 Good morning and welcome to the 16th meeting of the Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2022, and I apologise for our slightly late start this morning. Item 1 is the consideration of continuing petitions. The first item we are considering is petition number 1900. This is a very important petition on which we have heard evidence and considered ynglyn fod o gwbl deabag familiadau, i deallu'r ddechrau i siostau ar gyflwymoedd i ddechrau i ddechrau i ffordd iawn. Felly, yn fwy fynd, dros John Lawson i chi i ddechrau i'r Slywbeth i ddechrau i siostau ar gyflwymoedd i siostau ar gyflwymoedd i ddechrau i siostau ar gyflwymoedd i ddechrau i siostau i ddechrau i siostau i ddechrau i mhwyndol i ddim enw i methu sy'n rhaid o golygu websiteau i gynnul iawn. Ydw i mi oedd yn gweithio i ddemonelliannol gan David Strang. Mr Strang, the former chair of the Scottish Drugs Task Force, and joining us also is Carol Hunter, a former member of the Scottish Drugs Task Force. Carol is joining us remotely, and a very warm welcome to you, Carol, and indeed to you both. We are grateful for you taking the time, even though you have been decommissioned to speak, to discuss this petition with us, as we are aware, obviously, that the task force is no longer operational. Members have a number of questions that they would like to explore, so we can move to the first question. I recognise, having moved on, you have produced a report, and we are keen to understand, in response to our questions, where you think that that report can assist us. I will ask each question, and you can give me an indication, David, whether you are going to lead or whether you are going to invite Carol to take the flag. We will see how it proceeds. The first question is, during your time on the task force, what were the key concerns raised regarding the experience of people who use drugs, and their current interactions with the justice system? Let me begin with that. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you. While you are right that I chaired the drug deaths task force for the first six months of this year, from January to July, I am also now chair of the national mission oversight group, which is a group that is looking at overseeing the implementation of the recommendations. If I may kick off and then invite Carol to comment. The main thrust of our report is to say that substance dependence issue should be treated as a health issue and not as a justice issue, as a crime issue in itself. Fundamentally, we received evidence that people who use drugs often got a second-class treatment from some health and care services, but particularly when they were within the justice system, they tended to be treated as, if you like, a lesser citizen, someone who was not deserving of top-quality healthcare. In our report, we are saying that everyone in the justice system, passing through the police station prison and courts, is a citizen and has a right to good healthcare. We know that lots of people who engage with the criminal justice system have poor mental health, addictions and substance issues, and often they do not get well treated when they are in the justice system. We make recommendations that, at every point where someone has contact with someone in the justice system, whether it is police or the courts or prison, that that should be an opportunity for engaging with health services and providing support for people who have substance dependency issues and need to care treatment. The main thrust of our recommendations on treatment within custody, whether in a police cell or, in fact, in a prison context. Yes, also thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today. I think that the work of the task force we were always very keen that it should be evidence-based, and I think that if we could make reference to the UK guidance on drug dependence and how it should be treated within the UK, the highlighting of health inequalities is not unique to Scotland. Although the national guidelines on clinical drug misuse independence and how that should be managed were published by the Department of Health in England, they were endorsed by all four devolved nations. I think what the task force saw was that, although the evidence is there, it was not always in practice that that was not what people were experiencing. I think that those guidelines are very clear that police custody and there is a whole chapter on criminal justice settings. I think that the transitions to and between different criminal justice settings were highlighted as evidence that those are potential transition points, where, if maintenance treatment method on the bukernorphine is not maintained, there is a risk of relapse and overdose. Good morning to witnesses. I wonder if I can ask you both the two questions. The first one is, how important do you feel it is to embed the medication-assisted treatment standards in practice, especially in regard to ensuring that individuals receive appropriate medication, while in police custody a point that David Strang made clearly in his opening remarks. The answer to your question is very important, which is a cornerstone of the work of the task force, which predated my time as chair, but was the production of the medication-assisted treatment standards, the MAT standards, and those set out what standards people should expect if they are seeking assistance and service for drug dependency. One of the key-mat standards is about people getting access to support when they need it, and they should have some say in what treatment they should receive in the same way as anyone might for other cases. The risk is that people do not get continued replacement therapy when they are in police custody, and that has a detrimental effect on their health, as I would say, on their general wellbeing and the likelihood of reducing offending, so I think that it is absolutely important that the MAT standards are met. I would go as far as to say that it is essential. Well, thank you. I thought that that would be the answer, and it is obviously what one expected. I just wanted to ask one more question, which has two parts to it. The first is, are there witnesses aware of any data that exists on the availability of healthcare staff to administer methadone in police custody? That is a general one, and I am raising it because questions have been raised by the petitioner and others that there may not be sufficient staff, medical staff and appropriately qualified staff to do the job of ensuring proper treatment in police custody. That is the first one. The second one, if I may ask, is that the petitioner has stated, as asserted, that in NHS Grampian there is what he considers to be the inappropriate prescription of a drug. I think that it is dihydrocodin from memory. I wonder if either of the witnesses is able to comment on whether, in their view, this is inappropriate or whether they have any information with regard to that. In saying that, we will perhaps make direct inquiries to be fair to NHS Grampian to put that point to them as well as is right and proper. On that second point, I am not a clinician and I cannot comment on that. What we have laid out in the task force report is the standard that we expect. It will vary across different police areas and NHS areas. I am not aware of data about healthcare staff available in police stations. I cannot give any information on the staffing either. Just to say in terms of dihydrocodin, that is sometimes prescribed within pastorial settings and there are guidance within the previous UK guidance that I mentioned on exceptional, it shouldn't be routine as a replacement, but there are some exceptional circumstances, including when they cannot get access to existing prescribed medications safely, when it would be used but by an experienced clinician. I am most grateful to Dr Hunter for that clarification, which is very useful and we can pursue that further. I will go back to the first question about the availability of healthcare staff. Since neither of you is able to give us information about this, can you suggest from whom we may be able to obtain information? If the answer is that there is nobody from whom we can obtain that information because records are not properly kept, does that not point to a lacuna in the system of oversight of the application of the correct treatment and sufficient medical personnel available to deliver it for those people in police custody who require it? To be helpful with that, I can make inquiries and let the committee know to what extent it is available. In my saying that I am not aware of its being available, it does not mean that it is not available. It may well be at a local level or even nationally it is collated, but I am just not aware of the data of healthcare staff available in police stations. It is a known unknown. It is definitely a known unknown from my point of view. Each health board should be able to give you that information in terms of the NHS staff that they have within the settings. I think that you would also need to explore prescribing staff who may be different from those who can supervise once it has been prescribed. Quite a bit of the evidence that we heard was not so much about ambition about delivery of various things and principles. Alexander Stewart is going to go on to ask a couple of questions in relation to this in a moment, but to go back to the medicated assisted treatment standards and the importance that you attach to those being embedded, I just want to refer back to that word. To what extent did the work that you did suggest how far away we were adrift from that principle in terms of actual delivery? Considerably far short. Those standards were published in the spring of last year, 2021. Originally, when the task force published them, the Scottish Government gave a commitment to implement them within a year, but, in fact, that was overambitious. When we have in our report said that by 2024 we would expect them to be implemented, there was not an audit and a report by Public Health Scotland that showed that they audited the first five MAT standards. There was a report published in the spring of this year, a year on, from the publication of the standards showing where the shortfalls were, and there was substantial across Scotland. That is an important piece of work that still needs to be delivered by local health boards, by alcohol and drug partnerships. Before I come to Carol, I mean, and forgive me, just referring back to your very first answer, is this one of the things you have an ambition to include in the oversight role that you referred to in your opening response in terms of seeking to ensure that these procedures are actually going to be effectively embedded? Is that part of the oversight function? Yes, so the oversight group's function is to hold the Government to account on the delivery of the national mission and, specifically, the recommendations from the changing lives report, but it is also to give advice to the Scottish Government. It has a twin role, and we will absolutely be looking at the implementation of the MAT standards with regular reports. There is a MAT standard implementation team within