 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the first meeting of the citizen engagement and a citizen engagement and public participation and public petitions committee of 2023. And this morning we have principally issues concerning the continuing petitions that we wish to discuss and also the first consideration of some new petitions. The first petition we'll have a look at this morning is petition number 1864, which is to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms. This petition was launched by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland against SPIN. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, empowering local authorities to ensure local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries. Now we last considered this petition on 29 June last year when we agreed to explore a number of the issues that were raised by writing to the minister for public finance, planning and community wealth, UK Government ministers, planning aid Scotland and the Scottish Government's planning and environmental appeals decision and we've now had responses received from all of the bodies I've just mentioned. The DPEA set out the training and advice provided to reporters when conducting public inquiries and they noted that reporters are advised to be alert and to intervene if they perceive that cross-examination of witnesses is becoming overbearing. Planning aid Scotland say all their staff and volunteers are required to be chartered planners while they have not recently provided training relating to public inquiries, they say they will continue to monitor the type of advice requests received and use this to inform the training being provided to their staff and volunteers. They would welcome the Scottish Government undertaking research into how support could be provided for communities participating in public inquiries. Following the evidence session with the minister, the committee received clarification that the Scottish Government do have powers to alter the 50 megawatt threshold for renewable energy developments but the Scottish Government has not explored the benefits or disadvantages of doing so and while they declined to comment on the specifics of the petition, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Minister for Energy indicated the UK Government's willingness to engage constructively with the Scottish Government on planning matters. We have also received two new submissions from Aileen Jackson, who is, of course, the petitioner, commenting on the responses received and Aileen welcomes the minister's clarification on the power of the Scottish Government to alter the 50 megawatt threshold, I think a matter Mr Ewing raised in examination. She considers that this potentially opens the possibility for more decisions on proposed wind farm development to be taken at a local authority level. Aileen also highlights UK Government proposals for changes to national planning policy on onshore wind farm developments in England. Of course, that is all coupled with the UK Government's willingness to work with the Scottish Government on these matters. We have had quite a lot of constructive feedback from the various bodies to whom we wrote, and I wonder if arising from that colleagues individually might like to suggest ways that we might take things forward from here. David Chorns Thank you, convener. I wonder if the committee could write to the Scottish Government, setting out the committee's recommendations based on evidence gathered so far, that this might include recommending that the Scottish Government undertake work to explore the benefits and disadvantages of altering the 50 megawatt threshold for consideration of renewable energy developments, undertake research on how support could be provided for communities wishing to participate in public inquiries into planning decisions, including onshore wind farm developments. Exploroscope for planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farm developments, and explore opportunities to ensure the demonstrate of local support is a key material consideration for planning authorities when determining applications for onshore wind farm developments. David Chorns I am content with that. I might also, in asking the Government to undertake an exploration of the benefits and disadvantages, draw to their attention or provide for them the letter that we have received or the response that we received from the UK Government saying that they would be very happy to engage on that on the whole matter as well, which would be useful. Fergus Ewing Yes, on the issue of engagement with the UK Government, particularly in the light of the fact that the whole development of wind on and off shore will be dependent, to some extent, upon grid upgrade and interconnector capacity expansion, particularly with regard to the interconnector's crossing borders, convener, if we could recommend that the case for co-operation between the Scottish and UK Government is not just strong, it is just a sine qua non of delivery of the respective renewable energy aims and ambitions of both Governments and that maybe a standing committee might be the way to deal with this, given the nature, complexity and breadth of the issues involved. Secondly, in relation to the work that Mr Torrance has suggested to be done, could we ask in particular the Scottish Government in their response state what implications alterations would have both on cost and time, on the cost of dealing with applications, which may be considerable where the petitioners are asked to be granted, especially if independent advocates were to be appointed? And secondly, the length of time which may be added to applications. I say that because former energy minister, I remember opening one wind farm, which had taken about 13 years to go through the planning process and about 13 months to build. I am not sure that anyone really gains from delay of that magnitude. I have that in mind, but that could be anecdotal. I do not have a clear picture, but I think that those two issues, I would quite like to see the facts on those two issues from the Scottish Government and perhaps from others, the planners and local government side, if that is appropriate. I think that we can accommodate all that. Thank you. Are we content to proceed on that basis? We are. I should say for the record that we are joined by two of our parliamentary colleagues this morning, Faisal Choudhry and Rhoda Grant, who has so missed us that she is joining us in relation to three petitions, two of which we are considering jointly. Faisal Choudhry joins us in relation to the petition that we have now moved to, which is petition 1891, to make swimming lessons a statutory requirement in the primary school curriculum. This petition was lodged by Lewis Alexander Conde and calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to ensure that all children will have the opportunity to learn to swim by making it a statutory requirement to provide lessons in the primary school curriculum. I will be inviting Mr Choudhry to comment in a moment or two. We last considered this petition almost a year ago now, in January last year, on the 19th. As a committee, we offer our sincere apologies to the petition for not bringing this petition back for further consideration in our schedule before now. At our last consideration, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. I am pleased to say that we now have received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. In her response, the Cabinet Secretary restates that there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland and local authorities and individual schools have the flexibility to decide on the content of lessons at a local level. The Cabinet Secretary does, however, go on to offer information about the Scottish swimming Learn to Swim framework and the delivery model pilots that are taking place over the course of 2022-23 to help to educate and provide opportunities for children across Scotland to experience the water in a fun, safe and inclusive way. She has also highlighted the launch of the Water Safety Scotland and Education Scotland educational resource for schools to provide a consistent level of learning across Scotland's educational institutions. Mr Choudhry, I welcome, as I say, to our proceedings. As is normal practice, when colleagues do, I am very happy to offer you the opportunity just to comment on the petition and to speak to the committee. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to come and speak to you all. As you said, I am disappointed that it has taken a year. Within the year, you probably hear so many accidents happen, quite a lot of death on swimming-related issues has taken place. That is probably one reason quite a lot of constituents came to us and they wanted us to make sure that it is in the curriculum and the school students are taught. As you have given the comments from the minister, I was wondering if we can invite the minister and COSLA, obviously, to tell us why they feel that it should not be in the school curriculum. I would request the committee to leave the petition open for the consideration. As I said, the majority of the staff that I have already said previously have not changed from my previous presentation. As I said, we have been speaking to schools as well and schools feel the same that if it is in the curriculum, students will learn to swim. In response to the first point, the cabinet secretary makes clear whether the committee might wish it otherwise or not, but there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland. In that respect, there is no direction of the Government in that regard. I have to say that you allude to deaths that have taken place amongst young children as a result of not being able to swim. To be honest with you, I am not aware of the incidence of that, which, obviously, is not a difficult matter to address. Colleagues, as I said, we have finally had a response from the Scottish Government, and I wonder in reflection what consideration there is from colleagues as to what we should do. David Torrance? Considering the response that we have had from the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government, I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of stand and orders. On the basis of that, there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland with the Scottish Government indicating that a learning to swim framework is being delivered in 27 out of 32 local authority areas. With progress being made within two further local authority areas towards delivering the framework in June 2023, and Water Safety Scotland and Education Scotland have launched an educational resource for schools to provide a constant level of learning across Scotland's educational institutes. Colleagues, I am sympathetic to the representations that we have received from Mr Chowdry. Could we couple that with notice to the petitioner drawing their attention to the actions that the Scottish Government has indicated are being taken, but pointing out to them the route forward in bringing a petition back in a year's time if they felt that the provisions that the Government has said are about to be fulfilled by local authorities and Water Safety Scotland have failed to address the issues that are concerned? I do not know that there is much more that we could do at this stage, but we could draw to the petitioner's attention that route for the future. Mr Ewing? Yes, I should say that I was not in the committee at the time that the evidence was taken, but I have read the evidence and it covers both the desirability of kids learning to swim but also the importance of that as a skill as a life-saving device, which Mr Torrance raised in questions. I noticed from the evidence session. In light of what Mr Chowdry said this morning, I feel that, although I think that we probably should close the petition for the technical reasons that have been set, it might be helpful if, in addition to the work that you have suggested, we, in closing the petition, we also write to the minister the stressing that we are closing the petition because there is no mandatory curriculum and, in that respect, it is a technical reason. However, whilst we welcome the progress that has been made, there are still some local authorities that are not apparently offering provision that there are concerns that deaths have arisen, perhaps because of lack of ability to swim. Each of those cases probably would be subject to a fatal accident inquiry and we do not necessarily know if those have taken place, probably not actually, if they occurred recently. However, could we in the letter perhaps say that we have advised the petitioner to consider bringing that petition in a year and really just ask the Scottish Government if they confirm that they will not neglect attention to this matter. They will drive it forward with cosly colleagues and, in particular, they will try to advance the causes that Mr Chowdry has spoken to eloquently this morning and the petitioner has advocated as to pursue. That is quite a nice marriage of the different suggestions that have been made. It just means that, although we feel the technical need to close the petition, that we have not lost sight of the underlying issues and made clear in a sense that we are almost encouraging it to be brought back to us should the shortcomings prevail. Are we content to proceed on that basis? We are. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Chowdry. We move to petition number 1859, which is to retain Falkner's rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland, brought to us by Barry Blyther, who I note is with us in the gallery this morning. This calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. Members will recall our evidence session in December last night—last year, sorry, I haven't quite got my head round everything yet—with the petitioner, the Minister for Environment and Land Reform and Nature, Scotland. I should say, and with Stanley, since I think we put questions to Stanley directly. We heard a number of issues in relation to the petition, and there are some outstanding issues and questions for us to consider, all of which have been summarised in our papers. Colleagues, Mr Ewing. Yes, Mr Ewing, I just like to place on record a couple of matters arising from the evidence session of which I have given notice to the clerk. First, at the outset of her evidence at the evidence session, the minister said that I had been the Cabinet Secretary at the time. I did point out in the session that I was not the Cabinet Secretary responsible for that particular piece of legislation. The minister then, however, added that the junior minister who took the legislation forward was the junior minister acting under both myself and Roseanna Cunningham. That is true. However, it just slightly gave a false impression of the situation, and I wanted to correct that. For the audience of doubt, I was not the Cabinet Secretary with direct responsibility for this bill. That was Ms Cunningham, and Ms Gougeon took forward the bill on a practical day-to-day basis, acting on the instruction of Ms Cunningham. Therefore, I had no direct ministerial locus or policy role for that bill, although I was, of course, a member of Cabinet. Second, later on, the minister went on to say that, if the solution that Mr Ewing is referring to is that I instruct law officers to make a statement that criminal offence will not be prosecuted, he is doing a disservice to the legal profession that he was once part of. In response, convener, could I point out that, first of all, I am still part of the profession as I am on the role of solicitors, although no longer in practice. However, a more substance is that I did not call for a blanket ban on prosecution, but rather for guidance. Guidance was what I sought, and guidance, I hope, is an option that can be explored. I will come to make further substantive remarks later, but I really just wanted to clarify those points for the record. Thank you for the opportunity. No, not at all. I know that, colleagues, we were all impressed by the petition, and I think that we were troubled by some of the evidence that we received. We have had an opportunity to reflect on that. I think that there are a number of issues that arise. I think that the direction of travel that the committee is potentially likely to journey upon is clear, but in pursuing that journey, are there suggestions to the committee as to what we might reasonably now do? It would be good to hear from colleagues in relation to that. Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. There is no doubt that this petition has created some real anxiety across all areas. When the minister was here the last time, I think that we were, as a committee, intent in trying to progress. I think that Mr Ewing has outlined in his way the things that needed to be corrected from the last session, and that has been. However, I think that it is important that we go back to the minister. I would be suggesting that we write to the minister of environmental land reform and national scot on the outstanding issues that were raised, because there are still a number of them that need to be clarified, and those are existing licence processes and options. The circumstances that could constitute an offence and where a person could be charged unprosecuted, I think that that is vitally important. However, the welfare of birds of prey, particularly large birds such as eagles, can be ensured to the content of new arrangements for the protection of mountain hares, and the potential and the consequences of any legislative change. I think that those are fundamental to what we need to be challenging at this stage, so I would be proposing that we do that at the next level. Do we have any other suggestions or comments from colleagues, Mr Ewing? Yes, I agree with Mr Stewart's recommended course of action. In doing so, I expressed my gratitude to the information and help that we received from SPICE, which we have had a briefing on earlier and for which we are grateful. In the light of that, I hope that we can use the information about the possible distinction between the use of birds falconry for hunting purposes and for exercise purposes, and draw that distinction in the face of the letter to the Minister and ask if, in particular, as well as the issues that Stewart has enumerated, that regard can be had, whether or not that might form the basis of her seeking guidance and advice from NatureScot, which I gather deal with the operational and strategic arrangements for licences in general, to see if they can recommend a way that would enable the sport of falconry to continue to be exercised in the light of the distinction that we have had the benefit of hearing about this morning from SPICE. In addition to that, I would hope that we could write to Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Procurate of Fiscal to clarify the circumstances that would constitute an offence and whether a person could be charged and prosecuted. In that letter, I think again that it would be helpful for the benefit of the legal authorities who are the only ones who have the right to decide whether or not to prosecute the Minister to be fair to her. There is no such locusts at all and that line cannot be crossed. We should be asking the prosecution authorities in what circumstances they may be minded to consider criminal proceedings and perhaps also explore whether or not and in the letter again set out the distinction that we have had the benefit of having had explained to us this morning so that they can see both the potential solution but also the quandary that falconers face and appreciate that this is something that the committee has taken very seriously. I think that what I am asking for, convener, is that the letters to both the legal authorities and the minister should go to some lens to set out, if you like, our concerns about what we have heard and our desire for a solution to be found with everybody working together to that end. I am content with that. I would like to suggest that, in the light of the responses that we might receive, we would then go back to Spice and ask them to draw that together in the form of a further briefing, which would then allow and inform us as a committee as to what steps we then take on the back of that. Clearly, we want to arrive at a solution and we want to do that, having underpinned that recommendation with every possible exploration of advice that we can to clarify all the outstanding points. Please do. Addendum, which I forgot to say but meant to say, which is that perhaps at the very end of the letter to the minister we could politely indicate that this is a matter of where I think all members of the committee felt particularly exercised and concerned. Therefore, it is our intention to pursue this and indicate that we do treat this very seriously indeed and perhaps thereby inject a little bit of lead into the ministerial pencil. And which analogy I will ask if members are content. They are. Thank you very much. We then move on to consideration of petition number 1900, access to prescribed medication for detainees in police custody, a petition about which we've taken evidence, colleagues will recall, lodged by Kevin John Lawson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. Members will recall that we took evidence, as I mentioned, from former members of the drugs death task force and subsequently with the minister for drugs policy. We explored a range of issues in relation to the petition, including the use of diohydrocodine access to monitoring data and implementation of the MAT standards. The committee has now received two submissions from Kevin, our petitioner, which are included in our papers and corresponds from NHS Grampian to the minister for drugs policy, an area that was explored in our cross-examination. The correspondence from NHS Grampian confirms that it is currently unable to administer MAT, including methadone, within a police custody setting. That states that it is due to historic constraints and the absence of a controlled drug licence. The correspondence states that NHS Grampian has set up two short-life working groups, one of which is specifically tasked with completing the implementation of MAT standards within police custody. NHS Grampian is also looking to have a controlled drug licence in place by the end of February this year. In the light of the responses received, do my colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action? I would like to keep the petition open, convener, but in doing so, can we write to the minister for drugs policy, highlighting issues raised in the petition and related evidence, welcoming the work of the MAT implementation group to date, and highlighting the on-going concerns about resources and capacity issues within the health sector? Can we also ask for an update on the situation in NHS Grampian by the end of February specifically if a controlled drug licence for police custody settings has been obtained and the timescale from completing the implementation of the MAT standards within police custody settings and seek reassurances on the issues of capacity and monitoring of implementation across Scotland to ensure that the MAT standards are met? I thought that the confirmation of the position in NHS Grampian was disappointing, I have to say, and I think that in progressing that we would want to give proper emphasis to that. Mr Sweeney? Thank you, convener. I would agree with the recommendations suggested by Mr Torrance, and I would further suggest that we might want to give consideration to direct engagement with health and social care partnerships, where there are clear deficiencies and implementation of the specific MAT standards that we are discussing. Perhaps it might be an opportunity to seek evidence directly from those health and social care partnerships as to what the blockages and impediments are, and perhaps that could offer a way of us being useful in trying to get delivery expedited. So that would involve us doing what? Perhaps identifying potential health and social care partnerships, where they are not achieving those MAT standards and inviting the management of those health and social care partnerships to give evidence as to why that might be a problem. Is that something that we can explore? I am just wondering how to pursue that in the round. What we obviously have is NHS Grampian expressing the fact that it has not been able to do so. I wonder therefore, without explaining to us why that is the case, we might pursue the point directly with it in the first instance as an example of an authority that is struggling. Mr Ewing? I agree in principle with Mr Sweeney's recommendation, because those partnerships have a direct role to play. I wonder if, in the first instance, we could raise the point specifically in the letter to the minister and perhaps couple that with a request that she provides us with a specific update as to what progress is being made in using the very substantial amount of money. I am very sorry, I cannot remember if it was 500 million, it was a very substantial amount of money that has been set aside for pursuit of drugs policy objectives in general. The indication that the minister gave was to be used in large part to hire relevant personnel, whether they are employees or consultants or contractors, and in the case of the provision of services to detainees in police custody, plainly it may well be doctors and a provision of budget for doctors who would be hired