 We welcome everyone to the eighth meeting in session 6 of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I have an apologise today from our deputy convener, David Torrance, who is on well. If you're watching, David, we wish you a speedy recovery. We need your back, but I'm delighted that we have in his place today Marie McNair. This is our first meeting as a substitute. Welcome to you, Marie. The first thing I have to ask you to do is to declare any relevant interests as this is your first meeting. Good morning. Do we now declare that I'm a councillor with Weston-Bartonshire Council? Thank you. Okay. That brings us to agenda item 1 of 2 we have today, and that is the consideration of continued petitions. Our first continued petition is number PE 1853, which is to introduce a lifeline ferry service from Campbellton to Ardrossan. That was introduced, lodged by Councillor Donald Kelly and Councillor Douglas Filland. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to urge the Scottish Parliament to provide an all-year round freight and passenger ferry service from Campbellton and Ardrossan. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 1 September, where we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. In the Scottish Government's initial submission to us, we were told that it was not operationally possible to extend the current operating period of Ardrossan to Campbellton service, as there were no available vessels. It was noted that the Scottish Government has committed to securing two new ferries, which are currently under construction. Subject to a robust business case and funding, it may be possible to use one of the new vessels to provide a year-round Campbellton service. The MV Sanox is due to be delivered between July and September of next year. The petitioners themselves had also explored whether it would be possible to use an available vessel that was not currently part of the CalMac fleet to provide this service. In its most recent submission to the committee, the Scottish Government suggested that suitable second-hand vessels were rare, but that the MV U-Day, as it says, was recently purchased, indicating a willingness on its part to consider this as an option. The Scottish Government also highlighted the creation of the Islands connectivity plan, which will be prepared as the successor to the ferries plan 2013-2022. The Government also states that determining the long-term future ferry requirements for Campbellton will involve a community needs assessment. That will be carried out with communities and other stakeholders throughout 2022 for all Clyde and Hebrides ferry services and Northern Isles routes, as well as part of the islands connectivity plan. It anticipated that the plan will be published by the end of 2022. In the light of the subsequent submission that we have received from the Scottish Government, do members have any comments or suggestions? I think that on the basis of what has been outlined there and on the basis of what has been expected to take place in terms of delivery of a new vessel and also the consultation with communities during the next year that we could close this petition under rule 15.7 of standing order. Any other comments? Does that meet with the approval of colleagues? It does, so we will write to the petitioner, thanking them for their petition, just detailing the action that we have received and indicating that we are closing the petition at this time. The next of our continuing petitions is PE 1856, support to the taxi trade, which was lodged by Patrick Rafferty on behalf of Unite. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support to taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-admission standards and implementation dates. Again, we will ask to consider this petition on 1 September when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to raise concerns highlighted by the petitioner and highlight also the following suggestions put forward by the petitioner, that funding and be extended and incentive levels be increased for drivers to upgrade their cabs, greater clarity on exemptions to the low-admission zones at the LZZs and for taxi cabs to be considered exempt from LEZ charges in line with other forms of public transport and again that the energy savings trust should increase the current 10K grant for LPG retrofit by £2,500. We also sought further details of the national stakeholder group and the timescales associated with establishing this. In response to the committee's most recent correspondence, the Scottish Government states that, in relation to increasing the grant offered to taxi drivers, that funding and budget plans have already been set within the current fiscal year and future funding rounds would be subject to the usual spending review process. The Scottish Government also provided further information about LEZ exemptions, noting that LEZ compliant taxis are an important and valued part of the urban transport mix and stating that funding is available in the current fiscal years for operators wishing to take up the support on offer. Finally, the committee may wish to note that the petitioner has been put in touch with the relevant officials at the Scottish Government to discuss engagement between Transport Scotland and the taxi sector. In light of the Scottish Government's most recent submission and further contact from the petitioner, do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Paul Sweeney Thank you, convener. I think that it would be appropriate to take further evidence from stakeholders and the sector, particularly taxi drivers, directly, because I understand certainly from the case work that I have received that there are significant problems with the lack of sufficiency of support that has led to significant exit of drivers from the sector, which is having a substantial impact on the availability of taxis across major cities and towns in Scotland. On that basis, it would be worth further investigation and seeking further submissions from relevant taxi owners' associations and perhaps the relevant trade union branches in relation to taxi drivers. Thank you. Alexander Stewart Thank you, convener. I would agree with Paul Sweeney on this point. I think that there has been a mass exodus in some locations. 