 Good morning, and welcome to the 11th meeting of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Before we move to the first item on the agenda this morning, we've received apologies from our colleague Fergus Ewing. Since this is the first meeting of the committee since the loss of their mother, we, of course, as a committee, extend our condolences both to Fergus Ewing and to his sister Annabelle Ewing. We've received apologies this morning from Foisal Choudry, and I'm delighted to say that we have back with us our former colleague Paul Sweeney, who is here in a reserve capacity this morning. We are also joined in the gallery in due course by, first of all, our former colleague Tess White, who will be here a little later on, and a galaxy of our regulars, both Jackie Baillie and Monica Lennon. Welcome to both of you and Paul. I have to say sadly, party leaders really are the bane of committee conveners' lives because they're forever removing our colleagues from the committee. This is our last meeting with Alexander Stewart, so I would like to put on record our thanks to Alexander for all his work particularly in relation to the committee inquiry that we've just done into deliberative democracy. I have assurances that he will be available to participate when we bring this report to the chamber in the autumn. Thank you, Alexander, for all that you've done in the committee as well. That brings us to agenda item 1, which is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is petition number 1812, Protect Scotland's remaining ancient native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors. This was brought by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us. It urges the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading calls on us, in fact, to encourage the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation, giving Scotland's remaining fragments of ancient native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection. You can tell that it's not been around with us for a while because before COP26 being held in Glasgow in November 2021, that was the petition's original aim, but the issue remains one of concern and indicates, as I said a moment ago, how long it's been in progress. As I said as well, we are welcoming Jackie Baillie, who has been following our deliberation of this petition at its various stages. Last of which was on 9 November 2022, when we agreed that we were going to pull together a summary of the evidence that we have heard and send that to the Net Zero Energy and Transport Committee and Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. We then subsequently considered a draft letter to the Minister for the Environment and Land Reform at our meeting on 7 December, at which we also agreed to hold off writing to the two subject committees until a response from the minister had been received because the letter to the minister effectively was the summation of the issues that we wanted to take forward. That has taken some time, but we have now received a response from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, which has been included in the meeting papers for today. The cabinet secretary notes that there are already a number of measures in place to protect ancient woodlands, which include provisions contained in the fourth national planning framework, NPF4, and the control of woodland removal policy. The cabinet secretary goes on to restate the commitment to restore Scotland's Atlantic rainforest and on-going work in collaboration with NatureScot and Scottish Forestry to determine the best approach to establishing a new national register of ancient woodlands. In response to our suggestion of an additional legislative protection, the cabinet secretary says that the forthcoming natural environment bill would be the route for safeguarding and managing ancient woodland within protected areas. We have also received a further submission from the petitioners and the light of everything else that we have received, which reflects on their meeting with officials from Scottish Forestry. In particular, it highlights the impact of invasive non-native species in our woodlands, which we as a committee suffer ourselves on our site visit. With Scottish Forestry reporting that financial constraints are acting against the restoration of ancient woodland, the petitioners would like the Scottish Government to urgently re-evaluate the policy for commercial forestry species selection as a way of limiting and, if possible, reversing the spread of invasive species such as Stika spruce. Before I ask the committee to comment where we might go, given that we have now received the response from the cabinet secretary, I wonder if Jackie Baill would like to contribute to our thinking. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your discussion about the petition. I also start by thanking the petitioners, Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, for their continued interest in the area. I recall asking the then minister, Mary McCallan, to perhaps go out and consider this herself. I understand that she has been too busy to do so. I welcome the fact that the committee has indeed had a visit. The petitioners' latest submission to the committee does, in fact, centre around their visit from Scottish Forestry officers on location in Argyll in April this year. It showed first-hand the destructive effects of non-native conifers on the ancient woodland. That visit revealed that, despite the site at Glenbrant of Forest being described as a rare gem, when native oakwood's clocha series of spectacular waterfalls, the gorge and the falls are now barely visible and the ancient oaks are all close to death. Our Scottish historic landscape that I know we all value has been overrun by non-native conifers. According to the petitioners, Scottish Forestry officers admitted that they do not know the scale of the non-native conifer wilding problem in Scotland and said that they would be quickly overwhelmed if members of the public decided to report it to them. There was a recent report undertaken by the University of Stirling, which I think is helpful. They looked at the highest altitude trees and they discovered that a colossal 56 per cent of all trees recorded at the highest altitude are in fact American Sitka spruce. That gives them an idea of the scale of the problem and that has only taken a few decades for that to happen. We are allowing, if I may be so bold as to say, the Government and the industry that are allowing conifers to self-seed out of plantations, creating new seed sources and that is further encouraging the takeover of our ancient woodlands. There seems to be a disconnect between the Scottish Government and what is in their letter and their sense of urgency on saving ancient woodlands and action to reverse its disappearance. I think that it would be extremely useful if the cabinet secretary could provide actual timescales for when the new national register of ancient woodlands mentioned in her submission is going to be undertaken when it will be completed. It would also be helpful if, through the committee, she could outline what plans the Scottish Government has to identify the scale of the non-native conifer wilding problem on ancient woodlands and what action they intend to take. We know from previous discussions that other countries such as New Zealand are working to remove non-native conifers where they have seeded in ancient woodlands and elsewhere. It would be good to know if the Scottish Government has any plans to remove those non-native invasive species from sites such as Glenbranta forest. The petition has also raised valid concerns about what it describes as an apparent lack of concern from the cabinet secretary about the fact that current regulatory powers are not protecting Scotland's woodland. In England, the Forestry Commission and Crown Prosecution Service pursued four successful prosecutions in 2022 alone. In October 2022, a defendant in Wales was convicted and fined £36,000 for illegal felling, but not one single prosecution has occurred in Scotland. The petitioners feel that there is no deterrent to the complete erasure of our natural historic identity if there are no prosecutions. We need to see not just guidance and warm words, but proper enforcement action. I would be enormously grateful if the committee would continue to press the Scottish Government on this important issue. I agree that, in many respects, it seems ironic that, as a nation, we pride ourselves at times on the fact that we have resisted physical invasion for 1,000 years. It would appear that our natural habitat is the subject of a successful invasion of foreign species, and there really is only, at times, a sense of a lip service acknowledgement of the fact and no concrete action. I thought the statistic that you gave of 56 per cent of the highest land being Sitka spruce is an example of that. Of course, we all saw it for ourselves. I know that we have received warm words, but I wonder if the committee feels at Jackie Baillie that there is still room for us to pursue those issues. David Torrance. Especially because of the background that I have in Ancient Woodlands, I would like to see us continue. I would like to write to the Cabinet Secretary to find out when it will be completed for Ancient Woodlands, but I would also like to write to the Scottish Government, if the committee is likewise to agree with me, to highlight the petitioner's latest submission and to seek an update on whoever expects a forthcoming natural environment bill to include further provision to protect Ancient Woodland. We agreed. I think that there were a couple of specific suggestions in Jackie Baillie's testimony that I thought led to suggestions. I think that the committee would be happy to embrace them as well. I do not know. That may all end up, given the investment that we have made in it, being a subject that we consider suitable for a debate in the chamber at some point. A love of Scotland can extend very much into the natural habitat of our country and the concern that I think that this committee has felt, which has been very much given substance by what we saw for ourselves. I think that the comment that Jackie Baillie made—I think that I heard you say that they would be overwhelmed if everybody who—the last thing that they are looking for is a sort of nature watch from the public here, because we are at the stage where this is becoming so prevalent, that it could be a battle lost. Before it can be a battle won, it has to be a battle properly engaged in, and we are maybe not at that point. Are we agreed to keep the petition open and to proceed on that basis? We are, thank you very much. That brings us to petition number 1926, Expand Universal Free School Meals for All Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools. Bonnie Collenan joins us again in relation to this petition, which has been lodged by Alison Dowling, calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils, last considered on 22 