by the police or other health professionals. I am sorry, I am being a bit long-winded. I thought that a related way of pursuing Mr Sweeney's point might be to ask the minister specifically what progress has been made, how many additional people have been employed in each particular area, has she got that information, if not will she get it, and can she give us a progress report on how that money has been spent thus far? That gets to the nitty gritty, a substantial amount of money, but what is it being used for is not easy to hire people, the right people quickly. It is a difficult, complex task, but I know that the minister is entirely devoted to that. I think that all members would be interested in more factual information about those issues. I do not know if that is the case. I accept that, but I am mindful of the petitioner in relation to all of this. I wonder whether, in the first instance, what we want to understand is the position in NHS Grampian is a specific focus of the inquiry to the minister in the first instance? Fine, but I think that probably it would be of interest to all parts of Scotland. Can we draft something that we could consider before we send off? I think that that would be helpful for us to do. Can I suggest that we ask the clerks to produce a draft of the letter? I think that what was interesting in the correspondence from NHS Grampian was the issue of the controlled drug licence, and they are seeking to try and implement it by the end of February. It would be interesting that almost they are offering themselves as a pilot of how to rapidly implement that controlled drug licence. It would be really helpful to get that insight from that health board or that health and social care partnership as to how they achieved it and what the impediments were. Perhaps that might offer an insight for the minister and the Parliament to show how we could get the process sped up for other health authorities and other health and social care partnership areas, so we could try to get that rolled out. It seemed that that was the key sticking point identified in the correspondence, so if we could break through that bureaucratic issue, that might be something that we could focus on. I think that that makes sense. We will accommodate all of that. I think that I would just quite like for us to, even by correspondence perhaps, to see a draft of the potential letter that we would send to the minister. Will we agree? We move to petition number 1902 to allow an appeal process for community participation requests, lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness health action team. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment Act 2015. At our previous consideration of this petition, we identified that work is on-going to identify the possibility of an appeals process. As part of the Scottish Government's own review of the act, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth has informed us that the Scottish Community Development Centre's working group continued its work through 2022 to explore the potential for an appeals or review process for participation requests and will bring its findings to the Scottish Government for full consideration. As I mentioned earlier on, we have wrote a grant with us this morning. I wonder if there is anything further that you would like to suggest to us, given that information? Yes, and I am a wee bit disappointed with that response because it means that there will not really be any change to policy until much later this year and maybe realistically into next. In the meantime, I think that the Caithness health action team should really be recognised as a community organisation under the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015 because it really spent a lot of time representing its community. I wonder if the committee would consider writing to NHS Highland. I understand that it is working with chat now in a much more positive fashion. I wonder if the committee would consider asking them if they would now be willing to recognise chat or certainly give them the same input and status as they would have had if they had been recognised under the act. More and more often, chat is coming to me with issues from their community that they are well recognised and people turn to them for guidance and representation with health issues. I think that it could only help NHS Highland and indeed the wider community if they were around the table with that. I wonder if the petitions committee would consider doing that and maybe just keeping this open until we get some form of resolution because, obviously, the work that is being done by the Scottish Government is not really going to resolve this issue in the near future. At one strand of thinking that you articulated there, which registers with me, is that we do not really have any timetable going forward as identified here. Simply that work was done in 2022 and that will lead to findings being brought to the Scottish Government for consideration, which, as Rhoda Grant said reasonably, does not give us a timeline going forward. That could be any time and then the Government could take any time to consider and there could be any time after that before anything is suggested that might follow as a consequence. I wonder if we might try to seek to ask the Scottish Government or whoever the appropriate body is for a slightly more accountable timeframe that this could be held to. I do not know that there is much more after that that we can do. I am not sure that the suggestion from Rhoda Grant is one for the committee, or whether it is a more personal invention? Do the colleagues have any thoughts? You make a very valid point about the timescale on the process. Rhoda Grant herself does make some views, but, as you have identified, I am not quite sure how we as a committee could progress that. We can ask for the timescale to be come back, but other than that, we are quite limited as to where we are considering that there has been already some development from the master what they plan to do or they have indicated that they plan to do, but, as you said, the timescale is the problem because we do not know how long that is going to take and it could be towards the end of this year before anything actually happens. I think that our expressing an interest in pursuing it might ensure that something is pursued. Mr Ewing? I think that Rhoda Grant raised a fair point here. Generally speaking, if a Government says that, in response to any request for action, we might get around to doing something one day, that is no very good. I do not think that we as a committee should accept that principle, but we should probably work it in the more moderate way with polytests that you have advocated rather than the words that I have just deployed. However, I think that we should press the issue and say that we would like a more specific response about when the Government plans to take any action. At the same time, I agree with you, convener, that I am sure that Ms Grant will not be backward in coming forward and making her own representations, and it may well be a matter for individual MSPs to pursue in their constituency or region. Can we explore—I mean, I just think that the further suggestion that Rhoda Grant made is that we can just explore the most appropriate way that we think that that might be accommodated either through the committee or by some other means, but are we otherwise content to proceed on that basis, colleagues? We are. Thank you. That brings us to petition number 1918, Improving Sex Education and Schools, lodged by Kate Friedman. That calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance and implementing clear teaching rules, focusing on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses, puberty, LGBT sex, including asexuality, fertility, pornography and any other things that are deemed useful. The Scottish Government has outlined the ways in which children and young people's views are used to influence policy in this area, including collaboration and co-design in classrooms. Its recent submission provides examples of local engagement seeking views of children and young people on sex education. It also states that the Scottish Government is in the process of revising its RSHP, its relationships, sexual health and parenthood, teaching guidance and will run a public consultation to gather views. As part of that is exploring the best approach to gathering the views of children and young people. The submission concludes by stating that the Scottish Government