 Good morning and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2021. Our principal agenda this morning is to discuss new petitions. I say to those petitioners who may be tuning in or others who are watching that we do in advance of considering the petitions receive submissions, including those from the Scottish Government, which help inform the discussion that we are about to have. Our first petition this morning is petition number 1869 to make it law for railway stations to have free step access. This has been lodged by Dylan Crawford. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that requires all railway stations in Scotland to have free step access. The Scottish Government's submission highlights work that has been undertaken, both the UK and Scottish Governments, to fund accessibility improvements and create step free access at more than 30 rail stations across Scotland's rail network. However, the submission stresses that in relation to the petition that rail accessibility is a reserved matter and it is therefore not possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area as requested by the petition. It is very interesting to receive the notes in relation to the work that is taking place to establish step free access in various stations and other work that is undergoing to improve access in stations generally. However, it seems that there is an obstacle in terms of us considering a petition looking for a legislative solution. Does anybody wish to offer something? David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I am sympathy for a petition and everybody would like to see access for all rail stations, but because this is a reserved matter and the Parliament cannot legislate in it, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Are we agreed? Agreed. Has the petition been made aware of the submissions in relation to the access improvements that have been undertaken on that basis? Fine. Petition number 1870, to ensure teachers of autistic pupils are appropriately qualified. This second petition today has been lodged by Edward Fowler and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation requiring teachers of autistic pupils to be appropriately qualified to improve educational outcomes. The Scottish Government's submission that we have received states that the additional support for learning act 2004, as amended, provides a comprehensive legislative framework for supporting children and young people to overcome barriers to their learning and achieve their full learning potential. The submission details a variety of work with the aim of enabling teachers to support autistic children and highlights the additional support for learning action plan that was published in October last year. Progress made against the action plan is expected to be monitored and reported on next month, obviously October 21. The submission also points to qualifications that teachers can obtain to demonstrate support for children with additional support needs such as a postgraduate certificate or diploma of inclusive practice. In their submission, the petitioner emphasises the impact of education on their experiences later in life and states that many people are now seeking answers as to why they were failed by the education system of Scotland. They want to know what can be done to change this and want their voices to be heard. An issue that has come before Parliament and different guys is over time. Again, colleagues, would anybody like to comment on this petition? Tess White I would like to say that the petitioner raises some very important points that the committee should explore further. I understand that around 2020, around 22,000 pupils were identified as having ASD. If we write to the Scottish Government, if that is something that we propose, could we think about considering adding children in Scotland to the list of stakeholders who were involved in the report? I have to note that the publication did not include, did not engage, did not involve a report on the experiences of autistic children missing school. We are content to write to the Scottish Government seeking a summary of the report on progress made against the additional support for learning action plan when it is published, which we expect to be in the next few weeks, so probably a nice time for us to consider the petition again. We are going to write to key stakeholders. In addition to Tess's suggestion, the General Teaching Council, the Scottish Council for Deans of Education, the Scottish Osism and the National Autistic Society, all of whom we will ask to seek views from them on the petition and the Scottish Government's submission and respect of it. We will hold the petition open in anticipation of that advice. The next petition is petition 1871, a full review of mental health services. We are joined for this petition this morning by our parliamentary colleague Monica Lennon, MSP. Good morning and welcome to you, Monica. This is a new petition, a full review of mental health services lodged by Karen McKeehan on behalf of shining lights for change. The petition is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland to include the referral process, crisis support, risk assessments, safe plans, integrated services working together, first response support and the support available to families affected by suicide. The Scottish Government's submission details work under way to improve the quality, access and variety of support provided for mental health. That includes tailored programmes to support NHS boards with long waiting lists, 24-7 mental health assessment units and a distress brief intervention programme. In response, the petitioner has shared the story of her partner. It was a very powerful submission. It is our partner, Luke Henderson, who died in 2017. I think that anybody reading the submissions would have been naturally affected by that. He and his experience in seeking support from mental health services prior to his loss. In response to deliverables against the Scottish against the suicide prevention action plan, the petitioner notes that the target to reduce suicide death by 20 per cent by 2022 does not appear to currently be on track. As I say, it was a powerful submission. I understand from advice that the committee has looked at a petition along those lines from the petitioner previously. Monica Lennon, would you care to speak in support of the petition and assist us in our consideration? Yes. Good morning, convener. Thank you, committee, for the opportunity to come today and speak in support of the petition 1871. Karen McEwen is a constituent of mine in Central Scotland. Like I explained to your predecessor committee, she has become a friend. Through the most tragic circumstances, Karen emailed me on 30 December 2017, just hours after Luke took his own life in the family home