 Therefore, if you please call me inquiry to order and welcome everyone to this, the eighth meeting of the public petitions committee in 2017, might remind members and other people in the room to switch phones and other devices to silent? We first moved to agenda item one, new petitions and evidence. Our first item of business today is consideration of a new petition named, plantation 1643 by Jack Douglas, LBT, plus oficer ar gyfer gyda NUS Scotland, yn gwneud yn hyn oes unig oesbwyllu dros ymgwrdd dynesol i Scotland, ac rwyf yn gwneud y byddiol yn ein bodi'r bwysigol a'r bwysigol yn ychydigol. Mae'r bwysigol ym mwyaf o'r cyfnoddau i'r bwysigol, ac rwyf yn gweithio Llyfrgedeith Gwyrd i'r bwysigol a'r bwysigol i'r bwysigol i'r bwysigol a'r bwysigol i'r bwysigol i'r bwysigol I thank you for attending this morning. You have an opportunity to make a brief opening statement of up to five minutes after which we'll move to questions from the committee. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Ali Hudson and I'm the bisexual representative on the outgoing NUS Scotland LGBT Plus committee, which submitted this petition. I've had I want to step in at very little notice. So please excuse if I read off this device. Thank you for having me here. So the blood ban prevents gay and bisexual men from giving blood in an attempt to reduce HIV transmission, and it was initially brought in in the 1980s in the height of the AIDS crisis when there was a lot of fear and uncertainty around how AIDS spread and what could be done about it. Obviously it's now 2017. We understand how HIV spreads. We know how we can prevent it, and we understand how we can test for it very sensitively and very shortly after a person has been exposed. And recently, according to the Terence Higgins Trust, the introduction of PrEP, which can prevent the spread of HIV, has actually reduced new infections in gay and bisexual men in the last couple of years. So we are moving forward. The ban as it stands actually affects quite a large range of LGBT plus people, not just gay and bisexual men. So it affects transgender people in that often transgender women are classified just as men and transgender men are, well, it's quite ambiguous, but they might be classified as women. They might be classified as men. Often staff don't know how to enforce this rule or how to interpret it. So that it becomes very complicated. It also affects women who have sex with bisexual men, or men who have had sex with men, which is another rule that's quite difficult to enforce because it's not clear as to whether a partner is going to disclose this information, which I'll get back to you later. So this kind of applies to LGBT plus people pretty much across the spectrum, regardless of the actual behaviours and their actual level of risk. The ban is quite difficult to enforce because compliance is relatively low compared to some other aspects of deferral periods and waiting times, such as piercings and dentistry work, which the advisory committee on the safety of blood, tissue and organs has claimed can actually be more of a risk than shorter deferral periods. We believe that if the donation rules were based on an individual's risk, people would actually take this much more seriously and not decide whether or not they think something is scientific and valid and should apply to them on an individual basis, which seems to be what is happening in some cases at the moment. The ban doesn't have this basis at the moment because it's based on a statistical risk such that we know gay men are more likely to have HIV, but that doesn't mean an individual gay man is as likely to have HIV as any other. A man who has had a negative HIV test is in a monogamous relationship with another HIV negative man is currently banned from giving blood for a full year after the last sexual contact in the same way that a man who is having unprotected sex with unknown people is banned for a year. The Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service is aware that based on current testing techniques, it is not necessary to have a full year deferral period. They are considering a reduction to two or three months from last sexual contact and this is based on how long it takes for hepatitis B to be detected in the blood. HIV is not in fact the limiting factor here, it can be detected earlier than this. My apologies. We are obviously not advocating for these rules to be changed in a way that harms patients or puts patients at risk. We want them to have access to the blood that they need without a risk of HIV transmission or transmission of any other blood-borne disease and we want a non-discriminatory and science-based approach to this policy. For us, this means introducing individual risk assessments so that risky behaviours are not risky sexualities incur the temporary waiting period that should be as long as is necessary but not any longer for detecting pathogens. One thing that we have heard is that under individual risk assessments more people are actually prevented from donating blood than under the current blanket one-year deferral period. We actually think that this goes to show the discriminatory nature of this ban in that those whose behaviours are genuinely risky but who are not LGBT plus are passing under the radar whilst LGBT plus people who are potentially low risk based on their own individual behaviours are being prevented from giving blood based essentially on a statistical prevalence that is outdated and mostly on prejudice rather than science and logic here. We are asking for this to be looked into and for the best way to go forward in changing this policy to take place. Thanks for that. Thank you very much for that and thank you for stepping in at the last minute. That's appreciated. First issue, I would like to ask you about is one that your petition identifies as being most worrying. In your petition you say that the blanket ban quote is not based on up-to-date evidence and there has been no wholesale review of the system to take account of advances in testing and screening technologies. The briefing material that we have from the Parliament's research team indicates that the 2011 review looked at donor selection criteria including the sensitivity of testing procedures. I wonder if I could ask you to expand on the question of up-to-date evidence and whether the advances in screening technology that you referred to have been made since the 2011 review. Is this the Sabto review in 2011? Sorry, I've lost Sabto. I do understand what you're talking about. There have been quite a lot of advances both before and after 2011 in the sensitivity of blood screening techniques. I'm personally probably not the best person to explain this but it's now pretty clear based on decisions made by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to review this policy that it does not take a year for HIV to be detectable in the blood. It doesn't take six months. They're saying that it takes less than two months and definitely less than three months which is how it currently takes hepatitis B to be detectable in the blood. It's pretty clear that blood screening techniques are adequate for a reform here. They're not going to be the limiting factor that we are able to take HIV and blood fairly early on after someone has been exposed and with a high degree of accuracy. Thanks. Angus MacDonald. Thanks. Good morning. Before I go to my question, I'd like to ask as part of your research prior to submitting the petition, have you looked at assessment systems in other parts of Europe? We have. The two main models that you might look at in other parts of Europe would be Italy and Spain. As we know, Spain has not really had a system that is acceptable, I think, in terms of risk to patients. They have had one, I think, since 2005 when they introduced the rule, they've had one transmission of HIV. This would have been detectable under current technology for screening blood. Would have been detected in Scotland now because all blood is screened. So that's clearly not acceptable, but I think it's also worth bearing in mind that the prevalence rates for HIV is actually quite a lot higher in Spain than it is in Scotland. Italy, on the other hand, has had somewhat more of a successful introduction of this rule. I'm afraid I'm not actually quite familiar with Italy's particular policies, but it does seem that the risk level has not increased since they introduced this new rule for HIV transmission, and