the Scottish Government, and they will be reporting to the oversight group. Before I bring in Alexander Stewart, because he will pursue this, Carol Hunter, if you have anything to add? No, just to say that the implementation support team is in place working with ADPs on the implementation of the MAT standards. When we are talking about the medication assisted treatment standards, and you have already alluded to that there are still potential gaps, can I ask if there is anything that the witnesses believe is still necessary to ensure that those standards are fully implemented and are working as intended? So each area has been required to produce an action plan to say how they will implement these, what resource they need, and they have been directed by the minister to identify a lead person. One of the comments that we make in the report is that where you have collaborative working, often clear accountability for leadership can get diluted because people say, oh, I thought they were doing it. What has been identified is one person who has responsibility for leading that, and I think that that is a helpful thing. Some of the issues will relate to training of personnel, so that might take some time, it might be about resourcing. However, by focusing on those 10 standards, we are saying that this is what needs to happen, and that should ensure consistency across Scotland, because one of the comments and criticisms of drug support services across Scotland are very patchy. I accept that geography and particularly the cities will have a different footprint from rural areas, but if you are drug dependent and need support wherever you are in Scotland, you should be able to access it timely with the treatment that you need. You have identified that there is a postcode lottery of some services depending on location, depending on geographical situations and circumstances, and I think that that is important in this whole process, because if that is not fully implemented in working collectively across the whole state, across the whole of the country, then there are gaps that are massive for individuals and they are at risk if they are in that situation. Postcode lottery, and I know that you are using it in a sort of pejorative sense, people might argue for local flexibility and that there is a difference in the Scottish boulders in Edinburgh City. Broadly, yes, everyone who needs treatment should be able to get it. Particularly for things like residential rehabilitation, there may not be that in every local authority there is a place, but there should be somewhere wherever you live that you can get access to whatever treatment you need, whether it is opiate substitute therapy or whether it is residential rehab. Carol, do you have anything you wish to add to that? I think that I would add to that that work force recruitment is a challenge, and that is a challenge for every area of Scotland, no matter what the geography is. There may be different challenges. I think that speaking to my colleagues across Scotland, they all experience our recruitment challenge, and that will affect implementation. My next question is about did the Scottish Government consult with the task force regarding the evidence gap that was identified when it came to prescription medication being available to individuals in custody? If so, are there ways and what progress has been made on that? Have you identified that there was a gap in that process? Have we seen any real progress? I am not able to say that. We have published this at the end of July, on the 21st of July. I have not seen the latest update on the implementation, so I do not have up-to-date information on that. Our hope is that, with the focus of this in the report, we will respond to the recommendations that we would, as your question implies, hope to see an improvement, but I have not seen the data yet. The gap was very much identified within the process? That is what has led to the MAT standards, saying that there is inconsistency across Scotland. We should have standards. That gap will vary across the geography of Scotland, depending on the results. Just to say that, in my experience, I have recently retired as the lead pharmacist for the alcohol drugs. I am still working two days a week. Alcohol and drug services in Greater Glasgow and Clyde has always been a good communication between the police custody day and the collection. I mean, 20 years ago, we had developed a form for collection from pharmacies. I do not think that it is fair to say that there is a gap completely. I think that there are eight patches of good practice there. Obviously, that was one of the most striking parts of our earlier evidence and consideration of the petition. It actually, from our point of view, took some time before we were able to get the Government to accept that there did seem to be a breakdown in the demonstrability trail of prescribed drug actually reaching the individual for whom it was intended. Not that the intention was there, not even that it might not be happening, but that subsequently it was impossible really through a lack of any national standard to demonstrate that it had actually happened. That was something that, as a committee, we felt was really quite a significant deficiency in particular in relation to the petitioner's experience, which obviously was very tragic and sad in its ultimate conclusion and is the reason why we pursue that point particularly. Paul Sweeney Thank you, convener, and thank you to both our guests for their insight so far. I note the points raised by the task force in particular in relation to Friday releases from custody. Page 10 of the report that you published mentions that prison releases on a Friday or the day before a public holiday should be banned in order to give people a better chance to access supports. Have you had any further indication from the Scottish Prison Service of Police Scotland about that being a policy that they are willing to adopt? Thank you for that question. Action 96 on page 73 of the report is the recommendation that the Scottish Government should change the legislation to implement a blanket policy of no liberations on a Friday or the day before a public holiday. You are absolutely right that it was a key recommendation. There is legislation on the books at the moment that allows someone to be liberated early by a day if it is considered essential for them to get the support and treatment that they need as they leave prison, but it is being used very rarely. The day of the week when most people are released from prison is the worst day for their health. It is a Friday. The reason that Friday is such a high day is that the length of someone's sentence is calculated on the day of sentencing and they will know what day they should be released. If that falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, they cannot lawfully be held to be released on the Monday and so they have to be released on the Friday, so you end up with three sevenths of people being released on a Friday and one seventh each on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The reason that Friday is the worst day is that if someone has to, on the day of release, very often people haven't got accommodation if they've lost their tenancy while they've been in prison, they then have to go to the local authority housing office, they need to register with GP if they are needing medication and they have no money and they need to register for benefits at the DWP. Those services are often closed on a Friday afternoon and there's nothing on the Saturday or Sunday, so that was the reason for people's health. We know that the day of release and the next two or three days are a really vulnerable time for drug overdoses and potential drug deaths. People's tolerance will have changed while they've been in prison and they're really at risk of succumbing to an overdose. That's why we're saying that rather than it being discretionary, we're saying that it should be mandatory, that people are not released on a Friday. As I say, there's no flexibility within the law. If they were kept to the Monday, they'd be unlawfully detained and at the moment if they were released earlier, they'd be unlawfully liberated. There needs to be a change in legislation to allow that. The principle being that people leaving prison should be well supported. Ideally, they should have some accommodation, they should have the healthcare that they need and access to funds. If we don't put those in place, we shouldn't be surprised that the level of re-offending is so high, because if someone goes out with no money and nowhere to live and no lawful medication, you can see what's going to happen. To your point entirely, it's an important one that you've made. Even anecdotally, from my own experience representing the largest prison in Scotland, Barlinny, having visited it on several occasions, prison officers have quite candidly described to me that they've got repeat customers who they're liberating on a Friday and they'll go down to the city centre, will be shoplifting, purchasing drugs, taking drugs usually in an unsafe way and then will likely be arrested and back in the prison on the Monday. Effectively, they're serving life sentences and short bursts but on a frequent basis. My point, I suppose, I'm asking you. Also having seen it, having participated in the unofficial over those prevention pilot in Glasgow, frequently we'd have people turning up to the ambulance who had just come straight from Barlinny or Lomoss prisons and were seeking to access a safe place to inject. My point would be, you've made a very important recommendation. Has there been any indication from government that this is an urgent action that they're willing to expedite? Is there any indication of time scales for adjustments? Just as I said, I spent five years as a Magistrate Inspector of Prisons, so I'm very familiar with that picture that you described. So our recommendation for the whole report was that the Scottish Government should produce an action plan and we gave them six months so that they haven't yet had that six months. So we haven't seen, we've seen a general response from the drug's policy minister, Angela Constance, and as you would expect, she's welcomed the report and said that they'll look at it in detail and provide a report. So the national mission oversight group that I mentioned will receive from the Scottish Government their detailed response to each of the recommendations, the 20 recommendations and the 139 action points, so we're awaiting that. So the answer to your question is no, I haven't seen the response to that. That's certainly helpful when we come to future evidence sessions, I think. Just if Dr Hunter has any points that she'd like to make in relation to those questions that I'd ask. I think I would. I was on the drug's task force as a representative of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and I think there's a wider role for pharmacy here. The guidelines that I mentioned earlier, the UK guidelines on clinical management said that prescribing arrangements should be in place before someone is liberated and that's a responsibility