 I welcome you to the ninth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2018. Can I remind members and others in the room to switch phones and other devices to silence? The first item on our agenda is a declaration of interests. In accordance with the terms of the interests of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, may I invite Rachel Hamilton to declare any interest relevant to the remit of the committee? Thank you, convener. I have no interest to declare. Thank you very much and we welcome you to the committee. The second item on the agenda is the consideration of new petitions. The first petition for consideration is petition 1682 by James Jameson on access to specialist support for hydronitis superativa HS suffers in Scotland. The note prepared by the clerk and spies provides some background to the condition and explains that there is no cure. It explains the treatments that are typically available and used to treat the condition and refers to specialist clinic guides in St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust in London. The briefing provides some information on research and guidelines and notes that there is no published sign guideline on the condition. The briefing also includes a note of an informal meeting that Rona Mackay and I had with the petitioner in April. Members may also have recently received a copy of a paper by Abri, where the findings of a survey recently conducted with HS sufferers in Scotland, with the purpose of understanding the impact of living with HS for an individual in terms of not just their health but the wider impact on the day-to-day living. I wonder if members have any comments. Do you want to say something, Rona, about our meeting? We had an interesting meeting and Mr Jameson explained the severity and extent of how the condition affected his day-to-day life. It was about the lack of public awareness and the fact that he did not feel that there was enough specialist knowledge north of the border. I think that is the nub of it, would you say? The thing that struck me was that he had been supportive of other people who suffered. He said that a lot of people did not want to talk about their condition. They felt quite isolated by it. When they did go for help, they were treated with less sympathy than they might have been entitled to because the people who were dealing with them were not sufficiently specialist in understanding what the condition itself was. I think that his sense of people needed to know more about it, but that there might be a way of bringing together people of expertise. When there was a specific clinic, the idea would go to one place where people would be aware. He gave some examples of people who were treated quite dismissively. The problem was that they were overweight or that they smoked too much when, in fact, the condition was chronic. We had never heard of the condition, so that in itself felt quite strong. It was something that we had no awareness of. We were both quite taken by how much it had a massive impact on his life. He described the experience of other people, both in their family life and community life, but also their ability to work. When they were looking for help, they felt that folk weren't sufficiently alive to what was there. I think that he himself had started up a support group for fellow patients, which was difficult at times when he wasn't well. He was keen to get some structure and some support for this condition. I was really struck with the fact that, again, there's no guidance from the same guidance here. It seems to be a current theme in some of the stuff that we do around the medical profession themselves and their understanding of certain conditions. I think that this is one of those as well. It almost brings me to the conclusion that we might have to ask our educators on some of the conditions around informing our medical staff about the conditions. That has dropped me on something that there's no sign guidelines on earth to be treated. We're supposed to ask our GPs to sign post and to treat them. Rachael Hamilton Can I just get some clarification on the referrals that can be made that is noted in the papers to guys and sictomises, but it also says that the health board would prefer that the treatment was delivered locally? Is that currently available and is currently happening that there are referrals from NHS Boards in Scotland to St Guy's? Rachael Hamilton I think that his direct experience was that he managed, I think that he got a referral, but he then had the whole issue about, I think that he was quite positive of his experience, but I think that he found the whole amount of time and effort to be down and so on was quite exhausting. His real argument was that there should be a specialist clinic available to people so that whoever you are dealing with understood exactly how the condition revealed itself and how you lived with it. I suppose the question that I would be interested in asking with the health professional is that is it possible to run such a highly specialist clinic? Is there enough people or how would they then deal with that? Because it's one of these things, if you've got a condition that very few people have, does that mean that you then don't have the level of support that you actually require? Because there's not enough of you, which in itself is pretty horrific, but he certainly spoke very positively about his experience in London, but he felt that he probably wasn't going to continue that. To the point where he was saying that when we attended that clinic, we got a card with a dedicated contact point for emergency flare-ups, so he felt that there was someone on hand all the time if they called this number, but we don't have that up here, so I think that's what he wants to say. In terms of taking it forward, I do think that Ronan and I both found Mr Jimison's discussion with us quite compelling and challenging, and we could see that there were clear things there that you would want to least ask questions about. We certainly would want to