 Ieithdo iawn, wrth ei bwysig yr Eilodau Siaradau, ac mae gyrwbeth ichon fwywrnod ychydig defnyddio gyda'r Tydd Cymru o fy nghydfyrdd Cymru i ddargarwch Iedog ddeithas尔od. Fy angen i'r gwmwysig iawn o hwnnw i ddweud mopwgol a'r blaen, mae eitem hwnnw i ddweud drafodau i ddalodau yn dweud i gyrwbeth yn llyfrwyd ffair ffwyrnau. Beth yw ddigwydd i'r cynllun g fathersiwn i gyd yn iawn o'r cadw o'r gwirch a'r rhaid o'r ffrind y cyd-dweithio y gazmau o ddatblygu cyfleol ac sydd yn wedi eu gwirioneddol ar y rei, fathaf? Efallai, rwy'n meddwl i'r cweithredig o'r rhain of y cyd-dweith i nyfodol. Mae'r rheimd a'r rhain of yr wyliau cweithredig o'r rhain of y cyd-dweith i ni fyddai'r cyd-dweith. Mae'r rhain of y cyd-dweith a'r cyd-dweith i ni'n cyd-dweith i ni, uchrydd yn cyfansiwr gyda six out of eight new petitions to date today's meeting. The first new petition for consideration today is petition 1659 by Bill T8. The petition is calling the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent body with a remit to make findings of facts and complaints involving local authorities. Members have a copy of the petition and a spice briefing. The petition background information outlines concerns relating to the manner in which different councils handle similar issues, which the petitioner has suggested may result in a lack of equity in the treatment of the Scottish people. The petition also comments that the current routes to making council complaints do not have the teeth to set in motion action to bring parity and justice to council complaints across Scotland. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Angus. I think I've come down with the largy or something. I'm sure we've all been contacted by constituents who have frustrations with regard to the way our local authorities operate, and a satisfactory route to address these issues isn't always via the ombudsman. I think that the petitioner reflects the views of quite a number of people who have contacted me in the past with regard to local authority complaints, and I would certainly be keen to see the petition move forward. Anyone else? Trona? I agree with that. I think that this is someone challenging the status quo, and it would definitely be worth taking it forward to see what the opinion of the Government and various stakeholders were on this. I think that it's a really interesting petition, and I think that we should take it forward to see how we can progress it. Brian. I think that many of my constituents would be very interested in this petition. I think that they're really looking at what happens with outcomes, because they do tend to narrow it down, so I would really like to take this forward. I think that there's an interesting argument about an independent body against democratic accountability, and the democratic accountability of local level, which inevitably will mean that different places are different, and also the fact that, you know, sometimes people's degree of satisfaction with a decision is the extent to which the decision is one that they wanted. We're all entirely natural, but I suppose what would be interesting would be to identify what the fundamental principles are around fairness in terms of the treatment of complaints. I don't necessarily need an identical process. I wouldn't like to see it set in stone, but I think that there is a bit like common law that needs to be a degree of consistent, that needs to be tested against what other people are doing if you're not happy, and I think that the proposal here is about doing that, really, rather than nailing it to an absolute that everybody must do exactly the same thing, but there does need to be a sort of a check and balance, really. I think that the ombudsman process can very often be frustrating for people, because they only really look at how the complaint has been handled, rather than maybe fundamentally underlying issues, but I think that we're talking about right to Scottish Government. You said other stakeholders, Rona, who would you suggest? I think that we could ask COSLA. We definitely need to be a consulted quality human rights commission, citizens advice. Anyone that might have an interest in it, I would think. I don't know whether there's a specific advocacy support unit as well. They may have a view as well, because they often get involved in supporting it. Also, I guess, inside the local government itself round the officials who are managing the process and how they deal with complaints. I don't know who the appropriate representative body would be, but I think that it's obviously COSLA, but I'm just thinking about officials. It wouldn't be an education one, but you know what I mean? There's a kind of a body that represents not quite chief executives, but what could we have to deal with complaints? I guess that might be fairly predictable, but we should consult them as well when we're talking about them, basically. Yes. I think that it's COSLA's chief executive body. It would be interesting, because they're having to manage complaints and the administrative process. If that's agreed, there's a number of issues that we can take forward. Clearly, the committee regards an interesting area for us to explore. If we can move on to the next two petitions. Petition 1660 by Bill Tate and Petition 1661 by Melanie Collins. Both petitions raise similar issues relating to the current system for complaints about legal services in Scotland. Members have a copy of the petitions and the respective spice briefings. Petition 1660 is calling the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the operation of the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to make the process of legal complaints more transparent and independent. Petition 1661 is calling the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform and amend the regulations of complaints about legal profession Scotland, which is currently delegated to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, by creating a new independent regulator of legal services with powers equivalent to the Solicitor's Regulation Authority, the Legal Ombudsman Bar Standards Board and the Solicitor's Disciplinary Tribunal, which serves consumers and clients of legal service providers in England and Wales. Members have any comments or suggestions for action in this petition? Obviously, there is a review under way that was launched in April of this year, but not due to report to the end of next year. It seems to me that that is an awful long time. I am concerned about the Turkish voting for Christmas arrangement that is there in terms of that oversight. I do think that there perhaps does need to be some clear water between lawyers and those people who are reviewing them. It does feel a bit close for comfort, but I do think that we should check in with where the review is going, what it is looking at, because if a review is already launched, do we need to be doing something parallel alongside it? Thanks, convener. I think that both of these petitions are extremely timely. Bill Tate and Melanie Collins highlighted serious issues with regard to legal profession and the way that the SLCC operates with regard to complaints. I agree with Melanie Collins that there is a strong argument in favour of creating a new independent regulator of legal services. I agree with Bill Tate's call to make the process of legal complaints more transparent and independent. In recent years, we have also seen a degree of conflict between the SLCC and the Law Society over the operation of the complaints system, and I am sure that I was not the only MSP to receive representation from the Law Society earlier this year, stating their frustration and disappointment in the increase in the SLCC levy. To be paid by solicitors, I have also stated that the complaint system was a slow, complex, cumbersome and expensive, so there is no doubt in my mind that this is the right time for this to be looked at. As Michelle Ballantyne mentioned, the Scottish Government has acknowledged that the current process for people wishing to make complaints about their solicitor is too slow and too complex. I was certainly pleased to see the Scottish Government launch their independent review of the regulation, but I would take on board Michelle Ballantyne's point that the fact that it is not due to report back until the end of 2018 seems to be quite a lengthy period. Clearly, we can contact the Government for clarification, but given the similarity of the two petitions, there is a strong argument to join them together to help them to move forward. I will be agreeing first of all that we should join them together, because it does seem to me that I am finally same as you. Brian. Did the Law Society not call for a change and then that was rebuffed? Am I correct on that? I am not entirely sure, but they certainly weren't happy. It was to do with the levy and they weren't happy with some of the operation of the SLCC, but they haven't, as far as I am aware, formally called for a change. I thought that they were investigating at this very point, and it was rebuffed at some point. I might be wrong. It would be worth getting clear in our own heads where all that is, and we can obviously ask for that information. We want to write to the Scottish Government about the timescale for its review and its remit, and to write to the relevant stakeholder body's task what their issues are. It doesn't feel like a very long time since this legislation was passed, so there would be a natural time to be looking and reflecting on whether it is effective and what the alternatives would be. My sense was at the time when this went through the Parliament, we wrestled with what all the different options were. It wasn't something that just went through without any debate, so it would be looking at how people feel that that has—is it a bedding in issue, or is it a natural structural problem with it? As a petitioner, I would suggest that we have to revisit this and get a different kind of regulatory body. I think that we have agreed then, as I said, to write to the Scottish Government, the Complaints Commission, the Law Society, the Faculty of Advocates, Citizens Advice, and the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. Any others? I wonder if it would be worse contacting the judicial complaints reviewer, although he or she would deal with judicial complaints, as is in the title. It would be good to get the view on the GCR as well. If they have one, they are not compelled to reply, but we would be good to hear their views if they have one. We will deal with both those petitions in that way. If we can now move on, the next petition for consideration is petition 1663 by Leslie Wallace. The petition is calling the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to sponsor a comprehensive and independent study into the full economic impacts of driven grouse shooting. Members have a copy of the petition and a SPICE briefing. The petition background information explains that there is a need for a study of the true economic value of grouse shooting, which takes into account the latest research regarding grouse moor management and new factors such as the role of potential natural flood alleviation work in the uplands and fully developed ecotourism initiatives. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Angus? Yes, thanks, convener. I should declare that Leslie Wallace is a constituent of mine, and I've had brief discussions with him about this petition and the overall issue. It raises a number of valid environmental concerns, and the petition has clearly done some extensive research of his own, and rightly highlights that there is no impartial study of the true economic value of grouse shooting. However, we do know that the Scottish Government has announced that it is commissioning research into the costs and benefits of large shooting estates to Scotland's economy and Scotland's biodiversity, so it may be that that work will address the petitioner's concerns. However, in the meantime, I think that we should certainly write to the Scottish Government and ask them for an update on where they are with their own research and then look at the response. I thought that part of that we'd be testing for the timescale for the research, because I think that we've established they're doing it, but we've not got a start date and a finish date. It's difficult to... Have we established they're doing it? Because according to the briefing, it was called for, but there's no evidence that actually it's been... It says, in Santa Cunningham announced extra measures to protect Scotland's birds of prey. These measures include the Scottish Government will quote commission research into the costs and benefits of large shooting estates to Scotland's economy and biodiversity. Yeah, it said commission research, but it then says no birth details are available at the research at time of writing, so we don't actually know whether it's been commissioned or... So, I think that's the first thing to do. So, we wanted to establish whether they've acted on their own commitment, right? Commission research and what the timescale for that would be, but yeah. Mina, there seems to be a few petitions colliding here all around the management of graesia de estates. We heard on mountain hares, the raptors, there's quite a few flying through, and it all seems to be around this management of... Or that this idea that it's a self-managed process at the moment. Or the tension between these large estates and this was environmental and protection of wildlife concerns. I thought it was quite interesting the last time thinking the mountain here is thriving because of... I know. Of grouse, which is movie. We also found, we also have subsequent data, had a wee look at it and we found that it's actually other environmental issues that is driving the mountain here population down outside of. You know, the planting of the spruce conifers is driving ferret weasel fox population, which is basically, I mean, it's quite attention. I wonder whether it would be useful to bring all of them together and have a day when we looked at them, because there's something about the unintended consequences and the impact of each one on each other, which is what you're referring to, I think, Brian. It would be useful to bring them together to look at, rather than looking at each one in isolation. Can I suggest that we deal with this petition now, and we do establish whether a search will be commissioned, we write to SNH for their view. We know that the raptors petition has now gone off to the... I call it the Rural Affairs Committee, but it's something much grander these days. But there is an interesting thing that we can maybe ask Clats to pull together, would be the number of petitions that have really tried to address this tension about the management of the land and the protection of the environment at the same time. Is there anything else that we want to do in this petition? I think perhaps we should ask SNH for their views as well, on the petition. Okay, great. Okay, thanks very much for that. If we can now move on. The next new petition for consideration is petition 1665 by Mark McCabe. The petition is calling the Scottish Parliament to abolish the common law crimes of blasphemy, heresy and profanity, to extend to the remain law. Members have a copy of the petition and a spice briefing. The committee has received one written submission in relation to the petition from the Humanist Society of Scotland. The petition in the background information explains that blasphemy and blasphemy is liable were abolished in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 79, and raises concerns that a similar change has not been made in Scotland. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I feel it. It is updated and it doesn't sit well now with our modern laws. That's my position. I agree with that. It seems to have no purpose at all. The only concern is that there's so much legislation and that there's so much happening that maybe it's not urgent, but I definitely think there's merit in abolishing it. Looking for a profane blasphemy's response. I take silence as I said. I think that it may be that this is the kind of thing Government might consider doing, but they're not going to make a priority. It would be worthwhile, I think, contacting them, asking the Scottish Conference for views on the petition, and I don't know if there are any other. We've got, obviously, the humanist Scotland's response, but whether there are any other people we would seek to get information from, I can't particularly think who that might be. I think if we get the Government's response at the moment, as I said, I can't see that it would be made a priority, but there's no harm in taking it forward and asking for the Government's views on it. How that fits with religious freedom and the right to express religious views and so on, because that's the kind of thing that we're just hatred of. We have things that the Parliament discussed in the past. But there are other laws on the statute books that cope with the difficulties that might arise or the objections that might come forward. In that case, we agreed that we write to the Scottish Government and ask the views, not just on the legislation, but if they were to do something about it. Do they have any time scaling in mind? If we can then move on to petition 1666 on the Scottish Parliament electoral cycle. The next petition of consideration today is petition 1666 by Ian Davidson. The petition is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prepare legislation revoking the terms of the Scottish elections dates at 2016. Members have a copy of the petition and a spice briefing. The petition in background information explains that four-year electoral cycles should be reinstated for both the Scottish Parliamentary and Scottish Local Government elections. In other words, for the next Scottish Parliament elections to take place in 2020, and the next Scottish Local Government elections to take place in 2021. The background information explains that the original purpose of the legislation, which sought to avoid clashing with the Westminster general election five-year cycle, is no longer valid. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Any way through the discussions that are going to come forward at the end of this year, and I'm not entirely clear what would be the benefit of this stage of doing this. I thought it was quite interesting in that, when the Parliament was established, it was a four-year cycle. We've had at least one five-year, we're having another one. Will the Scottish Parliament vote against—there's almost a self-interest in the Scottish Parliament's point of view in saying, we'll just leave it the way it is—the purpose of saying it to five years was to avoid clashing that doesn't apply any longer. There's an underlying argument here, which is quite strong, but I'm not sure having made that decision whether the Government or the Parliament would revoke that. It is pointed out that the Government can use secondary legislation to do it, but they've got no plans to do so. We could write to the Government just to get further clarification, but I think they've made their position clear on it. If we want to, rather than close it down, if we want to move it on, we could ask them just to clarify their position again. I thought it exposed quite an interesting anomaly that we've established with fixed 10 Parliaments, which we've happily changed, and for good reason. There's no consistency. I think that's part of the problem with trying to decide in advance what you're going to do in the political environment that doesn't necessarily conform to expectation. If we were to decide, we should extend it to six years, whatever. People would clearly say that was not acceptable. You might get backlash. You could see the rationale for it, but it's worth why, at least I think, we'd be asking the Scottish Government to reflect on the petition. I think so. We're agreeing to write to the Scottish Government seeking its view on the petition and further information about when it intends to launch its consultation electoral law, and whether