 Hello everyone and welcome to the seventh meeting. Of the sixth session of the Scottish Parliament's Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, this morning we have two items that we're going to be considering some continued petitions and subsequently consideration of some new petitions. The first petition that we're considering this morning is a petition of long standing, petition number 1662, the improved treatment for patients with Lyme disease and associated tick-borne diseases. That was lodged by Janie Cringin and Lorraine Murray on behalf of tick-borne illness campaign Scotland, and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve testing and treatment for Lyme disease and associated tick-borne diseases by ensuring that medical professionals in Scotland are fully equipped to deal with the complexity of tick-borne infections. When that was last considered in September, we agreed to seek an update from the Scottish Government regarding the outcome of the round table event that was due to be held to bring together clinicians, patient representatives and public health experts to discuss testing treatment and raising awareness, to discuss any progress that had been made in establishing an infectious diseases managed clinical network, and also to the steps that were being taken by the Scottish Government to encourage research into Lyme disease. In its submission, the Scottish Government confirmed that two round table events have now taken place, and as a result of those, two subgroups have been set up to look at raising public awareness and the education of healthcare professionals. Both groups have now met in recent weeks, and work to establish an infectious diseases managed clinical network has been delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In terms of research, the Scottish Government has agreed that it will work with the Scottish Lyme disease and tick-borne infections laboratory at Regmore hospital, and they will consider potential improvements to testing methods and processes. The petitioners, meanwhile, suggest that, from their perspective, the meetings held up so far have been promising but more as needed. Whilst they were involved in the round table events and the public awareness subgroup, they are not represented in the education of health professional subgroups. They stress that a key aim of their petition is to improve treatment for those who are chronically ill with Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases and suggest that ensuring healthcare professionals receive adequate training to help them to recognise and treat such conditions is crucial. They make a number of suggestions for suitable training resources. They also suggest that the establishment of infectious diseases managed clinical network is not a suitable alternative to creating specialist treatment centres. The petitioners also note that, although there has been progress in a number of areas, there are certain elements of their petition, which the petitioners feel have not been addressed. I just mentioned in passing the interest in the petition over time from our colleague Alexander Burnett, who held a member's business debate on it. To me, colleagues, it seems that a considerable amount has now been achieved. David Torrance, if I could maybe ask you to remind us newbies of the work that was undertaken in what is a long-standing petition in the last session. Thank you, convener. The petition has been going sometime. There has been a lot of work done in the last session. There was a lot of evidence taken. As you said, there has been questions asked. There has also been a member's debate. I think that the Scottish Government has heeded what the petition is asking for. There is a lot of progress being made in what a petitioner is wanting. I would quite happily close the petition and understand in rule 15.7, but, in doing so, I would ask that we write to the Scottish Government so that it could continue to engage with the petitioner. I am content with that. We can see that the establishment of the educational, health, professional subgroup, the public awareness group and the commitment to establishing the clinical network are all positive actions. Does anybody else wish to come in? Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. Yes, I think that there has been an enormous amount of work done on this over the last few years and we have come a real journey. I commend everyone who has been actively involved. I think that the champions and the education side of things and ensuring that general practitioners and the profession are much more informed is vitally important. I would be concurring with David Torrance that we have done enough at this stage, but there may be opportunities for you to clarify things in the future. As we have seen and heard, a lot has been done and achieved so far on this whole process. Colleagues, are we content to close the petition on that basis? I thank the petitioners for their contribution over a sustained period of time. I think that considerable progress has been made and I think that they can take a lot of congratulation and satisfaction from the fact that that is the case. As David Torrance suggested, we will encourage the Scottish Government to continue to engage as the various projects progress. Our second petition is PE1804, Halt Highlands and Islands Ltd's air traffic management strategy, which has been lodged by Alexander McKeehan, John Doig and Peter Henderson on behalf of the Bendechillur Community Council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd's air traffic management strategic project to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision-making process on the ATMS project. I am pleased to welcome both Liam MacArthur, who I note, because I recalled vividly, asked questions on this. He made an intervention in a debate—I actually thought that it was an FMQ, but it turns out that it was a member's business debate that intervened on it, so welcome to you—and to Rhoda Grant, who I think is an unofficial member of this committee. I have marked before that you seem to have a season ticket for our proceedings, but it is a testament to the strength of the petitions that we are considering from the Highlands and Islands region in this committee. I am delighted to have you here. Before I invite you to speak, I will provide a brief summary of what has happened since we last considered the petition. At that last consideration, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Net, Zero Energy and Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Scottish Government's Digital Assurance Office and the Prospect Trade Union. We were seeking information from the Cabinet Secretary about the current status of the project, whether it was still on budget and when a decision from the Civil Aviation Authority on the issue of automatic dependent surveillance broadcast was to be expected. We asked about an update from Prospect Trade Union about recent talks with Highlands and Islands airports Ltd. Information from the Civil Aviation Authority regarding where remote tower technology had been successfully deployed—this was this assertion, as I recall, that there were examples all around the world. I wanted to know where they were. Information from the Scottish Government about action taken following the assurance health check carried out in January 2021 and an assurance that the project was complying with Scottish Government requirements for a project of this nature. I am