20 to 30 per cent of the industry has been suffering because of the lack of the resource. I think that this gives us an opportunity just to take some evidence to find out exactly what is happening on the ground and that will then help us to assess how we progress the petition further. Thank you. I am writing and saying that taxi drivers operate under licences from local authorities. I wonder if we write to COSLA and actually get some sort of audit of the number of licence holders that there were prior to the pandemic and how many there are currently, which would give us some indication of just what the strength of licence taxi holders on the ground is, which I think would be helpful in relation to that. I take Paul Sweeney's point. I think that we will therefore take some evidence on this. I wonder—I mean, it would be quite nice to get some sort of geographical representation. I am not quite sure whether the taxi association might be able to steer us in that regard, but it would be quite useful, I think, just to hear from a broad—we can't, if every local authority will be quite busy—to have something representative of the wider country. Yes, in the first instance. I think that we would then end up with some evidence. Petition number 1859 is to retain Falconer's rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland. We have discussed this. It was lodged by Barry O'Blyther. The petition 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. This is another petition that we previously considered at that meeting on 1 September. Members may also wish to note that we have received 18 submissions in connection with this petition, in addition to two late submissions, which I am afraid were just shared with you yesterday. The spice briefing accompanying this petition explains that, following the passage of the 2020 act, mountain hares are now protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended. That means that it is illegal to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or otherwise take a mountain here at any time of the year, apart from under specific circumstances where a licence can be obtained. That means that mountain hares can no longer be hunted in the course of falconry practices such as game hawking, where birds of prey are flown to hunt small mammals or other birds unless they are done so for a licensible purpose such as forestry. The petition refers to the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, an SSPCA and RSPCA guidance, which states that there is a legal obligation to allow trained captive bred birds of prey freedoms, including the freedom to express the natural behaviours of the species. The petitioner believes that the current legislation is taking that freedom away. I think that that is the area around which we ourselves as a committee were uncertain. How does one demonstrate the freedom to express natural behaviour? The Scottish Government has stated in its latest submission that it does not believe the current licensing scheme for the control of mountain hares impacts on the ability of falconers to enable their birds to exhibit normal behaviour patterns because they can still be used to take mountain hares for other purposes where carried out under a licence granted by NatureScot, e.g. preventing serious timber damage or natural habitat conservation, and legally hunt other species such as grouse and rabbits. The petitioner estimates that the number of mountain hares taken through falconry each year is likely to be 1,000 and notes that this is less than 4 per cent of the average quoted numbers previously counted for by shooting. Other submissions received point out that birds of prey will not differentiate between species such as mountain hare and rabbits, and that falconers risk prosecution if their bird takes mountain hare. I think that that still, to my mind, is one of the issues that I can't satisfactorily answer myself. How is a bird of prey to understand the difference between a mountain hare and a rabbit? However, members have been considered. This seems slightly circular to me at the moment and I just wonder where you think we go next. Anybody wish to offer a view? I may do no harm to raise the issues that have been stated here today in relation to the issues around whether falcons and other birds of prey could differentiate between hunt species and ask what the response of the petitioner is to those questions that have been raised. I think that that is reasonable. We might ask and couple that with saying and given that issue, in what circumstances those falconers might be likely to face prosecution would be a reasonable thing to try to understand and whether that is deemed to be reasonable. It is not the principle, I think. It is the practice of asking the bird to differentiate. I do not know whether the response will be that the falconer should be able to differentiate, but a bird of prey in the air, citing prey on the ground, is not necessarily in the control of the falconer at that point. It is hunting. I am interested to know, I think, no, Bill Kidd? On that basis, I do not know anything about falconry other than the