that often heterosexual people are found to be unexpectedly HIV-positive more often than LGBT-plus people. There was recent evidence that we are aware of in terms of Italy was published in 2013, and as Ali rightly says, what it found was that there was no increased risk as a result of the removal of the deferral period in the introduction of individual risk-based assessment. Actually, the bigger issue was the general prevalence of HIV among the population, and in fact, since they reformed their system, they found that they were identifying heterosexuals as actually having increased rates of prevalence of HIV. And I think what that does, and we might get to it later, is actually strikes the heart of the system. There's obviously been, in the run-up to this, there's been some discussion about whether or not individual risk-based assessment could actually result in fewer people being able to donate blood. Obviously, if you take in those low-risk men who have sex with men, we'd hope that the pool would be bigger. But actually, the reason that there are some that raise concerns about the pool becoming smaller is actually because you can start to identify high-risk behaviour among the heterosexual population. Let's say that was the general findings of Italy, which was the move, and all the research that they have says that the prevalence of HIV was coming out much more likely among heterosexuals, which no doubt was due to the move to individual risk-based assessment. As Allie Wightley says in Spain, there's been two cases since they moved to their system of HBV being identified. They, however, were not as a result of men who have sex with men, and there was one case of HIV being identified that would have been caught at the time if they had the most up-to-date and recent testing standards. I think that the Scottish Government has asked SAMTO to look at assessment systems in other parts of Europe. Your petition calls for an evidence-based system that is based on an assessment of individual risk to determine whether someone is able to denate blood. Looking at that suggestion from a practical point of view, how would the system operate, and would it be any different in terms of the questions that potential donors are asked to answer or the testing processes that blood samples could be subject to? Obviously, blood samples are rigorously screened in Scotland already, and they would continue to be. Practically putting that in place, that would have to go through a process of deciding how it's best to do it. One thing that we think would be quite beneficial would be a preliminary online screening that patients could take at home because one of the things that we're thinking we feel is a problem is non-disclosure of certain stigmatised things, such as bisexual men or men who have had sex and men who don't identify as being in the LGBT-plus community may not want to disclose that they've recently had sex with a man, especially to a member of staff face-to-face, perhaps with friends or partners around. We feel as though people would be better prepared by a two-tier screening thing in which they could go through a series of questions which would indicate whether or not they were high, low or medium risk, and if they are essentially lower risk, it would be then appropriate for them to come in, speak to someone before they donate blood, give a history of their behaviours, be prepared for what those questions are going to be, and essentially to use a similar system in which their level of risk is indicated by a series of questions. It's pretty much quite similar to what there is now, except that instead of blanket deferral periods, it's actually based on individual behaviours. OK, thank you. Brian Whittle. Morning, Alex. I'm interested in the possible unintended consequences of confusion that may exist under the current regulations. For example, your petition refers to trans women and non-binary people also being unable to donate blood and extending also to women who have had sex with men where those men have also had sex with men. Do you think that this particular issue highlights a lack of clarity in the regulation for the service providers who manage the blood donation service? Yes, I do. We, at Edinburgh University, recently had a panel and a representative of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service was there, and she was saying that women should be classified as women in this, but when you go to donate blood, it is very much, you get what you get, and it really depends on how individual practitioners have interpreted this. The rules are not clear enough. People are not aware necessarily of how the rules ought to be applied as they are, so that people are being essentially treated differently at different transfusion services. Yes, what needs to happen is that there needs to be very clear rules as to who is affected by different rules and assessments. We think that if this was done on an individual basis, some of that ambiguity would be immediately easy to take away because not all of this stuff applies to any one person. I might have been another aspect to your question, but I'm afraid I've forgotten it. Thank you, that was fine. Moris Corry. Good morning. On the issue of risk, our briefing material notes that there are some exceptions for women who have had sex with men and where those men who have also had sex with men and the guideline states that the same women may be allowed to donate on the basis of an individual risk assessment. Is this individual risk assessment that is carried out in these cases the same type of individual assessment that you would like to see applied to men who have sex with men? If there are any differences, would you be able to summarise these briefly for the committee? It's in very few circumstances, so in the main deferral period for female partners of men who have had sex with men is broadly 12 months, with a few exceptions around the margins. Again, I think it highlights that issue of there is a bank of donors out there that may have actually engaged in very low risk behaviour that actually you can provide an exception to the rule. I spoke with what we were looking at, is that to be rolled out. In terms of going back to the earlier question about model, as far as I'm aware, for female partners of men who have had sex with men, it's not a hugely detailed process over and above the existing one, but I suppose that raises the issue of what you're trying to find, because at the minute, we know the compliance is broadly OK in Scotland and across the UK based on the existing methods. Ultimately, we are very dependent across every category of person on that compliance and on that honest answering. As Ali said, the ideal for any class of individual, regardless of what their sexual history was, was moving to that system that could much better identify low, medium and high risk and potentially introduce differentiated deferral periods on the basis of that. For female partners of men who have had sex with men, you would imagine that, broadly, they are in quite a low risk category. The same could absolutely equally apply to men who have had sex with men under the current system. As Ali said, it is trying to get to that system. There is the need to have. In terms of going back to the point about evidence, there's been lots of studies done since around social technology in terms of how you get people to answer honestly. That's why we very much favour some kind of initial self-assessment tool, because there are, and particularly, female partners of men who have had sex with men fall into that category. Equally, what may be self-identified as a heterosexual man may have had non-heterosexual contact recently, because there are studies that suggest that those that would define into being bisexual can be very hesitant, because it ultimately requires you to be honest to your current partner about whether or not you've had same-sex contact in a recent period. Sorry, there's a very long way of saying that ultimately that falls into that low-risk category, what we want to see that being done is extended right across everyone. But in a much more robust, you know, we're not saying that the current system would absolutely be what you would expect under any reformed individual risk-based assessment. You would need something more robust, but absolutely gets into the heart of actually who is a low-risk category of donor. And female partners of men who have had sex with