes women and girls as being high-rists, alongside Police Scotland and SEAF-OPFS guidance on domestic abuse, risk creating a bias against violence against men and women. Do members have any comments or suggestions, and I am going to, in the first instance, Ruth Maguire. I think that the cabinet secretary's statistics and her submission highlight the causes and consequences of violence are different from men than women, as are the approaches that we need to take to prevent and, hopefully, once we eradicate that violence. I suggest that we press the Scottish Government, write to it and seek further details on the national strategy that you mentioned, the strategy on ending intimate and sexual violence against men and boys. In our letter that we asked for a timescale for publication, it would also be helpful to write to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on their views on the petition. It would also be helpful to hear from the services that are targeted towards men and boys that are mentioned in our papers, respect men's advice line, assist and circles free, fear free service. Thank you, Ruth Maguire. No other member has, at the moment, indicated that they wished... Mr Sweeney, was that you indicating that you'd like to come in? No, I'm all right, thank you. I'm sorry, I was just at a loose hand, not a family pet or anything that caught my attention. I think that we thank Mr Wright for his petition, which we intend to keep open, and we will write to the various organisations as identified in government bodies and organisations as identified by Ruth Maguire. Does the committee agree to that process? We are, thank you. Petition number 1912, funding for council venues, has been lodged by Wendy Dunsmore, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the necessary additional revenue to local councils to run essential services and venues. It's worth noting that the spice briefing relating to the petition, the Scottish Government submission and petitioner submission were all written before the Scottish Government budget of 2020-23 was published on 9 December 2021. Key points from a separate spice briefing on local government finance following the budget's publication include, once additional revenue and capital grants are factored in the total local government settlement increased by £603 million, that's 5.1 per cent, between 2021-23. There will be a real-time increase in provisional revenue allocations for all local authorities except the Western Isles Council, Shetland Isles Council and Orkney Isles Council, who all see small real-time reductions. The Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth highlights the £21.22 settlement of £11.7 billion, stating that it saw a cash increase in local government spending. The petitioner's submission is a collective response to the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, from Unite, Unison and from the GMB. They recognise that local authorities make decisions about service provision and delivery. However, they note that it is not without, and I quote, unfair challenges caused by real times the terms reduction in funding. The submission points out that much of the £11.7 billion settlement figure is ring-fence for Scottish Government commitments, therefore it is not technically available for local authority spending decisions. I invite comments from colleagues on the committee and an indication from Mr Sweeney that he would like to comment. Mr Sweeney, the long-running issue of council finances in Scotland has been an issue. It has been a long-term decline, certainly over the past decade. The overall figure is £10 in every pound that a council has to spend in Scotland, which has been cut on average in the past decade. Bearing in mind, the 80 per cent of a council's budget is set by the Scottish Government, the power over that decision largely lies with central government. Only 20 per cent of a council's finances can be raised through local charges in the council tax. Therefore, the capacity for the Government to generate its own income is constrained. The problem that we have seen from the SPICE report is an increase in the level of ring-fencing that is taking place. The slice of an overall council's budget that is subject to strings attached where that funding cannot be used on a discretionary basis or has to be displaced from existing budget lines into delivering Scottish Government-mandated projects. Effectively, it is a way of funding central government priorities indirectly through stealth but displacing existing budget and management of the Government. That compounds the financial pressure that is faced by councils. I accept that the latest figures on SPICE require updating. From what I can discern, the pressure has not relented on local government. That is indicated by the recent reports that every council leader in Scotland, the cross-parties, has written to the First Minister requesting an emergency meeting to discuss council financing. That indicates that, regardless of party affiliation, this is a major issue that confronts local government. All 32 leaders of the councils through COSLA were seeking an emergency meeting with the First Minister to discuss the issue. The acuteness of the matter has not abated, and therefore the concerns that are raised are valid. It will be worthwhile to seek latest figures and the latest impacts. It will also take a longer-term view of the situation facing local government finance. What I find quite problematic in the minister's response to the committee is that absolute figures in isolation do not really illustrate the problem. I think that you have to really look at it in context of percentages. What is the percentage position relative to BVs here? And also looking at cash terms in isolation is not necessarily helpful when we have seen an inflationary spiral in the past year and likely significant pressures on wages coming forward in the next financial year. I think that all those things need to be properly unpacked and considered properly, rather than just having figures that sound impressive on the face of it thrown at you when you do not really understand the full context of what is