with the children in bed. You will have read from Karen's submission that it was not through a lack of speaking out, because we are all encouraged to speak out and be open about our mental health. We hear that it is okay not to be okay, but Karen and Luke tried to get help multiple times. I think that it was around eight times. Sadly, Luke is not here, but Karen is still fighting, not just for herself and her family. Their outcome will never change. However, when I spoke to Karen just two minutes ago from outside the committee room, she impressed upon me that what happened to her family is not unique. I do not need to tell you that. We are all MSPs, we all represent communities, and we all have our own mental health. Karen is not looking for sympathy. Karen is looking for system change. She is looking for action. Karen has now become the go-to person for many other people who, sadly, have gone through the same tragic loss that she has. I will not give the person's name, but another constituent of mine, Karen, is supporting that her son was suicidal and was being very vocal about how he fell. When he went to the crisis team, he was given a leaflet. That boy is not here today. That is why Karen's petition is so important. I acknowledge that the Scottish Government understands how serious it is, and it is a priority, but we are not getting things right. It is not just about putting more money into the system. There are parts of the system that need more resource. There is a workforce crisis, but there are areas in which crisis support does not exist. Risk assessments are not being carried out. People do not have safe plans. Pathways are not fully in place. We know from speaking to colleagues in Police Scotland that they are under increasing pressure. If you are someone who is in crisis, experiencing psychosis, the police coming to your door is not really the most helpful thing. It is a tough job for the police to do as well. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the petition today to echo some of Karen's sentiments. This is an issue that is a national crisis that is really important. It was clearly an issue before the pandemic. Karen's petition predates Covid-19, but we all know that the harms around isolation and mental health issues and substance use also have to be considered. We need to give a space in this Parliament for people to not just share their experience, but to share what they believe to be the solutions. In Scotland, we are fortunate that there are people who care deeply, who are supporting each other in their communities, and to hear from the people on the front line as well. I am very concerned about the mental health and wellbeing of people who work in our NHS, who work in community services, who work in the police, because they are having to turn people away with those leaflets. That gives them their own stress and anxiety. Sadly, a young doctor in Lanarkshire completed suicide recently. I have had a lot of emails following that from doctors and people in the health service. The last point that I would make is that our GPs have been doing a wonderful job during the pandemic and continue to do so. For people with complex mental health needs, the video consultation and the telephone consultation do not work for everyone. We also need to consider that in any review of mental health services. I hope that colleagues today will take this as an opportunity. It is not to sit here and criticise ministers or the NHS because everyone is trying really hard, but we are not getting it right and people are losing their lives. I reiterate my support for the petition and hope that it is an opportunity for people to contribute their thoughts and solutions so that we can get it right and save lives in Scotland. Thank you for that. I was quite struck and I am grateful to the petitioner for bringing the petition back. Obviously, I understand that there was evidence taken on this in the last session. I did not hear that, but I was quite affected by the petitioner's submission. I also noted the on-going difficulties that the petitioner continues to experience. I take the point that we do not think that we have properly understood what additional impact the pandemic may have had, both on the Scottish Government's own programme in terms of what it is trying to achieve and on the way in which the pandemic itself has compounded the difficulties that people are experiencing and our ability to deal with them. I certainly start from that position. Would anybody in the committee hear to comment at Tess White? Reading the petition was deeply moving and the petitioner, Karen, has been through a deeply, deeply distressing experience. I am concerned to hear that her partner repeatedly tried to seek mental health support in the days before his death. I know that, in the previous committee, we closed a similar petition from the petitioner, and I think that it was in November 2019 on the basis that the Scottish Government was undertaking significant work to address mental health services. However, given that almost two years have now passed, and as Monica Lennon says, this predates Covid-19, it is important to assess what progress has been made. The petitioner not only raises the issue of suicide prevention, and, in her submission, she also addresses problems accessing appropriate child and adolescent mental health services for a family following a partner's death. I think that that is really important to note. The committee, I believe, should consider pursuing this further in any correspondence with the Scottish Government. I think that we should write to the cabinet secretary seeking an update on progress on the suicide prevention action plan. I think that we should get an update on the distress brief intervention programme expansion and whether the Scottish Government is on track to achieve its 20 per cent reduction by 2022 target. I think that that is really important. If I can just add finally, it may also be worth contacting stakeholders such as Sam H, the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland and also Samaritan Scotland and others to get their views. I would like to take this wider because, as Monica Lennon says, this is a crisis and it is not going to go away. It predates Covid-19, so we do need to take action. For just finally, the petitioner's submission also refers to delays in child and adolescents mental health services for self-harming behaviours. I did note that as well as minimal support for her autistic child. I believe that it would also be appropriate to follow up on those issues, so that is my recommendation. I would like to echo the moving testimony from Monica Lennon in representing her constituent on the issue, because it was an incredibly touching issue. I think that we have all had interactions with constituents and others in the past where the