 Hello, and welcome to our 13th meeting. It's going to be lucky for us all, I'm sure, of the Citizen Participation and Public Peditions Committee. We have apologised this morning from Fergus Ewing and from Paul Sweeney, but we are joined in substituting for Paul Sweeney by Carol Mawrton. Welcome to you, Carol. Our first item of business, therefore, is just, since this is the first time you've been with us, just for you to declare any interests that might be relevant to the committee. I have no interest to declare, ond rydyn ni'n gweithio i'r bwysig o'r cymdeithasol. Thank you very much. Brings us to item 2, which is consideration of continuing petitions. We're joined this morning by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Brian Whittle and Katie Clarke, who will be contributing to two of the petitions before us. Brian Whittle, in relation to the first, will come to him a short while. This one relates to the upgrade of A75, A77, petition numbers 1610 and 1657, lodged by Matt Halladay and lodged by Donald McHarrie respectively of the A77 action group. P1610 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 euro route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible and petition number 1657 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from air whittlets roundabout south to the two ferry ports at Cairn Rhyon, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75. We previously considered those petitions agreed to consider them both together. We received evidence really over on the petitions over a number of years and we've also taken evidence from the Minister of Transport. We then received an update from the Scottish Government outlining relevant outcomes from the Strategic Transport Project's review 2. That includes recommendation 40 access to Strann, Raar, Cairn Rhyon, which highlights proposals for improvements to the A75 and A77. The petitioner of P1657, Donald McHarrie, has sent us a written submission that raises concerns about delays in relation to landslides and draws attention to the potential solution of road tunneling at the rest and be thankful. The petitioner for P1610, that is Matt Halliday, has also submitted his views, reiterating that the situation has not moved forward and that the same issues are once again arising in the A75. He raises concerns about connectivity for the south west of Scotland and highlights the benefits of shortened journey times. We've also received written submissions from Eleanor Whitham MSP and from Findlay Carson MSP, reinforcing yet again their support for the petition, highlighting the economic importance of both the A77 and the A75 and stressing the need for further investment. Before we consider afresh the evidence that we've previously heard and where we might go next, we're joined by Brian Whittle, as I said a moment ago, and I'm going to invite Brian to speak and update us on his views and respect of the petition. Brian. Thank you. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to once again speak in this particular petition. I think that it's a long-running petition. It was raised while I was in the Petitions Committee in the last term. It is a longer running saga than that. It goes all the way back to 2010 and before, but in 2010, when the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, opened the Cairnwine ports, he committed to improving the transport and connectivity of the A77 and the A75, because there's such a huge volume of traffic, especially around the big 44 ton lorries, where 44 per cent of all goods going in and out of Northern Ireland go through that port, and a lot of it is just-in-time goods such as food. It's a hugely important port to the south-west of Scotland, to the prosperity of the south-west of Scotland and to the whole of Scotland. The A77 connects Cairnwine to Centralbelt and the A75 connects Scotland to the south, and all the goods from Ireland to south. It is under threat because there is another route, Dublin Holyhead, where the connectivity has been invested in. You come off at Holyhead on to Jocarsway straight away, and you can now go from motorway from Belfast down to Dublin. The actual time that it takes for goods to travel is becoming closer between the Dublin Holyhead and between Belfast and Cairnwine, and there is evidence to say that about 6 or 7 per cent of goods are now moving to the Dublin Holyhead. It is under threat. If anybody who has travelled that route, and I have undertaken that route from Glasgow down to Cairnwine in a 44 ton lorrie, I would advise you to do that at some time. It is very interesting when you are going through places such as Gervan and very narrow streets and you can see out the cab people having their dinner about three yards away from you. However, it is quite a dangerous route. It is a route that, if something happens on the 77, which is frequent, the diversion takes you on to a B road, which is extremely dangerous for 44 ton lorries. This is an on-going saga. It is taking too long. We need investment in the south-west. Only 0.04 per cent of the transport budget in the last decade has been spent in the south-west. I used to say that it was the forgotten part of Scotland. The feeling is that it is the ignored part of Scotland, and we do need that to move along much quicker than it is. I did in a previous life use to deliver lorries to customers, but I did not have to have the largest HGV licence, but they were big enough, I could tell you. The view was fascinating, and I always thought from the cab. You might have given us a figure about a transference from this route to