men quite often fall into that low-risk category, which is why the exceptions can't exist. Okay, thank you. Rona Mackay. Thank you, convener. Can I declare an interest, please, in this petition, as I led the member's debate in Parliament last year, and I'm supportive of this petition. Good morning, Allie and Philip. The petition notes that regulations could prevent many low-risk LGBT-plus people from donating, but could still allow high-risk cisgender heterosexual people to donate. We know that there are some groups who are restricted from donating blood, such as injecting drug users and commercial sex workers, and the restrictions may also be put in place for people who have been exposed to the increased use, to an increased use, at risk of acquiring a blood-borne virus. Do you think that an individual risk assessment approach should also apply to these groups of people? Yes, I feel like, as long as there is a robust approach that can actively identify the risk to a given person, there's no reason why that shouldn't be more widely used. So you mentioned injecting drug users and sex workers. Currently, both those groups, I believe, have a lifetime ban. Essentially, the deferral period is infinite. However, if you have done one of those potentially quite high-risk behaviours, especially in the case of injecting drug use, first and foremost, you don't have a chance of suddenly contracting HIV 10 years down the line if in the intervening period you have had tests and you've been HIV negative. I think right off the bat, it's fairly obvious that in the instances you have done a potentially risky behaviour, you haven't contracted a blood-borne disease, then it's not going to come out of nowhere. Secondly, in the case of sex workers in particular, that's a very broad category that can include people who have... This is such an odd thing to say in front of a committee. People who have done potentially non-penetrative sex acts for money, people who have essentially had very little contact with any bodily fluids from a customer or a client, who are potentially at very low risk and who have practised safe sex practices or had very little sexual contact with those people. I think an individual risk-based assessment only takes a bit of logic to sort out some of these issues and other things will require much more research, but it can apply to other higher and high-risk groups. Okay, thank you. Can I just clarify from your opening statement on what you said throughout that you believe the current criteria for donations is discriminated against the LGBT plus community because it's not based, you can't compare like with like for a promiscuous heterosexual person and a monogamous gay person. So you feel it's outdated and discriminatory. Yes, I think it's both of those things. I think it's been clear for the last at least decade that this is potentially discriminatory, that this doesn't need to be applied in this way as a blanket deferral period. And I think actually the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service itself is aware of this as unnecessary and discriminatory, so I don't think there's an excuse to not look into referring it and to not make some active changes. Okay, thank you. Moris Cymru. Hello again. The petition is underpinned by a change in approach from a population or cohort-based assessment of risk to an assessment of individual risk. The UK Standing Advisory Committee on the safety of blood, tissues and organs has commissioned the subcommittee to undertake a further review of selection criteria and examine any new evidence. As part of this, we understand that a discussion paper was produced on individual risk assessment, which highlighted issues including the gaps in evidence to help assess the risk of sub-cohorts within higher risk groups, the difficulty of assessing an individual's risk without assessing the risk of their partner, and the prevalence rate within a cohort that is considered acceptable. We understand that the current review is expected to report this year. Have you or any other organisation campaigning on this issue been involved in any aspect of this review? Also, do you have any comments on that review? The first bit, at least, is relatively short. Directly, not a huge amount from NHS Scotland, we have been doing it via our NHS UK counterpart to be running a very similar campaign at the UK level, and also through the all-party parliamentary group on blood donation at the UK Parliament. Via those channels in the main, our engagement has been direct to the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. In terms of the review, it is positive that it is starting to look at it and identify the issues that exist, going back to one of the very first questions around the 2011 review and evidence since then. I think the disappointment with the 2011 review and what's happened since is the 2011 review almost had individual risk-based assessment to throw away line. The Department of Health had commissioned the Health Protection Agency, I think it is, to undertake some research into compliance rates which touched on individual risk. In terms of Sabato's actual report, there was one line of if we introduced individual risk-based assessments, it would be to cumbersome essentially a process. I think if you look at the countries that have moved individual risk or have removed their deferral periods, equally if you look at countries that have still been quite stringent in their deferral periods, so the United States obviously was relatively slow to the game in removing the lifetime ban and introducing a 12 month deferral. The Senate for Disease Control published guidance in 2014 that had a really robust assessment or risk assessment tool to start trying to identify risky behaviours. I think there have been developments both across Europe and across the wider world even where deferral periods are still in place that actually show that introducing risk-based assessment can be done equally if you look at social technology advances and online technology advances. There are ways that can be done in a much more intrusive manner and actually in a manner that can produce much more honest answers. Again, using Italy as the example, there was research done to say that the single largest reason for non-compliance or non-notification of so-called high risk behaviours was simply because the individual didn't realise that they were high risk. A much more robust self-assessment tool that allows individuals to question the behaviours that they have. More importantly, in private, there's a huge issue around bisexuals potentially not wanting to tell their current partner that they've had previous same-sex sexual partners. If you can move to that model again, I think there has been evidence to suggest that that is possible since the original saboteur review in 2011. Long story short, through our UK current reports and through the APPG which we had hoped to report earlier this year but obviously that has been deferred for now. We've been doing it through those channels. Anne, have you got any comments? I've actually sort of lost track of the crux of the question. Could you repeat it? I mean basically what I was saying was that we understand the current review is expected to report next this year from the UK Standing Advisory Committee. Have you, any other organisation campaigning on the issue been involved in any aspect of the review? Have you been asked or been part of it? Personally, I've actually only very recently been involved in this campaign so I'm not personally aware of anything other than what you've just said Philip that NUS Scotland has been involved in apart from encouraging discussions from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service who we have had some meetings and public discussions with. We haven't been involved in the research itself. I think there wasn't aimed to do so. I don't know the status of that right now. Have you any overall comments to yourself on the process or? I would like to see the outcome of that review. I think it won't be the only piece of research needed for this to go forward. I think one thing is that we've got to be realistic that good healthcare practices do require a lot of research. They do take time and often money but are also something that is vitally important to our welfare and healthcare and also to observing science-based and evidence-based medicine and policy. Thank you, Jeb. You referred to this in an earlier answer