 I would like to welcome everyone to the third meeting of the Citizens, Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. I have apologies from Jackson Carlaw, so I ask the deputy convener that I am convening today. Our first item on the agenda is to take item 4 in private. Are we agreed? Thank you. Our first continued petition today is petition 1948, to improve the way that unexplained deaths are dealt with, lodged by Alex Cain. Petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review their practices for dealing with unexplained deaths from initial recovery through to support that is offered to family members. We are joined this morning by Stephanie Bonner. Stephanie is here to tell us about what changes she believes is needed following her own personal experience. I thank you for the courage in coming to give evidence this morning. We appreciate you taking time to speak with us at the committee. Can I also welcome the members of the public to a gallery here? We are here to support the petition and to support Stephanie. Stephanie, I do believe that you have got a brief opening statement. Would you like to read it out, please, the committee? It's like a few pages. Is that okay? That's okay. May I thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak and sharing my experience and journey with you? Before I continue, I want to assure you that the committee that I'm not going to go off track and intend to use this valuable time wisely, so please bear with me. I intend to cover the following. Who was responer? It was my son. What happened? What I believe went wrong. How this has impacted my family and I and what changes could be made for the better. When I speak, you will hear my voice. When I speak, I hear my son weashe. Boner's voice coming within my heart. I'm sorry. Okay, just at your time. Hopefully, both voices can be heard as one today. Hopefully, changes can be made for the better after today. Who was Rhys? Rhys was my first born child. He was healthy. He was happy and he loved. He was loved by his family and friends. He looked forward to living his life to the fullest and shared ambitions and dreams of many 19-year-olds, but his life ended at 19 just before his ambitions and dreams could start to come to fruition. Rhys was a loving, caring boy. He didn't bother anyone. No-one bothered him and he didn't get into trouble. He was a happy-go-lucky teenager who had his whole life ahead of him. He had a career to establish. He had a future. He had true love to find and a family to build. He had his whole future ahead of him. Rhys was 19-years-old when he was taken from me. The day he went missing was the day that my nightmare started and my world changed forever. The loss of a child is of the parents' first nightmare. What happened? Rhys went missing on the 24th of July 2019 as half-naked tennis body was later discovered on Thursday, 8th of August 2019. Items of his clothing were scattered and missing. Rhys Scotland closed investigation into the death on Monday, 12 August 2019. Four days later, but one full working day later, I believe this window of time speaks volumes, so that was one day spent investigating my son's death. My son's life was worth one full working day to Rhys Scotland. Just to repeat that, Rhys' half-naked tennis body was found on a Thursday afternoon and the investigation was officially closed on the following Monday. It was categorised as a missing person now found with no suspicious circumstances. My family and I were left to conduct door-to-door inquiries and build up a timeline of Rhys' final movements. We were also left to trace and secure CCTV footage and statements from different local sources. We discovered video footage of my son and Mrs Body being dragged by ropes across open land and body light by the police. This is to football yards. Open land. I will never get seen these images as they will haunt me forever. The police did not bother to try to prevent the public from following this. If the body of a half-naked 19-year-old girl was discovered in an affluent area, I believe that this investigation would have looked a lot differently. I believe that the victim's family would have been treated a lot differently. I believe that the approach from the police would have been completely different. What I believe went wrong. When a body is initially discovered, there is a vital window of time where important decisions are made by the police. At this point, if the police cannot see any of the signs of criminality or a clear cause of death, they have to make a decision despite the cause of death being unknown or unexplained. In other words, the police have to form a theory based on what they see at the time of the scene, what evidence is clear to them and what the circumstances seem to be. This is what the theory is often made without the cause of death actually being officially established without post-mortem and toxicology results being conducted. In fact, the investigation and the police's death were closed before they were formally identified. I believe that there is pressure on the police in terms of time and resources to make these decisions quickly and move on. That is where mistakes can be made which cannot be undone, leaving families without answers and closure forever, leaving families tormented forever. I believe that post-codes play a significant factor in the decision-making and theories formed by the police. I also believe that what is going on at the time of the discovery influences the police's theory. For example, in the summer of 2019, when the police's body was discovered, there seemed to be a high number of suicides and ductility deaths being reported in the media. Many of those were younger men. When the police discovered the body in the post-code given the climate at the point in time, I believed that the police's theory was drawn towards a suicide or ductility death. I think that the police thought that just another young man from a housing scheme who lost his life through suicide or an overdose, so let's not waste any time, just close the investigation and move on. Police Scotland failed to fully investigate Police's death. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. As it was upheld by Police Scotland within my complaint in December 2020, Police Scotland did not even bother to conduct door-to-door inquiries. It is the basic stuff like this that could have made a difference both in terms of securing vital evidence and in terms of trust and confidence in the police investigation. My family and I were left to conduct door-to-door inquiries and build up our own timeline of my son's last movements. Police Scotland then failed to fully investigate my complaint regarding the afford investigations into my son's death before key points were upheld by Police Scotland recently. How that has impacted my family and I? I am a mum from a housing scheme, a wee mammy from Bilanarkh, and I am not accustomed to talking to politicians, especially in such surroundings. I want to connect with you and describe my pain, the void left when a child or loved one dies, and there is no explanation given I want to try to explain what it feels like when a loved one is the subject of an unexplained death. I would ask the committee to take a few seconds to think of someone you love. I would like to hear your thoughts on that person's image and concentrate on that person's image. Now, as distressing as this may be, imagine the police contacting you and informing you that the person was dead. The body had been discovered half naked in open land. After the initial shock, in my case, I felt like I had been stuck in the heart with a bone arrow straight through my heart. The first question you would ask is what happened. You have lost your loved one. You need answers. You need an explanation. You need closure. You need this to start the grieving process and try to move on. But imagine there was no explanation given to you. Imagine how you would feel. You have lost your loved one forever and there is no explanation whatsoever. That is what families face when they lose their loved one to an unexplained death. They cannot move on. They are left thinking about every possible scenario night after night, week after weeks, as months turned into years. Imagine discovering that police had closed their investigation into the death of your loved one four days later or one more teen day later, even before formally being identified, before a pathology report, before a toxicology report, before establishing a timeline of your loved one. Do not worry. You have as much time as you want. Imagine discovering that the police had closed their investigation into the death of your loved one four days later or one working day later, before the body was even formally identified, before a pathology report, before a toxicology report, before establishing a timeline of your loved one's last movements, before establishing who they were with or why they were with them. Imagine discovering that the basics, like the door-to-door inquiries, were not even carried out. I would ask you to consider how you would feel. Would you consider this to be reasonable? Would you accept this? In my case, I did not consider this to be reasonable and I did not accept it, so I made a formal complaint three years later and the complaint procedure has still not fully been concluded. This is all part of the journey that I have travelled. Due to my son's death being unexplained, I still do not know, with any certainty, where my son's body was discovered. Pre-Scotland has at least two different sets of coordinates. I did finely flowers and tributes at that location, only to be informed by the local people that I was at the long location. When Mrs Body was found, I asked the police to show me where the body had been discovered. I wanted to know where my son took his last breath. I wanted to see where his eyes closed for the last time. As a mother, I wanted to know this, but I was paralysed by grief. A priest sergeant ended up giving us a map with an X. Marking the spot where Mrs Body was discovered. Think about how insensitive this is. I would never have been able to find this, so my father asked the priest sergeant to take him to the open space where he was discovered. The sergeant took him to an error and pointed, saying, just over there. I could get a tissue if you don't mind, so I'm depressed. I feel sorry. This sergeant gave me misleading information and tried to instruct me, giving getting representation of my choice. I hold this sergeant responsible for causing me a lot of confusion, distress and anguish. He has directly mentioned and my complaint against Pre-Scotland. Whilst his complaint was being investigated, he started as a contestant on the countdown TV game show. I'm boasting about now being an inspector. I'm being in command of officers in my area of the city. I felt physically sick seeing this man on TV. Playing games while at the centre of a high profile complaint, I know that he had been prompted to the rank of an inspector. At this point in time, I have lost all faith in Pre-Scotland. No matter what they told me, no matter what they say, I will struggle to accept it as being credible. That's what happens when you are left without answers and given the wrong information over three years. So I have lost my son and lost my faith in the organisation which is there to serve and protect my family and I. To add to