broad outline, but it is how the falconer can maintain their work without damage to species that are protected and what the falconers have got to say about that. I think that it would be interesting to hear. I am happy to do that. I can see us taking evidence with a bird of prey in the room with us. I had a bit of novelty to our proceedings. However, we will move on. Petition number 1863, mandatory annual cancer blood test from the age of 55. This was a petition lodged by Michael Campbell. Again, this was last heard on 1 September. It is a petition that calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide mandatory annual blood tests from the age of 55. We agreed then that we would write to various stakeholders to see what their view on the petition was. This included the UK National Screening Committee, the Independent Scientific Advisory Body, which advises ministers on matters of population screening. That would include any proposal to consider a single blood test to detect cancers. The UK National Screening Committee's submission notes that it has not looked at the evidence to screen for cancers using a single blood test. However, it is annual call for topics to consider runs from September to December each year. That said cancer research, UK notes that there are currently no blood tests that can reliably detect the early signs of cancer on people without symptoms and suggest that a lot more research will be required before a test of this type could be used in cancer screening. Cancer research UK also provides information about a large screening trial on a single blood test that they believe will be crucial in answering whether such a test can find cancer, whether it can do so at an earlier stage, and whether it can avoid causing undue levels of harm. Cancer research UK concludes that, regrettably, we cannot endorse this petition, but we hope that it will not be too much longer before a cancer blood test suitable for use in cancer screening becomes available. It looks as if the aims of the petitioner might be feasible at a later date, but we cannot get any advisory body at the moment who would wish us to pursue it on that basis. On that basis, I am minded to suggest to colleagues that we do close this petition under rule 15.7 on the basis that there is not a test at this time, but I think that, obviously, in doing so, note to the petitioner that there is an expectation and I hope that such a thing might be possible in the not too distant future. Perhaps at the same time, right to the organisation is it a gallery trial? Who are potentially undertaking a trial just to see what information they have in relation to that, just for consideration? We come to petition number 1866 to introduce legislation to improve bus trial for wheelchair users. That was lodged by Daryl Cooper and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation so that wheelchair users are able to face frontwards when travelling on a bus. We have moved forward to our meeting of 8 September now in terms of when we last considered the petition. At that meeting, we decided to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on whether our requirements to provide for would face in wheelchair accessible spaces and buses could be addressed via any non-legislative means, having been previously stated that this was a reserved matter. In its response, the Scottish Government again reiterates that the public services vehicles accessibility regulations 2000, known as the PSVAR, are reserved. The UK Government is committed to a review of those regulations by the end of 2023. The Scottish Government notes that the provisions of the Transport, Scotland Act 2019, quote, operate in such a way as to place the setting of any service standards for local bus services within the competence of local transport authorities. That again quoting, while there is no provision for ministers to intervene directly, we would expect local transport authorities and bus operators to work closely together to ensure the required service standards meet the needs of local communities, including people with disabilities. In the light of what we have found and heard, do members of any comments or suggestions for actions? Paul Sweeney. I don't find the Scottish Government's response remotely convincing in that regard. I think that there are extensive means by which ministers in Scotland can exert influence over the bus sector to change its practices, given the significant level of public sector funding that the bus sector enjoys, or is vital to its operation. Furthermore, on one hand, I think that the regulations are reserved and then saying that operating administration is dealt with by a local council seems like a bit of a cop-out. One hand is reserved and one hand is down there. I think that that is not really convincing. I think that that is basically trying to bat this away, and I think that there is more that can be done. You are more scrutiny required. I certainly know from testimony from Glasgow region colleague Pam Duncan Glancy that she has had significant issues with access to buses in Glasgow. In particular, Glasgow has a policy that only one wheelchair user is permitted per bus, and her husband is also a wheelchair user. Therefore, they are regularly split up and have to take two different buses to get somewhere by using public transport, which seems to be appalling, given that there is adequate space on buses for both wheelchairs. They do that in order to preserve space and theory for a potential PRAM user, apparently. Those are things that are problematic and need further investigation, so I would be minded to invite our colleague to address the committee on this and potentially consider additional