pleased to say that we have received responses to all our correspondence. A summer of these has been provided from members with those weeks reports and papers. The petitioner has also provided a further submission, which members should have in front of them now. Therefore, I will invite Rhoda Cymru and Liam to comment and contribute. Rhoda, would you like to go first? Yes, thank you, convener. If the committee will indulge me a little, I have spoken to the petitioner and I have some information that I would like to relay. As he said, Highland Prospect recently released a joint statement saying that it agreed a framework for discussion regarding the new way forward for ATMS. Some people have taken that to mean that air traffic staff will now remain locally. However, that is not the case. Work in the remote towers is continuing and only the timetable has changed. It is widely believed that Hial is not looking for a meaningful solution that does not involve remote towers. I understand from the petitioners that Hial has hit some problems and predicted in the evidence that they submitted to the committee. That is why they have agreed to a delay. Hial has stated that they will review air traffic provision after they have implemented the surveillance programme, and that is commonly referred to as radar. My understanding is that the ATMS timetable has effectively been put on hold by Hial for five years while they develop surveillance, which is required regardless of whether or not they proceed with remote towers. They have, however, said that they will implement remote towers in Inverness. That makes no sense except that they have already bought the building where that will be located. It has no support from staff or, indeed, the public. Neither have remote towers been rolled out for any of the other airports. They are merely being postponed for up to five years by Hial in the hope that the problems that are dogging the project at the moment will be resolved. Obviously, there is a concern that delays will add to costs. The CAA currently requires primary and secondary radar. Primary radar shows an aircraft flying in the vicinity as a blip on the screen, but secondary requires equipment to be carried on an aircraft to identify it to the controller. Hial wants to use this form of radar that shows suitably equipped aircraft. That is an issue in some of those airports where there are flight clubs and light aircraft using airports quite often. In evidence to the committee, the transport minister said that Hial has had many discussions with the CAA around the direction of travel towards a more co-operative surveillance approach, which ADSB is one element of such a system. The CAA has not, however, given Hial a firm timeline for implementation. The CAA requires Hial to install primary radar. Primary radar could cost an excess of £30 million to implement, and that has not been budgeted for. Benbecula and WIC John O'Groats airports are also being treated separately. Hial wants to downgrade those airports from air traffic control to a flight information service. The impact on the community served by Benbecula will be profound, and both WIC and Benbecula may have difficulty in finding airlines to operate PSO routes. Downgrading will also decrease safety, and that is unacceptable to the petitioners, air traffic staff and communities that serve those airports. It could result in less safe, less flexible operation and may lead to airborne conflict putting passengers at risk. That is especially an issue in Benbecula, which is very close to the kinetic range, and it would also prevent WIC from becoming a hub for offshore traffic, as it did quite recently in the past. At the moment, work is on going to try to attract more flights rather than fewer to both those airports. It will also cause unnecessary delays in cancellations to aircraft using those airports in bad weather during the winter. One of the petitioners told me—I am just going to quote him—that, in short, ATMS has been a mess since conception. It is continuing in the same way. The wheels are coming off Hial's ATMS juggernaut yet. It rolls on leaving damage in its wake, needs to be steered into the scrapyard of history and left there. Hial, as an organisation, must get a blank sheet of paper, sit down with representatives of the communities. It is meant to serve and redesign itself. The board and senior management have completely lost sight of their role, which is to run airports effectively for the benefit of their communities, not squander taxpayers' money unnecessarily on vanity projects. I couldn't agree more. Can I suggest that, in the short term, the committee might contact Hial and get a clear indication of their plans regarding surveillance and remote towers, and whether they will recoup or lose funds at the disposal of the buildings that they have already purchased to house remote towers in Inverness. Perhaps, in the long term, I will keep a watching brief on the petition, because I fear that those developments are designed to take the heat out of the situation and make no real change to the direction of travel in the future. Thank you very much, and I would note that suggestion. Liam McArthur, I thank you very much for allowing me to participate in those discussions. I haven't got a great deal to add to what Rory Grant has just set out, which was pretty comprehensive and I would agree with in its entirety. The five-year delay was almost inevitable anyway. I think that the deadlines that Hial were working to were always heroically overambitious, and therefore we would have been at this point at some stage into the future anyway alongside, as Rory has touched on, an inflated budget given the problems that the projects have already hit. I recognise that, from the perspective of the petitions committee, building in that five-year hiatus makes it difficult to pursue lines of inquiry, because the response back you will get is that all of this is under consideration, and we will take a view in four to five years' time. Given the investments that Hial are making in relation to the remote tower in Inverness, given the reputational investment that the senior management has put into remote towers, the fact that they are not really talking about alternatives to the remote tower model just reinforces the impression that they have bought themselves a little bit of time. They have bought themselves some breathing space from the criticism that they were receiving from across political parties, more importantly across the communities most directly affected. Therefore, I would hope that there is some mechanism whereby the petitions committee can make clear that this remains in the crosshairs in terms of scrutiny, however that pans out over the next few months and years. Colleagues, does anybody want to respond to that? I am minded to keep the petition open if the committee is so minded. There was a specific request or suggestion from Rhoda Grant that we contact Hial to get a clear idea of their plan, including the buildings that he has already purchased and what the financial position is in relation to the potential loss of money in relation to that. Anybody else? Paul Sweeney. The only other thing that sprung to mind was perhaps seeking submissions from the operators at the airport, such as Loganair, for example. I don't know if there are other airlines or other aviation users of the airport that might be worth feeding in to get their understanding of what the situation is and what their concerns are as well, as