is working to have the revised guidance available as early as possible in the 2023-2024 academic year. I ask if members have any comments or suggestions as a consequence. Mr Torrance. I wonder if we could keep the petition open and in doing so right to Education Scotland to follow up on the committee's previous request for information on how it monitors implementation of teaching guidance. I would also like to get a reply as quickly as possible on the RSHP when it goes out to consultation to see what comes back. Any other suggestions from colleagues? Are we content? We are content. Thank you very much. That brings us to agenda item 2, which is the consideration of new petitions. As always, just to anybody who may be following our proceedings this morning who has lodged a petition that we are considering, just to say that in advance of the consideration of petitions a considerable amount of work is done and the views of the Scottish Government are sought in relation to every petition to help inform members as we consider petitions for the first time together with other briefing that we have received. We now move to agenda item 2 and we will be considering new petitions, two new petitions together, which focus on upgrades to the road network in Highlands Scotland. Those petitions are petition number 1974 to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and petition number 1980 to adopt the A832 between Acklashin and Gourston as a trunk road. The first of those new petitions is lodged by Derek Noble, number 1974, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems associated with the Stromferry bypass. The second petition number 1980 to adopt the A832 between Acklashin and Gourston as a trunk road has also been lodged by Derek Noble and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between those two destinations as a trunk road, connecting that route into the existing trunk road network. Again, we are joined by Rhoda Grant this morning and I will set out a little of the background before inviting Rhoda to speak to the issues that are raised. On petition 1974, Derek tells us that the A890 is mainly single carriageway but frequently reduces to a single track with passing places along the stretch between Atadale and Ardnarf. He highlights a history of rockfalls that have occurred since the road was opened and continues to pose a risk to the road and its users. Derek also informs us that Highland Council have undertaken feasibility studies into two alternatives to the Stromferry bypass, with the cost of pursuing those alternatives estimated to be between £23 million and £60 million. Derek believes that this level of funding should come from central government and that it is for this reason that he is calling for the road to be adopted as trunk road. In relation to petition 1980, Derek tells us that the A832 links the previously mentioned A890 to the A835, helping to complete the west to east coast road network. Derek highlights that if the Scottish Government were to adopt the A890 as a trunk road, then the A832 should also be adopted, as that would provide a trunk road connection between the existing trunk roads on the A87 and the A835—a complicated map in your head here. Derek believes that that could transform connectivity between the east and west coast of Scotland, bringing social and economic benefits at both local and national levels. In responding to both of those petitions, Transport Scotland has indicated that the Scottish Government has no plans to trunk the A890 or the A832. Its response also states that there are currently no plans to undertake a formal review of the trunk road network and that ministers keep the trunk road network under continual review with the issue last considered following the publication of the strategic transport projects review. Sorry, that was all quite complicated and technical. Before I ask members of the committee if there is anything that they would like to say, I invite Rhoda Grant to speak to both those petitions. I am grateful to be able to speak to them. I have been involved in the campaign to improve the stone ferry bypass for many years, probably much of the time that I have been elected, and I am really pleased that Mr Noble has brought those petitions to Parliament. As he said, part of those roads link the current trunk road network on the route to Skye on its single track as well as the big issue, which is the stone ferry bypass, and it is subject to landslides. The road and the rail line run side by side at that part of the road, so those landslides impact on both the road and the rail line, and there is a risk to life. Children are using that road daily to get to Plockton High School. The High School is also the national centre of excellence for traditional music in Scotland, and ferry traffic to Uist and Harris also uses the road going up to Oog in Skye. When there is a landslide, the road can be closed for months on end, and it impacts really badly on the community and on commuters. It is concerning that it is not recognised as a trunk road, because it links Highland Council mainland to the areas in the western isles via Skye. It is also an essential road because of secondary education and medical cover, so the local hospital serving the whole area is broad ford in Skye, and it can be cut off from the community, creating huge stress and indeed disruption to care. You can just imagine what it must be like for families with a loved one in hospital, and they really cannot get to them. It also cuts children off from their high school, which is also unacceptable. The only alternative route to that route is 130-mile diversion, so that is impossible to run over a day-to-day basis. It impacts on all services. The cost of improving the road that you have highlighted is beyond the financial reach of Highland Council. Highland Council already has the greatest road mileage to cover. Going by my mailbag from constituents, most of it is falling into disrepair. It is pretty grim in places, so finding that amount of money for that change or repair is impossible. I am disappointed at Transport Scotland's response, but when it did respond, it said in the response that one of the ways that it gauged whether a route should become a trunk road is to provide the users with a coherent and continuous system of routes, which served destinations of importance to industry, commerce, agriculture and tourism. That was their response to you. I would say in response that this route is part of the NC500, which is an internationally recognised tourist route. Indeed, there has been a lot of concern about how busy that route is. It is the main route, as I said, between the Highlands and the Western Isles of southern Hebrides. It is the main route to a national centre of excellence in the traditional music school. It is also critical to industry, to farming, to crofting, but also to aquaculture, renewables and the decommissioning industry because of the Yarddodd Kishon, which is hopefully set to grow and provide much-needed economic boost in that area. I believe that the route fulfills the criteria that Transport Scotland has laid down. I would ask that the committee raise this with Government ministers direct to try and persuade them of the merits of this route, becoming a trunk route, because it would serve the area well. That is an area of Scotland that has been largely ignored in the past. We really need to create jobs and repopulate because it is an area of depopulation, although under a lot of pressure from tourism and the holiday homes. We need to give people back in that area to make sure that it grows. I think that the petition raises important issues. Colleagues, do we have any suggestions or comments that you would like to make? Mr Ewing? I think that we should write to the Highland Council to seek its views on the issues raised, but the petition and to ask for further information on their plans to develop alternative routes to the Stromferry bypass. I know that Rhoda Grant has pursued this issue for a number of years and rightly so. In doing so, she raises a conundrum, which is that the Highland Council has a geographical area, if memory serves me correct, of over 25,000 square miles, nearly one-third of the landmass of Scotland, 20 per cent bigger than Wales and bigger than Belgium. And yet it has to, in its budget, cater for a huge network of roads. The petitioners pointed particular, and I think that, convener, you alluded to the figures, the costs of the repairs that are required are tens, large sums and