 I open the meeting and welcome everyone to the fourth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2018. I can remind members and others in the room to switch phones and other devices to silent. The first item in the agenda is a decision on taking business in private. I would invite members to indicate whether they agree to take item 4 on our agenda today, which relates to correspondence from the Equalities and Human Rights Committee in private. Do members agree to consider this item in private? Thank you very much. If we can then move to our second agenda item, which is the consideration of a new petition. Petition 1679 on cycle helmets in Scotland was lodged by Jenny Lockhart. The petition calls for the introduction of legislation on a national information campaign to ensure people wear helmets when cycling in Scotland. The petition collected eight to three signatures and received 16 comments. The briefing prepared for us notes that the comments received in the petition broadly reflect the two sides of the argument in terms of cycling safety, particularly with regard to the wearing of helmets. The petitioner has indicated to the clerks that, as there is not general support for the action called for, she wishes to withdraw the petition. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Michelle? I'm happy to go with the petitioner's suggestion that it's withdrawn. I think that the evidence that we receive back indicates that there is really no need to pursue it. Agreed. I think that there was strong views on either side. I think that it would be fair to say that, but it wasn't clear that there was a compelling case on both sides of the argument. Obviously, as the petitioner wants to withdraw, I think that we would accept that and agree to close the petition on that basis. We can write to him and thank him. Of course, it's a reminder too that it's possible to resubmit a petition at any time. In that case, if we can move on to the next petition on our agenda this morning, which is petition 1458, which calls for the introduction or register of interest for members of Scotland's judiciary. As members will recall, we have previously agreed to write to the Lord President and Cabinet Secretary for Justice and have considered a draft letter at previous meetings. This is a petition that has received much consideration since it was lodged in 2012, and I would like to express my gratitude to the petitioner for raising the issue and to all those who have engaged in discussions on the issues raised in the petition, including the Lord President, Lord Carlawy and his predecessor Lord Gill. During the course of consideration of the petition, positive developments have occurred, most notably the introduction and further development of a register of judicial recusals. The register brings welcome transparency to instances where a judge may decide or be requested to decline to hear a particular case. The committee particularly welcomes the recent agreement of the Lord President to expand the information captured in this register. The co-reaction request by the petition, however, was the establishment of a register of financial interests. We have given much thought to this request, hearing views both for and against such a register. Having taken these arguments into account, the committee has concluded that a register of financial interests is not unworkable, and it is the view of the committee that such a register should be introduced. In reaching this view, the committee is very clear that it does not consider there to be a base for any suggestion of corruption in respect of Scotland's judiciary or of inappropriate influences on judicial decision making. Rather, it is the view that we have reached based on the principles of transparency and openness in public life. While this is the view of the committee, we also understand that the Lord President and the Scottish Government have indicated that they do not support the introduction of a register. I wonder if we think that it should be appropriate for us to invite the Justice Committee to consider the petition in light of our recommendation. I wonder if members are content to write to the Lord President and the Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the Justice Committee for its consideration. I wonder if members have any comments. Thank you, convener. Clearly, this is another long-running petition that has been live since December 2012. For as long as I have been on the committee, it was originally based on a similar move in New Zealand, which was subsequently withdrawn. I, along with a wide range of backbenchers, spoke in favour of the introduction of a register of interests at the time during a chamber debate in the previous session. That support from backbenchers was from across the political spectrum. It is clear to me that we need to ensure transparency and openness in public life, as well as ensuring confidence in those holding public office and personally. Clearly, it is not the view of the committee, but I believe that our register of interests along the lines of the system operating in Norway, which I have looked at, is the way to go. However, I am aware that the committee as a whole has not taken a view on that. Of course, convener, the petition is already secured. The result, as you have referred to, was the introduction of our register of recusals, which was brought into effect in April 2014, directly as a result of this petition. The petitioner has got a result already. Also, as you have referred to, the current Lord President, Lord Carlaw, has agreed to extend the scope of the register of recusals. Personally, I have been keen to see the Scottish Government and the judicial office for Scotland do some further work on the introduction of a register of financial interests. However, as you have suggested, it is possibly the way forward. In the first instance, I think that we should refer the petition to the justice committee to allow them to hopefully move the issue forward. Anyone else? Fona? Yes, I just broadly agree with what my colleague has said. I think that that is the natural way forward for this petition. I do not think that we can actually take it any further, given that the history that we have just heard. I think that it is a sensible decision to send it to the justice committee for their consideration. Is that agreed? I agree. In that case, we are agreeing to write to the Lord President's Scottish Government setting out our view and to refer the petition to the justice committee for its consideration. If we can then move on to the next petition, which is petition 1548 by Beth Morrison, on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools, included within our meeting papers are submissions from the Deputy First Minister and the petitioner. In his submission, the Deputy First Minister addresses the committee's question about whether, as part of the forthcoming review of the Holding Safely document, he might consider whether that would be the most appropriate place for the inclusion of the new guidance on de-escalation and physical intervention. The new guidance, included, engaged and involved, part 2, a positive approach to preventing and managing exclusions, is referred to as IEI2. The Deputy First Minister refers to feedback that he has received, which suggests that the Holding Safely guidance is still well used within the sector and notes that it is just one part of a wider, trauma-informed approach. In her submission, the petitioner provides a list of bullet points to demonstrate the feedback that she has received on IEI2 from parents and carers across Scotland. That feedback appears to suggest that there are still a number of concerns about the guidance. The petitioner contrasts IEI2 to the consultation run recently by the UK Government. She says that this is, quote, much more like the guidance that she would like to have seen in Scotland. She considers that it is, quote, very clear and specific and was written by bespoke experts in the field of restraint and seclusion. She appears to suggest that the degree of understanding about the use of restraint among professionals elsewhere in the UK is more advanced than it is in Scotland and expresses her disappointment that the Scottish Government does not appear to see merit in updating the Holding Safely document. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I was a wee bit disappointed with the cabinet secretary's response. I think that the petitioner makes some very good points around the work that is being done. I think that this is a moving field. It is a field where research and advances in thought process are on-going. I think that we should go back to the cabinet secretary and ask him to look at what the petitioner has said and respond to that. We definitely need to get a response from the Deputy First Minister given the petitioner's comments. We should try to find out roughly when the UK Government's analysis publication of that will be. I think that there are more things to be drilled down here, and I think that there is definitely a response from the Deputy First Minister to be called for. What strikes me, convener, is what I would like to get an understanding of is the knowledge of our educators or the education of our educators around the field. The more evidence I have heard from the petitioner, it seems to me that there is a potential gap in the education system of our educators. I certainly would like to hear a little bit more from the Scottish Government, the Cabinet Secretary specifically, in that arena. How is it dealt with in the training of our educators? Is it part of the curriculum? It would be interesting to know, I do not know whether I can recall, whether we have spoken to organisations representing education staff in the past about what their training involves and whether that has progressed, whether it has updated, the extent to which, if schools, for example, are up to complement terms of staffing, it is probably that we will train people there, but if there are pressures inside the school, you wonder what the consequences of that are. However, in writing to the Deputy First Minister, we can start there and see what comes from that, if people are agreed. However, I think that we would be concerned that, clearly, if I remember historically, there has been quite a lot of work with the petitioner and a lot of positive comments that she has made about engagement with the Scottish Government, and I think that if she is still troubled by that gap, it is something that is worth exploring further. If that is agreed, we would write to the Deputy First Minister seeking his views on the most recent submission to the petitioner and, specifically, around feedback on IEI 2 and about the UK Government consultation and maybe get some details and timescale for that. Thank you very much for that. If that can then move on, I am going to miss out on the next one. I am just now going to petition 1640, and we will come back to 1619. Oh, my apologies. So, ignore all that. If we can deal with petition 1642, and we will come back to the other two, we have a member who has an interest in both of these who we hope to attend. So, the next petition I want us to consider is petition 1642 by Norma Austin-Hart on the sale and marketing of energy drinks to under-16s. The committee last considered this petition on 24 September. At this meeting, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify how its commitment to limit the marketing of products high and fat, sugar or salt are set out in the Scottish Government's programme for government 2017-18 related to energy drinks. The Scottish Government's submission states that energy drinks and other products high and caffeine are not included in its commitment, but recognise that they often contain high levels of sugar. In as such, it may inform its new diet and obesity strategy. The committee also asks the Scottish Government to what extent it has encouraged other initiatives in the restriction of the sale of energy drinks in premises such as that taken in relation to centres run by Edinburgh, Malaysia. The Scottish Government responded by stating that, while specific instances are a matter for individual local authorities, ministers would be happy to support the policy of restricting the sale of energy drinks in those premises. In response, the petitioner expressed disappointment that no legislation was currently planned in relation to the sale of caffeinated energy drinks. She welcomed a support that was demonstrated by the Scottish Government, but questioned whether that would happen in practice. I wonder whether members have any comments or suggestions for action. I am of the opinion that, just by banning something that is not necessarily the most effective way that forms part of a solution, I would be quite interested to understand how the Scottish Government would support such a ban of a sale. In practical terms, I would be quite interested to see how, as they say, they would support it. I would like to understand what that actually means, how they would support that policy. I think that with the dietary beast strategy currently in the offing, it would be really interesting to see what comes out of that in support of something like that. My personal opinion is that if we could change people's attitude towards this, we could change the food producers' attitudes as well. I am sitting on the fence on the issue. Do you think that it is consumer-led? The business will follow the views of the consumer rather than the business-shaping of the consumer? I think that you need both sides of that. I would not fall on one side or the other. I think that we are in this place, we seem to be tempted to fall on the side of trying to change the attitudes of the food producers without the other side of that argument being dealt with. However, as I said, there is a dietary beast strategy in the offing, so I think that it would be interesting to see what comes out of that. However, in the meantime, I would quite like to understand what the Scottish Government means by supporting initiatives and how they would support that initiative. Okay. Are others agreed with that then? Yes, to add, Rona. The Government, I agree with what Brian says, and often when I am talking about a ban, it is enforcing it. That is the problem, but the Government has confirmed it in response. It is encouraging the use of existing powers by local authorities to restrict the sale of marketing of energy drinks to children and leisure centres and other public arenas. It is just how far can it go in that respect. However, I think that with the new diet and obesity strategy that is about to be published imminently, we should see what that contains. We should then take it further and see. However, it is a difficult one. Brian. Just to add, there are positive steps that you could do. One of the things that always strikes me if you ever walk through a hospital, there are vending machines. A lot of the time, it is the worst possible thing that you could possibly have in there. Those are things that we could directly influence in this place. I think that when we are talking about a ban, those are the things that are actually positive that we could enforce. I know that this is the petitioner's one, but I am quite interested to see in the diet and obesity strategy whether that will be spread out to a wider. Michelle. Yes, I agree with Brian Whittle. I think that the problem with banning is that it is identifying everything then that has high caffeine content. It becomes quite complicated. And rather like alcohol, young people, if sales are banned, they will just get somebody else to buy it, so it does not actually stop consumption. In fact, it almost makes consumption attractive because it is breaking a rule and also stretching a boundary. I think that what we do need is some understanding or better understanding and guidance for people so that they understand that these energy drinks can be harmful, particularly to young people. And I definitely think that we should be talking about whether or not it is appropriate to be selling them in public arenas, particularly areas like health centres, and activity centres, hospitals. So I think that this is more about guidance, it is more about public opinion and change and culture change and getting people to understand that the best way to have good energy is not to pump yourself full of caffeine. So I would favour an approach, rather than a ban, and much more public awareness. Using our influences, as Mr Whittle says, on actually the areas where we do have control and we can recommend. And certainly some of the work we did around alcohol and young people, I know that we did encourage shops not to carry certain lines and they took proactive steps to do that. And I think that we should be doing the same. Okay, Angus? Nothing much to add, convener, just to say that clearly more information would be welcome. The diet and obesity strategy isn't due to be published until summer this summer, so we've got a wee bit or not too long to wait, I suppose, to get more detail from that. But I'd be interested to know if there's been any similar moves in other parts of Europe to ban energy drinks to under-16s. I don't think we have that information in our briefing. Can we ask Spice for that information? I'm also quite... I mean, I think we're agreeing that we wait for the strategy to be published and