same themes are repeated. When people feel they are in a crisis situation, the help is not there. That is a fairly devastating realisation for a lot of people who just kind of assumed that if the worst came to the worst, someone would be there to help. I echo the points that Tess has made about the need to widen the investigation and inquiry, which I think is useful, and we should pursue that. I would also suggest that we include prisons in the scope of that, because one of the experiences that I have had—relative recently—in visiting Barlinnie was the mental health crisis in the midst of our prison system, where, effectively, people who are suffering severe mental disability or mental health problems are incarcerated in conditions that are not appropriate for their condition. Effectively, people who are suffering acute mental illness are being warehoused in prisons. That is an element of this that needs to be discussed as well. I would suggest that we include the Scottish Prison Service and the organisations that we are seeking to invite to discuss this with us. David Torrance, do you want to— Thank you, convener. I agree with my colleagues, but I wonder if we could ask a health, social and sport committee if this is going to be in their work programme. It might be best suited for them to take the petition on and take it forward that way. I still agree with what we could write and get the information back from all the different, but if they are going to dedicate their time to it, there is no point to committees doing it. If they are going to do it, I would like to see it passed on to the health, social and care and sport committee. In relation to that, my concern about this and going back to Monica Lennon's point is that if we pass it across to another committee, it is important that we receive their review and it does not get lost. This is a crisis. We cannot just kick it into the long grass. It is really important that the committee sets a date when it reviews if that is the joint view of the committee. It should not and must not be lost. If I can sum up, David Torrance's suggestion is one that we should very much keep in mind, but in the first instance, I think that David Torrance is agreeing with colleagues, we will write and seek the information that you have suggested and other colleagues have suggested as well to see what the status of all that is. I quite like to have those questions framed, asking for a candid assessment of what the Covid pandemic has actually done to where things were before it happened, what impact that has had on the delivery of anything and what steps are being taken if that has been prejudicial to get things back on track. I do not particularly want just to be told in response to our inquiry. Of course, we have had a pandemic. We all know that we have had a pandemic. I do not need to be told that. What I would like to know is a candid understanding of what impact the pandemic has had and what plans are now in place to resolve that in relation to all the questions that we are putting. Otherwise, there is a potential for us to get something back telling us what we already know when I would rather try to find out what we are going to do about that. We will keep the petition open. Thank you very much, Monica Lennon, for joining us. Are you quite happy with the course of action, as we have suggested? Yes, I am very grateful to colleagues for their considered thoughts today. I think that Tess White has mentioned some of the work that is already being done around suicide prevention and distress brief interventions. I am very troubled when we look at young people in particular, that the CAMHS waiting lists are at their highest ever. Just saying what is a pandemic is not a good enough answer. We need to know what plans are in place. It has been important to have the discussion today because people are contacting us, the Parliament, looking for action and support. As I said, it is not about sympathy. In one word, it is about how we deliver system change. If the Health and Sport Committee has an interest too, that would be very welcome, but I really appreciate the insight and interest from the committee today. Okay, thank you all very much. Our next petition is petition number 1872 to improve the reliability of island ferry services. I might cheekily say our last new ferry having been launched in 1872, but I won't. This has been launched by Liz McNichol. The petition is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently ensure that all islanders have access to reliable ferry services. In its written submission, the Scottish Government outlines action that is being taken in the short and the long term to add resilience to the ferry fleet. This includes exploring opportunities to charter vessels to add resilience in the short term, as well as its long term commitment to secure replacement vessels, noting several on-going projects. The SPICE briefing highlights the major inquiry undertaken by the Scottish Parliament's Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee towards the end of session 5 into the construction and procurement of ferry vessels in Scotland. The report was published on 9 December last year and produced a range of recommendations, including calls for improvements in the strategy for the replacement of ageing vessels in the ferry fleet. Furthermore, in its session 5 legacy paper, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee drew several issues concerning ferry's policy to the attention of its successor committee. Those are the submissions and evidence that we have. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that this petition sits with another committee. They have been investigating it quite a lot on its high on their agenda, so I add under rule 15.62 of standing orders to refer it to a net zero and energy and transport committee. On the basis that it can be taken into account as part of its on-going review of ferry services, they are already in detail looking at it. Does that meet with the approval, okay? We will refer this petition to that committee. Petition 1873 to provide hypnotherapy for the treatment of mental health, psychosomatic disorders and chronic pain. This new petition has been lodged by Graham Harvey in behalf of the Scottish Hypnotherapy Foundation. The petition is calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instruct the NHS to provide hypnotherapy for the treatment of mental health, psychosomatic disorders and chronic pain. In its submission, the Scottish Government recognises that hypnotherapy may offer relief to some patients but that it is up to individual NHS boards to decide which complementary and alternative medicines services are made available. However, the submission states that hypnotherapy does not meet the standard of evidence required for recommendation for use as a psychological