 Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in session six. I should say that we've actually got six MSPs with us this morning, so it's six-six-six of the Citizens, Participation and Public Partitions Committee. Joining us in the hybrid format this morning is Paul Sweeney MSP, and all of our agenda this morning is going to be the consideration of new petitions. To those petitioners who might be following our proceedings this morning, I'll just say that it's a first step. We do write to the Scottish Government to get and seek their views on the petitions that we're considering. All of the members of the committee have had an opportunity to consider the detailed submissions that we've received in advance of our consideration of the petition this morning. Our first petition, petition number PE1883, open all toddler and baby activities within tier 3 of Covid-19 future pandemic lockdowns, which has been lodged by Katrina Clarke. I'm very pleased to welcome our colleague Jackie Baillie MSP, who is going to be speaking in support of this petition shortly as well. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow baby and toddler activities to be considered equally with other indoor activities in tier 3 of any future lockdowns. In its response, the Scottish Government states that guidance was available from September 2020 for unregulated organised children's activities and was developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Softplace centres in level 0 and level 1 areas began to reopen from 2 November last year, and all centres were able to reopen on 19 July this year. The Scottish Government highlights support from families during the pandemic, including in relation to play and wellbeing. The Scottish Government notes that, due to the fluid nature of the pandemic, it is not in a position to rule out further Covid-19-related restrictions or advise on what those might be. The petitioner's response pointed out that, even though guidance was in place from late 2020 onwards, the general consensus from parents on social media was that baby and toddler groups were not available until March, April and May of this year. Comparisons are drawn between the reopening of pubs and cafes with baby and toddler groups, with the petitioner suggesting that age groups were not treated equally. The impact on speech and language is also highlighted by the petitioner. Having said that, and before members' comments are considered, I wonder if Jackie Baillie would care to say anything in support of the petition. I have never known a politician refused to speak, Convina. Well, I have never known you two, Jackie. That is certainly true. Thank you very much, Convina, for your kind comment. Can I thank you and the committee for the opportunity to speak? Katrina Clark is my constituent, and I think that you certainly miss having petitioners here, because we as MSPs are very much second best to them. Let me try and do her petition justice. She is obviously wanting baby and toddler groups to be open, should we ever be in a position that we are in tier 3 again. First, I think that we are all thankful that we are no longer operating under those restrictions, but secondly, I think that we should also recognise the guidance that was produced at the time, the levels of restrictions that were put in place were developed at pace, and that did lead to some anomalies, and it did lead to some inconsistencies. I think that at the heart of this petition is an understanding that perhaps we should review what we did, learn from it and ensure that if we are ever in the position of having to impose restrictions again, that we can do so in a proportionate way. Now, Katrina Clark makes the point, and it is her principle aim, and I think that it is one that we all share, is that she wants to limit any detrimental impact on babies and on toddlers, so that they are not unduly disadvantaged. She acknowledges the importance of play as we all would do and which the Scottish Government addresses in its response, but she is also concerned about socialisation and that kind of missing opportunity for a year for mums and babies to interact with each other, to get mutual support from each other, and that is something that the First Minister herself recognised in relation to supporting the mental health and wellbeing of both the mother and the baby. I guess that it is about weighing up the threat posed by Covid and the loss of that socialisation and play for mothers and babies at a very critical juncture in their lives. Some of the contradictions, which we are all aware of, are things like soft play not being allowed at all between levels 2 and 4, but you can go 10 pin bowling if you are an adult, you can go to the pub, you can go to restaurants, and it is that inconsistency that people do not understand and would like reviewed. That, in essence, is what a petition is about, is ensuring that babies and toddlers are not disadvantaged should we ever be back in a place where we are experiencing restrictions. I would hope that that is something that committee would support and the general notion that we should be reviewing the restrictions that were put in place to see if they were indeed fit for purpose. Thank you, convener. Colleagues, would any colleagues like to contribute or comment? David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I have every sympathy with a petition. We should write to the Scottish Government to seek the views of a petitioner, but I do not think that, whether it is a Scottish Government or a UK Government, it could give guarantees depending on how the pandemic goes in the future. Let's see what the Scottish Government has got to say on the views of a petitioner. I am quite happy to do that. Okay. Anybody else? Any other colleagues? It does strike me as well that, at some point, there will be an inquiry into the pandemic, and I imagine that we have already been told to be fully comprehensive and look at it from every conceivable perspective. I suppose that one thing that we could always do is have this petitioner submission and any final conclusions that we come to as a committee in reserve to submit to that inquiry at some future date should the opportunity present itself. In the meantime, I think that we should write to the Scottish Government, because I take the point and the Scottish Government, I imagine, will accept themselves that, in this first effort to try to address the issues arising from the pandemic, there will have been inconsistencies. I would like to think that there will be some review or that they would undertake some review of what those were and whether or not, in hindsight, they were necessary or whether they were well judged. I mean, I've got my own reservations too about whether you can get any formal guarantees that nothing can ever be put in place in the future pandemic, but it does seem sensible to write to the Scottish Government on that basis and in the first instance. Does that seem sensible? Any other proposals? Bill Kidd? No, not on our proposal. I'd just like to re-emphasise some of the points that were made by Jackie Baillie and the petitioner and concur that when lessons are there to be learned, we should