 Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of this year. A formal decision under item 1 is simply to take items 4 and 5, where we will be discussing evidence that we have heard in private. That relates to the request in relation to an anonymous submission and the other to the evidence. We are shortly to hear a colleague's content. We move immediately to item 2, which is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is petition number 2035, which is to recognise legal control of generalist predators as a conversation, a conservation act. That has been lodged by Alex Hogg. Good morning. Mr Hogg joins us this morning at our request to give evidence on the petition, which we last considered at our meeting on 25 October last year. It calls on the Scottish Government to officially recognise legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland. Mr Hogg is petitioning on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and is indicated to the committee that he would like to make a short statement before we move to questions. Good morning, Mr Hogg. If you are settled, when you are ready, I will over to you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me here today. In my lifetime, I have watched favourite species decline. Today, there are far more predators, far less wildlife managers and far less ground-nesting birds. Unless the remaining wildlife managers feel more supported, we will lose more of them and birds in the remainder of my lifetime. Given the Government's strict response to the petition, I feel that a ministerial statement confirming support would be appropriate. That would send a signal to wildlife managers that their work in conservation is valued, that wildlife managers are recognised as contributing to nature recovery aim and to make it clear that Scottish Government believes through both actions and words that predator control can be fundamental to species conservation. I feel that this message has been lost. Scottish Government recently removed two key tools, which were snares and trained dogs. Foxes are proven to predate ground-nesting birds, and the banning of fox snares will hasten the curlew's demise. Using footpacks of trained dogs to control foxes has been strictly licensed. No licenses have been granted for conservation. Parliament researchers should cost out the public money that is spent on habitat for ground-nesting birds, compared with some that is spent on predator control. They should also assess the outcomes for species. That would enlighten us on one, where the Government priorities are, and two, where those priorities have achieved the right results. I do not believe that they have. I think that we can do both habitat and predator control in conservation and do better. Mr Hogg, thank you very much. That is very helpful. Thank you too for the submissions that you have lodged to the committee. I am going to invite my colleague Fergus Ewing to lead the questioning this morning. Good morning to Alex Hogg. In the interests of transparency, I should say that Alex Hogg and I have known each other since he first gave evidence to the Lord Watson's bill, which I believe was 25 years ago, and have become friends since. I am also a supporter of the Scottish Gainkeepers Association, although I cannot remember whether I have paid my annual subscription. Having made that clean and abreast of it, as it were, could I just move to questions? First of all, why predator control is required as a species conservation tool? I think that this is the main point of your petition to acknowledge that that is the case. Can you explain why it is required and talk us through the main methods used by gamekeepers and what role gamekeepers in particular play in species conservation? A typical week this week would be when your curlers and latwings are just trying to show up back in the moon again. We will have spent the winter keeping on top of stoats, for instance, by using box traps. We will now be spending our energies spent trying to control the fox with the tools that we have left in the toolbox. That is many hours early and an evening sitting out seven days a week on whether it is just trying to protect any ground nests and birds, because they are so vulnerable now to the different species that are just the population running through the roof with ravens, foxes are always on their eyes, stoats and weasels, things like that. We have to control them, otherwise you would have an absolute desert. Just to give you a picture, I drove down and was helping Brian Burroughs, who is on a committee with the Golden Eagle project in the south of Scotland. We drove yesterday down Shoe Liam, which is 25,000 acres of risk, wonderful for now. It is a natural reserve at Liam that has been bought over. We have never seen one lapwing. We drove 20 miles south to Teesdale and hundreds of lapwins, hundreds. That is what will happen if we do not take care of things and by controlling predators, we will end up with a desert. Can you confirm that in Teesdale there is predator control but Langham there is not? Yes, absolutely. So if there is no predator control then it becomes a species desert? Yes, it really does. Nothing there at all. What sort of species are at risk most, do you think, if there is an absence of the historic predator control carried out? Golden plover, lapwing, carloose, grouse, any ground nest in spaces is going to be vulnerable. Is that because the predators regard the eggs as breakfast, lunch and tea? If you can imagine a wee bird nest in a tree or a hedge they can get a wee bit safety but when you are on that ground you are stuffed. That is very clear. The Scottish Government recognises that predator control is a component of species conservation alongside other measures. In your opening statement you called for the minister to confirm support that the value of the work that keepers do, that what you have described assists in nature recovery and you have also asked for information about the cost of alternative proposed methods or methods that are carried out such as habitat control. No doubt we can pursue all of these because you have asked us to so I hope that we can perhaps do that. When you say that you want us to as a committee to explore how predator control is an important component of species conservation should be officially recognised, do you have anything specific in mind? Are you asking for a ministerial statement, a letter to the SGA, evidence before this committee perhaps, where the minister may be given an opportunity to confirm all of the matters that you have requested? Have you got something in mind that you would like to embody this official statement? I would love if I got a ministerial statement. If you can imagine, at the minute, there is massive grants for forests, say £8,000 hectares, maybe reduced to wee bit, but no predator control. There is huge grants for agriculture. It would be nice for it to all get intertwined and recognised. I believe that there is an agricultural bill coming forward and that the Government will, perhaps next year, come forward with specific proposals about how financial support to the rural economy should be dealt with in the future. Are you saying that you think that predator control as recognising its species conservation value should be recipients of an element of this funding? I think that if you could imagine a farmer being given a reward, say, for a cullowness fledging, so that he would get £1,000 or £2,000 aness, as soon as the farmers heard that the lapwings and cullowness were in that predator control grants scheme, we would see an uprising numbers again, I think. It really would. You think that there should be an element of financial provision that would allow more predator control, which in turn would protect species at risk, such as lapwing, curlew, plover, capycalian and so on? Definitely, because if curlew is going to go extinct, it is just becoming extinct in Wales nearly. It is so serious. Can I just ask one final question? I am sure that other members wish to pursue other points. I have a constituency interest here in relation to the capricaly. Mr Hawke has stated that, despite the tens of millions that are expended in the aim of trying to protect and see the capricaly population not fall but grow, despite all that and huge amounts of money over many years, you say that we have lost over 50 per cent of the remaining birds in five years. Is that right? Can you expand on that? The capricaly is going to go extinct as well. It really is on a naive point. If we do not act now, we will have other problems as well. We will have pine martens, which we cannot legally kill, but we should maybe get a license to remove them live, things like that, working around the different areas where things are more protected. However, we have to try to pull all the stops out, Ferris, to save this capricaly, and that is by predator control. However, is the capricaly likely