going on. On that basis, I was not entirely convinced by the response. I think that there is still valid merit in continuing this petition on that basis to gather further evidence. Thank you very much, Paul. No other member has indicated that they wish to come in at this stage. That was very comprehensive contribution. On the back of that, we want to thank Wendy Dunsmore for her petition, which we are going to keep open. There were a series of stakeholders identified by Mr Sweeney, to whom I think that we now will seek views on the issues raised in the petition. Are we agreed to proceed on that basis? We are. Petition number 194, to ban school uniforms in secondary schools. This is our ultimate petition today, lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson. Paul is on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms in secondary schools. The petitioner sets out several reasons why he believes that this should happen, including the fact that uniforms are uncomfortable, costly and they interfere with students being able to express their individuality. The Scottish Government's submission makes it clear that there is no legislative requirement in place in Scotland that legally requires the wearing of school uniforms and that instead school uniform policies are a matter for local authorities and individual schools. The Scottish Government states that it would not support a proposal to ban school uniforms at any school in Scotland. The submission sets out a number of perceived advantages to wearing school uniforms, which include reducing competition between pupils in respect of expensive clothing brands, reducing bullying, creating a positive image of a school in a local community and improving school security, allowing staff to identify anyone who does not belong to the school easily. The Scottish Government acknowledges the petitioner's concerns about buying school uniforms, recognising that that can be one of the most significant costs for families and that that can be a source of anxiety for low-income families. The submission explains that the Scottish Government recently increased the amounts paid for school clothing brands. The Scottish Government is committed to introducing staff to guidance in uniforms for schools and local authorities during the lifetime of this parliamentary session, which it states will cover. The affordability of school uniforms, the consideration of equalities issues when deciding school uniform policies and considerations for physical education classes. The Scottish Government concludes by highlighting a public consultation on proposed school uniform guidance, which is due to be launched in the new year. Do we have comments and suggestions for action? I would like to keep the petition at home. I know that the Scottish Government says in its submission that it would not ban outright wearer school uniforms across Scotland, but I find that there is merit in finding out when the Scottish Government will establish its school uniform consultation and when it will be published. I would also like to use the other relevant stakeholders, such as the Scottish Youth Parliament, to seek their views, children and young people's commissioners and the National Payment Forum of Scotland, to find out what their views are on the petition. I personally think that the school uniform is a good thing. It might be my ex-army background that is coming into it, but I think that the idea of the uniform is a fine thing and it builds school identity and so on. However, I will not rehearse the arguments about it, because I think that they have been had before. A wider consideration is the financial effect of school uniform and some of the financial pressures that are faced by families. There have been some interesting innovations in that regard, particularly in Glasgow with the Glasgow pre-loved uniform service, which was set up by Donna Henderson. A lot of kids are growing so fast that clothing might outgrow, but it is perfectly reusable. They have been trying to reduce waste as well as to address some issues, perhaps financial exclusion, by introducing clothing rails and schools around Glasgow and trying to allow people to exchange items of uniform, refurbish uniform. When we are thinking about the issue of uniforms, we might want to think about how they are provided to kids and also looking at ways in which we can make the process more sustainable and reduce the turnover of uniform items that go to waste. It might be a person that might be worth considering taking evidence from, because Ms Henderson has done a fantastic job in Glasgow. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. I take note of that and we may welcome back to it. I like you, water school uniform. I know that that is more than half a century ago now, but I do not know whether it fell out of fashion or not, but my own experience was that there was a very active facilitation of second-hand school uniforms managed at that time. In fact, there were even retail outlets that organised the sale and receipt of second-hand uniforms. You are absolutely right. Very often, there is a long shelf life left in a school uniform item that has only become available because of a very fast-growing young person. I think that that is very correct. In the first instance, recommendations from Mr Torrance are that we obviously keep Mr Simpson's position open and we write to the various agencies as described by Mr Torrance. We will then hear what they have to say and consider the petition again on receipt of their submissions. Is the committee agreeable? We are. Thank you very much. That brings us to our last new petition this morning, petition number 1916, to request a public inquiry into the management of the rest of the thankful project, lodged by councillor Douglas Filland and councillor Donald Kelly. As promised, I am delighted to welcome back Rhoda Grant to the meeting for the final petition this morning, and I will come to her again shortly. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 rest of the thankful project, which is to be provided to provide a permanent solution to the group. In its submission, Transport Scotland explains that, following a number of landslides across Scotland in 2004, a nationwide Scottish road network landslide study was carried out. The study concluded that the A83 are garden to rest and be thankful as one of the most highly ranked debris flow hazard sites in Scotland. A study was commissioned by Transport Scotland in 2012 to identify and appraise potential options to minimise the effects of road closures. The final A83 route study, published the following February 2013, explained that the decision was made to progress with the red option, which was considered at that time to offer the best performance and most cost-effective way of meeting the study's objectives. Those objectives included maintaining the existing alignment of the A83 to include a range of landslide mitigation measures such as additional debris flow barriers at locations where the landslide hazard was considered highest, to improve hillside drainage adjacent to and under the road, and to introduce vegetation and planting on the slope. In its submission, Transport Scotland provides a range of data that shows the number of days those various stretches of road in and around the A83 were closed due to landslides, and the data shows that the scale of the events that occurred in 2020 and 2021 was significantly larger than any of the previous events. Following that, several new measures were introduced in order to make it quicker, easier and safer to open the road should it be closed by a landslide. A consultation exercise was carried out in 2020 to consider 11 route corridor options to address issues at the rest of the thankful route. Over 650 people provided feedback with the Glencro corridor being chosen as the preferred route. Transport Scotland's submission advises the timescales for completion of a long-term solution to the issues at the rest of the thankful range from seven to ten years. In the interim, Transport Scotland advises that work is progressing to look at a medium-term resilient route through Glencro and that work will seek to develop a finalised proposal by the autumn of this year. The submission ends by stating that since the A83 task force, which was set up in 2012, has held meetings every six months, and a substantial project update at the next task force meeting is due in early 2022. A project-specific web page was also launched on the Transport Scotland website. Against that background, I am happy to invite Rhoda Grant to comment. Thank you, convener. As you said, over the last 14 years, the rest of the thankful has been quite a number of occasions. It has cost £87 million in efforts to keep it open and keep traffic safe. You referred to the large landslide in August 2020, where 10,000 tonnes of debris fell both on the A83 and also on the old military road. The old military road is used as a temporary route when the A83 is closed and sits in the valley below. The traffic could neither use the A83 or the temporary old military road and had a 60-mile additional journey over the A82 because of that closure. When it reopened, another landslide occurred in September, and it had only been opened six days at that point. For those months, it led to the A83 being open for less than 50 per cent of a time, that is the four months at the end of 2020. An economic impact looked at what the A83 had caused locally between August 2020 and March 2021, and it estimated that £5.5 million was lost to the local economy. That did not take account of the potential economic development that has gone elsewhere just because of the uncertainty over the route. Depopulation is also a big issue in the area, and this will get worse because of the uncertainty over the route. As he said, the options were consulted on, and they have come up with the preferred solution of following a similar route. However, that requires quite a lot of work to go on, examining re-routing and looking at building a viaduct or a tunnel. There is a medium-term solution through the crow being discussed. There is real frustration locally about the length of time that is taking and the amount of money that it is costing. We also know that there are 100,000 tonnes of unstable material that will risk lives and livelihoods in our guile if 10,000 tonnes had caused the impact that they did. You can only imagine what 100,000 tonnes is going to do. However, there is not really a clear indication that, despite all this time, a solution will be in place. I believe that we need a clear timetable for emergency measures and a clear timetable for the medium- and long-term solutions, and whether the finance will be available to carry out the work. Hence the petitioner's call for a public inquiry. Thank you very much, Rhoda Grant. I remember previously with the committee standing on a site investigation that you are absolutely right. The military road sits absolutely in the shadow of the principal route and is hardly a wonderful alternative, but at least was an alternative, but not in that very significant landslide. The route on the valley opposite was regarded as being far too steep to be developed in any sense for HGV or larger vehicles, so it has been a very significant on-going problem. I come to members of the committee, in the first instance, to Alexander Stewart. I would like to pay tribute to the MSPs who have, in the past and also presently working on this, because it is an enormous issue for the local area, and they have worked tirelessly. As you have indicated, the committee in the past has visited the site and has seen first hand. I am well aware of having been a member of the Parliament for the last session of how many times this was discussed, either in the chamber or through questions or just progressing through the situation. I am looking at the objectivity of the way that we are here, and I am not sure where we can go as a committee. A public inquiry would exacerbate the situation in some ways. It would take length and time. There is a huge amount of frustration already being sought in the community, and they want a solution to that. I think that we have already heard that there are proposals coming forward that might well cover that. It may not please everybody, but at this stage, I really do not know what else can be done to try to facilitate and ensure, because everybody from Transport Scotland and local members have worked tirelessly. The council has all tried to participate. 