but just to confirm that if not NUS Scotland, NUS at a UK level are involved in the old parliamentary parliamentary group on blood donation and that is supported by the Freedom to Night campaign. Is the Freedom to Night campaign active in Scotland? No, they have not been as much as far as I am aware, so most of the work that we have done has been with the equality network rather than Freedom to Night. I think that they primarily focus at UK slash houses of parliament level. Thank you very much for your evidence. I think that it would be fair to say that the very strong message is that this is not a campaign based on anything reckless but it is based on a science-based approach to decisions around blood donation and given the reluctance of some of our population to donate blood that is something that we are very alive to. I wonder if I can invite members' views on what action to take on the petition. I think that we are all agreed that there is an issue here that we would want to explore further. One of the interesting issues to come out of this is the fact that heterosexual behaviour does not seem to be taken into account in terms of the potential of promiscuity in HIV in that community. I think that on the face of it it does look like some sort of prejudice and I think I would like to seek the views of the Scottish Government on action call for an petition at least in the first instance. We can seek the views of the Scottish Government anyone else. I agree with Brian Whittle. I think that we should seek the views of the Scottish Government however I feel given that the current Sabto review is expected to report this year as Maurice Corry mentioned. We should contact Sabto and ask for a timeline with an indication as to when they expect to report. I am aware that the Scottish Government has asked Sabto part of their current work on blood safety to explore if an individual assessment system can be put in place and the Scottish Government has also asked Sabto to look at assessment systems in other parts of Europe. That is why I raised it earlier on. Scottish Government should be contacted in the first instance and Sabto. I agree with that absolutely. I also chair the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. They are pretty critical to this. It would be useful to get an update on their views and perhaps also the Quality Network in the Terms and Second Trust. You have also been involved in campaigning around this question. The Freedom to Donate campaign has begun to get there. I think that that is a good starter in terms of just gathering some evidence and obviously this petition when that information comes in and use the petition as one of a further opportunity to respond to that evidence. I thank you very much for attending today, particularly at short notice. That has been a very useful session and I thank you for your attendance. Can we just suspend very briefly? We can call the meeting back to order. We are now moving to agenda item 2 and we will consider two more new petitions. The first petition under this item is petition 1638 on local housing allowance brackets bedroom tax 2 lodged by Sean Clacken. Members have a copy of the petition and a briefing note. Members will note that the petition calls in the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward a debate. Can I suspend the meeting and call the meeting back to order? The petition calls in the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward a debate on local housing allowance referred to in the petition as bedroom tax 2. In the petition, Mr Clacken explains that he has been campaigning on this issue but there appears to be confusion about the issue and Mr's understanding that the issue referred to is not the same as the bedroom charge or spare room charge. The petition goes on to explain that the action is called for because the petitioner believes that progressive parliamentarians can come together to give a considered opinion on the lives of our most vulnerable citizens in terms of making many of them homeless. It might be worth noting that on 19 April it was announced that the Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland in partnership with the Scottish Government has commissioned research on the local housing allowance cap in the social rented sector and the potential impact this may have on people under 35 and social landlords. The research will include analysis of the potential gap between individual social landlord rent levels and the single shared room rate across Scotland. It will also involve discussions with registered social landlords and local authorities on their opinion on the potential impacts and mitigation approaches that landlords are planning. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. To at least wait to hear the outcome of that review. Angus. You have referred to some confusion on the petitioner's part. However, there seems to be some confusion from the spice briefing. The spice briefing that we have received states that the Scottish Government has not indicated if it will seek to use its new social security powers devolved through the Scotland Act 2016 to change the UK Government's plan in Scotland. It has not given an indication because the Scottish Government quite simply can't change the UK Government's plans. The Scottish Government can only mitigate and support people, but it cannot change UK Government plans. All the Scottish Government can do it's work around these plans. It is just to clarify for the record that the spice briefing perhaps suggests action that the Scottish Government could take that it can't. I think that there is an issue here. I am not quite sure. I think that the question that would be interesting is the extent to which people get caught in the social rented sector. It says in the briefing that very often the rent levels in the social rented sector are below what the local housing allowance cap is. It would be interesting to get a sense of who it is affected by that. I think that what also comes out of the petition, which there would be concerns about, is the presumption that anybody under 35 would be expected to share. The extent to which there are tenancies is that the issue to be under 35 is in fact shared. There would actually be an expectation in the opposite direction and whether they have done any work in this regard. There is quite a number of housing organisations in the social rented sector that we could usefully get advice from, evidence from. Do they see this as a concern? There are all sorts of issues that impact in housing associations where the gap between housing benefit and rent levels is there. Apart from anything else, it can affect the housing association's ability to take in rent and affect their ability to provide a service for their tenants. It is definitely worth contacting the Federation Housing Association to clarify. It is clear that there is an issue. Angus is absolutely right. From the briefing that we received it is slightly misleading because there is only so much that we can do about the bedroom tax at this stage. There is an issue that I think we should explore and find out what the reaction is from housing associations. Write to the Government as well and ask them if they are aware of what they are. Brian Hutter? I agree to contacting housing associations. I think my own understanding of the bedroom tax and how it has been imposed and applied has been changed by speaking with them as well. I think that would be pertinent. I have had to agree that bringing in the housing association would be a good idea. Local authorities who still have housing for rent, maybe through COSLA? Chair, can I come in here? Clarem Angus is a council in our Garnbu council and having had a lot to do with this in our council area there is a problem in Scotland that not all local authorities have the same design of housing in this question of two, three bedrooms or one bedroom, whatever it is and I would be calling on a report from the Scottish Government or from COSLA actually to see which areas have the type of housing that we are looking at which is causing this problem. This was identified before when Lord Freud produced the report and I attended in his briefing on that and actually challenged him on the question of what authorities, what he looked at overall and discovered that there had been no overview of it at all. In fact the authorities in the city of Edinburgh the Freeson Gallery in our Garnbu were very similar