to be extinct? I think that NatureScot has said that as well, that it is likely to become extinct if the current trends continue. Despite the fact that tens of millions of pounds have been blown on this already, it is just completely wasted. Is that the case? They should have employed keepers right from this start and got right. Semi on where RRASP bear control and stotes and weasels on just off the mainland there at the top of Scotland, what was it? I will try to mind the island's name, but there is a big control there that should probably have employed keepers. They would have done it far, far quicker and better. They did employ keepers. Then we might have some chance of seeing… May I? Seeing a species, including the capper cover in the stem pitch, we have had the great capper caper, as it were, where millions have been blown. I will finish there. Mr Hogg, I represent an urban constituency. My life has all been urban. I am somebody who enjoys the countryside but has never had to live in the countryside or depend on the countryside directly, although I probably depend on it directly, but I have an indirect appreciation of how I depend on it directly. I have read, interestingly, a couple of books that were given to me, which have talked about the way in which there has been almost an evisceration of certain bird populations. I have two or three questions that I would be interested in your reflections on, because, clearly, that has been an occupation and a vocation for life for you. Why do you think that legislators and urbanites have become so sentimental about foxes and other predators in the sense that they do not wish to see them controlled in an effective manner but to be nourished and treasured almost, and yet the species to which you are referring almost seem to have an anonymous profile in the minds of people who pursue those objectives? I think that it all relates back to Walt Disney a wee bit and things like that. We really could do, we are getting the kids on board and we do a lot of, on our charitable side, we are going to teach schools and colleges and all sorts, but it is just a bit of a perception that we have to try and change. It is so difficult, even speaking at my local school at Papers, only a hundred, maybe a thousand kids came through that day and there was only a hundred knew what a gamekeeper was, so we are getting away from the real things in life. I think that you have broken new ground this morning because I think that is the first time that the Scottish Parliament has condemned Walt Disney, but I wish you had a headline of it so right, but in a sense that has created what an artificial and slightly sentimental view about certain animals and not others. I suppose then in the sense that those birds have been an ever-present variety of species in our countryside. What is the practical consequence, however regrettable, but what would be the practical consequence of our losing these species from the Scottish countryside? I just can't imagine a losing number. We have to act now to save them. Can you imagine? It must be on your biodiversity plans to stop that, and if we don't, we're really gosh, I wouldn't like to think. So you've lived all your life with these species being part of our natural habitat, habitat and obviously have a passion about it. What is it that characterises your appeal, the appeal of lapwings and curlews and capocally to you? Take the curlew, it's a call. You go out in the morning, in the morning, you're waiting to try and protect them at their nest and you hear them calling. Even though to hear that call each spring would be so sad, I just can't think we should be facing this. We have to act. And it would be nice if the Government would recognise all the efforts that we've put in to saving these species. In the, I mean Fergus Ewing referred to an association with you over 25 years. Organisations like NatureScot, have you seen a change in the kind of centre of gravity within organisations like NatureScot over the time that you have had to engage with them? Okay, just to be frank, NatureScot in the past 10 years have been no help really. I spoke to Robbie and we worked in the works in NatureScot years ago. I said, look, we have got one big problem coming up here and that's ravens. Can you please, you know, get your head round it? And then they're just like nobody wanted to put their head above the pyramid. But lately, gosh, maybe because a biodiversity thing's going to collapse, they've really been, well, had them at their AGM there and they really are wanting to try and resolve this. So Collin Gobrath was there and the last cent, who was the chief executive, was there and so was the licence on Jack Donald. It sounded like they wanted to help us and get on board and get on the front foot. One of the ways I think we could maybe get this going faster, because we're going to lose it, run out of time, is to recognise areas as being zones. So like when I went to Teesdale yesterday with hundreds of latwings and curlers, we could immediately see it was because of the Gamekeepers efforts, but it could be a zone. So the good zone areas where curler and latwings are so strong at the minute and then NatureScot could come in and say, right, let's protect it even more, give you the licences, get on the front foot. It's very difficult to get licences so if they could get on the front foot and let's try and beat this. Thank you, convener. Yesterday on net zero committee, we heard that the Scottish Government used Wikipedia as a source to explain policy in relation to the environmental court Mickey Mouse policymaking, you might say, but with respect to this area, I wonder if you could explain if you have confidence in the research and understanding for evidence-based policy setting by Scottish Government and or NatureScot? I'm very Tuesday with some of their science. The white hairs was a perfect example. White hairs on keeper ground, there is thousands, but the Scottish Government protected them. We had all the science as well, but they would not listen to it. Everything was on our side and nobody took a notice. Let's protect the white hair, which is now going to be in this—there are no white pairs, white hairs on abonethate, RSVB, reserve, things like that. Some of the science is believed and some is disbelieved. Thanks, that's very helpful, Mr Hog. Just regarding the NatureScot review of Capercaillie conservation, lethal predator control is not the primary NatureScot recommendation for a range of reasons, including that, and I quote, widespread removal of a suite of species is not compatible with the overall biodiversity goals as set out in the Scottish biodiversity strategy. I wonder if you could give your thoughts on how we can protect biodiversity and what the primary methods for that might be? I read that report and when they said widespread, that's where I thought zoning comes into its own. It's not widespread, it's really zoned in on the capper, say, and it could all the things, all the tools in the box could be used then if it's understood to be to save the capper in that zone, so it's not widespread. Thanks, Mr Hog. Thank you, convener. You said yesterday that you were in Teasdale. No, I do think that I visited Teasdale as I get waterfalls or something that are particularly renowned in Teasdale. I seem to recollect. Am I in the right place? Yeah, no, no. Obviously, people there will be aware of what's happening in Scotland, in comparison. What thoughts and observations of people there are made about the impact that they think they can see it having in Scotland and what concerns have they got themselves and consequence? I think we had to jump through so many hoots with the Grousemore licensing that people are just so frustrated now. We feel like second-class citizens almost in Scotland because, especially the keepers, they've been bashed and battered and we've jumped through all these hoots to do all their snaring training, all their firearms training, everything we've done and we're still getting bashed. We're just like that recognition that we're valuable for this biodiversity crisis. Okay, thank you. Mr Ewing, did you want to come back in? As far as the zoning goes, I mean it's always good, I think, convener to have specific recommendations from witnesses rather than our sort of generalised commentary. I mean, if we were to take Capper as an example and, you know, plainly in Straspe, there has been traditionally a Capper population. I mean, how big would the zones be? Are you able to expand upon how the extent of the area of the zoning would be assessed and would it be helpful that local gamekeepers were part of a process to assist in identifying which areas should be subject to this type of measure and control and that gamekeepers should be required to be consulted in order to get the right areas zone? You're an actor, you know, and fairly sub at the state. If you spoke to him and you would quickly find