for healthcare professionals. Personally, there's a lot more that community pharmacy could do there. In my own health board, roughly 10 per cent of the pharmacies are open seven days a week and some of them have late-day opening until 10 o'clock at night, not many but there are some. I don't think that we utilise that enough and we don't use the prescribing capacity enough within community pharmacy. Personally, communication is a key to this and I think that we need to be a key partner. Thank you very much for that, I really appreciate it. Another important point that I noted in the task force raised was that people who use drugs should be provided with naloxone on liberation, which seems like a relatively straightforward recommendation to implement. Is there any indication that the Government are adopting that policy and will instruct Police Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service to do that? Is there any indication at this stage? I know that you mentioned that you were awaiting a detailed report. I mentioned earlier that I previously was chief inspector of prisons and that was Scottish Prison Service policy that naloxone was offered. One of the successes of the task force has been the roll-out nationally of naloxone and the Police Service of Scotland have committed to carrying all their front-line officers and to carrying naloxone. In my time, that was pre-2018, people who were leaving prison and drug users and their families were being offered naloxone kits, so I know that there has been, but that was probably patchy depending on local arrangements. So, what we are wanting is a national consistency of making sure that naloxone is available and clearly people who leave prison are at high risk of being in the company of someone who overdoses it all themselves. We are very positive or very strong on recommending that naloxone should be available as widely as possible. That is great. Dr Anders, do you have any point to make on that at all? As a former chair of the national naloxone advisory group, when Mr Ewing was the health minister, I think that everyone should be carrying naloxone. It is not just about the supply from prisons, it is about the whole community coverage. That is really important because we know that this post-elaboration point is a high-risk or low-risk point. Mr Strang raised a really important point about community availability of supports, particularly on Friday, in that critical risk period on liberation. Dr Hunter raised the point about community pharmacy availability and utilising that network more readily to support people. We have also mentioned naloxone. There is clearly an effort from the Scottish Government in the health and social care partnership in Glasgow, particularly to launch an official overdose prevention pilot in Glasgow. Do you have a view about how such a facility might assist people in that context, where they are being liberated from prison and they do not have necessarily a safe place to go, or that it might be an opportunity as a key interface for people who are in the justice system and being liberated? Could it be something that would add value? Are you referring to the supervised drug consumption facility? Yes, absolutely. We make a key recommendation that that should be explored. There are legislative problems, as you know, with policy on the use of drugs act, which is still reserved to Westminster, but only Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS have been pursuing establishing a safer drug, a supervised drug consumption facility, with some assurance from the Lord Advocate that they will be allowed to do that. However, the legislation itself is 50 years old and has some things that are unhelpful nowadays in terms of things like drugs paraphernalia, allowing premises to be used for injecting and so on. The answer to your question is yes. If supervised drug consumption facilities were available, they would reduce the harms of drug taking and would increase access to healthcare and support. Do you have any points? Absolutely. I would fully support the implementation of a facility within Glasgow, and I'm part of the working group locally looking at that. Providing a safe space where people can be supervised and there's somebody who can intervene if there's an overdose is hugely important. However, those spaces and all the evidence across the world show that they can encourage people into treatment and support them until they're ready to get into treatment. Those supervised facilities are not just about preventing an overdose, but about preventing blood-borne viruses and infections and generally promoting health and wellbeing. There's a huge number of benefits. I realise what I'm up against, but I thank you very much for those points. That was really important and it helps to colour the overall context of this policy area. Mr Strangtham, you made reference to dozens of recommendations in the report. I'm sorry that we're not here to do full justice to the report this morning. The work of the committee has been very much focused on the issues raised in the petition. Despite Mr Sweeney's heroic efforts to draw out slightly wider evidence, which I'm sure is very useful to the committee as well, is there anything that we've not touched on this morning that either you or Carol Hunter would like to say in addition? No, not in relation to the petition. I mean, I'm just grateful for your interest and that the more people read and take an interest in the report, the better. Thank you very much. Carol Hunter? In which case, I'd like to thank you both very much. That's been very helpful in terms of the very distressing petition that we've been giving our consideration. I'd like to thank you both very much for being present remotely and in person with us today. I'll suspend the meeting shortly just after members have agreed that we're content to hear the evidence at our subsequent meeting. I suspend briefly. Thank you very much. Welcome back. Petition number 1855, to pardon and memorialise those convicted under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. This was lodged by Claire Mitchell QC and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise those people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. Members will recall that the First Minister has provided an apology to those people in Scotland. I've accused and convicted as witches under the Witchcraft Act of 1563. I seem to remember an evidence. We heard some 2,200 people, the vast majority of whom were women. I'm actually not sure that the First Minister apologised to the men who were convicted under the act. I have a recollection, she apologised to the women who were convicted under the act. 400 people have gone without an apology, I think, at this point. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 18 May 2022 when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and to Natalie Dawn MSP, and we now have responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, Natalie Dawn and the petitioner. The Cabinet Secretary advised, while it is the Scottish Government policy that costs associated with creating and maintaining new memorials are not to be met from scarce public funds, the Government would be happy to consider helping to publicise any fundraising efforts. The Cabinet Secretary also indicated that the location of any national memorial would be primarily a matter for local authorities. Natalie Dawn MSP has provided a brief update on the progress of her proposed witchcraft convictions pardon Scotland bill, letting us know that the consultation responses will be published shortly and that she intends to progress to the next stage of the member's bill process. The petitioner highlights the considerable work that has been undertaken to place in respect of pursuing the aims of the petition, including discussions with interested parties about taking forward plans for a national museum, a memorial and a museum of witch hunts. I think that the petitioner has indicated that they are reasonably content as a consequence with the actions that have been taken and all three aspects of the petition as raised. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed from this point, Mr Stewart? Thank you, convener. You have summarised it really well about where we are in the process. At this stage, there is not much requirement for this committee to take it much further, so I think that it would be appropriate to close the petition under the standing order 15.7. The First Minister, as you have already indicated, has apologised to the women who were convicted and Natalie Dawn is continuing to progress her member's bill. The petitioner has indicated that the undertaking is going forward for plans for the national memorial. Under those circumstances, there is not much point in this committee progressing because things have already moved on considerably since. Are we colleagues content to close the petition as suggested by Mr Stewart? I think that we are. Thank you very much. The petition number 1887, to create an unborn victims of violence act, raised by Nicola Murray. The petition calls on 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. Members will recall the evidence session that we held at our last meeting with stakeholders who raised many important issues in relation to the petition. We also heard directly from the petitioner, Nicola Murray, about her personal experience and desire to see change in the current system. In advance of this meeting, we have had a chance to reflect on the evidence that we have considered. I think that it does afford us an opportunity just publicly to give some thought to what we have heard and how we might take matters further forward. This is one of the more important petitions that we have heard. We have all been very struck by the evidence as we have listened to it. I endorse what you have just said. The evidence of Nicola Murray was profoundly moving and extremely effective. We all commended her bravery in speaking out on what could not be a more sensitive matter. I think that there is a bit more evidence that we have yet to hear. Obviously, we need to collate, obtain and consider that. At present, I would be minded to go down the route on the principal matter and the petition of recommending that there should be a specific new statutory offence. I had raised with witnesses, including last week Dr Neil, Dr Scott and Mr Tidy, the possible alternative of seeking to use the existing law of assault by libeling those particular circumstances, if you like, or possibly the other alternative of an aggravated offence, which Mr Sweeney raised, as far as I can recollect. Those might be alternatives. However, the evidence that I heard last week from Dr Neil in dismissing it was quite compelling. What I took from her evidence was that she argued that, although, in theory, the alternatives might work in practice, she felt that they would not, and that the matters of such gravity of the loss of an unborn child merit a proper, distinct, separate, new statutory offence. She also pointed to the fact that that is the case in England and elsewhere, albeit that the law in England dates back to 