because they didn't build one bedroom houses. They built two bedroom houses and it was therefore unfair. I think that we need as a root and branch to get the facts. I think that is the question about the bedroom tax itself. I think that the separate issue is the way in which the local housing allowance cap is affecting things. It already operates in the private sector and I think that I might be wrong but my sense is the policy purpose of that is to encourage private landlords to have reasonable rents and not to be in a position where there is a high demand for the bum pop rents because they think that the public person will pay for it. Whether there are people being caught in the social rented sector by an unreasonable local housing association cap a local area cap which might capture quite different pressures on housing in different parts there will be some bits of a girl with a massive pressure in other areas where there won't and therefore rent levels may be different so I think that it would be worthwhile trying to explode that. We need to dig into it. The other suggestion would be possibly the association of local authority chief housing officers who may rather than directly to COSLA although nothing is stopping us from flagging up to COSLA if they want to respond to this. I suppose that at this stage the petition is quite interesting as it tees out some of the technicalities around this. What has caused this but I do think that there is an underlying issue which I think the petitioner flags up is this question about people under 35 which doesn't feel as if it has any match with the way in which people live their lives and I'm not quite sure whether there's work being done about the implications of that which inevitably if it's not possible or there are very few share tendencies offered then inevitably you're in a position where you're going to have a gap between the rent you're going to expect to pay and what you can access in terms of housing benefit and with all the questions that may have areas whether it's for work or whatever else. I think that there's quite a lot here and it's certainly something that we would want to come back to but we'll try and get some evidences around the detail and I do think that it will be an opportunity of the Scottish Government both to highlight the fact that they have mitigated a through investment round discretionary payments they have mitigated the bedroom tax but what they are looking at and what they're restricted in doing in terms of and what the impact of the broader policy is on them too. Is that agreed? Okay, and we'll obviously that we'll return to this petition clearly in terms of the responses of those who we have agreed to write to. In that case can we move on then to petition 1641 on the future independence referendum the final new petition in the agenda today is petition 1641 by David Robertson on a future independence referendum the petition calls in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government not to seek a second independence referendum referendum until after 2020. Members have a copy of the petition and a briefing note along with copies of written submissions on the petition from two members of the public. Members may wish to note that the petition was published and open for signatures prior to the debate in the Parliament on 28 March. The question for us to consider today is what action may be appropriate for us to take on this petition. For example would members wish to seek the views of the Scottish Government on the issue given that we have recently debated the issue of a second referendum and I think we know what the position is and I wonder if members have any comments on this petition. Angus? She's a convener, I think we do know the position of the Scottish Government and with that in mind we need to close the petition understanding orders rule 15.7 given that the Scottish Parliament has voted to hold an independence referendum once the terms of Brexit are clear and it would be undemocratic and completely unsustainable in my view to block the will of Parliament. Deep breath. Thanks to my through gritty teeth I do have to agree that it's not within this committee's remit to go against the will of Parliament. I agree that we should close the petition that's been completely superseded. I agree that we should close it. I think the thing that strikes me about it is this is an issue that exercising people in Scotland on whatever side they are on the question and that for us to pursue this petition would simply to expose the fact that what we already know which government's position is we know what the main opposition parties are we know that the country itself is divided so I don't think it's to undermine the significance of the petitioner's view or indeed those who have responded to taking a contrary view this will be something that will exercise the people of Scotland and beyond for some time to come certainly things have moved on from when the petition was lodged the Parliament has taken a view on it and I suppose the one thing I would want to emphasise is not that we don't regard this as an important issue in closing the petition we feel that this is something that's going to be a debate that will be conducted in the chamber and in the country regardless of what the view of we as the petitions committee is so in closing the petition I think that we're agreeing to do that I think that we're also recognising that closing the petition isn't closing the debate that that's the debate that will continue and if that's agreed we can take that decision to close the petition understanding order rule 15.7 on the basis that the issue has recently been debated in the Parliament and that it will continue to be debated I think in the country if we can then yes I would think we want to thank the petitioner for putting the petition forward and recognise that it was an opportunity for members of the public to make their views to the Parliament on a highly topical issue and I think they will I have no doubt that they will continue to do so if we can move on then to the next petition we're moving to agenda item 3 continued petitions which we're taking no evidence the next petition on the agenda is petition 1592 by Shaheen McWade on group B strep information and testing members have a note by the clerk and the submissions received we decided to fair our consideration of this petition until the UK national screening committee published its report on the evidence relation to screening for group B strep the report has now been published members will see that its key findings are summarised in the clerk's note and a link to the full report is also provided the report's conclusion is that it does not recommend group B strep for screening and I understand that the Scottish Government is represented on the committee and relevant stakeholders including group B strep support were involved in the review process and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for the action I would like to write to Dr Sue Payne who was the Scottish Government's observer I mean I understand everything that's been said by the UK national screening committee but she knows as Dr Payne was an observer I still think it would be worth getting a view from her before we take any decisive action any further action on it any other views I'm not sure what else the committee can actually do although it does seem there's a question on answered here so perhaps I'm not convinced there's anything else that this committee can currently do that's struck by the power of the petition itself and the petitioner and the courage of the petitioner in bringing this question forward giving her own tragic experience and it looks as if the clinical view of this is that it wouldn't be beneficial but I wonder in terms of what Rona Mackay suggests it would be worthwhile to simply asking for that information and then that gives us absolute confidence the petitioner's point of view she was there we don't know her view we have all the rest of the views here and I think from her point of view it would be Curtis to ask I mean it may not change anything but just to ask for her view I agree with that okay is that agreed we have a final opportunity when that response comes back we can reflect then on what we should do but again I think we'd want to thank the petitioner for the work she has done to highlight this issue if we can move then on to petition 1618 on combating motorcycle