see what's referred to in there, and maybe seek some information from how they would support policy banning from public premise. I mean, it can be done. I mean, when I started teaching routinely, you would have vending machines and all those things sold in schools and tuck shops, and I just don't think that happens anymore. And we also have to acknowledge that there can be displacement, so you don't sell it in a school until you get it elsewhere. But in my own views, you don't make good the enemy of excellence. You might not be able to do everything, but you might be able to do some just by a combination of the two things that have been suggested. So, I think that if we can agree that we are seeking to defer the consideration of the petition until the strategy is published, and perhaps as ministers, how they particularly would support a policy of banning these kinds of drinks in publicly funded premises. There is a broader question about public education, and I wonder if that might be coming through the diet and obesity strategy as well. Can we just kind of, like, it's coming sail off or provision off, because it will be very difficult for them to ban them from public places, so people will bring them in, so it's provision and sale off. We're not quite... I'm not going to be checking the bags as I come in. Step too far, even for me. Okay. In that case, can we move back to petition 1619 on access to continuous glucose monitoring? Can I welcome Emma Harper MSP to the committee for consideration of this petition and the next one? So, we're going to consider petition 1619 by Stuart Knox on access to continuous glucose monitoring. We'll ask, considered this petition on 21 September, and agreed to invite the petitioner to make a written submission in light of the Scottish Government's most recent submission and to invite the Scottish Government to provide evidence at future meeting. Members may wish to note that our response is yet to be received from the petitioner. Members may also wish to note that Miles Briggs MSP has recently asked two parliamentary questions in relation to funding for continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pumps. Claire Hawke MSP has also recently asked the Scottish Government to provide an update on the roll-out of monitors across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and NHS Lanarkshire. Responses to those parliamentary questions are included in our meeting papers, and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Brian Watt I think that even more recently, from the Carson, I asked the First Minister's question last week, didn't I? I think that there's the welcome move that I think the Cabinet Secretary has made it available to all health boards. However, the uptake of that is very patchy. Some health boards are now giving those type 1 about the continuous glucose monitoring apparatus, but others are not. I'm really interested to understand what the decision-making process is around why some are doing it and some aren't. From the evidence that we took, it's not a financial one. The monthly cost, I think that if I'm correct, when we did it down in the south of Scotland, the cost of replacing what they currently use in terms of the pinprick and blood test compared to the cost of constant glucose monitoring on a monthly basis, there wasn't that much of a difference. I'd be really interested to understand why certain health boards are not taking up the opportunity to give out constant glucose monitoring apparatus. Michelle? I'm hugely frustrated by this, if I'm perfectly honest. It does feel like this is something that we should not be dragging our heels on, that it makes an enormous difference to the individuals who are suffering from type 1 diabetes. It will ultimately make an enormous difference to the NHS because there's a huge saving to be made in costs downstream by having a much more stable population of diabetes sufferers. Mr Whittle referred to the fact that there isn't a differential in cost. I think one of the things that, as a committee, we perhaps need to take evidence on a need to understand is the underpinning cost. Because certainly when we met with some sufferers and a pharmacist gave us some details of the differential in cost and it appeared that there wasn't much. However, when we met with a consultant, he indicated the opposite and said that there was a significant difference in cost. I think that this is something, as a committee, we need to understand. In terms of the funding that's been given, absolutely it's welcome, but one of the bits of evidence that came forward when we were meeting with all the individuals is that actually the funding that is currently allocated means that the consultants are having to make choices about who gets it and who doesn't. The consultant indicated that that's a very difficult choice to make because all the patients were equally deserving. And there certainly has been an extremely slow roll out of this despite the funding being there. And I think that that is extremely worrying because it could have been making a huge difference to people's lives. And again, I think that we need to understand why that funding isn't getting to the front line and supplying the monitoring systems for people. But I do feel that the drip-drip feed of this is frustrating. And I think that we need to get under the numbers for this because some of the implication seems to be that it's a money issue. But I don't really understand at this point in time whether, in fact, it really is a money issue or whether there's a lack of will just to say, let's crack on and get on with this. So I would like some more information around that and I'd like to really get some evidence around that. OK, Angus? Yeah, thanks Camilla. I would agree with Michelle Ballantyne there. I might have lost to understand why Flash Gluckers devices haven't been rolled out more quickly given that the £10 million was allocated, albeit the money was to be staggered. But when you look at the figures, Dumfries and Galloway only have four funded CGMs. Fos Valley in my own area have only four. And I know, I've had people at my surgeries who are paying for it themselves at approximately, I think the figures, about £1,500 a year. So yeah, we definitely need more information as to why there has been this delay given that the money has been allocated. Gareth Rowna? I agree with everything that's been said. I mean it's just clouded in confusion it's clearly a good initiative heading in the right direction but for some reason it's just not clear exactly what the picture is. I would like to hear from the petitioner I know that they haven't responded yet so I'd like to hear from them and then really trying to get into as we've said just what's going on behind the figures and the delays. Current sign guidelines for diabetes type 1 management are dated 2010 and so that's eight years ago and the technology has just totally steam rolled forward but the guidance I think needs to allow for the complexity of type 1 management and it's not even just type 1s we heard from a type 2 person who lost seven stone in weight when he used the Abbott Libra to gain a better understanding of his glycemic control and carbohydrate intake and he only used it for like a fortnight figured out his diet and then stopped so benefits type 1s and type 2s and my issue is also pediatrics we took evidence at the cross-party group for diabetes which Brian Whittle and I are both members of and I'm co-convener of that kids that have seizure activity at night because of low blood sugar really do benefit from continuous glucose monitoring or flash monitoring so there's different ways that blood sugar can be managed and to save these non-verbal two-year-olds from multiple finger sticks as well as being woken up at night to check blood sugar it affects the kids as well as the parents and I have constituents as well as everybody else that have one child in particular has seizure activity because of the just the up and down blood glucose control so I welcome a proper analysis of the costing I've used the Abbott labour myself I've been using it on and off I'm a pump user myself so I am firmly engaged with the technology and how do we make it work for the wider population that could benefit from it I think that MNI apart from I both sit on the health and sport committee as well and I think one of the things that's crossing into this for me is the reticence for adoption of new technology into the health service that seems to be a real drag and perhaps I don't know whether or not there's the potential here to sort of cross-reference that particular bit of evidence that's been taken in the health and sport committee because it does seem to