submissions. I agree with that. Although we are advised that there is a view taking place by 2023, there is a duty of care with reference to the transport authority and the bus operator, to try to ensure that individuals, similar to what Paul has just indicated, are being slightly discriminated against if they are attempting to use the transport. There are other ways that we should investigate, just to take some more further evidence to try and clarify the situation from individuals who have experienced that kind of situation, and then to put some pressure on to see if that is the case. I am quite happy to do that. The Parliament has a proud record in relation to sport of wheelchair users. I can remember in my first Parliament a Trish Godman. I think that he very much led on bespoke wheelchairs at that stage. Scotland really provided a very poor service. The Scottish Government then introduced significant additional funding, and I think that has transformed the lives of many people. Sometimes we forget that those wheelchairs then have to be able to be deployed in a practical way in order to give the additional access that the better bespoke wheelchair has afforded to the individual. Some things are out of sight and out of mind, and I know that we have previously had issues in relation to taxi access for people with wheelchairs, but I do think that there is something to hear here. I very much would welcome any evidence that our colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy might be able to give to the committee, so I would hold the petition open on the basis that we hear from her and see if that stimulates anything further that we might be able to do. If we are all agreed, then that is fine. Petition number 1870, to ensure teachers of autistic pupils are appropriately qualified. This is a petition lodged by Edward Fowler, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation requiring teachers of autistic pupils to be appropriately qualified to improve educational outcomes. The petitioner states that he would like education authorities only to employ teachers with an appropriate autism qualification when they are teaching pupils with autism. The petition was last considered at our meeting of 22 September, and we decided then to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on progress that has been made against the additional support for learning action plan and to write to geese stakeholders to seek their views. Since the petition was last considered, we have received a number of stakeholder submissions, and those are summarised in your paper's colleagues and make a number of suggestions for how teaching provision for children with autism could be improved. Scottish Autism notes that there is currently a lack of alternatives for young people who cannot thrive in mainstream school and that the inclusivity can only be achieved with a sound understanding of autism, comprehensive individual profiling, flexible teaching practice and low stress environments. The National Autistic Society Scotland highlights a survey of over 1,400 parents of whom 72 per cent suggested that staff having a better understanding of how their child's autism affects them, including their communication needs, would have made a difference to their child. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has also provided a written submission noting many of the developments that have taken place on our plan in relation to the petition's aims. That includes new content for initial teacher education on autism. Earlier this month, the cabinet secretary shared a copy of an updated additional support for learning action plan and progress report with the committee, noting that the action plan is next due to be updated in the spring of 2022. Do members of any committee agree that there is a lot more discussion required on that one, but I did not see the views of the teaching unions in the documents, so I would suggest that we invite them along to take evidence reading and written submissions, if that would be okay. Colleagues, any other suggestions? I think that we all agree with that. In the first instance, we will write to the teaching unions, we will write to the teaching unions and get their parallel evidence in relation to that that we already have and see where that takes us. It may well be that that does lead to us agreeing to take further evidence on this petition at a forthcoming committee meeting. Thank you very much. We are still on item number 1875, Public Inquiry into the Scottish Qualifications Authority, lodged by Jordan Anderson calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the academic years 1920-2021. We last considered this petition on the 20th of September, where we decided to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether the remit of the public inquiry into Covid-19 will include consideration of the SQA actions. The Scottish Government has now responded. It states that there was public engagement earlier this year on the draft aims and principles paper for this inquiry. That will help to inform the terms of reference for the inquiry, which will be agreed between ministers and the chair of the inquiry once they have been appointed. The Scottish Government concludes by saying that decisions about the scope of the Scottish Public Inquiry are yet to be taken and that that includes matters raised in the petition. It makes sense, colleagues, to leave the petition open until we have some clarification on whether it is hoped that the inquiry will take into account SQA review as part of its work. We are now looking at agenda item 2, which is consideration of new petitions. The first of those is petition—I should again like to make it clear to anybody who has lodged a petition that may be looking in this morning—that we have, as a course of practice, sought the Scottish Government's views on the petition and sometimes considered a range of other submissions that have been sought or received so that we come to this discussion, not blind but having had the opportunity to read some background material in relation to the petition that you have submitted. Petition number 1904 is to change Scots law to disqualify estranged spouses from making claims in an estate. That has been lodged by Christina Fisher. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to define in law the difference between a legally married cohabiting couple and a legally married non-cohabiting couple for the purposes of ensuring that an estranged spouse cannot inherit their spouse's assets. The spice briefing accompanying this petition sets out the current legal position in terms of inheritance law in Scotland. It notes that in section 1 of the Succession, Scotland Act 2016, sets out that where a person has made a will, when that person gets divorced or their civil partnership is dissolved, any provision in a will benefiting their former spouse or civil partner then ceases to apply. However, there is no equivalent statutory provision to section 1 covering the situation where the person is estranged from their spouse or civil partner, but there has been no divorce or dissolution of the civil partnership. There is also no provision covering where a person has made a will benefiting their cohabitant, but the cohabiting relationship later breaks down. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it has carried out consultation to keep the law of succession under review with the most recent consultation analysis published in May 2020. It notes that, while the law of succession affects everyone, it can also divide opinion and that there must be some degree of consensus on what reforms will deliver outcomes that are appropriate for the majority of people in Scotland. The petitioner's anomaly is actual, and I wonder in the light of this what comments colleagues might want to make. Alexander Stewart? I think that there is scope here for us to ask and advise some of the organisations, possibly the Law Society and the Family Law Association. They might be able to give us some views of the scope of what the petitioner is trying to engage in. I think that that would be useful as a first stage for us to try and clarify and take some more evidence on the process. I quite like to write to these organisations on the basis that it does appear that the anomaly exists and we would be interested in them just confirming that that is the case. What they therefore see as the potential risk to justice arising from that. Any other comments? I think that the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Law Commission, to the list of people we are writing to. Paul Sweeney? I agree with that, convener. I do not know if it is easy to define in law what point of strangement takes place. I do not know if that is clearly defined in legislation, so that might be the complexity that arises from that. Yes, although the word of strangement sounds quite formal and technical, it is perhaps not legal. Therefore, it could mean different things to different people, but that would be useful to obtain in the evidence. Petition number 1905, a public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950. This petition into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950 has been lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of the UK XJW's support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sex abuse allegations since 1950. The petitioner herself is a survivor of child sexual abuse, who believes that she was failed by people within her church when she reported her own abuse. She has provided further details of our experiences in a late submission, which has been shared with the committee. She is calling for an investigation into the response of religious organisations who were informed about allegations of abuse against children who were not in care. The petitioner argues that the scope of the current Scottish child abuse inquiry is too narrow, as it is only able to investigate the abuse of children in care. In contrast, the independent inquiry into child sex abuse in England and Wales has powers to investigate abuse in religious organisations generally, and the inquiry recently published a report on this topic. The Scottish Government states that there was extensive consultation and engagement with abuse survivors in relation to the Scottish child abuse inquiry remit, acknowledging that, quote, there was not unanimity on the extent of the remit amongst survivors, and that some wished for the remit to be broadened. In 2016, the Deputy First Minister addressed the issue directly, stating that, to set a remit that would in practice take many more years to conclude, we would be failing to respond to those survivors of in-care abuse who have taken us at our word in government and in Parliament, that we will learn from their experience and, by addressing the systemic, systematic failures that existed, ensure that it can never happen again. The Scottish Government also states that it has no plans to reconsider the remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry. Colleagues, do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I'll start with Paul Sweeney. Well, convener, it's obviously harrowing submission. I think that it would be good in the first instance to invite the petitioner to give evidence orally to the committee if possible. That would be an appropriate first step. There is no doubt that there is