theft the next petition in the agenda is petition 1618 by Carol Grundy on behalf of riders club Edinburgh on combating motorcycle theft we have a note by the clerk and the submissions received Police Scotland has provided a supplementary briefing outlining the relative increase in theft and also explaining the action that is taking to address the issue Visit Scotland has also provided a submission and notes that it is not aware of theft having any impact on motorcycle tourism in Scotland we have also received a submission from YouthLink Scotland it considers that the police have adequate powers to tackle the issue but provide some useful information so that organisations may be able to assist the police in addressing the issue and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action I believe I mean Police Scotland have got the powers to deal with this and I think it's evidence in their report and obviously the question of the tourism is clear that there's no effect basically by Visit Scotland's report and I would therefore propose that we close the petition understanding all the rules 15.7 on the basis that Police Scotland has adequate powers in relation to motorcycle theft and that their measures in place are ready to deal with the wider social issues and in closing the petition the committee may wish Police Scotland to be aware of the YouthLink Scotland suggestions have worked together to try and resolve that if there is that issue but I think it's within the powers of Police Scotland to deal with this and I think we really have no more we can do with this The one thing that did strike me was if they were stealing cars we'd make the same judgement on having a no pursuit policy I don't know What I was struck with is it's not just a Police Scotland issue it's a multi-disciplinary approach which they seem to be taking at the moment I think you're right that cars are more likely to pursue but that's probably because it's easier to pursue a car than a motorcycle and the other thing that struck me is that it seems to be more prevalent within the area than the rest of Scotland I'd like to part of me wants to ask why there's a council issue here Although it might be just it's a cultural thing amongst the perpetrators at a very local level it's something that I hear what Morris says about closing the petition and I suspect that that is right but I'm interested in the views of other members I do recall that in meeting with the petitioners just in the fact that we did meet with them in private in itself said something but that they had tried a lot of these things they tried to engage with the young people who were involved they understood the level of risk and I think the petition was a question of their frustration so it may be that in closing the petition we acknowledge that we recognise that frustration and encourage them that if they feel there isn't any change it's something that they may want to bring back to their attention at a later stage By them bringing the petition and it's fairly long long standing it has highlighted the issues which means that if all parties work together and try to lessen it then it's certainly been worthwhile and as you say if nothing improves they can bring it back I think what I'm discovering in this committee is there is a frustration with sometimes not being able to think of anything else that we can possibly do to help and this is one of those petitions I don't think of anything else that we could possibly do because I'd actually thought of all these things that we're now reflecting on and they knew all of that and this question of if you look at the evidence they're all going to hard places do you pursue a young person who is reckless enough to steal this motorcycle who put themselves at harm put others at harm against the consequence of there appearing to be no consequences to actually taking the motorcycle because you know you're not going to be chased wrestling with and then it contributes to the decision to close the petition I think we are then agreeing to close the petition we recognise that there are significant unresolved issues here but that we would hope that the police would be alive to the concerns of the petitioners and really try to work on the cross part the cross agency organisations to try and make sure we do with this but I do think that we would want to thank the petitioner for bringing in the petition we do recall that we met informally with the petitioner to discuss the issue which clearly has a significant impact on those affected by this antisocial behaviour and we hope that in highlighting this at a national level through the consideration of the petition the Police Scotland may be able to forge stronger links with local youth organisations to effectively tackle the issue but recognise just the kind of dilemma there for everyone so with that can we thank the petitioner and move on to petition 1621 on sepsis awareness diagnosis and treatment the next petition is petition 1621 on sepsis awareness diagnosis and treatment lodged by James Robertson members have a note by the clerk along with submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner the Scottish Government indicates that support for a public facing campaign to raise awareness of sepsis and provide some thoughts on how this might be achieved it also appears to be confident that there would not be any unintended consequences which are concerns expressed previously by some health boards however it is not considered that a staff facing campaign is required and provides its rationale for its position the petitioner welcomes the Scottish Government's support for the public awareness campaign but raises some specific questions in relation to the view that a staff facing campaign is not required and those are set out in part 1 of its submission and I wonder if members have any views on what action to take on this petition Can I register an interest in this as the petitioner is a constituent of mine I think we should take forward the petitioner's questions on the Scottish Government's response which is basically just asking for a bit more detail in terms of the work continuing on the awareness and management of SPSP what would it entail and how would its impact be measured we are seeking more detail on what part of the life support training programs and undergraduate training programs across the country sepsis is included in which should be helpful to know just how it's been taught in the early stages about the consistency amongst health boards I think that's pretty vital to this whole awareness campaign so I think if I would propose writing to the Scottish Government asking them those questions that he is further asking Is that agreed Any other suggestions I'm pleased that the Scottish Government supports the awareness campaign but the petitioner has raised a number of questions as Rona Mackay highlighted which do require further clarification but a salient point in the Scottish Government's response is highlighting the point from UK sepsis trust that a similar awareness raising exercise in England hasn't received or hasn't resulted in an extra workload for health boards which has been a concern of a number of health boards here but clearly the situation in England would suggest that there hasn't been an increase in work boards so that's a salient point that we should have on the record I agree with that Are there any other comments? We want to write to the Scottish Government as suggested by Rona Mackay then it's an opportunity for us to further reflect on the petition once we get a response indeed if we can move on then to petition 1623 on unelected church appointees and local authorities education committees this petition was lodged by Spencer Fieldays on behalf of the Scottish Secular Society on unelected church appointees and local authority education committees submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner have been circulated to members along with a note by the clerk the Scottish Government identifies the number of responses it received on its education governance review and says that it will publish its findings in due course in response to our question on any assessment that has undertaken respect of the public sector equality duty the Scottish Government advises that this was not a requirement at the time the legislation was instructed but it's something that it will seek to undertake on any policy proposals arising from its governance review it