it would include consideration of the date of the next Scottish Parliament general election is part of that consultation. If that's agreed, we can then move on to our penultimate new petition of the day is by W Hunter Watson and calls for a review of mental health and incapacity legislation. Mr Watson's petition calls the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a wide review of mental health and incapacity legislation, and in doing so to take account of recent developments in international human rights law. Mr Watson is particularly concerned about the administration of medication and other treatments in a covert fashion or otherwise without consent. With reference to changes in human rights law, Mr Watson considers that quote, if legislation were enacted which took full account of recent relevant developments in the field of human rights, then it's likely that it would follow that. Doctors could no longer prescribe that unwanted drugs be concealed in the food or drink of care home residents. Care home residents could no longer be given potentially harmful drugs as chemical restraint. Mental health patients could no longer be held down and injected with psychiatric drugs against their will, nor could they continue to be given ECT even though they resist or object to that treatment. Non-consensual treatment would be kept to an absolute minimum. You should also note a further submission from Mr Barry Gale, which is additional to submissions in the CLACS report. Have any comments or suggestions for action that we may wish to take on this petition? I have some real concerns about the mental health care and treatment order Scotland Act 2003 and its implementation. I would very much welcome a review into it. I think that the mill and principles on which underpin it have not always been a day or two. There are guidelines on how it should be in act. We have seen a rise in the use of care and treatment orders. It is something that does need reviewing urgently. I very much support this petition. I think that it needs to go forward. I think that this is a huge issue. It is very complex and it affects so many people. I agree with what Michelle says, but always remembering that the clinicians and the medical staff, the carers, do a very difficult job. The last thing that we want to do is make their job more difficult, but I think that it is definitely worth exploring and taking forward and getting the views of all the people involved. I think that it is a huge petition. I think that it throws up issues that have been underlying for a little while around the mental health act. I agree that this petition is well worth pursuing in order to give us a chance to investigate it. There is no doubt that the petitioner presents a well-argued case in the papers. That certainly convinced me that we need to take this further. I think that the petitioner and the submissions including the one from Mr Gale do highlight what the concerns and issues are. I think that the anxiety is that where the care set is under phenomenal pressure and managing difficult circumstances and they do not have resources, that is where they end up. Where people are well-intentioned but dealing with difficult circumstances and then outlining the principles that should be involved is useful. If we agree that there is a serious petition and an important one, we would be agreeing to write to the Scottish Government. Who else? The Mental Welfare Commission? I wonder whether, in the light of your comments, Rona, about the pressure on carers and staff, would it be worth speaking to you? I think that we need to have a view from professional organisations that are most directly affected and maybe the unions that are most directly affected. That would be the health union. What might be worthwhile is to ask the clerk to look at what would be the relevant organisations and then we can agree that later. The general principle that we want to try and get a sense of, to the extent to which there is a problem and an issue, not just in terms of paramount interest in the rights of the patient, but what are the circumstances in which those challenges arise? That is agreed. We recognise the importance of this petition and we will contact the bodies that have been identified. If we can now move on to the final new petition for consideration today, which is petition 1659 on the proposal for an independent vaccine safety commission by Bill Welsh. Members have a copy of the petition and a spice briefing. The petition is calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish an independent vaccine safety commission. The background information explains that the petitioner is of the view that there is evidence that the presence of solid contaminants in human vaccines have been linked to autoimmune disease and leukemia. The petitioner has provided supplementary information relation to the petition, which is available on the petition webpage, including the retainer immunisation schedule published by Public Health England and the Scottish School's annual pupil census information published by the Scottish Government. The petitioner has provided feedback on the accompanying spice briefing, calling for the responsibility for vaccine safety to be clarified. Members may wish to be aware that the briefing has therefore been updated since our papers were circulated to clarify that there is no single body responsible for the safety of vaccines. In addition to the JCVI, which was originally referenced in the briefing, details of the role of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the European Medicines Agency have also been added. Any comments or suggestions for action? That's quite a relevant one for me, because I recently had a constituent fact this week. I can explain the opinion that two of our three sons have contracted neural issues around the MMR vaccine. I'm currently what I've done as written to the Government to ask if there's any research being done into the link between the MMR vaccine and the neural conditions. To me, this is something that's quite timely. I definitely think that we should be writing to the Government to at least have their views on this petition. I was struck by the fact that the JCVI, which was obviously creators, is committed, but it doesn't have any real statutory footing. I suppose that there's a question mark about where advice is coming from and whether or not somebody like JCVI should get some recognition, whether it's been assessed as suitable to be recognised. It's a really complicated subject in terms of vaccinations, because they're not tested in the same way as drugs before approval. I think that there's a lot of conversation about it generally across the board at the moment in terms of the safety of vaccinations and the processes by which vaccinations are tested and the process by which they come onto the market. I think that this sits in amongst a big subject that's already taking place. I definitely think that we should not ignore it, but I wonder how we sit it in the bigger conversation. For me, there's an issue around confidence in the immunisation programme, and by definition, there has to be confidence in it. We've seen in the past the MMR issues that, in the early days of this Parliament, were very alive, and one might argue that there have been consequences to that for certain, when people have stepped out of the immunisation programme. I don't know if you were in the petition committee in session 4, would you be in Angus? This was discussed with the sought views of the various organisations that imposed the petition down. I wonder whether the petition is entitled to bring the petition back, but if we just go back to the same process again, I wonder how valid that is in terms of simply asking organisations to reiterate what they've said before. I don't know if they have a view on that. It was two years ago, convener, so it may be that views have changed. If you do those, we would have to contact them to find out. The petition was closed on the basis that there was no support for what the petitioners sought at the time. I'm sorry, I'm just seeking exactly what this is, seeking a new statutory body. I'm going to have the exact wording of the petition in front of me, but it was broadly along the same lines. In terms of recognising, clearly this has been as the Parliament has dealt with before, but we are looking for an update then. We would write to the Scottish Government seeking its view on the petition and, again, relevant stakeholders. Just to clarify, the previous petition was PE1584, and it was calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set up an advisory committee within NHS Scotland to provide advice on immunisation and vaccination policy. It's a slightly different approach in terms of what would be done. There is a body here that's recognised in the rest of the UK, and the question is why is there a resistance to recognising it here? I suppose because I can see why they might not want to have to go through the whole motion of setting one up within, but I suppose that's the question I'd be asking. What is the objection to not having them as a recognised statutory body? It's worth asking for an update on their stance on it now. As this has come back, we should find out what they're thinking is. It seems to me that the petitioner, Bill Welsh, is asking for more than the previous petition was with regard to the setting up of an independent vaccine safety commission, so that does go further than the previous petition. It would be worth asking for views on that approach then. Is that agreed? Yes. Okay, thank you very much for that. I'm going to suspend briefly for the next item. Order. If we can move to agenda item 3, Exeteration of continued petitions. Petition 1463 by Sandra White, Marion Dyer and Lorraine Cleaver on effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment. We'll ask as I do this petition at our meeting on 15 June, when we took evidence from Lorraine Cleaver, the petitioner and John Mitchell, and can I welcome Elaine Smith MSP for this item on the agenda? We agreed at that time to reflect a future meeting on the evidence we had heard. Today's consideration gives us the opportunity to do so. We've also received further written submissions in relation to the petition, including a submission from the petitioner and a submission from Elaine Smith MSP, who's a long-standing interest in the petition. We have previously considered the draft report and I think that it would still be our intention to publish a report on the petition. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions on whether it would be worth asking Elaine Smith to add any contributions that she wants to make before we go any further. Thank you very much, convener, and thanks for the opportunity to do that. I apologise, first of all, for Lorraine Cleaver, the petitioner. She's usually here when her petition is being considered, but she's unwell, so apologies for Lorraine. I put in the further submission because, personally, as you all know, I have my own story and I thought it was sorted, and I was fighting for other people, although the desiccated thyroid hormones are a different issue, obviously. However, we now see me have taken a big leap backwards, unfortunately, with the T3 situation, so that's why I put a further submission in, which hopefully the committee will have had some time to have a read at. I think that it's even more good that the committee is still considering the petition, and I think that it would obviously be helpful if your report was published, whatever you were going to report on. I think that you also had agreed to seek a chamber debate, so I don't know if that's still the case, but I think that that would all I would like to say that, unfortunately, we now seem to be going backwards. I think that we've all had a real interest in this particular one, and what strikes me is the amount of evidence that conflicts. Having spoken to a consultant who is very much in favour, I also then suggested that 50 per cent are not. I think that the idea of pulling all of our evidence together into a report might give a little bit of clarity in how we take this forward, or how the Government would consider this, because there's a mountain of evidence here, and some of it just seems to be so conflicting. I would like to see it pulled together into a report, so that we can actually make some sense of it. There was a wee point in our briefing that was mentioned to you that I was a bit confused about, maybe Elaine could enlighten me. It's just about the work that's nice is due to begin on guidelines for thyroid disease, due to begin this month, but the issue of the guidelines doesn't appear in the briefing material for the first scoping meeting. I'm a bit confused if it's about guidelines, why guidelines don't appear in the briefing material, is that it? Maybe you could? If I may, convener. I know Llorian Cleaver went down to London and she was at the meeting on Tuesday, albeit she was actually unwell at the time, and she said it was quite a positive meeting. She did try to get it widened out slightly at that event, but again there was conflicting, you know, she had endocrinology to firmly believe the new evidence which is there that combination therapy is much better than T4 for many, many people, but then you also had the establishment, if you like, who very firmly think that T4 is the only way to treat underactive thyroids. So Llorian was quite hopeful, but that was just the first meeting, but I don't think she felt that that was in any way conflicting with anything that the committee are doing and that that work would be ongoing, and she will be inputting to that. Can I ask Llorian that the work that they're doing on the guidelines, do you know when it's, if it's just to start now, do you know how long that's going to take? I think it's going to probably, I don't know exactly, but my understanding from Llorian is that there's going to be a number of meetings, so I would think it'd be into next year before they come up with anything. Thanks, convener. I'm struck by Llorian's comment that we seem to be taking a big leap backwards. It's worth noting that this petition's been ongoing since, I think, it's December 2012, and it's one of our longest-running petitions. So I would agree with Brian Whittle that I think we need to take on board the latest information and compile it into a draft report of which we should consider further action once we've had sight of that. I think that if I get to remember clearly, there have been 20 separate sessions where this petition has been considered and it's been quite a wide range. So there's a lot of information there and I think there's information about perhaps a division within the medical profession on how best to treat thyroid, but also some of the underlying issues around people with this condition being treated properly and their diagnosis being treated seriously. I think that Llorian has made comment in the past about the way in which women are treated in the process. So these are all interesting things. It may be drawn from the draft report because it's really a body of knowledge here, which we could at the very least present to the Scottish Government and expect them to respond to it. I think that we did talk in the past about a debate in Parliament and that might be on the basis of the report itself. So I think that we do recognise that there's a huge amount of work being already done. This is a very significant issue because it's a conflict within the profession or clinical issues, but also just all the complexities of accessing the drugs and so on, which I think I certainly have wrestled with all of the detail of that, but I think it would be worthwhile to draw all of that evidence and information, that body of knowledge together into a draft report and you don't give that information to the Government and I certainly have a debate and see what comes from that. Is that agreed? I think that somebody coming in new to this, I would very much like to see it pulled together. There's a huge amount of reading here and getting your head around it and understanding the complexities of it, but I am very conscious that it has been going for a long time and that there are a lot of people out there right now who are struggling with this and who are really wanting some answers, wanting some decisions. So I'd be quite keen to see that report quite quickly and I think taking it to debate in Parliament would be a good idea both in terms of raising awareness but also in terms of engaging with the endocrinologists generally and I mean I, they will have professional seminars etc and I'm not sure where from a professional seminar point of view they are in their thinking. I mean there's obviously conflict in the profession around it just from the body of evidence we have here but it seems to be a tension between the old and the new and where research is going and there doesn't seem to be enough research actually underpinning the arguments around the changes particularly around the hybrid, the mixed treatment. So I think I'd like to push it along a bit quicker. I think the one, the thing that strikes me and you're not having been involved in it from the beginning is that the patient's voices are not heard clearly enough and I think if we do a report you know to make the point that you know that there can be a dispute within the medical profession about things but at the end of the day it's the patients that are suffering the ones that you know that are that they wouldn't be saying and asking for these things if they didn't feel it was necessary so I think the patient's voice needs to be heard a lot stronger and maybe by us bringing it to a head with a report and a debate that might help that matter along. Elaine you're wanting to add something now? It was just in terms of there is up to date research that shows that actually monotherapy isn't particularly good and that combination therapy is better. These are the reports that haven't really been given much credence by the old guard of the medical establishment but although we might say that it's a sort of younger new endocrinologist who may be taking more of an interest in T3, actually Dr Anthony Tofft who's an eminent Edinburgh endocrinologist now operates privately because he had to retire from the NHS but he actually changed his mind on this issue over a period of time and he had been on the British Thyroid Association and if any members are interested I know how busy members are but I'm chairing an event in Liberton High School next Tuesday night where Dr Anthony Tofft is addressing this issue of going backwards with the situation around T3 so that's open to anyone to come along to that next Tuesday evening and to maybe to get some answers but also I think it's important to stress as well in terms of patients. This is over 90 per cent but 95 per cent women and unfortunately for those women a lot of the time their symptoms are dismissed as the men of pause, they're dismissed as mental health issues, they're given antidepressants and it's just also the issue around the diet pill issue that I raised so they're probably advised that well you know if you're overweight then just go do exercise and lose weight it's nothing to do with your thyroid so that's the unfortunate part of it. I think there's been a lot of disempowered patients because of the way they feel, because of the way they're treated and primarily because it's a massive women's issue. Okay I mean I should emphasise that in fact we did have a draft report being pulled together but we paused on that in order to get the further evidence and to hear from Dr Migsley and to inform the new members of the committee. I think that we've also afforded a delay in the opportunity to advertise an event next Tuesday so a public platform for that. I think that we are agreed that we do want to consider a draft report on the petition, I think that we would be doing that in private at a future meeting and then also seek a request for a debate in the chamber if that's agreed. Okay thanks very much and thank you Elaine for your attendance. If we can now move on to next petition for consideration which is petition 1548 on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools. We last considered this petition on 11 May. Members will recall that at that meeting we considered the draft guidance on de-escalation in physical intervention which was provided to us by the deputy first minister. The clerk's note summarises our feedback on that guidance and notes that the deputy first minister agreed with our comments. There appears to be good progress in communication between the petitioner, the deputy first minister and the Scottish Government's advisory group on additional support needs. The petition refers to a recent meeting that she and Kate Sanger attended to talk about the communication passport and positive behaviour support has been very positive. She indicates that she looks forward to feedback from the meeting. The deputy first minister mentions that Education Scotland will be holding three national events over the autumn to raise awareness of the guidance among local authorities and schools and to support its implementation. It does however still seem to be a question over the most appropriate place for the guidance and there are suggestions that it might be better placed in the holding safety safely document which appears as due for review in the coming months. The petitioner adds that Professor Jennifer Davidson, who led the team that developed the document, has indicated that she should be happy to discuss an update with her team. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions on how we progress this petition. I think that we made quite a lot of progress on this petition. I think that especially around when the deputy first minister came in and, you know, I agree with pretty much everything that I had to say. I think that it seems that the Government has taken that on and he has taken that particular issue forward. For first, I think that the only thing that we have left just now is to ask for progress on that and whether or not that might be the most appropriate place for it would be within the holding safely document, whether that is on the consideration. I do think that we have made a lot of progress. I am certainly pleased that the petitioner is pleased with the progress on this petition. I am glad that the deputy first minister has shown that he is listening and taking action. However, I would agree with Brian Whittle that we should seek his views further on the suggestion that holding safely might be a more appropriate place for the draft guidance and whether he would agree to this being considered as part of the forthcoming review of the holding safely document. I think that we do recognise the progress and the willingness of the deputy first minister to respond to the issues that have been flagged up by the petitioner and others. However, I agree with Brian Whittle that we will look for that at the sponsor. In that case, we can move on to the next petition, which is petition 1595, which calls for a moratorium on chair-based schemes. Members will recall that we last considered this petition on 11 May 2017 when we heard a report back on the shared spaces seminar that was held in April. We now have the final report of that seminar and a submission from the petitioner. The final report reaches a number of conclusions in relation to shared space, and I note that the petitioner has indicated that he considers those conclusions, vindicates his position and makes all the recommendations that he has asked for in his petition. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further actions. It seems reasonable now to write to the minister and ask him what he intends to do with it. I do not see it as much more at this point, but we need to do really. Yes, to clear an interest, the petitioner is a constituent of mine and I have been quite involved with his campaign since I was elected. He has been very clear in his submission about the findings of the most recent report. I think now we need to take it further and ask the minister his views on it and what can now be done because this issue is going to remain until something is resolved with it. Certainly in my constituency it is a huge issue. As far as I believe, the local authority is having a consultation or a study survey of the whole of the streetscape, but it is taking a long time. There is no real commitment from them at the moment to restore safety crossings. It goes wider than just my constituency. Obviously the petitioner is not happy about the shared space schemes throughout the UK. We need to hear from the minister on it. Is that agreed? We recognise the progress that has been made. Significant recommendations have made the final report of the shared spaces seminar. I think that there is an expectation from the petitioner and perhaps ourselves that we would want to see these implemented, and so we will be looking to get a response from the minister for transporting the islands on how he does plan to respond. That is agreed. In that case, we can move on. I recognise that the petitioner himself feels satisfied that there has been a purpose and an outcome from the petition itself. The next petition is petition 1600 on speed awareness courses. Members will recall that our previous consideration of this petition in May. We agree to seek clarification on why progress in this issue appeared to be slow. The Scottish Government's submission indicates that the issue and the consideration of whether or not speed awareness courses should be rolled out is, quote, solely a matter for the Lord Advocate. The Scottish Government had previously advised that the Strategic Partnership Board had invited Police Scotland to provide detailed information on suggested models for the pilot and wider roll-out, supported by comprehensive descriptions of its intended monitoring and evaluation for consideration at the next Strategic Partnership Board meeting, which was scheduled for this month. I wonder if Members have any comments or suggestions. I was confused, because my client, who worked with me before coming to Parliament, was sent on a course. I thought, what course was he sent on then? Are the things running? From the point of view of the Public Petitions Committee, our sense was that there seemed to be an awful lot of dragging of heels and there was a lot of stuff getting referred here, there and everywhere, in terms of what could be done. I am not sure whether you can access a speed awareness course, but it may be a different matter if it is an alternative to some conviction for speeding, because it is a form of pre-court diversion. If you do a speed awareness course, then… That is what I understood. It does appear to be sensible, but I do not know what we would have to look at the evidence base and what the evidence base is in terms of the outcomes of doing it, whether it reduces subsequent offending. It would be worth contacting Police Scotland, because, in the Government's submission, it makes it clear that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate, but he said that he would be happy to consider any report, a detailed proposal, from Police Scotland if they put it forward to him, and we do not know at this stage whether they have done that. We need to find out if they have done it or if they intend to do it before we can really take anything forward. That is the question that I would ask in what set circumstances would the Lord Advocate simply look at the evidence himself and say that it might work, because there seems to be this massive delay getting built into this and to something that feels quite straightforward, that it would improve outcomes and improve road safety. I cannot see what the downside of it is, but there is a reluct in some way in the process, and it just may be that the process is overwhelmed, the system is overwhelmed with other things. I do not know what it could be. I think that Rona's suggestion that we write to Police Scotland would be worthwhile, but I would also suggest writing to the Lord Advocate himself. Has he had the opportunity to consider a more detailed proposal, because he referred to that in his submission in October 2016? I would just check if anything is already being used in Scotland or anywhere in Scotland. I know in the board that we have the young drivers courses as well, so it may be that it is a localised thing that is going on. I think we said this the last time it feels as if it is a pretty straightforward thing to do, but for some reason it is getting terribly complicated, so it will be worth knowing why that is. In that case, we can move on to our next petition, which is petition 1604, which is calling the Scottish Parliament or to the Scottish Government to expand the remit of the review into arrangements for investigating the deaths of patients under section 37 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act 2015 to include an inquest type system for all deaths by suiciding Scotland and to include both patients who were released from hospital or receiving care in the community under compulsory treatment orders. Members will recall that, at our previous consideration of that, we agreed to write to the Minister for Mental Health asking the Scottish Government to consult the petitioner as part of its work to extend the terms of the review and for further information about the percentage of suicide reviews carried out within three months. The Scottish Government's submission commits to consult the petitioner as part of the review process. It also explains that, given the complex nature of suicide, there is no target for the commencement and completion of suicide reviews. I wonder if people have suggestions of how we might deal with this petition. It asks us to urge the Scottish Government to look at it, which it seems that the committee has done and it seems that the Government has taken on board. When I read it, I thought, well, it seems that we have done what we were asked and we have had the appropriate response, so I am not sure whether there is a remit to go any further at this point. I suppose that one thing that I thought was, it might be that