 Felly, cwm fawr o gydag, a nhw i ddim yn fwy o'r ffrindwyr yng nghymru o'r Cymru Pwliciwyr diwylliannol 2019. Felly, mae'n ddweud o ddweud o ffwrdd yma yng nghymru. Ffwrdd o ffwrdd y nghymru efo'r ddweud o'r ddweud o ffwrdd ynghymru ynghymru. Mae'n ddweud o ffwrdd ynghymru i ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud o ddweud. The next item is consideration of two new petitions. The first new petition is petition 1718, lodged by Alec Wallace, which calls for body cameras to be introduced for all NHS front-line and theatre staff. In his petition, Mr Wallace states that he considers the use of body cameras would act as a deterrent to verbal and physical abuse being directed at NHS staff. He also appears to suggest that this would protect patients from abuse by staff. The briefing prepared by Spice in the Clerks refers to the Scottish Government's health and social care staff experience report of 2017, which sets out figures on levels of abuse experienced by NHS staff. It notes that there are no corresponding figures for the level of abuse experienced by patients at the hands of staff. In his petition, the petition explains that the use of body cameras for other emergency services has had a positive effect. Paragraph 8 of our briefing lists benefits as described in a 2015 report by the International Association for Healthcare, Security and Safety. The report also highlights concerns around the potential impact on privacy, patient confidentiality and the relationship between staff and patients. Our briefing also refers to a recent pilot conducted by Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and addresses in further detail the issue of data protection. The Scottish Government does not appear to have a policy position. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I noted that the Dignity and Work Survey found that 29 per cent of staff had received verbal or emotional abuse from patients from the public in the last 12 months. That is quite considerable. It reflects why ScotRail had bought in some use of cameras to the organisation, with the choice of the individuals, the employers, whether they use them or not. There is a case here, and we need to find out more about it and how body cameras could be of use. I think that this is a really interesting petition. The initial response to it is that it is looking at cost. I know that it does not mention this particular petition, but it has become such a litigious society. Our healthcare professionals are under so much pressure now that they seem to spend half their time justifying decisions that have been made in the workplace. I wonder whether that could have a positive impact on that outcome. In terms of time away, not even litigation, but explaining to the managers why they took certain actions and whether one of the by-products of something like that would be to positively impact on that kind of issue. Given the success of body cameras and other emergency services, I can see why the petitioner Alex Wallace has submitted it, and I welcome the petition. You mentioned the Northampton Child Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust pilot, which seems to have had some success. In it, it found that their use was acceptable to both patients and staff, and it resulted in a reduction in incidents and complaints. I have a lot of sympathy for the petition, and I hope that it can be investigated further. Clearly, we need to seek the views of a number of stakeholders before we can proceed with the petition. Thank you, convener. I just feel that if the body cameras are going to be used, I think that they would act as a deterrent. When you look at the number of incidents here among the NHS staff, the person who is amblincing the staff at Casteir hospital would have a high-sense. If the body cameras are there, they will be able to catch it, not only. It would probably deter people in several incidents from committing things like that. I suppose that you can see it in A&E in a Saturday night. I do not know whether it deters anybody who behaves really badly in that kind of setting, to be honest, because why would they do it in the first place? I suppose that I am interested in seeing it in emergency services or in A&E, but it is also suggested that it is in theatre. I would be quite interested to hear from people who work in the health service, particularly healthcare unions, whether they have a view of that. Clearly, it is an issue of protection of staff, but we have also seen very recently the way in which undercover journalists with cameras have exposed terrible abuse for some very vulnerable people. I would be interested in whether the unions themselves have looked at that as a protection for them from false accusations, but also perhaps people who use the health service. I do not know some of the patient organisations. The representatives of patients might be another group that we might want to work with. I am not sure whether I would just say it. I think that there is something about the relationship between somebody who is going for help and the medical profession that a camera feels quite intrusive, but that might be something that we need to look at what the limitations of that would be. Interesting enough, in terms of cameras in theatre, that already happens. We are already live streaming, obviously, between medical professionals. We are already doing that. I have a friend who actually wears a camera on his glasses when he is performing surgery. There is a precedent that that already happens. What we are actually talking about here is making it more formal. There are on-board cameras in all ambulances, but I know certainly a case of where it was used as evidence in a situation in England where it was taken to procreate fiscal and the evidence of the way that the patient had suffered was used as evidence. Therefore, there are ways through CCTV and on-board cameras currently. I am not sure in Scotland whether that could be complementary to that. I think that we would have to look at all the cases that are being monitored. We would also be interested in the balance of cost and benefit. If it is something hugely expensive, what are we trying to stop? What is its purpose? We are agreeing to write the Scottish Government to get its view and other key stakeholders, particularly the unions, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the patient groups. We could also write to Northamptonshire NHS Foundation Trust on what their findings were. Anyone else? There may be an issue about the whole question of confidentiality. Perhaps the Scottish Information Commissioner could look at the protection. I think that we should certainly thank the petitioner for giving us plenty of food for thought. We will look forward to getting responses to that. If we can now move on to their second new petition for consideration today, which is petition 1719 on the review of fire safety stay-cook policy, lodged by Rachel Gibson on behalf of tenants of Gartrade's road, petition calls for the Scottish Government to review the current stay-cook policy as it applies to the fire strategy for existing multi-story residential buildings. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provides advice to residents of multi-story flats, generally considered to be buildings of six stories and above, on what to do in the event of a fire. Current advice for residents is to stay in their flat if a fire occurs in a communal area or other flat and only leave if they are affected by heat or smoke or are told to do so by the police or fire service. Different advice applies to residents if a fire occurs within their own flat. The petition's position is that all residents should be immediately informed about a fire if it spreads from another flat in which the fire originated, as opposed to being informed about a fire through its heat, smoke or by the emergency services. In June 2017, the Scottish Government established a ministerial working group on building and fire safety. One of the recommendations from the working group's final report, published in December 2018, was the development of specific fire safety guidance for residents of multi-story flats in Scotland. That guidance will be developed in collaboration with the SFRS and the tenants and residents panel and is due to be completed by late 2019. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. The communication is key here in terms of that stay-put policy, and it is not applied UK-wide. What I would like to understand is that the local government and communities committee looked into those issues, but they did not specifically look at that stay-put advice and they are going to return to it depending on their work schedule. It is a very good point that the petitioner makes here, and we would not want to lose sight of what is clear communication in that situation and a fire. Therefore, we should hold on to it, as it were. There is no indication that we should pass it on to the committee when they consider their next steps, so that is it. I suppose that what strikes me about it is post-screnful that this must be an issue for anybody who is living in a multi-story building. You can understand the concerns of the petitioner who would want to get this clarified and to be clear what would be the best approach. How do people make a judgment? How do they know? If somebody had responsibility for letting people know, they would have a sense. They would know how to react. It points out that I would certainly be looking for reassurance on because the stay-put policy is only in certain circumstances, so I think that quite rightly residents and tenants deserve some kind of recognition of the certainty of what they should do, or the certainty can be. I repeat myself in that situation. If you are a flat above, a fire down below, you can imagine the serious concerns that you would have at the time when your gut reaction would be to get out. I think that that is a very good petition. I think that it is something that we need to explore. It has been explored in our committee, so I am quite keen to push this one forward. I think that there are a few people that we could write to in the first instance. For information, it would seem that the local government committee what their work was more in relation to building regulations rather than to community safety matters. It might be something that we want to flag up to them, but I think that we should be doing a wee bit of work on it ourselves first. Again, Scottish Government, COSLA, the housing organisation and Scottish Fire and Rescue must be thinking about this. They must recognise this as an issue that people are very aware of and concerned about at this time. Even just from the point of view of allaying people's fears, I think that Grenfell is a very particular set of circumstances. Obviously, the whole question about the safety of buildings and fabric of buildings has been explored. It is just a good practice of where it is best for people to be and how do they respond to fire? It is a more general point about how educated we all are about how we deal with these kind of emergencies regardless of what kind of accommodation we are in. Is there anything else that we should be doing? At the count last week, I was in a building where the fire procedure was given out to everybody in the room. It was a state put policy because that building was directly linked to the fire service. It is the first time that I have ever been in a building where that was the policy. As a child, we were all educated to get out of a building. There are standard and set ways that young people are educated to deal with things and dial 999. It is such an important point because it can cause confusion, especially with elderly people and young people who have been taught to do things in a certain way and then are told a different way. After we get the evidence back from all those organisations, there could be different ways of teaching young people how to evacuate a building, depending on the type of building. Some high-rise buildings will have a concierge, some don't. How do you let people know what the policy is? I hate to point that out, but there seems to be a bit of confusion even from the petitioner. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service advised residents to stay in their flat if a fire occurs in a communal area or other flat and only leave if they are affected by heat or smoke or are told to do so by the police or the fire service. Different advice applies to residents if a fire occurs in their flat. The petitioner states that the stay-put policy is not applied to UK-wide, for instance, greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service advice tenants in high-rise buildings that, if there is a fire in any flat, they should get out and stay out. We are informed in our briefing that the stay-put advice was reiterated by the National Fire Chiefs Council in May, and greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service advice should be the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service advice. You can see where there is all this confusion. It would be good to find a way, if we can, to make sure that the advice is simplified and that everybody knows what it is. People have to have confidence in their advice, because again, to go back to ground for what people did as they were asked, there was a tragedy. Nevertheless, there was a significant loss of life. People need to be confident in what the advice is, otherwise they will do what instinct takes them to anyway. From that point of view, it would be helpful for us to try to establish the view of, as we have said, the Scottish Gump, the Scottish Fed, the housing association organisations, where they would also have a view, the fire and rescue service, the National Fire Chiefs Council and anybody else. That is a pretty substantial amount to be getting on with, and we did agree to those already. With that, again, thank the petitioner and we look forward to getting responses to that issue. If we can move now on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of continued petitions. Our first continued petition is petition 1533 on the abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people, lodged by Geoff Adamson on behalf of Scotland Against the Care Tax, and I welcome Jackie Baillie MSP for that petition. At its meeting on 10 January 2019, the committee heard evidence from the cabinet secretary for health and sport. Following the meeting, we wrote to the cabinet secretary requesting further information on the costings of free personal care, how the extension of this free care is to be monitored, stakeholder engagement and causal care charging guidance. The cabinet secretary's submission explains that funding for free personal care is part of a block grant to local government