1929 and was conceived for a different purpose altogether. Be that, as it may, and subject to learning a bit more information from the various legal authorities and relevant bodies from whom we can obtain the evidence, my feeling changed, I think, from thinking that there might be an easier way, an existing alternative, to agree with the evidence that we heard, which substantially was that there should be a new statutory offence. The other thing that I was saying is that this is an important point, although it is perhaps not the main point, is that the circumstances that the petitioner described where she found that the charge had been reduced without her being consulted. I think that that is profoundly wrong, and I think that all the witnesses that we asked about said so, and that must be changed, and some recommendations there and then would also be appropriate in my opinion. Alexander Stewart? I would concur, convener. I think that, as you have identified, this petition itself has been quite harring one for the individuals involved, and there seems to be, without question, a gap that has arisen from the situation, and it would be appropriate for us to recommend that we do put forward a specific statutory offence, because I think that that in itself would alleviate some of the problems that have been identified. Fergus Ewing is quite correct when he talks about the difficulties that individuals have suffered in going through this process, but it has also been exacerbated and aggravated by circumstances and situations with the agencies around there to support, and I think that that needs to be advised, there needs to be some clarity there. By going down this route, that may give us the opportunity to ensure that some of those problems are ironed out and that the individuals who go through this process do not suffer the same consequences that others have. I recall Dr Neal's evidence, which I thought was very helpful, in particular. I broached the idea of a member's bill as a potential remedy. She did not find that convincing, and I tend to agree with her. She said that it simply requires an amendment to the Domestic View of Scotland Act 2018, and that would be a smoother and more coherent way to remedy the matter. I recommend that we seek the Government's agreement on that. I very much agree. In the evidence that we have heard, and in particular the Scottish Government's initial response, superficially the alternatives looked as if they might have been an effective way of proceeding, but I think that in the face of the evidence that we have heard subsequently, I have too have been persuaded that it does require the proposal for the Domestic View of Scotland Act 2018 to have a specific charge included within it. I was struck wearing a completely different hat—my SPCB hat, the Scottish Parliament corporate body hat—that we have 17 member's bills already before Parliament in this session, which is a record number of member's bills. The prospects now of additional member's bills finding any scope to proceed before 2026 are probably nil. Either we take the view that this is just something that we are going to nod at and move along from having said that it is all very terrible, or I think that we have to be much more prepared to take a more decisive action. I think that Mr Ewing drew attention to the fact that we discovered that the offencing in England Wales, which until we heard that, I think that maybe we assumed had been brought in for the purpose, actually had grown out of provisions that had been passed at a much earlier time and meet entirely different circumstances. I think that we would like to hear a bit more about that. I think that the feeling of the committee is that we would like the clerks to proceed to potentially prepare for us an appropriate representation that we consider to the Scottish Government, subject to that final evidence being heard, which would recommend, on behalf of this committee, that specific offence being included within legislation. Mr Ewing? It was just a suggestion for consideration. I really thought this through. As I said earlier, there is more evidence that we have got to contain. Because the issue is raised by the position of such gravity, I did wonder if this might be a candidate for a possible debate from this committee to the Parliament in order that, if you like, the oxygen of transparency openness and the opportunity to other members to contribute would be available. I know that we do not want to use this sparingly, convener, and I do not have knowledge of how sparingly has been in the past. You will, of course, but, nonetheless, I felt instinctively that this is such a profoundly emotional, emotive and important sensitive issue that there would be a considerable interest from other members in hearing more about this. We have identified a number of candidates that we think might be suitable for a chamber debate, but I think that we are potentially going to make a very specific recommendation in respect of the action that we think might be appropriate going forward. It may well be that we would like to see that added to the potential things that we could seek to raise as a chamber debate, because it will be quite a consequential recommendation arising from a very sensitive petition that has been raised with us. Are we happy to consider that? I would just make the point. I believe that Dr Zanull has pretty much written and drafted the relevant amendment, so it is a question of just offering that to the Government as something to adopt. I will also note that Mr Tydey mentioned in his evidence about amending the sentencing councils guidelines for judges, and that might be a more immediate goal. I think that that must be worth noting as well as a potential action that we can recommend. I am happy to see us take that forward as well. We are content, so we keep the petition open and we proceed on that basis. I thank the petitioner for the time that he took in speaking to us and also to our witnesses last week who helped to inform our discussion. We move to petition number 1896, to provide every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle. That was launched by Callum Isted. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable, reusable metal bottle. During our last consideration of the petition, we were very fortunate to hear from Callum personally and, as members will recall, the youngest ever petitioner to present to the Scottish Parliament. We have got to thank Callum not just for his evidence, but his petition was specifically cited in the award that the committee subsequently received as a mover and shaker from the Holyrood magazine of the year awards. Callum explained why reusable water bottles are important and told us about his campaign work, including an impressive fundraising exercise. The committee agreed to write to the First Minister, who Callum met, to ask what action she intends to take in order to fulfil the ask of the petition. I regret to say that we have not received a response from the First Minister on this petition to our representations. I understand that Callum is also waiting on an update from the First Minister in respect of the petition and other matters that were raised with the First Minister. In thanking Callum again for his evidence and time that he has taken with the petition, do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? Mr Stewart? It has to be said that I am disappointed that Callum has not received an ad that has the committee received any further information back, because there was a huge amount of publicity and to have such a young individual who was quite inspiring to come that day and give his evidence, I would have hoped that he would have been treated slightly better than that, but we are where we are. It is now time to write back to the First Minister seeking an update on where we are with the petition. When we received the information and we had Callum here, there was a real buzz about the possibility of that becoming a real potential, because he had put so much effort into it. As I said, it is disappointing that effort has not been given the full credit that it deserves. However, we need to write back to the First Minister and to invite the Cabinet Secretary of Net Zero Energy and Transport to give evidence as to where things might be going with the petition to fulfil the aims that Callum has put forward, because his objectives and his ambition were fantastic. We should be encouraging as much as we can to ensure that that dream for him becomes a reality. Are we content, colleagues, to proceed on that basis? I should note in passing the further representation that we have received from Sue Webber in relation to that. We could write to the First Minister seeking an update expressing our disappointment that neither we nor Callum has received any response, particularly given the personal engagement that the First Minister had with Callum on his occasion of giving evidence to the committee. Petition 1906 investigates options for removing and reducing the impact of the central Glasgow section of the M8, lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of at Replace the M8. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow cathedral, including specifically the complete removal and repurposing of the land. At our last consideration of the petition on 23 February, we agreed to write to stakeholders seeking the views on the action called for on the petition. Glasgow City Council highlighted its commitment to address the aims of the petition as part of its council strategic plan 2022-27, and they have committed to commission research on and explore options to reduce the impact of the M8 on the city centre and review opportunities to re-engineer other roads infrastructure to become more people-friendly, including options for long-term replacement. They also state that funding and collaboration with stakeholders such as Transport Scotland are required to take this research forward. We have also had submissions from Professor Richard Williams providing information on a recent project in Sao Paolo and from Professor Williams who supports the petition. The submission from Dr Wood highlights relevant traffic reduction projects in other parts of the UK and the related economic development opportunities in consequence. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Sweeney, you had a particular interest in this petition, I recall. Yes, convener. I think that it is certainly a positive indication from Glasgow City Council that they are seriously investigating this, not the least that they have submitted a levelling up fund application worth £50 million to the UK Government to finance the capping of the M8 at the Mitchell Library, Charon Cross. However, the asset itself is owned by the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland in its agencies, so it would be good for this committee to establish what exactly is the nature of the co-operation that is required from all levels of government, from council to Transport Scotland as the agency, to deliver the best outcome for the city. In that regard, we have not fully established the nature of how that is co-operating. It might be one thing for Glasgow City Council to have a position that, while it is positive, is not necessarily specific in its actions, has one levelling up fund bid in, but there is no indication from the Scottish Government via its agency Transport Scotland about what its intentions are, both at a strategic or an operational level, to effect this or to co-operate with the council. Furthermore, I thought that Dr Wood's points were really important in terms of an international dimension to some of the work that this chap has done. Perhaps there is something in requesting response from Transport Scotland or the minister in relation to the matter. We can then assess what the Scottish Government's position is in light of the evidence that we have received. We could write to the Scottish Government to ask them to facilitate a collaborative approach between Transport Scotland and the City Council to see what the impact, progress and all of this could be and also to clarify what the funding mechanism for the outcomes of that might be. I think that that would be helpful. I think that that would be helpful. I just wanted to ask what other evidence we have obtained. Plainly, petitioners have expressed their view, as have a few others, but being someone who is not unfamiliar with the MAD, I am a bit unsure as to how it could be removed, which is what the petition calls for. It does occur to me that there are a huge number of impacts that that would have on the flow of traffic, conduct and business, the conveyance of emergency vehicles to and from hospital. Generally, the system of transport that we have in Scotland does depend on whether we like it or not substantially on roads. I wonder therefore if we should be seeking evidence more widely, convener, in order to get a rounded view and, in particular, from bodies such as the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, the motoring organisations, the RAC and so on, and the Police and Emergency Services. I appreciate that there is a huge range of possibilities here from some that are relatively modest to complete removal of the road or, indeed, shutting the road at weekends or whatever. I am struck that we do not appear, as far as I know, and I am sorry if I have not picked up all of this in the papers from the clerks. I did raises with the clerks and correspondence just last week. Whether we should cast our net a bit more widely and get a rounded view of the impacts? That is a perfectly reasonable point. There are two things. First of all, I think that Mr Sweeney referred to the capping of the M8. For those people who are familiar with the Charring Cross end of it in Glasgow, it is really a valley through civilisation when you get to the top end of Glasgow. I think that the points that you make are perfectly fair. Perhaps we could suggest that those organisations being included in our approach to the Scottish Government in terms of any collaborative approach that was being undertaken between Transport Scotland and the City Council to also include the various agencies that you have just identified? Could we do it that way? Because ultimately, I think that this would have to be a project that was taken forward by others, but I take the point that I think that it would have to include a much wider range of views just to be certain that it was ultimately viable in addition to any capping proposal that might proceed. I would agree, convener. I think that the point that Mr Ewing makes is very important. Perhaps the removal in a broad sense is a bit of a provocation, but the question then goes into more of a nuanced detail in the petitioner's detail comments, which is talking about specific interventions that reduce its impact, such as capping or constructing buildings on the airspace or the air rights above the roads or perhaps areas where it is over-engineered. For example, the town head interchange was built for a flank of the motorway that was never built, so it is a massively over-engineered solution that could be deconstructed in large part without having any material effect on traffic. There could be ways in which that could be done. The point that the petitioner is perhaps trying to drive at is that it has never been seriously reflected on by the Scottish Government Transport Scotland. It is only recently that the city councils adopted thinking on that, so it feels that there is an opportunity for this committee to be a catalyst. I have just resolved not to reach for any other metaphors at this point in order, but I take the point. I think that we could proceed on the basis that we have described with that understanding in part. Petition number 1930, to ensure that customers are always given information on the cheapest possible fare in a new ScotRail contract lodged by George Ecton calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of all future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course and recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office's state in delivering them the same. We have been joined this morning once again by Monica Lennon. Good morning Monica, lovely to have you with us again and we will hear from you just a moment. The committee previously considered the petitioner at our meeting on 29 June, just before the summer recess, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Transport for London. I am pleased to say that we have now received responses from Transport Scotland Transport for London as well as two submissions from the petitioner. Transport Scotland have indicated that the Scottish Government are considering whether Scottish rail holding is limited will be covered by the consumer duty legislation. Their response also contained information on the progress and purpose of the fair fair's review, which is expected to be concluded in full at some point during next year 2023, as well as the work being undertaken to develop and trial smart ticketing options. The response from Transport for London provides information on how their fare capping and pay as you go system operates, and the work that goes into ensuring that customers can trust and always be charged the correct fare for their journey. The petitioner has also been in touch to update the committee on the FOI requests that he has made to ScotRail about how the £5 city-to-city advanced fares are advertised, and Mr Ectons has shared information on how easy it is for passengers to miss out on cheaper fares when using this ScotRail app, and he set out his view on why ScotRail should be included in the consumer duty. Before I open this up to wider discussion with members of the committee, I invite Monica Lennon if she would like to speak in support of the petition. Thank you, convener. Good morning. It's lovely to be back. It's an award-winning committee, so that's me trying to stick in with you all. Just to say, I was listening patiently at the back, and I was in West Lothian at an event—it's not my area—but Callum was mentioned and is a superstar, so he does have lots of fans. I wish the committee well with your endeavours in that front. I wanted to come along to support George Ectons' petition, because the issues raised are not a surprise to me, and my staff will look at the emails that we get. Even before the pandemic, people would often get in touch out of frustration about the price of real travel and at times the reliability of service. I then took on the role as patron of Disability Equality Scotland, which has helped me to appreciate even more the points that Mr Ecton makes about the ease of getting information. I commend him for the efforts that he has made. I have looked at the correspondence between him and the Advertising Standards Authority, and it shouldn't be that difficult. The issue of access to staff and ticket office is really important as well. That has been an issue of interest to me before the pandemic, certainly in the context of climate emergency, because we need a modal shift and we need to get people on to Scotland's sustainable rail network. We can only do that if the public have confidence and can afford to use our rail services. I know that the predecessor committee looked at a petition from Mr Ecton before, and that was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had given undertakings. From reading the petitioner's submissions, it looks like that has not been fulfilled. Colleagues may know that I am also a member of the net zero energy transport committee. I don't speak on behalf of the committee today, but we have had a chance to ask the cabinet secretary and officials about the fair fair's review. It is frustrating that we do not have a clearer timeline other than 2023. The indication is early 2023, but in my experience in this parliament that can be the summer, and then summer becomes winter and Christmas. We need certainty on that, and that is why I feel that although the fair fair's review looks at wider issues, Mr Ecton's petition should be considered and should inform that work. It is timely when we are meeting today. I was looking at the newspapers today and there is reports that ScotRail's commuter numbers are down 40 per cent. That means that revenue is down. It looks like around 20 per cent on pre-pandemic figures. There is a big issue here in terms of giving people confidence. Part of the explanation is that people who have the option to work from home are chosen to do that, but many workers are taking into account the costs of getting to work—the costs of getting around. If they have the choice, many will say that I will work at home and I will not be in the office. I am also concerned for those constituents due to medical appointments and other issues that cannot be flexible when they travel. They often do not get access to the most affordable fairs. I have a view that we should be abolishing peak-time fairs. That should be looked at in terms of the fair review. I cannot speak for the next zero energy transport committee, but he is clearly raising matters that are of interest to our committee. I know what Transport Scotland has said. I also know that the information that has come from Transport for London was helpful that the MSP prompted that. Where we can look at good practices and other practices, that is important, but what is also key to Mr Ecton's aspirations is that we have a rail service in Scotland that is properly staffed. If the committee is not aware, I point you to the document that was prepared by Scotland's four rail unions. It was published in October of last year, a vision for Scotland railways. When people are asking for things in Parliament, we talk about challenges rather than solutions. That document has lots of good policy in there. To be fair to the Scottish Government, some of it has been actions already, but it is really important to look at that document as well. One of the things—I would look at the executive summary of having the sustainable rail network—we want to see that it talks about reducing ticket prices, abolishing peak fares and simplifying the ticketing system. My understanding is that the Scottish Government has not formally responded to that document by the four rail unions. I declare that I am a member