scope on this, convener, because of the situation. With Scotland having the narrow aspect towards this, I think that to ensure that survivors don't feel that they are not being listened to or that they are not being acted upon, it would be useful for us to take some more detail on that, just to clarify. The last thing that we want to do is to feel that survivors are not being given the full and under the situation in circumstances that we have here in Scotland, there is a belief that that is the case, that they are not having the same parity that is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. I think that for that alone we need to be open and upfront about it. I think that we will invite the petitioner to give evidence. I wonder if there is any information that we might obtain from the child sex abuse inquiry in England and Wales just about how it is going about exercising those powers and determining the scope of its inquiry and what additional complications have arisen for them in the light of that. I think that we might also indicate that we may be minded to invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence subsequently and that we are inviting the petitioner to give evidence and just to perhaps notify the Scottish Government when that is taking place so that they are aware. Sorry, Maria, I didn't manage to—were you hoping to come in there as well? Apologies. No, I'm okay actually. I'm in agreement with the three of those. The next petition is petition number 1907, provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds in Scotland. This has been lodged by Clear Beats and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds removing eligibility criteria for access to services. The petitioner notes that availability of funded early learning and childcare for two-year-old children is currently dependent on certain eligibility criteria such as their parents being in receipt of benefits or being vulnerable. As an early years practitioner, the petitioner suggests that lockdown babies in particular have suffered from a lack of play experiences, meeting peers and having the opportunities that other children have had. She suggests that funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds will greatly increase their potential, as well as helping parents who may be struggling financially as a result of the pandemic. As with all new petitions, we sought the views of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government suggested that current eligibility criteria for funded early learning and childcare was targeted towards those children who would benefit from it most. It also points out that local authorities have a discretionary power to offer funded places to a wider range of children depending on individual need. The Scottish Government concludes by highlighting that, in this year's programme for government, it has committed to expanding an early learning offer to all one and two-year-olds, starting with those from low-income families within this Parliament. Again, colleagues' comments, suggestions, are we minded to write to key stakeholders just to understand their views? Early years Scotland in the National Day Nurseries Association, parenting across Scotland and COSLA, I think, are the obvious ones that come to mind. We agreed, we are agreed. Petition number 1910 amend the forthcoming legal requirement to have interlinked fire and smoke alarms in small houses. It has been lodged by Ian Nicoll, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an exemption for smaller houses from the requirements of interlinked smoke and fire alarms fit-age, which comes into force in just a few months' time, February 2022. The spice briefing accompanying this petition explains that the Housing Scotland Act 2007 sets out a basic standard of house condition called the tolerable standard. That will be amended in February 2022 to include sealing mounted and interlinked smoke and heat alarms. Carbon monoxide alarms are also included where appropriate. The legislation does not provide for any exemptions from the requirements, although the guidance does acknowledge that it may not be practical to fit fire and smoke alarms to this exact standard depending on the layout and design of the building. The Scottish Government's rationale for the new requirements is that interlinked systems alert occupiers immediately to fires in their homes. The Scottish Government acknowledges that, during the daytime, an occupier in a small house would hear unlinked alarms, however it notes that unlinked systems are not sufficient to ensure an occupier would be woken quickly during the night. It explains that this requirement brings all homes to the same level of protection as is currently mandatory in new build homes throughout the United Kingdom and in private rented homes in Scotland. The petitioners responded to the Scottish Government's submission and notes a number of concerns, such as that the requirement is not mandatory throughout the UK and it is unclear what the consequences are for non-compliance. There are shortcomings with battery operated alarms and there are cost implications for homeowners that may be particularly challenging for those on low incomes. Have any of us not been woken in the middle of the night by a battery that has gone flat on one of these safety devices and found it almost impossible to disconnect? However, the newer models are more efficient. Do members have any comments? Thank you very much, convener. I can hear and see what the Scottish Government has said their intention is and how they are approaching this and who they have spoken to about it. Even with that, I think that it would not do any harm for us to write to the