be in a position of putting them forward to make sure that they're included in any development of future proposals for pandemics, and that may happen again. I wonder whether it would be possible, in addition to writing to the Scottish Government, to maybe look at writing to Place Scotland or organisations that represent mother and toddler groups or, indeed, educational psychologists to see if there is any impact in terms of socialisation. I'm very happy to include that suggestion as well. I agree with Jackie Baillie on that point, convener. I think that getting the submissions from the organisations that have an impact would be very useful. The Scottish Government obviously has the review opportunity, but those organisations are living through and had to live through what took place, and I think it's important that we get their views and opinions because that will then give us a steer from the organisations and individuals that were most impacted. What we can't anticipate at the moment is the range of other petitions that might arise as a consequence of issues that are consequential to the Covid pandemic that we may subsequently ask to consider. I would just maybe paste it to the wall the idea that this might also be a deliberative engagement as part of the committee's new remit. At some stage, it might be an appropriate thing for us to consider, which we've brought together in various groups so that we could hear and potentially take some evidence from in that deliberative engagement aspect of our new aspect of our responsibility. I imagine that, at the same time, the Covid committee might be doing work in relation to all that too, so maybe we should just be liaising with them to see what their timetable and agenda actually is. In which case are we content? We are. Our next petition is petition number 1887 to create an unborn victims of violence act, and this has been launched by Nicola Murray. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to urge the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence which causes miscarriage. The SPICE briefing provided tells of the current legal framework and explores how various criminal offences may apply to instances of domestic abuse during pregnancy. This information is summarised in the clerk's note, and it is noted that women are at increased risk of physical abuse and particularly domestic violence during pregnancy and early maternity. The Scottish Government provides information on the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018, stating that it enables physical, physiological and controlling behaviours to be prosecuted at once. That includes certain forms of psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that were previously difficult to prosecute. However, in her response, the petitioner shares her experience with domestic abuse, which sadly led to the loss of her child. In one story, she explains that she was hit with a car, causing her to miscarry due to her injuries. That led to the individual taking a plea deal of reckless and culpable conduct with a domestic abuse aggravator. The sentence was a payment of just £300 compensation. The petitioner explains the impact of this incident, including permanent left-side weakness, difficulty walking and long-for-long periods or distances, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and grief. The petitioner conducted a study in 2018 with 40 female domestic abuse survivors, and the main findings of that are provided in the clerks note. A serious petitioner, are there comments from any colleagues? Bill Kidd. Thank you very much. It is a sad thing that we have to be discussing such issues in a petition, but it is very good that it has been brought to us. I think that it is of such importance that we should take it forward, possibly by writing to key stakeholders such as the Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission, the Scottish Sentencing Council, listening to what was said about the sort of sentence that was handed down in that instance, Scottish Women's Aid and Victim Support Scotland, that range of organisations with something beneficial to put forward. If we can seek their views in the action that is called for in the petition, I think that we would be doing a necessary duty in this instance. Thank you. Any other colleagues? I do not rule out at some stage as maybe taking oral evidence on this. I think that let us see in the first instance what the formal responses that we see in relation to all of this, in which case we are keeping this petition open and we will take forward the recommendations that is made by Bill Kidd. I think that we are. Thank you very much. Petition 1888, the full legal protection for hedgehogs and moles, which has been lodged with us by Mr Joseph Allen, who has also tabled, I think that you should have received, a handwritten submission just this morning. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant full legal protection to hedgehogs and moles. The Scottish Government confirms its commitment to enhancing biodiversity and to protecting vulnerable species in Scotland. The submission confirms that the hedgehog is listed in Appendix 3 of the Berne convention and Schedule 6 of the 1981 act, which makes it illegal to kill or capture them using specific methods. The Scottish Government also states in its submission that there are no plans to extend the legal protection of hedgehogs or to their breeding sites. It does, however, outline steps that have been taken to halt the decline of hedgehogs, while stating that the Scottish Government does not have any information to suggest that the species is in danger of extinction in Scotland. Similarly, the Scottish Government does not have any definitive data that shows that the mole population is declining or that the desirability of this is otherwise and has asked the petitioner to buy further information to explain the exact nature of their concerns, which the petitioner has done this morning in that he has identified that moles are particularly vulnerable at one point in their breeding season. The Scottish Government also notes that it will carefully consider any recommendations made by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for potential changes to the animals and plants listed under Schedules 5 and 8 of the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981. My own anecdotal observation as an old man is that, when I was younger, hedgehogs were quite a common sight. They are less so now, and that is as much because the neighbourhoods, hedgerows and the natural habitats in which they used to thrive have been lessened over my lifetime, although there is a conspicuous effort now to restore hedgerows, rewild and reintroduce what I imagine are many of the natural habitats. Any comments from colleagues? It looks like David Torrance. I think that we should write to stakeholders, including the Scottish Wildlife Trust, Hogwarts Scotland and the Malum Society, to seek their views on what the petitioner is asking for. We could take a petition from there once we get the relevant information back. I mean, it is not coupling. Sorry, that is probably an unfortunate suggestion, but the combining of the hedgehogs and moles that struck me is almost a bit random. Nonetheless, I think that, while we consider the petition together, there will be representations from different organisations. I imagine that moles and hedgehogs both live under the ground at certain points. Therefore, in particular, when there is large-scale construction and when we are talking about COP26 and care for the environment, that might be a petition of the moment. I mean, there are certainly an awful lot of voluntary groups and societies that have been concerned, certainly with the welfare of the hedgehog. The mole one is slightly new to me as a feature of the petition. Anyhow, we have agreed to keep the petition open and to proceed on that basis. Petition number 1889, financial support for self-employed people in the travel industry. The petition has been lodged by Nicky Peachy. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide tailored financial support to self-employed individuals working in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Scottish Government's submission outlines the various support measures that have already been offered to members of the travel sector throughout the pandemic. The Scottish Government states that a UK-wide approach to dealing with the issues that the travel sector is facing is required and it has written to the UK Minister for Business and Industry seeking a dialogue on the issue. The petitioner explains that the Covid-19 pandemic has hit those workers hard, they have not received commissions due to international travel being restricted and they have also incurred increased costs associated with booking and refunding travel for clients. In addition, many self-employed workers did not qualify financial assistance via furlough or travel grant schemes. The petitioner advises that loans have been offered through the UK Government-bound back loans, but that has meant starting repayments while still not receiving any income. The petitioner concludes that many in the industry report facing bankruptcy, losing their homes and their livelihoods. Indeed, one of the first post-pandemic major representations outside the Parliament, as I recall, just after we came back from the summer recess, was from travel agents as well and their representatives. Again, I open this up to colleagues for any comments or suggestions. Are you waving a hand? I wasn't sure if you were. You're both waving a hand. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. Somebody who has met my local travel agents and asked the First Minister a question on this subject, I think that we should write to the Scottish Government for an update to see how our correspondence and our dialogue is going with the UK Government on this matter. Alasdair Stewart. I would agree with that. There is no doubt that individuals in this sector have suffered. I'm sure that others, such as myself, have many who have corresponded to indicate that they did seem to fall through the gaps that were set up to ensure that others in the sector were being supported. The self-employed really did have a problem here, and I think that the petitioner has given us quite a lengthy indication as to the difficulties that they face. I would certainly wish to see progress in some way and to take some views from the Scottish Government, and the UK Government, depending on how things are managed, because they say that they certainly suffered. We need to learn some lessons from this for the industry themselves, because without the opportunity for them to be involved in the travel sector, as I've said, they were very much falling between a rock and a hard place. I think that that's important that we do support them here. Thank you. Paul Sweeney. Thank you, convener. I share the sentiments of the rest of the story. I think that this is an example of an area where Covid economic resilience measures were put in place very rapidly. They were somewhat blunt in their design by the nature of the pace at which things were having to move, and certainly there are key parts of the industry across the UK that were affected as a result that fell through the cracks, if you like. That is a good example where we need to respond clearly to create a countermeasure. We all want to try to avoid economic scarring and permanent financial distress caused by the pandemic. Even if it is a retrospective scheme to try to assist people who have obviously been dealing with financial detriment over a long period of time in the past year, that is a worthwhile endeavour. I would further recommend contacting industry representatives to gather more evidence about what they think in response to the petition and whether we can work in collaboration with the Scottish Government and the economic development agencies such as the Scottish Enterprise Business Development Scotland to design a scheme that might be able to assist people who have obviously suffered a significant detriment and continue to face severe financial hardship. I think that that seems very sensible. It occurs to me that, in writing to these professional bodies, it would also be useful to get some sort of impression of the current status of the industry as well. How many independent, self-employed travel agencies may no longer be operational? Have they any industry knowledge on the status of that? Also, what is the current status of the industry itself? Travel is resuming. I know that people are starting to make plans and are booking again for immediate and for future travel, but it would be interesting to get some idea of where they see the status of that recovery. Potentially, just what the fear might arise from any further restrictions that might find themselves being proposed or imposed in the future months ahead. All those suggestions, are we agreeable to take brightness, receive that and proceed? Thank you all. Petition number 1890 to find solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland. This has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness health action team. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to find ways for localised training, recruiting and retaining healthcare staff in difficult to recruit positions in Scotland. Members will know that they will also have received a late submission in relation to this petition from our colleague Edward Mountain MSP, which was circulated yesterday. The committee is currently considering a petition that explores similar issues in relation to rural healthcare, which is petition number 1845, agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the remote and rural general practice short-life working group and rural health boards. We have already received some submissions and are expecting the remainder later this week. The Scottish Government's submission begins by stating that it recognises the training, recruitment and retention issues that are faced by health boards operating in rural areas across Scotland. The submission details a number of training and recruitment initiatives for doctors in difficult to recruit areas, including remote and rural settings. Wider initiatives are also highlighted as contributing to the improvement of rural healthcare or tackling employment challenges