me that there's no medical reason that doesn't seem to be a financial reason although I would be really interested to have that evidence which leaves this reticence of this drag in the adoption of technology I think that it certainly has opening up a whole raft of questions for me I was quite curious when in some of the events you said you know we must remember this is a clinical decision well I would have thought if on a clinical decision making that's to to achieve a better stability and monitoring is a bit of a no-brainer from a clinical decision particularly as Emma Harper says in young non-verbal children so you know that some of the implications seem to imply that well you know the reason they're not being rolled out is because the clinical decision is otherwise and you know I think what you know what my colleague is suggesting there potentially is we need to get under that because I I fail to understand why doctors would say no we would prefer to just do finger-breaking that just makes no sense Will you wonder if you are saying that it will be worthwhile trying to establish that I wonder if we can agree that we would write to all the NHS boards to ask for information really to pick up on the point that Brian made about the roll-out of CGM in light of the funding provided by the Scottish Government you know why is it patching trying to get a cent from each board what they're doing how far advanced they are the consultant indicated when we spoke to him that the money hadn't been released by the actual health board down to the consultant so I think we need to specifically answer that question so there's an issue about money coming from the Scottish Government into health boards and then for health boards deploying it appropriately and to get a cent from them of the value of it I mean in comparison with each you know I suppose to pinprick that would be useful to know Emma NHS and Freeson Galloway when I wrote to them they said that they were going to review in August the use of continuous glucose monitoring or flash monitoring so that's welcome but again you know the technology is out there and it could be tested in a maybe in a better more constructive way and I think that I would welcome any forward approach to looking at a more constructive way to get CGM available for people I think maybe we could also write to to sign to ask about an update in the review of their own guidelines would be useful also to write to the Scottish Government I think we would want to see Kevenson with the Scottish Government in this work from the relevant minister I think that that would be useful and obviously we would welcome a response from the petitioner but we appreciate that there may be circumstances which means that they are not able to do that but if they were if he was able to respond that would we would welcome that and we find the petition that he has brought forward really interesting there's loads of issues there and we can certainly take them forward even if he's not able to respond but if he were able to that would be excellent too so I think we've identified quite a number of actions there, is there anything else? No, in that case if that's agreed we can move on then to petition 1640 action against irresponsible dog breeding which was lodged by Eileen Bryant we've received a written submission from the cabinet secretary for the environment, climate change and land reform in which she indicates that she'd be happy to give evidence to the committee the cabinet secretary indicates a range of discussions that are on-going between officials this includes official level discussions among all UK administrations relating to DEFRA's draft legislation on animal licensing which is proposed for introduction in England and Wales this year she adds that there have been discussions between the UK and the Republic of Ireland in terms of sharing intelligence about illegal imports and other discussions for a co-ordinated public awareness campaign the cabinet secretary draws attention to Scottish government's commitment to animal welfare issues including licensing and registration arrangements in its current programme for government she advises that key stakeholders and enforcement agencies have been in contact in preparation to amend animal health and welfare Scotland Act 2006 which she indicates will quote increase the maximum penalty for the most serious cruelty offences to five years imprisonment as well as allowing fixed penalty notices for lesser offences she states that there will not be any retrospective powers within that legislation and it will not relate to any court proceedings commenced prior to the date of enactment In November 2017 the Scottish Government published its report on the research commissioned into tackling the illegal trade of puppies from a supply and demand context the cabinet secretary states that she launched this report at an event in Edinburgh at which she gave the opening address links to the Scottish Government's report and the subsequent briefing published by the Scottish SPCA have been provided in our meetings papers and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action I think that that has been significant progress made in this petition certainly obviously I'm now aware of this because of the petition but certainly within Parliament there's been an awful lot of I don't know if my harpers like quite a lot on this as well also with the organisations within the Parliament and speaking to them and how they are dealing with the import of puppies specifically through Cairn Ryan actually they seem to be suggesting they're becoming more successful I certainly think that the way forward in this one is to inform the public in terms of where they purchase a purchase of puppies but I think that's been significant progress in this particular I'd be quite interested to hear what the cabinet secretary had to say on that one and maybe more information certainly felt a very positive and detailed response from the cabinet secretary so it would be worth hearing in more detail from and that itself of course informs the public to be angus just to agree it's good that the cabinet secretary is happy to come in and give us some more detail so we should take it up on the offer and look forward to that okay Emma I contacted Eileen Bryant who submitted the petition ahead of today and she obviously is keen to continue looking at how puppies are purchased as well and just on Monday I was at Edinburgh Dog and Cats Home for a meeting with different stakeholders SSPCA, Kennel Club, One Kind, DEFRA, RSPCA, we're also there and trading standards from Dumfries and Galloway so there is a lot of work being done the government officials talked about like a national programme of awareness so either a short video is in process of being developed so that will help to engage people about the best way to obtain a puppy there's other work we've had a couple of debates we've had contact with COSLA we've had puppies in Parliament just to raise awareness and Holyroodog of the Year is the second second Holyroodog of the Year will be this year again so I'll be sponsoring that the first one it was it was my dog Maya won the first one so it was Holyrood instead of Holyrood but we'll be doing Holyroodog of the Year again this year and that will also raise awareness of issues around puppy trafficking at the meeting on Monday it was described that all routes from Europe seem to have been closed for illegal transfer of puppies except Romania so a lot of work has been done by Defra and the people in the Dover borders Cairn Ryan seems to have become more covert in the way puppies are brought in but Operation Delfin has been quite successful and it seems like different ways are being explored for bringing dogs in from either Southern Ireland through the north and then through Cairn Ryan so there's obviously still a lot of work that could be done but from the canine conference last year I think it enabled everybody to work together from all the different agencies which is really good to see especially when we're talking about the RSPCAS SPCA and one kind and everything a trusted breeders scheme is being developed which is similar to the trusted traders scheme that Dumfries and Galloway council developed which means that there will be like a national database of trusted breeders where people can then go to and see these are the best people to go get a puppy from and third party sales has been looked at the banning of third party sales has been looked at by Michael Gove in Westminster so it might be that we can continue to pursue other options of disrupting and deterring the illegal breeding and then illegal trade in puppies okay thanks very much for that I think