these reviews are complex and complicated, but it does not necessarily mean that you will not have a target for it. You could accept that some of them might be more complex and be beyond that. I think that they worry about not having any target round reviews, if there is a sense. We have got an evidence that it goes on as long as the process goes on. We went on to the committee to the time, but the petitioners' evidence was very powerful. Given that it was such a personal thing to her, it was a very courageous evidence that she gave as well, but the part of it was the sense in which there was not a rigor around the process. First of all, if you were in hospital, it was not treated the same way, and I think that there has been progress in that regard, but also that there was not a time scale. I think that what I was trying to do was look at what the petitioner was asking for. Although it did for me throw up other issues, I am sure that what we should be considering is whether or not we were managed to adhere to what the petitioner was asking for. In my view, that seems to have been delivered. I cannot suggest whether it is right or wrong, but the earlier petition we looked at around revisiting in terms of the Mental Health Act, the independent reviews, in a way that would pick up some of the wider issues here. If we progress looking at how care and treatment is looked at under the Mental Health Act, then actually some of the wider issues in this petition that are not directly the ask of the petitioner if there was an independent review body, they would be able to appeal to that independent review body. So, in effect, you are, through the other petition, you would be addressing some of the fallout issues of this one. I think in terms perhaps of the sense from the committee that we feel that the process of the petition has succeeded in that issues have been highlighted, that the Government has confirmed an extended terms that are here to cover the issue raised by the petition and it has committed to consult with the petition. I think that those are all very positive things for the petitioner herself. Around that basis, would it be reasonable to close the petition in that it is achieved the intention of the petitioner? Of course, it would be open to the petitioner if at some point in the future she wanted to come back and raise with the committee her sense of how effective that has been. I agree with you, convener, but I think that the only other thing that we could do would be to try and establish any sense of a timescale on the review for when this could come to some sort of decision. I do not know if we would be able to get that. Would it be reasonable in writing to the Scottish Government to confirm that we are closing the petition, we recognise the progress that has been made but just highlight this issue around so we have been open-ended, so we are not continuing the petition. I think that that might be the best plan. If that is agreed, we would agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Government has confirmed. It will extend the terms of the review to cover the issues that are raised by the petition and that it is committed to consult the petitioner as part of that process. I think that again we would want to thank the particular Catherine Matheson and her family for bringing the petition forward and recognising that there has been an outcome from it, which I hope she will find of some comfort. If we can now move on to the next petition for consideration day, which is petition 1610, which calls the Scottish Parliament to earth the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 euro route to dual carriageway at its entirety as soon as possible, members would have called that a fat-finding visit recently took place in relation to the petition on 7 September 2017 in Dumfries and Galloway, and the committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including the petitioner. Members will also recall that it is meeting last week to the committee considered petition 1657, which calls for a similar upgrade to the A77. This meeting members agreed to invite the cabinet secretary for the economy, jobs and fair work to provide evidence at a future meeting. It is now our opportunity to discuss what further action we may wish to take in relation to the petition before us today. Work that I have been doing on an on-going basis—in fact, I have just received some replies back from the transport minister as to the intention of the Government over the next period of time. Although the indication is that the money will be spent on the A75 and the A77, I think that the petitioner is asking for that. I think that it is very timid, because the bypass of the Mabel bypass on the A77 is currently getting out for tender and the indication from the petitioner is that although the bypass on Mabel is welcome, it will not be a dual-carriage way and other sort of ancillary developments, such as cycle tracks and what not, are not going to be put in place. For me, I think that we have got to push this forward quite quickly, because I think that what is going to happen will be quick. It is to ensure that whatever the Government decides to do is future proof in the development of that, because, as the petitioner asks for, there is a longer overtaking opportunity in the A75 and starting to bypass and starting to put the longer-term issue around dualling the A75 and the A77. We have got to ensure that the petitioner's long-term desire is in keeping with what the Government is proposing to do with the interim works of the A75 and the A77. Any other views? Angus? Thanks, convener. Before I discuss the petition, I would like to place on record my thanks to the good folk of Dumfries and Galloway for the welcome that they gave the Petitions Committee when we visited a couple of weeks ago. The round table session that we had in Castle Douglas was extremely useful. The case could have lasted a lot longer than the time we had, but unfortunately we had to move on to other meetings on the day. We certainly saw it first-hand and took evidence on the issues with regard to the A75 and the proximity of the road, in particular to housing in Springholm and Crockettford and, of course, the other issues that were highlighted on the day. Given that we have already agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work in and whether it is him or the transport minister who appears, as Mr Whittle says, times of the essence, and the sooner we do it, the better. To cut the long story short. Totally agree. Any other views? Agree with what Angus said. I agree. I think we joined the two petitions together and we get the minister with us and the petitioners and we move quickly. I think that Brian makes a very good point about the Mabel bypass. The frustration of watching roads being built anywhere in the UK and then five minutes later they are back, having to widen them or extend them is just infuriating and the money that is involved in doing it is ridiculous. Of course, the alternative view is more in which way you are built, more people are coming, views them so I think there is. The situation with the 75 and the 77 is really about, for me anyway, the strong evidence there was about the link to the port and the vital economic value of the port. What we see is the shipping lines that have put in the investment on the promise of improvement of roads and haven't seen the improvement of the roads. With less than 25 minute difference to send them south of the border, when you consider that most of the product, one of the things I ask, was where does all the goods go? Are they coming in Scotland or are they going south? They are going south and they are choosing to use our ports to bring them in and then transport them down the country. It wouldn't take much for them to go the other way and I think it is vital that we keep our ports open and to do that we've got to have good roads to serve them. If you lay on top of that the residents, the question of being able to get to hospital and all the other bits of evidence that we heard, I think it's really important that we push this harder. In terms of hearing evidence, I feel quite strongly that it should be the Cabinet Secretary, because I think it's much broader than simply a transport issue. I think there's that environment, social, economic issues there. These are big decisions that can be made at Cabinet level. That's a new road, this is about. Yes. The consequence of not getting it right would be economic disadvantage as well as the social and environmental disadvantage. I think we're agreeing that we want to bring these two petitions together. We recognise a lot of issues underpinning them are the same and that we would want to hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and again subject to their diaries now scheduling it would be as soon as possible. Can we highlight when we're asking that that we have a specific issue with the scheduled build of the Mable bypass because I think they will presumably have done quite a lot of work already in terms of the civil engineering, planning etc. So I think if we're going to have any impact on that, we do need to move really quite quickly and quite strongly in terms of highlighting that. Convener, before the Cabinet Secretary appears, I was quite struck when we were down in Dumfries and Galloway. I think one of the salient points was the fact that this is a euro route and it's one of the only euro routes that isn't duelled. So it would be good to get some information from the spice and advance of the Cabinet Secretary appearing, ask or identify any other similar routes in northern Europe or the whole of Europe that aren't duelled because I think this might well be one of the few that hasn't received the investment that other euro routes have. I've actually seen the map, the euro route map of all the routes and it was quite extensive. It's our little bit. Okay, so. It's our little bit. Okay, so. I still like this view. Oh, absolutely. You're not leaving me. We can get that information ahead of our meeting. Okay, if we can now move