out what charity you would need and things like that, and it's really important that you have the local keepers on board. So, again, gamekeepers could not only carry out the control but they could also be the key advisers because of the work that they do on the ground and really only they have that knowledge. Is that right? Because all of those who criticise predator control tend not to actually work in the countryside themselves, unlike you. So, gamekeepers would not only do the work but actually be instrumental in guiding the policy and shaping which areas really need to be protected, to be zoned to protect the songbirds and Capper and other species that are at risk or might, in fact, become extinct otherwise. That would be fantastic if we got that recognition. Is there anything that you'd like to say further to us, Mr Hogg? No, I don't think so. Otterburn was another one, if you guys want to get your head around it. It was a 10-year experiment down just over the border by GameCon 7 set and you can see the pots where they would remove predator control. It's really important science and it really shows that without us you're lost, we're biodiverse, we're carlos and landlings. Well, thank you very much and thank you for joining us, taking the trouble to come in this morning. Can I thank you on behalf of the committee for your service to the countryside and the species that inhabit it? Your passion is very evident to us on the petition that you brought before us and I know we're all grateful for that. Thank you very much and I shall now suspend briefly. We continue and the next of our continued petitions is petition number PE 1900 which has access to prescribed medication for detainees and police custody and this has been lodged by Kevin John Lawson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees and police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. Colleagues, we'll remember this as an important petition we've been discussing which we lasted on the 31st of May last and at that point you'll recall it raised concerns about NHS Grampiam and an inspection of police custody units within NHS Lanarkshire that then Minister for Drugs and Alcohol committed to conducting a rapid review of each health board to ascertain the extent of issues relating to controlled drug licences across Scotland. Now we've since received an update on the outcome of this review which revealed that Grampiam and Lanarkshire, Western Isles, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney and Shetland NHS boards did not have controlled drug licences. NHS Western Isles and NHS Dumfries and Galloway confirmed that they have existing practices to prescribe medication that don't require a controlled drug licence. NHS Grampiam was striving to submit an application by the end of May last year. NHS Highland submitted an application and we're awaiting a Home Office inspection. NHS Lanarkshire were in the process of seeking a licence as their custody suites in Motherwell and Coatbridge did not have a licence. NHS Orkney and NHS Shetland have planned a review of the supply of medications within custody facilities which will help to inform whether they acquire a licence and this review was due to conclude six months from the time of writing. The response also revealed that NHS Orkney and NHS Shetland could not confirm that they had written policies and effective practices in place which ensure that every detini has access to their prescribed medication. NHS Western Isles stated that it would create a pathway for prescribing controlled drugs to patients in custody. Now we understand from the clerks that an update in each health board has been shared directly with the petitioner, not just recently but more recently than the update that we've received here and that the petitioner has since provided us with a further written submission. Colleagues will recall that this was a petition that led to an admission by the Scottish Government that we couldn't actually demonstrate that prisoners in detention were actually receiving the medication to which they were entitled and that this had led to a tragic outcome in one particular case. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? David Torrance. I wonder if a committee would consider writing to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to ask for an update on the work of relevant health boards in obtaining controlled drug licences and implementation written policies on access to prescribed medication and how she attends to monitor the progress of work going forward on the NHS Crampian, NHS Highland, NHS Lancer, NHS Oakley and NHS Shetland boards. I think that I might be right in saying that the update that the petitioner received was in his capacity as a constituent of the minister. Is that correct? Obviously minister and that led to it but I think that it would be useful for in fact essential for the committee to have as up-to-date position as we possibly could on a petition that I think we regarded as being one of importance that we'd identified in this session. Are we agreed on Mr Torrance's recommendations? We are. Petition 1947 to address Scotland's culture of youth violence lodged by Alex O'Caim. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland and we considered this at our last meeting on 21 February. In addition, we have gathered a range of evidence from youth group 6 VT, from the petitioner, from families with direct experience of youth violence, from the academics Dr Gillan and Dr Batchelor and then at our evidence session last time round from Police Scotland, No Knives Better Lives and the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. I really do want to thank all of those who have contributed to date. Obviously those who have contributed to previous sessions have been watching our two round table and evidence sessions and we've received a further submission from the petitioner, challenging the evidence that he heard from the academics that violence is stable and low. He points to issues with reporting and states his view and I quote that it is more difficult than ever to report a crime. Obviously we've had an opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we've heard and I wonder, I'm sure we want to keep this petition open and pursue the issues within if there are any suggestions from colleagues as to what we might do. David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I wonder if you bear with me because this is going to be quite lengthy. Have you got some suggestions as well? I'll let Mr Torrance go first and then if you could perhaps add any that you think would be right. Thank you, convener. I wonder if a committee would consider writing to the Minister for Community Safety seeking a clear information on the whole system approach to youth offending. Looks like in practice we've addressed and repeated incidents of violence perpetrated by a young person including details of the very pathways for responding to repeat predators and with hot investigation, charging centres and rehabilitation and the aversion looks like in these pathways. How the history of violent behaviour is considered when addressing youth offending and how policies and processes across mental health, education, social care and justice system work together to put predators to positive pathways by protecting victims in their communities. Reflections are, however, the minister recognises the challenges to reporting noted by a petitioner. An indication, however, is that she recognises a petitioner's concerns that recorded crime statistics may reflect lower reporting rates rather than giving accurate picture of the levels of youth violence. Information on what victims can expect by a way of transparent communications and trauma informed support at each stage of a process. Finally, information on what the Scottish Government is doing to address young people using social media to threaten violence or encourage participation in violence. Comprehensive, do you have anything else to add, Mr Chowdry? Yes, just to add on the last point, Mr Chowdry. Last session, Police Scotland said that a lot of social media companies are from abroad and it's kind of difficult to get it engaging with them. So can the Scottish Government do anything or ask any questions that if there is something they can get involved with? I think that there certainly is merit in seeking to get an opinion from the Scottish Government on just what impact social media is having in this particular area of concern and what they feel they can do and in the event they don't feel they can do, where they think it would be that that responsibility lay or what would be to change in order for them to have the ability to act more decisively. So I veiled on Mr Chowdry's suggestions on that basis. Mr Ewing? Yes, I'm just rereading the evidence given from Will Linden of the Violence Reduction Unit and Emily Beaver from No Knives Better Lives at page 