of Unite the Union and a member of the R and T Parliamentary group, but it is a good document that has had some cross-party support. I am really pleased with the chance to speak in favour of the petition today. I will be happy to answer any questions, but I hope that that is an issue that can be kept open and explored by colleagues across Parliament and indeed Government. We are not a witness, so we cannot ask you questions. We are just here to hear you speak to the petition. Having heard that colleagues would like to recommend by way of actions as to how we might proceed, Mr Sweeney. Thank you to Monica Lennon MSP for coming along today and offering such a compelling point about why this petition is so important and that this committee should continue to consider it. I was struck by the submissions respective of the Scottish Government and Transport for London. Particularly the account from Transport Scotland that ScotRail had delivered a pilot for account-based ticketing, allowing for fair capping and tap-in, tap-out technology. The pilot took place on the Cathcart Circle for a period of four months, and though approving to be a good customer proposition, it was deemed unsuccessful on commercial grounds. ScotRail has since been transferred to public ownership, and an account-based ticketing trial has been included in its business plan. I am not satisfied with that response. That is totally inadequate, particularly when viewed in contrast to Transport for London, which says that the core principle of their fair system is to make it as simple as possible. We have a best value promise that when travelling pays, you go on an oyster or contactless credit card. Customers just need to touch in and out when travelling on our services, and we ensure that customers pay the cheapest possible fare for the journeys that they make. That is no more than an equivalent travel card, which will automatically refund where journeys have not been completed. It is night and day, and it is honestly the most stark contrast in submissions that I have seen to the committee in recent times. The contrast between the two submissions was quite striking, and I think that there is an opportunity for the committee to throw it further. I certainly would be willing to see us try and tease that explanation out further. Of course, Transport for London will be dealing with tens of millions of people using the system, and I do not know when the pilot is referred to as being useful but not necessarily cost-effective on a commercial basis. That may be a reflection of the numbers involved in relation to the cost of setting it up. I do not know. I certainly do think that any citizen of Glasgow who travels abroad is surprised at how far behind in terms of smart technology we actually are in our largest city in Scotland. I think that there is more work that we could tease out in relation to that. I do not think about the pilot. I do not know how many Glaswegians knew about the pilot, but what I did note in London is that we issue press releases publishing changes to fairs and have high-profile advertising campaigns to highlight the cheapest way to travel when London is being seen in media advertising and honour services, but they have seen strong growth in the adoption of pay-as-you-go, which is over 70 per cent of all journeys on TFL now using pay-as-you-go. I take the point about population density and scale, but nonetheless there are equivalent-sized cities to Glasgow, for example, which have this technology and it works very successfully. I wonder whether sometimes there is maybe a risk aversion whereby we do not persist with something that might initially make a bit of a loss, but in the longer term or even medium term it will crowd in a lot more people using it because it is much more convenient and has a perception change. Perhaps there is something in that where we are too timid. That strikes me as peculiar that we have introduced barrier technology at a whole series of stations, but we cannot programme the barriers to pay-as-you-go, which I would not have thought was impossible. Can we establish who we think it would be best to try and pursue those issues with? I think that, meanwhile, we should be writing to the Scottish Government to clarify when it will confirm that Scottish rail holdings will be covered by the consumer duty legislation. If it considers that Scottish rail holdings is not covered, I would ask what action the Scottish Government proposes to take to ensure that Scottish rail holdings will be covered by the consumer duty legislation. That is a deficiency. I was also struck by Mr Ecton on the evidence that he submitted in his latest submission and how easy it was to miss out on the advertising. Scottish rail holdings are taking to ensure that that is something that people can easily identify. I would be very interested to know what advertising they do, how they evaluate and how to sustain that as themselves in terms of the success that they think that that has, because, obviously, the petitioner feels that it is easy to miss out on. Any other thoughts or comments, Mr Stewart? Can I thank Monica Lennon for her presentation this morning, too? I think that she made some very valid points on behalf of the petitioner and the way going forward. You have identified that advertising is one of the biggest issues, and there is a need for us to find out what action is being taken. When someone purchases a ticket nine times out of ten now, it is not with an individual, it is with a machine. The machine tells you what the price of the ticket is, so you do not necessarily have the ability to understand what options are available. You hit the button and it tells you what you can have. That might not give us the cheapest value or the process. Some of that needs to be looked at. You have talked about technology and the way ensuring that some of that can be developed, but I think that there is room for improvement as to how that can be managed or on the ground. I should preface my remarks by saying that I still feel as if I am serving my apprenticeship in this committee, so I might be slightly premature from me to say that, but I wonder if we are not just moving a bit beyond the specific ask in this petition to have a general tour de table discussion about the rail service in Scotland, which is, of course, perfectly interesting and valid. Getting back to what the petitioner says, it is very narrowly focused, and I am not dismissing any of the points that have been made before us today, but is it not our primary role to focus pretty forensically and ruthlessly on what the petitioner actually asked for, rather than fish of the ocean and the sea that stick to our own waters? That is a perfectly fair observation. We actually have to ally. I think that the actions that we have discussed can be brought back to the actual aim of the petition, but I agree that we have to be careful not to. While I welcomed everything that Monica Lennon had to contribute, it did invite us to stray slightly beyond a number of areas to the specific ambition of the petition. We are always willing to receive an additional petition from another party on all those other matters, but if we open up an inquiry on the broadest possible terms in relation to every petition, we will be trolling very deep to extend your own metaphor, Mr Ewing. Are we content to proceed on the basis of the various recommendations that we have had? I think that the important thing to focus on is the submission from TFL discussing that technology solution that delivers the petitioner's request. I think that the question is then why is it that ScotRail is reticent to adopt such technology when it is clearly deliverable and other jurisdictions in the UK and internationally, and I am not convinced by their response? I think that that is a fair point, which relates back to the petition, as I said. It is maybe an allergist to the high-ale investigation, where it was the technology of the air traffic control system. Maybe not entirely about the impact on jobs, but there is maybe something about the technology solution to deliver an outcome on performance and transport and the unconvincing response from ScotRail. I do not know if there is some sort of engineering expertise that we could approach. Let's, in the first instance, pursue the issue a little bit further and see where that takes us. Sure. And we can consider that response again in due course. Petition number 1933 to allow the Ffarnethys survivors to access Scotland's redress scheme lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Ffarnethys survivors. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland's redress scheme to allow Ffarnethys survivors to seek redress. We were going to be joined by Martin Whitfield, who, unfortunately, has had to go to a meeting elsewhere, but we are joined by Brian Whittle MSP, who has an interest in this position, and so we welcome you, Brian, to the committee this morning. We previously considered the petition on 15 June, and at that time, we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister, Glasgow City Council, and bodies representing victims and survivors of abuse. Since then, the committee has received responses from the Deputy First Minister, Glasgow City Council, Victim Support Scotland, the Moira Anderson Foundation, the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, Future Pathways and also from the petitioner. Copies of these responses were included in the papers for today's meeting. Our meeting papers summarise some of the issues that have been raised. Members will also be aware that representatives of the Ffarnethys survivors group visited the Scottish Parliament very recently on 27 October, and their exclusion from the redress scheme was raised directly with the First Minister in First Minister's questions on that day. The written evidence that we have received from organisations who represent and support victims and survivors of abuse suggests that there is support for widening the eligibility criteria to include survivors who experience abuse during short-time respite or holiday care. The Deputy First Minister states that it was always the Scottish Government's intention to exclude arrangements where there was no exercise of public function in either the provision of accommodation or the reason for the child being resident in the care setting. The responses from both the petitioner and Glasgow City Council highlight that records relating to Ffarnethys houses are limited and it strikes me that it might not be possible to establish one way or another the reason for a child's stay at Ffarnethys to meet the proviso that the Deputy First Minister has stipulated was to form the basis of their exclusion. Therefore, before we open up to members of the committee to see how we might proceed, I wonder, Brian, if there is anything that you would like to say in support of the petition. Thank you, convener, and I'm really happy to have the opportunity to once again speak on this issue. On the outset, I don't know if the committee has seen this in the last term. The Education Committee did a really in-depth and comprehensive report as the bill