tens of millions of denomination. Therefore, when writing to the council that we could specifically ask as to whether or not the overall budgetary provision, given the fact that they have such a disproportionate responsibility for road maintenance in Scotland covering a third of the landmass, whether, really, the budgetary allocation to Highland Council is fair. As a Highland MSP, albeit representing constituency, I absolutely share the sense of grievance that the petitioners have and underlies the petition, so I just want you to add that to the particular request. I would be interested to hear the views of local communities via the community councils, and I think that that includes Loch Carrens from Ferry and Achmore, Blocton and Apple Cross, as well in order that we formally ask for their views. I don't know if there's anything else that Rhoda Grant thinks that we might usefully do, but if she does, then I would be most interested to give that sympathetic consideration as well. I very much concur with Mr Ewing's comments. I think that local communities are vitally important that we engage with and Rhoda Grant has made a very articulate case. In her representation this morning, she talked about us trying to contact the minister, and I think that that may well be another route that we should consider just to see exactly, because in my opinion it does appear that it meets criteria that should be considered, so let's get some more clarity from the minister on the process. It's very important that we deal with Highland Council, but as Mr Ewing has said, they are limited into the resource that they have and the expanse that they have to manage across the large geographical area that they have, so I do think that the suggestion from Rhoda Grant about the minister is one that we should take forward. Colleagues, have we agreed? I mean, I just wonder in relation also to petition number 1980, we want to contact the Highland Council in relation to it, to IEM, Road Smart, the Roadhology Association and Visit Scotland for their views on the Archnachine and Gorseden petition 2. So, together with all of the suggestions that have made, are we collectively content to keep the petition open and to begin our investigation by pursuing our inquiries with all those respective bodies? Have we agreed? We are. Thank you very much. That brings us to the second of our new petitions, petition number 1975, reforming the law relating to strategic lawsuits against public participation slaps. This has been lodged by Roger Mullen, who understands us with us in the gallery, and is the former member of an alternative elective legislative body that sits elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The SPICE briefing explains that slaps is a term to describe court action taken by rich and powerful interests with the intention of silencing critical views, and court action can include defamation and data protection claims. The briefing highlights the Justice Committee's scrutiny of the defamation bill at stage 1. The committee noted a proposal to create an unjustified threats court action and recommended further consideration by the Scottish Government on the issue. Currently, both the UK Government and the European Commission are working to strengthen legislation in order to tackle slaps. The Scottish Government response to the petition states that it does not intend to undertake a review of slaps, stating that the Defamation and Malicious Publications Scotland Act 2021 goes some way to address concerns. The petitioner Roger Mullen has provided a written response, stating that there has been a lack of recognition of the scale of the problem. He raises concerns about the potential for defamation tourism if Scotland does not keep legislative pace with England, Wales and the European Union. We have also received written submissions from our colleague Michelle Thomson MSP, the Anti-Slap Research Hub in the University of Aberdeen and Ecclesia, all supporting the petition. The written submissions echo Roger's concerns and raised some additional issues, such as the importance of investigative journalism, the impact of frivolous litigation on the court system. The submission from Ecclesia highlights the model anti-slap law drafted by the UK Anti-Slap Coalition and its key features. It urges the Scottish Government to enact similar measures, so an interesting petition and an interesting variation in the way that these matters are being pursued. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I welcome Roger Mullen, who is one of my constituents to the committee today. I wonder if a committee could write to key stakeholders, including the Lost Society of Scotland, National Union of Journalists and the Scottish Newspaper Society, seeking their views on the action called in the petition. Have we agreed that? Any further thoughts, Mr Ewing? Yes. I am aware of Michelle Thomson's interest in this. In fact, she would have liked to have been here, except she is across the corridor in another committee's meetings. I am just going to add that it does seem a little bit inconsistent that the Scottish Government is not planning to do more than it has said in the light that the UK Government is and so are the EU. I wonder if we can get a more specific response as to in what way the Scottish Government feels that the defamation law passed fairly recently covers the issue, because the petitioner plainly is of the view that it does not recognise the scale of the problem. The scenario that we are concerned about here is that the UK passes legislation leaving Scotland as the jurisdiction of choice of very rich people who wish to attack the freedom of the press using the courts as a shield. I do not think that that is something that we want to see happening in Scotland. Therefore, I find the lack of any obvious enthusiasm that the Scottish Government is disappointing, but if it does argue that the law that was passed last year is a sufficient shield, then I think that we really need a lot more information and response, a lot more of a specific response than we have had at the moment. Finally, if we do not get—I struggle to be an optimist in life, so I hope that I am wrong—but if we do not get that specific information, then I do think that there is a case to have a hearing at which perhaps the petitioner, Aberdeen University academics, who have submitted a written response, particularly Professor Borg Bartid, who has been a key adviser to the European Union, as well as the Law Society and the Government Minister, might give evidence. In other words, if we are not satisfied by the initial responses, maybe it might be helpful to indicate in the letters to everybody that we are contemplating an inquiry. Therefore, we do hope that, again, the pencil will have a high lead content when we get the response. Well, if your glass is usually half empty and mine is usually half full, therein is a full glass that we can hope to achieve. Certainly, I think the fact—I mean, I am maybe less surprised, he said, trying not to be part of political, that they would be rushing to follow the UK Government. I think the fact that the European Union is pursuing a similar legislative solution does leave us as a bit of an outlier and potentially open as a source of comfort to those that we at least want to potentially assist here. Moreover, I take Mr Ewing's point. It is one thing for the Scottish Government to assert that the 2021 legislation will have dealt with matters here. I think that we would like to understand how, in fact, we believe that that is to be achieved rather than just being asserted that that is the case. I agree with Mr Ewing. I think that this is an important issue. I think that it is one that the committee could pursue further in the light of the evidence that we receive. It would be useful for those people that we are contacting to know that we are minded so to do if we feel that the answers that we receive are in the first instance less than persuasive. Mr Sweeney, you look like you are seeking to intervene. I am sympathetic to the petition and the public interest of it. I am also in agreement with the proposed recommendations and actions thus far. It might also be prudent to inform the Delegated Person Law Reform Committee of this petition, because I think that it is an area of work that the committee has a locus in. We might also invite the view of the law commission and whether it has done any projects in this area thus far. It is something that usually comes through in the law commission bill in this kind