treatment on the NHS. Similarly, on the issue of addressing chronic pain, the submission points to the Scottish Intercollegiate Network guidelines, which states that no good quality studies were identified to evaluate the efficacy of hypnotherapy and that further research is required. In response, the petitioner suggests that the main issues are lack of regulation and lack of research. The petitioner explains that the hypnotherapy is not regulated because the UK Government decided that it is a safe modality and self-regulation should be sufficient. Do we have any comments or suggestions from colleagues? I should say having been on the petition's committee previously, I am always slightly suspicious when the establishment tries to close any of those things down. On the basis that there is not evidence, because without research and trials, there will not be any evidence. I am always slightly nervous about that being the basis in which we agree not to do anything. I wonder whether there is something more that we could do to try to evidence any research from wherever it might be available. Do you have any comments from colleagues? Paul Sweeney? One of the recommendations is that it is up to individual health boards to determine the proponess of that service provision. Perhaps it may be worthwhile as inviting each of the health boards to make submissions to see what their view is of provisions within their health board area. I think that that is a very good idea. I would be very interested to see if there has been any enlightenment in the various health boards in relation to all alternative medicines and other therapies. I seem to recall from a previous petition that it was a very variable practice. In fact, some health boards subcontracted the work to other health boards or used the facilities, for example, at the time the Centre for Chronic Pain or whatever it was that the Greater Glasgow Health Board had. I think that it would be useful to get a status on where other health boards see. I just wonder if there is anywhere that we could go to to try and find if there is any evidence around that. Could I ask the clerks to pursue that? It seems to me that when we are simply told that the evidence is not there, where can we go to try and find any evidence? Bill Kidd? None of us here, to my knowledge, has a medical qualification to be able to decide on for our own benefit. Never mind anybody else's as to whether hypnotherapy could be used in these manners. On that basis, yes, I do believe that it is important that we take some advice from experts in the field. I think that it would be useful to do that, as well as following up on what Paul Sweeney has suggested, which is inviting health boards to give us their viewpoints as to what they want or how they handle such issues. As health boards and whoever it would be through the clerks, please, we could find expert opinion. That will give us a direction to go on, because otherwise we will just have to accept that there is nothing that can be done. Possibly there could be something that could be done, but we just do not know. No, thank you for that, Bill Kidd. I should say that I sit in the cross-party group in chronic pain, and I come across people for whom some of these alternative approaches have clearly had a benefit, but it is sometimes not clear talking to the medical establishment that they accept that it has. I note that the UK Government regards it as a safe modality and that self-regulation should be sufficient. Is there anybody in the UK Government? We might be at a department there, as to what they have done to come to that conclusion. We are happy to try to establish different routes that we could pursue and keep the petition open. Petition number 1874, to introduce legislation to create artillery and firearms exclusion zones around places of spiritual importance and religious worship. This has been lodged by Dr Conrad Harvie, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to create as stated. In its submission, the Scottish Government outlines the principles that determine what types of development require planning permission, how applications are considered and the conditions and mitigations that can be applied to when granting planning permission. The Scottish Government states that planning decision takers already have the ability to consider and control noise in a way that reflects the particular circumstances of any proposed development. It also believes that a five-mile exclusion zone around existing places of worship would be a comparatively blunt approach to controlling noise-generating developments. In his response, the petitioner reiterates his belief that it is inappropriate to have a shooting rage within five miles of an established cathedral temple, synagogue, mosque or monastery. Again, anybody like to offer a view? I think that there is robust legislation within the planning system and the planning is down to local authority, so I think that it is up to them and they have knowledge about it. I do not know how you are ever going to enforce a five-mile zone around any cathedral, religious place of worship. I have heard about it right now in Carcody just now. There are loads of churches and there is a gun range at the back of town. Five miles would take us to Kinghorn. I think that that is an impossible ask of the petitioner. I am in mind to close it down under standing rule 15.7 of standing orders because there is in place enough legislation for the local planners to decide. I think that the Scottish Government's submission makes clear that it has no current plans to review or amend the legal and policy frameworks around which any of those would operate, so I am minded to support Mr Torrance's recommendation. Are we agreed? We are. Petition 1875 is a public inquiry into the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the SQA. The next petition is lodged by Jordan Anderson and it calls upon the Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the SQA during the academic years 2019-20 and 2021. The papers that we have received explain that the Scottish Government has committed to establishing a public inquiry into the response to Covid-19, which will be comprehensive. In its submission, the Scottish Government advises that in 2020 it commissioned a review to provide it with a better understanding of how the school curriculum is designed and identify areas of improvement. The remit of the review, which was conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was expanded from an initial review of the senior phase curriculum to a full review of the curriculum for excellence. The resulting report was published on 21 June this year and that day, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills confirmed that the Scottish Government accepted all of the review's recommendations. It has also