on to our next petition, which is petition 1619, we are calling the Scottish PAMP to the Scottish Government to make continuous glucose monitoring sensors such as freestyle library available under prescription to all patients with type 1 diabetes. As members would recall, this petition was also considered as part of its fat-finding visit to Dumfries and Galloway earlier this month and I wonder members if any comments or suggestions were further action based on the fat-finding visit. I may, I'm sitting across party group for diabetes, which sat on Tuesday this week and I discovered that apparently it is now available. The Government are going to make it available on the NHS and I would certainly want the first thing I would like is clarification of that because it seems to be a very recent development. So I set like clarification if that's the case. When we met with the consultant, he, I mean, it was clear that it is available on the NHS. The problem is that it is the quantity available. So the allocations for this year on the NHS are quite small. We heard that Dumfries and Galloway was only four. So it's not that it's not available on the NHS. It's about the equitable availability of it. And I think that that was for me part of the big issue here because what we're seeing is a selective process and as the consultant made quite clear at the meeting we had, how does he choose four people, four children in his case, four children that would get it out of the 12 that were there and would be suitable for it. And there's no difference in them in general terms, but the difference it would make to their lives is enormous. This fundamentally transforms a child's life in terms of the activity they can do, in terms of the way they can partake in normal life alongside their classmates. So I think for me it is really about saying, if we're really being honest about equity and fairness and all the rest of it, then actually the restriction on numbers is what we need to be exploring here. Okay, Rona. We also need to find out if the funding has actually been committed to the health board and if it has, it doesn't appear to have trickled down for this equipment because at the freezing alley we heard that they hadn't received it. I think it was committed to for 2017-18, so we're three quarters of the way through 2017, so it would be interesting to know where the funding is, but it might have been overtaken by events, as Brian has said, that it's now been agreed, but we need clarification. I think we would be looking for the Scottish Government to provide further evidence at a meeting, and then the petitioners couldn't respond to that. I think that there are particular questions around equity of access, but also if the funding has been allocated to what monitoring has been done, there won't actually be anything to do with the system. Could I ask us to look at one other thing as well? One of the conflicting pieces of evidence was around cost, so we were given some pharmaceutical information ordering costs that suggested that a glucose monitoring sensor was not more expensive than the traditional injecting and blood sampling, but then when we spoke to the consultant, he suggested that it was the other way round, so I think it would be quite important for this committee to understand the underpinning costs of it, because it's a no-brainer if it costs the same or less. It becomes slightly more complicated if there's a significant up-cost to it, because that budget will have to be found. I think it's important that we understand what the cost is, because that will alter the conversation that we're having. I think we would be concerned, however, the point that you made earlier is that there's a rationing, so it's not that you're entitled to it. If you're entitled, you should be entitled to it. No, I'm not talking in terms of whether we think everybody should be entitled. I absolutely do, and I think everybody should have it, but the conversation we'll be having will be different about how we make that happen if there's a deficit in the costing. I think that we need to understand whether there's a deficit in the costing or whether it's alike. That's something that we can ask the Scottish Government as well, but I think that we're agreed that we want to invite the Scottish Government to provide evidence at a future meeting, and, as I said, the petitioner will be able to respond to that. I would also like to echo the comments that were made by Angus and take this opportunity to express the committee's thanks to everyone who participated in the fact-finding visit, both in relation to the A75, but also to the question of diabetes continuous monitoring sensors. I was unfortunate and unable to attend, but I understand that it's very informative and interesting. I'm grateful to all the people who gave their time to engage with the committee and hope that they found it useful too, but it certainly looks as if it's been a good model for future activities by the committee. We move on to the next petition, which is petition 1640 by Eileen Bryant, a nation against irresponsible dog breeding. Our meeting papers include a number of submissions from stakeholders that identify areas of existing legislation that they consider could be strengthened. Those include an upper limit and the number of breeding bitches in any establishment, breeders to be registered and licensed with a publicly accessible list of breeders to be established, a robust microchip process and the need for better enforcement. The submissions also identify the need for collaborative working between all the relevant agencies or professions involved in animal health and welfare, including vets, local authorities, trading standards, SSPCA, Police Scotland breeders and the general public. The submissions from Police Scotland and the Frees and Galloway Council refer to Operation Delphin, which members would recall we heard about during the evidence session in May. This appears to be a good example of agencies working well together to deliver a successful scheme. The joint submission from the British Veterinary Association and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association identifies an aspect that could be strengthened. It notes how findings from a survey indicated that some vets felt unable to report concerns over welfare or illegal importation of puppies through either lack of evidence or difficulties in identifying the suitable point of contact within trading standards. The Scottish Government submission identifies a range of measures that intend to take forward to strengthen animal welfare legislation. This includes updating the regulations governing the breeding and sale of dogs, reviewing the penalties available for animal welfare offences, on-going discussions with counterparts across the UK and beyond, providing better enforcement and prosecution of offences committed, recognising the time that can be taken up with on-going court proceedings and an academic research study that is funded into tackling the illegal trade of puppies from both a supply and demand context, which feels quite a substantial series of things that the Scottish Government is taking on. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions on action that we might want to take. I'm just glad that this whole issue is beginning to gather steam and it's becoming much more evident that so many things do need to be done. The number of things that we've talked about—regulation, sentencing, et cetera—we would like to round it all up and ask the Government to clarify all the situations regarding timescales for the consultations relating to on-going court proceedings, publication of the academic research report. The sooner all those things are addressed, the better, because this is a situation that is rapidly getting out of hand, but thankfully it's now being brought to the public's attention. I would be happy to recommend writing to the Government just to seek updates on various points about how it plans to take all its commitments forward and when. I think that we were all struck by the evidence that we were given at the meeting where we heard about some of the horrible things that were going on. It does feel as if the Government has recognised the strength of feeling in its regard, so in writing to them we would really be establishing how they are going to take forward these commitments that I've already outlined. Is that agreed? I suppose that one question is whether it might actually be given the range of issues that the Scottish Government is taking forward, whether it might be as easy to ask for the Cabinet Secretary to come to an evidence session and to provide an update. I think that there's a lot of public interest in this, so it might be a good opportunity for the Scottish Government to identify and clarify what it's planning to do. The next petition for consideration is petition 1642, which is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of caffeinated energy drinks to children under 16 years of age and to encourage the maximum use of existing powers by local authorities to restrict sale and marketing of energy drinks to children. Members will recall that at a previous consideration of this meeting we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, the cross-party group on independent convenience stores, Community Food and Health Scotland, Scottish Grocers Federation, University of Strathclyde Centre for Health Policy and the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation. The Scottish Government's submission states that there is no plans to regulate the sale of energy drinks, recognising instead the need to work with the industry and local authorities to improve existing arrangements. The review is also shared by the Scottish Grocers Federation and the cross-party group on independent convenience stores. In contrast, the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation fully supports the petition and believes restrictions should be imposed on children buying energy drinks, similar to that of alcohol age restrictions. NHS Health Scotland states