of area. I know that the petition is present. It might also be worth exploring at the member's bill route, engaging a sponsoring member of Parliament to pursue it. The member's bill route is also engaging the non-government bills unit. It might be an opportunity to further drive the agenda and certainly the petition could help in that regard. It is just another avenue by which Parliament can give effect to this. I am happy to pursue all those things. I hesitate now in the member's bill thing simply because, as a member of the corporate body, I know that we have a record number of those before us in this Parliament already. I struggle to see how we are going to actually, before 2026, get around to considering them. I think that, certainly, the other suggestions in the first instance that we would want to pursue, Mr Sweeney. It was just to note that, convener, whilst I accept the point about parliamentary time, the ideal solution would be if round work was done through the member's bill route, the Government might adopt the legislation and give Government time to progress it. Well, as Mr Ewing is glass is half empty, mine is half full, maybe that will find a successful outcome. I think that we are agreed that we think that the issues raised in the petition are matters that we want to pursue and we have detailed ways in which we will do, so I can tell the petitioner that he will have heard all of that. We move then to petition number 1976 to backdate council tax discounts for dementia to the date of GP certification. That has been lodged by Derek James Brown and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit. The petitioner Derek submitted a freedom of information request and found that 22 of 32 Scottish local authorities backdate council tax discounts to the date a person received their first qualifying state benefit payment, rather than the date from which they were certified as severely mentally impaired. The SPICE briefing highlights the requirement for someone applying for attendance allowance to have needed support for at least six months before being eligible for the benefit, potentially creating a gap of six months between diagnosis and receipt of a qualifying benefit. The briefing also notes challenges in navigating benefit application processes and accessing post-diagnostic support. The Scottish Government states that local authorities have the ability to backdate applications to the later date of either the medical certification or date of application to a qualifying benefit. Because of that, the Scottish Government has no plans to amend the law in relation to council tax discounts. Derek's submission details the personal experience of him and his wife. Margaret suffers from Alzheimer's disease in England. He explains that they only became aware of his wife's entitlement to attendance allowance months after her diagnosis and then her entitlement to a council tax discount the following year. The council applied the council tax discount from the date Margaret received attendance allowance 10 months later. Do members of any comments or suggestions for action? An interesting petitioner, Mr Torrance. Yes, convener, just because of the many discrepancies across local authorities, so I'm wondering if the committee could write to relevant stakeholders included in Citizens Advice Scotland, Dementia Scotland or Simon Scotland to seek their views on action called for in the petition. The impact of a legislative requirement in relation to eligibility for qualifying for state benefit, the variation in approach taken to assessment by local authorities across Scotland and the level of variation across Scotland for referrals for post-diagnostic support for people newly diagnosed with dementia. I'm also interested to know whether the Scottish Government is aware of the variation that is being applied to assessments by different local authorities across Scotland. I think that it would be useful for us to draw this to their attention with the consequential issues that arise for individuals as a result. Mr Ewing. The petitioner has raised a point of principle. If it is right that there should be payment of these benefits, whatever they are, from the date when the individual is certified as having dementia, then surely that should apply to all. That's a general principle. We should not tolerate a system whereby some authorities, whether they be local authorities or clangos or whatever, decide to give help to those individuals and others don't. It's a postcode lottery, I suppose, which is the sort of more majority way of putting it, but it does hide the fact that there are a lot of people around Scotland who should be getting this treatment, who are not getting this financial benefit, 25 per cent reduction of council tax. It's prima facie unfair, so all I'm saying, convener, in addition to the action, suggested that that general point might be made if members are agreeable that it's a general principle, that surely there must be a universal application of the system. Whatever it is, it should be universal, and some people should not be left out. I think that we're really indebted to the petitioner for highlighting this area, because I wasn't aware of it. I think that the petitioner has done it a good service for bringing it into the Parliament. No, I think that I agree with that. Mr Stewart. I very much concur with that. I think that this has identified that there is a risk of financial loss to individuals because of that, and Mr Ewing has articulated the fact that it should be. We shouldn't be in the case where individuals who have been diagnosed and do have a certification are then not given the proper benefits that they're entitled to, because I say that it does mean that they suffer financial loss, and that is unacceptable at any level. No, I mean that not only should they not be denied the benefits to which they're entitled, but that they shouldn't be entitled to receive them from a variable date, depending on where they happen to live. They should receive them, I think. You know, a very great deal of sympathy with the argument articulated by the petitioner. I think that we're all agreed then in the process as going forward. Am I correct? Yes. So, an important petition, and we will take forward the issues raised by it. Petition number 1977 requires social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children. This has been raised by Helen Duncan, and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the national guidance for child protection to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children. Helen tells us that social services are not required to inform a child's biological father when concerns have been raised about the welfare of their child. She highlights her own family's experience of finding out about child welfare concerns months after social work had become involved in the case. In researching the issue more broadly, Helen has become aware of situations where fathers have not been informed of child welfare concerns and are having to fight to have their child released from foster care. Responding to the petition, the minister for children and young people refers to the national child protection guidance in Scotland 2021 and its emphasis on listening to children, participation of and support for families and multi-agency partnership in the core elements of child protection processes. The minister also indicates that where child protection measures are required, social work should include fathers where appropriate and where they have an active involvement in the child's life, recognising that each of set of circumstances are different and would require professional assessment before information is shared. The minister notes that introducing an automatic notification for biological fathers could play significant risks on both children and adults, for example, in cases of domestic abuse or where the child is requested that their father is not made aware. An interesting petition, but with conflicting emotion and consequence arising. Do members of any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? As you identify, this is an interesting petition for us. We require to seek some more information from some stakeholders about where we are and where they are. Scotland's Centre for Excellence for Children's Care and Protection, along with the shared parenting Scotland, the Promise Scotland, Scottish Children's Reporter Administrator and the Scottish Child Law Centre, would be useful to seek their views and issues raised by the petition for us to gather some information. Have you rightly identified that there seems to be a complex process on going in the current situation? Are there any other suggestions? Are our colleagues content to proceed on that basis? We are. Thank you very much. We keep the petition open and proceed as suggested. The final of our new petitions this morning is petition number 1978, to allow raw milk to be sold in Scotland, lodged by Christina Rosique S. Blugas. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to—I do apologise if that wasn't even remotely correct pronunciation. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow raw drinking milk to be sold in Scotland, bringing it in line with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to allow farmers the opportunity to sell unpasteurised drinking milk. Christina highlights that the sale of raw drinking milk is permitted in the rest of the UK, as well as in most European countries. She believes that it is time for raw milk to stop being considered a public health hazard and notes that measures can be put in place to control for food safety, as is the case with many other food products. Responding on behalf of the Scottish Government, Food Standards Scotland states that raw drinking milk has historically been recognised as a high risk to public health due to its association with the number of food poisoning outbreaks in Scotland. They note that the mandatory pasteurisation of cow's drinking milk was introduced in 1983 and was then extended to drinking milk from all farmed animals in 2006. They suggest that, since then, illnesses linked to the consumption of raw milk in Scotland have virtually disappeared. Food Standards Scotland has also highlighted a report from the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food in 2018. That concluded that there had been an increase in the microbiological risk associated with the consumption of raw drinking milk in the UK. As a result, there are currently no plans to lift the ban and direct sales of raw drinking milk in Scotland. Do members of any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed? That seems to me to be very clear guidance from the Scottish Government in this instance. Mr Torrance? I was just wondering because of the guidance from Food Standards Scotland's historic evidence and the way to the scientific community if we could close the petition under 15.7 of standing orders on that basis. I do not think that the Food Standards Agency Scotland is going to shift all the Scottish Government on this. How do colleagues feel? We could obviously explore the matter further with the Food Standards Agency, but the direction in relation to Scotland seems to be pretty clear to us. I am not sure whether that is going to lead to a productive route forward. I am just curious as to why there is a difference in jurisdictions. I see the point about whether it is going to go anywhere, but I am just curious as to find out more why it is not seen as such an issue in other parts of the UK, but does the farming industry have a view about whether it would improve their commercial opportunity? Clearly, the 1983 ban will have been introduced pre-devolution. The ban in 2006 would be post-devolution, presumably, so I do not know whether we were following any national advice at the time. The issue is whether in extending our investigation into all of this, we are better informed in the circumstances, but no further forward in terms of being able to take the petition anywhere because the direction from the two agencies, the Government and the Scottish Food Standards Agency, is clear. I wonder what the mood of colleagues is. Mr Torrance has proposed that we close it on that basis, but are we minded, colleagues, what are our thoughts? I am content to close it, convener, because I think that we do know what the answer is going to be, and it is only belonging to the situation, so I think that it is cut as to where we are with it at this stage. Are we minded to close it, but maybe nonetheless I think that it is worthwhile to ask the question so that we have the answer to hand. What is the airing on the side of exploring things a bit further before we move to close. Mr Ewing? I suppose that our primary function is to give voice to petitioners. I agree with Mr Torrance that there is just zero chance that the FSA is going to move. For the very good reason, as I understand it, the rationale is that raw milk can carry salmonella, E. coli, listeria, camelobac tariff, I pronounced that correctly, caused food poisoning. We have seen very serious illnesses, including death, in other examples of other foodstuffs resulting in food poisoning, so it is a very serious matter indeed. I do agree that it is most unlikely that that view is going to change irrespective of what we get. On the other hand, we have got a duty to petitioners. The petitioners knew that it has just been lodged. As Mr Sweeney says, it would be interesting to know why in England this has been made legal and what the experience has been here. I do not know that we are in a position to conduct a detailed inquiry, but in the interests of fairness to the petitioner that question should be asked because it is not clear to me why in England it has been legalised given that the health experts in Scotland say that the risks are so serious that the ban must remain in place. Maybe I am being a bit softer than Mr Torrance being a relative newbie, but I think that we do owe some kind of duty to the petitioner. Writing to the FSA in Scotland and perhaps in England as well to ask why in England it has been interesting and illuminating to see why in England they have done it and whether or not, having made it legal, they have had any cases of food poisoning, for example. It is clearly reassuring to those of us in the committee that the Scottish National Party is such a broad church in terms of co-operation of views and personalities. I think that the committee has largely agreed where we think the final outcome of this might be, but I take the point. We have a conclusion without understanding why there is a variation. In the first instance, I think that it might be useful for us to have some further understanding of why that variation occurs. Are you content with us to pursue it on that basis, Mr Torrance? I am quite happy to withdraw my recommendations and write to the FSA. It is not so much you withdrawing them as I think that we are deferring them subject to that further advice. Until we get the information back. Yes, I think that that makes perfect sense. Sorry, Mr Sweeney. I was just curious, is there a successor to the milk marketing board? Does that exist any more, or has that been disbanded long ago? I was just curious, because I remember that there was an actual national authority that dealt with milk production. Yes, but you are looking at me as if I ought to be an authority in these matters. While Mr Ewing and I may be at the older end of the life span of the committee membership, I have to say that I am not an expert in these matters, but no doubt others can. Which is the National Trade Association, so they might be worth asking the question of as well. I was just looking to see if I could find out more whilst we were talking. I suppose that one other area that we might usefully ask any information of is the industry itself, because I am not quite sure whether the petition is arising out of an industry concern, or whether it sits outside of an industry concern that may not exist in Scotland, for all I know. You could ask the National Trade Association, but I suspect that it is concerned, and its members are concerned, on dairy farmers. It will be for reputational risks relating to— It will be for all reputation of dairy farmers, because it is a highly specialised area. That would be my thought, but I think that we could ask that too. They do a brilliant job that they were highlighted on this farming life. If those who watched the programme yesterday evening saw dairy farmers in the south of Scotland, who provide a great service for Scotland, I imagine that they would be concerned about reputational risk of any incident involving food poisoning of any milk. From our liberal consumption of the milk of human life, we come to the end of our consideration of new petitions. I should have begun the meeting by asking members if they are content to take item 3 in private. On the basis that members are, that brings us to the end of the public section of our meeting this morning, and we will resume again on 1 February.