and provides the latest figures available on those in receipt of care, as well as related costs. The petitioner has provided a response in which he raises a number of issues, particularly regarding the costings of free personal care and on what basis the Scottish Government has arrived at those costs. The petitioner also disputes the Government's estimates of average weekly hours of personal and non-personal care. That in turn affects the number of those who are eligible to benefit from the extension of free personal care. It strikes me that there is a lot of detail and a lot of technical detail in those issues, which I certainly found challenging when I was working through it, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the extension to free personal care is round service costs to not charges. The idea that the Government could be investing in more money and a significant number of people will be paying the exact same amount. As far as I can see, so if you are saying 80 hours and 40 are now going to be free, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping local authorities doubling the cost of the charge a little bit, which means that they still end up having to pay the same amount. I thought that that is something that we would want to explore further. I am going to take Jackie in a moment, because I know that she has got some observations in this, but I do not know if I want to comment ahead of her from Jackie. It is kind of similar to yourself, convener, on this idea that changing the number of hours free hours does not preclude the council from charging more. There is a dichotomy around that. Is it just a similar point to that? That is going to come out to me as well. The other point, which she makes quite forcibly about the difference between the charge of somebody under 65 and somebody over 65, if I can find it in the evidence, but I thought it was quite—I found it very—took me aback quite about the gap. It does not seem to be anything about anything except about the person's age. Although I know that the Government has made quite significant steps around Frank's law and the petition that we dealt with, I suppose that the question is whether the approach that it has been taking is going to make the difference that the problem most people would have hoped for from it. It states that it is not an equal treatment and there is blatant age discrimination. The charging guidance says that single people over 65 pay not charges until they are income is over £210 per week, while single people under 65 pay charges when they are income is over £135 a week. The petitioner is saying that that can mean that younger disabled adults pay as much as 75 per week more in charges for exactly the same services. It goes back to the thing about—I do not know how you legislate on it, but I find it very compelling—that it is about somebody's right to have a level playing field in order to be able to work and so on. People may theoretically be entitled to care, but the cost of it is such that they are denying themselves that care and therefore the opportunities they might have if they were not disabled. There is a big issue of equity there. Jackie, do you want to maybe make comments now? I wonder whether I could. The petitioner is as relevant now as when it was first brought forward. I support the issues that are highlighted by the convener and members of the committee about the anomaly of removing charges in one area, and they are replaced by increased charges in another area so that, overall, nobody benefits from the additional money that the Scottish Government has put in. However, I want to take a step back from that, because that is one element of what I think the petitioner was driving at. Frankly, in my constituency, the problem is getting worse. The cuts facing local government over time have been such that this has had an impact on social care services, and what many local authorities are doing is, instead of cutting social care services, they are increasing the charges to pay for them. We are moving even further away from the principle behind the petition, which is no care charges for non-residential services. Although that problem is getting worse, let me illustrate that in real terms, because I accept that the Government said to me in the chamber the other day that it is putting more money into local government. Something is not squaring up here, because, as an example, in Western Barcha, charges for community alarms and essential preventative service have gone up by 100 per cent. There are now more than 200 older vulnerable people who need community alarms that have cancelled them as a consequence. I always understood our policy to be about funding prevention and avoiding having to fund people in crisis, because when you fund people in crisis, it costs us all—and the system so much more—that funding for community alarms is a preventative measure. It does not cost our system a lot of money, yet it ends up stopping people going into crisis. 200 in a month—one month only—have been cancelled. In learning disability services, what they have done is package three separate services that attracted three separate charges. They have packaged them together and increased that by almost 100 per cent. It is touching on every section of the care sector, every different group of people. I think that going back to the wider principles of the petition would be very helpful. I make one general point before I come on to an ask of the committee. Many of us questioned at the time of the formation of health and social care partnerships how those would work because it was bringing together health, which is provided free at the point of need, with social care, which is not provided free. It is about an assessment of both your needs and your finances together. Somewhere in that we have got the balance wrong, because the whole point of having health and social care partnerships was to avoid people getting into secondary care, to provide care as close to home as possible. We are in danger by the charging policy or overcharging policy of creating more pain and cost in the system. Finally, I would ask whether it would be appropriate for the committee to invite the Government to join with COSLA in doing a review. I am conscious that our history is peppered with COSLA Scottish Government working groups that really have not achieved that much. In the past, I have been on record as saying that, if they were to receive performance-related pay, they would get nothing at all. However, that said, I do think that there remains an issue about the inconsistency of eligibility criteria across Scotland. There are huge differences in the charges applied to people receiving social care. Never mind there being no charge at all, and, although I respect a local authority's ability to do things flexibly on the ground for its constituents, nevertheless, in a country as small as Scotland, it is ridiculous that we have the level of charges and the inconsistency of approach. I respectfully invite the committee to consider encouraging the Scottish Government to do something. Thank you very much for that. As I often say in these particular cases, Jackie Baillie has touched on it. There is an issue here that this dilemma with the integration of joint boards. The fact that healthcare is free at the point of need and that social care currently is not, and we are still investigating that quite