 Mwneud. Fy enw i chi'n gwybod i'r 15 ysgolwydag yng Nghymru, ydw i'r cysylltu â'r Cymru yng nghymru yng Nghymru i 2022. Rwy'n gwybod i'n gwybod i'r bywyd o'r defnyddio'r gyfrifadeig dyfodol David Torrance, ond nid yn fawr i gyd wedi'i gael. Mae'n gwybod i'r Ymryd McNeyre MSP i'r ysgolwyd, ac mae'r bydd wedi gael i ddifenio'r Ymryd i'r cyfrifadeig, mae'n gwybod i'r cyfrifadeig. Fy enw i'r cyfrifadeig, Mynd i gynnwys. The first item is given that this is Marie's first appearance with us at the committee. A declaration of interest. I just invite Marie to identify any declaration she would wish to make. Good morning, convener. I can confirm I have no interest to declare. Thank you very much. That brings us then on to item two, which is consideration of existing petitions. We are going to start with petition number 1887 to create an unborn Victims of Violence Act. This is a petition that was introduced by Nicola Murray, and from whom we heard evidence from the last considered the petition. I would just say that our original hope was that we would have been able to convene this further evidence session at our first meeting after the summer recess but it was difficult to get everybody together at the appropriate time. A little bit later than scheduled, we are now considering the petition. It urges the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence, which causes miscarriage. We are joined this morning by Dr Mary Neill from the University of Strath Clyde, Stephen Tidy on behalf of Victim Support Scotland and Marcia Scott on behalf of Scottish Women's Aid, and thank you all very much for coming to speak with us today. Members of a number of questions they would like to explore this morning. If the witnesses are quite happy, we'll move to the first question, and if you could indicate when you wish to speak and I will come to you in turn. I suppose let me just open up the question because we had really, I think, a very compelling evidence session with the petitioner herself. There's quite a bit of further evidence that we want to be able to take, but I think just as a general introductory question, the views of the three of our guests on the evidence on the level and impact of domestic abuse during pregnancy, and would anybody like to just give us some sort of indication of their general feeling on any one of these on this? Yeah, Marcia, if you'd like to give them a first. I don't need to touch. No, your microphone will be operated for you if you're not. Okay, thank you. I think it's not much of a secret that women who are experiencing domestic abuse are at much greater risk when they are pregnant. It's not exactly clear whether that's just because they are more engaged with services than monitor and track the injuries and the abuse that they're experiencing, but there is no question that the data tells us that women who are pregnant who are living with an abusive partner or have an abusive ex-partner are at really high risk of injury and of significant abuse. It's very difficult to get your head around why that's okay. It's domestic abuse and why that's okay is, I suppose, a big question for all of us. I really support NHS efforts to try and identify that abuse, but I think that it's part and parcel of what happens when somebody with a high need for control is involved with somebody who's pregnant. Interestingly, and obviously, these issues will come out in questions that will come forward from my colleagues, but in our evidence with the petitioner, what has been your experience of the degree to which this goes unreported because victims of this violence in the situation in which they find themselves feel it difficult to actually come forward and discuss? I think it's really important to take all of the data about prevalence with a very big grain of salt, I suppose. I think that I've mixed up my metaphors there, but I think one in 12 women who have reported in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey say that they have reported to the police or to the health service, one in 12. So the number of, the amount of unreported abuse is a mountain compared to the rather large 60,000 police calls we have a year around domestic abuse. The barriers to disclosing are massive for women, and we know, for instance, we have routine inquiry in maternity services, and that's a good step forward, but what we don't have are guarantees for women when they disclose that the criminal justice system will respond swiftly and robustly enough to keep her safe, and also if she's financially dependent on the abuser, which is more often the case than not, especially if she's pregnant and mothering, what are our arrangements in place so that she can put food on the table so she can take care of herself and her unborn baby? I think those are just some of the issues, and then we could dive in, and I think that is the elephant in the room here with this bill, which is heartbreaking this story, which is the failure of our system to respond appropriately to perpetrators. Mr Tyde, can I come to you? I support Marcia Grant's comments. I mean, I think that we certainly support lots of people who found themselves subject to domestic abuse, and I think that it is very much an unreported issue, even still, since we have had all the domestic abuse legislation over the recent years. I think that the interesting thing is the Crown Office submission in relation to how many people have actually been charged with an offence relating to a sort of a woman who's been pregnant. That's very small numbers, but what the real picture is, is very much an unknown. Dr Neil? Yeah, I would endorse what both of the other witnesses have said. The only thing that I would add to what Marcia Grant said is that, as well as people who are in already abusive relationships, experiencing an intensification of abuse during pregnancy, there is also some literature that suggests that relationships that haven't previously been abusive can become abusive during a pregnancy, so it's a very vulnerable time. Sorry, can I tease out a little bit more on that final point? The pregnancy leads to a greater instance of domestic abuse. What were the circumstances that would promote that? That's not necessarily clear, but there is definitely some evidence in studies that show that not only does abuse intensify during pregnancy, if it's already present in some cases, it can also begin. Pregnancy can act as a trigger for abuse. So what had been a relationship without abuse can find that the pregnancy itself has been something that has led to that being introduced into the relationship? In some cases, that seems to be the case. Thank you all very much for that opening general point. Mr Ewing, can I come to you? Thank you, convener, and good morning to all the witnesses, and thank you for your evidence thus far. I understand absolutely, Dr Scott, that this is a huge area of concern. The particular aspect that Nicola Murray has asked us to consider is, of course, the proposal that there should be an unborn victim of violence act, and that is her focus. She did give, in her evidence session in June this year, to this committee a very articulate, also very moving and harrowing account of her own experience, where she lost children. She said that she lost a child, I lost children, my children lost siblings, my parents lost grandchildren, and thereafter, the assailant was charged, was convicted of a lesser offence, and fined £300, which obviously rankles, probably, forever. I wanted to ask a few specific questions with that background in mind, because that's what we're specifically asked to do, rather than consider the hugely important, wider issues, which the witnesses have quite rightly talked about. One is the issue of whether or not there should be a new offence, or whether we simply use the existing statutory or common law offence and adapt that to libel, if you like, that the acts of violence have led in a causation to the death of an unborn child. It's perhaps a legal question, so I'm not quite sure if all the witnesses are able to answer it. It may be the crown office and the sentencing council are really the people that we may want to ask this later, but I just wonder what your, each of the witnesses' views are, convener, to that first question. Should there be a specific new act or offence of causing violence to an unborn child, leading to the death of an unborn child, I imagine, in most cases? Or can we use the existing weaponry of offences, statutory or common law? There's a lot to unpack there. The first thing to say is that I'm very strongly of the opinion that there needs to be a new offence. I wouldn't frame it in the terms of the petition. I wouldn't frame it as an unborn victims of violence act and I wouldn't frame it in a way that might suggest that the victim is the fetus and that's something that I'm happy to come back to, but I do think that there needs to be an offence. I think that the law, as it stands, the Domestic Abuse Act that we have and the common law that could be applicable are wholly ill-equipped to deal with it. I think that trying to attach this to existing law looks like and would be tantamount to doing nothing. It would be leaving things as they are, leaving Scotland as an outlier in the UK. Every other jurisdiction in the UK has an offence of this nature. I wouldn't support using that existing offence in the rest of the UK as a template for what we should do in Scotland. I think that we can do a lot better. However, we are an outlier at the moment and not in a good way. If I could just probe you on that. I can understand that if there's an entirely new act, obviously that of itself creates clarity, certainty and draws attention to this particular area. Those would be good things, I think that you're arguing. However, why have you formed the view that the alternative of using the existing measures with the flexibility that is inherent in Scots law, particularly the ability to libel different types of charges of assault or culpable homicide or even murder, the existing common law offences are very flexible and they can be used so that the Crown Office of the Fiscal can libel, as I understand it from my practice of distant memory now, can libel different circumstances in the charge using the flexibility of the court. Why is that not surely it's a matter of will and practice and determination of the authorities to actually follow through and take this seriously that might be the issue here, not the inadequacy of the legal framework that could be used to adapt the existing charges? I begin by saying that I don't think that there should be a completely new act. I would favour an approach that would involve amending the Domestic Abuse Scotland Act 2018. I have favoured that approach since that act was a bill and I proposed at the time that an offence, a new offence should be created as part of that bill, so that's very much the framework in which I think that that belongs. To answer your question, I think that there are numerous reasons why I don't think that trying to use the existing law would be the right approach. One important reason, I suppose, is that if we try to use existing law and other charges and attempt to punish this kind of harm or loss via those charges, it becomes almost secondary and an afterthought. It becomes not the primary harm or loss that the law is focusing on. For a victim, for someone who experiences this kind of harm, I have called it in the past a serious and distinctive loss. It's a very unique type of loss that can only be experienced by somebody who is pregnant. To have that tacked on, if you like, to other charges about the attack on the body of the victim doesn't do it justice. I reiterate that it seems tantamount to doing nothing. It's the status quo. I do think that there's a huge problem about the will to use the law that we have. I'm not probably not the best person to speak to that. I think that someone who represents victims would be better placed to speak to that. There are two separate problems here. There's a problem with what the law does and how the law does not acknowledge and address this kind of harm or loss. There's the separate problem of lack of will. We need to address both of those things. I think that one thing that we need to be careful of, although I'm adamant that we do need a new offence. I think that we need to not let that offence act as a gloss or a mask that distracts us from the other work that needs to be done. That's very helpful. I don't look at the other witnesses have comments. Dr Scott. Yes. I agree with some of what was said and not all, but I suppose that what I would say is that we have the world's gold standard domestic abuse law, according to Evan Stark, which is far from being implemented completely inappropriately. Somebody said in a meeting I was in yesterday