that it would support action to restrict the marketing and promotion of energy drinks to children and young people and work with retailers to restrict the sale of caffeinated energy drinks. Displaying warning notices to children and young people under 16, and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. The Government is just about to go to consultation on the obesity strategy, but I do not think that it is a 12-week consultation, but I think that the obesity strategy on right will not come out until the summer of 2018. It seems quite a long way away from what we are considering this particular petition. I am really interested in the potential restriction in marketing and how we go about doing that. There is little point asking the Government for an update on the obesity strategy, because I am just going to consultation, but I would really be interested specifically in the marketing of these energy drinks and the potential of reducing or restricting that marketing. I would quite like to dislike the Scottish Government under that quite narrow focus. Is there any current restriction on marketing or even sale of them? I mean is it? There is none and there are no marketing restrictions on it either. It should be interesting to look at what the capacity to do is. I saw something in one of the submissions that I thought was quite interesting. I think that in Edinburgh they have restricted the sale of these drinks within buildings over which they have some control, so that would be schools, leisure centres and so on. It would be quite interesting to know whether that is something that the Scottish Government has looked at. Are you encouraging a voluntary restriction? I mean I know the encouraging of voluntary restrictions. Llywodraeth Cymru says to head up the drug and alcohol unit for young people and offenders. We did a lot of work around encouraging local shops etc to think about what they were putting on their shelves and who their customer base was. That does require individuals and when something is highly popular and it sells well, particularly for smaller shops they are more likely to sell it because it keeps their business turning over. I have absolute sympathy with a petitioner here and I do think it is something we need to look at and particularly where some of these energy drinks are then being mixed with alcohol. They can have profound effects. Whilst I have sympathy with it, I think that it will be difficult. I think that we need to do what has been suggested and we need to talk in a narrow remit about what might be feasible. I think that looking at the marketing element is where we need to go initially. I think that a ban would have to come later down the line. I am not sure. I think that it would be really difficult. It is like trying to stop young people drinking alcohol underage wherever you put it. I think that we should start by lowering its profile. I think that a ban would be difficult if it is not impossible to be honest, to even police and to carry through. In the programme for government, the commitment was made by the government to limit the marketing of products in high and fat and sugar and salt but we are not sure what that commitment is, so maybe we can ask for clarification on that. It is also worth noting that this is about caffeine levels as well. If you limit sugar and salt and all those things, they can put low elements of that in these drinks and still have the high caffeine levels. It is really important to be clear about what you are actually restricting marketing on. Convener, the industry itself is starting to consider self-regulation. It is starting to do quite a lot of work around this area as well. I do not know how we do that but I would be really interested to see where they are because quite a lot of the time, especially the big boys, are ahead of the curve in understanding where the drive is going to come from future. The voluntary engagement is ahead and to resist compulsion. It is about business as well. Good businesses stay ahead of where the trend is going and where the market is likely to go. If they think that the trend is going to be anti that particular product, they seek to get out of the market fairly quickly and find an alternative. They want to be on the right side. That is why Coca-Cola has zero coke now. It is all about making sure that you are delivering the product for the market. We can influence the market without banning things. We can influence the market by education and trend. Any other comments on how we take this forward? I am interested in the degree of unanimity across different organisations, with the exception of the Jamie Oliver Food Foundation. At this stage, I feel that that is too complicated, but recognising that there is an issue there and getting clarification from the Scottish Government on how they see their commitment in the programme for government fitting in with that would be useful. Anything else, Angus? No, no. I am happy. Okay, we are agreed on that then. If we can move on to the next petition for consideration. The petition in 1644 is calling on the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government to prohibit in its future directives to visit Scotland the funding of country sports tourism involving the killing of animals. At our last meeting, we agreed to seek the views of a number of organisations and we have received submissions from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the Scottish Lands in the States. We also have a submission from the petitioner in response to those organisations. As members will see, the responses that we received from the organisations were not supportive of the action called for in the petition. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for future action. Thanks, convener. I think that there is a strong argument to close this petition, given that there is no support for the action called. I would certainly thank the petitioner for taking the time and trouble to raise the issue. However, for me, the salient point and some of the feedback that we got was from the Scottish Lands in the States and the STA, which believed that it would be inappropriate for visit Scotland as the impartial body responsible for the visitor economy in Scotland to discriminate against any one section of the tourism industry by not providing funding for them. When I see where the petitioner is coming from, although I do not agree with her, I think that we have no option but to close the petition, given that there is no support for it. I agree. I agree with the petitioner, but I do not see how we can take it forward. Given that there is such a lack of support, I do not think that there will be anybody doing a U-turn, but I think that it is a shame, because I do believe in this petition. I am happy to go forward and close it. I think that some of the commentary will fall into some of the other work that we are doing in terms of looking at land management, looking at the issues around the heirs and the grass and the wild animals. I do not think that we need to do anything more at this stage. I do not think that there is anywhere for the petitioner to go. It is very narrow issues around funding for tourism. I wonder whether, as I think that might be Ronas suggesting, or Michelle said, that this is something that we discussed earlier about wildlife crime and protection of species and the balance between the interests of the states and tourism and the protection of environment and animals and wildlife. We can focus on that through other work that we have done, but we recognise that that is some of the driver for the petition, but we feel that the petition itself is not necessary to be continued in order for those issues to be addressed. Would that be fair? Is there any legal issues if you went down that route with this petition? I do think in agreement with Ronas that that question about protecting wildlife and protecting the environment and getting that balance right is something that is important, but I would be content to close the petition on the basis that, in our earlier discussion, we recognised that that is something that we are engaging with the Scottish Government on. In that case, if we are agreeing to close the petition under rule 15.7 or standing orders on a basis that has no support for the action called for in the petition, is that agreed? The final petition for consideration today is petition 1645 by James Ward on the review of legal aid in Scotland. Members would recall that we previously considered this petition in May, when we agreed to write to seek the views of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Law Society of Scotland and the Independent Strategic Review of Legal Aid. The clerk's note gives an overview of the submissions received from the Scottish Government, which refers to the eligibility criteria for legal aid, but does not make any reference to the use of discretionary powers, which the petition particularly sought clarity. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions. I guess we have to go and seek the views of all those involved. So, you know, the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board, I think it is confusing to be honest. Legal aid is confusing and I do have some issues with some of the way it's delivered, so I have some sympathy with the petitioner, but yeah, I think for the first instance we need to go and ask and look at some of the evidence. Okay. Does that agree, then, that we'll be writing to the independent review group, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, and do we want to go back to the Scottish Government specifically on this question about the use of discretionary powers, which they haven't responded to? Well, I think so. That was what we initially asked for. Okay, does that agree? Yes, it's agreed. Okay. Again, it's a petition that highlights issues of concern and we can get a response from the relevant bodies on the issues raised by the petitioner. We've now come to the end of our consideration of petitions. Can I thank everyone for their attendance? I'll close the meeting.