insult, I have watched Pre-Scotland to Peterly giving statements to the media about how sympathetic they are towards me and how much support they have offered my family. Every time I read this, I feel like I've been starving through the heart again. Pre-Scotland has not supported me in any shape or form. The second I made a formal complaint, they closed ranks and I met a war of silence. I was offered to attend one meeting in December 2022 on request a part review. When I requested a part review, the meeting was taken off the table. I faced a war of silence for another two years whilst the police continued to suggest otherwise to the media. I have faced obstructions and my representative has faced obstruction after another. It hasn't stopped. After Perk upheld the four key fairings, in fact, a few weeks ago, Pre-Scotland decided that he did not recognise my mandated representative. He had been mandated to represent me for over three years, but all of a sudden he didn't recognise him. He put a formal complaint in and conducted Perk. Then they recognised him. So nothing has changed. I believed—oh, sorry. Then they recognised him. He put a formal complaint in and conducted Perk. Then the police suddenly did a uter and recognised him. So nothing has changed. I believe that Pre-Scotland haven't learned from their fairings and they resented bad publicity. They have received it due to the way they failed to fully investigate the exponent, Steff, my son. Both my family and I have lost all confident trust and respect in Pre-Scotland. I'll be happy if I'm nearly finished. Thank you. Stephanie, just take your time. Thank you so much. What changes can be made for the better? When a body is initially discovered and a priest didn't know the cause of death, a reasonable level of evidence should be secured if there are no obvious signs of criminality. This way, the priest can go back after pathology and toxology findings are available. The basics, like do-to-do inquiries, should never have been missed. So the window of time between when a body is discovered and a theory is formed and the decision is made must be looked at and to be improved. Better to gather evidence and not to have to use it than not to gather evidence and lose it. Postcode policing has to be acknowledged and addressed. Every life matters, no matter what the postcode is. Right now, I don't believe that Pre-Scotland accepts that postcode policing exists. Therefore, until they do, this problem can never be addressed. Do you really believe that a priest was the son of a lawyer from anfflant era that this investigation would have looked different? Would that have looked like this? Pre-Scotland has not supported me or communicated with me or my family. Pre-Scotland has to support and communicate with the families impacted by unexplained deaths. In my case, it has spent more time trying to convince the media how much it has supported me than it actually has spent with me. Pre-Scotland has to spread more spin doctrine than sympathy. Finally, I believe that someone had a level, a level of culpability and the death of my son. As the cause of a death cannot be medically determined, and as the priest never fully investigated my son's death and secured potential evidence, I will never know with certainty what happened or be able to prove what happened to my son. That is the conclusion that I face. That is the conclusion that I have to live with every second. That is the conclusion that I will take to my grave. That is what happens when a death is unexplained and a death is not fully investigated by the police. I want to take this time to thank you for your opportunity and your time. Stephanie, can I say thank you very much for your opening statement, which I know must have been a really heartbreaking and emotional for you to read out? Members have a number of questions that they would like to explore, Stephanie, if you are happy, and I will restart them. Stephanie, what are your main concerns about the current Police Scotland handling of unexplained deaths? The impact on the families is so disdain. I have got four other kids and there are lots of people in my case who have not got an arrow that is okay in their life and they do not trust. It impacts the families tremendously, no one has any idea. Thank you, Stephanie. I will move to my colleagues, Carol. Thank you, Stephanie. I really appreciate you coming along to share this with us. I am interested to know two things personally. I wonder if you can tell me a bit about your experience of the postcode law today that you felt it stands out in your statement. Have you made contact with any other families that have had that experience? Yes, a lot of families, yes. When the police said, where are you from, can I say, Berlanup, what has it been? Why would your son be in Easterhouse? He is college and different things are up there, that is why he goes. You do not get your boy's age going to Easterhouse in different places like that. I said, what do you mean? It is different schemes and things. I said, my son needs to go up there, that is his library and things. I was shocked by that. I said, does it really matter where we stay? I stay in a back and front door and my house is completely decorated with things and it is comfortable for my kids. When he came in, I said, we did not expect that we were going to be coming up close. We did not expect to be coming into your house or your wee house is nice. We did not expect that. I was just taking back the kind of questions like that and I was just going to do anybody's house and where they are living things. I appreciate you doing that. If there were one or two or three steps that you thought would be important for us to discuss this change, what would those be? Every life matters, every life the same. My boy never drank anything like that but he kicked on saying, we are boy about, we are boy about. I said, no, you will not be friends. I had to go and find out who my son was with and he was a very bad person but I have heard lots of things as other things have happened. I showed the police and I am sorry about what I have just put after her. It was just like if you had one or two things that you would like us to put forward as ideas to change the system at that very first bit. I just had a wee baby, my wee baby is four months, a liaison officer summed it out with the police. I did name a sum, I was missing for 15 days and a police officer would only call me every two nights at 10 o'clock at night. He did me interact with me and I used to say, please, no CID would come but they would come in my house. At one time the impact of me came up with the protest and I was really scared and I was just sitting on myself with my wee baby and I was so shocked. So I cried and I have been sitting down right now and it was just that we have been treated and nobody will ever help me and I have had any empathy or compassion. That initial contact with the police, thank you very much for that. Many of us, to CID never came to see me and I have been to CID to come and help me. Thank you, thank you, thank you David. Thank you Carl. Alexander Stewart. Thank you convener and Stephanie, thank you for your bravery today, that is much appreciated. You talked about in your statement about the failings and the trust that has been lost and I can very much appreciate that being the case, but what would you like to see improved with families because that's what you want to see here that nobody else is put through the similar situation that you've had? I want to see if it's unexplained and if there's no circumstance that I want to be treated as a death. My son was found in open land and I want, if there's no unexplained, I want it to be treated as an investigation straight away so they've got everything they need and things. I want the family to get a liaison officer. I don't, I think it's very nice to be in because they said you're dead strong and things and they were making me feel, I feel, oh I'm a strong mum, I don't need this and that's the way they made me feel. So no, you really need one. I had a wee baby and he was premature and he wouldn't have met me and it was so hard so I was just clinging on my baby and he went, I said, so what does the liaison officer do? He'll just come into your life and you don't really want people running out your first nap. But I was not aware that I was on office service to tell me what was happening and because it was only every two days he would phone me if he didn't want to come and see me. And I was looking for myself, no peace when I was out, in writing it. He said that the officers was going to Torredor that day, not even after Torredor. He was only a wee 19-year-old boy. So you really want to see that embedded in the process where there should be a liaison officer who is seconded and then given the opportunity to support and do support the family? Yes. Because you've also talked about people closing ranks and trying to, I don't know, your view or your belief of that was that you weren't being given all the facts or you weren't being given all the information. As a mother of a family and a grieving mother, that's so important that you are given that respect and you are given that support because we have to trust organisations like the police to deliver that service for you, but obviously in this situation that was a massive failing. Oh yes, very, because I felt like a criminal and I had my wee babies only four months and they weren't understanding, he was premature, that I could have had other feelings come from my body and things and that and all and they just kept on saying to me every day, where do you think, I said my son's up the field, I said I know he is, please go and help me, it's no that big. I said where is this reading question and we would say it's okay, she's got a red alert on her if she goes in shortlist or something. I said please help us, I've got kids and I'm terrified. I'm going to get the CID in, investigate hard so you can get my son back to me just now, please. Thank you, thank you. Thank you, thank you for coming today, it must be very important. Thank you for the opportunity, I appreciate that. You're doing very well, we appreciate it that this is, as you said, I think every parent's nightmare and I think we all feel that very profoundly for you. It does seem to me that you've been pretty badly let down or very badly let down by people that are supposed to help you, that's the way it seems to me. We haven't heard from the police so we haven't heard what they've got to say, but it does feel that way to me. Don't communicate, I've got a representative of Alice O'Kane and he helps me and if it wasn't for him they've never did it, they've never tried to help me, they've never came out and they just told me my son that you need to accept it and that's it. I think we heard that Mr Cain was very helpful to you. Oh God, I wouldn't be here without him I would say. So that was very good that Paul did that. Oh yeah, oh yeah, I'm not the same person, that doesn't really matter, but we can imagine that he would have done that. Can I just ask, and this might be too difficult a question for you to answer, but have you ever been offered any explanation by the police about why they didn't carry out the investigation that you felt was kind of basic, namely door to door inquiries and things of that nature? I've never had an answer. I've got the park complaints in, the