well as the Scottish Government and Hial and the trade union. Have we done that previously or is that not aware of it? Thank you. Since we haven't done that, I think that that's a sensible suggestion. On the back of that, I mentioned flight clubs and people using recreational aircraft. It might be worth trying to contact some of them to see what their concerns are. Initially, when that was first mooted, there were real concerns about how the airspace would be managed and how that would impact on their activities. I know that there is, I think, a flying club based at Inverness, but there will be other such organisations based throughout the area. We'll seek to try and investigate that, Liam McArthur. I was going to say in terms of the correspondence with Hial, I think that what would be helpful to tease out is what alternative options they are actively considering, because, in a sense, what they've been able to talk about is the delaying of a final decision on remote towers. Without any alternative, potentially, in the event that that delay leads to be permanent. Absolutely. Fair enough that that seems sensible. We're happy with all of that. We are. Thank you both very much. Next petition is petition number 1837, to provide clear direction and investment for autism support. My colleagues may remember that we took evidence at our last meeting. That was lodged by Stephen Layton. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and or mental disorder can access support and allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland. The petition was last considered by us, as I said a moment ago, on 6 October, when we took evidence from Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being and Social Care, Hugh McAllwn, Deputy Director for Children and Young People's Mental Health, and Jacqueline Campbell, unit head of the Children and Young People's Community Mental Health Scottish Government. The evidence session highlighted a number of key themes, including learning disability and autism in legislation, access to support services, user-centred services, good practice and funding. At the session, the minister stated that the Scottish Government is committed to establishing a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill and to creating a commissioner to uphold and protect the rights of autistic people and others with neurodevelopmental difference. The committee also heard that support available to people with autism varied significantly across Scotland, which was quite marked, and could be particularly scarce for those who did not also have a learning disability or mental disorder, which is actually at the heart of the petitioner's concern. That increased the risk that people who could be turned away from services leaving that person with no alternative route for support. The minister recognised the need to ascertain what is going on out there, that is right and what is not going so well as she put it, emphasising the importance of people with autism influencing decision making. The minister highlighted a number of recent funding announcements relevant to the petition. It was a very informative evidence session. I wonder if colleagues would like to contribute a comment. Bill Kidd. Thank you very much, convener. Just to emphasise, because I am being aware that the petition was speaking about people, particularly those with autism but who did not have a disability as such, the fact that the Scottish Government has stated already that it is going to be publishing a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill to create a commissioner role that will look into the range of autistic circumstances. I think that that pretty well covers what was being petitioned about. It is encouraging that the Government's response has indicated the forthcoming legislation. I think that it is important to give the petitioner some degree of assurance that the specifics of the legislation will address the concerns that are outlined in the petition and perhaps also offer some degree of assurance about more immediate measures that could be put in place. I think that in terms of just satisfying the petitioner's concerns, perhaps a more specific response from the Government would be helpful for the minister certainly, would be helpful. I think that that is a very fair request. Alexander Stewart. Convener, I would agree very much with Paul Smith's comments. We very much found that there was a postcode lottery in the situation across councils and across areas of Scotland. I think that that would give us much more emphasis as to what might be the case when we are putting towards this bill, because there will be repercussions across many of those areas as to what can be achieved in the short and medium term, so I think that that would be very useful. You agree as well? I absolutely agree, convener. I was not sure that you were going to make the same point or a different one, but you are consecutive. No, I am up to that. So I think that we are basically saying that we would write to the Minister for Mental Well-Being and Social Care to ask how the Scottish Government will address the specific concerns that were raised within the petitioner's request, both in the short term and in the context of that forthcoming legislation. I think also to write to the Minister for Mental Well-Being and Social Care to ask how he intends to collect and disseminate examples of good practice of services available. We agreed with all of that. Okay, thank you very much. Regulation of statutory child advocacy services, petition number 1838, is continued, having been lodged by Martin Baker and Catherine Bailey, and this petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that non-statutory child advocacy services are properly regulated to ensure competence, transparency and accountability. We are expecting, hopefully, to be joined by Christine Grahame, who is going to be speaking to us in relation to this petition. Before we potentially hear from Christine if she is with us some background information, when we last considered the petition in September, the committee decided to write to the Minister of Community Safety to ask whether she would undertake the work necessary to introduce legislation to regulate non-statutory child advocacy services. In response, the minister stated that she is not in a position at this stage to commit to a consultation on such regulation. She highlighted that, were this to be considered, there would be a number of issues to take into account, including enforcement, ensuring independence of child advocacy services and costs. The minister also draws the committee's attention to a new section, which is soon to be added to the Children's Scotland Act 1995, and that provides that Scottish ministers must make such provision to ensure that all children concerned in proceedings in which the court is considering making an order under section 11 of the 1995 act on matters such as child contact and residence have access to appropriate child advocacy services. The intention is to undertake a full public consultation with impact assessments in 2023. In their most recent submission, the petitioners state that they are dismayed at the apparent lack of urgency in the matter, noting in particular their disappointment that the consultation is being proposed to begin in 2023. The petitioners reiterate their view that advocacy workers are intervening in children's lives and influencing his or her view of its own family life without transparency or