the Dublin hollyhead route. Did you say—did I hear you say some of that 6 per cent? Is that traffic that would previously have gone on the Cairn Ryan route that is now going on the Dublin hollyhead? Do you know? Is that something— Correct. It is. Can I ask that information where that came from? Belfast harbour. In part of my investigation into this issue, I actually travelled across to Belfast to meet businesses across there and with Belfast harbour. I looked at how the south-west infrastructure is impacting on Belfast and goods over there. That was from Belfast harbour itself. At that time, it was 6 per cent. I couldn't tell where it accurately is now, but it certainly won't be declining. It will be increasing that percentage, I would think. Okay, that's helpful. Colleagues, do you have any comments, questions or suggestions? David Torrance. Around the petition, convener, it's been with us a long time. From the information that we've got back, the South West Scotland transport study does not recommend taking forward an option of full-dune, of river A75 or A77, opting instead to recommend target road improvements. The draft report on the strategic transport projects review 2 recommends that safety, resilience and allowable improvements are made on the A75 and the A77 strategic road corridors. The Scottish Government responds to signals at the intent to upgrade both routes. My concern is that, with that information, I would like to close the petition down under rule 15.7 of standing orders, but I would like to write to the cabinet secretary for net zero energy and transport, seeking information on a timescale for these improvements, because that's the thing that we've been missing in this committee. Thank you. I think that I'm reluctant personally to close the petition down without trying to drill down on that information. I accept that we need to get some sort of date. I wonder if the clerks could try and verify that information from Mr Whittle in relation to Belfast. If we were asking for a timeline, it would be quite good to couple that with evidence that the delay in establishing a timeline is now leading to a transference of the potential business that would use that route and that that could have a compound effect in due course and undermine the financial viability of the region and the route, which is why we think the delay in not getting any firm time scale is unhelpful. Mr Stewart. I would concur with you, convener. I think that we require to get some clarity from the cabinet secretary with reference to the access to Stranran and Cranlygon. I think that I'm notwithstanding that it's been here a long time and I appreciate that, but I do think that there is still merit in trying to find more information and clarity before we get to that stage. I would be supporting you, convener, in ensuring that we get that information and not closing the petition at this stage. There is only so far a committee can take things, but I think that it's worth just pursuing it because there is a commitment to do something. There's just no commitment as to when it'll be done and I think that we might want to try and get the latter. Our next position is position number 1865, suspend all surgical mesh and fixation devices lodged by Roseanna Clark and Lauren 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 propylene or titanium, is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established. Delighted that we have Katie Clark with us this morning. Welcome, Katie, and I'll invite you to contribute in just a moment. We last considered this petition in the eighth of June when we heard evidence from Mary Todd, the Minister for Public Health, Women's Health and Sport, the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Gregor Smyth and the senior medical adviser, Terry O'Kelly. Following that meeting, we have received two new responses from the petitioners, who both remain unconvinced that the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns raised through this petition. We've also received a submission from James Young, who shares a powerful account of the impact a mesh implant had on his quality of life. We will come on to discuss the evidence that we've received, in addition to the evidence that we heard from Shoulders, Hospital and Canada in the round in a moment or two. Before we do so, can I invite Katie Clark, if she'd like to speak to us in relation to the petition? I'm very grateful for having the opportunity. As you know, I've not been before the committee before, but I'm here today representing the lead petitioner, who is a constituent and is unable to be here today due to medical conditions associated with the mesh procedure that was undertaken on her. I have to say without her knowledge or consent. It's fair to say from my meetings with her someone who is very informed, had very detailed discussions with her medical practitioners before the procedure and was given information about what would be used that was very different from what happened in reality. It's fair to say that those involved in the campaign have had life-changing conditions that are completely associated with the mesh procedure that they undertook, and, indeed, there have also been deaths that it is believed are associated with the procedure. What they are asking is that mesh is only used very essential, that there are alternatives to mesh and mesh is only used with the fully informed consent of the patient. I know that the committee is very aware of the previous debates around about transvaginal mesh and other procedures that mesh used in relation to