Scottish Government just to ask for a review of the effectiveness of the current financial support offered to ensure that all occupiers have the capacity to meet the regulatory requirements and be kept safe. I think that there is still some confusion among the general public and it wouldn't do us any harm just to have that taken forward. I have a small parallel concern and that is just having spoken to constituents of my own particularly elderly constituents who have come late awareness of all of this who are just slightly worried about the bona fides of people who might fit these devices. Obviously, we have had concerns in previous times about the elderly being preyed upon by some. I would just like to have some understanding of the Scottish Government and what security it feels and whether it feels that appropriate advice has been given to all households in relation to this. That is not within the scope, but it is related, I suppose, but I think that that is a point of concern. I thank you, Mr Kidd. We will do, as suggested, if we are all agreed. Our final petition today is the petition number 1911, the review of Human Tissues Scotland Act 2006, as it relates to post mortems. This petition has been lodged by—I am sorry, not excuse me— I managed not to have the name of our petitioner just immediately at hand. Anne McNair apologised. This petition has been lodged by Anne McNair. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissues Scotland Act and the relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can only be carried out with permission of the next of kin, do not routinely remove brains and offer tissues and samples to the next of kin, as a matter of course. I would like to start by acknowledging immediately the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us her petition. Those have been detailed in the petition and submissions. Her own child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought and involved the removal of tissue from her child. The petitioner was told that tissue samples belonged to no particular person and would be held as part of medical records. The petitioner knows that it took her 10 months to try and locate her child's tissue samples and that no one seemed to know where these samples were being held. That, and I quote, I felt that these tissue samples were still part of my child. The petitioner highlights that practice in Scotland is different to the rest of the United Kingdom, where tissue samples are automatically offered back to the family. The Scottish Government's submission sets out the different types of post mortem examinations carried out in Scotland and explains how tissue samples are collected and stored. The submission states that tissue samples are a very small part of an organ and chemically treated organ to produce a tissue block from which a very thin section can be cut by a biomedical scientist. The Scottish Government notes that if the nearest relative requests the return of tissue blocks, any reasonable request will be treated sympathetically by the Procurator Fiscal. However, if there are suspicious circumstances, then the Procurator Fiscal may need to retain tissue for further investigation. The committee has also received a submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, Scogec, on this petition, which is summarised in your papers. In the light of that, I ask members what comments or observations they might have. It's perfectly understandable, and I don't say that in a throwaway manner. It's perfectly understandable for relatives of a deceased person that they want to ensure that the person is treated as much dignity as possible. I think that we should probably, on the back of what has been stated earlier, write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration is being given, plans to be given, to automatically return tissue samples in the nearest relative, or to seek the authorisation for retention of such samples in line with the practice that is taken in other parts of the UK. It's that aspect of the petition that we would seek to explore. The legal position in relation to the Procurator Fiscal having to seek permissions is not an aspect of it that would be likely to proceed. Mr Stewart, are you trying to come in? I think that there is some real sympathy with the petitioner here, convener, under the circumstances, because I think that their experience is quite harrowing, and we have to take note of that. Not what you have just said with reference to the Procurator Fiscal. I think that there is scope for us to attempt to ask and get some more guidance from possibly the Royal College of Pathologists and others just to give us an idea of where that would actually sit. I'm sympathetic to the petitioner's requests, obviously, personally significant. In line with the change in legislation on organ donation, which created an opt-out system, I don't see why the same principle can't apply to all forms of post-mortem interventions or physical interventions with the body. Even if it were, even getting proactive consent, perhaps there could be a system where the family or the next-of-kin can express their desire that that doesn't take place in the same way that they would with organ donation, because now they have to opt-out of that happening. So maybe there's a way of looking at how that interacts. Any other comments? No. Okay, then I think we hold the petition open and we write as colleagues have suggested. That concludes our consideration of the new petitions and continuing positions this morning. We next meet on Wednesday 15 December. Our thanks to our guest colleague this morning, our substitute colleague, Marie McNair. I now formally close the meeting. Thank you.