park, when they came back the uphold, before complaints that they'd dragged my son into different things, but I've never had any answers, never. My son just went out that day to go to McDonald's and I'm left with that. Your 19-year-old boy got in a lovely summer's day and they said there was lots of water up there. It's an open nursery in that kind of work through and it was a really nice summer so it was all very drying things and they never put any helicopters in. One day I said, because I'd be scared to speak up because in case he didn't want to look for my son, so my partner said, what about it, can you get sniffer dogs, helicopters, that and they went. That's resources, so I'm saying to my partner which resources, I've got too much money in that. My son needed to do something or there was nothing in it officers. We're not, our purpose is not to carry out an investigation. We can't do that. People are guilty of saying that but that's just the way it is. We cannot do that. I just want other families help. I can't start doing that now and I'm not proposing to, but what troubles me about this is the evidence that we've had from the police written submission to us basically says that they have a duty to provide family liaison support in certain circumstances. My question really is how did they determine why, in your case, why you weren't entitled to more support because if it had very clearly been a homicide or if there had been a fatal accident inquiry to be held then the submission we've had is that there would be an obligation to provide support but it seems in your case, from what I've gleaned from the evidence that there is, that they decided that there really wasn't that obligation and victim support also have said that they don't provide help. So it does seem that you kind of fall between the cracks here of the police and victim support. Do you have a sense of what you would like to have happened and would you have liked the police to have done more and are you able to see what would have been better? Some day I come in my house to see me, some day I go through, I've never, my son, it's nearly four years now and when my son was just missing in the 15 days time that's the only time I've seen the police in another two months after that so I've not seen the police or ever heard them for three years, just over three years, they don't talk to me, they're more sad. Just a complete wall of silence and I don't know why. So just a lack of communication was the kind of- 100% no communication at all, no communication whatsoever. It's just a common scene and no apparent desire to communicate. Oh no, no. In fact quite the opposite. Is that right? That's right. Well that really is wrong I think. I would imagine that many of us here feel that way so thank you again for answering my questions this morning. Thank you. Thank you. Stephanie, before we draw the evidence session to a closer, is there anything we have missed or you would like to say? See the video of them dragging my son and I think something has to be done about that. Please, please, because it's on video and you've no told me that's my son and I want to know my son's body, please. I'm begging, because I won't tell this with us. They won't tell me nothing. So I'm begging, please. Please help me, please help me a bit. It's just a bit empty. It's compassion for my B19-year-old boy. He did matter, he's beautiful. Can I tell you one more thing about him? He rescued and had a job right up there past the baby, so he didn't need drinking things and he never had a chance to. He wanted his wee brother, I've got four other kids and I'm scared and the person still walks about the street and I've got a lot of family and things and all that and he's left there worrying every time he door knocks. I'm terrified. Stephanie, can I say thank you very much for coming and giving us evidence? I know it's a real difficult time for you and it's difficult to re-enact what you've grown back through. I say also thank you to Public Gallery for coming here to support her and the petition. It's greatly appreciated. Can we suspend and still allow Stephanie to leave, please? Welcome everybody back to Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee. The next item on agenda is petition PE1896, provide every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle lodged by Callum. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace its disposable water bottles provided with primary school lunches with sustainable, reusable and metal bottles. We've previously considered to this petition at our meeting on 23 November 2022, where we agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport to give evidence to the committee. We have instead today the minister for green skills, circular economy and biodiversity. We'll honestly give evidence on the petition. Thank you for coming to give evidence to the committee this morning. Members have a number of questions, but I do believe that you have an open statement, minister. I do. Thank you very much. I would very much like to add my congratulations to Callum for the considerable effort that he's put behind this petition and the campaign, and for raising £1,400 to buy reusable bottles for his school. His work has been an inspiration to us all. I and this Government are committed to this agenda and are seeking to dramatically reduce the amount of single-use plastic products that we consume and throw away in Scotland. That's why we are working hard right now to implement Scotland's deposit return scheme. We have banned some of the most problematic single-use plastic products and are introducing a minimum charge on single-use beverage cups by 2025. Scotland's deposit return scheme, which will cover the kind of single-use bottles that we are talking about today, will alone reduce littering by a third and cut emissions by the equivalent of 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over 25 years. That's an average of around 160,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, the equivalent of taking 85,000 cars off the road in the UK. However, I agree that that is only part of what we need to do. Education authorities and schools have a key role in leading the way. Callum's petition has requested that the Scottish Government provide local authorities with funding to enable schools to give reusable metal water bottles to school children when they start in primary 1. While I welcome the spirit of the request made in this petition and share, absolutely share the same ultimate goal, reducing to a minimum the consumption of single-use plastics in schools, it is for local authorities as autonomous and democratic organisations to agree their annual budgets, taking into account their statutory duties, national and local priorities. The law says that all schools must make sure that drinking water is available free of charge for all pupils at all times of the day, including mealtimes. It is for each education authority and school to decide how drinking water is provided, and it's important that we respect this so that they can provide water in the way that works best for their schools and pupils. Obviously, the Scottish Government is clear that this decision, like others made by schools, should support our broader environmental goals. I know that those who provide catering in schools actively consider sustainability as part of their thinking about the delivery of their services. It is also reflected in the learning for sustainability cross-curricular theme, which encourages schools to take a whole setting approach to sustainability. That means that all school buildings, grounds and policies within the school should support learning for sustainability, making sure that the school is taking steps to be more sustainable, which includes reducing the use of plastic. I know that in practical terms local authorities do use sustainable approaches to reduce single-use plastic used in schools. That includes the provision of water fountains, ensuring that water jugs and reusable cups are available in dining halls and encouraging pupils to bring in and use reusable bottles. Further, in direct response to this petition, my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville wrote to the directors of education at all local authorities, drawing their attention to both the petition and their obligations to provide drinking water to pupils and further encouraging them to do so in an environmentally friendly way. We will continue to build on this progress. Thank you for inviting me here today and I am looking forward to answering your questions. Thank you minister. Several members do have questions to be answered and I will just start first. Is there any further engagement with local authorities, directors of education, following the cabinet secretary's letter regarding the issue raised in the petition? I am happy to pass that over to my colleague. Following the letter, we have not had further engagement with directors of education in relation to that. As part of the preparation of the letter, we engaged with COSLA, the representative organisation for local authorities, in order to garner their support in the provision of the letter. We have not engaged at this point in time with local authorities. That is partly also because there is an on-going duty upon education authorities to provide water. Education authorities are also required to have due regard to any guidance provided by Scottish ministers in relation to the provisions for sustainability as part of the Health and Nutrition and Promotion Act 2020. That guidance has been in place for some time and therefore we would regard that as an on-going commitment and requirement upon directors of education rather than something that is new and arising specifically in response to this committee. I am quite interested to know whether you spoke about the responsibility of local governments to provide water for young people. I am just interested to know to what extent that is monitored. Do we have any evidence that water is freely available and how well young people get to access that? There is on-going monitoring of the duties under the act. There is formal monitoring and there are specific nutrition inspections as part of the inspection arrangements for schools. We also engage regularly with catering services and education authorities as part of our on-going support for implementation of those provisions. That is an area that you will recognise is very important in terms of the provision of food and drinking water. As part of our nutritional standards, those have been recently revised, so we have had significant engagement with education authorities in recent times around those. We have on-going engagement in relation to that matter, so we are heavily well-cited on those provisions. I think that our understanding of the position would be that there has, of course, been an impact to provision of drinking water during the Covid-19 pandemic because there were specific guidance in place for education authorities at that time. That guidance has obviously come away and we are aware that catering services are returning to what would be a more normal provision in schools. We are still engaging around that at this point in time in terms of our other commitments around provision of food and drinking schools. Do you know the balance in terms of the change in guidance and stuff, whether it is disposable bottles