ask the Scottish Government. We could write to the British Association of Dermatologists, and the Hydro Dentists, to our trust, just to seek their views. Who would we be asking about this question about the sign guidelines? Could we start with the Scottish Government? If we ask the Scottish Government, would it be under healthcare improvements Scotland? I don't know who instigates the guidance, so I don't know who instigates it. I think that they need to provide guidelines on what prompts it. I'll cover it up here, if you like, in terms of a conduit, and they would probably be able to take that into sight. I think that that would be very useful. Once we have that evidence, we can reflect on what we want to do further. Of course, Mr Jimison would be able to give us a further comment if he wanted to do so. I think that we'd want to thank him for bringing the petition to the attention, and we look forward to getting more information from those that we're writing to. Can I just add that we have information about what the health boards currently offer other than just general dermatology services? Is there anywhere in Scotland that offers that kind of service at all, or specialist treatment? Shall we start with the Scottish Government? They would be able to ask them that question, and they would obviously put up to get the information from the health boards themselves, and we can see what comes after that. If we can then move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1688 by Alasdair Ewing, on behalf of Westerton Gardens Suburb Residence Association on Permitted Development Rights in Conservation Areas. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to review current legislation on permitted development rights, which the petitioners consider impact unfairly on residents of conservation areas and listed buildings in Scotland. The background information to the petition refers to dilemmas that residents face, principle because of the technicality of being required to submit a planning application for minor work on a property. The note by the clerk and spies provide some background in the current requirements and refers to the Scottish Government's consultation on raising planning fees. It notes that section 21 of the planning Scotland Bill would allow ministers to make regulations, allowing planning authorities to reduce or waive fees in certain circumstances. The Local Government and Communities Committee published stage 1 report on the bill last week. The Scottish Government's response is expected before the summer recess. I wonder if members have any comments. I would say that this is a constituent of mine and that this suburb is based on my constituency. I think that the petitioner flags up the point. It is not mentioned here. He feels that the spice briefing maybe does not quite address the issues that they face. He cites the example of if he wanted to change the gravel in his drive, he has to apply for planning permission or put up a very small new gate or something like that. It is something really tiny. They have to pay several hundred pounds for planning at the moment. In other communities, those would be deemed under permitted development, but in conservation areas it is not. I did not know that until the petition was brought. As you can see, it is possible that the petition could be addressed in the new bill, but I think that we should write to the Government to see where we are with it and see what response we have in the meantime to that. Did the petitioner have a view on how he would protect the conservation area against people who are perhaps abusing limited development? I do not believe so. The area is quite distinct looking, to be honest. I cannot imagine anyone abusing it, to be quite honest. I think that he just objects to the minor things that he wanted to do to the house, having to pay extra for it. I am in time, presumably, to go through the process. When I was suggesting that we write to the Scottish Government for its view on the action, I wonder whether there would be a view from the Convention of Local Authorities around this. I presume that this adds a bit of pressure on planning departments, which are already much under pressure. It will do. I am convener, and I have certainly got some sympathy with the petition, but I can see the arguments on both sides. There is certainly an argument to waive or reduce fees for minor work in these conservation areas. It is something that the Government and local authorities should be looking at. I am just suggesting that perhaps we should ask in planning authorities, and that would include capture of those that are not managed by local authorities. I noted that it includes listed buildings in Scotland as well as the conservation areas. There is a balance to be had between preserving listed buildings and respecting conservation areas. However, there is also a need, if necessary, to maintain those, and those residents are obviously keen to maintain their properties on a regular basis and clearly have a pride in doing so, but this is holding them back. It is a balance between achieving the respect of the conservation of listed buildings, however, maintaining it on a regular basis. The attention for me seems to be around gaining permission and the cost of gaining permission. There is something that I think can be done quite around that area. We obviously have got to maintain work after listed buildings, but is minor alterations sure that we can do something around the cost of that question? That makes perfect sense, except that planning departments have been reduced. I think that the argument has always been that it should be self-financing in planning terms. It feels onerous for individuals in a community to live in a conservation area, so it would be interesting to know how that could be addressed. I was just going to point out that, convener, in our papers, it states that section 21 of the new Planning Scotland bill, which, as we know, has just passed stage 1, would allow ministers to make regulations allowing planning