February, when, at that time, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. We have now, I am pleased to say, received a response from the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth, which states that the Scottish Government remains focused on working with delivery partners to progress the free school meal expansion programme. The Cabinet Secretary notes that the Government is continuing to work with COSLA and other key delivery partners on the next phase of expansion and goes on to say that she will update the committee on the anticipated time scales for the pilot in secondary schools once the Government's planning work has progressed further. Members may also have noted that in response to a question in the chamber on 18 May, the Cabinet Secretary said that she had not yet met with officials to discuss proposals for the pilot in secondary schools but was willing to engage with young people in the design of the pilot. Before I come to colleagues for comment, I invite Monica Lennon to contribute to our thinking. Thank you, convener, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to be here and grateful to the petitioner Alison Dowling for bringing this matter to Parliament. I think that response that you read out from the Cabinet Secretary was in response to my question in the chamber, of which I have asked many. I do not doubt the Scottish Government's commitment to the policy, and I commend the Scottish Government for the implementation of universal free-skill meals so far. In many respects, we have led within the UK and inspired other campaigners and probably prompted other Governments to follow in our footsteps, but I fear that we are no longer leading the way, which is why I wanted to come and speak to the petition today. When I visit schools in central Scotland in my region across Lanarkshire and Falkirk, I have the pleasure and privilege of speaking to young people and to teachers and to school staff and sometimes parents when they are within the school. Some of the things that I have heard have absolutely shocked me to the core and this probably will not be news to colleagues here, but it is important to get it on the record that when I am in schools, when I am speaking to teachers and their trade unions, they are giving me examples of hungry children eating pencils in the classroom, eating rubbers, going home and not having any food in their bellies until the next day. We talk a lot in this place about closing the poverty-related attainment gap. How can you learn and thrive when you are hungry and you are not getting the nutrition and nourishment that you need? I feel that there is a moral imperative to not just continue with this policy but to do so as a matter of urgency. I am sitting here with lots of papers and dates of questions and updates. Yes, there has been a change in ministers and the cabinet secretary, General Ruth, who has a background in teaching. She understands the issues, but I am afraid that I have to tell you that there has been no progress. In fact, we are about to go backwards. I have been asking the Scottish Government since September of last year when, in programme for government, they said that we are going to pilot this in secondary schools as well as progressing at pace in primary. I have been asking many times, journalists, where are the pilot schemes? Which schools are you speaking to? Which local authorities have had to use freedom of information? Just in the past few weeks, I have had all the responses back from every council, 32 local authorities, and I have been asking them, have any of your schools had any contact? Not one. We keep hearing that work is happening between Government, COSLA and partners, and discussions are happening. It is not happening. This week, on Monday morning, I learned that the Government has approached COSLA and said that, due to budget pressures and other factors, we will not be able to deliver this. COSLA is now saying in a report that I should not have seen, but it is telling its members that this could mean full roll-out of universal school meals beyond this parliamentary term. I am here to tell you that children are eating pencils and rubbers, and the Government is willing to kick this down the road until the end of this parliamentary term or beyond. That is not acceptable by any measure. The good work that has been done up to primary 5 is because there has been that political will to make it happen. I know that I will not have much more of your time, but what I want to say is that, in May, I did hold a major parliamentary event here in Parliament with the Scottish trade union congress, women's committee, who has been leading this food for thought campaign. There were more than 100 people there, and it was mostly children and young people, because I believe that it is their voices that we need to hear from. They were very clear on what needs to happen, which is why I asked Jenny Gilruth about that co-production, not because it is a buzzword to use. If we bring children and young people into the decision-making process, they will tell us the solutions. Some of the issues that are raised by Government are that some schools are too small, and the canteen is not big enough, and we could not have everyone in the one lunch sitting. That is fine. Let us find some work-arounds. Let us have lunch time over two sittings. Can we work with other partners, including business? Young people are learning about food waste. Local food production is supposed to be a good food nation. Surely, we