that schools still give out or whether it is more sustainable? The petition suggests that there is a single-use plastic bottle provided in Calum School. That would not necessarily be the practice in every school in Scotland, so we do not start from the position that that is the practice in every school. I think that we are aware that there are other approaches. Instead of bottles, there are reusable cups and made-out corn starch. There are a variety of ways in which that happens. The use of single-use plastic is not quite as widespread as it might have initially been presented. Following on from Calum Mocken's question, I was pleased that there is monitoring of the extent to which schools provide water to pupils. What is the upshot? What evidence do you have from each local authority about that? I do not hold specific evidence, as I indicated. It is through on-going monitoring and engagement through nutrition inspectors and through our on-going engagement with catering services. We have not done a specific exercise to monitor provision because it is a legal requirement of the health promotion and nutrition act and the specific regulations. If you are not able to say what evidence there is, how do you know that children get water? We know that from the discussions that we have with catering services and with education authorities. When you used the term evidence, I had been thinking more specifically of a specific exercise to undertake and establish the position in each education authority rather than the evidence that we gather through our on-going engagement with education authorities, which, as I have already said, is very, very regular. We have feedback in that way. Obviously, that is appreciated. Calum Mocken has asked for, and the minister said that he has done well. I think that we all recognise that. Basically, what Calum Mocken has said is that every primary school child should have a reusable water bottle. If you have your own water bottle, you carry it with you. You have that all day. Anything else, whether it is a fountain or a cup in the canteen, you do not have. We are fortunate here. We are privileged here. We have all got water, but they do not have that in schools. The whole point is twofold. One, every child has access to water. You say that you do not know whether that is the case or not. Number two, the whole point of the petition is that access should be done by means of a reusable bottle, so that there are less rest repetitive cups, paper and plastic cups, and so on, which are bad for the environment. Some total of your evidence is that you really do not know what is happening, and you have not said yes to Calum's petition. There have been warm words, but Calum has not really made any progress, has he? I do not think that that is an accurate representation of the situation at all. There are other sustainable ways of providing water, and it is up for schools to provide the way that works best for them. For example, if schools and local authorities have invested in water fountains and the maintenance and upkeep of those, that is how they have decided to provide that statutory requirement to provide water, and that is how they have decided to spend their budgets. That is with them to make that decision equally with jug and cup schemes. They will have invested in that scheme, and that is absolutely within their purview to decide how to spend that money and how to make that provision. It is not for us to impose on them how to interpret that requirement to provide that water, but we do know that water is being provided, as my colleague says, because of on-going conversations that we have with education authorities. I quite like to see that evidence, because it does not seem to me that there is clarity. There really should be clarity from each local authority who should provide a simple explanation of what they do in each case. The last question that I would like to ask is this. If every child were provided with such a reusable bottle, that would enable a form of national procurement. If a national procurement system is done for every local authority, the way procurement goes is that you get a better price, because you are buying many more of exactly the same thing, rather than have possibly 31 separate procurement exercises and bottles. Have you actually considered, has the minister had advice about or sought advice about whether or not a national procurement scheme would offer not only these cost benefits because you get cheaper unit costs because of larger procurement, but also certainty that children actually get access to a reusable source of water personally, which they can have all the time and thereby answering Callum's petition and providing certainty, near certainty, that every child is properly hydrated, which with respect minister, you are not able to say at the moment. Callum's petition is specifically about a proposal to replace single use bottles, which was the case situation in his school. Many schools already have solutions in place for this, for example water ffans or jug and cup schemes. There is already that provision in place. We are not wanting to solve a problem that has already been solved in many schools, and we know that schools are working toward that sustainability objective. We also nationally have programmes in place for tackling single use plastics, for example our deposit return scheme. The process to move away from single use plastics is well under way. I recognise Callum's hard work on that and the work that he has done with his school, but it is not the correct solution necessarily for every school and is up to schools and local authorities to put in place the correct solutions to them. Thank you for those remarks, minister, but with respect, there is no evidence that you have got. I would suggest that you get evidence from each local authority to find out what actually is happening. I wonder whether the statutory guidance on nutritional requirements for food and drink in schools could be revised to address the concerns raised in the petition by Callum? The position that I set out earlier in terms of the health promotion and nutrition act and the food and nutrition regulations are already aligned to ensure sustainability as part of the approach to the provision of food and drink in schools. Therefore, we would not require to amend the regulation in order to address sustainability or the use of single use plastic, because that arrangement is already built in as part of the legislative arrangements that exist. As I have said, we have significant on-going engagement with education authorities and catering services in terms of the issue and their arrangements for promoting sustainability. Minister, you touched on the deposit return scheme when Fergus Ewing was asking a question previously. How would the deposit return scheme operate in schools and the impact that it could have on the use of bottled water? Thank you very much. There are several different ways that schools may interact with the deposit return scheme. Large schools that have, for example, a cafeteria where they are selling drinks, they would obviously be part of the scheme in terms of charging the £20 as any shop or cafeteria of that style would. They have an obligation under the scheme to decide whether they are going to operate as a return point. They have the same choice that any other cafeteria or similar venue would be to operate as a manual return point, to install an RVM to be a reverse vent point, or to apply for an exemption from being a return point based on health and safety grounds and some of the other grounds that are available for exemptions. Schools that do, for example, free school meals and provide a free bottle have a couple of options there in terms of either running as a closed-loop system, like many restaurants will. For example, when you buy a bottle of wine in your restaurant, you do not take that bottle away with you, so you would not pay a deposit on that. The restaurant takes that back. That is called a closed-loop system. If schools were to offer an open-loop system with free school meals, they would have to incorporate the price of the deposit into that meal because this child would then be able to go away and collect that 20p when they returned the container themselves. There are all different ways in which schools may interact with the scheme. Of course, if schools move away from using single-use plastics as a way of providing drinks, and specifically that water provision that they are required to provide, they would not be required to participate in deposit return. Is there any further legislation in Scotland or UK-wide that has raised with the petitioner here? He is trying to achieve something. We know that there are other things that are trying to be achieved. For example, the circle economy bill and the UK extended producer responsibility, what impact could they have on the petition in the way that things are planning to go forward? The member raises excellent points. Those are exactly the sort of tools that we have in our toolkit as we move towards a circular economy and get rid of this waste, particularly the plastic waste, but waste of all materials and energy in our society is no good. I will start with the extended producer responsibility for plastic. That is a UK-wide initiative. I think that it was two weeks ago at committee that we passed the SSI to start collecting data toward that scheme. From 2024, businesses will need to report large packaging producers on what their packaging is made of, how much packaging, that sort of thing, toward 2025 when they will pay fees based on how much packaging they produce and those fees will be collected and distributed to local authorities to help them to pay for recycling. This is another one of the producer responsibility schemes where the cost of handling those materials at the end of their usage is going to be passed to the producers of those materials rather than being borne by the public purse. That is a very exciting initiative. I am hoping to transform our recycling and also the design of packaging and materials because it will incentivise producers of packaging to use more sustainable materials, more recyclable materials and, hopefully, less material altogether so that it is advantageous to them to do that under the fee scheme. The other thing that you touched on was the circular economy bill. That is a bill that is largely about taking new powers. One of the things that was consulted on for that bill, for example, was about taking the power so that we can put charges on single-use items. For example, we are looking at the single-use beverage cups next as one of the things to look at in that single-use space. However, that bill is intended to take power so that we can then be adaptable as we go forward and use targeted approaches, much like we all know was done on plastic bags, which is what we have under our current powers and how very effective that was in reducing litter and damage to the environment. Minister, before we conclude the evidence, is there anything else you would like to add? No, just thanks very much to Callum for bringing that to our attention. He is absolutely right that we should all be working towards using fewer single-use plastics, using reusable, long-term containers and packaging, so thanks to him so much for his work. I say Minister and Laura, thank you very much for your time. Members, are we content to take the evidence that I have for meeting? We will suspend for a short while. We will now continue with considered petitions. The next petition is petition 1862, introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to islands communities, lodged by Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the EU's economic task force. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of the public organisations delivering lifeline services to islands communities and keeping with the islands Scotland Act 2018. We were previously considered as a petition at our meeting on 9 November, where we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport to seek information on the progress of appointments to a board of David McBrane Ltd and to seek an update on the communication between the minister and the Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd how regarding the proposals put forward in this petition. I am pleased to say that we have now received the response from the minister, which sets out the details of our advertising campaign to recruit two non-executive directors on the board of David McBrane. The minister highlights that the understanding of island life is key to criteria for his roles and that this will be fully explored and assessed through the recruitment process. In relation to HAL, the minister also notes that an understanding of the communities in which HAL airports are located is an essential requirement for all board members. It is also noted that HAL has recently recruited a new finance director, which has also been appointed to the board and is an island resident. The committee has also received a submission from our colleague Al Staraun MSP. Dr Alun has reiterated his support for this petition and notes that, while progress has been made, individual appointments to boards of HAL and CalMac do not necessarily mean that the issues have been resolved. Do any members have comments or suggestions? I have been approached by people about acknowledging that there has been some movement but there is no great urgency to see it as a key priority. I have been asked to raise with the committee that there should be a priority made to having an islander on HAL board. Beatrice Wishart from Shetland has spoken to me just about how the community there feels that it is absolutely imperative that that happens, so I just wanted to share that with the committee. I think that there is progress being made here but it still requires more information. I would suggest that we might write to the Minister of Transport to encourage the Scottish Government to continue making progress on the issue that has already been raised by other MSPs and MSPs on this group here today and recommend that they explore all available options to formalise the role of community representation on boards of public organisations, providing a lifeline service to island communities. Some of the organisations that we have touched on in the past, convener, when we talked about representation of HAL or David McBride or SEMAIL. Those are the types of organisations that we should be requesting the ministers to give us more information on. We can then assess how the progress is really managing to go forward. I support the recommendation that Alexander Stewart has just made, but I would also add the specific reference in the letter to the minister that could be made and perhaps a copy appended of Alasdair Allan's submission. He makes several very good points about the value of having island residents on boards relating to ferries, transportation and health. He goes into a couple of the reasons that organisations are improved by having people who personally rely on the services rather than outsiders who do not use the services. That is a very common sense point, and it seems to be a practical example of the benefits that can come if you have local residents on these boards rather than outsiders without being pejorative. Secondly, having island-based board members would also make for a better flow of ideas, he says, from communities at an early stage rather than consultation taking place after decisions have basically been taken. I think that that too is a very good point, convener, and perhaps we could ask that the minister bear in mind in relation to further future appointments to public bodies. Thank you for that. Are we all agreed with his recommendations? Thank you. Our next petition is petition 1862, fast track future adult disability payment applications for people undergoing cancer treatment lodged by Wendy Swann. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department within the Social Security Scotland that will fast track future adult disability payments applications for people with cancer dinos while they are undergoing treatment. At our last consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to the social security agency highlighting the concerns of a petitioner and the recommendations of a system improvement set out by McCallum Cancer Support. In response, the Scottish social security agency has confirmed that it will publish statistics routinely on a quarterly basis and that the information available will be expanded as it continues to collect more data. This will include information on processing times. The response outlines its works to address the issues raised by McCallum Cancer Support recommendations. The petitioner's recent submissions highlights the on-going concern about rejections and applications for disability payments that have been put. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I think that we have already asked some questions about the petition in the past and we have received some assurances, but I still think that there are a number of areas that we might still want to ask. It might be advantageous to write to the Social Security Scotland to ask whether it intends to set those targets, because I think that the targets being set is the vitally important process that we have here when an application process and the timing of that application for both special and normal rule cases, because if we can get that, we will get an answer as to where we are. If that is the case, then there are other options that can be looked at thereafter. Does everybody agree with that? Our next petition is petition 19-19, prohibit the sale of high caffeine products to children for performance enhancement lodged by Ted Gurley. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under 18s for performance enhancement due to the risk of serious harm. We last considered the petition that we are making on 28 September, when we agreed to the Scottish Government to seek information on when the report on the consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people will be published. We have now received the response from the Scottish Government, which states that we will publish an independent consultation analysis report and set out our policy response in due course. The Scottish Government response also suggests that evidence-based in relation to caffeine, especially caffeine gum, continues to develop and that it will look to the European Food Safety Authority and others as this evidence involves to consider the implications of the current advice of caffeine products. At this stage, the Scottish Government is not considering a ban on the sale of fast-release caffeine products to under 18s. We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Ted Gurley, in which he raises concerns about the lack of available evidence to understand the impact of high-strength, fast-release caffeine products on athletes of various ages. Mr Gurley also offers suggestions for further information, governed by the committee, as well as draws our attention to advice that the US anti-doping agency provides in relation to caffeine. Do any members have suggestions? I think that we are writing to the Scottish Government requesting an update on when the analysis report and policy response to the consultation into ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people will be published. I would also suggest that we recommend that the commission further research into effects of fast-release caffeine products on children and young people, particularly those participating in physical activity. It might also be useful to seek some clarity from the UK Athletics to seek their views on where we are in this whole raised by the petition. The information on any action that they are undertaking to address the potential risks to athletes under 18s using fast-release caffeine products for performance enhancement might also give us an indication as to how it is being managed and processed by the UK Athletics. Just to back that recommendation, I did note that it is stated in the information that we have that there have been sudden cardiac deaths at races where caffeine and gum was promoted, although there were no investigations of any potential link and the Scottish Athletics and Sport Scotland warned of health risks. I will mention that because plainly, if cardiovascular risks are involved and death has occurred, then this is a very serious matter. I think that we should get this further evidence in some detail. I would support that if the Athletics Associations are already looking at this, I think that bringing the evidence to the committee would be very worthwhile. Thank you for that, colleagues. Are we all in agreement? Our next petition is the 1926, Expand universal free school meals for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils lodged by Alison Dillon. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meal provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils. At last consideration of the petition on 28 September, we agreed to write to Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills seeking an update on the work that has been undertaken to expand the provision of free schools, especially where priority has been given to extending the provision to pupils in secondary school. In response, the Cabinet secretary notes that £30 million of capital funding has been allocated to support the expansion of catering and dining facilities to help plan for expansion of free school meals to pupils in primaries 6 and 7. The cabinet secretary also states that the Scottish Government's commitment to a pilot of free school meals in secondary schools to support consideration of further expansion. Do members have any comments or suggestions? The £30 million is welcome, but what is it being spent on and when and what is the timetable? Can we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek further information on the planned pilot of free school meals in secondary schools, especially the anticipated timescale for carrying out of the pilot? It is probably on a very similar point. I think that it is very disappointing that we do not have a time frame. There has been commitments made around school meals. There is a growing evidence body that this is an important policy to take forward. There has been made commitments and nothing has come forward, so we should strongly work a letter to the minister to ask exactly whether we can set out the time frame for that. Our next petition is petition 1934. Make lessons on gender-based violence, mandatory for all year groups in high schools, on behalf of Greenfield's High School Rights and Equality Committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. That resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help to create a safer society for women. At the last consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. It also agreed to write to COSLA. Following our last consideration of the petition, we requested information from COSLA on the current provision on gender-based violence lessons across local authorities. COSLA responds to details on a number of on-going work streams that are being delivered by schools in partnership with local rape crisis centres and rape crisis Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills' recent submission states that recording and monitoring of incidents in schools is essential. Emphasising the importance on the consistency and uniform approach, the local authority owns the tools that COSLA provides a function to record instances of sexual harassment. Evaluation was due to take place in 2022 to access the success of the system. The submission also highlights upcoming reviews of PSE and prevention practices. I think that we need to write to COSLA to ask which three local authorities are yet to roll out the mental violence prevention programme in secondary schools, requesting information about what the challenges have been and preventing the details of work. It is also to ask what challenges face local government in embedding school-based provision for violence against. I think that it is also to write to Rape Scotland crisis to request information on its reporting mechanisms for the equality sale of school strategy, whether it plans work with local authorities has resulted in an increase in activities across Scotland. Those would be very useful for us to try and get some more clarity on where we are in this whole process. As you have indicated in your opening, this is an immensely important and if it is embedded at school level then it stops any and prevents once they have left. I am interested. We know that all of us will be aware that within the Parliament there has been significant debates and discussion on violence against women and girls. I just wondered if we have any information about whether any of the other committees have done any work around this, around education about either in the justice committee or in the education committee. I will just be interested to look at that evidence. On Alexander Stewart's recommendations, are we all agreed? We now move on to agenda item 3, consideration of new petitions. I will give this item as anormally due by saying that before committee considers a new petition, we request an initial view on the petition from the Scottish Government, as well as a briefing from the Parliament's Impartial Research Service, SPICE. Our first new petition today is petition 1969, amend the law to fully decriminalise a wash in Scotland lodged by Gemma Clarke. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to fully decriminalise abortion services in Scotland and make provision to ensure that abortion services are available up to 24 weeks of pregnancy across all parts of Scotland. Gemma highlights that why the abortion act 1967 sets out criteria to make an abortion permissible, such as a requirement for two doctors' signatures does not explicitly decriminalise abortion. This Gemma believes that it leaves women open to risk of prosecution if they choose to end the pregnancy. In responding to a petition, the Scottish Government makes clear review that all women should be able to access abortion services as set down within the limits of the law where they wish. The Government's response also makes reference to a work being undertaken with NHS boards to ensure that services of up to 24 weeks are established in Scotland, as well as supported support being provided to Gillian Mackay MSP in drafting her members' bill on safe access zones for abortion services. While the Scottish Government has indicated that it may be open to reviewing the law on abortion in the future, it has no immediate plans to amend the abortion act 1967. The committee has also received a submission from the Scottish Feminist Policy and Advocysy Organisation in Gender, which briefly sets out its argument in supporting the decriminalisation of abortion. Members should be aware, as highlighted in both briefings that we have received from SPICE and the Scottish Government's response, that the offence against the person's act 1961 mentions that the petition does not apply in Scotland. Do members have any suggestions or comments, please? Thank you. I am quite supportive of the general principles behind the petition about decriminalising abortion in a modern society. It seems right that the 1967 abortion act has to be updated. I would be interested to know why the Government is saying that it is supportive, but it has not set out any plans to do that. I wonder whether we could explore that. I know that the medical support behind changing that is there, so I think that it would be interesting just to make sure that we have all that information. I would like us to take the petition forward if we can. I am just wondering if we could also write to the several stakeholders involved here to seek their views on the actions that are called for in the petition, such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Sexual Health Scotland, British Medical Association, Scottish Human Rights Commission, abortion rights Scotland, faith organisations and the Faith Scotland Society for the Protection of Unborn Child and the Humanist Society of Scotland, if the committee has agreed. Alexander Stewart? I think that it is vitally important that we collate as much information on that topic. As you have indicated, by contacting a number of those agencies and organisations, they will be able to give their views on any action that may be required. I think that that will give us a much better and a more holistic approach as to how we would challenge that petition, because, as Carol Mocken has already said, it requires updating, it requires to be looked at, because it has been decades since that has been examined in this way. By putting that together and by collecting that information, we will have a much better picture as to how that is being processed across those organisations in Scotland. Is the committee all agreed with those recommendations? Our next new petition is petition 1984, introduced C100 form for child arrangement orders in Scotland, lodged by Amy Stevenson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reduce financial barriers that prevent parents from having contact with their children by introducing a Scottish equivalent to C100 form with a fixed fee for making applications for child residence or child contact orders. Members may recall that we previously considered a petition from Amy Stevenson, which focuses on the provision of legal aid to parents fighting for access to their children. Amy has followed up that petition with this call for an introduction of a form similar to C100 form used in England and Wales when applying to the court for a child arrangement order. Amy suggests that introducing a similar form in Scotland along with a fixed fee for submitting it would help to reduce the financial burden on parents seeking child residence or contact orders. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government set out a current process for application to a court for child residence and contact orders and the fees associated with it. While accepting that the existing procedures for lodging rights and defence in Scotland are viewed as difficult to understand, the Scottish Government also highlights a range of issues that we require to consider before moving to a form-based system. That includes circumstances that the C100 form is too lengthy and can be difficult for vulnerable applicants to complete without assistance. A form may not capture all the relevant issues for a court to consider and the concerns that a form-based approach may not be focused on the best interests of the child. It is also noted that a form-based process may reduce costs at the initial application stage but it would not rule out the need for applicants to assess legal advice or other stages of a process. The committee has also received a submission from Shane Payton Scotland and Claire Baker MSP, coffees that have been included in our meeting papers. I would briefly highlight that Shane Payton Scotland has suggested that the introduction of a C100 form or similar would remove some barriers for parents who are trying to restore or establish a schedule of contact with their children but that wider improvements are necessary to provide parents in these circumstances. Do members have any suggestions or comments? I think that this is very important because there are areas that we have heard in the submission and we have already received but I think that we need to get more information. It is important that we are right to the Scottish Government highlighting the online system that has been introduced in Australia and in the Netherlands and seeks information on what considerations have been given to developing a similar service here for parents who have separated in Scotland. I think that that would be very useful for us to collate that information from these other organisations in our countries who have put that in place. It might also be quite useful for us to find out from some once again of the organisations that we have here in Scotland, for example the Law Society, the Family Law Association, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Services, the Relationship Scotland and the Family Law Committee on the Scottish Civil Justice Council to seek their views to find out where we can take this petition. I would suggest those following recommendations, convener. Are members agreed with that? Our next new petition is the petition PE 1985, a value garage to home developments lodged by Dan Loftus. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent evaluation and provide national guidance on garages to home developments. The Scottish Government's response to the petition notes that the process garage to homes project meets the council's local housing strategy objectives and that this is supported by both the Scottish Borders Council and the South of Scotland enterprise. It states that homes will be permanently high quality homes designed for future users and or people with limited mobility. On the issue of community engagement, it highlighted a public consultation in November 2022 and plans for consultation events in the future. The submission concludes by stating that the Scottish Government does not prescribe nor enforce particular housing solutions but rather it provides a planning framework against which developments are tested. The petition's reaction, recent submission asks, is the aspiration of the Scottish Parliament to move the citizens, especially older adults and the people with disabilities, into housing units converted from garages. Its submission questions the equality and feasibility study of the project, stating that no social factors or identifiable local housing needs were factored into study. Do members have any comments or suggestions? We need to write to the Scottish Government to seek some more clarity what consideration is given to the national impact of garages to homes developments in the Scottish Borders Council, whether it believes that a broader evaluation of such development is required and whether it recognises the value of assessing factors such as social impact as part of any evaluation of such developments. It would also possibly be an opportunity to get COSLA's view and seek their views on the petition for a planning and local authority perspective. I think that that would also give us a flavour as to how they see this whole process, convener. As a committee agreed with him, thank you. Our next new petition, this petition PE 1986, provides testing kits for drugs in public space age lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of help not harm campaign. Petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces such as local pharmacies, libraries and universities buildings. The SPIFE briefing for this petition highlights the recommendations of the Scottish Drugs Deaths Task Force, which states that drug testing should be supported and existing checking facilities should be reviewed to ensure that they are open, transparent and accessible. A briefing points to research projects into licensed drug checking facilities, which is due to report in January 2023 and another related to a project that is due to conclude in March 2023. The Scottish Government submission shares its recommendations about the simplicity of the proposed testing kits put forward in this petition. It highlights the planned establishment of drug checking services in Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow through its upcoming pilots. This approach includes laboratory testing, links to other drug services and provides wider public health information about drugs in circulation. Do members have any comments or actions? Yes, I would suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for a number of things, a summary of the evaluation report and programme of implementation on licensed drug checking facilities and an update on the status of its licence application to the Home Office for the establishment of drug checking facilities to ask who the target service users are for the facilities pilot and request information on how health boards will engage with those groups. Finally, to ask what considerations have been given to ensure that drug checking facilities will be made accessible to people who are not already in touch with other health services, especially young adults, as highlighted by the Scottish Drugs Death Task Force. Does anybody have any other? Not if we all agreed with that? Thank you very much. Our next new petition is petition PE 1987, Amend the Scotland Act 2016, to automatically trigger a by-election if an MSP councillor leaves their party lodged by James Cassidy. A petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scotland Act 2016 to automatically trigger a by-election by compelling an MSP or councillor to resign if they leave the party that they were elected under. The Scottish Government's response to the petition states that, in terms of its own membership, it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. On the issue of councillors, the Scottish Government states that there is no current plans to change the electoral system in the way that the petition is calling for. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I think that, in reality, we have heard that there is no need or that there is no information coming forward that this is going to be a reality. I would suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not plan to change the electoral system to prevent accounts from remaining in post-falling their resignation from a political party. They are representing when elected. Any other members have any comments? Are we agreed with the recommendations? The next new petition is the petition PE 1991, Development Educational Resource on Abortion, lodged by Gemma Clarke. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop a health-focused and stigma-challenging educational resource on abortion and make it available to all secondary schools in Scotland. Gemma believes that it is essential for all young people to receive medical accurate and health-focused education on abortion, and that challenging the stigma around abortion is also essential for well-rounded sexual health curriculum. In the written submission in support of her petition, Gemma has also raised concerns about anti-abortion groups visiting schools and the importance of ensuring young people are provided with factual information regarding their healthcare. The Scottish Government has responded in the petition, as it often does in those cases, to state that the curriculum is not mandatory. We do not have other shared details of relationships, sexual health and penthood resources that are available to teachers. It is also noted that those resources have been developed and peer reviewed in partnership with educators, health professionals and the first sector organisations, with intention of providing young people with learning about this factual objective, in which it enables them to make informed choices about their sexual health and wellbeing. The committee has also received submissions from the Human Society Scotland, a joint letter from the British Pregnancy advisory service, Back Off Scotland and the Scottish teachers for positive change of wellbeing. These submissions are broadly supportive of the petitioners' aim to ensure that pupils receive medical accurate and health-focused education on abortion. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I am broad supportive of the petition and I have been approached by other members in the Parliament to suggest that we could seek to find out some further information on what actually happens within the school education system and how we could support proper education around that, which is often sensitive for young people at schools, young women in particular. I would be keen to see if we could get together some of the information and see how it is actually taken up in the school curriculum. I wonder if we could write to organisations, including COSLA, Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, a general teaching council for Scotland, a Scottish Catholic education service, and a society for protection of an unborn child to seek their views on the issues raised within the petition. Are we all agreed? We now move on to our final and new petition for today, petition 1992, due to the A9 Improving the Real Safety, lodged by Laura Halster. I cannot welcome Murdo Fraser MSP and Rhoda Grant, our regular visitor MSP, to the committee today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9. By publishing our revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling of the work by 2025 and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives on the road to traffic accidents on the A9. We are joined in consideration for the petition by MSP's colleagues, Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant, and I welcome you both. I should probably begin by saying that this petition has now been somewhat superseded by the Minister of Transport's Statement of Parliament on 8 February, in which it was confirmed that the 2005 completion date is now no longer available. Nevertheless, I will set out some of the background before opening up to wider discussion. In the background information to petition the petitioner, Laura Halster tells us that A9 dualling action group was formed to raise awareness of a number of people who have lost their lives on the A9 and the need for a mandatory safety feature to be deployed to help reduce the further loss of life, as well as to explore whether there should be an investigation in the procurement procedures associated with the project. In its initial response to the petition, received prior to a minister's statement, the Scottish Government highlighted the short-term road safety measures that have been developed by Transport Scotland to take account of the recent trend of fatal accidents on the A9. The response also states that the Scottish Government's firm commitment to compel the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Abernes without providing a revised timetable and when this work is likely to be completed. Following the minister's statement, the committee has received a submission from a petitioner in which she calls on us to consider the public inquiry into matter. I will open it up to the members first and I will come to Fergus Ewing. I commend Laura Hansler for bringing the petition to Parliament. I believe that it has been signed by several thousand people. Last year, there were 13 people who lost their lives in incidents on the A9 and 12 of those occurred on sections of the A9, which are single-carriageway. There is evidence that the risk of fatality or incapacitating injuries as a result of incidents is three times greater on single-carriageway than dual-carriageway and 10 times greater on single-carriageway than motorway. There are no dual-carriageway links in the Highlands and, therefore, for a Highlander, a Highland resident, the chance of dying on the road is between three and ten times greater than those living in the central belt. Every death has been a tragedy for families and has caused absolute devastation. I just mention that because that is the backdrop that has brought representatives from all parties, I think, or nearly all parties, to the conclusion that we really need to get to the bottom of what is happening here. My suggestion, convener, is that there should be a parliamentary inquiry. Perhaps the net zero and transport committee, if it wishes and has the time so to do, could be approached privately to see if this is an inquiry that they are able to undertake given their busy work schedule. If they are not able to undertake it, I would suggest that this committee carry out such an inquiry, but I think that the important point that I am making is that inquiry is required. Why? Well, I think that there are really several questions, but the two main ones that, and I am interested to hear what Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant say is because I think that we have actually been working across-party on this, which is good, and with the Liberal Democrats as well, I should say. I think that the two questions are, what exactly went wrong with Tomatyn Moyn? I mean, it was announced that it would be going ahead back, I think, in around the spring of 2021, and it was only fairly recently that we heard it wasn't going ahead. So what happened in that intervening period? And why did it go wrong? Will a retender actually solve the problem or could it lead to the same situation happening again with apparently only one bidder being left at a price, which was reported to be unacceptably high? The second, and the main question really, and this is the thrust of my recommendation, conveners, that the scope of that inquiry should be how do we most swiftly complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness? How can that be done and what procurement options and choices should be carried out? I have had extensive discussions with people in the civil engineering sector, including the chartered engineers contractors association SICA, who are the representative body. Those discussions have led me to the conclusion that the industry believe that if things proceed at the moment where we are procuring one section consecutively after another and only doing one at a time, then given it takes three years minimum actually for each section, one year to procure and two years to build, and