that, well, Jen Wallace from Carnegie Scotland has a implementation disorder, and I would say that, well, so do a lot of other countries, but I think that we need to pay really close attention to what is and isn't happening in the implementation of domestic abuse law. One of the most significant features of that law that made it so innovative is that the crime is committed based on the behaviours of the accused, rather than the harm to the victim. We were very much in favour of that, in part because who's at fault here, but also because for decades women and children have been telling us that the process of testifying in court was traumatising as traumatising often as the abuse they experienced. What they would say was if they were calm and in control they were clearly lying, and if they were upset and hysterical they were not reliable witnesses. It was this sense that the severity or the unacceptability of the behaviour of the abuse all rested on the impact on the victim. To come back to your question, I think that the law itself has the tools that we need. The difficulty is the rest of the system. I would say it is a distinct kind of loss and harm alongside a myriad of others that women experience because they're women and the loss of their children, the murder of their children in domestic abuse cases. What we need to do is to fashion a system that responds appropriately to that. I know that that is not your question, but I suspect that it will come up and I am happy to address it then. However, the potential for unintended negative consequences from framing and offence this way are massive for women who are experiencing domestic abuse. I think that the law needs to reflect on the harm that has been caused to the victim of crime. The petitioner who gave her evidence quickly at that time, the law didn't reflect the harm in terms of the sentences that it was given, so I think that the law accurately needs to reflect on the harm that's caused. Whether that be through the sentencing that's handed out, the charges being adequately reflected in the loss of that child, there's a combination of lots of different things that the system should do for victims of crime that perhaps it might not be doing at the moment or didn't in the petitioner's case. Can I ask you a related question, which is that, in Nicola Moray's case and I suspect other cases, the original charge libled was reduced in respect of her particular case and she wasn't aware or consulted about that. Now, of course, the fiscal, the Crown Office are rightly independent of politicians and so on and they have that independence which they cherish, but do witnesses consider that in these particular circumstances there should be a duty, whether created by law or practice, upon a fiscal or lawyer handling, a particular prosecution to consult with the victim prior to the decision being taken to reduce a charge. In the case of Nicola Moray, it was the reduced charge that led to the monetary penalty of £300 and, of course, we have to be very careful of not making judgments about a case because we weren't there, we didn't hear all the evidence the judge does and I don't mean to make any value judgment here, I cannot do that because I'm not in the position to do that, but as a matter of principle, do the witnesses consider that given the gravity of the consequences which Dr Neil rightly described, there should be at least a consultation. The decision making power probably has to rest with the prosecution authorities at the end of the day, but should there at least be a form of consultation required prior to the acceptance of a reduced charge or by the fiscal or the Crown Office. I think there's two issues in what you've raised, the fact of downgrading charges and then the engagement with the complainant. The downgrading of charges in our experience, and the £300 fine, I mean it's that kind of shocking story, we hear those all the time and they reflect a system that starts from the failure to collect the evidence that the Crown Office needs to prosecute on the charges that have been made and then the process of the pressures on the Crown Office to prosecute, but also in a speedy fashion to get cases through. You all will be well aware, I'm sure, of the 40,000 cases in the backlog from the COVID, and then the pressures on the system not to administer custodial sentences because of the prison population, which is a whole discussion, but from our perspective, there's no way of fixing that whole trajectory by just talking more to the complainer. We have to take a look at the whole process that allowed, or that influenced the Crown Office because they don't want lower charges in the grand scheme of things, they look better when they get convictions for more significant ones. So we need to look at the whole process from the beginning of disclosure to collecting of evidence to reporting to the Crown Office. Those are the issues. I totally agree that the failure to speak to the witness, to the complainer, and that's been addressed, I sit on along with the victim support Scotland, the victims task force, and we've been talking about the failure of communication with witnesses, and I know that there's a pilot, and Stephen, you probably know more about this than I do, I think in the Hamilton area, looking at changing the way cases are processed to make sure that the fiscal involved is in communication with the complainer because we hear so many cases where if she's lucky, she meets the fiscal on the day of the trial. I think that intuitively, having read the petitioner's evidence, she clearly experienced that as further trauma, and I think that every opportunity to avoid further trauma to a victim should be taken. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, that the decision about the charges ultimately needs to rest with officials, but that doesn't mean that there can't be communication and there can't be forewarning of the victim in a case like that. So I don't want to dwell on that point, but I would just endorse what Marcia has said about it, and also endorse what you said about where the decision-making power needs to rest, but that we can allow it to rest there while still being compassionate to the victim and avoid re-traumatising her. I would just say that there's a whole problem with the way witnesses and victims are dealt with in the court system in terms of the amount of times currently cases are adjourned. Witnesses and victims prepare themselves to go to court and they're adjourned with very short notice, i.e. they turn up at the court and they're told to go away, maybe after sitting there for a couple of hours, for various reasons. So I think that communication with victims and witnesses needs to be a lot better, and certainly when it comes to individual charges, if they're being lowered, that needs to be communicated in a trauma-informed way to that victim of crime, to have a full explanation, a full rationale as to why that charge, what they expected to be heard, has been lowered. I think that perhaps these are points that we need to pursue with others, namely the Crown Office and the Sentencing Council convener, but that's for a later date. You made reference and Nicola Murray and her evidence made reference to the fact that Scotland stands alone and that there is a far higher level of protection and law, at least or an offence that can be pursued in law elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Given that that sits and exists, what impact has that had on the way that these matters are pursued or the incidents of them elsewhere in the UK? I mean, let's establish, agree, that this does sit apart and there is a separate offence and that therefore can be pursued in that way. What has been the impact of that legislation and those jurisdictions? We're talking about fairly old legislation both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, so in England and Wales it's governed by the 1929 act, the infant life preservation act, which was originally acted for a different purpose, but that purpose is now purely of historical interest and in recent decades that act has been used solely to punish violent men who cause the loss of a pregnancy through their violence in the pregnancy's late stages. In Northern Ireland it's criminal justice act of 1945, which really just transplants the English and Welsh crime into Northern Ireland. They are old laws, but there has been an alarming increase in recent decades in the number of convictions for child destruction, which is the name of the crime in the rest of the UK. There's been an alarming increase in convictions for that crime in recent decades, and we know that the same kind of behaviour happens in Scotland. In the UK jurisdictions where the crime of child destruction exists, that is libled as a separate charge alongside charges such as assault or attempted murder or grievous bodily harm. In Scotland, only the charges relating to the offence on the person of the victim that we have can be charged. There is no additional charge, so it's something in England and Wales in Northern Ireland that's charged over and above assault or attempted murder. We have cases, recent cases in Scotland, with really shocking facts where somebody could have been charged additionally with the crime that I've proposed, but for the fact that we don't have that crime here. Have there led to successful convictions in Northern Ireland and England under those specific provisions of those acts? Yes, people have been charged and convicted with child destruction for committing the kind of behaviour that we're concerned with here. Has that led to, would you say, a different kind of sentencing and consequence? Well, yes, it's something that the person is sentenced for that, as well as whatever else they're convicted for. It obviously adds to the person's sentence. My sentence can run concurrently, so sometimes it's purely expressive, but the law does have an important expressive purpose. The law in the rest of the UK expresses its strong disapproval for this kind of behaviour through the existence of a separate crime. In Scotland, we are not doing that, and I think that we ought to be. Sorry, I don't mean to quantify it in this way, but I'm just interested to know. Does the practice in England and Wales come down to a compensation order in the same way that we have here, or is that...? The crime of child destruction in England and Wales carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison and life in prison in Northern Ireland. Can I just add a couple of things to that? I had a conversation with my counterpart in Women's Aid Federation England to discuss those issues. She related to me that a number, and this relates to what I was talking about, about the completely unintended, but negative consequences potentially here. Talked about women who are actually victims having been prosecuted for child destruction. And since we know our system is far from calibrated appropriately so that women who are actually victims don't get arrested, unfortunately they do still, then if you can imagine what would have a more chilling impact on the possibility of disclosing domestic abuse if you were pregnant than knowing that you might in fact be accused of at best failure to protect the fetus. So I think we need to be very, very cautious about and especially look at what's happening in the United States around some of these laws. The other thing I think is worth pointing out is that our law allows prosecution under the domestic abuse law sentences of up to 14 years, which is far higher than the domestic abuse laws in the rest of the UK. And I don't think that evidence from any of these indicates that we have been particularly effective in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland at reducing perpetration, and that is what we should be looking at, I think. And we can tinker with the laws as much as we want, but if we tinker with them without dealing with the problem, the last time I saw the data, and I think it's slightly different now, but something like 1 per cent of the total of convictions for domestic abuse wind up with a custodial sentence over a year. Okay, and may I just, before I come back to Dr Neil, just when you say that women might potentially find themselves subject to prosecution under the provisions in England, is that a hypothetical or is that something that has happened? No, it's happened. It's happened. Is there a generalized way in which the circumstances of those prosecutions arose? I've reached the limits of what I know. Thank you very much. Dr Neil, you wanted to come back in just on the back of that. Before I do, I can pick up on that point. In England and Wales, there is one prosecution outstanding for child destruction, and it's a woman who's being charged with it. In other cases, I'm