can find a way. If the Parliament had approved my amendments to the good food nation bill, we would have locked that policy in. I want to pay tribute to colleagues in Parliament from my own party Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Liberal Democrats, for backing those amendments. I know that SNP and green colleagues believe in the policy, too, but we have to deliver. I will finish with the words of a young person, because I think that that is appropriate. Colleagues will be aware that today, a landmark report by the Trussell Trust in Scotland has been published that one in six of our citizens are going hungry. One in six. There is not a typical person, but we know that some groups are affected more than others. Gemma is a young person from the charity Passion for Fusion, and she was in the Parliament in May at the Food for Thought event, and she said in a quote, "...studies have shown that eating together with friends, peers and family promotes good eating habits, happiness and the ability to converse." Gemma is right. We have to take the stigma away from free school meal provision and providing universal free school meals for all students is about more than just removing the costs and the worry of school meal debt, which is accruing and building up every day. It is about removing that divide between students from different backgrounds and building a sense of community. That is why I support the petition. I thank the committee for your on-going work, and I hope that collectively as a Parliament we can find some solutions, because children cannot wait until the end of this parliamentary term. They can barely wait until the end of the day, so I really do recommend the petition to the committee. Thank you very much, Monica Lennon, for that passion text position of the objectives of Alison Dowling's petition. Colleagues, what might our next thoughts and step be? Alexander Stewart? Thank you, convener, and I thank Monica Lennon once again for her presentation this morning, which outlined exactly where we are. I do think that there are still questions that need to be asked as to where we go with this, because there was an intention by a Government, and I believe that that intention is still there, but if it is now dragging behind and it is not progressing, then I think that it is important that we continue to ask. I would suggest, convener, that we are right to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills again, seeking clarity on the Scottish Government's pilot to relate the universal free school meals in secondary schools, including the timescale for developing the carrying out of the pilot, and what engagement has taken place with young people in the design of that pilot, because I think that that in itself is very useful. Monica Lennon has eloquently given us the information that is required, so I do think that there is much more to do on this, and before we get to the resolution of finding that it is progressing or it is not, and there seems to be at the moment a log jam, so let's try and see if we can un-moo maneuver around that to try and see where we can take it. Do we have any other suggestions? Paul Sweeney. Thank you, convener. I agree with the college recommendations so far, and I would add that in practice the feasibility of this roll-out would depend largely on local authorities leading the logistics, so it might be useful to get an understanding from COSLA. On how the readiness of the school of state to adapt to such a change should be introduced, and what sort of capital changes might be required, and what existing contracts might need to be changed, and also to understand the opportunity for things like developing community food networks using the school as the anchor for a community food network and building that resilience around the Good Food Nation concept that was recently passed into statute by this Parliament. I think that there are huge opportunities rather than simply seeing it as a big potential liability, so I think that trying to socialise those ideas with COSLA and the local authorities would be helpful at this stage, potentially, if the committee views that as its potential roll-out. I mean, I know that the cabinet secretary notes herself that the Government is continuing to work with COSLA, so I don't think that it would be unreasonable for us to get a view from COSLA as to what they think that engagement is producing, and to ask whether, in fact, they have highlighted some of the issues that Paul Sweeney has just identified, and if they have had any response or whether there are indeed other issues that they feel might arise in consequence. Are we content on the basis that we are content? Thank you very much. That brings us to petition number 1937, to give children the respect that they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for PE lodged by Gillian Lamara calling 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 do have PE. We last considered this on the March, and at that time agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration has been given to reviewing and updating the learning estate strategy, because we kind of felt that a lot of this issue depended upon the actual estate itself. We've now received a response from the cabinet secretary for education skills, stating that the Scottish Government does not have any plans to update the learning estate strategy, but, along with Scottish Futures Trust, it remains committed to working closely with local authorities in relation to its