 Fy fawr i'n gweithio i ddechrau llarfa oligfaith a ymddai cyf rainbow yn Loi, oedd y cerddoch i'n Cymru yn ddim yn unigfaith azir, yn mynd i wedi, ac yn gwneud hwnnw o'r wedi'i gweithfeydd ac yn ddim yn i hyn oedd y mesur y holl yn y bwg or Monsterbyll Henry. Dwy unigfaith ar y cyflawn i'r cigaf rwyf, mae'r decyzm yn mynd i ddechrau dydd y 4, 5 ac 5, Heton V relates to the consideration of evidence we are about to hear on Petition 1933, whereas Iton V relates to consideration of the committee's work program. Are members agreed? The next item on agenda Day is consideration of the continued petitions, the first of which is an evidence session on Petition 1933. I would have if the forum meant that reisgwm hyffordd ynriagesgwm o'i wneud hynny, ac rwy'n chwiliaeth y dyma'r ddwyddyn. Credd er mwyn o'r ffuniau yw'r gwydd Sirfaiwyr yn ddweud hynny, ac wrth gwrs, rwy'n ffaith ymdryd gwleidig yn cysylltu'n gwrs. Felly, fel mae'n gwybod i'r gwybod i'w ffaith, rwy'n gwybod i'w dŵr i'r prysgwm ni, rwy'n ddweud hynny, ac mae gweithio'n gwybod i'n gwneud yn rhaid i arlawn i ddanol i cael ei detall. o'r petisiwn. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to add to the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland's redress scheme to allow for nephew survivors to seek redress. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 3 May 2023 when we agreed to invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence and I am pleased to welcome the Deputy First Minister, Shona Robertson, to the committee this morning. We are also joined by the Scottish Government officials at Lindsay Wilson, unit head of policy and communications, redress, relations and response division. Barry McCaffrey, lawyer, Scottish Government legal directorate of children education rights incorporation and disclosure division. Before I invite the Deputy First Minister to provide some brief opening remarks, I know that since we last considered the petition, there has been a member's business debate on the justice for the for nephew survivors. The Scottish Government also appointed an independent researcher to make inquiries in respect of a for nephew house, which is this committee being provided with a copy of a researcher's report, which is now available on the petition webpage. The committee has also received two new submissions from the petitioners coming in on the parliamentary debate and detailing on-going challenges in engaging with the redress scheme. Highlighting the response once a survivor received that decision panel would likely disregard the replacement for a for nephew when considering that application for redress. We had also received a submission from Professor Diane McAlladay, researcher's appointment by for nephew survivors group, providing further information on the operational for nephew house and potential options for amending the existing eligibility criteria for the redress scheme. Having provided that update, we are now able to invite the Deputy First Minister to give your brief statement. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee and those in the gallery. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee regarding petition PE1993. Before I get into redress matters, I begin by putting on the formal record, my acknowledgement of the important abuse that some children suffered while resident in fornethy house. It should not have happened and I am sorry to hear about what they had to endure as children and the impact that the abuse has had on their lives. Both I and the First Minister have met with the fornethy survivors and I very much recognise and commend their courage in sharing their experiences. Turning to the matters outlined in the petition, as the committee is aware, I instructed the appointment of an independent researcher to make inquiries into fornethy house. Dr Fosie took up post on 1 August last year with a remit to investigate the circumstances by which a child would be placed in fornethy house and to establish what records it may exist relating to fornethy house. Dr Fosie has concluded her inquiries and her full report has been shared with the committee. As the committee has had the opportunity to consider the report ahead of today's evidence session, I am not going to repeat the findings but I want to turn to how they affect the eligibility of fornethy survivors to access Scotland's redress scheme. Part 3 of the Redress for Survivors Historical Child Abuse and Care Scotland Act 2021 sets out the eligibility of the scheme, which includes residents in a relevant care setting in Scotland. Section 20 of the act defines a relevant care setting to include residents in a residential institution in which the day-to-day care of children was provided by or on behalf of a person other than a parent or guardian of the child. Moreover, a residential institution refers to a variety of different care settings, such as children's homes, residential care facilities and school-related accommodation, which are, as is further defined, in section 21 of the act. Section 23 of the act, however, allows Scottish ministers to make regulations to create exceptions to eligibility. The exceptions to eligibility SSI is approved by Parliament before the scheme opened in 2021, provides that an application for redress may not be made by or in respect of a person to the extent that it relates to abuse that occurred when that person was resident in a relevant care setting, a for the purpose of being provided with short-term respite or holiday care and b under arrangements made between a parent or guardian of that person and another person. Where the exceptions apply, a key point in assessing eligibility is the purpose of the stay in the relevant care setting and whether that has been made under arrangements with a child's parent or guardian. Whilst records from the period are limited, the report is clear that children attended for Netty House primarily on a short-term basis for convalescence or a recuperative holiday under arrangements involving the parent or guardian and another person. Those circumstances, as agreed by Parliament, are excluded from the scheme. It is important to acknowledge at this point that, in the absence of individual records, it is not possible to save a certainty that parents gave their informed consent to their child attending for Netty House. We can only speak to what was supposed to happen. The legislation speaks of arrangements made with a child's parent or guardian, and that is what is relevant for redress purposes. The redress scheme is primarily designed for those children who are in long-term care and the exceptions are in keeping with that purpose. This rationale was supported by 79 per cent of respondents to a public consultation issued in advance of the legislation being drafted. In addition, there is the key issue of the absence of records relating to for Netty House. Every applicant to the redress scheme is required to provide evidence that they were in a relevant care setting at a particular time. Unfortunately, the absence of records means that for Netty survivors, even if the eligibility criteria were to be changed, are unlikely to meet the evidential requirements of the scheme. For all those reasons, I do not intend to change the eligibility criteria for the scheme. I recognise that the outcome of the inquiries will be disappointing to those survivors who seek redress. The report's findings are in no way intended to diminish the experience of the survivors or to suggest that the parents of those children were in any way responsible for the experiences that the children had during their time of for Netty House. I am very grateful to the committee for the on-going support of the for Netty survivors and the Scotland redress scheme. I am happy to answer any questions that you have. I am quite happy to open up two questions now. Can you expand on the aims and findings of a research into for Netty House? I can, convener. We set out the requirement for a piece of independent research that was a six-month piece of research. Dr Fosie was asked to find out why and by whom girls were sent for Netty, what Glasgow City Council has done to find records from for Netty. I emphasise again, and Dr Fosie has made this point, that what she has said in her report was what was supposed to happen and that is not to diminish the experiences of what actually happened to survivors as part of the for Netty group. The executive summary headline findings, just to summarise why the girls were sent for Netty. The findings were that primary school girls from Glasgow were sent to convalescence after an illness and or so that they might benefit from what was termed a recuperative holiday. The school was one of a number of schemes of residential education that was aimed at improving the health of pupils. In terms of who sent them, it was headteachers and school medical staff who could put forward girls that they thought might benefit from a stay. However, it was the school or principal medical officer who took the final decision and even then only girls whose parents or guardian agreed to them going and who passed two medical examinations were allowed to go. In terms of the records, the regulations at the time obliged education authorities to keep school registers. Pupil progress reports and health records only until the end of the fifth or, in some cases, the second year after the year for which it was held or the pupil had left. After that time, the records were to be destroyed. Therefore, it is not surprising that Glasgow City Council has found no such records in the city archives. That said, as Dr Fossie has noted, a question remains over the lack of for Netty's log book. The regulations required those to be preserved. It should be noted, though, that for Netty is not unique in having no surviving log books. In terms of the records information for Netty that Glasgow City Council holds, what Dr Fossie found is that Glasgow City Council holds no school records for for Netty. The city archives holds various series of council education committee minutes, papers, reports and hand boots that talk of for Netty and other schools in the schemes, but no individual records. In terms of what action Glasgow City Council has taken to find existing records, it has run its own internal searches in response to FOI and subject access requests. Of course, Dr Fossie and Diane McHarty had access to records in the archives, and Glasgow's chief archivist has also carried out proactive searches for information on for Netty. I hope that that gives you a sense of what the remit was and the key findings that have been found are. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Oliver Mundell, you have a supplementary to my question. I am quite, to be honest, appalled by that answer, because I understand why the report was commissioned, but I do not think that it is consistent with what the previous Deputy First Minister and then education secretary said as the bill went through Parliament. I was on and off that committee through that time, but he acknowledged that there would not be—he said that it was unlikely that documentary evidence would be available in every circumstance. He did not talk about certainty. He talked about on the balance of probabilities. He offered repeat reassurances that people would be believed that the principle would be that where survivors came forward and they offered testimony, that would be taken as fact, not that it would be questioned. The second thing that I find pretty hard to swallow, given that it was discussed through the passage of the bill as this relationship that has been presented between parents and the local authority, is not true. It is not true. It is not factually correct. It is still not correct to this day that local authorities through social work and through education wield a huge amount of authority over families where they suggest things and direct things. Vulnerable families feel under pressure to accept them. It is not a relationship of equals, and it is wrong to categorise the relationship in that way. I would have hoped, given what we hear from survivors, that we would be looking to find a way to say yes rather than finding reasons to say no. I would be interested in what the Deputy First Minister has said, both on the commitments that were given through the bill and, secondly, on that relationship that she sets out with local authorities, because that, even now, in 2023, is not my experience, or 2024 rather, is not my experience of what it is like for many families in my constituency. First of all, I recognise very much the point that you are making about what the relationship is and the unequal relationship. I am not disputing that at all. The point that I am making is that, when the bill was taken through by my predecessor, the distinction that was made was for those who were in long-term care where parental responsibility and children had been essentially removed from their parents through legislation, social work legislation primarily, for netty was established through education legislation. I am not disputing whether the opaqueness of whether parental consent was given is what I am saying is what was supposed to happen rather than necessarily what the individual experiences were. You should be responding to what did happen rather than what should have happened. It is another example of the failing that people have come up against in the system. The system has not been working as it should. You would not expect that just to be dismissed and say, well, it should have been indifferent. That is what it sounds like. I am certainly not dismissing that. What I am saying is that the lack of records do not give way to evidence in terms of what that parental involvement was or was not. What I am saying is that the legislation underpinning what was essentially the setting up of the redress scheme was for those children who had been removed from parents through social work legislation where parental responsibility had not been entirely removed. In terms of the apology given by my predecessor, he made the apology prior to the redress scheme being established and it was to all survivors in all settings. I absolutely want to reiterate that absolutely fully. The point, though, about the evidential requirements for redress Scotland, is that the redress Scotland scheme is more broadly drawn than any other redress scheme anywhere in the world at the moment. In fact, if you look at redress schemes that have been established, most of them are far more tightly drawn than the one here in Scotland. However, in order for an application to be brought in front of redress Scotland, evidence is required. There has to be records showing where someone is. There does not have to be records. I know that from my constituents. What you have to prove is on the balance of probabilities that something was more likely to have happened than not. I am aware of payments being made to people who have not been able to find records but who have been able to put other circumstantial evidence together to support an application. In this case, we have a great many people from various parts of Scotland, particularly in the Glasgow area, who are able to corroborate and confirm that the experiences that other people are talking about are the same as theirs. That starts to look to me like something that would meet that test, or certainly that should get far enough through the process that redress Scotland could make an analysis of the evidence. However, because of the individual nature of the applications going forward, we are not looking at that collective picture. That, to me, is not consistent with what your predecessor said when he recognised that that was a grey area, that those issues were very difficult and that they would have to be looked at in detail. However, if they cannot even be looked at in detail, how do you work out whether or not it meets the balance of probabilities test? I am going to ask Lindsay to come in around the guidance that redress Scotland uses in terms of the evidential requirements, if that would be helpful. It depends on what application you submit to redress Scotland, whether it is a fixed rate application or an individually assessed payment. For a fixed rate payment, you will have to provide some evidence of being in-care at a particular time. The statutory guidance gives you a list of things. I can give you some examples or I can send it on separately to the committee, but what we are looking for is some evidence or some supporting document that confirms that a child was in-care at a particular time before the 1 December 2004. We recognise that some individuals do not have that evidence, as you say, but there are exceptional circumstances that redress Scotland allows to consider. I am assuming that that is the example that you are giving there. The difficulty for the Farneti survivors is that, as Emma has said in her report, Dr Fortie has said in her report that they are not unique in having no records, they are no records at all. Some people might be able to provide social work records, education records, GP records and a letter from anarchivist. There are a range of different things that are available for survivors to apply for the redress scheme, but unfortunately the difficulty for some of the ladies—and certainly I am sure that not all—is proving that they were in-care in the first place. That is the starting point for any redress application. You go back to what the Deputy First Minister previously said, which was that people would be believed. That was going to be the core of the whole process. Now we are hearing that that is not the case. That cannot be right. I cannot sign up to that. I am sorry. No one is disbelieving anyone. Let me just be really clear about that. However, the core aim of the scheme, as set up by my predecessor, was to focus on those who had essentially been in long-term care, who had been removed from parental responsibility. That was the core purpose of the scheme. That was unanimously agreed by Parliament, and a line was drawn in recognition of the priority given to those children. That is not to deny the experiences of anyone else, whether it is in short-term convalescent care or boarding schools for that matter. However, the core aim of the scheme, as my predecessor said, was clear. As agreed by Parliament and the public consultation, 79 per cent of people agreed with that being the purpose of the scheme. That is absolutely not to question the experiences of anybody. I would absolutely be really clear that everyone should absolutely be believed. However, the redress scheme was the core purpose for all the reasons that my predecessor set out, and that was accepted and agreed by Parliament for all the reasons that were debated at the time. I am going to get in trouble for going on, so I will not say anything further. Dergis Ewing, you have a small supplementary. Yes, thank you, convener. We are indebted to Professor Dan McCary for submission of the 11th of March 2024. She states that the purpose of redress for historical institutional travel abuse should be to benefit survivors. Currently, the eligibility guidelines specifically exclude survivors of short-term residential school abuse. That is unjust. That is correct, surely. Surely, Deputy First Minister, your statement today is actually perpetrating a manifest injustice. Let me say first of all, as I said in my opening remarks, that I very much recognise the harm and the experience of those in Farnethy. I put on record my views around that. I reiterated the former Deputy First Minister's apology, predating the scheme to anyone who had suffered abuse. I would reiterate and absolutely support that apology that was given. The scheme that was agreed unanimously by this Parliament is designed for those vulnerable children who were in long-term care, isolated with limited or no contact with their families and the eligibility criteria for the scheme reflects that core purpose and was supported by survivors who responded to the public consultation and, as I said, agreed by Parliament unanimously. It was necessary at the time, as the former Deputy First Minister said, to establish clear expectations of the parameters to enable clarity to be available to people from the start of the scheme. That is why the scheme that is very broad, much broader than most other schemes, if you look at the other schemes elsewhere in the world or indeed the one that is being developed for England and Wales, is far more tightly drawn than Scotland's redress scheme. However, I suggest that a line had to be drawn somewhere and the line that was drawn was to focus on those vulnerable children who were in long-term care who had parental responsibility removed. I hear what you say, Deputy First Minister, but with respect it doesn't really answer the question that you asked, which is that it's surely unjust to deny people who have been subject to abuse, albeit for a shorted period, a redress and compensation. Surely, I'm just asking as a matter of principle if you please would give a direct answer. Surely this is unjust. It's a manifest patent injustice and surely that just is indisputable. The principle is the same as the committee looked at previously. When the former DFM was in front of the education committee, which I think you were a member of, and I think Oliver Mundell was also a member of, those were exactly the issues that were debated. I wasn't at that time, I don't think. Those were the issues that were debated. I wasn't a member at that time. I don't think so anyway. I've got the record here, you were. I've got the record here in terms of the debate that took place. Those very same issues that I'm articulating here today were articulated by my predecessor. They were debated and essentially the decision was unanimous to support the scheme as established. I've got the committee record here, which was back in 27 October 2021, when these matters were debated at length, exactly the same issues about the eligibility of the scheme and the exceptions and the decision at that time, due to all of the same reasons that I'm giving you here today, was exactly those conclusions on a unanimous basis. Even if we accept all that you say is true, let's just accept that for a moment, which we don't, but let's just assume that was the case, then that doesn't mean that we can't put things right now. Professor MacCaddy recommended three very clear and practical ways and options in which we could do it. So, I mean, can we not just admit, be big enough to admit that we got it wrong, but let's put it right? Is that not what this Parliament is for? So, you can go back and you can look at the record yourself, Mr Ewing. In terms of looking at the situation now, I've outlined why the eligibility criteria was established as it was. It is far broader than any other scheme. I've said that this scheme is focused and is working hard to deliver for those who are in long-term care without, with, removed from parental responsibility. I've also outlined to you the difficulties of the evidential requirements that the Redress Scotland require. There are no records, not just for Farnethy, but for the many other schools where people were in for very short terms for a number of weeks. There are no records for those because the system at the time, rightly or wrongly, didn't require those records to be retained. It would be very difficult to ask Redress Scotland to take on thousands and thousands of cases where there's no evidential material existing to try to work through those cases when they are focused on the core purpose of the scheme. If you look at the schemes elsewhere, as I said at the beginning, Scotland's redress scheme is far broader than any other scheme that I'm aware of anywhere else in the world. Thank you, figures. Deputy First Minister, are you aware of the reasons why Farnethy survivors did not engage with the independent researcher and do you have a sense of whether this has impacted on the findings and the research? I understand that Dr Fossey had tried to engage with survivors. I don't know why that was the case. I