authorities to reduce their waste fees in certain circumstances. It has been considered in the new planning bill. I think that there are a number of things that we want to do with that. It has raised some interesting issues. If we can then move on to the third agenda item, which is consideration of continued petitions. The next petition for consideration is petition 1548 by Beth Morrison on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. At the last consideration of this petition in March, we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister, inviting him to respond to the petitioner's feedback on the approach that was set out in included, engaged and involved part 2, referred to as IEI12. The Deputy First Minister states that he considers that approach to be the correct one, but repeats his commitment to the committee that, if it is found that the guidance is not effective, he will report back to the committee and consider whether it would require to be put on more of a statutory footing. He sets out a range of measures that are in place to form an evidence base on which he can report back to the committee in April 2019. The petitioner welcomes the Deputy First Minister's continued support and commitment to report back to the committee, but repeats her concerns that, anecdotally and based on responses to freedom of information requests, restraint is still being used daily. The petitioner welcomes the Children's Commissioner's formal investigation on this issue. Members will recall that the petitioner has previously contrasted the IEI2 guidance to the draft guidance that was being consulted on in England. Through correspondence between officials, the UK Government has indicated that its consultation closed in January. Responses have been analysed and the report is expected to be published soon. Members have any comments on what action might take? I guess what strikes me is the idea that the Deputy First Minister said that the guidance is not effective. That really comes down to how you are gathering evidence and how you are reporting on that evidence to whether or not that is effective. We have heard quite a lot of evidence around this one. For me, I am interested to see when the UK Government's consultation paper comes out and we will be asked when that is due. That will inform quite a lot of what we do next on that. We can contact the UK Government on its consultation and how it is going to develop its draft guidance. I suppose that the question for John Swinney is, how is he going to establish if it is not being effective? My sense of the petition is very postive of our experience in contact with the Government and John Swinney in particular. The reality is that it is not being implemented, two things are not being brought together. I wonder if we could agree to write to the cabinet secretary and ask how he would intend to establish whether it is effective or not. We can write to the UK Government. If we can now move to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1577 by Rachel Wallace on adult cerebral palsy services. At the last consideration of this petition in March, we discussed what further action we wish to take. That included deferring the petition until the findings of the consultation on the national action plan on neurological conditions are published or closing the petition and inviting the petitioner to submit a new petition in a year's time if they remain dissatisfied with the conclusions of the action plan. The committee agreed to ask the petitioner what her preference would be and she has stated that she wishes the petition to be deferred until the outcome of the Scottish Government's projects in relation to neurological healthcare services is known. She goes on to express concern that, if the petition was closed, momentum would be lost and the issue was raised in her petition. We should respect the petitioner's wishes to defer it for the reasons that you have just read out. It is such an important issue that it would not be the right idea to close it and then for her to have to bring it back. I would defer it. I remember at the last consideration of this, we were very keen that there was arguments in both cases and it felt righteous that we would take the petitioner's view on it. That allows us to ensure that we can return to this issue once the findings of the consultation on the national action plan on neurological conditions are published. We can thank the petitioner again for responding to our request for advice from her. We can now move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1596 by Paul Anderson, James McDermott and Chris Daley on in-care survivor service Scotland. When we last considered this petition in March, we agreed to seek the views of members of the cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. We have since received submissions from Health in Mind and Wellbeing Scotland. The clerk's note summarises the different views within the submissions. It notes that Health in Mind is part of the Futures Pathways Alliance, which is tasked with oversight of the operation of future pathways. Health in Mind sees future pathways as a gateway to a wide range of flexible person-centred support and services which complement the more limited choices available through conventional funding. It states that cognitive behavioural therapy treatments used by any NHS providers follow a biopsychosocial model, not a medical model. Wellbeing Scotland, which was formally open secret, provides the in-care survivor service Scotland. While it acknowledges the additional support offered by future pathways, it is concerned that it is in a subservient power dynamic with future pathways. Wellbeing Scotland adds that it considers that the model of support, whether that is biopsychosocial or medical, has caused further confusion and concern. It suggests that many survivors do not identify with mental health services and adds that anxiety has increased among some survivors as they feel that future pathways is working towards a model of time-limited support