depth at the moment around that sort of balance. I think that we might be able to pull some of the findings from the Health and Sport Committee that might help to speak to that very dilemma, at least inform the two systems that are not quite balancing up. That is fairly evident at the moment. It is still fairly early times, only in the past two or three years that the IJBs have been in force. There is definitely some information that we could get in the short term around that relationship that would inform some of our investigation here. I think that when we took evidence from the cabinet secretary that there was a sufficient answer as to why there was such an inconsistency in service costs across local authorities. Yes, we want to give local authorities the ability to deliver the best possible care to people. Yes, there will be different needs because of geographical locations across local authorities. However, it seems that the service cost is just ballooning and is making up perhaps for the fact that people are having to get free personal care. I honestly do not think that the cabinet secretary had an answer for that and I do not think that the evidence has given us—I do not know how to square this. I suppose that the questions, if you think—theoretically, there is free personal care, but then you tighten up the criteria for access to it. Rather than it being rationed by the cost, it is rationed by eligibility. There is a big question here about how consistent that is across the country. There should be minimum standards wherever we are with flexibility for local authorities in rural and remote areas. I have different challenges in urban settings, but I was very taken by the argument that the made-a-move has changed the policy, but for the poorer you are, the less you benefit from it. Are we ending up having a policy that we think we feel better about but truth on the ground is at the very best? That is going to raise the issue again around the balance between implementation of a structure from government to local authorities and how much autonomy we give to local authorities, but it does strike me that there should be a base level that everybody works from. I suppose that the local government's point of view is a question that some of us will be about working the assumption that nobody really wants to restrict access to a service just for badness, that there is something happening around budgeting as well. I am conscious that we have had this petition for a long time. It is a huge issue. We cannot sort it all. I think that, as has been said, there are some technical issues here about implementation of a policy. We are unintended consequences or a policy that is not fully fleshed out. I am quite interested in doing something more on it, but I am conscious of our limits around this, and I do not know if we want to reflect on whether the health committee at some point is going to look at this in more depth, but I think that we would want to ask some more questions of Government in the meantime. There is a clarification around some of what Rachel Hampton said and the answers came from the Cabinet Secretary, so I think that we certainly should be probing a little bit deeper and getting a bit more in-depth answers from the Cabinet Secretary. I agree, convener. We certainly need to look into a lot more depth, and there is certainly an issue as highlighted by the petitioner and yourself earlier on with regard to the extension of free personal care only, changes the service cost calculation and not the challenges aspect that service users are asked to pay. I am quite struck by Jackie Baillie's suggestion that there should be a joint working group between the Scottish Government and COSLA. Given the complexities that there are here, they need to be ironed out, there is no doubt about it, so I would be happy to support that. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government seeing clarification on the issues raised by the further submissions that we have and raise with them the question of some joint work with COSLA and perhaps to COSLA as well, just to try to understand from their perspective whether that is something that is necessary. Given that they exist as a body, presumably they do think that there are minimum standards that respect from local government as well. Is there anything else that we can do? The petitioner makes the point that the data wasn't sufficient enough to make the policy development. There is a list of the data sources here in the brief, and I think that we should be asking whether the data was sufficient enough to make those assumptions. I think that we can include the petitioner's submission in the correspondence with the Government because those points are made very clearly by the petitioner themselves and highlight that question of data. I keep with that. I thank Jackie Baillie for her attendance. We will certainly look again forward to the response from the Scottish Government to the petitioner's concerns. The next petition is petition 1652, lodged by Irene Baillie, on abusive and threatening communications. The petition was last considered in December 2018 when we invited the petitioner to comment on the final report of the independent review of hate crime, the Bracadale review. The petitioner has indicated that, while she thinks the report is fantastic, she is concerned that it does not cover the issues raised in her petition. The Scottish Government has indicated that it is currently considering responses to its consultation on the Bracadale recommendations. It maintains its position that there are potentially a number of practical difficulties to deliver what the petitioner is calling for, noting that some matters are reserved to Westminster. It refers to work that is on-going on this issue, including the UK Government's white paper on online harms and the law commission's review of the law in England and Wales. It states that it will carefully consider any proposals to change the law in this area where the relevant powers are devolved, and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Had said that he didn't consider that any further legislative changes were necessary at this stage, he went on to encourage the Scottish ministers to consider whether the outcomes of the law commission's work on online offensive communications identify any reforms that could be a benefit to Scotland's criminal law, cross-reserved and devolved matters. I believe that they are considering the responses received to the consultation, is that correct? Therefore, the Scottish Government will look at it from a devolved point of view, and I welcome with interest the results of that consultation. We need to think about whether we can take the petition any further forward, and very specifically the idea that, if a message is sent from your phone, you are culpable for that. Certainly, the suggestion is that the Scottish Government does not accept that as practical, but I do not know what people's view on that is. Although I understand and sympathise with the petition to recognise that online abuse is an important issue, I am not sure whether strict liability is one that would be fair, or would it cause greater issues in the court system? I agree. I do not think that you can have strict liability. If somebody gets a hold of your phone right by their laptop and fires something off, that is very difficult to try to hold the owner of that