do know that Diane McHardie was instructed by Farnethy survivors to do her own research. That may be one of the reasons why, but Farnethy survivors looked at the same material. I've looked in detail at Diane McHardie's report as well. However, the fundamental issues that I have put in front of the committee this morning around the core purpose of the scheme, as agreed unanimously, and the need for that scheme to be allowed to get on to support those and the many hundreds of cases that it is dealing with, and the second about the evidential requirements, cannot get beyond the fact that you could be looking at thousands and thousands and thousands of people who had a few weeks, a potential institution who had a few weeks who were placed in Farnethy, but many other institutions who would not have the evidential requirements to come in front of a scheme, that would raise expectations for thousands of people when they would not be able to bring the evidence in front of the scheme. I'm afraid that we can't get beyond the fact that those records don't exist for people at Farnethy or the many other similar institutions that were there at the time. I'm actually quite shocked at what I've heard. I think that for the victims it's, in my view, completely irrelevant whether there was unanimity in the Scottish Parliament. I think that it's completely irrelevant whether the scheme in Scotland is far broader and it's completely irrelevant whether there's thousands and thousands of cases that need to be addressed. In my view, one victim is too many. I wonder if parking all the parliamentary protocol, if you think it's acceptable the way that the victims have been treated. What has happened, as I said in my opening statement to Farnethy survivors, is that what happened to them was appalling. I reiterated very much the recognition of that. I also reiterated the former Deputy First Minister's apology that was given to people in any setting, no matter the redress scheme that came after that. He was very clear that there was an apology to people in any setting whatsoever whether or not the redress scheme was then set up to cover those areas or not. I absolutely reiterate that every word of it, that's a different matter to the redress scheme and who is covered in terms of eligibility and that's a different matter to the evidential requirements that the redress scheme has. From me, as the Deputy First Minister and on behalf of the First Minister, we absolutely recognise and believe what has happened here and absolutely recognise the harm that has happened to not just those in Farnethy but elsewhere as well. What are you going to do about it? I am aware that there are some litigation cases going on with Glasgow City Council and I am also aware that there is a criminal case going on, which I can't comment upon because it's a live case. I have reiterated very much the apology that was given by my predecessor and I know that for people who are in this position, that recognition is sometimes the most important thing, to be honest. In terms of other supports, we have got support for survivors who have been through some of the absolutely appalling experiences that they have through some of the support networks. I know that some Farnethy survivors have accessed some of that and that is provided through the in-care future pathways. That has been established in order to recognise that people will need that support. Some people will want to access support like that. I can't comment on the litigation cases. I have written to Glasgow City Council this morning to bring to their attention the fact that those two reports exist. I know that the Farnethy survivors have made a number of demands of Glasgow City Council. I can't instruct Glasgow City Council around those matters but I have drawn to their attention the reports that are in existence. What action has been taken to support those who were abused in short-term holiday care, enabling them to access some form of redress? In terms of the action that we have established, the research project was my way of trying to get to the bottom of whether there were records that existed that could look at the barriers around parental connections and parental consent and the issue of records existing that showed someone was within an establishment at a particular time. That was done with the very purpose of trying to get to the bottom of what be or may not exist in the archives. Beyond that, as I have alluded to, there are support networks provided by the likes of future pathways that can support people who have experienced abuse in any setting. That has been established with that purpose. It might not be for everyone, not everyone would want to access such support but it has been established for the purpose of those who want to provide that support. The Deputy First Minister said before that she had records of when Fergus Ewing and I were on the education committee and I wondered in that bundle if she had the official report from Thursday 12 January 2023. I can read to you what your predecessor said. I listened carefully to the group that has made representations to me, all the members of which are Fennethy survivors and are part of the wider group. I do not believe as things stand that there is an inherent impediment to applications to the redress scheme coming forward from people who spend time at Fennethy. I acknowledge that the nature of the environment in which individuals are spending their time at Fennethy could be considered to fall within the ambit of the scheme, so I do not think that there is an inherent impediment to applications coming forward and being considered. To put it slightly more bluntly, I reject the idea that the scheme is not for Fennethy survivors. I think that it is possible for Fennethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme. He goes on to say, looking at this issue round local parentus, if you want to put it that way, that he does not believe that the situation at Fennethy matches up with what you say. He says, if a young person was at a holiday camp and was dropped off and picked up by their parents, it would be difficult to substantiate the view that the state was exercising responsibility. However, I do not think that the situation at Fennethy ticks that rather neat middle box. If I may say so that I have just outlined to the committee, the more I understand about the situation at Fennethy, the more I find it difficult to reconcile it with the idea of some kind of voluntary endeavour. I think that the matter hinges on that point. You have come here today and you have told us repeatedly that your predecessor who brought the legislation through was intending that it is in black and white. That is something quite different from what you have suggested today. What the Deputy First Minister has said, and of course he met with Fennethy survivors as have I, was essentially what I said at the beginning that Fennethy survivors could apply to the redress scheme, but the issue was likely to be what the evidence was then in front of the redress scheme, who are a panel who have to make decisions based on the evidence in front of them. That is why I instructed Dr Fossey to do the research to establish whether they could access the scheme and whether or not the impediments to access the scheme and the basis of the parental consent issue and the lack of records provide the evidential base for someone to put their application into redress. With due respect, at the point that this has been being considered, the second most senior person in the Scottish Government believes that those people would be eligible to apply. Not just that, the more that they found out about the situation, the less credible they found the outcome of the report that you are now pushing as providing closure. John Swinney did not, and his words are there, and I am sure that he can correct them if he has changed his mind since, but he did not accept the argument that the parents had chosen to take their children there as if it was a holiday camp. He said that people were effectively directed and put there and that the state was involved in facilitating that and probably in a lot of cases a little bit more. I just find it very hard because I think that you are here now and you could push the envelope a little bit and open this back up so that some of those people stood a better chance of getting justice. I do not know why that is hard. First of all, I said earlier on, and I want to emphasise again, that I accept that the issue of parental consent was an issue of power and relationships and whether or not someone was clear and given a consent form and it was explicit. I accept that all of that is very opaque to say the least and the experiences of the women in terms of what their recollections were and are clear that parents may have been encouraged, you have said, coerced. The evidence is not there either way, but I do not, for a second dispute, what the women have said about that matter. The issue comes down to this matter. In terms of what former Deputy First Minister said and what I am saying, the redress panel in looking at applications would need to have some level of evidential requirement in order to process a case. That might be possible if someone for Farnethy had various placements and other settings as well. They could potentially bring a case. Do you accept that there is a point where the evidence is formed by this group where, if you have lots of people saying that the same thing happened to them, it is absolutely quite unlikely that something different happened. I am not disputing what the women are saying for a second. Like we have been I believe absolutely what they are saying. What I am saying to you is that redress Scotland requires some evidence of someone being placed into a setting and there is no record for anybody. What I am saying to you is that there are thousands of people who could have been placed in Farnethy-type institutions and we would be saying that to what to the redress panel that there does not need to be any record of that person being in a Farnethy-type institution. We would be saying to the redress panel exactly what Parliament and the previous Deputy First Minister and several MSPs said repeatedly through the process of the passage of the bill. If you come forward, your evidence, your testimony will be believed, it will be taken as fact. What we would be saying to them is that you have provision to make exceptional circumstances. If you join together the testimony and evidence from hundreds of people, thousands of people, if you join that together, you can start to build a pretty accurate picture. Some of these people have over the years spoken to medical professionals, have spoken to other people. These concerns existed before the redress scheme came into place. People did not just appear and join survivor groups, they did not just appear and interact with services across the country when they thought the redress was an offer. There is a historical record of people. It might not be as good as the official records but quite frankly it is not people's fault that these organisations did not keep good records and have destroyed what they have. I totally accept that it is nobody's fault that those records have or it is certainly not the survivor's fault that those records do not exist. I also absolutely accept what you are saying about survivors coming together. Redress Scotland, in the way that it operates, require someone who has been— The redress Scotland works for you, the work of the Government. The guidance can change. People have to have confidence in the scheme, so someone bringing a claim to redress Scotland who has been in institutional care for many years has to provide a level of evidence. Survivors find that quite difficult and I acknowledge the difficulty there in doing so, but they have to provide that level of evidence. How can I have confidence in the scheme though? If it is not possible for people who the person who brought the scheme through would not have a barrier to accessing it, can