that we have agreed that has been progress we are grateful to cabinet secretary for her response but we would welcome the opportunity for her to give us a bit of evidence and we would also invite the petitioner to provide a further submission if she wants to do so okay if that's agreed then thank you very much and thank you Emma for your attendance for these two petitions if we can now move on to petition 1645 by James Ward on the review of legal aid in Scotland we last considered this petition on 21 September 2017 at that meeting we agreed to write to the Scottish Government on the issue of Scottish ministers discretionary powers under the legal aid Scotland Act 1986 The Scottish Government indicates that decisions on whether to exercise the power is done on a case by case basis but identifies two factors that are generally taken into account these are to determine whether using the power is necessary to protect the ECHR rights and if the creation of new proceedings in legislation has created a temporary gap we need to be filled depending on amendment of existing regulations The Scottish Government cites examples from 2016 and 2010 and notes on each of those occasions that determination was followed by secondary legislation it also sets out in some detail the process and factors taken into account including the public interest in the Scottish ministers use of discretionary power in relation to Glasgow bin lorry case The Scottish Government indicates that while the number of determinations made this year is expected to be low it is quote considering how best to ensure that information about its discretionary powers is made more widely available In its submission The Law Society of Scotland indicates its agreement that the discretionary power should be used relatively rarely The Law Society states that it has engaged regularly with independent strategic review of legal aid and indicates that in its written response to that review it expanded and challenges identified in its own strategy paper including simplification, scope, technology and delivery The independent strategic review of legal aid indicates that its call for evidence which was issued to more than 150 stakeholders across the justice spectrum through a range of very effective responses It notes that the chair of the review is due to report to ministers by the end of February and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Well Michelle It's actually quite a complex petition obviously it has lots of facets around how it works I think I certainly welcome that there is an independent review under way and that hopefully has reported now and I think in the light of that we should write to the Scottish Government and ask basically what they're going to do in terms of the recommendations that the review may or may not have brought forward and that will give us the basis on how we then move forward on this petition I forgive me but I think I'm right in thinking that the review was published on the 9th of March Right, so we've got the date having the 9th of March Okay, so yes I think if we write now to the Scottish Government they will hopefully be reviewing it and looking at what's in there and what we need to know is what is it recommended and what do the Scottish Government intend to do and then we can revisit the petition accordingly At some point we would be considering bringing in a representative from the Law Society to speak to them about that We'll wait to see what the recommendations are cos it may be that they're very straightforward and we would end up maybe getting a look of evidence taken that's not going to take us terribly far but if we can look at the review and we can make a judgment as a committee then whether they want to take it further still Is that agreed? Okay, thank you In that case we can move on to the next petition which is petition 1655 on Scotland's national scenic areas lodged by Christine Metcalf on behalf of Avish and Kilcrennan community council We previously considered this petition on 14 September 2017 but we took evidence from the petitioner and agreed to write to the Scottish Government Scottish natural heritage and COSLA The written submissions that have been received are included in our meeting papers The Scottish Government states that there is no plans to review the process for designating or the extent of national scenic areas in Scotland In response to the committee's question about how or whether its policy on wind farms affects its position with regard to national scenic areas the Scottish Government states that its policy is to support the deployment of on-shore wind while protecting the environment It adds in response to the suggestion that the Parliament be regularly updated on the cumulative impact of wind farms that it considers that this is not something which could be quote readily or meaningfully quantified as a national impact for reporting purposes Scottish natural heritage acknowledges some of the issues raised by the petition including that the current suite of 40 national scenic areas remains the same as originally designated It acknowledges that NSAs represent an important natural asset for Scotland but notes that one purpose of the designation is quote intended to manage landscape change not prohibit development It considers that reviewing or revisiting the existing suite of NSAs is not a priority at the present time In the first submission in response the petitioners expressed their surprise at the Scottish Government's position They argued that to use an energy policy as a reason not to review the current process for designating NSAs is irrelevant Particularly as pressure on the landscape from wind farms quote would not have been envisioned in the 1970s The petitioners consider that Scottish natural heritage's ability to fulfil its task in this context has been seriously weakened and indicate that they believe that there is much to be gained in terms of economic, environmental and social benefits by having more NSAs and national parks In their more recent submission the petitioners referred to a report by Mountaineering Scotland which they consider demonstrates how visitor numbers have fallen in the areas that host wind farms The petitioners suggested that it is difficult to have an entirely accurate idea of the number and impact of wind power developments in Scottish national scenic areas but consider that the UK Government's renewable energy planning database provides a good insight and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Brian I represent an area where there's quite a heavy proliferation of wind farms and there's not a surgery goes past where I don't have some kind of representation on that proliferation and I think that the last one I had was it looks like Newcomer because it's actually going to be completely surrounded by wind farms so I have a lot of sympathy for what the petitioner is saying around NSAs and I shouldn't state, obviously, I'm not against wind farms but I think that they do have a point here in that they do seem to be taking over a lot of the countryside and I would suggest that I know that there's a suggestion that we might close this petition but I would rather it was kept alive perhaps not in this committee but maybe in the UK Government communities committee and scrutiny of the planning bill Are we not conflating two issues which is somebody's concern about the proliferation of wind farms with what is the purpose of national scenic areas and one is seen as a means by which you stop the other which I'm not sure it might be a convenient thing to argue but presumably national scenic areas have an existence in their own right not simply as a way of managing our energy policy and I think that that's the bit of that that concerns me in that if it's a national scenic area that's taken into consideration so the argument with the petitioner is that if you make a national scenic area you protect yourself from wind farms now I think that there is an issue about cumulative effect of any planning development which I would hope the planning legislation would look at again As a next member of a planning committee that was constantly faced with these issues I have to say it is a very emotive issue and I think one of the problems is is even the existence of an NSA you can have a wind farm erected on the edge of it and the argument would be that it affects it but because it's not in the NSA so I think it is a massively complicated argument and in a way it does conflate it when you talk about them side by side I mean I think the submission we've had back is very clear they are not going to review NSA's and the number of NSA's I think the issue here is really about how the planning strategy