particular device to account in that myth. That issue is not going to go away. It is going to keep coming back, and it is not just an issue for Scotland. It is a global problem that nobody has managed to find a solution for. In terms of what has specifically been asked by the petitioner, that would be very difficult. I agree. I think that the main sticking point is the strict liability issue, and the Government has stated that they are not convinced that the making and sending of abusive and threatening communications, making that a strict liability offence, would be appropriate. While I can fully understand where the petitioner is coming from, there are going to be difficulties in implementing any kind of legislation that would include strict liability. In terms of taking the petition forward, I suppose that the main option is to think about whether there is any further that we can do, or should we close the petition, and to underline the recognition and understanding of how important an issue this is. It is just the question of whether this is the right solution, and that is what we are wrestling with. David? I am quite happy to close the petition and understand the rule of 15.7, because I don't know what we could do, so I don't know whether the score is good or not. I am recognising again, as I said before, that this is an issue that is going to occur and reoccur, and we are going to have to consider, as a Parliament, let alone as a committee, to recognise that. I think that what has been asked for in the petition, I don't think that we could take that any further, so I agree with David Torrance that in this specific issue, I think that the only thing that's left of us is to close the petition. I think that there is still some hope for the petitioner, because the Scottish Government does state that it continues to engage with the Home Office and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and it adds that it will carefully consider proposals to reform the law that falls within the devolved competence of the Parliament arising from other pieces of work, including the law commissioner's review of the law in England and Wales, which is undergoing. It's definitely on the Government's radar, or both Government's radars, north and south of the border, so the petitioner should take heart in that fact. I think that it would be true that the petitioner could still have the opportunity to engage in the work on consultations that are on-going, and I'm sure that the clerks would be happy to give advice to the petitioner on how they might be able to do that. I think that that would again provide an opportunity to underline what has brought the petition to the fore and the issues behind it, and perhaps be part of that consultation. Obviously, as we always say, the petitioner has the opportunity to bring a petition back if they are not satisfied with the Scottish Government response to the UK work, and it would be something that we would be allowed to look at again. If that is the case, can we agree that we are going to close the petition understanding order rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has indicated that it remains unconvinced of the practicality and appropriateness of the action that is being called for, but has committed to considering any proposals to reform the law that might fall in the competence of the Scottish Parliament, in light of the work that has been undertaken in England and Wales, and that we would encourage the petitioner, if she felt that she wanted to do so, to respond to that work, but also to take advice from the clerks on how she might engage with that, is that agreed? We would want to thank the petitioner for bringing the petition forward and to appreciate the significance of the issues that have been raised. If we can now move to the next petition, which is petition 1674, lodged by Ellie Stirling and Managing the Cat Population in Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to review the code of practice under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Scotland Act 2011 and to identify measures that could be introduced to control the soaring domestic cat population and protect the existence of the Scottish Wildcat. We will ask to consider this petition in November 2018, while the Government's consultations on the licensing of dog-cat and rabbit breeding activities was on-going. An analysis of that consultation was published by the Scottish Government last month. The petitioner, whom we understand responded to the Government's consultation, considers that the proposed threshold set out in that consultation would not prevent a high level of cat overpopulation. She argues that this potentially could lead to more than 300,000 new pet cats per year not being able to find a home. The petitioner has previously expressed concerns about the risk of hybridisation between domestic cats and the Scottish Wildcat and refers to a recent report by the Cat Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which concluded that the threat of hybridisation is accelerating. While the petitioner considers that the level of support for the measures outlined in the Government's consultation represents a step in the right direction, she argues that it is more a case of trying to change people's habits when it comes to acquiring cats. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I think that at the time that we said this, the figures that are quoted in here are quite remarkable. That is not something that I would have particularly considered had the petition not been brought to our attention. The petitioner is right, but there is a significant issue here that has to be addressed. I personally would quite like to see the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment perhaps come in and speak to us about what the Scottish Government's position is in this, and that would then allow the petitioner in advance to submit some questions to us that we could put to the Cabinet Secretary. I agree with Brian Whittle. It might well be an idea to get the Cabinet Secretary into to explain exactly what the Scottish Government's position is. I cannot help thinking back to the passing of the legislation for the docking of working dogs' tails and the flack that came from that. I am concerned that maybe uninformed members of the public who see a culling of cats or whatever in the future may well respond in the same way. It is a difficult issue to deal with. There will no doubt be flack no matter which way the Government goes, but it is something that has to be addressed. I think that there is going to be an impact here on the veterinary profession as well. There is a group, which is a cat-nuturing group, which is a coalition of vet and welfare bodies, and they advocate, I am not going to say it, but, I am just wondering, should we not also be looking at veterinary groups who have a say in this? At the end of the day, it is going to be a cost allocated to this. Do they have the responsibility if, suddenly, the Scottish Government creates a new policy about this? Who pays for this? Is there an implication that it becomes free at point of source? I know that a lot of the cat charities, such as Cats Protection, offer that service. They will bring in fferal cats and neutering them. When they are rehoming cats, they do all that and pay for the veterinary fees. A lot of people do that on a voluntary basis at the