hernia, operations, et cetera, as I understand, is different and is used for different purposes. Many of the issues are similar, and it has to be said that the campaigners still believe that they are not being listened to and their concerns are not being taken into account. Practice has not changed in relation to these matters in Scotland, so I am grateful for your consideration of what they are saying. Colleagues, with an opportunity for us to consider this, I note also in relation to a transvaginal mesh that our colleague Daniel Johnson has a member's debate tomorrow in the chamber, but does not touch directly on the issues relating or arising from this petition, which are the broader extension of mesh. That has been the focus of our inquiry. I think that we did raise with the minister in passing suggestions that there was a campaign to have the ban on transvaginal mesh lifted, but I think that we got reassurances from the minister for viral cough and the evidence that there was no immediate plans to do anything in relation to that, which is reassuring. In relation to this, there has definitely been a mixed bag of evidence that we have heard. Together with the shoulders and evidence that suggested that there were alternatives that might yet still be useful, albeit that it required quite a rigorous discipline on the part of the individual concerned before they would be physically capable ofwithstanding the rigours of that. I think that there was some concern from the Scottish Government that that might be something of a cherry-picking waiting list of people who would only get treatment under certain circumstances, albeit that I was not sure that there was not a way around any of that. What thoughts do colleagues have? Obviously, I have read it in detail because I have also been approached by constituents. I think that the key thing for me was around the fact that we need to drill further into that and that people should be properly informed and consent to those procedures. We know from our previous work on the transvaginal mesh how life-changing things could be. To me, that is an important issue. I would like to see it go further, so that we can get more clarity on it. Obviously, there are further inquiries that we can make, but one of the suggestions is that that this might be something that we try to take to the chamber by way of a debate, just to inform colleagues more broadly about the wider issues arising from this particular aspect of mesh. I think that that might be something that we want to consider, but are there any things that we might want to do ahead of that? I was going to suggest that, convener, that we actually take it to the chamber for a debate, but there is a whole list of things here that we could ask a Government for information. I am not going to read them out, because the list is so long, but I am just wondering if a clerks can write to Government asking for additional information. I think that there are two or three areas in particular. One of which I think that we could explore in a debate has now been repeatedly stated that the responsibility for medical devices rests with the MHRA. There is a general view across all parties in this Parliament that they have fallen short in their responsibility, and I think that all parties have offered to support the Government not just about complaining about that but potentially seeking to do something more directly about it, and that has not happened, so that is a strand that could come out. I think that there is information relating to the shoulders hospital, which shows alternative ways forward. Some of the themes that we have heard from the petitioners that was a similar experience was that their experience was not taken seriously. It was a bit like the whole transvaginal mesh all over again, that they were imagining their pain and that other people knew what was best for them. They felt that they had not had the same informed advice. I think that the minister suggested to us that there was a lot of work being done in relation to the wider criteria and guidelines in relation to the way in which all this would be applied. I do think that there is scope for us to potentially take this forward for a debate in the chamber. So, are we content to do that? Well, then the clerks, whenever the Petitions Committee has a slot, that is one of the things that I think we could consider taking forward. Thank you very much. We will continue the petition on that basis. Petition 1870, to ensure teachers of autistic pupils are appropriately qualified. This was lodged by Edward Fowler and we last considered it in March. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation requiring teachers of autistic pupils to be appropriately qualified to improve educational outcomes. We have had quite a lot of previous correspondence and the committee asked the Scottish Government whether it intends to undertake a child's rights impact assessment of initial teacher education. In response, the Scottish Government stated that it does not consider such an assessment is required at this point due to the on-going work to improve relevant teaching support and guidance. That work includes a GTC essay's revised professional standards, which specifically reference autism, a suite of guidance on the additional support needs hub, and the establishment of a working group to develop new guidance to minimise the use of restraint in schools. So, we have had this balance between the Government believing that there are a number of initiatives which they are taking, which address the points that the petitioner has as a substantive cause of concern, but does not believe that it needs to move for this mandatory route that they are looking for. Colleagues, do we have any views? Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. You have outlined many of the areas that have already been covered and I do think at this stage that it would be possible and probable for us to close it under rule 15.7 understanding orders, because I think that the already has been stakeholder raised concerns and the suggestions of the approach that is taking place. The Scottish Government is on-going, but I think that in closing the petition, we can write to the Education and Young People Committee to highlight the evidence that we have received in response to the petition and advance of the proposed inquiry and additional support needs, because I think that that would give an opportunity for that committee to take on board some of the areas of concern that may well be raised. For us, I think that at this stage it has gone as far as I think that we can take it from our committee. By giving it to the other committee, it will give it them the opportunity to advance and bring together some of the strands that maybe we have not been able to assimilate in our committee here. I think that we have pushed back and have a couple of occasions in relation to this, but the Government has been quite firm and has scheduled its response and why it believes that it is not going to take forward the objectives of the petition, albeit that the issues of substance are there to be addressed. I think that we agree that we are going to close the petition, but we are also going to write to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, letting them know the progress that we have made to this stage in relation to the committee. Are we content? We are. Petition 1884, which is to make whole-plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or alternative funding put in place, was lodged by Steve Gillan and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole-plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help. We last considered this on March 23, and we agreed that we would write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Drugs Policies, and we have received two responses in the petition. The first response indicates that NHS England remain in discussions around the establishment of two clinical trials to further the evidence base for CBPMs and that patients in Scotland will be eligible to take part in those trials. However, due to the commercially sensitive nature of these discussions, there are limits on what can be shared publicly at this stage. The response also sets out the process and timescales by which a new medicine is licensed. The second response states that information is not held on the number of people accessing Elizabeth cannabis for medicinal purposes, I suppose, self-evidently. It also highlights that programmes to allow people to self-medicate with cannabis in a controlled environment would be in breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. My recollection is that this committee was actually quite sympathetic to some of the evidence that we heard in relation to this and in the positions that we asked the Government to clarify. We have the evidence that this trial would potentially be something open to Scottish patients. Do we have any views on how we might proceed, David Torrance? Thank you, convener. Considering that clinical trials will be carried out with a view to building an evidence-based connect with CBPMs and unlicened products are not routinely available on the NSS with licensing being the only way to ensure safety, quality and efficiency. Depending on the results of a clinical trial, there is no further action that the committee wishes to take on that, so I would consider it to be close the petition down and understanding rules at 15.7 in standing orders. However, in doing so, I would like the committee to write to petitioner highlighting the trials that are taking part and the Scottish patients that are allowed to take part in them. Can I ask, just for some advice, in the response that we have received, as well as being able to advise the petitioner on the trial and the fact that Scottish patients will be eligible, do we know how the petitioner could seek to make themselves available? No. I am going to crave the indulgence of the committee to hold it open one more time. I quite like to see if we can find out from the Government how somebody goes about making themselves available potentially to establish whether they would be eligible to participate in the trial. I think that it is one thing just to tell the petitioner that they could do that, but I think that it would be more helpful to be able to tell them how they could do it. However, subject to us having that information to augment the response to the petitioner, I am happy to close the petition at that point. Happy to agree. If we get that information, I do not know that the petition needs to come back to us. If I can put it that way, we are content that we could frame the response in the light of the further information that we receive. Carol Malkin. Thank you. Obviously, it would be my first time when the petitions committee, if we close a petition potentially, does the individual have the right to come back on it? How does that work? They do. When the petitions close, they can come back after a year if they feel that nothing has advanced in relation to the petition during that period of time. However, we obviously have a clear idea from the Government as to the route that the petitioner could take and a clear direction that they do not intend or are unable, in fact, to take any further action at this time, because it would contravene a law that they do not have particular responsibility. Is that correct? They can do that, but I think that I would like to give the petitioner the most informed information possible. Does that appear on our website in due course? Anybody else could see from our website any advice that we received and how you would be able to apply. I think that that would be helpful if we have that there. Petition 1919 prohibit the sale of high caffeine products to children for performance enhancement. This is a petition lodged by Ted Gurley. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under-18s for performance enhancement due to risk of serious harm. We last considered this again on 23 February, and we agreed to write to the Children and Young Persons Commissioner for Scotland, Scottish Athletics, Sports Scotland, Cardiac Risk in the Young and the Food Standards Scotland. I am pleased to say that we have now received responses from those stakeholders as well as a submission from the petitioner. Members will have noted that many of the responses make reference to the Scottish Government's consultation on the sale of energy drinks with Food Standards Scotland committing to providing enhanced guidance on food additives, including caffeine, in the coming months. The responses from Sports Scotland and Scottish Athletics highlight the potential challenges of implementing a ban specifically focused on performance enhancement, while Cardiac Risk in the Young and the Petitioner also suggested a need for further research to evaluate the impact of those products on young at-risk individuals and athletes. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that that was raised in the chamber at some point. I recollect it coming up. I think that there are many more questions to be asked on this. I think that you are right that there was recently some debate in discussion within the chamber on this very topic. The Scottish Government requires to provide some more clarity and some more information when it comes to the consultation that is taking place. I would suggest that we seek some of that clarity and we ask the Scottish Government about the consultation into the end of sale of energy drinks to children and young people when it is going to be published. We talk about the influence of foodstuffs and that has to include the caffeine gum and plans to review the risk management decisions based on the EFSA advice as part of the Scottish Government's work. What further consideration has been given at the plan to introduce a ban on the sale of fast-releasing caffeine products for those who are under 18? Are all those required to have some more clarity as to where we are before any further decisions or discussions can take place? I was mindful of the Scottish athletics highlighting the potential challenges of implementing a ban. Those things are very often said but they are sometimes very difficult to apply. I am inclined to support Mr Stewart's suggestion and colleagues agreed. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis. We specifically want to know with reference the foods with equivalent quantities of caffeine just to direct it very much to the petitioner's concerns. Petition 1926 to expand universal free school meals for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils lodged by Alison Dowling. He calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils. We considered the petition on 20 April and we agreed to seek further views and information from the Scottish Government and from a number of stakeholders. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, from COSLA, the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, Public Health Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group and from the Trussell Trust. Members will be aware that expanding the provision of free school meals has been the subject of discussion in the chamber, notably in relation to our consideration of the Good Food Nation Scotland bill. On that basis, do members have any comments or suggestions for actions that we might take at this point? David Torrance, I think that the committee should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills seeking an update on the work that has been undertaken to expand the provision of free school meals and to ask what priority has been given to extending the provision of free school meals to secondary pupils. I am happy to do that. Are we content to do that? I mean, this is another petition that might be one that we would advocate taking to the chamber for a debate, but I think that in the first instance we would await that response from the Cabinet Secretary. That brings us to item 3 on the agenda, which is the consideration of new petitions. We have a new petition in number 1927, install CCTV cameras in all additional support needs schools. This has been lodged by Clare Mooney and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to install CCTV into every additional support needs school in the country. Members will be aware that this petition is similar to one considered by our predecessor committee—Mr Torrance, in particular—also lodged by Ms Mooney, which was closed on the basis that, from written submissions received, there was limited support for the action called for in the petition. Further information of the previous petition and written submissions is included in our SPICE briefing papers. In the