own individual school estate. Do members of any comments or suggestions in the light of that? David Torrance. Thank you, convener. I would like to thank the petitioner for bringing this petition forward, but I don't think that the committee could take it any further. I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not make policy decisions on school clothing related matters at a national level. The Scottish Government does not currently have any plans to update the learning estate strategy, and COSLA has previously indicated that local government considers the design and delivery of policy around wearing of PE kit and options for changing sites most appropriately at school level. Do we have any other suggestions to committee in the absence of which are we content with the proposal from Mr Torrance? We are, so, again, I thank the petitioner as well, but I think that we have exhausted our ability to take forward the issues within the petition. However, it is always open to the petitioner in due course to come back if it does not appear that the aims of the petition, as the Scottish Government, are trying to progress them through the conversations that they are having with individual local authorities, produce results. Petition number 1947 to address Scotland's culture of youth violence, lodged by Alex O'Kane, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. Last considered on the 22 of October, when we agreed to engage with communities and families that have been directly affected by the issues raised in the petition, the committee also agreed to write to the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. The Scottish Violence Reduction Unit's written submission states that primary prevention of violence is the most effective and cost-efficient form of prevention. It highlights work by YouthLink Scotland, which found that social return on investment in youth services to be at least three to one, with a note that this work is a fundamental part of any form of violence pretension work. It points to a survey of young people in England and Wales, which suggested that one in seven young people had experienced some form of violence, including threats, bullying and low-level violence. Members will be aware that, last month, members of the committee met an Edinburgh-based youth group 6VT and also visited Milton in Glasgow to meet the petitioner and to meet families with direct experience of the issues raised in the petition. We were joined on that occasion by our parliamentary colleague Bob Doris. I would like to thank once again all those who came to speak to us. It was one of the most engaging, courageous and both moving and disturbing exchanges that those of us present have had, as members of the public, with their young people who had been the victims of violence, put their faith in the hands of the committee with the visceral description of the experiences that they had endured. I really want to thank again all those who were prepared to do that. Obviously and clearly uncovered a number of issues. Coincidentally, there was a debate in the chamber the same week and I was able to make some general reference to the experience that we had heard on our visit. I do think that this is an issue where we are on our bound, given that I felt the faith that had been placed in our hands to take further action. Alexander Stewart, you were also with me on the visit. I think that you have identified that it was very informative and that the courage and the information that we received from those individuals and their families was very harrowing because they were, without question, traumatised and victimised by the whole process. There was certainly a level of support that they gave one another and I think that in itself both those locations we saw the community working to help and the support mechanisms that were there, but I do not think that there were the support mechanisms within the organisations outside that were as good. That was a concern and the individuals who were victims also were under the impression that they were not necessarily being totally supported. The perpetrators were the ones who were able to wander around and do things out back in the community and that was quite disturbing to hear that the individuals were now feeling a little bit housebound or unable to do in go places because of that. I think that there is a real concern here. We also heard about the social media side of things that creates that trauma once again and just exacerbates the situation for the young individuals who had been traumatised initially during the situation. That was then being repeated as it was sent out across the web and individuals were having to revisit that and deal with the trauma that was going forward. I certainly, like others who visited, learned a lot from the process and, as I said, the courageousness of the families and the young individuals themselves need to be commended here. I think that there is work that still needs to be done, convener, on this because there is no question that there seems to be gaps. The petitioner himself is very strong about what he would like to see to happen on their behalf. I think that we have capacity to try and look at some of that as a committee going forward because the petition does cross over on to the police and education and violence and all of that. There are areas within the Scottish Government that need to realise and organisations such as the Youth Parliament and others that have a say in where we are with all of