adds that it intends to consider the Scottish Government's review the petitioners broadly welcome the Scottish Government's response but contend that it will not be possible to establish whether any proposals emerging from the governance review address the issues raised until they have been assessed and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action to take Morris? It is that we seek from the Scottish Government an update on its anticipated timescale from its education governance review and obviously that will apply within the local authorities certainly that point and subsequently clarification of whether it will carry out any equality impact assessment on policy proposals from that review and then thirdly is clarification of whether it is referenced to the Scottish Secular Society proposals relate to the actions called for on the petition or indeed to the society's response and I think it's very important that we may even suggest that we refer this for views from the COSLA Okay I would add that in We have got some information from COSLA in our initial sort of search for evidence of response on the question people agreed that we write to the Scottish Government in those terms I was quite interested in the idea that public sector equality doesn't apply to legislation that you've already passed I was quite intrigued by that That seemed to me to be saying well that was before we thought about the quality question so we don't have to So at what point I suppose it's the question of the Scottish Government at what point do they look at things that have been done in the past and think do they match up and I suppose it's the questions whether the governance review is allowing them community to look at that issue I think we just need clarification on those points that Morris raised and depending on the response we can then decide how to take it further Okay is that agreed Yep And again we thank the petitioners for their on-going interest in this question We now move to petition 1626 Regulation of Bus Services This was lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of United Union Eight written submissions have been provided to members along with a note by the clerk which includes an update from SPICE on the UK Bus Services Bill The Scottish Government does not support the petition's call for an enquiring to bus regulation instead confirming its intention to introduce a transport bill in this session of the Parliament It suggests that at the core of the bill will be the provision of bus services and considers that its consultation will allow people to comment and contribute to developing bus policy The Scottish Association for Public Transport considers that a new framework for public transport is required and provides some suggestions about how this can be achieved Scotland's regional transport partnership says that there is clearly a need for greater public sector involvement and along with track line partnership for transport identifies statutory quality partnerships as one of a range of potential options The petitioner welcomes the comments offered by some respondents and offers comments directed to the Scottish Government In response to the Government's view that the ownership of the means of delivery is less important than the outcomes delivered The petitioner says that the deregulated commercial model is diverting money away from service delivery The petitioner's submission identifies areas in which it would seek clarification from the Scottish Government and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action on this petition I think that the petition we took a view that there was definitely an issue here The question is whether we would conduct an inquiry whether we would ask the relevant committee to conduct an inquiry or is it the case that a transport bill would be affording an opportunity for these questions to be asked through stage 1 of the consideration of the bill Brian I was actually going to say the fact that there is a transport bill coming forward and to give afforders the opportunity then to or how would that afford us an opportunity to bring the petitioner's points into that bill It would depend on what were the provisions of the transport bill because the transport bill is drawn too tightly is not possible, for example to produce amendments on regulation or the interests in the Scottish Co-op people's bus campaign or the other campaigns that we heard from so I suppose the question would if the transport bill becomes a bill that allows for that debate and all the stakeholders would be given the opportunity or indeed the general public with the opportunity to submit written evidence and so on but my concern would be that we don't actually know what's in the transport bill yet I wouldn't want Monviews I wouldn't want to close the petition at this stage because we don't really know what the provisions of the transport bill is going to be Angus? I would agree that we shouldn't close the petition when the transport minister announced the intention to have a transport bill a few weeks ago I think it was in the Sunday post I saw it first I was particularly encouraged by the suggestion that local franchising could be introduced which would to my understanding effectively allow local authorities to become bus operators and I would welcome any legislation that would make that easier for local councils to develop so that would go quite a long way towards what the petitioner is looking for I mean clearly we would have to wait and see the detail of that but I certainly feel it's a solution to a big problem Brian With that in mind would it be pertinent then to write to the Scottish Government to ask them their intentions of how I do what they're going to throw the net for our consultation I think we can write to them and ask them to send the provisions the timescale for that and how in terms of preparation for the bill they're actually consulting what they're doing and we can also highlight to them and ask the response to the issues that have been further flagged up from the petitioner's response their further submission I think would be worthwhile because I was quite struck between the gap in the evidence between those who think there's a problem that isn't really a problem whereas there seems to be a long term decline in use of buses frequency, cost and so on on one side and the other side saying there's not really a problem here and also this issue of the ownership of the means of delivery is less important I'm not sure I mean I think if that meant that they were closing off the option of franchising I think that would be quite disappointing given what's happened in other parts of the country I suppose my view is that the substance of the petition remains to be considered and we would be looking for the assurance from the Scottish Government so much at the early stages I think that the questions the petitioner is asking at this early stage are perfectly valid you know to ask the Government to pose these questions and we may or may not get full answers to them all but it's worth asking I suppose at this early stage I would want to at least keep in mind the committee is if this bill is a way way down the path is there something we can do to inform the shaping and thinking of that bill then I think we should do it but if it's soon then obviously no there's a different kind of process and it would be the relevant committee could then do that I mean you would certainly hope it's soon because you know given the time scale of the legislation through it would have to start fairly soon for it to be completed by the end of the session it would agree to write to the Scottish Government and ask about time scales and to flag up the further response from the petitioners it will allow us then to make a judgement on whether it's relevant for us to be able to provide some further information through maybe some activities of our own in terms of people's views on the bus provision so that's agreed thank you for that and move on to the next petition with the petition 1629 by Jennifer Lewis on MRI scans for ocular melanoma sufferers in Scotland there have been eight written submissions in this petition which have been circulated to members Cancer Research UK and Macmillan Cancer Sports Scotland did not consider that they were able to offer a view on the action called for in the petition in our submission the petitioner suggests that by force our contention that clinicians and