stated that the Scottish Qualifications Authority will be replaced and Education Scotland substantially reformed. The petitioner states that the replacing of the SQA is not enough in itself and that a public inquiry is needed. Do members have any comments or suggestions to make? Thank you, convener. I would just like to say that the past two years have been extremely challenging for teachers and pupils. It has been compounded by very poor communication from the SQA and uncertainty over exams and concerns over results. I would welcome clarity from the Scottish Government on whether the Covid-19 public inquiry will include the award of educational qualifications between 2019 and 2021. I remain concerned, particularly as the SQA is to be replaced, that scrutiny of the issue may fall through the cracks, so I would like to say that that is very important. It must not fall between the cracks. I think that there are systemic issues that need to be thoroughly investigated, particularly around the effect of the moderation of examinations, the pandemic, particularly in 2020. The exam diet threw up huge issues with gross inequality. In fact, it was a postcode lottery that determined what grades you would be getting, even though the performance academically was the same. We need to seriously investigate the fundamentals of the exam system and how it is operating in Scotland. This is a worthwhile exercise, so I would be in favour of writing to the Scottish Government on that basis. When we write to the Scottish Government, could we just make sure that we clarify whether the public inquiry into the response to Covid-19 will include the SQA in its remit? Given that that public inquiry is taking place, it is perfectly reasonable to see whether—and it is now to be a comprehensive review—it is perfectly reasonable to see whether that issue could be incorporated into that inquiry. Petition 1877, to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff, has been lodged by Alex Wallace. The petition is calling on the Scottish Government to urge the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics. The Scottish Government has stated that it does not believe that body cams would be necessary or appropriate for all front-line clinical staff, as the safety risks would vary considerably in different job roles. The submission highlights that the Scottish Ambulance Service has advised that there has been no appetite from trade unions to provide body cams and that attacks and paramedics in Scotland have decreased in recent years. A feasibility study that was conducted by the Scottish Government believes that the cost of that proposal would be prohibitive for health boards and not provide value for money. Do colleagues, members of comments or suggestions? Thank you, convener. Consider the evidence from the Scottish Ambulance Service and the trade unions involved with him and the Royal College of Nursing to say that they do not want it. The Scottish Government does not think that it will be value for money and there is no appetite for it, as it says. I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Thank you, convener. Just to state that abuse and attacks on NHS front-line staff are unacceptable. It is worth noting that NHS England has announced in June that thousands of ambulance crews will be provided with body cameras. That is really important to say as part of an NHS crackdown to reduce attacks on staff. They have had successful trials in London and the north-east of England. I propose that, in light of the developments in England, as well as concerns over treatment of front-line NHS staff during the pandemic, it is worth soliciting the views of the Scottish Ambulance Service, the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and the Allied Health Professions Federation. I think that that is really important to not close the petition but to look at it further. As I said, because abuse and attacks on front-line staff are very concerning and completely unacceptable, so we should not close the petition. Except that the Scottish Ambulance Service has submitted a submission to us saying that it does not feel that there is a demand for it. The Government is telling us that. Fair enough. I am quite happy to write to various organisations on this instance. If that is your concern, fair enough, we can do that. Does anybody else wish to comment? We will write to those organisations to see the response that we receive. To investigate a petition number 1878, to investigate prosecutions under the mental health care and treatment Scotland act 2003, petition lodged by Andrew Muir, calling on the Scottish Parliament to investigate why there have been so few prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the mental health care and treatment Scotland act 2003. The issue was raised in petition number 1786 from the same petitioner in February last year, and at the time, the Public Petitions Committee wrote to and subsequently received submissions from the Mental Welfare Commission and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. At the SPICE briefing, we have received highlights that an independent review of mental health legislation is currently taking place and will include a review of practice and compulsory detention care and treatment since the 2003 act came into force. In its submission, the Scottish Government notes that court proceedings under section 315 were taken in respect of 71 charges, which were reported to the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service from 2007-8-2019-20. Out of those, 38 charges led to a conviction. One case was reported to the COPFS on 2018 under section 318 of the act, which resulted in no action due to insufficient admissible evidence. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in relation to the petition? Thank you, chair. I believe that I have received some submission on this regarding the petitioner, who was very keen to address the committee. I would be content for the gentleman to be invited to present to the committee. I understand that, previously, those petitions have been referred to the Mental Welfare Commission, who recommended then closing the case without action. I believe that his concern relates to the Mental Health Act, not having a measure of outcomes that professionals and pharmaceutical companies are held to. On that basis, I would be content with inviting the gentleman to present to the committee, if colleagues are minded to agree. Bill Kidd? I can certainly see that the argument about inviting the petitioner to come along and make a statement. I have to say that, as there are no new substantive issues raised in this petition, as compared to the previous one from the same petitioner, it might be worthwhile to ask the petitioner if he has anything new that he would wish to raise if he came along to speak to