they not access it? The confidence works both ways. The challenge is that those records do not exist, but there is insufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to say that people were somewhere that they say they were and that lots of other people say they were on a basis that lots of people seem to understand as being how those things work at the time. Redress Scotland are independent of the Government, as enshrined in the legislation. People have to have confidence in the scheme. There is no scheme anywhere in the world that would operate on the basis of not requiring evidence to be presented to them. No scheme operates like that at all. That process can be quite difficult for survivors, and I have had survivor representation to me directly that the process is quite difficult, but people have to have confidence in the scheme. There is an evidential requirement that has to be given and that records are produced. There are by exception, but by exception is on a case-by-case basis rather than a whole— If you block people from even getting past go, they do not get to the case-by-case basis, and that is what is happening at the moment. People are not able to get to the case-by-case basis because of guidance, because of things that you are saying. That is stopping them from getting to the case-by-case basis. You would be raising expectations for people who would not have the records because they do not exist. The records do not exist. I think that people do not have any expectations. Mr Mundell, can you let it get to the First Minister? There are other members who would like to ask questions. Well, as I said, Redress Scotland is independent of Government. It has guidance that means that it can fairly assess each and every application that comes in front of them. It asks for quite a degree of evidence, which, as I say, survivors have raised with me can be quite intrusive and really quite difficult and upsetting and triggering and all of that and understand all of that. However, for people to have confidence in the scheme, that is the level of evidential requirements that they ask for. The point that I am making in the absence of any records for survivors, for NETI or any of the other many for NETI-type institutions, there are no such records to begin a basis of producing that evidence. I think that I have to be honest about that. Mr Chowdry, thank you, convener. My apologies. Good morning, Deputy First Minister. Can you change the regulation, even though the current position is not to change? Well, there is technically yes, but the point that I am making is that the core purpose of the scheme was set up, and my predecessor was really clear about that, to support those who had been in long-term care, where parental responsibility had been removed through social work legislation. That was the focus of the scheme. I have tried to set out the reasons why the confidence in the scheme, as established, is important. I have set out why the evidential requirements are there and why they are important. It is not technically possible to set out the reasons that it would be very difficult to do. If the Scottish Government is not planning to amend the current legislation to allow survivors to claim redress, will it provide funding to allow the survivors of NETI to pursue justice via legal means? Obviously, any legal advice that anyone receives needs to be independent legal advice around any potential litigation cases. There are litigation cases on-going against Glasgow City Council. I cannot comment on those, because they are live. Similarly, there is a criminal case that is on-going, and I cannot comment on that either, because it is live. Those routes are open. In terms of any support that the Government provides, I have talked about the support through the future pathways that are there to help survivors. I have talked about the support that is also given around looking for case records. The Government provides resources—I think that it is about £2.4 million—to help survivors to get records. One of the reasons that we did the piece of research was to try and address that issue. Because of the importance of records for redress Scotland, where survivors who have been in long-term care have had difficulty in accessing records, there is support there to help them to do that, because of the importance of that evidence being presented to redress Scotland. I am genuinely shocked by the independent of government argument. I worked for a Scottish Government-funded organisation, even though it was a private company. There is literally nothing that we could do without approval of the Scottish Government, and it seems that the relationship is peculiarly different with respect to redress Scotland. Is the Deputy First Minister seriously saying that there is nothing that she can do with regard to redress Scotland standing up for the victims of Farnethy? I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the eligibility criteria has been set with the exceptions clearly set out. Technically, those exceptions could be changed, but I have said here this morning why I do not think that that is the right approach, as was laid out in Parliament at the time, agreed unanimously, because the focus was on those who were in long-term care removed from parental responsibility. In terms of the independence of redress Scotland, the point that I am making there is the determination of decision making around awards. It is quite right that that is independent of government. It would not be right for us to be interfering in redress Scotland's determination of individual cases. It would then look at individual cases as a panel based on the evidential requirements that are set out in guidance. That is the relationship. To say that under section 6 of the act, it is clearly stated that in performing their functions under the legislation, redress Scotland is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government. That was deliberate at the time, and it was seen as an important safeguard for undue interference from Government. Martin Quickfield, a short statement plays that we are really, really poos for type. I thank the committee and you convener for allowing this, and it will be very short. There has been a lot of discussion that, with the greatest respect, is mixing up two elements. One is whether or not the survivors that brought this petition can enter the redress scheme. And then, if they enter the redress scheme, the evidence that would be required to match with it, and I think it would be helpful to separate. I understand from your answer to my colleague Foisal Chowdry that it sits within Minister's power to change the regulations to allow entry into the redress scheme. Then, once they are in the redress scheme, I think as Oliver Mundell has pointed out, it would be for the evidence to be balanced. The First Minister has used the figure of 79% for those across Scotland that were in agreement with the remit of the redress scheme. Does the Deputy First Minister think that, if people of Scotland understood this petition the way the petition committee does, the way those people who have attended today, 79% of Scotland said that they should not deserve redress? First of all, I understand that people would have enormous empathy with the position of anyone who had suffered abuse in any setting. Of course, there are a number of settings that are out with the eligibility. I would have empathy with every single one of those who have suffered abuse in any of the settings, no matter whether they are part of the eligibility criteria or not. In terms of the consultation, out of the consultation, 91% of those identified as a survivor of abuse and care. The focus at the time was very much, as set out by the former Deputy First Minister, of getting a scheme up and running to address those who had been in long-term care out with parental responsibility. That was the focus of the scheme. The Parliament, as I said, looked at those matters and debated them at the time. There was quite a difficult debate about where the line was drawn around what institutions, what areas would be included within the scheme and what would not. Those were difficult decisions that were made at the time and excluded a number of settings, as I am sure members around this table are aware. However, having drawn that line when you compare Scotland's redress scheme to every other scheme that I am aware of, it is far broader and far more inclusive than many other schemes. I want to say this at the end. I very much adhere to the apology that was given by the Deputy First Minister prior to the redress scheme. Before those debates were had and lines were drawn and eligibility criteria were set, it was the fundamental recognition that what had happened to anybody in any setting was absolutely wrong and the recognition of the harm that that abuse has had on every individual, leaving aside the eligibility. I want to put on record again my belief in what is being said, the belief of the truth of what people are saying and the recognition of the harm. I hope that that is recognised on behalf of the Government. We absolutely recognise all of that and have huge sympathy and empathy with every single person. Before we bring a session to a closed debut for us ministers, anything that we have not covered or you would like to put on record? I do not think so, convener, but if there is anything that the committee wants to follow up on in any detail, I am happy to write to the committee with further evidence if you feel that once you have your discussion afterwards. In that case, I would like to thank you for evidence. Members have agreed to consider evidence that we have heard today in private and we are content to do so. In that case, I would like to suspend the meeting for a short break to allow witnesses to leave it. Can I welcome everyone back? Our next continued petition is petition 1865, Suspend All Surgical Mesh and Fixation Devices, lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Laura McDougall. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices, while a review of all surgical procedures which use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out, and guidelines for surgical use of mesh are established. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 14 June 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health and the British Hernia Society. As were previous considerations of the petition, we are joined by MSP colleagues Katie Clark and Claire Addison, who is online, who joins us remotely. Since the last consideration, we have received submissions from Katie Clark with further details of FOI responses referred to during our previous consideration on a number of patients who have re-admitted following complications with surgical mesh. The Minister for Public Health and Women's Health response tells us that there is a subspecialist coverage in complex hernia repair, including non-mesh repair, operating in NHS Lobion, Fife and Grampian, with a further subspecialist base at the Golden Jubilee National Hospital. The minister also provided an update on the development and inflammation of a scan of safety programme, as well as indicating that further options for improved data collection, such as a registry of hernia repair procedures, are also being looked at by Government officials and their NHS colleges. Reference that was all made to the public awareness campaign is okay to ask. We aim to support the patients and healthcare professionals having positive conversations about the care and treatment. We have a response from the British Hernia Society, which states that it cannot support the suspension of all surgical mesh and fixation devices, as this would run counter to the best scientific evidence guidelines published by the European Hernia Society. The society does not recognise the need to improve patient outcomes and offers information on the work that is being done to develop a hernia registry, which it hopes to do out nationally this year. We have also received submissions from the