and the promise of lifelong support has been withdrawn. I add that I met future pathways and I met the petitioner and Wellbeing Scotland. I should declare an interest as a member of the cross-party group on adult survivors of child sexual abuse. I had a very productive meeting with the future pathways group and I was interested to see how that worked. There was an issue about a backlog. There is something like an eight-month, nine-month waiting list. I am not quite sure. The issue is that if you are not registered with future pathways, you cannot then access the services, so you are waiting. Even if the services that you want to access are well-being open secret services, you cannot access them if you are not registered. That was one concern. However, when I met one of the petitioners and Wellbeing Scotland, the questions that they were raising were something around the process of future pathways, for example. There seemed to be a suggestion that you would have to have a meeting or a consultation with a clinical psychologist. A lot of survivors do not want to do that because of their experience and do not want to be in a position where they have a clinical diagnosis of something that has happened to them, because that has an impact on their lives. There was a fear that people might not therefore go to future pathways because of that. They are also concerned whether the group work model individual counselling over a longer period of time would also be available and the sense that things should not be time limited now to be fair. When I met the future pathways, they said that they did not have to be time limited. What struck me about it? We also had a conversation at a meeting. We discussed it briefly in the cross-party group, and it would not have been possible to come to one view on it, but there is no doubt that people want to make sure that people get the support that they require. The argument really is about whether organisations should be given a certain amount of money as other support services such as Women's Aid will be given. They get core monies and they are accountable for how they spend it. Or do they give people the money by the people that they treat? I certainly know that some of the folk concluding and McDonald's, who was the initial petitioner to the committee, on a strategy for survivors, feels that that brokerage model is not the right one for people with that trauma. What struck me about it was that it is a very interesting issue. It is not so much now about the very specific thing that brought the petition forward around what was happening with the particular funding of Open Secret, but it is about whether we are doing the right thing in terms of how we support people, given the pivotal role of the committee that we back in the day in getting the Government, the executive as it was at that time, to produce a strategy. I wondered whether it would be useful to get an opportunity to get some evidence. That is such a live issue because of the inquiry and because of adults speaking out. We need to make sure that the sports are there for them. I think that we would all agree with that. I think that the Scottish Government agrees with that. Whether the models that are being developed are the ones that people feel most comfortable with. Angus? There is, of course, the added issue that wellbeing Scotland has highlighted. Given the nine-month waiting list that you mentioned and the requirement that survivors have to be registered within three months, there is clearly a disparity there on a funding issue for wellbeing Scotland if they are going through the brokerage system. However, the submission from wellbeing Scotland certainly makes for interesting reading. At first glance to someone looking in, it would seem that the broker type model is working. However, from the point of view of wellbeing Scotland, it is not working to the extent that future pathways are clean. Perhaps I should declare that I have had dealings with OpenSecret before they became wellbeing Scotland. I am fully aware of the issues that they have been facing. Of particular concern to me is the statement from wellbeing Scotland that the promised lifelong support is not there. I remember that being promised way back at the start when the new model was being looked at. It is extremely concerning if that has gone back on that. I think that there is a strong argument to ask them to come in and give us some evidence face to face so that we can get to the bottom of it, because it needs to be addressed once and for all. It has been dragging on far too long. Rona, as you said, we are now looking at whether the model in the framework is correct, and it is such a big issue that we need to hear directly from the organisation. It would be fair to say that the Scottish Government has put quite significant funding into future pathways. The extent to which that has then channeled out into actual support is something that is in itself interesting. I suppose that the analogy I drew when I was meeting with wellbeing, you would not run an accident emergency department on the basis of how many broken legs had come in, and you get funded for every broken leg. You deliver the service and you provide the service. If nobody with a broken leg comes in, then so be it. I would be concerned that I am interested in the argument around why it has done that different way. Certainly, as I said, Ann MacDonald, who was the original petitioner, said to me that she did not feel that it was in line with the original view of how she actually supports people, but it would be worthwhile. I would not say that the cross-party group itself would not have taken a unified view of that. I do not want to represent it in that way. I am part of whether we are going into this detail. For me, the mental health is taking much more of a prominent role in this part of the short time that I have been here. I am interested to see how that approach fits into a mental health strategy and an approach, because I think that is still an evolving strategy. I would be