specific to rural areas. NHS Highland funding is highlighted, including recovery and renewal investment, which allocated £2.2 million to NHS Highland in 2021-22 and funding of £54,625 for the recruitment of a full-time director of psychology. The petitioner's views, however, is that the Kithness community does not appear to benefit from funding provided to NHS Highland, believing health services are centralised to rig more hospital. Mr Mountain has written in support of the petition, I am sure that he would otherwise have wished to be with us today, and he would ask us to pursue the issues that are raised within it. Comments from colleagues. David Torrance Thank you, convener. Considerer's petition PE1845 is near enough exactly the same. I think that we should take them both together and wait on the evidence that is coming from that petition. I would like to take evidence on that. I think that we should wait until all the evidence is in and we should just take both petitions alongside one another. I noticed that Mr Mountain very much encouraged us to potentially take evidence after we have received submissions in relation to both those petitions. Alexander Stewart Thank you, convener. Yes, I think that it is vitally important that we have the opportunity to take evidence on that petition, because the initiatives and the training that is in place is once again an initiative that works, but maybe in some situations we will find it from taking evidence that there are still once again some loopholes, and I think that would guide us as to how we might vanish it. I would be very supportive of the committee taking evidence for this petition and very much on the case of Edward Mountain, my colleague who has put forward that. David Torrance I think that we would formally agree to take evidence when we have received the written submissions that we are in the first instance seeking to bring to us. Are we content on that basis? Can the petition open? Yes. I think that that was the proposal that came from David Torrance. We will write to NHS Highland to seek its views on the petition and then combine that representation with any representations that we have received to petition 1845. Having done that, I think that we will probably formally agree to take some oral evidence in relation to this petition. We are all content. Petition 1891 is to make sewing lessons a statutory requirement in the primary school curriculum. The petition is lodged by Lewis Alexander Conde and seeks to make sewing lessons a statutory requirement in the primary school curriculum. The petition 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. The petition notes that in 2017 it was estimated that 40 per cent of children left primary school unable to swim. He points out that there is currently no requirement for local authorities to provide school swimming lessons in Scotland. The SPICE briefing accompanying this petition notes that, although local authorities have a statutory duty to secure an adequate and efficient education for children of school age in their area, exactly what this education should entail is not set out in legislation and very little of the school curriculum is statutory. The Scottish Government reiterates this point stating that the curriculum is designed to allow local flexibility and acknowledging that some schools do already offer swimming lessons through the curriculum, while others offer swimming lessons through their active schools programme. Through Sports Scotland, the Scottish Government also works with Scottish swimming, whose priority is that every child learns to swim and is currently in discussions on how to expand their programme. The petitioner suggests that allowing councils to choose whether to provide swimming lessons is unfair, leading to many children missing out of being forced to take private lessons, which may be inaccessible to lower-income families or those living in rural areas. He believes that making swimming lessons in school and mandatory requirement will redress this inequality. I suppose that I begin by observing that my recollection when younger was a really quite an in-your-face public awareness and information campaign on the need to learn how to swim by whatever means. Maybe it's just because it's not targeted at me now, but I'm less aware of that. Therefore, when they say that the Scottish Government is in conversations with Scottish women swimming as to how they expand their programme, I'd be very interested to know how that might be done. Paul Sweeney. I think that the intent of the petitioner is very sound, particularly if we note some of the tragic incidents that took place over the summer. There were significant numbers of deaths that could have been prevented had people had proper education in swimming, and I think that we underestimate the impact that swimming lessons have as a life-saving measure. I think that it's often framed in terms of sport or physical education, as opposed to being a critical life-saving measure. I noted that the SPICE submission indicated that the Scottish Government had a whole data on how many schools provide that as part of their curriculum, whether in a voluntary or more integrated basis as part of the PE curriculum. I would be really interested in the very first instance to gather that information from local authorities as to what provision they have and perhaps using that as a basis to then consider further actions if the committee colleagues are so minded. That seems like an admirable suggestion. Any other thoughts or comments? I take it that we would write to the key stakeholder organisations. I would be glad that the Royal Society for Preventive Accidents, picking up on the life-saving aspect that has just been suggested there. Would we write to local authorities at COSLA? Probably to COSLA on the first instance, if that is acceptable. Mr Swin, I think that that makes sense. I am actually quite interested to know from Scottish swimming where they are in this discussion to expand their programme and what actions are currently being proposed. I quite like to get some understanding of what public information initiatives are under way in relation to encouraging people to swim for the very reasons that Mr Swinney was suggesting. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues? No, we are content to keep the petition open and to proceed with further information gathering on that basis. We all agree. Petition number 1892, to introduce a law that makes a tax by one dog on another dog, a crime. That has been introduced by Evelyn Baginski. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make a tax by one dog and another dog, a crime, and subject to a penalty requiring the owner to pay a fine and reimburse any expenses related to the incident. The Scottish Government states that an offence can be committed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. When a dog is deemed to be dangerously out of control or if there is reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person or an assistance dog. The Control of Dogs Scotland Act 2010 also provides for a civil regime in respect of dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control. The Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 relates to the offences of causing unnecessary suffering in animal fighting. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that, depending on the exact circumstances, certain conduct relating to the behaviour of a dog attacking another dog may fall within the scope of the offences in this act. The petitioner suggests that the Control of Dogs Scotland Act 2010 does not fully legislate for attacks by one dog and another and states that the act does not consider the financial effect on owners who have lost a dog in this way. To address the issues raised in the petition, the petitioner suggests financial penalties to provide compensation to dog owners who have lost a dog as a result of an attack by another dog. The petitioner believes that this compensation could cover veterinary fees and funeral expenses. I invite colleagues to comment. I realise looking at this that Mr Kidd, Mr Tones and I must all have passed the dangerous control of Dogs Act 2010. However, I cannot recall the detail or the deficiencies that the petitioner might be seeking to identify. Do any colleagues wish to comment? David Tones? Thank you. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government for an update on the recent consultation on the act, to see where it stands. On both the acts? Yes, on both the acts, yes. Fine. And do we want to just see whether they are considering any further offences or whether because I think that we are interested to know what their position is or not? Mr Kidd, are you trying to intervene? No, I am not trying to. You are trying to be tactless. Okay, thank you. Are we content to write in the first instance to gather that further information on where we stand in relation to the existing acts on a contemplated updating or legislation? Should we also write to the British Veterinary Association to seek its views on the issues raised? I mean that they make specific reference to the veterinary fees that arise of an attack by one dog and another and I don't know what typically they amount. I mean actually I am not a dog owner so I don't know what the cost of those might actually be but I think it would be interesting for us to have some idea of that too. Yeah and give us some idea of you know how many occasions they feel they are seeking to treat animals who have been attacked in this way. Okay so we'll hold the petition open and take those further actions. Petition number 1893 is to introduce legislation to protect Scotland's war memorials. This has been introduced by James Watson on behalf of Friends of Deniston War Memorial. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation which recognises desecration or vandalism of war memorials as a specific criminal offence. The Scottish Government notes in its submission that this petition is identical to our previously closed petition number 1830, which must have been towards the end of the last Parliament. Its position on this matter remains unchanged. The Scottish Government therefore refers to the previous submission for its full response and that spot submission advised vandalism is a crime regardless of the motivations for it and condemns all acts of malicious vandalism and graffiti. The submission notes that there is legislation currently in place to deal with the vandalism and desecration of statutes of memorials including war memorials and the Scottish Government has no current plans to introduce new legislation for this specific purpose. I think that the sentiments of the petition are well founded. We've seen a number of alarming and distressing incidents of war memorial desecration take place in Scotland in recent years. I think that measures and protocols are certainly worth while considering and reviewing in light of those incidents. It might well be appropriate to defer the petition for further submissions. It might be appropriate to consider perhaps looking at the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, for example, to say what are their views about the protocols in place across the country for maintaining and ensuring that war memorials are appropriately kept in good order. If there are any improvements or opportunities for improvements that could be made, perhaps that could be considered short of legislation in light of what the Scottish Government's position is. It might also be something that a member might want to consider bringing forward as a member's bill, but I think that this statement perhaps is appropriate to at least defer the petition for further submissions. I concur with Mrs Winnie's comments on that. The anti-social behaviour that has been experienced in a number of locations across Scotland with vandalism and graffiti has been on the increase. I think that it would be good for us to continue to see and seek some more. I think that the idea of contacting the War Graves Commission and their policies and procedures would be useful because they continue to look after and maintain many of those across our towns, cities and villages. I think that it is vitally important that we acknowledge that they are a lasting memory and that they should be protected. They are protected, but it would be useful to, as I say, continue the process to find out further information going forward. We will hold the petition open and proceed on that basis. Petition number 1894, to permit a medical certificate of cause of death, an MCCD, to be independently reviewed. This petition has been brought forward by Mr Kenneth Robertson, who I should say is the MSP for Eastwood as a constituent of mine, who has previously corresponded with my office on this issue. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the Certification of Death Scotland Act 2011, to permit a medical certificate of cause of death, to be independently reviewed by a medical reviewer from the death certification review service, where the case has already been reviewed by the Procurator Fiscal, but not by a medical professional expert. That is quite a technical issue. The petitioner states that the 2011 act does not allow for an application for review of a medical certificate of cause of death by an interested party where the cause of death of the deceased person has been investigated by the Procurator Fiscal. He notes that anyone can refer a death to the Procurator Fiscal, however, there is no obligation to investigate. An investigation may also only involve asking the certifying doctor if they are willing to certify the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief. The petitioner believes that this creates a dangerous loophole that could be exploited to cover up substandard care. The Spice Briefing accompanying the petition notes that the 2011 act was designed to introduce a single system of independent effective scrutiny applicable to deaths that do not require Procurator Fiscal investigation. The death certification review service, the DCRS, was established in 2015, and this service checks the accuracy of approximately 12 per cent of all medical certificates of cause of death in Scotland and also carries out interested person reviews in cases where questions or concerns about the content of an MCCD remain after an individual