fits and how it all fits together that is currently under review at the moment anyway it's the new planning strategy is going through and I think this probably needs to feed into that as part of the conversation I'm not sure here in this committee that we can do a lot more around this now I think it does need to go into that conversation it needs to be part of that review there is a huge lobby in terms of protecting our scenic areas and Scottish National Heritage obviously play a big part in that but as always all these things have to be in balance with everything else and quite often the lobbies take one position and they're not worrying about the wider overall strategy if you like so I think it needs to go into that pot of looking at the wider strategy I don't think I was looking at it in a single track if you like is going to get very far so I would be in favour of referring the petition to the local government and communities committee and add it to their scrutiny of the planning bill going through and for them to look at it I mean if they then want to refer it back to us at some point that that will be their choice but at this stage in the game I think it belongs over there as part of that discussion I think I'm right that there's only one way to traffic with petitions send it back to us well the petitioner can always repetition us but I think that's where it belongs right now yeah I think it's clear from the government's response that there's no appetite to increase NSAs or even national parks and I would have been minded to close the petition simply on that basis given the government seem to be digging their heels in but if it's the overall view of the committee that it should be referred to local government and communities committee then I'd be happy to go along with that I think we should close it because of the government's stated quite clear stated view and also SNH don't consider a review to be a priority as well so they're not adding weight to the petitioner's call and I mean I think if the petitioner is aware that the planning review is going on and that they could have some input to that I think that's as much as we can do and I'm not particularly keen on actually moving this petition elsewhere I think it should be closed one second so it's you know if we do refer it to local government community committee it may well be closed down by them fairly quickly as well but it may be that at least they would flag up as an issue within the planning legislation because I think that as I said already my sense is people's frustrations about windfarm development and talking about any extending NSA's is a way of dealing with a separate problem which is about what do we do about cumulative effect of windfarm I mean I don't I mean I think there is always a balance of somebody whose family came from remote communities something that creates economic opportunity and stability for these communities in my view is to be welcomed but that will always be traded off against people who want they want the wild to remain the wild they're not living in the wild they're not living in remote communities but at some are of course but I think there's always that tension about what do we what do we put in the land what is human made on the land that changes the landscape changes other things but makes it those sustainable communities where people live in them and there is a tension there which I absolutely recognise and it's actually interesting that people within the community who are flagging this up and feel it has an impact in them so I feel that I don't think we can go any further on it I think there is an issue the only problem with taking it to the local communities committee we should be clear that they have gone past the stage 1 consideration of the bill so the ability to influence the stage 1 report is ended I have no doubt that these issues will be flagged up in stage 2 Our only view will be is it helpful I think to the consideration of the issue to at least allow local communities committee to have to have a site of it and aware that this is an issue I suspect this is an issue they'll be aware of anyway but will it reinforce that this is something that communities themselves are wrestling with and that they are concerned and I hear I mean I was a planning minister for a short while and the whole question of cumulative impact of wind farms in the area that you represent Brian was something that flagged up to me but also for example open casco and was a big tension within communities at that time in terms of trading off jobs against what was happening to the landscape so these are things that we're alive to I suppose as a committee I don't personally think that we can deal with the issues further but really the judgment is to be send it to local community committee or Brian I do hear what I don't know what an Angus say here but I think that it can do no harm and if they're already aware it disappears but if it reinforces or informs what they're currently looking at just now I don't see why we wouldn't at the very least pass it on to them Michelle Yeah and I have to say you know when we we developed our supplementary guidance around wind farms it was rejected and we were told no and we had to change it the Government didn't accept our position as a local authority on it so I think in terms of information it does no harm to fully inform the local government and communities committee of the kind of things that are coming through in other directions on this because it is quite a as I say it's an emotive subject it causes quite a lot of division and I think you know it does no harm to add to the information that's received There is also another interesting tension I think between strategic national goals and how they are then delivered at a local level so those of us who are in favour of renewable energy there kind of comes a point where these things have to go somewhere and then there's a judgment call about how that is then managed but I think that's about also about what people consider fair share you know so you know it's I think there's quite a lot of tension around okay we accept you know policy of renewable energy we accept that you know again but why should should one area get a large proportion of that destroying what people consider to be the sort of intrinsic benefits and beauty of where they live already so I think you know there are lots of issues around it and I think you know the more information people have in front of them then you know when decisions are made it can't be said that we ignored the commentary I mean I don't think there's any reflection the seriousness with which the petitioners made their case you can understand why a local community level they have flagged this issue up can we agree then that we're going to refer the petition to local government and communities committee we can obviously provide them with the deliberations we've had so far on that is that agreed okay in that case and obviously we would want to thank the petitioners for the work they've done in making the petition clear to us and obviously they have the opportunity to submit a further petition and indeed engage with the planning legislation as it goes through if they choose to do so okay we can now move on to next petition for consideration which is petition 1659 by Bill T8 and the local authority complaints body the committee last considered this petition it is meeting on 21 September and agreed to write to a range of stakeholders including the Scottish Government the Scottish Public Service the Ombudsman citizens advice Scotland the quality and human rights commission cause law the society of local authority chief executives and senior managers and the Scottish independence advocacy alliance from the responses received there was no support for the action being called for in the petition written submissions also responded to concerns raised by the petitioner that the SPSO is not effective as they remit its procedure and not the facts of the case both solace and the SPSO themselves confirmed that the SPSO does not consider disputes of the facts of the case and therefore what the petitioner seeks already exists the petitioner clarified in his written submission that he seeks the creation of a new body with a proper remit to replace the SPSO or a major overhaul of the SPSO to make it fit for purpose the petitioner remains of the view that there is a postcode lottery with regard to local authority complaints and that there needs to be a set of rules of procedure that all councils must follow and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action I certainly welcome your clarification with regard to the remit of the SPSO I think a lot