not aware of any convictions for child destruction that have involved women in England and Wales, although they could, in theory, be charged. It's very important to say that in Scotland we can avoid the entanglement of this kind of crime with abortion law. The crime of child destruction is messily entangled with abortion law in the rest of the UK, and that's something that we can completely design out of any new law that we enact. The wording that I proposed when I gave written evidence to the domestic abuse bill committee—I think that it was the Justice Committee in 2017—would have completely avoided that. It's very easy to draft a clause or a section that excludes the possibility of criminalising women or their doctors. That's been done in Northern Ireland. The 2020 regulations in Northern Ireland changed the crime of child destruction there so that women and their doctors can no longer be prosecuted for it, and we could easily do that here. We could easily hermetically seal the new crime away from abortion law, away from the possibility of criminalising women. Thank you, convener, and I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. When you've talked this morning, you've touched on the aspect of under-reporting, and the victim is the most important person here. When we had Nicola Murray here and she gave her evidence, she spoke about the difficulties about reporting and the co-operation that is required between the police and the individual who has been abused. She talked about the difficulties that are there and the knock-on effects. We know that Police Scotland has looked at domestic abuse and seen it as a priority, but she also explained that more was required. That could be more training, more support, because she felt that, when it came to coercive behaviour, the police were not as up to what they should be in dealing with that. That was a gap that she identified when, having been abused and trying to progress that, you go to the first authority, which is your place before you then go into the court proceedings. Within that, there seemed to be a gap that she identified herself as being a victim. It would be useful to see what your views are on that, because, as I said, there is a role for Police Scotland to manage the situation and support the victim. As Mr Tide knows, the victim is the most important. We acknowledge that, but that may not always be the case when it comes to how they are managed and how they are processed by the authorities who are there to protect and support them. That was a gap that she saw, and it would be good to hear your views on that. Just as close as possible, I was a police officer for 20-odd years. I retired last year, so I am fully aware that police do not always get it right in terms of the information and support that they provide to victims of crime. What I would say is that there are other organisations such as Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid, which can fill that support gap potentially for victims of crime and provide that emotional and practical support to victims of crime, even if they have not reported to the police. I know that Nicola mentioned that in her evidence to ourselves that she felt that there was very limited support available to her, but there is support, and I would advertise the services that are available to victims of crime to support them, whether they have reported to the police or not. The training aspect for Police Scotland is one that is ever-evolving, because the law is constantly evolving and there is always new legislation coming out, and trying for a police officer to keep up-to-date with all of that legislation requires a lot of training, a lot of investment and time for officers to keep themselves up-to-date, but they should provide that factual information to victims of witnesses, but then there are other organisations such as ourselves that can provide that other support, and if victims feel that they have a knowledge gap, that can be filled by our services as well. I am not quite as kind. Although I have to say that there are a number of things to say here. First of all, I did speak with a police officer at a strategic level prior to coming here about what the tools were that they had for gathering evidence and reporting to the Crown Office, the kind of experience that Nicola Murray recounts. The response I got was frustration at the failure of the system to use its tools appropriately. She said that there are charges existing, assault with severe, leading to severe injury. The question however that I think is really important here is the comments about coercive control and the ability of police officers to identify that. We know that coercive and controlling behaviours are the single variable that most predict lethality, so if there is nothing else that is really critical that police officers should be identifying are their coercive and controlling behaviours being exhibited by the potential accused. We know that, and this makes me very unpopular when I say this, but we know that the existing risk assessment, which is the dash RIC that is used by first responders and police, in the hands of those who are not dealing with domestic abuse cases all the time, is insensitive to coercive and controlling behaviours. What we have is a risk assessment that essentially privileges physical violence, and since that's the background that most police officers also come from. We have a system here that has a law that says you must pay attention to these things, but they really don't see those things many times, or if they do there's a hierarchy of harms, and if there is a physical assault they're much more likely to focus on that. So I do think, I think there's a training issue, I think there's a problem with the existing risk assessment, and the College of Policing has done some really interesting research about how to adjust the way the dash RIC is used so that it becomes more sensitive to coercive control, but also it's about gender. Police officers need to understand what the impact of being a woman who's being abused, who's subject to coercive and controlling behaviours, who has potentially had a miscarriage prior to this, who's been said, why didn't you just leave, and why would she disclose, she didn't get out the first time. I just think that there's a whole set of factors in the system that need improvement, but starting with being able to identify coercive and controlling behaviours is critical. I would endorse that last point wholeheartedly. It is imperative that we become better at identifying coercive control, and in the wording that I submitted as a suggested draft clause in 2017, I specifically mentioned coercion as one of the things that could be the underpin a charge of that kind, because I feel very strongly about the importance of coercion too. I don't have a lot to add on the question that you asked directly, but as a kind of tangential, but still I think important point, I would just want us to remember that there are also other crimes with primarily women victims that are under reported, that are difficult to persuade people to come and give evidence about, that are prosecuted with varying levels of success, but which we don't suggest shouldn't be crimes for those reasons. Just because something might be difficult to prosecute, because it might be difficult to get a victim to report, because it might be traumatic for a victim to report it and go through that process, we don't say that rape shouldn't be a crime, and likewise with this. You have all identified that the victim in this whole process is the person who has to go through that trauma again, and again if they are indicating when the processing is through to the court situation or the circumstances, they are being once again abused in another way, or they believe that that becomes the situation, it re-emerges and their whole situation re-emerges. I think that that's another big issue that we need to think about as to how that is managed, how the person is supported, and you've identified the training requires to take place, but at the same time the focus should be on the victim to make sure that the victim is getting the support mechanisms that she requires by the agencies that you provide that to ensure that they have the confidence, because what we're hearing here is that women don't have the confidence of what's happening with the police at times, they don't have the confidence because they feel that they're going to have to go through this trauma once again, and that stops them from dealing with the situation and circumstances and ending up staying in the relationship for some extent, because they feel that they can get out of it, and the coercive behaviour continues because they're financially bound or they've got situation circumstances that they can't leave. We try really hard not to frame it as a problem with the victim, so it's not about her lack of confidence, it's about the fact of what we know from libraries of qualitative evidence about how victims and survivors make decisions about when and where and to whom to disclose, is that it's a very complex calculation of risk, so if they choose not to disclose it's very often because their assessment is it will put them in more danger than they are already in, and I think it's really important that we, because I think people think it's a self-esteem issue, what's not, it's about a calculation of risk. Paul Sweeney, who is online, is going to ask a couple of questions. Thank you, convener. I think that it's very compelling evidence from the panel so far in regards to the need for this, and particularly around the issue of fair labelling. I think that that is actually a doomly, compelling point that's been made as well today. I noted that Dr Mary Neil had mentioned that she had drafted the clause in 2017. I suppose that in terms of trying to reach a set of firm proposals about how to take this forward, what remedy would be satisfactory to the panelist? I know there's been discussion about having a statutory aggravator that can be coupled with a more general offence as a potential remedy. Is that something that would be satisfactory? In terms of a specific offence, it's an opportunity to consider the Scottish law commission's current projects. They're currently doing two projects, one on homicide and one on aspects of family law, which come close to the topic in the petition, but neither actually covers the issue raised. Could those projects be adjusted in scope to incorporate the issue? Perhaps there are other proposals. There could be a member's bill that an MSP could bring forward in that sense, if there was support in terms of the drafting of it. I just wonder if any of the panellists have thoughts about potential options to take this matter forward in a practical sense. Dr Neil. The first point that I would make is that, in my written evidence in 2017, I included a statutory aggravator alongside the proposal for a new crime. I proposed both a new crime and a statutory aggravator whereby the pregnancy of a victim would aggravate the offence of domestic abuse. That was to capture situations where a pregnancy hadn't been lost or where it was impossible to prove causation in terms of the loss and the abuse. Just so that across the board, if somebody abuses somebody, the victim's pregnancy aggravates the offence. That's the first point. The second point about how to go about enacting a change. The idea of a member's bill doesn't appeal to me personally at all, because we don't need a standalone act. All we need to do is amend the Domestic Abuse Act. I think that that would be smoother. It would be the most legally coherent way to affect the change that's needed. It would lead to a more—by no means a comprehensive domestic abuse law, but a more comprehensive domestic abuse law than we have at the moment. It's very important that framing and labelling are all very important here. It's very important that this new crime be framed as part of the law of domestic abuse to avoid some of the fears that people legitimately have about fetal rights or who's the victim here. Framing it within the law on domestic abuse underscores that. I don't think that a member's bill would be the right way to go, because we don't need a standalone act. With a member's bill, the member becomes the face of the issue. That's probably not important here either—not appropriate here, sorry—because I think that the focus has to be on those who we're trying to serve with this. I think that the law commission finally to come to that. The law commission does excellent work in all of these areas, and certainly I think there could be a really interesting academic project for somebody to make comparative international studies of the laws and various jurisdictions. When it comes to that particular issue, I think that the direct and most relevant comparison is with the rest of the UK. I think that we have all the information that we need on that. As someone who's been immersed in all of that for a number of years now, I think that we have the information that we need. We know that we are an outlier. There's nothing to stop us acting now. I don't think that this needs to be incorporated into a Scottish Law Commission's work programme that's run for five years. I think that that could be seen as long-grassing the issue, and I wouldn't want that perception to be created. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment on Mr Swinney's question? I think that the idea of an aggravation is very interesting. We have concerns about the way that the existing child aggravation is working. But I think that reflects some of the concerns about the rest of the system that I've already shared. I do think that there's an opportunity that amendments to the bill would be an opportunity to take a look at this aggravation, at an aggravation, about the way we frame children in the bill, which was not what we wanted. It turned out that we were right. It's not working very well. Take a look at some other opportunities for us to improve it. I think that exploring an aggravation in this situation, in part because whatever the causal links are, we do know that pregnant women are very overrepresented, I suppose, in the injuries and harms to victims' data. Thank you, convener, and thank you to the contributors. I think that that's a really helpful contribution, just to try to hone in on what practical measures would be most effective. I think that the point about the law commission is helpful, as well as the route of the member's bill. I think that your reasoning is good there. I think that I agree with that. If we already have a shovel-ready or pre-built solution, how best do you see it being taken forward? With the Government, we have to be persuaded to adopt this measure and use Government time to see it through. Is that what we need to focus on? Is that a clear action, as a committee, to try and affect that? Is that the best way forward? I should also say sometimes with members' bills that the bill itself is the catalyst that leads to the Government adopting the proposal, rather than the bill itself. It's very difficult sometimes to quantify the success of members' bills, because, on quite a few occasions, the objective is achieved because the Government understands and adopts the issue. What are you thinking of, Mr Sweeney's point there? One of my main anxieties around a member's bill is first the optics of it, the idea that it becomes the issue of a named individual MSP. Another anxiety that I had was about the prospect of success. Obviously, the committee will know far more about that procedure than I do. I would defer to your knowledge about what is the most likely way of doing that successfully. We would also support the domestic abuse act, which is probably the most appropriate vehicle for that. However, what I would also say is that the sentencing guidance guidelines may be more an immediate target for amending and changing. I know that they are going to consult in the near future on guidance in relation to that, so we would certainly be supporting that being looked at in terms of the guidance for judges. I agree that, obviously, those are not mutually incompatible solutions. We can pursue a number of solutions at the same time, and each of them might be serving complementary purposes. I would be in favour of a multi-pronged approach to that. I should also say that, wearing another hat, I know that there are currently 19 member's bills. It is a record number by this stage in a Parliament, and we are already probably at the point where it is unlikely that any further bills will have much prospect of success before 2026, which is quite alarming. Mr Ewing just finally— I just wanted to ask Dr Neil, given that, as she said, she has been immersed in this, and you have alluded very helpfully to practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, if she may be encouraged to submit any further material that she thinks may be helpful to guide our deliberations on this, because, plainly, the experience in England and Wales where there is a specific statutory offence in Northern Ireland is relevant, and the more information we can glean, convener, about how that compares with what has happened here, the better, I think, for us in guiding our deliberations. We will reflect on these matters further at the sub-secretary committee, but I think that, possibly, the committee could agree now that we might want to write to one or two organisations just to find out a little bit more about the experience in England and Wales and Northern Ireland just to help inform us. We are coming to our conclusion. We have gone a little longer, but it has been a very interesting discussion. Is there anything, finally, that any of our witnesses this morning might want to add that maybe they feel that we have overlooked in our conversation? No. In which case, thank you all very much, that has been hugely valuable to us as a committee considering the issues of the petition. I am very grateful to you for your time this morning. Colleagues, you are content that we consider the evidence of fresh at a future committee meeting, and I will therefore suspend the meeting briefly. Hello again. Our second petition this morning is petition number 1871, a full review of mental health services, led by Karen McEwen on behalf of Shining Lights for Change. Before I proceed, I wanted to say that, in a moment, we will be discussing suicide and other challenging topics. If you are joining our proceedings this morning and should you, while watching, know of anyone who is struggling the NHS 24-7 mental health line can be reached by dialing 111. The petition calls 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. We are joined by Karen McEwen this morning. The committee does not routinely hear from petitioners, however, we were very certain that we felt that it would help us to have a proper understanding of these issues by having Karen with us and an opportunity for her to speak to the committee about why her petition is important. We really do thank you very much for coming through to Holyrood today and taking the time to speak to the committee. She is joined by our parliamentary colleague Monica Lennon, Monica, good morning, who, I want to say, has a season ticket to the committee, but she may have got a bus pass to her at the very least, and a Sidious supporter of petitions, who spoke support of the petition when we first considered it some time ago. We will have an opportunity to invite Monica to contribute to our proceedings after the conclusion of questions that may have come from the committee. Before we do, is there anything that you would like to say? I suppose that my introductory paper would be to ask you—question would be to ask you if you would like just to talk about your own experiences and why you have highlighted those and brought them forward in the petition as you have. That is thanks very much. I would just like to thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity to give evidence in person and to thank Monica for her continued support from the very start. Today I am here to be Luke's voice. It is not about me, it is about Luke. My partner Luke Henderson, sadly, took his own life on 29 December 2017 after we asked for help eight times a week before his death. We were begging for help and Luke was begging for help. He did not want to die, but he just felt as if there was no other choice, because there was nowhere that was offered as help. He was very unwell and he was having visual and audio hallucinations, but as I said, no one would help us. Every door was closed on our faces. We were at a loss of what to do and I was that worried and concerned that I stayed awake to try and keep him safe at the detrimental to my own health. I woke up on that dreadful night to find the love of my life, my soulmate and best friend dead. Our two children had to be carried over their dad's lifeless body with tiles over their head by the police. The effects of the 29 December will be forever in our hearts and our lives. The events of that night turned our lives upside down and we felt pain we never thought was imaginable. We now have to live our life without looking at it and we've got so many unanswered questions, pain, guilt and the frustration of being let down. My own mental health has suffered and I have now become a shelly person. What support have I had for my NHS? Very little that I haven't had to fight for myself. That's why in the 2018 action plan it says that there should be more support for people that's been affected by suicide and then again in the 2022. I've seen no evidence of the support. I've not received any of the support and nor has my kids. I've had to fight for everything that every single bit of support I've got. I'm not telling you this today to get sympathy. I just want to share a wee bit of what life's like for me. I haven't lived with this pain for my family and I'm not alone. There are many people out there that feel the exact same way as what I do, that feel let down and that are supporting this petition and that these people are very happy to speak to the committee separately as well. We all feel failed and we've all got a common goal for reform and change. Just to address some of the issues that I feel that's gone wrong with the 2022 suicide action plan, it repeats many of the aims of the 2018. However, my question is this, how are those aims and goals assessed? How do we know that those policies that are in place are working? We don't because there's no assessment process in place. We need to find out what's working, what's not working, where funding needs to go and what services are doing good that we can try and implement throughout the fully Scotland. What I would like to mention is a welcome introduction, addiction and inequalities in the suicide plan, which is well overdue and should have happened many years ago. Recently, through my own research, through freedom of information act, I've mainly focused on NHS Lanarkshire. Previous evidence that I've submitted was regarding the amount of beds that there was in NHS Lanarkshire. I asked further questions and there is only 113 general and acute mental health beds, so that's people in crisis who need this support, can't get the support because of the lack of beds. That is in an area of over 600,000. How can you compare the amount of beds to the amount of people? It's just not possible. In 2022, 71 suicide reviews were carried out, which meant 71 people took their own lives while they were open to mental health services. That just isn't good enough. Waiting times are far too high. Cam services in Lanarkshire, the longest waiting time is 904 days, so that's a child waiting 904 days to get the mental health support that they need. That's just not good enough at all. That could be a result of the lack of staff numbers, because through my freedom of information act, some of the teams in Lanarkshire have half the staff numbers that they're meant to have. That has a knock-on effect on the staff themselves, causing high burnout rates. It also puts people off coming into the profession. Staff do not feel supported. They're having a hot desk, they're having to do the work for free people and they're not getting supported by management or government. I would ask yous to call for evidence from staff so that it's done anonymously, so that they can be honest in what is actually happening in the front line, because what's down in paper and what's happening in the front line is two different things. It's not transpiring. Mental health failures can go back decades, even back to the First World War when it first became a thing. It's always been a Cinderella service of the NHS for many years, and although there has been more funding, it's still not equal in physical health. There's lack of beds, train staff and services available for people. My whole aim today, and with calling for a review of the mental health service, is that I believe that the only way to determine if public money has been spent wisely is to carry out a review. The only way to determine whether risk assessments are working is to carry out a review, because I don't believe they are, as my partner was put at a low risk of suicide, even though past risk assessments, just with his history, put him at a high risk, or so that time before his death, how he was low risk, I don't know, and they can be manipulated. Accident and emergency is not appropriate for people to go in mental health crisis, as we all know at any waiting times, or through the roof. It's just not viable for somebody who's struggling to