15 of the evidence official report. Both of them referred to the value of schemes, for example, of cash back and schemes provided by smaller grass roots organisations and Emily Beaver said that the programme had recently changed the cash back programme and shifted money away from some of these smaller grass roots organisations. There was also uncertainty about the longevity of funding across the third sector generally from year to year rather than longer and Will Linden echoed that and supported her, stressing the difficulty for third sector community organisations. I know that this is a difficult area and it is not always clear who ultimately is responsible for ensuring the survival of these schemes, but just in the evidence that Mr Torrance has quite rightly sought, can we specifically ask for the community safety minister to set out what is being done in order to ensure that the work done by these voluntary third sector organisations is better funded on a longer-term basis and valued? For my recollection of my time in that role considerably time ago, admittedly, much of the work done really does help to turn around young people who otherwise are on the cusp of more serious offending. I am just looking over that evidence again and quite right. That was quite a central point of the discussion that we had, so I think that that would be helpful. Colleagues, have we agreed on the various suggestions that have come from across the committee? We are. Then we will move forward, keep the petition open and move forward on that basis. Our next petition then is petition number 1952 and this is specialist services for patients with autonomic dysfunction. Lodged by Jane Clark calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to instruct Scotland's NHS to form specialist services training resources and a clinical pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of patients exhibiting symptoms of autonomic nervous system dysfunction, dias autonomia. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 17 May last year and the recent submissions that we have now had from the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health highlights the results of a questionnaire to a sample of general practices, which included questions on the clinical guidance managing the long-term effects of Covid-19, which found that 60 per cent of responding practices were aware of the guideline and 25 per cent were aware of the implementation support note. The content of the implementation support note is being reviewed and updated. The University of Leeds has been contracted to support the initial evaluation of long Covid services in Scotland and this work will provide an analysis of demanding capacity, an analysis of longer term outcomes for patients and compare differences in service models where possible. The petitioner has stressed the petition concerns all patients with dias autonomia, not just those with long Covid. She notes that there are no specialist autonomic clinics in Scotland and that cardiology consultants have told POTS UK that they do not have the expertise to manage patients with dias autonomia. She welcomes the training resources available to healthcare professionals but would like to make it clear that these are not a suitable substitution for specialist services. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government asking specifically whether it will work to create specialist autonomic clinics in Scotland and if not, how it can be confident that the expertise in local and regional clinics services is sufficient to treat those with autonomic dysfunction. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues? Are we content to proceed on that basis? Our next petition is petition number 1967 to protect Loch Lomond's Atlantic Oakwood shoreline by implementing the high road option for the A82 upgrade between Tarbot and Inver Arnan. That has been lodged by John Urquhart on behalf of Helensborough and District Access Trust and the Friends of Loch Lomond and the Trossacks. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reconsider the process for selecting the preferred option for the planned upgrade of the A82 between Tarbot and Inver Arnan and to replace the design manual for roads and bridges, the DMRB, based assessment with the more comprehensive Scottish transport appraisal guidance. We last considered this petition on 17 May 2023 and we agreed to write to the minister for transport. We also looked at the suggestion of Jackie Baillie, who joined us at the options for a site visit. We have received a response from the then minister, now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, which refers to previous submissions setting out the development and assessment of the A82 Tarbot in Inver Arnan scheme and the Scottish Government's view that the stag-compliant assessment has already been completed. The minister states that the Government is not willing to carry out a reappraisal of their preferred route option, as that would repeat work already carried out and likely lead to considerable delay and additional costs. The minister also notes that Transport Scotland has considered the alternative option put forward by the petitioner, with the Government not considering this to be a viable option to alternative to their preferred option. The petitioner has commented that the minister's response does not add anything new to the evidence that we have gathered so far and notes that both route options post considerable engineering and environmental issues with the Scottish Government's preferred option, requiring the extension of viaducts affecting the tree line and wildlife along the banks of Loch Lomond. The petitioner does, however, welcome the minister's assurance that stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide formal comment or objection during the statutory consultation period and offers once again to facilitate a visit to the site. The committee has also received a submission from Stewart Cordner in support of the petition, sharing concerns about the impact of the low-road option as likely to have on local tourist business. I am not certain that a site visit is something that would assist us given the fairly strong direction from the Scottish Government at the present time, but do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? To write to the cabinet secretary for transport seeking further details on the anticipated time tool for progressing the draft road orders and statutory consultation, to ask the transport Scotland to be invited to give evidence to the committee about why stag appraisal has not been carried out? I think that the first and side would write quite specifically to transport Scotland on that issue rather than bring them before the committee. I do not think that we necessarily want to schedule an evidence session at this point on such a narrowly defined point, but I think that we could ask them quite directly, because there does seem to be a difference of view as to what actually has taken place. I would quite like something a bit more definitive. I respectfully agree that I do not think that a site visit is required nor that we hear from oral evidence, but I do think that there appears to be a slight conflict of evidence as to exactly what analysis has been done by Transport Scotland in relation to the apparent option of the high road, because the impression that I get from just re-reading the correspondence and the submissions is that, in fact, Transport Scotland has carried out some analytic work of this and have concluded that it is not practical. Clarification of that in a letter would be very useful. I would also just like to confirm what the cost of a stag report would be and how long it would take and whether they think that that might cause further delay to the project, which I know is that, although the petitioners have very sincerely set out objections, there are a far larger number of people in the West Coast, in Oban and Fort William, who use that route as their link to the world. The Tarbot in Vararno stretch is arguably the worst section of an A road in Scotland, and routinely there are accidents, delays, wing mirrors being damaged. I think that many people feel anxious about driving that section, which I did for many, many years when I represented Lochaber. Therefore, there is a huge number of people who want the A82 to become a proper road, and I just thought that it is useful whilst respecting the petitioners' wishes to put that in record, convener, just out of perhaps a sense of balance. Are we content to proceed on that basis? We are. Although, Mr Ewing, you are showing your age with wing mirrors. I think that it is door mirrors more likely these days. It has been sometimes since wing mirrors were legal, actually, on vehicles. Nonetheless, I understood the point that you were making. Petition number 1979 is establishing an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies. This