petitioners responding to British Hernia Society's submission and highlighted that the improved patient pathways that the minister mentions has not so far led to improvements in the everyday experience of mesh patients. We are also concerned that little progress has been made to bridge the skill gap between natural tissue and mesh repair, and we have highlighted a number of surgeons around the world who are developing their own non-mesh hernia techniques. One of the petitioners' roles is Anna Clatton, who has also shared her own experience of mesh-related complications and the barriers faced when requesting non-mesh repair. Members will also be aware that, since our last consideration in this petition, the Parliament has passed the Patient Safety Commissioner Scotland Act, enabling the establishment of a commissioner to advocate for systemic improvements in the safety of healthcare and to promote the importance of the views of patients and other members of the public in relation to the safety of healthcare. Kate Clark, if you would like to put your submission first. Thank you very much and I am very grateful to the committee. I appear on behalf of both petitioners, Rosanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall. Rosanna Clarkin, who you have already spoken about, continues to suffer from mesh-related complications and is attempting to obtain support both through the national health service and, indeed, through Social Security Scotland in relation to those, and there are a number of issues in relation to that. She hopes that the mesh will eventually be removed, although there are some complications round about that. I also appear on behalf of Lauren McDougall, whose mother died, unfortunately, shortly after a hernia mesh procedure, and they both work with a number of campaigners who have been negatively impacted specifically by the use of mesh in hernia processes. They believe that there remain a number of outstanding issues and that mesh is still used in many situations where alternatives could be used in hernia procedures. Therefore, I would focus on perhaps the second part of the petition on guidelines for the surgical use of mesh. It would be helpful if we could get more evidence in relation to current practice. I would ask the committee to consider whether it would be willing to look at examples of current individuals who are receiving mesh in situations where they believe that alternatives should have been considered and would be more appropriate with a view to looking at the type of guidelines that perhaps could be created in Scotland. I am very pleased that the committee has given me the opportunity to speak to the petition on behalf of my constituent, Ms Janet Weatherett. Ms Weatherett is one of many women whose life and livelihoods have been harmed by complications following mesh implants. She had two vaginal mesh devices fitted in 2012 and 2013, and since that time has had to endure chronic pain and been prescribed multiple medications. Her story speaks to the heart of the injustice faced by those who have suffered from mesh complications. Ms Weatherett travelled to the USA in August last year. She had a referral for surgery for mesh removal with Dr Veronica's. The removal procedure was successful, however. Ms Weatherett has suffered post-removal complications. She was advised at the time of the removal that she required medical repairs. Ms Weatherett reported that Dr Veronica's lamented that he could perform the repairs quote there and then, but this contract with the NHS only allowed for mesh removal and any post-surgery repairs were not covered as part of the contract and these would have to be done back in the UK. Ms Weatherett was then advised through the National Services Division that the agreed position was that any post-removal reconstructive surgery would be undertaken in Scotland by local services. Questions remain over whether her aftercare can be done locally within NHS Lanarkshire or will require a further referral. Indeed, Ms Weatherett's NHS Lanarkshire consultant has already raised issues around post-surgery care with the National Transvaginal Mesh Accountable Officers Group. Ms Weatherett's case is emotive. She has been faced with intense uncertainty, still ununbearable pain and delay and disappointment. While she has relieved the measures removed, she is still in need of medical help. In reference to the petition before the committee, I would ask that the petitions committee ensure that it prioritises a clear clinical pathway for mesh use and removal that sets out accurate expectations for those who require surgery or post-surgery care of repairs following removal from a funded provider outwith NHS Scotland. Ms Weatherett is keen that those considering travelling for surgery are aware of her experience in order that they can make a fully informed decision with regards to the decision to go ahead with mesh removal outwith Scotland. She also wishes that her experience informs the committee as they deliberate on the petition before them. I have taken up my question whether it is concerned with both NHS Lanarkshire and the minister, but convener women affected by mesh deserve our continued support and care. Indeed, everyone affected by mesh deserves that, and not just for the past but for their present and future to ensure that they have the best possible outcomes and quality of life. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to the petition this morning. Can I thank Katie Clark MSP and Claire Adams MSP for her statements? Members, do we have any comments or suggestions for action? Moris? Thank you, convener. I think that we should write to the cabinet secretary for NHS recovery, health and social care, setting out the evidence that the committee has gathered to date, including today, from what we have heard from Katie Clark and Claire Adams MSP. I recommend that he meet with the petitioners to discuss continuing concerns about patient pathways for those harmed by mesh implants and the work undertaken to bridge the skills gap between natural tissue and mesh repair in Scotland. I also think that we could perhaps follow-up with the Scottish Parliament corporate body to seek details of the process and timeline for recruiting the patient's safety commissioner. Our next continued petition is petition 1953, the review of educational support staff roles that was lodged by Roslyn Taylor Young. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff roles in order to consider urgently raising wages for education support staff across the primary and secondary sector to £26,000 per annum. Increase hours of the working day for educational support staff from 27.5 to 35 hours. Allowing educational support staff to work on personal learning plans with teachers, take part in multi-agency meetings and require an educational support staff to register with the Scottish Social Services Council and pain educational support staff a monthly. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 31 May 2023, where we agreed to seek an update on the Bute House agreement commitment to explore options for the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistance. Recent response from Cabinet Secretary states that the report had been intended for consideration by ministers in autumn 2023, but the work has been delayed due to competing priorities within the portfolio. The report is now due to be published in the first quarter of 2024. The submission reports that officials have engaged with counterparts in England and Wales and are approaches to this work and hosted two online workshops in September 2023. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I think that we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills seeking an update on the Bute House agreement exploration group's recommendations and information about what she expects the next steps will be. Are members agreed? Our next continued petition is petition 1960. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally recognise that private hire cars and taxis are modes of public transport and to enshrine such recognition in law. We last considered the petition that we are meeting on the 31st of May 2023 when we agreed to write to the traffic commissioner for Scotland. The office of the traffic commissioner response notes that the legislative definition of a public vehicle sets out in the public passengers of vehicle act 1981, which generally includes vehicles designed to carry eight or more passengers for hire or reward. Holders of a taxi or private hire licenses can apply for a special restricted operators licence if they intend to use a vehicle for the provision of a local bus service. The response notes that there are 34 holders of special restricted operators licence in Scotland. With the Scottish Government having previously suggested that there is no universal legal definition of public transport, with different transport modes subject to our own specific legislation, meaning that there is no obvious route to enshrine a definition in law. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has previously stated that there is no universal legal definition of public transport, and each transport mode is subject to specific legislation. And there is no obvious legislation that could be amended to enshrine a definition in law and set out the relationship between the different transport sectors and local and national government. Yes, I don't demur from that recommendation, convener, but could I perhaps just add that my understanding of Mr Grice's petition here is that his main beef, his main grouse, his main complaint was that private hire and taxis, and there are a lot of them, and they are very important, are really not involved in the sort of club of policymaking, either at local authority or at national level. They feel excluded from that. Now, his solution was to classify them as a form of public transport, and I think that perhaps that's just not the right solution, but I just wanted to say in the record that I do think that they need to be better informed involved in discussing policy regarding transport, whether or not they're public transport, they are transporting the public, and they're really very, very important that their voice is heard when it comes to policy, particularly with LEZs, with the requirements to upgrade taxis to comply with regulations. There's never been a time when taxi drivers are under more financial pressure than now, so I just wanted to put that in the record, convener, in case Mr Gries, who I believe is a frequent petitioner, might want to think again about perhaps framing his request with a different objective, which might better achieve his aim of being part of the part of the system of consultation about transport matters. Can I say thank you for that, Mr Ewing? I do know that the taxi federations in Fife are really engaged with regulations and licence, and they have their taxi forums, which deal with all that, so I just wonder if it's an example of which other 32 local authorities and taxi drivers can engage with. Are we happy with Mr Golden's recommendations? Yes, I'm happy with them. I concur with Fergus Ewing's comments, because I think in large parts of rural Scotland as well, taxis and private hire cars are what amounts to public transport. They're ferrying people to hospital appointments, and they provide a lifeline in the absence of bus services. I can certainly understand the petitioner's aim, but I don't think it's possible to fulfil the outcome. Our next continued petition is petition 1961, making it a specific offence to assault, threaten or abuse a private hire or taxi driver while at work, also lodged by Edward Gries on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the protection of workers, retail and age-restricted goods and services, Scotland Act 2021, to include private hire and taxi drivers. By creating a specific criminal offence for assaulting, threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they are engaged in private hire or taxi work, and considering such offence as aggravated when the offence is committed whilst the driver is enforcing a licence or operational condition. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 31 May 2023. When he agreed to write to the Scottish Government, we have received the response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, which notes that the provision of the 2021 act complete a range of general criminal laws that protect everyone from abuse and violence, with the penalties for these offences being greater than the maximum penalties available under the 2021 act. The minister also confirms that the Scottish Government is not considering legislation to extend the provision of the 2021 act to include private hire drivers, taxi drivers or transport workers in general. Given the Scottish Government's clear position, do members have any comments and suggestions? We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that firstly the types of behaviour referenced in the position may already be prosecuted under common law and existing statutory offences. That said, this Parliament has established a legal precedence in amending or going beyond common law in certain cases. However, the Scottish Government has confirmed that there are no plans to extend the protection of workers, retail and age-restricted goods and services Scotland act 2021 to include private hire drivers, taxi drivers or transport workers in general. May I say to the petitioner that, given that there is that legal precedence, I do not believe that the committee can take any further regard, but an individual member could look to introduce a member's bill to develop the legal precedence as per the act that I have previously mentioned. Our next continued petition is petition 2016, Raise awareness of rhombosis in Scotland, lodged by Gordon Macpherson. Petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to our Scottish Government to raise awareness of risk factors, signs and symptoms of rhombosis. We last considered the petition at a meeting on 14 June 2023. At a meeting, we heard that a recent research by a British medical journal shows that, after Covid-19 infection, there is an increased risk of DVT for up to three months, preliminary embolism for up to six months and bleeding event for up to two months after an infection. With that in mind, we agreed to seek a view as to whether it may be necessary to undertake more work to raise awareness of rhombosis. The Scottish Government's response stated that it is considering the issue, highlighted by research, and is looking at what favourite awareness messaging can be undertaken via social media. On the figures that it explained, the PQ answer referred to by the petitioner in previous submissions includes all conditions that are almost due to blood clot forming in that location, including both arteries and veins. That therefore includes some of the most common causes of death, including myocardial infarction and stroke, the data used in response to a petition relics, clots forming in the veins, and includes instances where ease travel and cause pulmonary embolisms. The petitioner of recent submissions notes that his petition covers rhombosis as a whole rather on specific sub-diversions. He states that the sign has the word in the guideline that highlights the link between Covid-19 and blood clots, but that no action has been taken by the Scottish Government to raise awareness. Due to that, do any members have any comments or suggestions? Yes, we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health to seek confirmation of whether the Scottish Government is undertaking any work to raise awareness of rhombosis, and if not, why not? For his view and whether it is necessary to undertake more work to raise awareness of rhombosis in the light of the British Medical Journal's research, which connects Covid-19 with an increased risk of rhombosis and pulmonary embolisms. In making that request, I think that it might be useful to allude in the letter specifically to the evidence that we have received. Plainly, Mr McPherson has suffered great sleep greatly. He lost his daughter from absolute tragedy. He has also provided very detailed information that conflicts with the Scottish Government information. He said that, from memory of 11,400 cases, the Scottish Government figure was vastly lower, and I do not think that we have really bottomed out the difference. That seems to me to be very, very important, because if he is right and they are wrong, then we need to do an awful lot more than we are doing at the moment. I would also point out to Jackie Baillie's representation for Mr McPherson, which was highly useful to the committee and which I think would be useful for the cabinet secretary, who I know takes these things extremely seriously to peruse for himself. I just wanted to say that to underscore the importance of the matters that Mr McPherson has raised and hope that the cabinet secretary gets that when he gets the letter and perhaps a copy of the official report of the meeting. Do we agree with Mr Ewing's recommendations? Our next continued petition is petition 2018. It recognises the value of swimming pools and provides financial relief to help keep swimming pools open, lodged by Helen Plank, on behalf of the Scottish Swimming. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help get our swimming pools and leisure centres open by providing financial investment for pools. I welcome another of my MSP colleagues, Tim Eagle, to the committee. As a new addition to the Parliament, we are pleased to see him as he takes an interest in the public petition process and welcomes Mr Eagle. Thank you very much for that convener. It's a pleasure to be here at my first one, and thanks to the clerks for helping me to come. I just wanted to speak to this and thanks to Scottish Swimming in Liz Smith MSP, who has put in her letter of support for this. This is something that came up during my time as a councillor, which is in the grassroots level of politics in Scotland about the financial struggles around health, sport and health overall and the financial struggles that some of the councils are having. The problem with it is that health and leisure facilities aren't ring-fenced and so budgets are easy to cut when you have got to protect what are very important things like education, adult health and social care, etc. However, the problem I've always faced with this and why I was quite strong on this in the council is that we are an island nation, we have some beautiful locks and rivers throughout our country and swimming is a very popular and increasingly popular activity and the risk is that we are already double the UK average in terms of deaths, accidental drownings, that could go up if we shot more. Particularly as we've got a lot of rural areas in the country, rural connectivity isn't great, we've got bus routes which are limited and so getting access to swimming pools if you start closing them gets harder and harder. I know that a lot of this is already in a lot of the report but I just wanted to commend those things. Swimming is invaluable in preventative medicine and as we talk about health moving forward, I think that's going to become more and more something that we should discuss. I just really feel that we need to have a stronger discussion with the Scottish Government about how we can help councils to protect these very important facilities. Thank you Mr Ego. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 14 June 2023 when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport and Sport Scotland. Sport Scotland responded to further details on support that provided to the Scottish Women and Facilities project, which has been taken forward in three phases by Scottish Women who have lodged this petition. The Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport confirmed that the Scottish Government received Barnett consequentials of 1.939 million resources and a 3.877 million capital funding following the UK Government's announcement in spring 2023 of a swimming pool fund. As Barnett consequentials do not require to be allocated to a policy area that they have resulted from and the minister has not offered any indication of where this money was allocated, it remains unclear whether additional funding was in fact used to support swimming facilities in Scotland. We have also received a submission from a petitioner, which includes a link to a report on the future of swimming facilities in Scotland and notes the number of pools that have closed since the petition was lodged and the impact of that on the local communities. Our MSP colleague Liz Smith is unable to join us in person today but has provided a written statement in support of his petition. Mr Ego has already given his statement, so do members have any comments or recommendations? Mr Chowdry? Thank you. I would like to welcome, Tim. It's good to see you here. I've been involved with that as well before and I do think that the presentation given by our colleague is great. We need to recognise how the swimming pools are closing, which Lothian, and there are three swimming pools recently closed as well. I have a lot of constituents who are asking what support the Government is providing. I think that we should write to the minister of social care again for mental health, wellbeing and sports to seek the Scottish Government's response to the future of swimming facilities in Scotland report and seek further details on the financial support that is being provided or for swimming facilities. Thank you, Mr Chowdry. I support what Mr Chowdry has recommended and will add to highlight the fact that the petitioner in his very recent submission of 7 March has pointed out that since the petition was lodged, which I think was April last year, a fairly short period of time really, six swimming pools have closed, 147 swimming pools are at risk, and 95 per cent of the population in Scotland think that pools are important for safety. In light of that, plus the wide concerns from Liz Smith, from Tess White, from Fulton MacGregor, who did some work early on in the petitioner, I believe, according to the petitioner. The fact is that, as you remarked, the Scottish Government has received Barnett consequentials of nearly £2 million in resource and nearly £4 million in capital. I think that people are entitled to know what has happened to that money. I understand that we don't have to use it for swimming pools, but if we don't, how many more swimming pools are going to close over the next year? We need some straight answers and we didn't get that from the minister's response. It was opaque in the extreme. As you can tell, convener, I'm not entirely satisfied with the Scottish Government's approach in this case. Thank you, Mr Ferguson. Any other further comments for the member? I did ask a few questions on this as well. I do agree with Ferguson that we are not getting a straight answer from the Governments. I think that we should write with that. We will write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Well-being and Sport to ask them what additional funding has been given and to see if the Barnett consequentials have been passed over for swimming pools. Is that agreed? Paul Swinney. Our final continued petition is petition 1906, to investigate options for moving and reducing the impact of central Glasgow section of the M8, lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of Replace of the M8. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow, including specifically complete removal and repurposing of the land. We are joined in our consideration of the petition by MSP colleague Paul Swinney in the world world to Mr Swinney. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 31 May 2023. The petitioner has provided a submission that notes actions of his group wishes the committee to follow up on, including the request of an independent study to be commissioned. Councillor Angus Miller has written to the committee on behalf of Glasgow City Council confirming the strategic and operational approach that has been taken by a local authority. Councillor Miller highlights a paper that sets out the council's progress, the action taking and the proposed next steps. An extract from that paper is available in the petition's paper and breaks down a number of issues that council wishes to explore in the short, medium and long term. It outlines engagements between the council and Transport Scotland, with a note that the annual progress meeting between the council and Transport Scotland officers was agreed to and over and above interim discussions. It is also proposed that the action plan be prepared to cover a council's project so that it interacts with ME between junctions 15 and 22. That plan would work to identify the role of Transport Scotland in its interventions and to help facilitate, collaborate and progress. Before I invite members to comment, can I ask Paul Swinney to make a comment, please? Thank you very much, convener, and it's a pleasure to be back before the committee on such an interesting petition, which has elicited significant public interest, most recently in a BBC radio four documentary called Motorway City by the journalist Alan Little, which covered in great detail the history of the construction of the Glasgow and Irring road and the historic development and the current challenges facing it. The correspondence from Glasgow City Council is encouraging that it has established a working relationship with Transport Scotland as a statutory agency that is the owner of the trunk road infrastructure through Glasgow to look at options for mitigations. There are certain discrete ideas that members of the public and other stakeholders and certainly the petitioner and adjacent activists have proposed around rationalisation of certain slip roads, capping and so on, which are worth further investigation. It might be feasible for the committee to consider inviting the officials from Transport Scotland to ultimately report to the Scottish ministers and indeed to this Parliament to further elaborate on their perspectives on what options are available, and perhaps the transport minister might want to come before the committee to set out their position with how they are proposed to work with Glasgow City Council to investigate some of those particular options. That might allow for greater transparency and public awareness and scrutiny of what is going on through this Parliament. If the members of the committee are minded to consider those proposed actions, I think that that would be a really positive development for this petition and would anchor the Parliament's role in this much more securely. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. Do members have any comments or recommendations? Thank you. I appreciate the comments that Paul Sweeney has made. It is beneficial that the committee has heard that progress regarding this petition is being made. Because of that, I feel that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that Glasgow City Council has committed to progress the issues raised in the petition, including commissioning research on and exploring options to reduce the impact of the M8 on the city centre and reviewing opportunities to re-engineer other roads infrastructure to become more people-friendly, including options for long-term replacement. Indeed, Transport Scotland is engaging with Glasgow City Council on its work and will hold an annual progress meeting in addition to interim discussions on specific actions. Members agree? Can I remind the petitioner that, if the progress does not move as fast as it does with Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland, it can bring the petition back to the committee after a year? We now move on to agenda item 3, consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce our first new petition, I should begin by highlighting to those following today's proceedings that a considerable amount of work is done in advance of a consideration of a petition. Before a petition's first consideration, an initial view that is sought from the Scottish Government and a briefing from the Parliament in partial research service is provided. Our first new petition is petition 2063. Increased funding for local authorities to enable better management and protect the conservation areas lodged by David Wolff's Park Preservation patrons. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide additional funding to all local authorities in Scotland, enabling them to better manage and protect the character, appearance and designated conservation areas. Paul Sweeney has remained with us for considering his new petition. The petitioner notes that historic conservation areas throughout Scotland are falling into disrepair and why he recognises the financial challenges facing both national and local government requests that the Scottish Government addresses a specific concern that is being raised regarding funding for conservation areas. Despite briefing provides information on the planning process that applies to conservation areas, I note that the responsibility for the upkeep of land and buildings within conservation areas rests with the owners. The Scottish Government refers to its response to the local government settlement and the policy of allowing local authorities financial freedom to allocate the resources that are available to them. The response goes on to note that the support and guidance that is available via Historic Environment Scotland to help to promote and protect the historic environment. Before I go to the committee for recommendations, can I ask Paul Sweeney if he would like to make a statement? Thank you very much, convener. It is a pleasure to address the members of the committee on this particular petition. I have been in correspondence with the petitioner over the past few months in relation to issues that they have had around enhancement to the park conservation area in the west end of Glasgow, which speaks to a broader issue around improving the guidance and regulations around conservation areas and the obligations on local authorities. Their particular idea was to reinstate heritage-style lamp posts and various other improvements to the area, but there was not, in their view, sufficient support or capacity to help them achieve their objectives. Similarly, there have been concerns that roads authorities and other utilities can similarly come in and scar historic streetscapes and remove street furniture, which is of a historic nature, and undertake similar interventions without any real statutory enforcement or oversight. Perhaps, in light of some of the flaws in the current legislation that is set out in the planning-listed buildings and conservation areas of Scotland Act of 1997 and some of its adjacent legislation, such as the building of Scotland Act of 2003, there is an opportunity for this committee to consider inviting stakeholders to feed in on this question and to establish whether there are reasonable grounds for improvements to the current legislation or, indeed, supplementary guidance. There have been, certainly in my interactions with a number of stakeholders, concerns that the regulations around conservation areas are not sufficiently robust and that there is significant opportunity to establish best practice or, at least, to communicate where best practice is being achieved to other parts of the country. To that I would suggest that, perhaps, historic environment Scotland, the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland, Save Britain's Heritage, Glasgow Building Preservation Trust and Glasgow City Heritage Trust might be reasonable stakeholders to approach in the first instance to invite to feed into this exercise and, perhaps, allow us to establish whether there are opportunities for further improvements to the current legislation. I should, in that instance, declare an interest as a trustee of Glasgow City Heritage Trust in this proposal. However, I think that it would be a well-worth while way for the committee to move this petition forward. Mr Sweeney, do you members have any suggestions for actions? I am grateful to Mr Sweeney for outlining a little bit more colour and information and detail about what is behind this petition. However, the petition itself simply calls on additional funding to be provided. It does not say what for, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate because it is a bit lacking in focus. However, be that as it may, the response that we have had is from Glasgow councillors that they do not have the money for this. Frankly, that does not particularly surprise me with the local authorities facing the pressures that they do. That does seem to be the reality of the situation. Given that and the lack of specificity, I propose to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that it is the responsibility of local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources that are available to them on management and protection of conservation areas. The responsibility for upkeep of land or buildings in conservation areas rests with the owners. As highlighted in the spice briefing, the Scottish Government has not taken any significant recent action in additional funding for the maintenance or enhancement for conservation areas. Can we ask the Scottish Government if it has any plan to release additional funding? I support Mr Ewing's suggestion of closing the petition, but I think that what might be helpful for the petitioner is, if they so wish, to look at in due course coming back with a more focused petition around better management and protection of conservation areas. With regard to increasing funding for local authorities, even if the Scottish Government were to do that, there is no requirement on said local authority to then focus that on the better management and protection of conservation areas. I feel that it is unfortunate for the committee and the petitioner in this instance, but I feel that closing the petition is the only thing that we can do under those circumstances. Is the committee agreed to this? Mr Mundell? I was going to say that I am agreed and I actually think that we get a better quality of response because the reality is that, on the current premise, if we were to contact organisations or local authorities, we are going to move into what I think is quite a political space around funding rather than on something constructive. I think that that is this committee works best from my own limited experience of it when there is a defined kind of goal or something that is achievable at the end of the petition. Mr Chowdry, are you going to go with the rest of the committee's recommendations? Well, I think that if the majority is in favour of closing, but I still do think that that we should, because since the Scottish Government hasn't done anything at all on this, if we have any plans at all, if you are not willing to withdraw, I have to go to vote, Mr Chowdry. I have just been told that we can close the petition and also write to the Scottish Government to see about additional funding for it. If that is what the members are agreed with, I am more than happy to go with it. Are we all agreed? Thank you for that. Our next new petition is petition 2067. Improved data on young people affected by a condition causing sudden cardiac death, lodged by Sharon Duncan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to address the Scottish Government to commission research to establish how many young aged 14 to 35s are affected by a condition that causes young sudden cardiac death. Clarify a number of people who die annually in Scotland from these conditions and set up a pilot study to establish a voluntary screening that can reduce deaths. Members will be aware that the petition has been lodged by a mother of parliamentary staffer, David Hill. We tragically passed away by playing in an inter-parliamentary rugby match two years ago, almost to the day on 19 March 2022. I understand that members of the family have joined us in the public gallery and we extend our condolences and a warm welcome to you. As