moment. It would be also interesting to hear from, presumably, if the cabinet secretary is looking at this, he would have to do an impact assessment and he would have to look at cause. It would be unreasonable to say that this should happen without working out how it should happen. I share Brian's view. I am quite alarmed by the figures. I suppose that it would be interesting to get a sense from the cabinet secretary what the response is, but it would also, as Brian has said, provide the key questions that she would want to ask. There is a very focused question around the question that we could explore with the cabinet secretary. Is that agreed? We will formally invite the cabinet secretary for the environment, climate change and land reform to give evidence and for the petitioner to take the opportunity to suggest questions that she would want answered. It may be that, in response to the petition itself, we may see further submissions from those who have an interest. If we can now move to the next petition, which is petition 1690, lodged by Emma Shorter, calling for investment in biomedical research and a centre of excellence for ME. Ensuring healthcare professionals' training and educational materials reflect the latest scientific evidence and providing specialist care for patients and discontinuing graded exercise therapy, GET and cognitive behavioural therapy, CBT, which the petition refers to as harmful treatments. We last considered this petition in January when we took evidence from the cabinet secretary and chief medical officer. Subsequently, the cabinet secretary provided a written submission that reiterates the Government's commitment to ensuring that people with ME can access the best possible care and support. She adds that the Government will work with others to explore ways in which the level of research can be increased and will set up a short-life working group made up of relevant stakeholders and people with lived experience to, quote, explore the provision of services and different practices across the country. The cabinet secretary acknowledges the need to increase awareness and understanding amongst health professionals and states that the Government will continue to work with representative groups, including ME actions Scotland and action for ME, to work towards that need. The petitioner argues that the continuing use of CBT and GET go against the fundamental principles of medicine to do no harm. She and others who have provided written submissions to the committee throughout our consideration of this petition to date strongly argue that CBT and GET are harmful. In written submissions, the petitioner and Leslie Scott also query whether the studies or research undertaken, which led to the recommendation that CBT and GET could be used as treatments for people with ME, actually included any people with ME within the research cohort. The petitioner particularly notes the position of the US healthcare research and quality, which considered that there was a, quote, high risk of patients with other fatiguing illnesses being included within that cohort. That position is supported by a submission by Mr Stuart Brown. He asks why the National Advisory Committee on Neurological Conditions has not reported on the care of people with ME and suggests that there is an urgent need to commission research to establish the prevalence and burden of ME. The petitioner also raises concerns about the issue of informed consent. She refers to choice without coercion and argues that treatment is often forced on children with ME using child protection laws. The submission from Leslie Scott and an anonymous respondent appear to strongly support the argument that was made by the petitioner. In his submission, Mr Brown sets out concerns about the suitability of GET as a treatment and considers that the petitioner's case for withdrawing this treatment is indisputable. Members may also recall that, at last week's general questions on 22 May, the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing responded to a question from Maureen Watt on behalf of a constituent who is concerned that ME is not included in the Scottish Government's draft neurological plan. Mr Fitzpatrick clarified that the national action plan for neurological conditions is not condition specific. It covers all conditions, including ME. The minister added that responses to the recent public consultation are currently being reviewed and said that the Government will take on board the feedback that we have received and endeavour to ensure that the final plan is clear throughout its intent and scope, that it is for all neurological conditions, including ME. In response to a supplementary question from Miles Briggs on how levels of funding for research into ME might be increased, the minister said that the Government frequently meets a range of stakeholders and would be willing to discuss the issue at the next meeting. Any members have any comments or suggestions for action? I have also had a member's debate on ME, which I thought was quite enlightening. When we last had this petition and spoke to the member's debate, I remember saying exactly the same thing about the GAT and CBT treatment seems to be universally rejected at the moment. I had a couple of medics getting contacted with me to tell me otherwise that they were just blanket. Getting rid of those treatments was not the answer. What that tells me is that we are quite far away and our understanding of not just this neurological condition but other neurological conditions is not that long ago when this was called yuppie flu. I was always under the impression that physical activity helped every single condition, and I have been proven to be incorrect in that. I think that we are quite a long way, not just in ME, but we could probably bring other conditions and petitions that we have had into the whole—we are not going to—but we could decide that this idea of keeps coming up and of needing to change the way in which we train our medics. I would be really interested to see what you have to get an update, perhaps, on where the findings in the short life working group particularly. That seems to be a reasonable first step here. I agree again with Brian Whittle. We need to find out where the short life working group is at, but it is also worth noting again that the petitioners submission is calling for the removal of CBT and, as a primary treatment, get or get as well. The submission from the petitioner sets out five key issues. The first one is doing no harm. Lack of evidence that CBT or get is benefits people with ME. Issue three is without informed consent. Treatment is unethical, and issue four is evidence of abnormalities in people with ME. Given that those concerns are paramount, I think that if we are seeking an update on where the short life working group is, we could do with getting a face-to-face with the cabinet secretary and asking her directly where they are with it. I would be keen to invite the cabinet secretary in to committee. I think that we could liaise with the cabinet secretary on timing, because we want enough time for there to have been some progress. I think that we are agreeing that we would want to hear from her in that regard. I was also very struck with the theme of some of the submissions for children with ME. Where is the training for those people who are maybe reacting in terms of child protection issues? The idea