600 people gave feedback at the last session, so there is a big involvement from the community. I believe that they want a solution, but can a solution be found by going through a public inquiry? I would suggest that it might not be the most effective way of supporting that. I have some real concerns about how we take this forward, convener, and it would be useful to hear others and other members have on their opinions on that as well. Thank you, Mr Stewart. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. Like my colleague, I have real doubts if we could take this petition forward, because I do not think that the Government would agree to it. However, if you look at the past public petitions committee, we have taken evidence for over six years on that. That is both you and I were on-site visits there and seeing how difficult the environment and the terrain was. There is never an easy fix for us. Transport Scotland has been working tirelessly with the local community and engaging with the local community to try to find solutions for us, because it is a real difficult task to try to make back and help stable without continuing to have landslides in the area. We have put measures in place to try to catch a lot of the debris coming down. As you said, the whole military road is there as an alternative, but there are trying to find solutions here, working with the community. As I said before, we have taken evidence for over six years on that, and I think that there is no place for us to go. I am happy to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Okay. Thank you, Mr Stewart. It is very difficult. I understand the motivations underpinning those who have brought the petition forward, because I sense that they have very much looked to the Public Petitions Committee, to keep the issue alive in the mind of Parliament, notwithstanding the intractable issues that sit around it. The Scottish Government did indicate that there would be a substantially 83 project update in early course. I hear your recommendation, Mr Turner. I wonder if it would at least be appropriate to find out when that might be. Let's find out what is said in relation to that. I keep the petition open, meanwhile. I do not see that we can have the petition run for a further six years in the way that the previous one did, because I am not sure what we would achieve. However, we are in a new Parliament, and I think that it would be useful for us at least to see what the further position is and whether there is any further light that we can shed on things. However, I think that we sympathise with Mr Stewart's view that a public inquiry may not ultimately be the suitable way forward. The suggestion of a public inquiry is really the principal difference between that. David Torrance is suggesting the previous petition in which the committee heard extensive evidence over a number of years. I am minded not withstanding Mr Torrance's recommendation to hold it open for the moment to clarify when that strategic update is going to come from Transport Scotland and to at least hear what that has got to say. However, to give an indication to the petitioners who might be watching that I do not know that the committee is altogether persuaded by the public inquiry route on the basis of the submissions that we have heard and the engagement that we can see already in place. Would that meet the support of the committee? Yes, I think that it would. Before I close, I come back to you, Mr Sweeney. In relation to an earlier petition that we considered, which was the funding for council venues, the clerks were just entirely clear when you said that you wanted one of our stakeholders to be contacted on the record in relation to the points that you were making. Which stakeholder that was, if you were able to confirm who it was that you wanted us specifically to contact with the concerns that you highlighted? I think that I was referring to the 32 council leaders who have written on mass to the Scottish Government in recent weeks to express their concern at the latest budget round. Understanding their collective position as it currently stands would be helpful in that regard. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you again, Rhoda Grant, for joining us this morning and for your contribution to that petition. As you have heard, we will keep open for the time being and look to see what response we can get. I understand the very considerable issues, and I think that you highlighted the very considerable costs that have been associated with simply trying to make do in relation to the existing facility. With that, I thank everybody for their forbearance with the remote format that we have been operating under this morning for your contribution and look forward to a future meeting. Having said that, David Torrance, I gather you would like just to contribute further to the points that we have just discussed. I was just on the last petition, convener. I was quite happy to agree with you to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on when a new update your project. However, the petition actually calls for a request of public inquiry in the management of the rest and be thankful project. Can we also write to the Scottish Government to say will you go ahead with this inquiry? We will get a definitive answer for what the petition is calling on then. I am quite happy that we do that. As Mr Stewart has suggested, I think that that is unlikely. That is my expectation. For the reasons that Mr Stewart articulated, that the public inquiry itself might prolong and exacerbate the more detailed discussion that is required. Yes, I think that we can do that too. None of that diminishes from the importance of trying to seek to find a solution or not to find it, but to progress it. We have been wrestling with that for a very long time. That again allows me to thank everybody for their contribution this morning and to close this meeting of the committee.