there are nine remaining sections, nine threes or 27, 27 plus 2023 is 2050. The prospect of this road not being dualled by 2050 is utterly, utterly unacceptable to, I think, all parties and certainly my constituents in the Highlanders. However, and this is the last point I'll make, conveners, I appreciate you giving me some latitude here. The very same industry senior insiders tell me that if everything is done and the capacity is there to do it, the companies are there to do it if they can be persuaded to do it by Transport Scotland, but if everything is done as it could be done, as swiftly as it can be done, the completion of the dualling could be around 2030. The key is the procurement options. Transport Scotland recognised that the current model of procurement, where all the risks are passed to the contractors, results in the situation that one company left Scotland entirely, one company stopped bidding for roads, leaving a limited pool of potential bidders from whom competitive bids can be required. In that circumstance, competitive bidding may well lead to the scenario again that there is no competitive bids, particularly since it costs about half a million pounds to prepare a bid, and you have four or five companies doing the same work four or five times over. A framework contract that is applicable in Highways England, I understand, and some local authorities and Scottish Water would seem to be the way ahead, which will allow several sections of the road, and parts of the A96 that should also be dualled, and the dualling of which, from Smithton to Aldern, including the Nairn bypass, is again a Government commitment that can be agreed to. An inquiry into all of those things by a parliamentary committee would allow us all in conclusion to display forensic, critical but supportive questioning of Transport Scotland, of the Minister of Industry figures in order to get this done, because, frankly, the people in the Highlands and throughout Scotland have been really frustrated and, in many cases, angry that the pledge that the Scottish Government made has not been kept, and, furthermore, there hasn't even been an apology for that. I thank the committee this morning, and I should start by saying that I endorse everything that my friend Fergus Ewing has said, and he's absolutely right to say that there is a strong cross-party concern on this issue. My colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston apologises that he would have been here this morning to support the petition, but it has been detained elsewhere. I think that we're having a debate on this issue in the chamber this afternoon, so I'll say more about the matter then, but just briefly to summarise, I have a strong personal interest in the matter. More than 30 years ago, I was involved in a head-on collision on the A9 on a single carriageway section that left me with multiple fractures and spending weeks in hospital recovering. I was one of the lucky ones, because many others who have been involved in similar accidents have not survived, as Fergus Ewing made very clear with the stark figures that we've seen just for the last year, with 12 people dying on single carriageway sections. There is little doubt that, had we had a dual carriageway with central barriers between the different lanes, we would not have seen the same level of serious fatality and accident as we have seen on the A9. It is a crucial issue from a road safety perspective. There was a lot of celebration in the Highlands and across the area that I represent, Mid Scotland, Perthyn Cynros in particular, when the current Scottish Government announced in 2011 a timetable for progressing the A9 dualling project to complete by 2025. We know that that is not happening now, and that was confirmed by the Minister just two weeks ago. However, it is important that we keep the pressure on to press for a completion date, and we better understand what the reasons are and why we cannot see faster progress. I entirely endorse the call for a parliamentary inquiry to be done by a committee of the Parliament that can drill down to those issues and ensure that we have a proper understanding of what exactly is holding up the vital road safety project, which, if it does not progress, sadly, we are just going to see more fatalities over the next few years. Thank you, Mr Fraser. I thank the committee for allowing me to come and speak to this petition, and I agree with what colleagues have already said. The A9 is a road that is not just impacting on constituents in Inverness. It impacts on the whole of the Highlands and Islands, and I pay tribute to Lorna Hansel for bringing forward this petition and all those who are campaigning to improve the road. A lot of people say that there is no such thing as a dangerous road, that it is only dangerous drivers. However, the road plays a huge part in mitigating driver error. I think that everyone can admit to driver error at one point or another, but the design of the road keeps people safe. I have driven the road, I drive the road weekly and I see very strange driver behaviour, and most of it would not have happened if it had been a dual carriageway. Last year, there were eight deaths in the 25-mile stretch near the slough in just three months, and that was tragic—both a total amount of deaths last year was 13. Those people are lost not only to their families but to their communities, and we all lose out from their contribution to society. That impacts on everybody. The SNP made a manifesto commitment back in 2007. In December 2011, ministers confirmed the commitment, and they put the timeframe of 2025 on it at that point. Sadly, progress is slow. I do not believe that the war in Ukraine, Brexit or Covid or inflation because of all those issues is the issue underlying that, because had that target of 2025 actually been a goal, those contracts would have already been issued, the land would have been purchased, and we would probably be on the last stretch rather than looking towards the third stretch. We still have 11 sections of the road to be dualled and no timeframe for them. The closest timeframe that we have had is the one that Fergus Ewing alluded to, where an industry representative has said 2050. I would even say that it might be longer than that because the stretches that have been dualled have not been done back-to-back. There have been gaps between that work, so we really need an investigation into that. Even if you look at the cost of the public purse, every fatality costs about £2 million to investigate. Last year, £26 million included the loss of life, and that is the loss to the public purse as well. I am keen to see an inquiry. Like Fergus, it would be worthwhile the committee saying that the net zero committee had space to do that, but I also wonder if it is maybe something that this committee would want to get its teeth into and carry out an inquiry because you maybe have the scope. I know that it is something that the committee likes to do from time to time to take an issue that a petitioner has brought forward and look into it. I wonder whether you would consider that, but certainly a committee of the Parliament carrying out a thorough inquiry that would tell us what has gone wrong, what progress has actually been made and give us some realistic timescales. I am just wondering, members, if, in the instance of Clartes, we can continue to discuss with the net zero committee on the possibility of an inquiry, but in the meantime, we continue to cover evidence on that. I would suggest that we invite a petitioner to provide evidence to the committee, and we invite a transmor minister to provide evidence to the committee in future meetings, if that is accepted by a committee member. Alexander Stewart. That is very acceptable. We need the strength of view and the strength of feeling of this is so immense. As we have already found out today, there is cross-party support. There are thousands of individuals who have made this petition part of their process, and there is no doubt that there has been a neglect in this process. That is coming through very, very strong from the petitioner. Having the petitioner here would give us much more clarity. I also think that your idea of making the transmor minister come as well would also be very useful. We need to get information from other organisations that are affected by this whole process. Organisations such as the Society of Chief Officers of Transport in Scotland have an impact to play in that. We also think about the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transport. They have a role and even the road college association, because those are the individuals whose members or organisations are using the road and are suffering from the process that we have heard very eloquently from MSPs this morning about what the dangers are on this road and the possibilities that they have. I think that the more information that we can get here, and I like the idea of this committee maybe considering something if it is not possible to take it to another committee of the Parliament. I think that that could be investigated by the clerks, as you suggest, but we should not lose sight that this committee has an opportunity and an area that we might want to do ourselves to ensure that that is the case, convener, so that would be my suggestions as well as your own. If there is an appetite for this committee to do the inquiry, I think that we would be well placed to do it. I know that the next zero committee is very busy, but I think that because they are the lead committee it would be politic to have discussions. Personally, Alexander Stewart is right. We could do a good job and we would be assisted by visiting members, I am perfectly sure. I would be more than happy if this petition's committee did it in some ways. Practically, it might be easier for us to play a part. I think that we should also write to the chambers of commerce, possibly Inverness and Perth, who have been very active in this, the Association of Community Councils. I can supply the clerks with information about who to write to in Bain a Constraith's Fife, for example. Sandy McCook chairs a group of the community councils there and also the Chartered Engineers Contractors Association, who I know can provide expert evidence. It would be good to contact them. I should apologise to my constituents that I am not able to attend the debate on the A9 this afternoon, because I will be in the dental chair having my teeth drilled. I hope that it is nobody connected with Transport Scotland if I am doing the drilling, so it will be a bit like perhaps not Hamlet without the Prince but probably since I count my age Hamlet without Polonius perhaps, but Laertes will be there to fill the breach, convener. I just thought that I should state that out of courtesy, because normally I do participate in all these debates and it's a matter of disappointment that I wasn't able to do so because I couldn't get any other appointment. So just state that for the record and of courtesy to other members who might wonder why I'm not making my views known. Thank you, Fergus Ewing. Are the committee happy with his recommendations? Can I say thank you to Murdo Fraser, to Rhoda Grant for her attendance today? That concludes the public session of this meeting this morning, and our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 March 2023, and we will move into private session.