has spoken to the certifying doctor, or if questions or concerns arise at a later stage. This is to check the accuracy of information contained in the MCCD. The Scottish Government notes in its submission that the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal service is responsible for the investigation of all sudden unexpected or unexplained deaths in Scotland, noting that, in many cases, the MCCD will be provided by a pathologist who is an independent doctor and specialist in causes of death. The Scottish Government also notes that, given the independence of the Procurator Fiscal service, it would not be appropriate for DCRS to review MCCDs in cases already investigated by the Procurator Fiscal's office and that it does not intend to amend the 2011 act to enable DCRS to review cases previously investigated by COPFS apologists for all those acronyms. In response to the petitioner's reiterations' belief, the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal service is unable to provide the same level of security scrutiny as the DCRS, the death certification review service, as the Procurator Fiscal is not medically qualified, stating that there are thousands of deaths every year in Scotland which are referred to the Procurator Fiscal but not investigated and, as such, none of these are eligible for medical review by the death certification review service. This is actually quite a technical targeted concern of which I think my constituent had personal experience, although it refers to hearing this petition in the general sense. Are there any comments from colleagues? Thank you, convener. I would like to keep the petition open just now and write to relevant stakeholders, which is the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service and Healthcare Improvement Scotland to seek their views for what the petitioner is asking for. I am very happy that we would do that at any other views. As I said, it is really quite technical, but nonetheless an interesting issue. I think that we are useful just to get further evidence and perhaps to return the Scottish Government in the back of it. Are we agreed? Thank you all very much. Petition number 1895, the mandatory accountability for nature Scots decision making procedures, a petition lodged by Gary Wall. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision making within the framework of the Scottish Regulator Strategic Code of Practice and Scottish Government's guidance right first time. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that NatureScot, formerly known as Scottish Natural Heritage—actually, I thought it was, so I am a bit behind the times there—for Scotland's statutory nature conservation body and adviser to the Scottish Government, NatureScot is classified as a non-departmental public body and is subject to NDPB accountability and governance frameworks. The submission explains that licensing decisions are delegated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the conservation natural habits and etc. The Scottish Government states that the legislation does not provide for an appeal procedure for licensing decisions. However, all decisions by NatureScot are subject to challenge through the public sector complaints handling system, which includes recourse to the Scottish public sector ombudsman, the SPSO. The submission concludes that NatureScot ensures that its decision making process complies with the Regulatory Reform Scotland Act of 2014, Scottish Regulatory Strategic Code of Practice and Scottish Government's guidance right first time through applications of transparent, proportionate and consistent processes. With that taken into consideration, the Scottish Government does not consider that additional accountability measures are required over and above those already in place for NatureScot. The petitioner suggests that the terminology used by the Scottish Government in its submission to describe NatureScot's processes is different to that used in the legislation and is therefore incorrect. He also suggests that NatureScot's practices are inconsistent with case law. The petitioner believes that it is currently impossible for a citizen to hold NatureScot to account, suggesting that, again, if it was made mandatory, that they have to explain their objective for decisions in the context of the aims of the legislation, especially for refusals, it would go some way to explain how they have applied proportionality. Colleagues, do we have any suggestions in relation to this petition? I mean, consider the evidence. Well, I'm happy to say—I mean, the petition has obviously responded to the Scottish Government's petition in quite a specific way, so I'm quite happy to write back to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the challenge that the petitioner has actually made. That's a reasonable thing to do. Any other suggestions? Okay, we'll do that in the first instance. Thank you. Petition number 1896. Provide every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle. This petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable, reasonable, reusable metal bottle. The petitioner is aged seven years old and is called Callum Iceded. I believe that he may well be the youngest petitioner that there has been to the Scottish Parliament, so congratulations straight away on that very fact, first of all, Callum. He advises that each week, school children are given 250 millilitre disposable plastic water bottles to have with their lunches. He feels very strongly that this is the wrong thing to do. Callum has been campaigning to have reusable water bottles since early this year and his determinities campaign will succeed. He has solved the problem for his school and now wants to help the whole of Scotland. Callum points out that some schools do not have working facilities such as drinking taps. He and his eco group at school have asked for the broken taps in his school to be repaired. He doesn't understand why the Scottish Government can't provide funding to councils to provide reusable water bottles. Callum also mentions COP 26 and the fact that some children in Scotland can't access safe drinking water without damaging the oceans with single-use plastic. The Scottish Government's submission details the requirement that free drinking water must be ready available for all children and young people throughout the school day as per the provisions of the nutritional requirements for food and drink in schools Scotland regulations 2020. That sounds very misograd grind. However, the nutritional standards and the associated statutory guidance does not specify the way in which water should be provided. The Scottish Government states that this is a matter for individual education authorities to determine. The Covid-19 pandemic was cited as one reason why education authorities in schools may not wish to progress with providing reusable water bottles given concerns about communal water facilities. I'm delighted to say that we're joined this morning by our parliamentary colleague Sue Webber MSP, who is an interest in the petition and, in the first instance, Sue, I invite you to make any comments to the committee. Thank you very much, convener. You've