of people are confused if they're not happy with a decision that's taken by a local authority they can half expect the SPSO to be able to overturn that decision which clearly isn't the case it would seem that the Scottish Government from its written submission is satisfied that the SPSO is operating satisfactorily so there's basically no support for what the petitioner is asking for and I would therefore move that the petition be closed Okay any other comments Mona? Yes I agree with my colleague I don't there is no support in the EHRC you know is pointing at a number of views that about why it just wouldn't be feasible to do this it's equality legislation largely reserved to Westminster Scottish Parliament wouldn't have the power to introduce the new body that he's suggesting so I don't I just don't see it that it can go any further to be honest it's not got support Okay Michelle? Yeah I think looking at the data and the SPSO's information on how they dealt with complaints outcomes I mean clearly there is a process and clearly people who make complaints are getting some of them are getting upheld quite a lot of them are upheld there's been a lot of recommendations so there is clearly a system there it seems that you know in what again are very emotive cases generally inevitably some people not going to be satisfied with the outcome and will never be satisfied with the outcome but from the evidence we've got in front of us there is a system there there is a process for people to go through and I can't see any evidence that suggests we need to look at creating something new and I think it unfortunately it's just going to be one of those things where you can't please all the people all the time I think we've agreed that we want to close the petition under rule 15.7 we're standing orders on a basis that there's no support for the action called for in the petition but again we'd want to thank the petitioner for engaging with the committee and flagging up an issue about the way in which public systems take people's complaints seriously and I think that is in itself very often a challenge for public organisations so we can thank him for that If we can now move on to the next petition which is petition 1660 by Bill Tate on Scottish Legal Complaints Commission Review and petition 1661 by Melanie Collins on reform of regulation of the legal profession in Scotland Members will recall our meeting on 21 September we agreed to join these petitions together for future consideration on the basis that they raise similar issues I should indicate that Alec Neill MSP who has an interest in these petitions has submitted his apologies as he has attended the public audit committee At the meeting on 21 September we also agreed to write to the Scottish Government the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission the Law Society of Scotland the Faculty of Advocates the Scottish Solicitor's Discipline Tribunal Citizens Advice Scotland and a judicial complaints reviewer responses have been from a number of bodies and we have also received a submission from the chair of the independent review of the regulation of legal services responses are included in our meeting papers Both petitioners have also provided written submissions in response to the submissions received and this information is summarised in our briefing note and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Michelle? I think that this is a situation where we can welcome the fact that there is an independent review under way which is I suppose in the end what perhaps everybody would want in the light of the petition so I suggest that we can I think possibly defer it until we have the results of the review and we can satisfy ourselves that the petitioners concerns have been answered through the independent review Angus? I would agree convener clearly the responses from the petitioners Bill T and Melanie Collins are very interesting and the review of the regulation of legal services is ongoing as Michelle Brampton said and it's remit covers the asks of both the petitioners so I think we should defer it until we receive the findings of the review Is that agreed? Yes Okay, in that case we're agreeing to defer further consideration of the petitions till after the findings of the review of the regulation of legal services are published and recognise the progress that's been made on the petition Okay, if we can then move on to the next petition which is petition 1663 by Leslie Wallace on driven grouse shooting study we last considered this petition on 21 September and agreed to write Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage Both submissions received refer to research that has been commissioned by the Scottish Government into the economic and biodiversity impacts of large shooting estates in Scotland is understood that the impact of driven grouse shooting is a specific focus of this research in response the petitioner written submission highlights a range of issues that he believes exist with regard to current moorland management and driven grouse shooting practices I wonder if members have comments or suggestions for action Angus Yes, convener, thanks The petitioners are a constituent of mine and I've discussed the petition on a couple of occasions with them I think what Leslie Wallace is asking for in the petition is being covered by the Scottish Government's research into the economic and biodiversity impacts of large shooting estates in Scotland I think it's planned to be a wide-ranging research which will look at the potential impacts of game shooting as well as possible alternative land uses for large shooting estates which will hopefully address the issues the petitioner has with regard to current moorland management and driven grouse shooting practices and of course there's the independent group set up by the cabinet secretary and led by Professor Alan Verity which is tasked to look at the environmental impact of grouse moorland management practices which will recommend options for regulation including licensing and other measures which could hopefully be put in place without primary legislation so I think we can close the petition given it's been successful to date whether by coincidence or design and I'm pleased to see the Government taking these issues on board We agree to suggest that we close the petition under rule 157 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has commissioned research to explore the economic impacts of large shooting estates with a particular focus on driven grouse shooting and recognising the progress that has come with the petition and we would want to thank the petitioner for their engagement with the committee and recognise what has been achieved through the submission of his petition itself Okay, in that case if we can move on to the next petitioner agenda which is petition 1665 by Mark McCabe on common law of blasphemy we will ask consider this petition on 21 September and agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask for their views on the current law in blasphemy and whether there are any plans to amend the law In its written submission the Scottish Government confirms that it has no plans at this time formally to abolish the offence However, the Government highlights the review of hate crime legislation which includes crimes motivated by religious hatred currently being undertaken by Lord Bracadale The Government intends to consider whether the law in this area requires to be amended in light of the findings of the review The petitioner's written response states that the submission received from the Scottish Government repeats what he's already been told and that the point of his petition remains unchanged and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action I think that we should defer it until we ask the Lord Bracadale's review hate review legislation is published I think that it would be premature to do anything before that because we need to see what that actually says and then take it from there so I would favour defering it until Lord Bracadale's review is published Any other reviews? Yeah, I would support run a MacCai's position I think that I have some empathy on the fact that it perhaps should be abolished it has been everywhere else so I think that yes we wait until Lord Bracadale has reported and see what he says and then take it from there I think that we again have agreement that we would defer for the consideration of the petition until after the conclusion of the review of hate crime legislation by Lord Bracadale and we can then consider the petition in light of those recommendations Okay, in that case we can move on to the next petition for consideration which is petition 1666 by Ian