accountability. We had hoped to have Christine Grahame with us, but not at the moment. Can I ask colleagues whether they have any views that they would like to express? David Torrance Thank you, convener. I know that it is not what the petitioners want to hear, but the Scottish Government is committed to taking that review in 2023 and creating that new section 100A under the Children's Scotland Act, which puts an emphasis on Scottish ministers to look into it. From the response from the minister for community safety, they are not willing to go to consultation, so I am quite happy to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders. If a petitioner is not happy with the outcomes in 2023 to bring a fresh petition back. Pauline Cymru Does anybody else wish to express a view? We might need to accept David Torrance's proposal. It seems to me that there is to be a consultation. I am sorry that we cannot hear from Christine this morning. I understand the petitioner's disappointment at the timeline, but that is obviously now the intention of the Scottish Government to proceed on that basis, which will address the concerns raised by the petitioner. On that basis, we would close the petition. Petition number 1854, which is to review the adult disability payment eligibility criteria for people with motability needs. Our continuing petition lodged by Keith Park on behalf of MS Society. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20-meter rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or identify an alternative form of support for people with motability needs. At its last consideration in September, the committee agreed to write to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Government. I think that specifically we wanted to seek clarity on the issue of delivering adult disability payments on what was, in inverted commas, a like for like basis with personal independence payments. In his response, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government acknowledges that respondents to a recent Scottish Government consultation on adult disability payment raised a number of key concerns, including that existing eligibility and payments should be protected with the introduction of any new benefit, that benefit recipients should not have to reapply for benefits in order to maintain their current entitlements, and that the existing eligibility criteria in relation to mobility does not adequately reflect the impact of certain disabilities and health conditions with many responses that are specifically focusing on the 20-meter rule. The minister states that an agreement has been met with the Department for Work and Pensions that pass boarding to reserve benefits for adult disability payment clients will be assured in the immediate term. However, the minister notes that any significant change to the eligibility criteria for adult disability payments could risk undermining this agreement. The DWP response provides an example of when receipt of enhanced devolved benefits can result in an additional payment from a reserve benefit. However, the petitioner states that the example provided by the DWP supports the position that an enhanced rate of motability payment does not entitle an individual to any additional reserve benefits and therefore would not be negatively impacted by a change to the eligibility criteria for the adult disability payment. The petitioner requests that the petition is kept open to allow stakeholders and the committee to examine the Scottish Government's response to the adult disability payment consultation as well as to take evidence from stakeholders. Colleagues, sorry, it was quite a long summation, but I do recall our discussion, I'm sure we all do, of this 20-meter rule and our writing to the various parties in relation to it. Would anyone like to contribute? Bill Kidd? Yes, thank you very much, convener. Personally, I've known people who have gone through this whole process. I believe that the 20-meter rule is a degrading and inhumane approach, in particular, when it is repeated on more than one occasion. I think that it is something that should not be there in the first place. I'd be perfectly happy if we continued this petition to look for further routes to try to achieve elements that are being looked for in the petition. Paul Sweeney? Thank you, convener. I agree with my colleague Bill Kidd about this. I think that the principle has broad agreement across the Parliament, and the desire is there. It's a question of legality and potential unintended consequences that might affect DWP qualification. I think that this is an area that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. We need to firm up the devolution of social security and how the interactions perform between the DWP and Social Security Scotland. The petition presents an extremely opportun way of doing that. With that in mind, I think that we should invite further submissions from MS Society as well as Citizens Advice Scotland to the Alliance, perhaps the Neurological Alliance of Scotland and Parkinson's UK. An indication of people who have already made submissions to the petition in the first instance or indicated support for the petition would be helpful. I think that there is a need for us to chip away at getting this thing sorted out, because it is clearly a technical issue. Given the severe harm that is potentially caused to people getting it done sooner rather than later is helpful or may be deferring it, I think that we should try to get it designed and fixed quicker than perhaps would otherwise have happened. All right. Thank you very much, David Torrance. I would just agree with my colleagues. I think that we should keep the petition open and seek other advice from stakeholders. Alexander Stewart? I would agree, convener. I think that we need to continue seeking advice and finding out exactly. Those organisations have a strong commitment and have already given some strong views, but it is vitally important that we get the stakeholders and those who are having to progress through this. I think that continuing it and taking further evidence will enhance our opportunity to try and find some solution to it. I think that we are agreed that we will keep the petition open and that we will seek the views of the various bodies that were referred to there and the views of some of our original submission contributors to the submissions that we subsequently received from the Scottish Government and the DWP. We agree? Great. Thank you. Our next petition is petition 1857. Regulate the role of the curator, add a item. I do apologise last time my O-level Latin—I could not remember if it was litum or a item—but I am now, despite that transgression. After 50 years, I am told that it is like the next. The petition is lodged also by Stephen Layton, who was petitioned on another matter that we considered a few moments ago. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to regulate the curator, add a item and ensure historical claims of malpractice of curator's add a item in Scotland are investigated. At its last consideration, the committee agreed to write to key stakeholders seeking views on the action called for in the petition. In its submission, the Scottish Mental Welfare Commission states that curators add a item are bound by the regulations of their respective professions. Usually, that role is held by solicitors and less commonly by social workers. The Scottish Legal Complaints Committee states that it has no specific role in the regulation of or in dealing with complaints regarding curators add a item. However, it may have a role if a complaint is made that a solicitor acting as a curator add a item has breached certain standards of service or conduct that apply to solicitors. The SLCC responded to a recent consultation, which included proposals for a new register of curator's add a item and a regulatory complaints regime. The commission suggested that, while a dedicated complaints process might be positive, it could potentially result in parallel investigations on the same matter, with different decisions, outcomes and sanctions being made against a practitioner. Finally, the Scottish Social Services Council suggests that requiring all curators add a item to register with the SSSC would result in dual registration as the majority of curators are solicitors who are already registered with the Law Society of Scotland. Quite complicated technical legal ease. Any thoughts from colleagues? When you see the submissions from all the people involved in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, they are not very supportive of the petition, but what I would say to the petitioner is that there will be a review of mental wellbeing and social care in 2023. I might stand corrected. If they are not happy with the outcome of that, they could bring the petition back. I am quite happy to close the petition under a rule 15.7 of standing orders. I think that the fact that there is a regulatory regime anticipated to be operational by 2023 allows us to close the petition at this point. Obviously, just to keep an eye on how that progresses and if it falls short, I encourage the petitioner to come back to us with another petition at that time. Petition number 1860, new legislation for prescription and limitation act, which is a further continued petition lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdam. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the prescription and limitation act to allow retrospective claims to be made. When the committee last considered this petition, it decided to write to the Scottish Government to request an indication of the number of requests courts have received to override the principle limitation time limits and how often courts exercise this discretion. The committee received a response from the minister for community safety who states that, while section 19a of the prescription and limitation Scotland act 1973 allows the courts discretion to override the principle limitation time limits, the Scottish Government does not collect information about when this discretion is used. The Scottish courts and tribunal service has also confirmed to the minister that this information is held in a court interlocutor, and therefore the SCTS is unable to interrogate this information. The minister ends her submission by stating that the majority of the types of civil cases relevant to this petition are likely to be initiated within the three-year time limit. Under these circumstances, it will only be a few cases that a court will have to consider whether its use is equitable discretion to supply a time limit. Can I kick off by saying that this just sounds like an awful lot of nonsense to me? I mean, we specifically were being told that there was an assurance that there was an appeals process. We wrote to find out whether, in practice, that was a false curtain of comfort and, in so doing, to understand had it been exercised and what the outcome of anybody trying to exercise it had been. We are essentially being told that no records exist of whether requests have been made or what the outcome of any of those requests would be. I mean, I do not know if I am alone in all of this, but I am afraid that I am left very much with the impression that this is like meeting the men from the ministry. The petitioner and others are being told that there is an appeals process, but there is absolutely nothing to indicate whether this appeals process is a reality or a chimera. However, that is my kind of top word to say. Anybody else want to come in? Alexander Stewart? I agree, convener. You have given a very good synopsis of where we are. I would say that there is, without question, no real ability here for those individuals to see what is the case. We are being told one thing, but the practice is something completely different. I have some real anxiety about this. Anyone else? David Torrance? Convener, I find it incredible that there is no information out there to see how many times it has been used, especially in the court system. I would be quite happy to write to the Scottish Government again and say how you are going to fill this gap and provide evidence of it. On that basis, can we write then to the Scottish Government expressing our concern that, in fact, what is meant to be a recourse for the public isn't something that we have any data to quantify whatsoever. Simply telling us that there is no way to quantify the data at the present time seems to fall short of the adequate security that is intended by the process being there in the first place and what the Government's attitude to that is. Petition number 1865, Suspend all surgical mesh and fixation devices, submitted to us by Roseanna Clarke and Laura McDougall and Graham Robertson. Again, colleagues will recall that we took extensive evidence from this just prior to recess. It calls on the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices, while a, a review of all surgical procedures that use polyester, polypropylene and titanium is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established. We did take that evidence from Marie Todd, the Minister for Public Health, Women's Health and Sport, from David Bishop, the mesh team leader and Terry O'Kelly, a senior medical adviser at the Scottish Government. We agreed to consider the evidence at this subsequent meeting. I am sure that our recollection is that the evidence session highlighted a number of key themes, including the work of the Scottish Health Technologies Group on mesh and alternative treatments such as natural tissue repair. The importance of informed consent for patients undergoing mesh treatments, which the minister accepted, as I recall, was something on which more work needed to be done, because a similar experience was being reported to that which women who had received informed consent allegedly in relation to transvaginal mesh had identified in pursuit of the parallel petition on mesh, which we closed at the last meeting. Future data collection uses a unique device identifier such as a barcode in all-implanted devices to track the device in patient progress. A summary of the evidence is provided for members with this week's papers. We have also received a response from the petitioner following the evidence session, which has also been circulated. I wonder if colleagues would like to discuss where we are at in their minds following that session. I would like to keep the petition open and write to the Minister for Public Health, Women's Health and Sport to ask for an update on the outcome of the medicines and healthcare products regularity agency report. Is it important that we know about that before we can make a decision about anything? I concur with that. We got the themes from the minister and some of the areas of data collection that are required to be looked at, but it would be useful to continue that process to ensure that, with regard to the operation of things and how things are progressing, we get full