sit there for 11 hours while they're trying to get mental health support. That's why I would love to see a separate, either hub or separate, accident emergency somewhere in the hospital that people can go and get immediate attention and the help that they need and require at that time. That would also have a positive effect in the NHS, in the waiting times, as so many people go through A&E with mental health that was documented in one of my previous submissions. My final point today, because I could go on all day about the different failures, is mental health shows no discrimination on age, sex or gender, and at this point any one of us could be sitting in the same position that I'm sitting in today. Anybody in this country could, one in four people, suffer from mental health, so it's highly likely that one of us, one of yous, will feel the same one day. Nowhere in mental health seems to be getting it right. That's from the community, the prison service, and the military, ex-military and our youths. In our youths, our future, we need to protect them and we need to get it right for them. I plead with you, I plead with the committee, to please call for a review of the service, please call for evidence from staff, and call for evidence from the public to see where they feel let down so that yous can see what's transpiring in the front line is completely different from what's on the suicide plans. Thank you very much, that's very helpful. I know that Alexander Stewart is going to pursue the scope of the review that you would like to see in just a moment. I just ask—obviously, we are new to this as a petitions committee, but I understand in the previous session of Parliament that you were able to bring forward a petition at that time, too. I just wanted to understand in your own mind what the differences are in relation to the petition that you brought then and the petition that you're bringing now. I wouldn't say there's many differences. What I would say is the things that I had asked for in that petition have not been completed. I do not say they put in place a hub, and how that transpired was that it was the NHS 247 that has dedicated mental health advisors that you can call up, but you don't see anybody. This was a service that was used when, look, I had called this service and spoke to the mental health nurse, and I know that service doesn't work. In order for them to be able to assess look, they have to be able to see how he's presenting to see if he's responding to voices, because you can't do that over a phone. If he's saying, oh, I'm not hearing voices, when you're assessing someone in person, you can see whether they are responding to voices or not. Okay, thank you. In a sense, whatever assurances or conclusions that were drawn when the petition was considered in the previous Parliament, the delivery of that, the execution of any of that has fallen short or has not materialised such that these issues need to be brought back into the centre of our attention again. Is that essentially the reason? I also think that mental health is bad before Covid. Covid has highlighted a lot of the failures and a lot of negative things towards mental health, and it's only continued to get worse, and it's only continued to get worse until we get social policy reformed. Thank you for your evidence and the courage that you've had to say what you've said today. You talk about the failures being abandoned and being let down by this whole process, and you want to see a change and you want to see a review. There already are some areas that the Scottish Government has put in place already, and you're probably well aware of those. We talk about the suicide prevention, and we've also got the Scottish mental health law review report. You've probably seen all of those, but what would you like to see? You've talked about today some of the experiences of individuals, and as we know, men seem to be a much larger percentage who do have suicide situations and circumstances, but you've touched on what you would like to see the review deal with. It would be just to go back over slightly where you think the gaps are and where you would see that review progressing. I think that there's a lot of gaps in the system, so we'll go right from the start, from early intervention. Education has to be a big part of that for our youth. Our youth need to know that it's okay to talk, that it's okay to feel, not okay, because they don't act the minute, like my own daughter. The first time she heard mental health was only after her dad died. Tool should be taught in school so that youth understand those feelings and that they are okay. That starts off with the early intervention, and then we can come on to the brief intervention. This is a service that is for mild to moderate mental health conditions. That's not where it's been used for. People in crisis have been sent to this. People in crisis have been sent towards apps, which thousands of pounds have been spent on apps. I've had a look at those apps myself, and there's no way they help me, never mind someone in crisis. Once we get to being in crisis and getting into the service, the waiting times, we can't get into the services because of the waiting times. I wasn't able to get adult services waiting times. I wouldn't have managed to get calms, and I think I was shocked at 904 days was the longest waiting time in Lanarkshire, and that would probably be across the board. More needs to be done in terms of that. Staff need to be more supported. Staff aren't being supported. They're having a hot desk, and it's getting to the stage where I've spoken to many staff who have left the NHS to go on to office jobs because they just can't take the stress and pressure anymore. A lot needs to be focused on supporting the staff. Coming to crisis point, I feel that there's a lot of gaps with crisis because going and sitting in an accident emergency for hours while you're in a psychosis, while you're hearing the hallucinations or visuals, how can they sit in that environment when accident emergency waiting rooms are very busy? It's unrealistic, it's harmful to them, it's harmful to the public, so I think that we need to see a separate, either a hub accident emergency, a separate entity where people can go and receive crisis support for their mental health, the same way as they can do physical health. The Scottish Government has the new suicide prevention strategy that has been launched and that is their blueprint as to what they want to see happen. Do you have any confidence in that strategy? If the 2018 plan didn't work, which they had put in place, which has pretty much got the same goals, the only difference is that they have included inequalities and addictions. There is a link between addictions in mental health, which has been ignored for many years and it's just progressed at worse and worse and worse. That is a positive from that plan, but let's see how it transpires to the front line. Who should the Scottish Government be talking to? Who should it be taking evidence? You have given some compelling evidence as an individual who is experienced to trauma, but who else should the Scottish Government be trying to embrace to capture the real situation and circumstances that are out there? Staff, but I think that it needs to be done in a way that's anonymous because no staff wants to whistle for fear about backlash, so it has to be an anonymous way that they can oat them up and feel that they are not going to get any backlash from it because they won't oat them up and tell yous and the staff probably know how bad the services are because they are just as scared probably what I am. I've spoken to quite a lot of staff and the things that they've told me really, really does scare me and it's scary to think that this is our youths that we are talking about, this is our future generation because they are this country's future. Thank you, convener. Can I just try to understand? The history of the way that we approach mental health has moved considerably in the lifetime of this Parliament. Certainly when I joined 15 years ago, we were still at a point where there was a tremendous element of stigma about it. There was a real reluctance to even discuss these issues and there were two or three MSPs across different parties who were champions of the whole way in which the Parliament embraced the need to approach mental health differently. In the sense that that has been successful, there is a greater willingness for people to come forward or to talk about mental health issues. In so doing, that creates a far greater number of people who are trying to access services. Even as services are expanded, the demand is increasing and, as I think you've rightly articulated, the pandemic and the freeze on being able to progress a lot of work that was in progress at that point became problematic. I suppose that I don't quite understand how all this operates in practice. In acute medicine, there's obviously a difference between somebody who has suffered a heart attack and requires to be dealt with or somebody who is having elective surgery for a knee replacement. In the hierarchy of mental health, is there an assessment, do you think, of the severity or the nature of the incidents of individuals presenting with mental health issues such that some who might be in need of very acute and immediate support find that they are simply in a bus queue, essentially, without necessarily anyone understanding where the priorities within all of that lie in the way that they might do within traditional health medicine? Definitely. There is an assessment process, so once a referral goes in from the doctor, there's a multi-agency meeting within the mental health services and they discuss what's appropriate, whether it's psychology or whether they need a CPN, the kind of determinant there. However, where the staff are kind of getting their backs up against it is that they don't have the staff and their caseloads are already absolutely through the roof, so they can't take on more caseloads. Even when they know somebody is in crisis, they need immediate help. Their backs are against the wall because they don't physically have the capacity to see these people. That's why you get a lot of missed opportunities to save people's lives. You were talking about presenting at A&E, which is not, in your view, the right place for them. Essentially, they were presenting with what you would call A&E in mental health terms, but if there were somewhere else that they could present in that acute situation within a hospital, that would be the ideal scenario. Was that your argument? I do think that there needs to be somewhere that they can go and present immediately and get immediate support. When you phone NHS 24 to get any help for mental health or to speak to an out-of-hours doctor or anything like that, what you're told is to contact the police if you feel that you can't keep them safe for yourself or go to attend acts in the emergency. That's advice that you're told is to attend acts in the emergency. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I did put it in one of my last submissions about how many people have attended acts in the emergency in the last three years. It was rather high. The amount of the people that were presented at acts in the emergency and the amount of people who went to mental health beds over a three-year period was about 600. I don't have the exact figures, but I did put it in my last submission. I'm not sure that we don't have a video link, so it's likely to be audio only. Thank you, convener, and good morning, Cairn. I can obviously give you my condolences, the sad loss of your partner as well in such horrific circumstances. When you spoke at the last committee, you spoke about the issues that you had with risk assessments, and you felt that they were inadequate. Are you aware of any improvements in that area, since you last gave evidence to the committee? I don't believe that there have been any improvements. I feel that the risk assessments can be manipulated. I don't just talk as saying it from look. I talked from when I was a student mental health nurse myself. They could be manipulated, and you were actually told to manipulate them, so that you didn't have to bring people in or put them at high risk. I don't think that anything is changed with risk assessments, and I think that they are very dangerous, and they do not pick up the risks. Just out of interest following on Marie's question, what was the experience in relation to that risk assessment? Past risk assessments, he had to go to the hospital a few times to get mental health help, and every past risk assessment, because he had a history of suicide attempts, he had a history of abuse, and different other things put him at a higher risk. Even before we went to that service, he should have scaled high risk for self-harm or suicidal idolatio. I have a report to say that he was at a high risk to go on to suicide at some point, which was done in 2016. However, look's risk assessments was scored him at a low risk on the night before he took his own life, and he changed it to medium because I wasn't happy with it, so it can be manipulated. Any other colleagues would like to ask a question? No? Thank you for that. It's been very helpful. I think that we've covered quite a lot of ground there, and I think that we understand where you would like to see us move in relation to all of this. Monica Lennon and Monica, would you like to contribute further this morning? Thank you, convener. I'm sure that you agree that Karen is a hard act to follow and, again, to thank Karen for the timing effort that she's putting into this. Karen mentioned some of the FOI, some of the questions that she's submitted, particularly to NHS Lanarkshire, and I have to admit that when I saw some of the answers and some of the long waits, I think that we need to go back and ask them, are they the correct figures or have they not understood the question? What we're seeing in Black and White is frightening, and Karen, through the work that she does locally with others who have lived experience and voluntary work, speaks to a wide range of people. I think that Karen has also been very fair to try and find where there's been some progress, so the inclusion of addiction and inequalities into the strategy is good, because a few years ago we met with the former mental health minister who explained the addiction side that's for my public health colleague, so there was that. That's a fragmentation. I think that there is a better understanding that we need that holistic approach, but, as you've heard from Karen and you've heard in written submissions from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others, the capacity just isn't there. I think that if a review is to happen, it needs to, in real terms, look at the resource that we have, the backlog and the challenges that we have. We had an urgent question in Parliament last night about the A&E waiting times, which gave a good window into what's happening in the entire system, and NHS Lanarkshire, which we've talked about today, has reached an all-time record low in times of those waiting times, so Karen is absolutely right for people who are in crisis, being in that A&E environment, it's just not suitable. In fact, it can make everything worse and put them more at risk. Where are the trauma-informed services? Where are the quiet spaces? I think that I would like to hear more from Police Scotland colleagues. I know, again, locally, in my region, when I'm speaking to police officers on the front line, that they're feeling the pressure. There's been some good training rolled out across police and other front-line services, but that's another sign that the system isn't working. We know how hard it is to get that face-to-face contact in primary care, not just with GPs but others. We know the role of community pharmacy and advanced nurse practitioners. I don't doubt the good intentions from the Scottish Government and those working at a high level to run our health services, but when we build in the backlog and the whole recovery agenda needs to happen, I do believe that we need to create that space to have an honest independent look at what's happening. Karen has touched on the need for education and prevention and early intervention. I think that you're absolutely right to talk about the journey that we've been on in this country to try to destigmatise mental health to make it easier to have these conversations, but we also have to recognise that there is a spectrum. Karen is right to say that if someone has some low moods that is very temporary, low-level anxiety, some of these apps, some of the signposting that we know about, that probably is appropriate, but for other people with other mental health conditions that don't always get the attention and understanding the needs, that's not helpful. In fact, it probably is counterproductive. I think that it's really great that the committee has invited Karen today and we said that it's not normal practice. I think that that shows that in the Parliament all members understand this because sadly the experience of Karen in look will resonate because we all know constituents who have been through similar experiences and tragedies. I just want to back up everything that Karen has said. I know that in Parliament we struggle to find the capacity in our committees and in the chamber to give issues the time that they deserve. I hope that when you hear from the cabinet secretary or the minister, the cabinet secretary, I hope that government won't be defensive because I know Karen very well now, we've been working together for a few years now. All the constituents who come to me they're not looking for reform out of anger, they're not looking to blame people. Karen spoke here, I think, a great affection for the staff, for those in the front line who are trying to hold it together and often it's their own mental health that then suffers. We owe it to everyone in Scotland including the workforce to really step back from this. I hope that government won't be defensive because I think that we all recognise that there are very good intentions but it's that gap between the high-level strategy and policy and actually the resource and the experience on the ground because we know that we have to train the workforce where are people getting the time to do that right now. Alex Stewart mentioned a couple of the relevant reports and strategies and that work is very welcome. We've been speaking about that a lot. The report, I didn't print it off because it ran to something like 900 pages but the Scottish mental health law review report is a massive document and the summary I think was about 113 pages. That tells you that this is complex, there are so many layers to it but to go back to where Karen started, Luke didn't want to die, Luke wanted to live, he loved his family, he loved Karen, he loved his children, he wanted to live and there are so many other families that carry that in their hearts. The suicide prevention work is important but it's also about making sure that everyone can live well and live their best life and that our NHS continues to be the success story that we all want it to be. I thank the committee for all your work on that. Thank you Monica Lennon. If the report is almost 900 pages that's almost as many days as I think you said, the waiting list was and it did occur to me that this Parliament will have dissolved potentially before some people are at the front of that waiting list because that's getting close to 2026 before people are going to be being seen and I think that that is an indication of the measure and scale of the issue. Before we close, Karen, is there anything further you would just like to add in conclusion? No, I would really like to see a fit for purpose mental health service in that as my aim is snow, out of anger or anything. I don't want any other family having to feel the pain that we have to feel every day because it's horrible and I would now wish it on anybody and we just need a fit for purpose mental health service so that this stops happening. We have the cabinet secretary at our next meeting where we'll be able to pursue a number of these issues. I'd like to thank you, Karen, for your courage and resilience. It's been a privilege to have you with us this morning to discuss these issues and I know I speak on behalf of all the committee when I wish you and your family every happiness in the future. Thank you very much and I'll now suspend briefly. Hello again and we're now looking at petition number 1812 to protect Scotland's remaining ancient native and semi native woodlands and woodland floors. A petition lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, whom we've previously heard, on behalf of HelpTreesHelpUs and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation giving Scotland's remaining fragments of ancient native and semi native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection, and that was the original aim of the petition before COP26 in Glasgow in November 21. We're currently, of course, in the middle of COP27, but the issue remains one of concern. We last considered the petition the 4th of May and we then indicated that we would like to go as a committee and visit some of these issues and went to press men and wood in East Lothian on 21 September and I'd very much like to put on record our thanks for the woodland trust for hosting us and looking after us that day. At our last consideration we also agreed to write to Scottish Forestry and to all local authorities seeking information on the operation enforcement of tree preservation orders, and we've now received responses from Scottish Forestry and from 22 local authorities and again from the petitioners themselves. Throughout our consideration of this position, petition we've heard that a number of issues are impacting the effectiveness of current woodland strategies and policies and the protection of our ancient native and semi native woodlands and woodland floors, and we also heard evidence and possible areas for improvement, including prioritising the development of inventory of ancient woodlands, strengthening the legislative framework and language in existing policies such as MPF4 and taking steps to improve compliance and enforcement, and we heard from the minister as well in consideration of all these matters too. So we've now been on a visit, we've heard from the petitioners, we've heard from various representative organisations, we've heard from the minister and I just wonder colleagues where you think we, on the balance of all the evidence we've received, we think we would now be most comfortable in going. Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. As you've identified, this has been quite a journey for us, but it's been very informative and good to have a reasonable large number of local authorities come back and indicate where they stand and where the situation is. So I think it's appropriate to now write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence received and set out recommendations to address the issues raised by the petition, and also to write to the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee and the Rural Affairs, Island and Natural Environment Committee to share the evidence and the committee's recommendations. Members can clarify that with the clerks here and put information together, but as I say, it has really been a very in-depth and process for all of us to be involved in and has been really quite successful. As a committee member, I've certainly learnt a lot more about this whole issue, and I think that that's vitally important that we can now give that evidence to the Scottish Government to highlight the issues that we've found. Would colleagues be content for the clerks now to summarise the evidence that we've now heard from the various parties to bring forward some recommendations that have arisen out of the conversations that we've had? For us, perhaps, just to have a look at that at a future meeting ahead of submitting that by way of a formal representation to the Scottish Government and to the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee. Would that meet with the committee's approval? It would, right. Thank you very much. Petition number 1837, to provide clear direction investment for autism support. This petition has been lodged by Stephen Layton and calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have learning disability and or a mental disorder can access support and allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland. We last considered this petition on 4 May, and we agreed to follow up with the Minister for Mental Well-being and Social Care on a number of points raised during our evidence session. In response, the minister has detailed a range of on-going work to support and invest in people with autism. I'm pleased to say that the petitioner has said that he's actually satisfied now with the outcome of the minister's response. He states that the letter is a safety net that ensures all autistic people in Scotland have the legal right to at least an assessment of their needs. Because the petitioner is satisfied, he's requested that we close his petition and thank the committee for its hard work on this matter. I'd like to thank Mr Layton for bringing his petition to the committee. We are pleased to read the positive reflections about your experience upon engaging with us on this matter. I'm delighted that that has led to a successful outcome. Therefore, with the committee's agreement, we will close the petition. Are we agreed? We are. Petition number 1862 to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities. I'm almost surprised to have to say that we don't have Roda Grant with us this morning, as we consider the petition. But if she's watching, good morning. This petition was brought to us by Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremmer on behalf of the used economic task force. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities and keeping with the Island Scotland's Act 2018. We considered this petition just very recently at our meeting on 26 October, when we took evidence from the Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth MSP and Fran Pachite, director of aviation, maritime freight and canals at Transport Scotland. During the evidence session, the minister and director both shared information on the progress being made to encourage islander representation on boards, such as being more proactive in how the rules are advertised, as well as making it an essential criterion that applicants for non-executive directors have a good understanding or knowledge of the issues affecting island communities. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Delighted that we have had such a robust outcome so far, but I think that it's important that we do now seek further information and write to the minister of transport to find out the process of appointments to the boards for David McBride and also a work being done to encourage candidates from island communities, along with to ask for an update on the communities and communication themselves from the ministers had with Hial in regard to the proposal set out in the petition. Are colleagues content with those actions? Thank you, Mr Stewart. Petition number 1867, to establish a new national qualification for British Sign Language, lodged by Scott McMillan, and I would also highlight the consideration of this petition will, as we discussed, available to watch on the Scotland's Parliament's BSL channel. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority, the SQA, to establish national qualification in British Sign Language at SCQF level 2. We previously considered this petition, again, at our meeting on 4 May, where we agreed to write to the Scottish Sensory Hub. We now have responses from the National Deaf Children's Society and the Scottish Sensory Hub. The National Deaf Children's Society state there hope that BSL can be afforded similar support and status as the Gaelic language has received. It also highlighted that, without a national qualification, we are unlikely to see sufficient numbers of teachers choosing to develop their skills in teaching BSL. The Scottish Sensory Hub notes that students currently earn more university entrance points for spoken language qualifications than for BSL, which they suggest results in students reluctantly opting for spoken language courses to maximise their university entry opportunities. That is despite the increasing numbers of people wishing to take up BSL. The Scottish Sensory Hub also highlighted how the development of BSL qualifications and increased BSL fluency among the general population could have a positive impact on the wellbeing of deaf individuals and their sense of connectivity in everyday life. Any exposure that we have had to BSL here has demonstrated that very visibly to colleagues in the Parliament. Do members have any suggestions for action? We write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on the development of the next BSL plan and explore how BSL national qualifications could be developed. In writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, the committee may wish to highlight the development of GCSEs in BSL and other parts of the United Kingdom, ask what steps the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that schools have the opportunity to teach BSL from primary 1 to higher and advanced higher levels and seek information on what further consideration the Scottish Government is giving to affording BSL qualifications equivalent to other spoken languages as part of and may have on the uptake of BSL qualifications. Thank you, Mr Stewart. That is a series of comprehensive suggestions arising. Do colleagues have anything further that they would wish to add? If not, are we content? Petition number 1895, mandatory accountability for NatureScot's decision-making procedures, lodged by Gary Wall. Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision-making within the framework of the Scottish regulator's strategic code of practice and the Scottish Government's guidance right first time. That is a petition that we last considered on 18 May, at which point we agreed to write to NatureScot to ask how it ensures the process for licensing refusals and reasons for refusals are both clear and consistent. NatureScot's response states that the approach is in accordance with the legislation following internal policy and procedures and that a record is kept of all assessments. In instances of refusal, a discussion takes place with the licensing manager and the unit manager is informed. NatureScot states that the applicants are clearly informed in writing for reasons of refusal. The petitioner's recent submission to the committee reiterates his experience of a licensed refusal where a conservation objective was not stated in the refusal explanation. He also states his view that the complaints procedure is not impartial as it is conducted by NatureScot staff. Do members of any comments or suggestions are rising as a consequence? Mr Stewart? Thank you, convener. I think that we are now at the stage that I think that the petition under standing order 17.5 can be closed under the basis that NatureScot between the issues licensed refusals is stated, the approach to it is always explained to the applicant and reasons for the refusal against the legal text, which can include the objections. The conversations and objections that have applied are every licensing refusal, therefore setting a mandatory requirement for NatureScot to include these in every refusal would not be appropriate. For those reasons, I will close under standing order 17.5. Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. I realise, obviously, that the petitioner's experience is not consistent with the representations that we have received from NatureScot, but I do not know that there is much more that we can do. We have received the assurances from NatureScot, so I think that Mr Stewart's proposal seems really the only one open to us. Any colleagues of any comments or are we content to close the petition? I think that we are. I would like to thank the petitioner for raising the issue, and I am sorry that I do not know that we have really ultimately got the satisfaction that they might have hoped, but we have got the assurances and the our on record from NatureScot and obviously it is open in the future for individuals if they feel that these provisions are not being honoured for it to be the subject of a future petition. Petition number 1916 requests a public inquiry into the management of the Rest and Be Thankful project lodged by councillor Donald Douglas-Fillund and councillor Donald Kelly. That calls on the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which is to provide a permanent solution for the route. This petition is one that we last considered quite some time ago on 20 April, and we agreed to write Transport Scotland. We have received a response from the Minister for Transport, which indicates that five possible route options are currently being assessed, with Transport Scotland expecting to make an announcement in a preferred option for a permanent solution by spring 2023. We have also received a response from the petitioners, which restates their call for a public inquiry and highlights their concerns around the costs of finding a permanent solution for the Rest and Be Thankful. There are huge issues that are attendant upon a public inquiry itself, not all of which are necessarily going to see us make the progress that we might wish, but I wonder if colleagues have got any suggestions to make in relation to the petition. You have summarised, convener, where we are in this, and I do believe that it has been going for some time as you have identified, but I do think, in light of the petition's concerns, that we are right to the Scottish Government to seek information on what impact the capital spending review has on the funding of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project. Whether the show will slow down the funding of the road improvement project is likely to be impacted and the timescales of the seven to ten years for the solution and the route to be looked at. You have talked about the public inquiry and I think that, under that situation, the investigation potential and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project and seek a permanent solution for the route is still what the community wants to have, but I think that that in itself is a bigger situation to try and deal with at this stage. I would put forward those recommendations, convener, but I am open to hear what others may have to say on this topic. I agree with what Alexander Stewart has just set out. We will just add that I think that looking at the response of Transport Scotland, which states that delivering a permanent and resilient solution is a priority, and that is welcome. The timescale for this is approximately seven to ten years. I think that that will cause concern and consternation in the parts of Scotland that are really essentially reliant on this link. When it is closed, the detour is very substantial indeed, far longer than any other detours of which I know affecting such a large group of people. I know that these things are complex, convener, but I have just expressed concern about the length of time that this would take and the fact that there does not appear to have been identified as yet the preferred solution, the preferred route and the solution to provide a reasonable transport links for those in these parts of Scotland. Can I echo that? One way or another, the committee has been discussing it for seven to ten years, so the idea that we are seven to ten years away from achieving what is yet not as such an agreed solution is a concern. Mr Sweeney. Thank you, convener. Whilst I am mindful of the points made by colleagues, I do not think that it is helpful necessarily to have a kind of ruminating backwards looking inquiry, which is often quite expensive and tends not to necessarily deliver improvements to operational performance. There is a broader strategic issue that the petitioner highlights, which is actually in Scotland and perhaps more broadly across the UK. We are incredibly inefficient at delivering major infrastructure programmes, and this is yet another dog of a project that has gone on for far too long. The huge administrative cost associated with constant procrastination over it has been completely unacceptable. I would contrast that with the emerging structural problems that were identified in the M8 in central Glasgow, the Woodside Vidux, where Transport of Scotland has, within the last year, introduced an emergency structural repairs programme and rolled roughshod over local public opinion to deliver maintenance of the trunk road network, which is not necessarily what people in Glasgow want. In contrast, the vital artery, which is critical to access of anything to the West Highlands, has been stagnating on the back burner for so long. There is a broader issue that we need to use the petition as a device to keep the Government in Transport of Scotland with attention with Transport of Scotland and the Government to ensure that it is delivered in a timious fashion. Although the Government has indicated a timeline into next year, which sounds on the face of its satisfaction, the petition might be a useful way of keeping check on that as a way to allow the petitioners to continue to ensure that the project moves forward at a satisfactory pace. As a committee, we might be ready to agree that we would keep the petition open until the very least we have a preferred route identified and some understanding of the timetable and underpinning financially of that recommended solution. Are we content to do that and follow-up on the suggestion that was made by Mr Stewart as well? That brings us to item 3, which is the consideration of new petitions. The first of those is petition number 1, 949, review the rules concerning dual mandate MSPs. This has been brought to us by Alexander James Dixon. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding dual mandate MSPs and legislate to bring them in line with the Senate and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate and to do this in time for the next Scottish parliamentary elections due in 2026. Alexander reminds us that, since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs have been allowed to take their place here at Holyrood while also retaining a role or dual mandate in other local or national levels of government. He says that members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not permitted to have a dual mandate and members of the Welsh Assembly have a grace period of just eight days to resign if they also hold a seat as an MP. He also states that if Welsh Assembly members are up here, they would have to take a leave of absence from the House of Lords and if they hold a role as a regional councillor, they can remain in post so long as the expected day of the next regional election is within 372 days. As we do with all new petitions, the committee did request an initial view from the Scottish Government, and in responding to that request, the Scottish Government has stated that in its view it is the Parliament that is responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operation, including the terms of seeking its membership and therefore not a matter for the Scottish Government per se, but I wonder if colleagues would be content if we were to write to both the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to inquire about the deliberative processes that led to the introduction of the legislation that prevents dual mandates in those legislatures and any issues they have encountered in consequence of the implementation of that legislation. For us also to write to the electoral reform society seeking more information about the issues raised by the petition in the light of which having considered the responses that we might get, we would be able to progress the petition to the relevant statutory committee within the Scottish Parliament who are charged with the responsibility for the issues given that the Scottish Government has said that they are not. Are there any other suggestions from members of the committee or would they be content with that approach? Petition number 1-9-5-0, to ensure immunosuppressed people in Scotland, can access the evo-shelled, is that pronounced correctly, evo-shelled antibody treatment. This has been lodged by Alex Marshall and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enable access via the NHS to ever-shelled prophylactic treatment for people who have zero or weak response to the Covid-19 vaccines. In raising this petition, Alex highlights that lockdown and shielding has not ended for many people with blood cancer, organ transplants and other form of immune compromise and suggests that treatments such as evo-shelled could offer protection for immunosuppressed people who have so far shown a zero or a weak response to the existing Covid-19 vaccines. Alex tells us that clinical trials have shown positive results and were found to reduce the risk of developing symptomatic Covid-19 by as much as 77 per cent. As a result, evo-shelled was granted a conditional marketing authorisation by the UK Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Authority, the MHRA. Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government noted that evo-shelled was developed and tested before the emergence of the Omicron variant and further testing is required to establish whether the treatment is effective against the Omicron variants. That was quite some time ago. That means that there is currently no established UK supply arrangement for evo-shelled. The Scottish Government also stated that it will closely monitor the outcome of further research and will write to update the committee in the event that there is a decision to make evo-shelled available to patients in Scotland. The committee has also received a submission from Blanche Hampton, who shares her experience as an immunocompromised person, who has zero response to six vaccinations and is now shielding again. Blanche also highlights that evo-shelled is being provided in other countries with no negative effects being reported. Do members have comments or suggestions? Just before we move to that, I see that we are dependent yet again on our old friends, the MHRA, with whom the committee has had dealings in the past and not always terribly satisfactorily. When it is said that the conditional authorisations were granted prior to the Omicron variants and that currently no established UK supply arrangement for evo-shelled exists, among any other recommendations that we might have, I wonder whether we should be contacting the MHRA to ask them what the current status of any evaluation is that they might be undertaking, because it does seem to me that the Omicron variants became apparent quite some time ago now, and I would have thought that there might have been a little bit more urgency about assessing what the evo-shelled implications might be. I also note that the petitioner says—or that the submission from Blanche Hampton says that it is being provided in other countries with no negative effects being reported. I wonder whether there is any way that we can establish any practice in relation to that and maybe draw that to the attention in due course of both the MHRA and the Scottish Government. For people in this situation, this all seems to me—we have seen them reported in the media and elsewhere—a hugely debilitating and exclusive to them sense of continuing isolation when the rest of the world has largely moved on. It seems very unreasonable that we are not progressing expeditely every opportunity to make life for them more acceptable. Are there any other suggestions or comments from the committee? To write to the Covid-19 clinical review panel to seek information on the considerations that they have given to making evo-shell available as an antibody treatment to patients and to write to the Blood Cancer UK and the Kidney Research UK to seek their views on the issues that have been raised by the petition and to write to the Scottish Medical Council to request the review of their decision to wait for the nice report to provide access via the NHS and evo-shell treatment for people who have no or are limited response to the Covid-19 vaccinations and to invite the petitioner and the patient campaign groups on evo-shell for the UK to give evidence. I do not know if I heard Mr Stewart, but did you include blood cancer UK, immunodeficiency UK and Kidney Research UK as organisations to whom we might write? Are there any other comments or suggestions from the committee? We have the response from the Scottish Government. Would we be able to slip in an extra question when we have the cabinet secretary with us? Yes, we could ask if they were prepared to speak on that. I just wonder, since it is very fresh, if they were with us next week whether we could just slip in an act just to get an understanding of what they think they could be doing to accelerate this, because it is a matter of considerable public concern. Obviously, they may feel that they would prefer to wait for a later date, but let's see if that is a possibility. Petition number 1952, specialist services for patients with autonomic dysfunction. This has been lodged by Jane Clark and it calls on the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government to instruct Scotland's NHS to form specialist services training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction dysautonomia. Jane tells us that autonomic nervous system disorders are common and are also often a complication of long Covid. She highlights the severe impact of this condition on people's quality of life and life expectancy. Jane says in Scotland, There is no clinical pathway for dysautonomia, no specialist hub to diagnose and treat patients and no access to local or regional healthcare for most patients. She highlights challenges and referrals to specialists in England, lengthy treatment delays and related impacts of this on individuals, including children. In a further submission, Jane provides additional information and comments on the Scottish Government's response She quotes a member of the nice expert panel on long-term effects of Covid-19 who states that Scotland does not currently follow the relevant guidance in relation to multidisciplinary doctor led services and notes that a lack of data on the prevalence of such conditions means that there is also no data on whether Scottish services are adequate. The Scottish Government response states that there is an expertise to manage these conditions in Scotland and where additional expertise is required, pathways are in place to allow patients to access services in England. That also states that the clinical guideline for identifying addressing and managing the long-term effects of Covid-19 is supported by the Scottish Government implementation support note, which has been circulated to all NHS health boards. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I thank you, convener, to write to the stakeholders seeking their views on the actions carried for the petition, specifically asking for the views for scale on issues that the committee can write to the brain charity, Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland, POTCH UK, professional Alan Carson and the National Service Scotland, and to write to the petitioner alerting them to the funding schemes that are available through the chief scientist's office. Thank you, Mr Stewart. Do any colleagues have any other additional comments or suggestions, or are we content to progress, as Mr Stewart has suggested? I believe that we are. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis. Petition number 1953, to review education support staff roles, and this has been lodged by Rosin Taylor Young. It calls the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support, and its staff roles in order to consider one urgently raising wages for education support staff across primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum. Increasing the hours of the working day for educational support staff from 27.5 to 35 hours, allowing ESS to work on personal learning plans with teachers to take part in multi-agency meetings, to require ESS to register it with Scottish social services council, and to paying ESS staff monthly. Rosin emphasises that the importance of support staff stating that they are absolutely essential to children's education, support, care and wellbeing. She also tells us that support staff are bitterly overworked, her words, and chronically underpaid, noting that there have been a number of equal pay claims for Scottish councils. The SPICE briefing states that currently classroom assistants are not required to have a professional registration, but that the Scottish Government is committed to exploring options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs specialists, assistants rather, in collaboration with trade unions and other key stakeholders, and these will result in final proposals, which are due to be brought forward by the autumn of next year. The Scottish Government highlights that pupil support staff work in group, which has been established to consider how pupil support staff can be empowered and supported, and it states that the group is currently engaged with pupil support staff, seeking their views on the work of the group. Do the members have any comments or suggestions on this petition? Mr Stewart, you are stepping forward again. Thank you. To write to the Scottish Government to ask how it intends to engage with stakeholders in its delivery of the commitment to explore options for the development of our accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants, and how the petitioner can engage with the pupil support staff working group. Also, to write to COSLA seeking a view on the issues raised in the petition and requesting information on the frequency and cost of the equal pay claims lodged in relation to education support staff roles, and to write to the Scottish Social Services Council seeking a view on the issues raised in the petition and requesting information on the requirements for and processes of that registration. Are members of the committee content to progress as recommended? Any other suggestions? No? Thank you very much. I just say to those petitioners who have considered the petition for the first time. As you know as a matter of practice, we invite the Scottish Government in the first instance to comment, so we have their response and any further submissions that have been received before we come forward with their recommendations and considerations at this stage this morning. Thank you all for your new petitions today. That brings us now to the end of the formal part of our meeting. We will now move into private session for agenda item 4, and we will convene as a committee next on 23 November. I suspend the meeting at this point.