the petition notes, there is currently no screening programme for young people with conditions that put them at risk of sudden cardiac death. Despite recent, we have received also notes that our difficulties, such as the ways deaths are classified and research focuses on athletes rather than general population, and reaching agreement on the number of young people affected by sudden cardiac death. In responding to the ask of a petitioner, the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health notes that Government funding provided to a west of Scotland inherited cardiac condition services and the network for inherited cardiac conditions to deliver a sudden cardiac death project with a focus on improving clinical pathways for families and enhancing data quality. The minister has also made inquiries to the UK National Screening Committee about plans to review its position on the population screening for conditions associated with sudden cardiac death in the young. We have also received a submission from the petitioner, Mrs Duncan, emphasising the importance of understanding the incidence of these conditions to develop treatments and pathways. Mrs Duncan also seeks clarity on the coding used for informed data on incidents and highlights that no account is taken of deaths such as David's where a cause of death is registered as a natural cause, despite post mortem and follow-ups confirming a previous undiagnosed genetic cardiac decision. On that, do members have any comments and suggestions? Thank you very much, convener. I should say that I know David's family well and it is lovely to see them in the gallery. I have the utmost admiration for Sharon, his mother, who through very difficult circumstances has sought to see what she can do to help other families. I see some of the stuff in the spice briefing, but it comes back to a point that Mr Ewing made in relation to a previous petition. If Sharon Duncan and the wider Hill family are right, what if some of the organisations that they are working with are right and what if the screening committee is wrong? I certainly know that, if it was my child, I would want to know that that question had been exhausted. I would be keen for the committee to write to organisations with a relevant interest to cry cardiac risk in the young to save a life for Scotland, to the British Heart Foundation, to St John Scotland, to Chess Heart and Stroke Scotland and seek their views and expertise on what is called for in the petition and to find out about any work that they might undertake in relation to conditions affecting sudden cardiac death. I would also be keen that the committee write to the UK National Screening Committee to ask what it expects to review the evidence for screening for sudden cardiac death and to write to the network for inherited cardiac conditions, seeking further details on an update on its sudden cardiac death project. In addition to that, I would be keen to go back to the Scottish Government. I know that they have provided quite a helpful response in relation to the petition, but I would be keen to interrogate further their role in informing the National Screening Committee's work. It is one thing to be asking questions and making some representations, but I do not know how much more they can do. There are certainly the whole family, David Hill's family and Sharon Duncan's. They are not in a unique position. There are families like this in every part of Scotland, and we have seen that through activities that have been undertaken in the Parliament since David's death. I think that those people at least deserve to try to get to the bottom of how the process works and to be absolutely sure that all of the evidence has been taken into consideration. I entirely agree with everything that Oliver Mundell has just said. As he said, the minister, Jenny Minto, gave a rather fuller, more useful reply than some of the replies that we get, so I think that that should be acknowledged. There are many, many complex issues raised here, but I just wanted to make one point on the record that the spice document that we have refers to a UK Government bloc as reasons why there should not be a screening programme. That includes that some people might be unnecessarily anxious or that false reassurance might be provided or encouragement to get treatments that may be inappropriate. I felt uneasy about that reply because there must be many screening programmes where there are perhaps not that many people who are going to be detected as having a particular problem for which the screening is designed, but that does not mean that you do not have screening. I just wanted to put on the record that those arguments seem to me to be very weak and perhaps pretty offensive to people who have lost their loved one because of that. I hope that the minister can take that into account. In addition to the points that Mr Mundell has raised, could we ask for more information at a high level of what screening programmes are undertaken to find out if some are undertaken where there is a serious risk of death, but not many people, statistically speaking, in the population are at risk? I agree with both of my colleagues, but I understand that the UK National Screening Committee is conducting a review and that the next review is expected to be completed in 2024. Do we know when exactly in 2024 and will we be informed of the recommendations of the reviews? With all those recommendations that the committee agreed, I thank you for attending today. Our next new petition is petition 2020-68, review of a cart of public sector senior management salaries lodged by John Dare. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of public sector salaries over £100,000 per annum and introduce an appropriate cap. The Scottish Government's public sector pay policy directly affects around 10 per cent of those working in the public sector, and large parts of the public sector pay are determined separately of what is often in line with the Scottish Government's public sector pay policy. The Scottish Government's response to the petition states that the pay restraints for the highest paid and targeted uplifts for the lowest paid have been central to its approach to pay for many years. The submission notes that, in recent years, progressive pay awards have capped uplifts above the threshold of £80,000. At an interval review of the chief executive framework, the review has currently been undertaken. The review is due to conclude in spring 2024. Do members have any comments or suggestions on actions to take? I do think that, as a new petition, it raises extremely serious points of principle that have concerned a great many people, including myself for a long period of time, because, as the petitioner's essential argument is, there are vast numbers of people in the public sector that are paid in excess of £100,000. There are many people who are doing various jobs, and I do not think that I mention any of them particularly, although some are going through my mind, who get paid far more than the First Minister. We really wonder if the balance has somehow gone seriously askew. Because it is a new petition, it raises an issue of considerable public interest, especially at a time of real financial pressures. It is quite hard to explain to people why a chief executive—chief executives are very often the most invisible people in an organisation that you cannot get to meet or see, so I am not better not to name any, I will get myself into trouble. I do think that the reply that we have got from the Scottish Government is just completely hopeless. It just does not answer the point at all. This is not going to go away. I personally find the level of salaries paid to some people in quangos to be incomprehensible. I hope that I have made my position reasonably clear, but I do think that we should keep this open and write to the Scottish Government to demand a little bit more substance to the reply. If they are ever going to tackle this problem, or do we just accept it and throw it as it is, worse and all, and obvious injustice though there is? I thank you for your comments, Mr Ewing. Do members agree with that? We will move to the next petition. Our next new petition is petition 2070, Stop Same Day Only, a GP appointment system lodged by Ryan Russo. Petition calls on the Scottish Government to urge the Scottish Government to stop GP surgeries from only allowing same-day appointment bookings, enabling patients also to make appointments for future dates. Despite recent highlights of the 2021-22 health and care experience service, which reported a sharp drop in the percentage of people who find it easy to contact their GP practice in the way that they want to, it also notes that NHS England made changes to the 2023-24 GP contract to make it clear that patients should not be offered an assessment of need or sign posted to an appropriate service at first contact with the practice. Practices will therefore no longer be able to request that patients contact the practice at a later time. In 2023, the Scottish Government published the general practice access principles, which states that people should have a reasonable choice about how they access services and that a method should be clear, understandable and transparent. The Scottish Government notes that the healthcare improvement Scotland primary care access programme has worked with more than 100 general practices to improve access arrangements. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I am very strongly supportive of the aims of the petition and it is a problem that I see regularly as a constituency MSP, particularly vulnerable and elderly patients struggling to and those who have to travel with long-term chronic conditions to interact with the same-day policy. It would be worthwhile to find out how prevalent it is across the country. We could achieve that by writing to the Scottish Government to ask how many GP practices are now operating on a same-day only appointment system to seek its views on the health and care experience survey results and to seek its views on NHS England's recent change to the GP contract, which states that patients should be offered an assessment of need or sign posted to an appropriate service at the first contact with the practice, with practices no longer being able to request the patient contact at later time. We could ask the Scottish Government whether it is looking at a similar approach and if it is minded to whether there is a flexibility to make a similar change within the existing general medical services contract. I do not want to add unduly to the committee's workload but I would also be interested in knowing the views of health boards across Scotland on the issue as they have a responsibility in relation to primary care. There are several examples around the country where poor access to primary care is causing wider challenges in the health service, with higher numbers of people than average presenting, for example at A&E. I would be keen to ask health boards as well for their view on whether or not that practice is something that is happening in the areas that they are responsible for and how common they think it is. I totally agree with what Oliver Mundell just said but I want to add that I have been getting quite a lot of constituents who have been coming and saying that they cannot sleep at night if they have to make a phone call in the morning. The time window to call between 8 am and 9 am, people cannot go through and even if they go through, they have been told otherwise to go online and a lot of people cannot use the online. I think that it is time that the Government needs to step up and talk to the GPs and find out a solution because that is a major issue. I think that there are not many around this table, and the mail bag will not be continually filled with on-day appointments. I conclude the public part of our meeting today. Our next meeting will take place after recess on Wednesday 17 April 2024. We now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5.