petition has been lodged by Neil McClellan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickey and Bill Cooke. I think that I can see some of the petitioners, at least in the gallery this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children's rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council, gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry and establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children's services in Scotland to handle these inquiries in the future. We last considered this petition a month ago, on 7 February, where we held a roundtable discussion with the petitioners, Bill Cooke, Alison Dickey, Neil McClellan and the whistleblower, Brendan Barnett, three were present one online. During the roundtable, we heard about a need to robustly investigate and resolve safeguarding allegations before undertaking policy reviews. We heard about the failure of public bodies to follow national guidance due to its non-statutory status and an inconsistent approach to information gathering and sharing between relevant agencies. We heard about concerns that allegations are not fully investigated at the time, with inquiries taking place many years after the event and the impact that this has for confidence in local authorities and public bodies, about how the role of the Children and Young People's Commissioner in Scotland could be strengthened and how the creation of a national whistleblowing office for education and children's services could provide a route for individuals to access guidance support and a structured procedure when raising concerns. Following the evidence session, we have received a new submission from the petitioners requesting a private evidence session to further explore issues that they felt constrained from detailing more fully in a public setting. There are two key asks of this petition, the first being the call for the independent investigation of unresolved allegations about child protection. The petitioners have given us a flavour of those outstanding allegations and the challenges experiences in resolving through existing process. However, it may be that the committee does not offer the appropriate forum to take forward detailed consideration of this particular ask. The petition also calls for the creation of an independent whistleblowing office for education and children's services, with the petitioners indicating in their most recent submission that they will provide further follow-up information on accountability and resourcing issues that we discussed. Having had the opportunity to reflect the evidence that we heard last month from the petitioners, do members have any comments or suggestions for immediate action that we might consider taking? Members may be aware that there was a late submission, which you will have received with your papers today. I wonder if the committee could consider writing to the minister for children and young people and keeping the promise to recommend that the minister meets with the petitioners to discuss the concerns about unresolved allegations relating to child safeguarding. To ask the minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to children and young people's commissioners Scotland's suggestion of developing a new principle for individual professionals and agencies that are responsible in relation to child protection issues. I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Public Service Minister to seek the information on the effectiveness of an independent national whistleblowing officer for NHS services and its use on whoever a similar approach should be adopted for education of children's services. Any other colleagues have any suggestions following the evidence that we heard? I think that the witnesses from whom we heard Mr Cook, Mr Barnett and Alison Dickey indicated that one of the problems about public inquiries is that they take such a long time, and therefore part of the rationale for having the proposed whistleblowing service that they advocate is that things can happen at the time and not after the kids become adults and, frankly, the events have long drifted out of the memory of those involved. I wonder if we could perhaps, in writing to the Children's Commissioner, draw that to the commissioner's attention specifically, because that seems to be a gap and also to the minister's attention. Unless this point is granted, it has dealt with. I do not think that we would have made much progress with this petition. I just wanted to raise that point because it was one that was made in the evidence that we heard. I can recall Mr Ewing that you drew particular attention to it in the questioning that we had at that stage, too, so I think that that would be, with reference to the Edinburgh academy case, I think that you cited at the time that it would be useful to incorporate that as well. Colleagues, any other suggestions from members? We will keep the petition open and we will pursue with the minister and the ombudsman those particular issues at the present time. Are we agreed? We are, thank you. Our next petition is petition number 2009 to ensure fair access to Scottish universities for all residents in Scotland and the UK. This was lodged by Caroline Gordon. The petition calls on Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure fair access to Scottish universities for residents in Scotland and the UK by reviewing university business models and Scottish Government funding arrangements. We last considered this petition at our meeting on the 17th of May last, where we agreed to write to University Scotland, the Scottish Government, the Commissioner for Fair Access and Individual Universities in Scotland, and while Glasgow Caledonian University states that it is aim is to be allocated more funding places, it notes that growth would be focused on increasing widening participation in Scotland. Edinburgh Napier accepts that the funding arrangements mean that the approach could be described as an upper cap on the overall number of places. However, it states that it does not recognise the scenario presented in the petition, where all places for Scottish domiciled students on a degree programme are filled by students from a widening participation background. The Commissioner for Fair Access's response notes that he intends to review funding arrangements, but it is not found evidence to substantiate the petitioner's concerns that funding arrangements block access for Scottish domiciled students or that such arrangements lead to students pursuing higher education elsewhere in the UK. University Scotland's submission recognises that, for some courses, demand will be so high that suitable applicants are unable to achieve their first choice. However, the submission also notes that the data indicates that applicants are not missing out in accessing Scottish universities. On funding, it highlights that public investment in each Scottish undergraduate has fallen by 27 per cent in real terms since 2014 and that spending per student should be the focus rather than increased places. Robert Gordon University Scotland and Edinburgh Napier state that there is not an issue of too few funded places with some highlighting the need for increased funding allocation per student. On that point, Robert Gordon's submission points out that Scottish funding council reduced the number of non-controlled funding places by 1,000 in the academic year 23-24 in response to under-recruitment of students across the sector. The petitioner's submission requests that the committee seek data from each university on a number of points related to the number of applicants from different backgrounds being accepted into specific courses across Scotland. We were joined at the last hearing of this petition by our colleague Michael Marra, who is with us again this morning. Before the committee considers what action we might take, I would be interested to hear from Mr Marra. I thank the committee and the clerks for the support that they have given in pursuing the petition. I have to say that the evidence that has been supplied, particularly by the individual universities, has really added to the understanding of the issue in specific context. I greatly appreciate the work that the committee has undertaken so far. I would hope that there is further that can be done to open this up and I will maybe set out some of that if I can. I have reflected on the submissions that have come back from the various issues, various consultees. As I said, I think that the individual university's context is useful. I would say that both the commissioner for fair access in university Scotland and their submissions to the committee reference data but do not provide the data with them. I have to say that I have found some of that data difficult to find, particularly around the commissioner for fair access's assertions around the too many Scottish domicile students having