background information, Ms Mooney shares her experience of a family member being injured while being restrained and the challenges of ensuring a full investigation and explanation of events are provided, particularly where the child may be unable to give an account of what happened. We have also received submissions from Patricia Hewitt and Elaine M in support of this petition, both of whom suggest that the use of CCTV could be used as a tool to support and protect vulnerable children, as well as the staff working with them. The Scottish Government's response states that it is a matter for local authorities to determine whether or not the use of CCTV cameras on their premises is appropriate, but that, in making such a decision, consideration must be given to balancing the privacy and protection of the children, young people and staff. The Scottish Government also notes that new guidance to minimise the use of physical intervention, physical restraint and seclusion in schools is currently being drafted. That draft guidance on physical intervention in schools has now been made available with the public consultation due to close on 25 October. Thank you, convener. Considering that the petition has been by a previous committee, there was a lot of work done on it, but what is more importantly, education children and young people have a similar petition with them just now, and they are going to do work around it. I think that we should highlight this petition to them and then do so that we can then close the petition down and understand in orders 15.7. Maybe also at the same time, I will make sure that the petitioner is aware of the consultation that is currently under way. However, I think that the fact that the education committee is considering something similar allows us to close the petition at this stage on that basis. Are we comfortable with that? Petition number 1930. I mean well, I did forget to say to anybody who might be watching our proceedings from afar, but before we consider any new petition, we do in the first instance seek to get an opinion on the principles of the petition from the Scottish Government. So when we come to consider the petition for the first time at this committee, it is on the basis of us having already undertaken a certain amount of advance preparation before we consider it here. Just so that anybody launching a petition understands that it is not being dismissed summarily, we have considered the issues raised. I would like to thank Ms Moonley for bringing the petition to our attention. The next petition is petition number 1936 to remove potholes from Scotland's roads lodged by Leslie Roberts. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces by creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and then providing ring-fenced funding to local councils to tackle potholes. The petitioner highlights that potholes cause accidents, putting lives and property at risk and raises a particular concern about partial road repairs, putting drivers and cyclists at further risk. The Scottish Government's response provides details of their investment in trunk roads as well as highlighting the obligation on operating companies to inspect the trunk road network at seven-day intervals in order to identify defects. In responding to the call for ring-fenced funding for local authorities, the Scottish Government stated that it is the responsibility of each local authority to manage their own budget and to allocate the total financial resources available to them on the basis of local needs and priorities. Nonetheless, we know from our own individual post bags as MSPs that potholes are an issue that can have quite a dramatic consequence for individuals. I do not know my own experiences of an FOI that I undertook or that was advanced to me by constituent. The number of people who are successfully able to claim back the costs incurred as a consequence of a pothole is not high and is usually after a very challenging process from the local authority in relation to that. I think that the issue is definitely one that sometimes people may light of, but it is actually quite fundamentally important, particularly on roads that are wholly dependent for access to services. Mr Stewart, you look like you are keen to speak. I am, because I believe that that is a major issue. As you have rightly identified, some councils seem to manage to do it reasonably well, whereas others do not. There are roads that are a danger to individuals and vehicles, and I believe that there is scope for us to consider more information on that. I suggest that we continue to seek clarity, convener, and we write to the World Works Commissioner, the Society of Chief Officers in Transportation in Scotland, the Chartered Institute of Highways in Transportation and the Civil Engineers Contract Association, and seeking their views, because I think that their views are very important, which has been raised by the petition. The additional information that they will be able to share will give us an idea of what has been happening with maintenance standards across Scotland. It is also important to talk to the RAC Foundation and the Rhodology Association to seek information on the level of reported damage to vehicles or other traffic incidents caused by potholes. By doing that, we will then get a much better picture. As you have already indicated, we may know from our regions and our constituencies how things are, but, across Scotland, it would appear that there are some areas where there is a real concern and a real danger to the road user and the vehicles