information so that we can have a measured approach to it. I think that there is a huge amount of work being done on that already. It is very topical for many people and it has raised some concerns about the way that the whole thing is managed. I think that I would want to have it continued so that we can seek more evidence and we can continue to progress on behalf of the organisations and the individuals who are having to go through this procedure. Anyone else? Bill Cude? This is of the moment, sadly, and has been for quite some time. I think that it is very important that this committee continues its pursuits, which might have been a very strong word, but it is work to ensure that we keep this in the public domain and we keep the Scottish Government's eyes fixed firmly on it until we can get this resolved. One of the interesting aspects of the evidence that was raised was alternative treatments and there were indications that there were alternative innovations happening in places like Canada. There was a mention of the shoulders of hospitals, so I think that actually, I was formally engaging with that. The institution would be helpful to indicate what they might regard as an appropriate way of tackling this as an alternative form of treatment. I think that there was less certainty about what was going to happen in Scotland with regards to those alternative treatments, so firming up an understanding of what that can offer would be really helpful. I agree. For my own part, I felt that the evidence session identified a distinction between this petition and the use of polypropylene mesh in the transvaginal procedures, which is the subject of a stay by the Scottish Government at the present time. I do not know that the ultimate aim of this petition, which is an outright ban on all mesh procedures whatsoever, was necessarily validated by the evidence that I heard. What came out of that evidence was a series of other issues that colleagues have identified, which we should continue to explore in relation to informed consent and alternative tissue options, and just more generally in terms of the materials that are being used and the reviews that are taking place into all of that. I think that this is an occasion where I think that there is real merit in maintaining the petition and exploring the options that colleagues have identified, but to recognise that we are doing all of that as a consequence of the evidence session without necessarily expecting that that will lead to the outcome that the petitioner was seeking in the first instance, which was a ban on all procedures. Does that seem a reasonable assessment? Thank you for all those suggestions and I think that we will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis. The next petition is the last of our continuing petitions this morning. Petition number 1886 to establish a specialist paediatric liver centre in Scotland submitted by Ryan Gauron. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to establish a specialist paediatric liver centre in Scotland. When we last considered this, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government not so much in relation to pursuing that option but to highlight the petitioner's concerns and to ask what financial support could be made available to families travelling to support family members being treated far from home. I think that we have identified that there was quite a strong upfront cost, which was not necessarily equitably bearable by a number of families depending on how much and how often they had to incur that cost before they were able to receive any reimbursement. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that there is already guidance available to NHS boards on the reimbursement of patient travel costs. Furthermore, individual boards are responsible for developing and applying their own policies and must ensure equity of access, consider local circumstances and ensure that schemes are patient-centred. The submission highlights that where a patient is eligible for assistance with travel costs claims will be settled within one to two weeks. Health boards can also make bookings on behalf of eligible parent patients and where there is a need for travel to assist them in identifying and accessing available assistance. The Scottish Government states that it plans to take forward, importantly, a comprehensive review of those arrangements. I think that we have quite a comprehensive response to the issue that we were pursuing in that respect. Bill Kidd? Yes, indeed. I do not know that we can achieve much more than possibly right into the Scottish Government just to ask where we stand with aid to those families who require that money. I know that it has been talked about and that it has been worked on. Where are we just now, though, is something that I think is very important for a lot of families? Would you like to keep the petition open or close it with that action in place? I think that we can close it with that action in place. I do not know that we can do any more to accept that, but I think that we should at least take that step. I am happy to do that. David Charnes? I am closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but I would also ask that the Scottish Government engage with the petitioner to see how difficult it is as they have heard it claiming expenses back and share their experiences so that we can feed into that review. That is fine. Bill Kidd, I am clear what, in relation to the current position, do we want the Scottish Government to articulate further? I will just go back slightly to what my colleague David Torrance has said and establish how the Scottish Government to speak directly to the petitioner and find where those problems are in order to address these issues. That seems to make sense. I think that we can try to facilitate that. Clearly, there is an expectation that this should be happening, but the petitioner feels that his own experience and possibly the experience of others is not quite met that. Item 2 in our agenda this morning is consideration of new petitions. The first of those is—again, just for those who are watching and for the petitions themselves who might be following those proceedings—to say that before we consider those petitions for the first time orally here in committee, we have sought the views of the Scottish Government and, in some instances, other submissions have also been received, which allow us to have an informed discussion ahead of the consideration of the petition. Petition 1900 then is access to prescribed medication for detainees in police custody, and it has been lodged by Kevin John Lawson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. The Scottish Government's submission confirms strongly that it considers that fast and appropriate access to treatment, including all forms of opiate substitution, is important. The submission highlights its new national mission to reduce drug deaths and harms, and the medication-assisted treatment standards, which ministers are committed to embed by April 22. The Scottish Government confirms that it has sought assurances from the Scottish Health and Custody Networks that opiate substitution therapy is being provided to people in custody across Scotland. The Scottish Government goes on to state that, once the medical-assisted treatment standards are fully embedded, the Scottish Government will monitor that provision within the NHS-grampian area. In its submission, the petitioner suggests that there is a contradiction