that there is an implication is that it is about parental anxiety or that a child simply does not want to go to school. Again, it is a form of not believing that, as a health condition, we are not in a position to make a judgment on that, but it was interesting. There is quite a worrying consequence if somebody has a condition that is not understood inside the system, and then there is progress through to young people ending up with their parents in front of the children's hearing system. I think that we will be useful to hear from the cabinet secretary quite interesting what work has been done around training of GPs and to understand their response to the written submissions that we have had. Rachael Yng Nghymru. Most health conditions are the guidelines. There are the ways that GPs approach a condition and the pathways that they take, but in this situation it seems as though there should be a more individualised or bespoke approach rather than just a set or standard way to go about things. I think that that is the sense of frustration when reading the letters from Stuart Brown because he has gone back and forward so many times to make his point. I do think that there has been a little bit of progress and the fact that the NHS Education Scotland will develop a training module for GPs, but what is that based on? Is it based on nice guidelines that are being looked at, reviewed, as it were, with evidence from those people living with ME? I think that we have explored the last time where there were some ME specialists. There weren't many of them in the community, even for a GP to refer to. What struck me in that is that we are moving towards the idea of owning your own health in conjunction with your GP. If that is the case, the imposing of treatment will start to fade away, so inevitably that whole education is going to become more paramount, so maybe we should start doing this. The other thing that would be worth noting to the committee is that we are still waiting nine responses from health boards, and we might want to pursue that. Also, to note that the petitioner had specific questions to NHS Borders and NHS Lothian in the most recent submission, I wonder if we would agree to write to them just flagging up those concerns. We are agreeing that and also to invite the cabinet secretary to provide an update on the short-life working group. At that meeting, we can also get an update in progress on the other issues, and that would be liaison with the cabinet secretary to ensure that it was a time when she would have something to report, so it would probably realistically be after the recess. If we can now move on to our next petition, which is petition 1696 on preserving Scottish battlefields lodge by Jack Galliford on behalf of Boddwell Historical Society. Since our last consideration of this petition on 13 September 2018, a number of submissions have been received, including from the Scottish Government, which has made clear that they do not agree with the petitioner's view that there is no statutory protection for battlefields listed in Historic Environment Scotland inventory. That is due to the statutory requirement for a planning authority to consult with Historic Environment Scotland regarding planning permission for development in a battlefield. There is also a statutory requirement for planning authorities to notify the Scottish ministers should they not adhere to the decision or condition set out by Historic Environment Scotland. Evidence was provided of this power being exercised relating to proposed development at Cullod and Moe as recently as October last year. Historic Environment Scotland states that all planning authorities with historic battlefields in their areas have planning policies that seek to protect and conserve those battlefields as part of the strategic decision making is said following about statutory protections. We are content that local authorities give adequate consideration to their own policies regarding the protection of battlefields, and that they and other decision makers give sufficient weight to our advice. We therefore believe that the statutory protection that is currently afforded to inventory battlefields within the planning system provides an adequate level of protection, and the relevant policies also provide sufficient weight to considering potential impacts upon inventory battlefields. Do you have any comments or suggestions for action? It is in direct response to the fact that the HES has carried out a policy review, which is very interesting because it says that it wants to keep pace and develop a positive approach that goes in line with modern life and using landscapes proactively and positively. Some of the work that it is going to be doing is more detailed work so that it considers how inventory records and maps could provide clearer information on the key characteristics of surviving elements of battlefields. I think that that is really important because we know that communities get very upset when a battlefield or a historic site is compromised. I think that the level that they expect of all planning authorities with regard to the historic battlefield sites is actually quite high. The submission by Historic Environment Scotland gave me quite a lot of confidence. I agree, too. I have seen a historic environment in Scotland in action outwith my constituency, having the Western Isles, and they have acted extremely responsibly with regard to some planning applications that have come in, particularly with regard to the Calunish stones. I would be minded to close this petition, convener, given that I believe that there are robust systems in place already as it stands. I do note that the submission of some of the petitioners do not agree with that contention. I did find that the response from the HHS was substantial. We still have to recognise that, perhaps, they feel that it does not go far enough, but I wonder whether, at this stage, there is anything further that we can do. I think that we have a shared commitment to preserving battlefields and other historic sites and for planning that regard to be rigorous. I suppose that what we could say to the petitioner is that, with the very fact of highlighting it, the HHS has had to be very clear of what it is doing. If they feel that it has not been sustained, there is something that they could come back to us on. Thank you, convener. I feel that the Scottish Government considers us enough legislator to protect the battlefields and reassures from the HSE that I agree with that. I think that we have to close the petition. I think that we are recognising the importance of the petition and what has been sought for in the petition, and, as it stands, we have accepted the evidence that there are substantial protections there. We want to close the petition and understand order rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government considers that there should be sufficient safeguards to protect historic battlefields from development, and that there is evidence of those being used in practice. However, we emphasise to the petitioner that, clearly, if they have further concerns, they are able to resubmit within a year and any evidence that they can provide is a gap between what the Scottish Government is saying, and the reality on the ground would obviously be an important part of that petition. In that way, we are agreeing to close the petition. I thank the