that they have. I suggest that, when we write to the RAC Foundation and the Rhodology Association, that we may also ask them what information they have on the reimbursement or restitution that individuals who have been affected by this actually have, and if they have any information in relation to that, because I think that is material as well. We are content. Petition number 1937. To give children the respect that they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for PE. This has been lodged by Gillian Lamara, an important issue, and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their PE kit to school on the days that they have PE. The petitioner considers that these protections are necessary to ensure children's privacy and tells us that, although Covid-19 restrictions were in place, some schools brought in the option for children to wear their PE kit to school. However, since the restrictions have been lifted—the pandemic restrictions, that is—schools have taken this option away, meaning that primary pupils are having to get changed for PE in front of mixed-gender classmates and their teacher. The Scottish Government response indicates policy decisions on school clothing are best taken by schools and education authorities. It also highlights the statutory responsibility of local authorities to manage and maintain their school estate and the expectation that local authorities would provide appropriate changing facilities. We have received a submission from the petitioner responding to the Scottish Government and this highlights that some schools do not have appropriate facilities for pupils to get changed and raises concerns about the owners being put on parents to contact head teachers to resolve that issue, rather than the relevant authorities ensuring that the appropriate changing facilities or alternative options are provided. Do members have any comments? Thank you, convener. I wonder if we can write to a petitioner so that she can share her views of the Scottish Government's consultation on school uniforms, which is open to our 14th of October. There is certainly an opportunity to do that. The committee could write to the commissioner for children and young people on their views to do with the petition, but Cosla is probably the one that is most important to us if we could write to Cosla and ask for information on guidance and best practice in schools on the issue. I am content to do all that. We are content. Any other thoughts? I wonder whether we might, in seeking advice from them, try to establish whether they are aware of any widespread public concern on the issue. What I am not clear about is how widely that might be an issue of concern. Thank our petition for that. We will keep the petition open and revert when we have that information. Petition number 1940, to permit nest protection as a valid system under new fire and smoke alarm law. That has been lodged by Campbell Wilde calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permit nest protection as a valid system under the new fire and smoke alarm law coming into force in February 2022, which came into force presumably in February 2022. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states its view that allowing the system would be inappropriate because it does not meet the necessary British standard that is required under the interlinked fire alarms legislation. The Scottish Government highlights its joint statement with COSLA, which confirms that there are no penalties for non-compliance. We have also received a submission from an individual Michael Clark, who has indicated his support for the petition. He shares his positive experience using nest protect system and notes its additional features that provide further safety benefits. Do members have any comments or suggestions? Are any of us familiar with nest protection? Mr Torrance. If I could be there, considering that it does not meet British standards, which I think is really, really important, and that there are no penalties for the heat alarm systems, local authorities are going to be quite lenient in taking a measured approach to installations of them, I think that when the petition can be closed under rule 15.7 of orders. I would concur that if it does not meet the British standards, it would be very difficult for us to support any apparatus that does not come up to the qualified levels of expertise and efficiency in this very difficult situation when you are dealing with a smoke alarm situation. It has to have and must have the proper qualifications and meet the right standards, or it could jeopardise individuals. I do not see anything in the briefing that we have received that I think would change the fact that it is not approved. One consideration would have been to see the system in practice, but it is not going to change the fact that it is not standard approved. I do not really see that that allows us to take the thing any further forward, so I am inclined to agree that in view of the evidence that we have received, we would have to close the petition. Are we content with that? Petition number 1941, to stop the destruction of headstones within community cemetry, is lodged by Councillor Andrew Stewart Wood. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within our cemetry. The spice beefing that we have received for the petition explains that local authorities have general duties to address hazards in burial grounds, but the maintenance of headstones in other memorials is the responsibility of the owners of the burial grounds. The Scottish Government indicates that it is unable to intervene in operational matters affecting burial grounds because that is the responsibility of the relevant burial authority. The response highlights the work of the burial regulations working group and plans to prepare a statutory code of practice and associated guidance for burial authorities. I have certainly had expressions of interest and concern in relation to the petition to colleagues of any views. I think that there is no question that this has been raised by a number of individuals and that as far as local authorities are concerned it would be the case that this seems to be now practising in some areas. I appreciate that individuals may no longer be able to maintain or individuals may no longer be part of the process to look after a headstone because they have the family are no longer there or they are individuals of the cease-tent. However, that becomes an issue that we need to get some clarity. I think that COSLA is one of the first places that we would want to go to ask whether local authorities routinely lay owners and how they liaise with them because I think that that is very important to find out when it comes to maintenance. I appreciate that it is health and safety that the council is looking at, but at the same time it can have a massive impact on a family if they turn up to see that that is the situation. I have certainly had individuals who have written to me on this specific topic and I have liaised with it. However, I think that there are also opportunities to talk and write to the burrow regulations working group because they have a role to play in this and the need for them to value the national support and monitoring in relations to local authorities. Whether a funded maintenance and repair policy will be considered on a timescale and how we would plan for that timescale is also quite important to ensure that we do that. Those would be some of the recommendations that I would put forward. I agree totally with my colleague, but I can commit right to the chair of the burial regression working group requesting that the group engages with the petitioner. I think that I would quite like to hear from the petitioner. I would like to take forward those actions but I think that I would quite welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with the petitioner when we have received those responses back in order to hear what the petitioner's view is. It was an elected councillor so it could be quite interesting. I do not know—I might invite the clerks to consider if there is anybody else that might be useful just to speak with in the light of the responses that we receive because I think that that would be interesting. I have had representations and I do not know whether they are hearsay or not. In some cases, a general decision has been taken just to go in and flatten a lot of headstones whether they are at risk or not as a pre-emptive measure without reference and that a lot of relatives have been quite distressed to find that this action has been taken. It seems to me to be in the drafting up of guidelines something of an open environment at the moment where there is an opportunity to discuss some of the issues raised here into which I think that we might make a useful contribution. Petition number 1944 to enforce the engine idling ban. The next petition has been lodged by Alan Ross and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enforce the engine idling ban and take action to introduce instant £80 fines for offences, reclassify idling as a high traffic offence, to legally oblige local authorities to enforce the engine idling ban, to create contact points for public reporting, to increase anti-idling signage in public places. The spice briefing explains that statistics on engine idling enforcement action are not routinely published but that the FOI requests indicate that fixed penalty notices are rarely ever issued. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the current approach to enforcement is fit for purpose and is proportionate. With penalties viewed primarily as a deterrent, the response states that local authorities undertake educational and awareness raising campaigns to prevent idling and traffic enforcement in areas of known concern. The petitioner believes that this response is inadequate and does not address the petition's proposals or reflect the gravity of the issue. He points to the rise in vehicles on the roads since the act was updated in 2003 and the health risks associated with inhaling car fumes. He raises issues with enforcement and stresses the climate impacts. I would note that since 2003 a lot of cars automatically cut now as my experience to prevent engine idling. The manufacturers have in more recently produced vehicles incorporated into the mechanics of the vehicle an engine idling cut-out facility. Colleagues, do we have any views on this new petition or what we might next do, Mr Torrance? I wonder if the committee could keep the petition open just now and give us a chance to write to COSLA, the RAC Foundation and Professor Adrian Davis in April university seeking our views on the action called for in the petition. Are we content to do that? We are. We will write as suggested by Mr Torrance and keep the petition open and then consider it afresh when we hear from those bodies. That now concludes the public section of our meeting this morning. We next meet on 26 October and we will now move into private session to consider agenda item 4. I suspend the petition and members might wish to get a cup of tea or something in the meantime. Thank you.