between what the official guidance states must happen to detainees in custody regarding prescribed medication and what is actually happening, and he asks that an inquiry is launched to look into the death and custody of detainees who, in the petitioner's opinion, were medically triaged by unqualified police staff. I certainly read this gentleman's petition with a great deal of concern, but I then read the Scottish Government's submission, which was a very strong response seeking to offer assurance that the practice in place is to the contrary. The weakness for me in the Scottish Government's response was that no register is kept which can substantiate the fact so that we do not actually know how many requests for prescribed medications have been received or have confirmation that those requests or how those requests were dealt with. While I am reassured by the Scottish Government's commitment to stating that this should be the case, I am slightly unnerved by the fact that we are unable to demonstrate that this is the case. I wonder whether the absence of any formal record of requests received or prescriptions prescribed is entirely as it should be. That was just a thought in my mind. Any other colleagues have a view? I nail on the head when you talk about the duty of care, because there is a duty of care for those individuals when they are in the situation that they find themselves. Ensuring that there is having no data to show us that is a concern, because you would assume and imagine that in that situation individuals who require that support would receive it. However, if we do not have anything to prove that that is the case, there is dubiety among the process. With regard to that, I think that there is more clarity required as to what they intend to put in place if something is not in place already. I share concerns that the processes of monitoring are not sufficiently mature to one hand, but the Government's submission might be sincerely held. However, if they are not connected to what is going on in a custody suite and a location in Scotland at any particular time, how would they know any difference? I think that this is definitely highlighted by the blind spot in their current monitoring procedures in Scotland, and it is well worth further investigation. That is without casting any aspersions on anybody. The point is that we simply cannot substantiate and nobody can substantiate the point. Any other colleague wants to come in? So I think that we are minded then to keep this petition open and to write to the Scottish Government further on this whole question of monitoring, I think, is the key issue arising from all of this. In the absence of that, how that work can be a certain or assured that we have got the provisions in place required. Paul Sweeney, are you seeking to come back in? Whether it might be worth seeking submissions from relevant charities operating in the drug treatment environment, perhaps transform for example, I am sure that the clerks can perhaps come up with a potential list that might be worth just inviting responses from. We might get us some further evidence one way or the other of what people think is actually happening. Thank you for that. That is a good suggestion. We are content. Petition 19.01 replaced the voting system for the Scottish Parliament with a more proportional alternative, which has been submitted by Richard Wood, who is inviting us to consider this issue in a different perspective if yet again. One that is open to discussion. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the broadly proportional additional member system used for electing MSPs with a more proportional alternative. The spice briefing sets out two examples of proportional voting systems, single transferable vote, STV, uses multiple member electoral districts or regions with each voter ranking preferred candidates in a single ballot. Scottish local elections take place by STV, for example, and open list proportional representation, the open list PR, variant of the party list proportional representation, where voters have influence over the preference order of party candidates. The briefing notes that there are concerns over the list order effect with STV. This is described as a concern that candidates near the top of the list in the ballot paper are more likely to be selected. The Scottish Government submission advises that it does not currently have any plans to propose changes to the voting system by which MSPs are elected to the Scottish Parliament. I do not know if there is any appetite to change a voting system from any political parties or the Government, but I think that we should write to key stakeholders to seek their views on what a petitioner is asking for. That is electoral reforms society Scotland under electoral commission. I think that we are content to do that, but the Scottish Government's position is quite clear, but I think that it will be useful for us to have a current litmus test of the views of these other organisations and current circumstance. Paul Sweeney? I am sympathetic, because it is something that is perhaps an on-going, worthwhile discussion to have. There was a Scottish Constitutional Convention in the 1990s, which established that the additional member system was the preferred electoral system, but perhaps there is an on-going need to consider alternatives. Obviously, there was the introduction of the single transferable vote in the mid-2000s for local Government elections. I think that there have been some observations of concerning practices in the most recent Scottish Parliament elections, most notably the Greens were stymied in some instances by a decoy green party, which was higher up the list, which suggests votes away from them. That was certainly something that I noticed in Glasgow at the count. There are clearly flaws with the current list structure and the two ballots that are worth further investigation. Indeed. I am sure that my own party has been subject to that discretion as well, but we have prevailed. Bill Kidd? I do remember what Paul Sweeney was talking about. In order to avoid the mild embarrassment that might take place when Alasdair Ardvar gets elected in front of the rest of us, I think that we should be looking at this. Splendid. The capacity of politicians for a bit of political self-flagilation never dim, so we will ask the various electoral authorities for their views on how we might suitably be re-elected under different methods and come back to this notwithstanding the Scottish Government's lack of appetite. We will take the matter forward and consider it afresh, so we will keep Petition Open on that basis. Petition number 1902 to allow an appeal process for community participation requests. Apologies, it is quite a long note. We have been, as if to prove my earlier point, joined again by Rhoda Grant, who was not expecting necessarily to be with us this morning. I am pleased that you are, because it means that I now do not have to read out what was going to be your written submission as an alternative. This has been submitted to us by Maria Akin on behalf of the Caithness health action team, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment Act 2015. The act was intended to encourage and support community involvement into participation in public services. Part 3 of the act introduces the right for participation requests, which aim to ensure engagement and dialogue between community participation bodies. The right to appeal decisions on participation