that. I would certainly think that there is a lot more that can be done. One of the things that you touch on there, which I really find particularly chilling, was the frankly gratuitous and brutal violence by appointment. Those were young people as young as 12 who were playing on the vulnerable of their own peer group and soliciting their attendance at a site where they had set up others to film the violence that they then perpetrated, leaving two of the people we met unconscious. Only for the police, as we understood it, to feel powerless because of the current expectation that people under a certain age, 25, will not be pursued, which then removed even any sense of anonymity from the people filming who thrived on the notoriety that they were gaining from their actions. The whole thing was thoroughly dispiriting. At the point that we were there, we thought that meeting members of the Scottish Youth Parliament would be a way forward, but I understand that they were participating in a round table in another committee. Although that was not the focus of that committee's inquiry, it seemed to give the impression that it is not an issue that the youth parliament itself has been pursuing or has been collecting information on. Nonetheless, I think that at some stage we might want, since that is an opportunity open to us to meet with a representative body of people who encompass all of Scotland and not necessarily just the areas that we have seen. However, I wonder if one of the things that we want to do is to take further evidence from some of the organisations that might be able to influence and the public bodies that might be able to influence the process going forward. That would involve researchers, certainly Police Scotland, the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and No Knives Better Lives to give evidence of future committee, and maybe from other youth representatives as well. However, I wonder if there are any other suggestions from committee members. Mr Sweeney? I have some familiarity with the petition and obviously the Milton community. I agree with all the actions and the sentiments that are expressed today. I would further suggest that, if there are youth organisations in Glasgow that have demonstrated a positive track record in making benefits communities, I can think of St Paul's Youth Forum in Black Hill, for example, which has achieved significant improvements in youth violent behaviour in that community. Whether that model might be something that we can learn and scale in communities where there is a persistent issue with gratuitous youth violence and this particular issue about a lack of enforcement or engagement in the issue by Police is a really deep concern because it only emboldens the action that you described, which is completely demoralising for a community that feels already quite alienated. That is very helpful because I think that we were minded to try to hear more from some young people, and so at that group, if they were willing to participate, would be of value. I would also like to thank the members of the youth group in Edinburgh 6VT that we saw, because that really was in a location that is really quite central to Edinburgh, just off grass market, which I had no idea was actually there until we visited it. On the grounds, as I recall, of the site of Scotland's first suffragette whose home that was, but there was definitely a safe haven in which young people were growing in confidence and able to draw on support, and I thought that it was maturing very quickly as they worked together to combat and tackle the issues within that community, so I certainly commend them as well. If we could proceed on the basis that we were going to hope to have evidence from various organisations that are relevant to the experience that we have had. We may come back to the Scottish Youth Parliament, but it may well be that the suggestion from Mr Sweeney of a group that could perhaps participate in evidence would be useful. The committee would be content to allow to delegate to me just a discussion with the clerks as to whether we may make that try and have a round table discussion, or whether it is a formal evidence discussion, and we can maybe just consider the merits of that and proceed accordingly. Does that meet with the committee's approval? Absolutely. I know that you visited Milton to discuss this first hand, and there is also an issue with how the schools perhaps engage with this. I don't know whether it is engaging with the relevant schools that have catchment areas in the community, it might be useful to get an understanding of whether they detect this problem and whether they have any measures in place to try to address it, or whether they feel also similarly powerless to deal with it. I should qualify, although we were meeting in Milton, some of the people that we met travelled to Milton from as far as Cooper and Fife in order to participate in the discussion. Sadly, there was a lower local group that I think we had hoped to be able to meet on the day, which, for unforeseen circumstances, we were not able to do. That is one of the things that I think we might reflect, if the committee are happy for me to reflect on with the clerks, as to who might be the most representative body of people that we could bring round the table. Is there a similar issue with teachers experiencing similar issues? It might be useful to understand as well. Yes, and in fact that came out of the discussion that some teachers were a newer, some just still