mentioned a lot about Callum. He's certainly a determined and passionate young man already. He, with the support of his family, over the summer set out to walk the John Muir Way from Helensborough to Dunbar in various stages and it concluded in the October holidays where I met him. He's been very determined with his sponsor walk to complete that so that every class member in his school could get a reusable water bottle and he's succeeded. In addition, he's organised a raffle and a pajama day in order to beat his financial target and allow these clean canteen bottles for the 185 pupils in his school in Livingston. He's written to the First Minister regarding his concerns and he's managed to get this petition here. Even that in itself, he was absolutely delighted, but I'm really delighted to support the campaign because he is a very determined young man, as I said, and he's not finished yet and he's going to continue with his campaign whatever happens to reduce plastics in schools. Right now, he's at home bouncing off the walls—that's the words from his mum—because he's been invited to the green zone at COP on Friday. Given what's going on in the country this week, it's only right that we help support him with his ambition to have every child at primary school a reusable drinking water bottle. I'm sure that the whole committee congratulates Calum on that and I'm sure that he'll make a very effective presentation when he is there on Friday. I don't know when you say he's at home this week. He might be watching us just now in which case congratulations Calum. Any comments from colleagues? David Torrance, then I know Paul Sweeney wants to come in and Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. It's something that is very relevant with COP26 and our carbon footprint. And there's somebody who's been on the Petitions Committee—this is my first session—to see somebody at seven years of age petition us to try and achieve something across a whole. Scotland is incredible. I actually think that we should give Calum the opportunity to come before us and give us evidence, if somebody is taking so much time and so young to do that. I'd also like to write to all the key stakeholders, which is COSLA, Zero Waste Scotland, Keep Scotland Beautiful and Sustainable Scotland Network. Paul Sweeney. Yeah, I would concur. It would be great to have Calum come forward to the committee to give evidence. I think it's commendable that it's a young age. He's so passionate about this issue and it's also an incredibly practical measure. I was speaking with a colleague Ivan McKee, with children at the Thorn Tree Primary School yesterday in Glasgow, and the Equal Schools Committee was raising similar concerns about how they could practically take steps in their school to reduce their carbon footprint and improve environmental efficiency. It's touching at a very live issue that has huge issues shared by lots of young people across Scotland. I also think that Calum is a bit of a pioneer because it shows that the Petitions Committee should be accessible to everyone at a young age. If people are learning about politics in school and discussing issues at school, then the Petitions Committee is potentially a very useful way for young people to engage with our Parliament. I think that in more ways than one Calum has done a great service to us all today, and I'd be really happy to invite him to speak to us about what we can then consider doing to amplify his issue. I also commend and congratulate Calum on his endeavours for someone of a young age to have such a passion and to have created a huge opportunity here for his own school, but also to extend that we at this committee would be very much obliged to have him here to explain his and give him a platform to once again talk about his passion here. It's a very live issue. COP26, the whole idea of trying to encourage young people at primary school to be involved in that eco-committees has been a real success. Calum is going to be a real pioneer for the future, and I look forward to hearing from him and in the future when he has the opportunity to come here. Thank you. I don't know, Sue Webber, if you know the one thing I don't actually see anywhere, which school Calum is at? Yes, he's at Dedridge primary school in Livingstone. Right, well, they've got a very active campaigner on the ground in the school there. Calum, to Calum that we would absolutely love to have him come to the Scottish Parliament, that will be no challenge to him at all after having taken on the world in COP later this week. As well as inviting Calum to come to the Parliament to give evidence and support of his petition, we would invite some of the stakeholders as well to join us on that occasion and we can explore the issues raised in the petition in some detail. In the first instance, it's obviously right to all of them to get some idea of what their view is of the issues that have been raised. Are we all agreed on that? We are, right? Well, that's a thank you very much. The next petition is 1897, which is to reform certain of the procedures for the collection of council tax. This has been lodged by Richard Anderson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform those procedures for the collection of council tax, which apply when a person has difficulty in making payment. The SPICE briefing outlines the process of using summary warrants to enforce council tax debts. It explains that a summary warrant issues information to a judge who will then grant it without any further investigation of individual circumstances. As a result of a summary warrant, a 10 per cent surcharge is added to the debts listed. The Scottish Government's response states that its policy is to ensure households that are financially vulnerable do not have to meet a council tax liability that they are unable to afford and highlights the council tax reduction scheme. The submission states that around half a million households receive some level of council tax reduction and of those households 80 per cent receive a full reduction and are therefore not liable for council tax. The protected trust deed, the PTD protocol, commenced on 1 October 2021 and sets out non-statutory changes to the operational processes for protected trust deeds. The intention of the protocol is to improve transparency and clarity to better enable trust deeds to manage debtor and creditor expectations in a protected trust deed. Paul Sweeney I think that this is just another example, convener, of the real injustice that the council tax has for many people. One of the big problems with it, of course, is that it is a regressive tax. There are many debates that we can have about this. I am sure that it has been had in the Parliament over the last 20 years or so about the reform and replacement of the council tax, which still lingers on. I understand that there is also going to be a debate in Parliament in the main chamber tomorrow on the reform of social security in Scotland. That is a major aspect of how we deal with council tax, because the onus is on the individual to proactively seek a reduction. It simply is the case that often people are not aware of how to do that. There are huge lags in efficiency and how that adjustment is made. It can result in financial distress, which is compounded by that litigious approach by councils. We have to review how it is done. There could be reforms, particularly in light of the 2016 Scotland act, which has devolved social security powers. You can re-specify social security. You can design new interfaces without interacting with someone's claiming at any kind of benefit. There should be an automatic communication that would trigger a council tax reduction. I will be on the wit of man in the current infrastructure that we can design in Scotland to design those things that can happen. It is right for discussion, and it is very timely petition. I would be keen to look at ways in which we can gather more submissions from COSLA and Social Security Scotland about how we are designing a system to interact to improve the efficiency of the council tax, even though it is fundamentally flawed. At least we can do something to help to make it a bit better. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. How young you are is actually 31 years, not 20, and some of us have been debating it annually every year since it was introduced. Are there any other questions? I think that that is a bit reasonable to write in that manner. I do not believe that Paul mentioned that, since advice Scotland to, obviously. We should write to them because they will be regularly dealing with people in difficult circumstances and get their views on that. I am happy to include that, too. We are going to keep the petition open and seek information from the various bodies as suggested by Mr Sweeney and Mr Kidd. Are we all content? Petition number 1898, making entering someone's home without their permission or warrant a crime. This petition has been lodged by Julia Gow and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make a crime for a stranger to enter your home without permission or a warrant. In its response, the Scottish Government sets out the current offences that relate to entering someone's home without their permission. The submission confirms that, whilst entering someone's home without their permission is not a crime in and of itself, housebreaking with intent to steal is an aggregated form of the common law offence of theft in Scots law. The essential elements of that are that a person, one, overcomes the security of the premises and two, does that with the intention of stealing. A number of other common law statutory offences may be used. Examples include the common law offence of malicious mischief, the statutory offence of vandalism and a provision in section 57 of the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982, which criminalises any person who is found in or on a building or premises without local authority to be there, where it may reasonably inferred that the person intended to commit theft there. Additionally, the spice briefing highlights section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010, as it sets out an offence of threatening or abusive behaviour that might cover some situations where a person enters someone's house without permission. In her submission, the petitioner questions the essential elements of the aggravated form of theft in Scots law, which states that a person must both overcome the security of the premises and do so with the intent of stealing. She asks the committee to consider how being subject to either element of the crime can leave a person feeling, in her words, safe and secure in their own home. The petitioner urges the committee to consider the mental trauma and loss of experiences as a result of having someone enter your home without permission. I invite colleagues to comment. It's very worthwhile that we've received this petition for me, purely on the basis that I actually thought it would be a crime already. You're learning something every day here. I very much think that we should write to the Crown Office of Procurator Fiscal Service and to Police Scotland, who have to deal with many of these circumstances to seek their views on the issues raised in the petition. Personally, I think that this is something that has woken an issue up that I didn't know about, and I think that most people probably don't know about. However, for those who suffer such an event without a proper way of redressing that, I think that it must be quite worrying and even terrifying in some instances. Indeed. I think that we might just ask Spice to do a little bit of work for us on just how the position here in Scotland compares to positions in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, just to see whether there is any variation or significant, because I know that there will be different laws in place, but whether there is any significant difference in the protection to homeowners. Are we agreed to proceed on that basis? We are agreed. Thank you. We'll keep the petition open and make further inquiries in the first instance, as suggested. Petition number 1899—it's our last one today—is to conduct a risk benefit analysis prior to providing those under 16 with a Covid-19 vaccination. This has been lodged by Mary Henderson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to a conduct an inquiry into the risks and benefits of providing Covid-19 vaccinations to those under 16 years old. The Scottish Government submission confirms that chief medical officers from the four UK nations recommend all healthy children aged 12 to 15 should be offered one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine. In addition to the wider health issues, the UK chief medical officers took into consideration issues such as disruption to education, reduction in public health harm and mental health issues in reaching their decision. The submission explains that in deciding to offer vaccinations to children and young people aged 12 and over, chief medical officers have been informed by the independent expertise of leaders of the clinical and public health profession from across the UK. In her response, the petitioner highlights several international articles supporting her concerns regarding vaccinating children. The petitioner feels that natural immunity has not been fully investigated and the longer-term effects are unknown for all four Covid-19 vaccines. The petitioner is concerned that the move to vaccinate those under 16 years old is being driven politically rather than medically. I invite comments from colleagues on how we proceed with the petition. The vaccination programme is based on advice from the medical profession across the whole of the UK. I am happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. The basis of the Scottish Government has stated that it is taking advice and guidance from several sources on their approach and is consistent across the UK. Does any other colleague wish to offer an alternative course of action? Are we therefore in support of the action recommended by David Torrance? I thank the petitioner very much, but we will close the petition on the basis of the submissions that we have received from the Scottish Government. That concludes our meeting for today. We will next meet on 17 November. I formally close the meeting.