us, before we actually have him in to speak to us? I think that it is worth just reminding ourselves that it is not appropriate for this committee to investigate an individual case, and that is quite clearly stated in the guidance in relation to submitting a petition. Evidence submitted in relation to the petitioner's previous petition and from the Scottish Government on the current petition does not appear to highlight any new issues that would merit an investigation into the level of prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the Mental Health, Care and Treatment Scotland act. I think that we might want to try and elicit some further information as to what we could reasonably take forward before we did that. David Torrance? I have to agree with Bill Kidd, my colleague. There is somebody who was sitting at the petitioner's committee before and was taking evidence on this petition. I would like to see if there is any new evidence there before we make a decision. I am could we at the moment write to the Scottish mental health law review seeking an update on its review, specifically in relation to compulsory detention and care and treatment under the Mental Health, Care and Treatment Scotland act 2003. I am aware that there was a previous petition and evidence was taken on it. I understand that the petitioner is keen to speak with us again, but, in the first instance, can we agree that we will write to seek just further clarification of whether there is anything new and substantive that hasn't been made aware, of which we haven't yet been made aware, following the previous consideration of a petition before. Petition 1880, to introduce awareness and practical experience of litter picking and waste separation into the school curriculum. This has been lodged by Calum Edmonds, Susanna Zannata and Tanneth Diggory of Clean Up Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make an appropriate level of daily cleaning part of the curriculum in schools, including litter picking and waste separation. In our submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills explains that the Scottish Government is committed to increasing the prevalence of learning for sustainability within the curriculum, and she states that the Scottish Government supports the ultimate aim behind the petition. It believes, however, that individual schools should determine the precise content of their curriculum and how it is applied to the timetable at school level. Although the Scottish Government would prefer to avoid excessive prescription, the Cabinet Secretary states her intention to share details of the petition, as well as her response with Education Scotland and Keep Scotland Beautiful, to ensure that the issues that are highlighted are taken into account. She will do that in the context of exploring the current programme on litter and waste management to see what can be strengthened within it. The cabinet secretary is keen to take forward the sentiments of the petition. Do any colleagues have any comments? I have been on litter picking movements before, in fact, quite recently. I am perfectly aware that a lot of people of all ages, not just children, are throwing litter down. People will come up and congratulate you, and thank you for doing a litter pick. You will go back to the same area again a week later, and it is covered again in litter, so somebody is doing it. I do not know who it is. I think that the best way to approach this is to increase the awareness of the damage to the community of children through litter. There is something to be taken out of this. I understand that it has been suggested that a 12-week public consultation schedule would take place by the end of the year, and a refreshed strategy will be published early in 2022. I hope that that is going to include those who have petitioned us here in order to develop that strategy. I would like that to be suggested to the Scottish Government. I think that it might be useful, although I agree with the Scottish Government's broad intent, to identify areas in which schools are undertaking very good practical application of teaching. It could be useful to identify and share with the broader education bodies in Scotland. There are pockets of very good teaching in schools. A school in Easterhouse is a project called Nae Strawtaw, and it is all about the whole schools engaged in it. It is an incredibly inspirational exercise. There are examples in Scotland where really good work is being done, and perhaps those should be identified and shared with or tried to transplant the ideas of what they are doing more widely. I was not convinced that the Government's submission was as enthusiastic about doing that as it may otherwise have been. Given the way in which the Government is approaching it and the detailed schedule of actions and the fact that it will share the details of the petition and the Government's response, I am minded to close the petition. It seems to me that that is a package of actions in place, but I agree that there are two actions that we could take from that. One, I think that we could ask the Scottish Government in developing that consultation whether it would be possible to consult with or potentially utilise the petitioners themselves, since they obviously are an organised, interested party. I think that it would be useful to pick up Paul Sweeney's suggestion as well about the best practice and giving that more of a focus, and to do that with the appropriate level of enthusiasm and zest of enthusiasm. Beyond that, given that the Government is going to share the petition and are taking forward many of the aims that are within it, I am minded to close the petition itself. Paul Sweeney? Just to see if the record of the school that I referred to is the Sunnyside Schools Conservation. It is a specialised curriculum that they have developed, and I think that it would be well worth the Government taking action to try and benchmark against that. Which can we draw to their attention? Thank you all very much, we agree. Petition number 1881, longer sentences for pedophiles and sexual predators. This has been lodged by Carol Burns. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the length of time sexual predators serve in jail. In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that the maximum penalty for most serious sex offences, including rape sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault, is life imprisonment. The petitioner's suggestion is that a minimum sentencing of four years in order to provide victims with some peace of mind. The spice briefing notes that on-going work is taking place by the Scottish Sentencing Council to prepare sentencing guidelines, including in relation to rape sexual assault and in decent images of children. I am minded colleagues to write to the Scottish Sentencing Council to seek an update on the progress of its work in that regard, particularly in relation to guidelines on rape sexual assault and in decent images of children. Given that that work is under way, I think that we could usefully receive an update on it. Are we agreed? Tess White. May I also add, convener, that it is very important to follow up that and seek an update? Would it be worthwhile contacting Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland to make sure that we get their views on it? My concern is that their views would not be taken into consideration. That is a suggestion. We can do so, but it is important to note that the Scottish Sentencing Council is currently reviewing the issue itself. In some respects, I would have hoped that we would have been taking evidence from other parties in relation to their consideration of that, but it is nothing to stop us writing to those organisations as well. Position number 1882, to remand anyone charged with a sexual offence against a child. A new petition lodged by Laura Steele, the petition is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that any person charged with a sexual offence against a child is remanded in custody. In its written submission, the Scottish Government explains that the Criminal Proceedings, etc. Reform Scotland Act 2007 forms the basis of the current law in Bail. As a result of this act, there is a general presumption in favour of Bail. The legislation ensures, however, that any individual could be held in remand where there is a substantial risk that they either might abscond or fail to appear at court, commit a further offence or offences, might interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or where there is any other substantial factor that appears to the court to justify keeping that person in custody. The Scottish Government states, however, that the general presumption in favour of Bail is reversed, where an individual is accused of indictment and drugs, sexual violence or domestic abuse offences and they already have a conviction in solemn proceedings on such a charge. In such cases, the presumption is to remand that individual. The Scottish Government's submission also states that the European Court of Human Rights has developed case law that requires decisions on the remand of individuals accused of offences to be made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it would not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate so as to require that all individuals accused of certain offences such as sexual offences to always be remanded in custody prior to trial. Given that background, do any members have comments or suggestions in which case? David Torrance? Considering that the Scottish Government cannot change the law because of case-by-case basis that it has to be judged on, I do not think that there is much that we can do with this because a precedent has been set with European Court of Human Rights. We have got to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Certainly, I think that the fact that the Scottish Government cannot take forward the aims of the petition because it is outwith our legal competence is significant. Are colleagues minded to support David Torrance's suggestion? Thank you. Petition number 1884 is to make whole-plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or alternative funding put in place. That petition has been lodged by Steve Gillan and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole-plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help. In response to the petition, the chief pharmaceutical officer outlines that the regulation, licensing and supply of medicines remain deserved to the UK Government under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That includes the scheduling of cannabis-based products for medicinal use. The chief pharmaceutical officer states that specialist doctors across Scotland have a clear and united view that they would be unwilling to prescribe any CBPMs containing tetra-hydrocannabinol until there is clear published evidence available following a clinical trial. The submission notes that there is currently a lack of data on dosage, toxicity, interactions and monitoring of long-term side effects. However, the chief pharmaceutical officer has been engaging with the development of clinical trials and refectory epilepsy. Additionally, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will be writing to the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to see what additional leverage can be brought to bear on potential solutions, to request an update on the clinical trials progress and to ask the manufacturers of CBPMs who are encouraged to participate in those trials. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I would like to keep the petition open, convener. I think that we should write to the UK Secretary for Health and Social Care just to seek the reviews, especially on the clinical trials and what progress has been made. I know that that affects a range of health complications, which people are saying that it does help them, so I would like to know if it improves the quality of life, if it is going to be made available. This is one of those areas, and I should say that having sat on the cross-party group for chronic pain, I know that there are individuals who will personally testify to evidence that they have heard or are aware of somebody who has benefited under exceptional circumstance. I ask the clerks to think if there are potentially evidence of other countries where this may be an approved procedure and whether there is therefore any body of evidence there, because it is again one of those issues where we are told that the evidence does not exist, but it cannot exist within our own sphere. Obviously, the fact that there are various engagements taking place and potential trials, I think that we should be seeking to find out what we can in relation to those. I am interested in the assertion of the clear and united view, and I wonder if we could pursue that a little bit more directly in relation to specialist doctors saying that they would be unwilling to prescribe. I would like to understand what the reasoning for that would be. Are we happy to pursue that on that basis? I agree. I think that there is also an issue that potentially there is a reconsideration of the regulations around CBD products, although they are currently legal, so I think that the point about the Mistress of Drugs Act is a bit of a red herring in this instance. There needs to be further investigation about safe dosage levels, so there could be elements of clinical trials that could be taken in Scotland, which would be potentially informative. Furthermore, I also think that there has been recently established a cross-party group on medicinal cannabis, so it might be useful for the petitioner