couldn't cope with knowing what best to do. That brings us to petition number 1956 to increase the provision of wheelchair-accessible homes, lodged by Louise McGee and calling on the Scottish Parliament charge of Scottish Government to review the existing wheelchair-accessible housing target guidance and to explore options for increasing the availability of wheelchair-accessible housing in Scotland. Last, considered on 23 November, at which time we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, from which we have now received responses, those members will have noted that COSLA asked the Association of Local Authority chief housing officers, not even as marvellous anachron, and we'll just stick with that, to provide a response on its behalf. In its response, the Scottish Government confirmed that it is currently undertaking a review of the adoption system, which it expects to have completed by the spring of 2024. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations noted that the most recent Government statistics for the total number of wheelchair-accessible homes developed for social rent was not 0.3 per cent for the year 2021. The SFHA also highlighted the progress on a review of adaptations, new-building standards and plans for a new accessible home standard has been slow. The Association of Local Authority chief housing officers agreed with the petitioner that the Scottish Government should review the existing wheelchair-accessible housing target guidance. It also provides information on the wheelchair-accessible homes targets set by various local authorities and goes on to highlight that there is currently no definition of a wheelchair-accessible home, a measure that it says is needed in Scotland. I wonder in the light of the representations that we sought and have now received, if comments or suggestions from the committee. Alexander Stewart is a lot more work to be done on this in reality. It is quite evident that it is very stark the number of accessibility and adapted properties that are out there in the market for individuals who have wheelchair and mobility issues. We should write to the Scottish Government to highlight the stakeholder submissions that we have received and to review the wheelchair-accessibility housing target guidance, because I think that that is important, whether it can consider national planning of elections on house buildings and private developments for a minimum population of wheelchair-accessible homes and whether it accepts the case for the national definition on a wheelchair-accessible home. Those are all areas that we can still ask and look into to attempt to try and unravel this, because, as I say, there is, once again, a massive gap in the market, and those individuals are certainly not being catered for as they maybe should be by the housing developments and organisations that are looking after housing processes. Mr Stewart, Mr Sweeney. I agree with this. There are some major structural issues here. Most notably in Glasgow, there is no common housing register across all the registered social landlords in the city, so actually having visibility of adapted housing is challenging, and it often involves making numerous duplicate applications to various housing associations. That is a massive public policy failing since the stock transfer in Glasgow, and it has never been addressed in 20-odd years, so that is one aggravating factor. I would also highlight a recent engagement that I have had with hospices in Scotland, where they highlight that there was a pretty harrowing exhibition at Glasgow University recently, called Dying in the Margins, and there were some case studies presented at that exhibition. I think that it is due to come to the Parliament later this year of people who could have lived out their final days at home, but because of the accessibility issues and lack of willingness of housing associations and council housing providers to make adaptations to housing, they ended up in hospital or in hospices, and often in inappropriate settings where they did not want to spend their final days. I felt that that was pretty shocking. Often there was a pretty mercenary calculation made that if they are only going to be alive for another few months, what is the point of paying the money to make adaptations? That is an aspect of this issue that perhaps merits further consideration around how palliative care is managed in the hospital-of-home concept. That introduces huge costs to the NHS around delayed discharge and people who are terminally ill being in acute hospital wards, but it is probably not an appropriate and highly medicalised environment. There are all sorts of aspects here that introduce great costs that are not being dealt with, and there is a bit of a system failure here about ensuring that this is efficiently and cheerfully carried out where needed. I think that that is a very good point. I certainly have direct constituency experience of constituents who were diagnosed at an end-of-life state who had hoped to stay at home and who were given a date for the adaptations, which was after, by some time, the expected life that they still had been given to understand lay ahead of them. So that was doubly cruel. They were actually told that, yes, it could be done, but not until you are no longer here, which in many ways was cruel and defeated the purpose completely. I think that that is an issue. Mr Stewart has made specific suggestions, but that is also an issue of delivery and whether there are underlying