requests was examined by the previous Local Government and Communities Committee during its post-legisl of scrutiny of the 2015 act, and a recommendation was made in the committee's final report relating to an appeals process. A three-year evaluation on the operation of participation requests was published in April 2020 and concluded that, given the significant challenges in introducing an appeals process and ensuring its fairness and robustness, alongside the very small numbers of participation requests completed using the legislation, that would likely be a longer-term piece of work. The Scottish Government's submission notes that the Scottish Community Development Centre has been asked to explore what an appeals process might look like and the centre will report its findings later this year. I am delighted to ask Rhoda Grant to speak in support of the petition. I meet with the chat quite regularly. In July this year, they raised the issue with me about community participation. They had contacted NHS Highland and NHS Highland had refused to recognise them as a constituted community control body. I believe that the group is controlled by the community and needs to be recognised as such. They have a constitution and that includes provision that they are community-led. They hold regular AGMs and have regular meetings with the community that they represent. I then took that up with NHS Highland on the group's behalf, but they have not changed their position on that. There is no appeals process, so there is no chance for chat to debate its case with someone from outwith the organisation. Members of the public regularly contact chat asking for their assistance and advising them of issues that they have faced. That often puts them at odds with NHS Highland, if I am being honest, but I believe that they are fulfilling an important role in their community. Chat are keen to have the health and authority engage with its members before action is taken up in Caithness. Chat has given me some examples of where there has been no consultation at all, for instance the introduction of a midwife-led maternity unit, which resulted in a 200-mile round-trip to Rhaigmoor hospital for at-risk women who are pregnant. I agree that people in Caithness are victims of centralisation of healthcare services and rural areas are being left out of the decision-making process. An appeals process would let the group question the ruling of any public body, and I support that it is in production sooner rather than later. I would also suggest that NHS Highland dismissing the appeal out of hand is wrong. An appeal process would at least give it the right to call that into question, but I think that it is questionable. Thank you very much for that, Rhoda Grant. Any comments from colleagues? David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I think that we should keep a petition open and right to the Scottish Community Development Centre seeking an update on its work exploring an appeal process for a community participation request and to ask when it expects this work to be concluded. I mean, it is certainly my experience, and I do not mean to generalise, but it has been my experience with health boards, particularly where no appeals process to a process exists that you can get a determination and meet a blank wall in pursuit of any alternative. It seems to me that the absence of an appeals process here is quite a failing because it is quite a subjective view, obviously, in the case that you have expressed an interest in behalf of, of simply being excluded, and that seems to be that. Yet that is the body that local people, as you are representing it, are using to try and make those representations. Alexander Stewart? There is no doubt that there is a gap here. The whole talk about engagement and dialogue involved in community participation, and I think that Rhoda Grant has put together quite a strong case this morning about where what is happening in specifics. So I do think that we need to continue with this to get more clarity to understand what the procedures are and how it can be assessed and how we can actually ensure that what should be taking place or might be taking place across the health board is taking place. I suppose that a recurring theme of this morning's meeting is that we should ensure that requests for appeals are recorded and that the outcomes are monitored since that was an issue in one of our earlier petitions. So we will keep the petition open. Thank you very much, Rhoda Grant. And we will, I think, in the first instance, seek to get some idea of what the timeline is for this developing appeals process because we wouldn't want that just to be open-ended, I think, is the point. So thank you very much. And that brings us to our final new petition this morning, which is to review the impact of vaccine passport regulations, which has been tabled, petition number 1908 by Jeff Bell. The petition calls on Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to regularly review the impact of vaccine passport regulations following their implementation and to provide data on how they are used and any benefits that they bring. The committee received a late submission from the Scottish Government regarding the petition, and the Scottish Government's submission highlights the objectives of the scheme that are to reduce the risk of transmission of coronavirus, to reduce the risk of serious illness and death, thereby alleviating current and future pressure on the national health service, to allow higher risk settings to continue, to operate as an alternative to closure or more restrictive measures, and to increase vaccine uptake. The submission explains the requirement for Scottish ministers to review the regulations every 21 days is written into the legislation and that the regulations should only remain in place while they are necessary and proportionate. Ministers look at a range of data to determine whether the regulations continue to be required. The Scottish Government confirms its commitment to monitoring the impact of certification and is collecting data in order to fully understand the effects of the scheme and how it is being implemented. I think that it is worth this committee noting that the Scottish Parliament's Covid-19 recovery committee regularly scrutinises the Scottish Government's response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including in relation to vaccine passport regulations. The committee is also conducting a short inquiry that requires reviewing the use of the scheme. In the light of that, I wonder what comments colleagues have. David Torrance. Thank you, convener. Considering that the Government has to review every 21 days, the First Minister updates us every week in Parliament and the Covid-19 recovery committee takes evidence from ministers every two weeks and they are doing an inquiry into passport vaccines. I think that we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Colleagues, I am minded to agree. On this occasion, yes, I am supportive of that proposal, particularly in the light of the Covid-19 recovery committee's inquiry into the proposal. I think that maybe we could let that committee know that we had received this petition and that we did close it, but that the petition I had highlighted at the particular screen, only for them to note. We are not referring. We have advised them that we did close the petition. Colleagues, that is the last of our formal business this morning. Thank you all very much.