petitioner for their involvement in highlighting the issue to the committee. If we can now move on to our last petition today, which is petition 1706, on the introduction of a law to allow pets and rented and supported accommodation, lodged by Geraldine Mackenzie. At our last consideration of this petition on 25 October 2018, members agreed to seek the views of a number of organisations and received submissions from the Scottish Government, Shelter Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. We have also received a submission from the petitioner in response to those submissions. The Scottish Government's brief response states that, while they recognise the benefits of pet ownership, quote, decisions around keeping pets are for individual landlords. Shelter Scotland carried out a consultation on this very subject and concluded, quote, we feel that, while legislation may be an option in the future to consider to ensure that pets are reasonably accepted in private and social accommodation, we believe that other softer measures to encourage pet friendly approaches may be more appropriate in the first instance. The SFHA expressed a similar view in that they express sympathy with the petitioner's aims, but they do not feel that legislation is required to allow tenants to keep pets. Most, if not all, SFHA members allow pet ownership subject to responsible pet ownership policies. They are also the view that, quote, no pet clauses are virtually impossible to enforce, as it would be highly unlikely that a sheriff or first tier tribunal would grant the creed to evict based on pet ownership. The petitioner feels that the Scottish Government's submission was brief and unsatisfactory, as it only focused on individual landlords and did not cover the wider context of this issue. For example, pet owners seeking pet friendly rental properties face less choice, which may reduce the quality of housing available to them. The petitioner is of the view that this lack of choice helps to create inequalities between the private and social rented sectors and that legislation is required to address this imbalance. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I would like to make a comment that I think that the petitioner should put something towards the stage 3 of the planning bill, because it seems that the accommodation that is provided is not suitable for people to take pets. Even though the organisations are welcoming pets, there is no facility to allow people to come in with those pets. The petitioner is not going to get very far with the Scottish Government introducing a law, because there could be another way—that is what I am saying—and a campaign around it. I am not sure whether it will be planning legislation, but what strikes me about it is that most social landlords would allow pets and would have some kind of process, for example, if they did not look after their cat or dog or whatever and caused problems to other people when they would have policies. However, there is a particular issue about people who are homeless, who have dogs in particular, and they cannot take temporary accommodation or shelter accommodation because they do not allow pets and people will choose to be on the streets. A small group is a very marginalised group. It is almost as if the Scottish Government has not responded to that bit of the issue at all. I can see and I hear from Shell to Scotland and from the SFHA that nobody would get evicted for this. There is a general issue for everyone about the antisocial behaviour of somebody who has pets. I have dealt with cases in the past where folk disappear off the weekend and leave the dog in the house up to stay from you, and it does not stop barking for the whole weekend. This is a cruelty and all those kinds of questions. However, there is a very specific issue for vulnerable people who may be the only thing that they have got in their lives as their dogs and cannot then come off the streets because there is not any accommodation. I agreed with the petitioner that I thought the response to the Scottish Government was quite dismissive on that question. Whether we need to keep the petition open in order to write to the Scottish Government and ask them about that in particular, that would be a matter for the committee, I do not know. I think that we can either close the petition because clearly the main organisations do not think that this is a solution or we could write to the Scottish Government and highlight these particular concerns and then make a decision on what views you have. I think that you have made exactly the point around the small group of people choosing to be homeless rather than to be separated from their pet. It is one thing to say that they would not evict anybody, it would be difficult to evict somebody with a pet, but how would you get in in the first place? There is that dilemma, so you will not be accepted into accommodation with a pet. To me, that did not quite ring true. I think that there is an issue there. I would quite like to get a further response from the Government on that specific point. I do not know much else that we can do on that, but I think that that point certainly is a good point for me. I came into this meeting this morning to close the petition, but given your valid point regarding homeless people not being able to take their pets with them to support accommodation, that is a valid point. For that alone, we should pursue it a bit further and get some more answers from the Scottish Government. I note the petitioner references. I yet to be published paper that argues that pet ownership comes within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which in part protects a person's home, family and private life against intrusion by the state, but having worked on the land reform bill extensively in the last election could also be a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights of the landlords, particularly private landlords, who may not wish to have pets in their properties. We are in a catch-22 situation there, so we are worth pursuing a wee medicine. I think that the suggestion by both Shelter and SFHAs that there is a softer approach and a recognition of the importance of pets in some people's lives and maybe older people, people who are bereaved, and fair people talking about the benefit that they have got from that is another way of heart beating a house. That idea that people are perhaps vulnerable should be able to have a pet with its responsible ownership. Can you make it an absolute rule? If I were renting out a property, should I be able to say that it is my view to exclude it and that it is my private property? Can you really constrain that? Is that something worth exploring? The main thing is really around the question of what—for a small group of people—a direct consequence to them of not being able to take their pets into their shelter. That is an area that we think the Scottish Government should respond with more than just a couple of sentences. We would agree to write to the Scottish Government on that issue. I think that we would want to thank the petitioner for raising it. It is a very interesting issue whether it is one of those ones where we suspect that legislation is not the place where it is going to be sorted, but even understanding the issues is going to help. With that, I again thank the petitioner and we are now going to move into private session.