to consider participation in that cross-party group as a way of furthering their objectives. I would like to support that and support it keeping it open. Confidentially, a constituent of mine has said that, because it is not regulated, it is taking it for pain relief, but they are having to pay extortionate costs because it is not on prescription. It is much better for something to be examined, looked at and clinical trials. I know that there is a suggestion that the individual's family member takes part in a clinical trial, so keeping it open and having further clinical trials and exploring it further is a good way forward. I think that we should take forward a positive suggestion on the drawing of the petitioner's attention to the new cross-party group that is being established. I take note of Tess White's suggestion. I think that we could write to the chief pharmaceutical officer, as well as just in relation to the family member of the petitioner potentially being eligible to participate in a clinical trial that is being talked about. That would be a useful, productive and proactive suggestion. We will keep the petition open meanwhile on that basis and hear back. We agreed. Yes, thank you. Petition 1886 to establish a specialist paediatric liver centre in Scotland. This is our final new petition this morning, and it is lodged by Ryan Gauran. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a specialist paediatric liver centre in Scotland. In its written submission, the Scottish Government explains that at present there is no specific highly-specialised service, nor is there the clinic expert teased to deliver a paediatric liver transplantation, or complex paediatric hepatobiliary surgery within Scotland due to the specialist training required. NHS Scotland therefore commissions those services from NHS England, and those are delivered at Kings College Hospital London, St James' University Hospital in Leeds and Birmingham Children's Hospital. The submission notes that reimbursement of travel and subsistence for children and their families is the responsibility of the NHS board where the child resides. The Scottish Government states that, based on available data for the last five years, NHS Scotland's national services division has funded an average of five children per year to be assessed and or treated by the specialist paediatric liver services in England. It explains that such a level of need would not be consistent with ensuring that the case volumes that are seen or treated in Scotland would be adequate to sustain a safe, fully-staffed, highly-specialised service, which is something that we have seen across other medical disciplines. In response, the petitioner states that there are significant costs involved when supporting a family member who has been treated so far from home and that that puts more strain on to families. He states that it needs to be easier for families to be reimbursed for those costs and that long-term hospital families need much better support, arguing that the recently launched Young Patients Family Fund does not provide any true form of assistance for travel to other nations. Do members of any comments or suggestions for action? Paul Sweeney, David Torrance, and then Bill Cwyd. Thank you, chair. I think that this has hit on, it has been a really timely petition because it has hit on something that is a gap clearly in thinking and planning. Whilst I respect the issue about the population base being insufficient to sustain such a service consistently, there are only five cases per year that it would not be economically viable nor would it be clinically viable because you cannot sustain the expertise within that throughput of operations. To go to a UK-level centre of excellence makes sense. However, I think that the point about the huge disruption to a family that might cause is a very important one and to figure out how we can provide more robust obligations on the health service to provide sustenance for families facing that disruption. It is very important that that is something that has probably been missed and there should be greater statutory obligations, perhaps, if necessary, on health boards to ensure that families are not discriminated financially because of that. David Torrance, I agree with my colleague Paul Sweeney. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to see whether we can make it easier for reimbursement of all costs for families travelling, because it is difficult enough to see that. Many families will not probably be able to afford it, so I think that we should try to make it easier for them to be reimbursed for the costs of travelling, accommodation and things like that. I would like to see the Scottish Government to do that, so I would like to write to him. I am very happy to take the petition open and proceed on that basis, as suggested. I do think that very often financial reimbursement is stated as something of an afterthought, without proper consideration being given to the mechanisms that will be in place. When health boards take variable approaches to it, it can be particularly complicated or not, depending on the health board concerned. Paul Sweeney. Just for the reflection about the issue of reimbursement, obviously I can say that the people will incur costs, but no many families won't have the cash flow to fund up front. Given that there are increasing latitudes for the Scottish Government to introduce new benefits, for example, under the 2016 act, perhaps there might be a consideration about whether there is a special grant set up for families. Obviously a very small number of families are affected. Maybe there could be a special grant created to support families up front with payments to enable them to travel and to stay in a location that is quite far from home. I'm quite happy in our submission to the Scottish Government where we're asking them to explore options to broaden the scope of what those options might be. I do think that this can hit any family anywhere, depending on where they are. That incurred cost could be much higher or lower, depending on the accessibility. If they have to go regularly and either the reimbursement is slow or they don't have access to funding in order to undertake that, even if it is subsequently reimbursed, that can be very prejudicial when they are already in a highly sensitised area of concern over their child's welfare. I'm quite happy to write to the Scottish Government drawing all that out. I think that the willingness is very often there without a full appreciation of how complicated, nonetheless, the process to access funding can be. I think that we are agreed to proceed on that basis. That was our last petition for consideration this morning, so thank you all very much. I close this meeting of the citizens participation and public petitions committee. Thank you.