keen to hear some evidence and see how that aligns itself with the current strategy. Certainly, the desire is to have a trauma-informed approach. I am okay with what has caused my problem. However, that is the argument about whether it is a medical model or a social model. As it has been suggested and agreed, we will look to a session with future pathways. Perhaps well-being Scotland and a petitioner, if they felt that they were able to do so, would afford them the opportunity to hear that evidence and respond to it. Maybe we would want a further session at that stage. I would be also afraid to say that one of the things that came back was a sense of survivors generally, that much of the abusive people experience would have been in their own home, in their own community rather than in care. I suppose that that broader question of how we support people who have lived with that trauma is important. However, if we were then agreed that we would give the clerks authority to work out how best to run those two sessions. If that is agreed, I thank all those who have responded and I thank the petitioner for Paul Anderson for meeting with me. We can now move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1645 by James Ward on the review of legal aid in Scotland. At our previous consideration of this petition in March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government inviting to set out how it would respond to the recommendations of the independent strategic review of legal aid, which was published on 28 February. In its response, which was received on 11 April, the Scottish Government indicates that it is giving serious consideration to recommendations and that the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs will be meeting with key stakeholders in light of those recommendations. I wonder if members have any comments? I think that, given that meetings have and are still to be held, we should write to the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs to seek an update on our meetings with the stakeholders, which included the Loss of Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Read Board. Is this the way that we would take evidence? Sorry? Are we far enough down the line here where we would potentially take evidence from any of these bodies? My sense is that this is something that the Government is wrestling with with stakeholders in its release. As long as we cannot have an inquiry in a parallel, once we know what they are doing, it would be worthwhile. If we can get an update, then that would afford the petition an opportunity to provide a further written submission. We can then move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1668 by Ann Glennie on improving literacy standards in schools through research-informed reading instruction. Since our last consideration of the petition, we have received submissions from the Deputy First Minister, Dr Sarah McGewan and the petitioner. There are points of agreement in the submissions. For example, an acknowledgement of the evidence-based to support the use of systematic synthetic phonics as part of a broader package of early reading instruction and that there are some gaps in the knowledge and understanding of some teachers, both new and existing, of the latest and highest quality research in early reading instruction. The petitioner and Dr Sarah McGewan do, however, express concerns about the teaching and learning toolkit and about the efficacy of the self-evaluation framework referred to by the Deputy First Minister. The petitioner identifies concerns about the ability of initial teacher education departments to evaluate their own work and queries whether the self-evaluation framework, working group, includes quotes specifically from someone knowledgeable in current reading research and best practices for reading instruction. I wonder if members have comments on how they take this forward? I think that we have to await the publication of framework, which is the draft that should be available next month. That is from that. I think that we could maybe move forward depending on what that contains and whether it addresses the concerns raised in the petition. That would be my recommendation at the moment. I was quite struck by the fact that they were closer to each other than, perhaps, initially being suggested to this idea that you either did this or you did not do it, or that it was useful or it was not useful. I thought that it was useful in a broader context, so the question then really is about the extent to which it is part of teachers' personal professional development. We would be agreeing to await the publication of framework and then get the petitioners' view and whether it addresses their concerns. We would also ask the Deputy First Minister to respond to concerns that are expressed about the membership of the working group and to try to get a timetable for the publication of the draft framework. That is agreed. Before we move into private session, I want to say in conclusion first of all to welcome Rachael and to thank Michelle Ballantyne for the work that she did with us, but also to note that, sadly, Catherine Ferguson, who has been clapped to the committee for the last three years, is moving on and probably up. I want to personally thank her for all the support that she has given me since I became convener of the committee. She is a brilliant professional, very organised and I also know very good at what is the challenge for all our clerking team. That is your dealing with petitioners who have issues that matter deeply to them and very often sensitive and very personal issues. I know that you all play a really important role in being as a welcoming and considerate and thoughtful to those petitioners who can possibly come. I want to thank you all, but I know that that is what Catherine has led by example in that. I want to thank you very much and wish you all the very best and you are allowed to come back with visiting rights. Thank you very much and we can now close the formal part of the meeting.