to pursue higher education, personal financial costs elsewhere in the UK. He believed that there was no evidence of that and references data but did not provide the data. It would be useful, I think, for my constituent and for the general discussion of the policy if he were to be able to do that. I would appreciate if the committee might consider asking him to provide that data as well as university Scotland reference some data in their submission as well. I think that it is fair to say that I do not believe that the general issue of the funding model that is imposed upon universities in Scotland will be resolved by this petition convener. I think that that is a political decision and I think that the submissions that we have had set out some of the general issues that are around it, the decrease in funding per student over that period of time, the 27 per cent figure, which I know will be deeply concerning to many people. I think that the real issue is about what other data we can obtain that can help applicants to better inform the decisions that they might make. I do think that that is particularly pertinent in the coming year. We have a significant budget cut being made to higher education institutions, which, on a basis of £28.5 million, may further decrease the number of Scottish domiciled students that Africa can gain access to. It makes that competition ever tighter, so I think that it is really key and I think that the relevance of that has increased actually since the budget process has come through. I would hope that the committee would take that into consideration as well. I would support my constituent's view on this, that I think that universities should be publishing more data about the make-up of courses, whether it be international students or whether it be Scottish domiciled students. I think of that for one reason in particular, that a Scottish student applying to universities has five options when they fulfil in their work-as-form. That has been the case for a very long time, certainly since I applied to university in the mid 1990s. What we have had in the evidence so far is that, on some courses, that person making that application had zero chance of accessing that course on the basis of the evidence from the previous years. Some of those cases are very isolated and the universities are keen to express that. It is a rare occurrence in their view. I think that it would be a really solid case for that information to be published proactively to best inform applicants as to whether they are using one of those five bullets, those five chances that they have, whether they are using it properly. Do they have a real chance of gaining access to the course that they want or the institution that they want or do they not? To me, that is an element of fair access. Perhaps that is something that the committee might consider asking for views on, views of University of Scotland, views of the Scottish Government and views of the commissioner for fair access. Not to say that the committee should endorse that position, but just whether that might be something that could be explored. I think that that information makes it a fairer system all over for everyone concerned, whether that be Scottish Dormissile students, international students and widening access students so that they can best understand where they should engage with the process and how they will be supported in what they do. That opening up of the data, greater transparency, is probably the next logical step around this petition. If the committee was viewed to support that, I would be most welcome. I think that that is a telling pot. I certainly have constituents who, with five applications, more informed understanding of who to whom they might reasonably apply with an expectation of success based on data that is verified, would be useful. I think that that is a very useful thing for us to seek to try to bring into the light of public scrutiny. Are colleagues content to try and pursue the further advancing of data, as Mr Marra has suggested? We are. Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open and seek to progress on that basis. I no doubt see you again when we next consider it. If we are fortunate enough to receive the information that we have requested, thank you. Petition number 2012. The remove the need for follicle stimulating hormone FSH blood tests before prescribing hormone replacement therapy, HRT, lodged by Angela Hamilton calling on the Parliament to urge the Government to remove the need for follicle stimulated hormone blood tests in women aged 40 to 45, who are experiencing menopause symptoms before hormone replacement therapy can be prescribed to relieve their symptoms and replenish hormone levels. Last considered again on 31 May last year, when we agreed to write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and NHS Education for Scotland. The Royal College for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists refer to expert advice from the British Menopause Society that in accordance with NICE guidelines, follicle stimulating hormone blood tests should be considered but not required to diagnose perimenopause and menopause in women aged 40 to 45. NHS Education for Scotland has confirmed that the online learning package on menopause and mental welfare is being researched and written, and it expects the resource to be available to GPs and primary care practitioners by the end of this month. We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which shares the experience of a patient seeking menopause treatment and support who felt forced to seek private medical care and faced further difficulties with follow-up care when their treatment was passed to their GP. A number of organisations responding advancing some of the issues raised in the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments for action? I wonder if the committee would consider closing the position under rule 15.7 of standard orders. On the basis of that, NICE guidelines state that for women aged 40 to 45, HRT can be offered without the need for blood tests when other menopausal symptoms are present. There is now a specialist menopause service in every mainland NHS health board with a buddy system in place for islands health boards. NICE Education for Scotland has been commissioned to create an online learning package around menopause and mental health with resources expected to be available for three to GPs and medical practitioners by the end of March 2024. Respect what the member says, but particularly given the make-up of this particular committee, I wonder if we would keep the petition open and write to the British menopause society, seeking their views on the issues raised by the petition, including whether they have engaged with NHS education for Scotland in the development of the online learning package being provided to GPs and medical practitioners in Scotland. I think that we should write to the menopause society, seeking their advice. I did wonder if there was much more that we can do for the reasons that Mr Torrance said, but if members want to write to the society, I guess that there is no harm perhaps in that. Mr Golden pointed out that we are a very masculine committee, and that perhaps that might mean that we are not giving due consideration, as others might, to some of the issues being raised here. I would withdraw my recommendations. I understand the reasons that Mr Torrance has, but at the same time, I think that Mr Golden makes a perfectly reasonable point. We will keep the petition open and write as suggested in relation to the issues in the petition. It did occur to me that, when I was updating colleagues, we could also check with NHS education for Scotland that this package of resource does materialise at the end of March. By the time we next consider the petition, we will know whether, in fact, that package was properly introduced, which I think is a reasonable additional step. The petition number 2014 to revert to the appeals system used in 2022 for SQA exams. That was lodged by Elliot Hepburn on behalf of Moffat Academy students, calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement a revised SQA appeals process, which takes into account evidence of the pupil's academic performance throughout the year, particularly prelim results. We last considered this petition on 31 May last year. Subsequently, the SQA's written response explains that, from 2014 to 2021, the appeals system mirrored the 23 system in that it did not consider alternative evidence. It highlights that the appeals system in 2023 was developed following an extensive evaluation of the approach taken in 2022. Separate from that, an examination exceptional circumstances consideration service is available to pupils who are unable to sit exams or whose performance is affected by personal circumstance. Evidence suggested that the 22 appeals service, which considered alternative evidence as part of the appeal process, was not there to all learners increase the assessment burden. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has indicated that the SQA has evaluated the 2023 arrangements and was expected to confirm the arrangements for 2024 before the end of last month. Obviously, matters have moved on, and I imagine that people are more concerned now with the appeals process that will apply in the year in which we are now considering exams. I do not know whether that was confirmed at the end of February. I am unaware of that fact, but I wonder whether colleagues have any suggestions in relation to the actual petition before us. Mr Torrance. I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition on the rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the SQA described the appeal process that operated in 2022 as an emergency response for a single year and based its approach for the 2023 on the outcome of a fuel review of a 2022 approach. Also, it used alternative evidence in appeals-raised issues of equitable access, fairness for absentee candidates and the volume of work the service generated for a wider system and responsibility for the appeals process rests with SQA, which operates independently from ministers. Colleagues, given that the actual definition request of the petition was in relation to a year now passed, are members content to close the petition on the basis suggested by Mr Torrance? We are. We thank the petitioners for that. Obviously, it is open to anyone to raise a fresh petition in relation to arrangements in a separate academic year, but we look to the statement that was expected from the Scottish Government in relation to arrangements for 2024. That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. Again, for those who might be joining our proceedings online this morning, having heard that a petition that they had submitted was to be considered, I say that in advance of so doing, we do ask the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament's independent research unit, SPICE, for briefing and comment in relation to the petition. We do that because historically in previous sessions, if we didn't, that was really the first thing that the committee then recommended that we do, and that very often led to an extended delay in our consideration of the issues raised. The first of those petitions this morning is petition number 2056. I will introduce legislation allowing Scottish ministers to intervene on the higher of public land lodged by Stephen Gall calling in Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation providing ministers with the power to call in and potentially override council decisions on the higher of public land for large-scale events. Mr Gall tells us that his business has over a number of years tried to hire public land for large-scale events, but these requests have been refused by local authorities and suggest that his is not the only business that is impacting. As the SPICE briefing notes, while this Parliament has legislative competence to enact primary and secondary legislation that impacts local authorities, it is generally up to local authorities to determine how they use their land and property. The Minister for Local Government and Empowerment and Planning has advised that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government to intervene on and refers to the Verity House agreement, which includes a commitment for local and national government to respect each other's democratic mandates. We have also received a response from the petitioner, Mr Gall, commenting on the minister's response and emphasising the call for a change in the law and noting that the Verity House agreement is not legally binding. Colleagues, do we have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Ewing, are you thinking of contributing here? I am just thinking that whereas the specific action that the petitioner seeks from us is not one that I think can readily be accommodated, I think that questions are raised by general questions about in what circumstances can an events body that seeks to hire land but gets a blank refusal from local authorities? Why is that? What is the rationale behind it? I think that more information therefore would be useful. I do appreciate that we do not wish to trespass in the Verity House agreement and local authorities' responsibilities at all, but I think that reasonable questions have been asked by the petition. I would be up into this fairly early stage to close it down without at least doing justice to the petitioner and trying to pursue the queries. I think that we are writing to COSLA to the Association of Public Service Excellence and to Event Scotland. That is the Visit Scotland directorate supporting the Scotland's events industry, seeking their views on the action called for on the petition, including any guidance that they provide to local authorities about developing policies for the hire of public land. If I may say so in addition to that, I think that it would be useful. I am not quite sure from whom we might obtain this, but to see if there are any private sector tourism bodies, possibly the Scottish Tourism Alliance, could assist us here, convener, who could provide useful information. We all want events to be displayed in public land. Local authorities are under a lot of pressure in various ways in funding and so on, but I think that the petitioner does raise a reasonable question, so I would be reluctant just to close it down without making some sort of effort to get closer to, if there is a real problem here, with reasonable requests routinely being turned down peremptorily by local authorities. Are we content to, Mr Torrance? Thank you, convener. I wonder if we would consider writing to Showman's Guild, because the Showman's Guild is probably one in Scotland that uses higher land of local authorities more than anybody, to see what difficulties they have had. Part of me wonders whether some local authorities, perhaps potentially smaller local authorities, which sometimes are in locations where such permissions might be sought, feel that their own resource is such that it is easier to say no than it is to say yes, because saying yes involves them in the administration of certain matters for which they feel they currently have not got the capacity to take forward and that that is partly what may underpin some of their views. I would be interested if, causally, there was any substance to that kind of consideration as well. Yes, I think that with the various suggestions we may be able to keep the petition open. While we accept some of the evidence that we have received and the comment from the Scottish Government, there are issues here potentially that it would still be useful for us to explore. The second of our petitions, for which colleagues will note that they have a late submission on the table before them this morning, is to ensure that, under 16's charge with rape, are treated as adults in the criminal justice system. This has been lodged by Julie Mitchell. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that, under 16's charge with rape, are treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The spice briefing explains that certain offences for children over the age of 12 and under the age of 16 must be jointly reported by the Police to Children's Reporter and the Procurator Fiscal. Rape is considered to be an offence that requires joint reporting, and the Procurator Fiscal decides whether prosecution will proceed within the adult justice system. Regarding the sex offenders register, where a case proceeds within the adult criminal justice system and results in a conviction for rape, the notification requirements apply regardless of age. However, the length of the notification period is reduced for those under the age of 18. The Lord Advocate is reviewing diversion from prosecution as it relates to sexual offences to consider whether it is being used appropriately. The Scottish Government's response to the petition notes that its policy position is to keep children out of the criminal justice system wherever possible and appropriate. However, it recognises, and I quote, the need to strike a balance between supporting children who come into conflict with the law and ensuring that our communities are safe and that victims are supported. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? The committee would like to write to the Lord Advocate seeking an update on the review of diversion from prosecution for sexual offences and make reference to issues raised in the petition as part of any letter to the Minister for Community Safety on Petition. Are we content to take forward the recommendation from Mr Torrance but also to combine that in relation to the issues raised in relation to petition number 1947? Mr Ewing, while supporting Mr Torrance's recommendation, we might, in addition, when writing to the Lord Advocate, seek from her some data evidence as is available without going into names but of cases that have arisen over the past few years. Since fairly recently, I think that legislation was passed in this area because this is an area of huge public concern. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about that for the reasons that the petitioner set out in the supplementary submission that we have got. As well as the review of the diversion, which I think was instructed in the last July, it may not have really completed yet. It would be useful to find out how many cases there have been of rape by under 16-year-olds. How serious is this? How many instances have there been each year? Any further information about that? That I think would help to provide a bit more background but plenty of any cases can have tragic consequences for the victims and that is what the petitioner has, I think, emphasised in the supplementary petition. That is reasonable. I will try to find wording that would allow us to establish that. Thank you very much. We will keep this petition open and pursue the issues raised as recommended. Petition number 2065, to improve and prioritise pedestrian safety, lodged by Shona Rafferty, calling on Parliament to urge the Government to improve and prioritise safety for pedestrians by widening pavements and reducing street clutter, introducing a mechanism to report pavement parking and improve visibility of pedestrian crossings. Spice briefing notes that responsibility for the maintenance management development of most of Scotland's streets, including footways and crossings, rests with councils. Transport Scotland's response to the petition points to Scotland's road safety framework to 2030, which created targets for key priority groups, including pedestrians. Investments are highlighted in the submission, including funds for new and improved pavements, safer junctions, improved place design and projects for casualty and risk reduction. Transport Scotland is working closely with local authorities to assist in preparing for the enforcement of the pavement parking ban. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I wonder if the committee would consider writing to Transport Scotland to ask how Scotland's active travel vision to 2030, the national transport strategy and road safety improvement fund, will work to directly address street clutter, and whether it has considered a national approach to improving the visibility of pedestrian crossings. I wonder if the committee would consider writing to COSLA to seek information about the capacity of local authorities to widen pavements, reduce street clutter, improve visibility of pedestrian crossings, enforce the pavement parking ban and implement safe system measures through the road safety improvement fund, and ask how it tends to share best practice or measures to improve pedestrian safety across local authorities. In doing so, I am aware from my constituency that the pavement parking ban has caused real practical issues for residents in residential areas where the street is narrow and where there are cars usually on each side of the road and where, if there is some a battle of the pavement, unless the car can mount the pavement to some extent, it becomes impossible for people to actually have a car, and that in turn means that some people are effectively isolated, particularly elderly people or those with impaired mobility and those with disability. Therefore, that seems to me to be an issue that has been raised with me and there are quite severe consequences. Whereas safety of pedestrians is very important, there is another side to that. In taking up the suggestion that Mr Torrance has made, I wonder if we could ask if this issue has been considered and whether local authorities have received complaints such as that that which has been raised with me in other parts of Scotland. If not, I think that perhaps some further work might need to be done on this, because I suspect that this will come back and we will probably find a petition on this topic before too much longer. Mr Ewing, I think that that is my experience as well with constituents, although the parking ban has not yet been enforced in my constituency, despite the excited interventions of Mr Greer, who is continually invoking the local authority to proceed. There are a number of streets where the application of the law means that emergency service vehicles are not able to access the street, which is a clear issue, one that could have been foreseen. On the other hand, the other issue that makes this all the more difficult is the continued increase in the size of motor vehicles, which really are. When I think that Mr Ewing of the cars with windmills that you and I passed our driving test on and as a Ford dealer back in those days, the Ford Capri, the Ford Cortina, the Ford Escort, the Ford Fiesta would occupy half the space of a modern vehicle both in length and width now. Therefore, I think that it is not a surprise when vehicles park on the streets that there is no road left in the middle for anybody to drive through. Vehicles have certainly got a lot bigger, unnecessarily so in my view, with a consequent impact on the road network and infrastructure that has to support them. Over, having got that over, we will proceed. Mr Choudry, were you trying to go in there? Do you drive a particularly big vehicle, Mr Choudry? No, I don't. I'm not with the big mirrors, but I wonder if you watch the old cowboy movies, you can see the big wing mirrors or they are sticking out. Some people are even driving camper vans these days. Well, I mean that's one thing I've been asking you guys to, sorry, to organise that for me, but I haven't been in a camper van yet. I've raised, I mean I've constituent who wrote to me regarding what we were talking about earlier on about pavement parking. Do we think, I mean some of the local authorities has already put a ban on parking ban on pavements and there is a lot of issues. Is there any data on the councils who has banned the pavement parking, if so, can we request somewhere? I suspect not yet, because I think it's very early, but I think Mr Ewing is probably correct to suggest that we might anticipate a petition at some point in relation to the unintended or intended consequences in some cases of the legislation that has been imposed. I'll be very happy if we can organise a camper van. Petition number 2069, to ensure accuracy of statements involved in forming child welfare reports, is the last of our new petitions today. Launched by Nicolle MacDonald, calling on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the accuracy of evidence gathered by child welfare reporters by introducing a requirement that statements provided as part of their report are signed as a true account. Ms MacDonald raises concerns that, where child welfare reports contain inaccurate or misleading information, individuals rely on their solicitor to challenge inaccuracies and if they don't, there is a potential for the court to be misled when making its decision. The Spice Briefing highlights the Scottish Government's 2016 guide to the child welfare report, which notes that the reporter should only ask for information relevant to the remit set by the court. However, as the petitioner also notes, if someone does not agree with something on the report, then the solicitor should raise this with the court. It also noted that the Children's Scotland Act 2020 provides for a system of statutory regulation of child welfare reporters, although the detail of the regulatory regime is still to be determined having been delayed, in the minister's words, by budgetary pressures. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety also tells us that a working group on child welfare reports will be set up to help inform any changes to current practice and the long-term policy on child welfare reporters. While a previous working group rejected the suggestion that interviews with child welfare reporters should be recorded, the minister will ask the new working group to consider this point and make recommendations. So an interesting series of issues, some interesting comments back. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under the rule 15.7 of standard orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is setting up a working group on child welfare reports to inform any changes of current practice and the longer-term policy on child welfare reporters. In this bit, it is key and we will ask a working group to consider the petitioners' ask in relation to recording of interviews. Perhaps engage with the petitioners too, I think that we might request if that were possible. On that basis, our colleagues contain. We are. Thank you very much. That concludes the public aspect of our business this morning. We look forward to those of us who follow our proceedings joining us again on 28 March. I suspend the meeting.