was coming through Parliament, which I would recommend. I think that sexual abuse, and specifically child sexual abuse, has been swept under the carpet for too long. Victims left without the support that they desperately need, and as many colleagues will be aware, this is an issue that I have been working on with constituents for a number of years. It is fair to say that my understanding of the trauma suffered by constituents over a prolonged period of time as they seek justice and redress. My discomfort and disquiet in the way that victims are re-traumatised and open to suffer secondary abuse continues to rise. The redress scheme was designed to make it easier to access than taking a case through the civil court. However, the criminal and injuries compensation authority already has a similar redress scheme where the decision is based on the balance of probabilities. That is different from a criminal court that decides on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt and the victim does not need to wait for the outcome of a criminal trial if there is already enough information to make a decision on that case. Crucially, on the contrary to what the bill suggests or the legislation suggests, the victim would waive their right to future civil action and any subsequent payment from a civil action and a CICA compensation payment would require that the CICA payment should be reimbursed. I welcome the redress scheme, but I think that it is flawed. Most importantly, is the fact that the redress bill was designed to provide financial redress to survivors of historical sexual abuse in care in Scotland. Welcome, though that is, it is too narrow in its scope. When I questioned the Deputy First Minister on the eligibility criteria and that the victims of sexual abuse, for example, in a school setting, should also be included, he responded by saying that the scheme was designed to compensate those where the state undertook parental responsibilities, i.e., the care home. However, convener, the 1989 Education Scotland Bill uses the term in locus parentis, which in effect transfers temporary parental responsibilities to the school and many other answers where this could be true, specifically for the frenethy survivors. That being the case, the bill is flawed and could leave the Government, I believe, open to a potential challenge in the European Court of Human Rights and by the Equalities Commission because of its inequality of approach to the victims of a crime, especially such a heinous crime. You may be aware that there was a related case where the judge found that the Irish Government had misrepresented a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights by excluding children abused in Irish schools from a redress scheme. Although I accept that the issues in that ruling are not exactly the same, it suggests that the bill could be open to a similar legal challenge. Again, the frenethy survivors sit directly in that path. The bill is very welcome and was very welcome, but I think that it is incumbent upon us to ensure that it can be the very best it can be for all those who have been victims of such a horrendous crime and have to carry that burden throughout their lives. Financial redress will not heal the wounds, but at least it will perhaps give them comfort that their voices have been heard and that there is an acceptance that they have been victims. However, I think that there is more needs to be done in understanding that journey of the victims, those who speak out or those who initially cannot. The repeated trauma of retelling their story to multiple agencies, the lack of accessibility and adequate support from those have all become part of the jigsaw. I have absolutely no doubt that the Government has a commitment to those who have suffered such a crime, but I think that they need to be braver and they need to look beyond the limitations of which way the bill is currently deployed to those who have suffered in similar ways but are currently excluded, i.e. the frenethy survivors. If we do not and will only require this legislation further down the road to change and be amended, we need to make the bill everything that it could be and I speak on behalf of the frenethy survivors and all those other child abuse victims who are yet to have similar redress. I think that the Deputy First Minister, in identifying that the intention was to exclude arrangements where there was no exercise of public function, is compromised slightly when it is clear that it simply may not be possible to establish one way or another the reason for a child's stay at frenethy. In the light of what Mr Whittle said, there is further evidence that we have received if colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed next. The Deputy First Minister, in his reply, said that it would be open to the frenethy sufferers of non-recent abuse to make application under the existing scheme. In other words, he did not say that they were ineligible. In fact, the implication, I think, as I took it, convener, from his reply to the committee was that in fact they may be eligible. The difficulty, as you have said, is how can that be proven if the records are not there. I wonder whether we might make a suggestion of a sort of solution for frenethy victims, that, given that it is not possible for them to demonstrate how they came to be in care, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Would that be something that is possible? If someone is denied the opportunity to provide evidence because of the fact that, frankly, public authorities have not kept that evidence properly and they have mislead it or they cannot find it, that is not the fault of the survivors. I wonder whether—I know that it is not an in-principle answer. Personally, I think that if one has suffered in care, the explanation of how you came to be in care is really not relevant. I think that a victim is a victim and, as victim support argues in their reply, all victims should be entitled to redress. However, that is an easy principle to expound. It is more difficult to put into practice and I know that it has been considered by the Education Committee in far more detail and I must confess that I have not studied that so that I should put that in the record. Maybe there are other arguments that I have not considered. In order to get a solution for these petitioners, I wonder if we might make the point that it is simply not possible for the victims to provide evidence that they came to be in care because of a decision taken by public authority, even though it does appear to me that that was almost certainly the explanation for most cases of children who found themselves at this unfortunate place. I am very supportive of that suggestion. I concur with Mr Ewing, convener. I think that he identifies an area that requires to be looked at and it is difficult, as Mr Whittle has said, not to include those individuals from the circumstances and situations that they found themselves in. I would be very supportive of Mr Ewing's proposal that we attempt to try to move that into that area because, by doing that, it will then give some redress to those individuals who find themselves in this situation. We would invite the clerks to draft a response for us to consider along those lines based on the evidence that we have already gathered from a number of sources, but in particular in relation to that point. It would be unusual, but I will let you come back in, Mr Whittle. You are not here to assist us in our deliberations, but it may lead to lobby, as we consider them. Thank you, convener. I know that it is unusual to be bothered by again a bit to Mr Ewing's point. One of the things that I have highlighted over the time is the lack of record keeping across all local authorities, which seems to be really hampering. The key here is that you only have to have probability, you do not have to have proof, and the other one that I want to underline is the phrase, in locus parentis. That is key to your deliberations. Thank you for letting me back in. That has been noted, thank you very much. We will keep the petition open and we will proceed on that basis. That brings us to agenda item 2 at 11.54, which is consideration of new petitions. The first of those is petition 1954 to stop installing telegraph poles lodged by Lorna Buntain. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the current permitted development rights for digital communications infrastructure, to encourage the use of underground ducting for new broadband service installations, and to avoid the installation of unsightly telegraph poles and overhead cables. To ensure local communities are made aware of plans to install digital communications infrastructure in their area, and to give an opportunity to share their views prior to any installation work taking place, and to ensure that all digital infrastructure, including underground ducting, is routinely maintained by the developer. Lorna tells us that, as part of the roll-out of ultra-fast full-fiber broadband open reach, hundreds of telegraph poles have erected across Lenoxtown and Milton of Campsy. That work was carried out without prior consultation with the local community, and having not received prior notice, Lorna goes on to tell us that local residents raised objections with open reach about the installation of the telegraph poles, only to receive what they felt were unhelpful and dismissive responses. As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government, and in responding to that request, the Scottish Government highlighted that, while land use planning is a devolved power, telecommunications remains a reserved matter. In response to the petition's aim to amend permitted development rights, the Scottish Government notes that the permitted development right for digital communications infrastructure was included in phase 1 of its review of permitted development rights and was amended following a public consultation in August 2020. Having been recently reviewed and updated, the Scottish Government believed that the current provisions strike an appropriate balance and have no plans to further amend permitted development rights in this area. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I note the comments that the petition has made, and it is very interesting to see the information that has come back from the Scottish Government in its response. However, when we are looking at the permitted development rights with reference to that, I am not sure that we can take it much further in reality. I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis that the Scottish Government has recently reviewed and updated the permitted development rights for digital infrastructure, consider the current position and strike an appropriate balance, and there are no current plans for further amendments to the permitted development rights in the area. I think that I saw you nodding in assent to that. We thank the petitioner, but in review of the response that we have received, we will close the petition under rule 15.7, given the response of the Scottish Government on this occasion. Petition number 1955, to make the provision of public toilets a statutory duty on local authorities, lodged by Joan Wood, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities provide good, quality, clean and accessible public toilets by placing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate public toilets and ensuring sufficient funding is available to local authorities to meet that requirement. The SPICE briefing highlights a 2018 BBC report, which revealed that 15 of the 28 Scottish councils that responded to an FOI request had fewer public toilets in 2018 than they did in 2010. The briefing also points to a comfort scheme that runs in a number of local authorities, and the scheme provides grants to businesses and organisations when they register to become providers of toilet facilities, something of which, I have to say, I was unaware. The Scottish Government response states that there are no plans to make the provision of public toilets a statutory obligation on local authorities, and it points to the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which includes projects, proposals to deliver new public toilets, carparking and waste disposal facilities. In response to the Scottish Government, the petitioner says that the provision of public toilets is a basic requirement for public and environmental health, not simply an optional tourism issue. John points out that the Scottish Government's role in ensuring health and environmental protection as a demonstration of why this issue is of national importance. I note from a motion submitted by one of our parliamentary colleagues that this is national toilet week, which was also something that I was unaware of. We are considering the petition at an opposite moment, but I wonder if members or colleagues have any comments that they might like to suggest in my way of taking the issue forward. Mr Ewing. Appropriate and very convenient. I think that there is in principle a very strong argument behind that, but I wonder whether one option we might pursue which would be of more of a practical nature, which I appreciate perhaps not absolutely what the petitioner wants, but something that we might want to consider is whether we could ask if the Scottish Government believed that the rural infrastructure fund could be continued extended. I know that it is a popular financial provision with local authorities and the Scottish Government. It is fairly flexible. I know in Highland that it has been very well used to address local issues of concern in places such as Skye at the Ferry Pools, for example, where long-standing local community issues can find a solution. Because of that experience, I wonder whether we might perhaps even encourage the Scottish Government to work with local authorities so that the fund can be used to fill gaps in the provision of public toilets throughout the country, because it seems to be, as a modus operandi, a practical scheme that has been working in practice for a good few years now. Thank you. Any other suggestions? Are we content to proceed on that basis? I think that it might also be useful to write to Highland South Asia and Aberdeenshire Council to understand how these comfort schemes operate. As I say, that was not something of which I was previously aware of. I would be interested to know how many businesses are actually supportive of it, what effort had to be put into achieving that, what the annual cost is and how widely advertised and understood the scheme is, because it seems to me to offer an opportunity that other councils might wish to take into account. In addition, I might seek to use the fund that Mr Ewing is suggesting that we write to the Government about that as a means of facilitating that. We will carry that petition on at our convenience. Petition number 1956, to increase the provision of wheelchair-accessible homes. Our next petition is petition 1956, lodged by Louise McGee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the existing wheelchair-accessible housing target guidance and to explore options for increasing the availability of wheelchair-accessible housing in Scotland. In the background information to the petition, Louise tells us that she has been waiting for around five to six years to be offered a more suitable house, but the local authority has been unable to do so due to the lack of wheelchair-accessible houses in the area. In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government set out a range of actions being undertaken to increase the number of wheelchair-accessible houses across Scotland. That includes making funding available through the Affordable Housing Supply programme and publishing guidance for local authorities on the setting of local housing strategy targets to support the delivery of wheelchair-accessible housing across all tenures. The Scottish Government also states that it is taking forward reviews of the housing adaptation system and the housing for various needs design guide, and it is suggested that the petitioner may wish to contribute to public consultations which will take place as part of this work. I wonder, therefore, if members or colleagues have any suggestions that we might consider. I think that the petitioner makes some very valid points here. Adaptations have been discussed in the past, and various committees have looked into the current situation and how it can be appraised. I think that it is important that we continue with the petition, so I suggest that we write to COSLA and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations to seek information on the progress that is being made to deliver more wheelchair-accessible homes across Scotland in particular, but also to find out from the Scottish Government and seek confirmation from them about issues raised by the petitioner, which include, in their view, the current housing adaptation system. As I said, those systems have been looked at by the committees in the past as to how adaptations are being managed and the backlog and the difficulties of adaptations. By seeking that from the Scottish Government, that would give us an update on the current situation. Thank you, Mr Stewart. Are we content as a committee to proceed on that basis? We are. Thank you very much. The committee will—the petition will stay open, and we will write as suggested by Mr Stewart—consider the petition again in due course. Petition number 1962, to stop motorhomes parking overnight out with formal campsites, caravan parks and Ares. Our next petition has been lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfirm, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are only parked in designated and regulated locations. Lynn and Darren explain that motorhomes place unnecessary burden on local communities when they park out with the formal spaces through the disposal of rubbish, chemical toilets and dirty water. The Scottish Government have responded to the petition highlighting the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund, which has helped with the provision of facilities and addressing issues of irresponsible waste disposal. It also highlighted newly revised NatureScot guidance for land managers on off-road parking and positive awareness raising work by the visitor management group. The Scottish Government states that it believes that the current response to increasing use of motorhomes is sufficient, pointing to feedback that campervans have been managed better in 22 than in previous years. They do not believe therefore that a formal requirement to use specific sites would address the challenges outlined in the petition. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on this particular petition? Mr Sweeney? I would just note that it is not just a rural problem, it is actually a persistent problem in parts of Glasgow as well, having dealt with constituent correspondence on the matter in relation to parking of motorhomes in Glasgow Green. It might be an opportunity to look at what local authorities do in terms of enforcement of parking of motorhomes, whether there are local bylaws or provisions that might then be more widely adopted, because it feels like it is a matter for local authority through bylaws and local levies on parking restrictions, rather than it being something that should be a statutory measure. I think that the petitioner was probably not alone in suffering inconvenience from illegal parking of campervans in places that are inappropriate. There is no doubt that that happens. Perhaps the Scottish Government response though is correct and that I am not sure that the particular prescription advocated would necessarily solve the problem. It does occur to me also that it is a matter of road traffic law and perhaps the criminal law in relation to illicit parking or local bylaws. I am not quite sure whether you have considered that. I am sorry, I do not know the answer to that. What I was going to say was a matter of practice though, that the reference to airs is very helpful. It is something that I discovered when I was tourism minister that airs exist as facilities for campervans and so on outside settlements and are located with provision of services, water and sewage facilities and so on. They are serviced sites and they are very prevalent in France. France is a network of airs apparently and we really have not got off the mark here. I wondered, convener, if we could perhaps in an effort to solve the issue another way to ask if the Scottish Government would consider promoting airs. I know that Visit Scotland is keen on that for example and as something that would qualify automatically under the Rural Infrastructure Fund which again has made its presence in our deliberations today. It is not quite what Petitioner wants, I have some sympathy with Petitioner because particularly in the Highlands it is a big problem, particularly in the singletrack roads which serve small communities and parking in labis illicitly as well is another problem, particularly in the NC500 I think in the Highlands. Airs I think would be the proper long-term solution, convener, so that everybody can be happy, holiday makers can enjoy the countryside as they travel round on their campervan if that is what they choose to do and locals can avoid being inconvenienced by that third party pleasure. Thank you Mr Ewing, I am grateful for that exposition, that does seem like a commendable action that we might take in respect of the Scottish Government. In relation to Mr Sweeney's suggestion that is there a way forward for us, does that involve us writing to COSLA and seeking to see what enforcement actually takes place? I mean I know that wearing a different hat in relation to show people that the approach by councils is highly individual and variable in the extreme so I don't know that there will be a common response but it might be interesting to try and find out what the position actually is in the way that these matters are currently approached and dealt with. So we will keep the petition open and we will move forward on those two streams and see what information comes further to us. That brings us to the end of this morning's meeting, thank you all very much. We will be meeting again on the 7th of December.