Davidson on the Scottish Parliament electoral cycle The committee last considered this petition on 21 September 2017 and agreed to seek the Scottish Government's views on the action called for in the petition The Scottish Government states that a change in date for the UK Parliament election could, in theory, allow the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local authorities councils to revert to four-year terms without there now being a clash of election 2020 However, it does not think that such a change is appropriate The Government also comments that the next Scottish local elections will fall in the same days as the next UK general election The Government notes that power exists for the Scottish Parliament to vary the date with the next Scottish local elections and that it will monitor the coincidence of elections and discuss with relevant stakeholders any necessary action to avoid a clash The petitioner has indicated that he has responded to a Scottish Government consultation in the elections and is content to see what formal proposals emerged from this process I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Michelle? I think that we should close the petition I think that the petitioner seems to be content with the process that is now taking place I think that in many ways as we said before when we considered this elections can change at the drop of a hat you can keep moving them and you still would not get the outcome that you wanted so I suggest that at this stage we just close it Other views? In that case, we are agreeing to close the petition under rule 15.7 or standing orders and the basis of the petitioner has responded to the Scottish Government's consultation on electoral reform and has indicated that he is happy to see what proposals emerge as a result of that process and again we would want to thank the petitioner for highlighting these issues and for the opportunity for them to be given a public airing and he has the opportunity to observe what comes out of that consultation and if he wants to submit a further petition at any stage he is obviously free to do so and we want to thank him for his engagement with the petitions committee If we can now move on to penultimate petition for consideration today which is petition 1667 by W Hunter Watson a review of mental health and incapacity legislation The committee last considered this petition on 21 September and agreed to write to the Scottish Government the Mental Welfare Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission responses have been received as has a submission from the petitioner The submissions draw attention to commitments have been made to review the Adults within Capacity Act to reflect the requirements of the convention the rights of persons with disabilities and the inclusion of learning disability and autism within the mental health act Beyond this work both the Mental Welfare Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission appear to be supportive of a wider review of mental health legislation The minister for mental health has also highlighted these reviews and that the 2015 mental health act promotes supported decision making The minister considers that it would be inappropriate to consider wider changes to legislation until these key pieces of work have reached conclusions In his response the petitioner highlights work undertaken in respect of the 2016 legislation on mental health The petitioner considers that it is desirable that a wide review be carried out at the earliest possible opportunity He concludes by drawing attention to recommendations from the Law Commission for England and Wales which calls for a single legislative scheme regarding non-consensual care or treatment of both physical and mental disorders whereby such care or treatment may only be given if the person lacks the capacity to consent Members may also wish to note that the petitioner has also drawn our attention to parliamentary questions lodged by Miles Briggs MSP and the responses that have been received I want to remember if there are any comments or suggestions for action I am mind to write to the minister for mental health to clarify the time scales and the conclusions of that piece of work At that point we can consider whether or not we invite the minister in but I think at the moment with that piece of work outstanding that's where I would go Okay, Angus I agree, so we forward at the moment we can consider inviting the minister from Andrew House back into the committee at some point in the future So we would write in the meantime checking time scales for the piece of work that she's highlighted which she herself indicated would have to be concluded before there was any consideration of legislation and that we would look to invite the minister for mental health to provide oral evidence to the committee at the appropriate time and that can be in discussion with her office If that's agreed Okay, in that case thank you for that If we can move on then to the final petition for consideration today which is petition 1669 by Bill Welsh on independent vaccine safety commission The committee last considered this petition on 24 September and agreed to write to the Scottish Government the joint committee in vaccines and immunisation and health protection Scotland a response that was received from the Scottish Government and clarifies that medical safety medicine safety sorry including vaccine safety is reserved to the UK Parliament and is monitored by the medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency The Scottish Government therefore has no plans to set up an independent vaccine safety commission The Scottish Government also raises concerns about the research which formed the basis of the petition stating that the European Medicines Agency concluded that quote the study had methodological flaws and did not provide evidence that the quality or safety of these vaccines is compromised in any way The petitioner states that the research has been peer reviewed and remains of the view that in light of this research the vaccination programme quote must be suspended until all vaccines can be shown to be free from contamination and safe and it's imperative that an independent vaccine safety commission be formed and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Michelle? Yeah, I think to be honest we should just close this petition I mean it's quite clear from my papers and from the evidence in front of us that Scotland is not on a position to have its own medicine safety agency I think and it's quite appropriate that it's done through the UK and at the moment obviously in conjunction with the EU and the guidance from there so I don't really feel there's any way for this petition to go now Angus? Well for me convener clearly it's a frustration that these matters are reserved but however I don't see the merit in continuing this petition based on the salient fact that the issue is reserved and we have no power over it in Scotland but it's also a question whether the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the petitioner arrives at anyway I mean I think there's an issue about the safety of vaccines and confidence in vaccines and the necessity of vaccines and I'm not sure if you would stop a vaccine programme you know on the off chance that there might be a problem with it I think there are big issues as we've known over the years with vaccines and confidence in vaccines and the consequence of a loss of confidence Yeah well it was clear with the measles when people pulled out of having measles vaccine and we probably got a huge spike in measles and the consequences of measles which are quite severe for young children so I think I would be very nervous about disrupting what has been an incredibly successful modern technology in terms of vaccination I've had you know a constituency case where vaccines have gone wrong and I've had a bad outcome but I think I agree with the rest the rest of my colleagues here that to pull a vaccination programme on based on one or two cases would be it would be folly but I don't think there would be any other option to close the petition Okay I think that your regard is to some of the more the more detail we've gone on to this but the fundamental issue is that it's been identified by Angus and others that medicine safety is a reserved matter and therefore the Scottish Government has no remute to set up an independent vaccine safety commission on that basis we're agreeing to close the petition is that agreed? Okay thank you very much for that we have previously agreed to consider the final two items on our agenda today in private and so I suspend the meeting to allow us to move into private session