oncologists alike are often unaware of the particulars of our disease the Royal College of Ophthalmologists submitted that ultrasound is the accepted mode for surveillance in England in line with national guidelines it noted that MRI should be used for high risk patients or where an abnormality is indicated by ultrasound the petitioner argues that this demonstrates how definitive MRIs are considered she also suggests that the current guidelines are under review and adds that it would be helpful to seek the views of medical rather than ocular oncologists the Scottish Government submission advises that the policy of the Scottish ocular oncology service is in line with the national guidelines adds however that there is variation among the four UK centres as to which is the most appropriate form of surveillance to adopt and suggests that this is down to lack of evidence Ocumel UK suggests that MRI is the scan of choice by the centres in Liverpool and Southampton and this appears to be supported by the views of Professor Ottonsmire and Dr Ian Wilson who refers to MRI as being quote the gold standard for identifying metastases do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Brian? I think given what you've just said I think it would be pertinent to try to understand what steps in place to try and get some support of development of further evidence and where we would get that from would that be appropriate then to write to the Scottish Government to ask that question? Yes and specifically to the chief medical officer to have you on that? Well yes Can I also add the question of establishing that the Scottish ocular oncology service has to work together with other UK centres because it's clear there are a lot down in the Liverpool, Sheffield, London, Southampton and a wee bit of research on this and I think there are definitely differing standards and I think there seems to be a lot of evidence pointed towards those ones I've mentioned which seem to be setting the gold standard and I think we could learn a lot from the Scottish end so I think we would be encouraging the Scottish ocular oncology service to really look at that and try and get some UK wide service and into change I mean I suppose the thing that struck me was the petition itself when the petitioners came I think they had quite an impact on us and that idea that if your cancer is one that's very rare the extent to which I think they use the term orphan the idea that if there's very few of you how do you have an impact how do you get research done how do you get people to understand the very specifics of your condition which in my understanding what they're arguing is that the way in which it's experienced is not just your eyes there are impact then on perhaps developments in other parts of your body which is presumably the purpose of the MRI so I think we would agree there's more here for us to explore particularly around this question of whether if their contention is because it's rare they're not addressing it fully in terms of the way it can be best screened and identified I think that's something we could pursue I think that's been suggested with the Scottish Government, with the chief medical officer and looking at what plans the Scottish Ocular Oncology Service has as more as I've suggested Is there anything else that we could use for the do? That would be a good starting point Okay Okay In that case there's some action we can pursue there and I think in terms of the concerns highlighted by the petitioner can we move on then to petition 1630 on nursery funding for three-year-olds this is the final petition of today's agenda and it's petition 1630 by Fiona Webb on nursery funding for three-year-olds Members will see we have received a number of written submissions since our last consideration of this petition the Minister for childcare in early years has provided clarification on how the eligibility requirements operate and noted disposition that while the starting points are funded early learning and childcare create differences in the amount of free provision a child may access the Scottish Government does not consider that this disadvantage is children Members will see from the Minister's submission that the Scottish Government recently consulted on its policy in this area and has yet to provide its response to the consultation Reform Scotland is supportive of the petition and notes that only 50 per cent of children in its estimation receive the full two-year entitlement Unison does not support the petition and it's not child-centred It cites recent research that supports a supply-side funding scheme Children in Scotland and Paritying across Scotland also emphasised the importance of having a child-centred approach to the issue Voice Scotland and COSLA noted the challenges in meeting the existing arrangement and the increase in funding that would be required from the Scottish Government to support the petitioner's call for action I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action in this petition I mean, for what is worth it, I thought it was interesting that, you know, it's a happenstance of when you're born, whether you get two years or not and if the issue is about cost we wouldn't, you know, in statutory proficiency well it's too expensive to educate everybody at five so we'll educate half of you I know that's a rather kind of maybe a flippant way of looking at it but I'm not sure if the cost question if it's an entitlement then I'm not sure it is the cost question because we've already said that we think that all young people or children should have access to this childcare but I'm also mindful of what Unison and other groups say about it you know, the way it actually works in terms of how the terms work I mean, this has been an argument for a long time hasn't it? About the cut-off, the eligibility point I'm not sure I'm trying to be very impartial here I mean, there obviously has to be some kind of framework of the cut-off point but I think there's enough debate within the committee papers to suggest that I'm certainly not of a mind tilt to close I think I can maybe ask in the Scottish Government for the time frame that it will provide a response to its consultation might be a step forward in this debate as you said, it's been very long it's a long standing debate within Parliament, let alone within the committee and I think I'd be able to close at this point in terms of what we would be looking for I think there's an issue here so we don't really want to let it go but in terms of practicalities in terms of actually how would you I mean, it's quite striking to see that 50% of young people or children don't get their full three-year provision but does that mean that people can't youngsters just come into the system on their birthday and in realistic terms how manageable is that for an early years centre to do that? I mean, that is obviously a cut-off point if you look at the entrance into primary school you don't come in on your birthday but the parameters are much tighter than just a birthday it's not really I mean, if you're going to argue about entitlements you could say that you don't come in on your... You could say that children can vote four and a half or five and a half if they vote five and a half with the entitler to stay on to a seventh year on the other end of the system five and a half I think technically they are, aren't they? I don't know that until they go to school, I think I think if there's a deferred entry I think they're entitled I do think that this debate will rumble on I'm quite sure I think I've really the evidence I think there's enough here to at least go back to the Scottish Government to ask on timescales for the conclusion to that Broder So, just to clarify what is their view of what because they're currently in a process of delivering on the extra hours and that itself I think is quite challenging Just to clarify their view on the subject of eligibility perhaps It's in consultation at the moment so I think, you know at least to understand what that timeframe would be would be helpful Okay Okay, if that's agreed then just in recognising that there are issues around this petition then we would want to ask at the moment for the timeframe which it will provide in response to the consultation on its early learning and childcare policy Okay, if that's agreed that has completion of consideration of all petitions in front of us today and therefore can I thank you and close the meeting