calculations and a proper appreciation of the overwhelming need that there is to support somebody at that particular moment, which is when they need it most. How might we pursue that further? Are there any suggestions, Mr Sweeney, as to how we might or to whom we might try and draw a response on that? There are a number of hospices involved with the production of that exhibition, for example, and it might be useful in the first instance to solicit their opinion about what policy changes need to be happening and perhaps that opens up a pathway to other stakeholders that are engaged in that policy area. Mary Curie would be an obvious first stop to discuss it with, because there has certainly been an anchor organisation in the production of that exhibition and I have highlighted to me this critical issue in the community. The exhibition was called Dying in the Margins. Yes, it was at Glasgow University, but I believe that it is due to be displayed at the Parliament. We will see if we can track that down, but I think that that would be a helpful group as well. Are we agreed? We are. That brings us to position number 1964, to create an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman lodged by Accountability Scotland, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create that independent review, to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, to assess the quality of its work and decisions, to and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose. Last considered by us on the 7 December last, when we agreed to write to the SPSO, the Scottish Government, and to the Scottish Parliament corporate body, and I should of course commit to the record that I am a member of the Scottish Parliament corporate body. The SPCB's response details the financial and governance accountability structures which exist between the SPSB and the SPSO, noting that there have been no adverse external audit reports to date. The corporate body also states that, while committees have a role, it would expect that any committee scrutiny work focuses on how the SPSO is carrying out its functions at a high level and should not aim to review direct or controlled specific decisions or actions which are properly matters for the SPSO. The SPSB acknowledges that there may be some scope for a review by the Scottish Government on how well the legislation is working and any areas that could be improved, but given the independent role of the SPSO and the assurances that it has that the office is working well, it does not consider that there is a need to undertake an independent review into the quality of the work or the decisions taken by the SPSO or to investigate complaints received. The SPSO's response to the committee details its approach to decision making, highlighting the option for complainants to request a review of the decision made by the SPSO. The Scottish Government's written submission states its view that an independent review on the term suggested by the petition is not required and that it, in fact, does not have the available resources required to undertake such a review. The petitioner has responded to the written submissions focusing on the question of whether an independent review would interfere with the SPSO's independence. The petitioner argues that an independent investigation of the SPSO would strengthen it because the nature of truly independent opinion would be outwith any influence of the ombudsman, the Parliament and Scottish ministers. The petitioner claims that the SPSO is using its discretion to deny the majority of complainants a fair and impartial investigation. It states that, and I quote, there is only one way to determine if the SPSO is protecting our human rights as it claims it is and that is an independent review of individual cases. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Thank you, convener. I wonder if we could write to the Scottish Independent Advocate Agency, Citizens Advice Scotland, Patient Advice and Support Service Scotland and Shatter Scotland seeking their views on the action called for in the petition if a committee has agreed. Is the committee agreed? The committee has agreed. Thank you. We moved to petition number 1978 to allow raw milk to be sold in Scotland. This has been lodged by Christina Orozig S. Belligas. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow raw drinking milk to be sold in Scotland, bringing it in line with England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to allow farmers the opportunity to sell unpasteurised drinking milk. This was last considered on the 18th of January, when we agreed to write to the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland, the National Farmers Union Scotland and Dairy UK. We wrote to all those organisations, partly in the recommendation of Mr Sweeney, who was a member of the committee at that time, and Mr Ewing, because we wanted to understand why there was, in fact, a difference in policy. We have now received responses from those organisations, with Dairy UK agreeing with Food Standards Scotland's view that raw drinking milk has, in the past, posed a significant risk to the public. Dairy UK also believes that compulsory pasteurisation has helped to protect consumers in Scotland and should continue to be in place. That view was also shared by NFU Scotland, which believes that the risks of selling raw milk significantly outweigh the benefits. Food Standards Scotland provides information on the decision taken in 2006 to retain the ban on the sale of raw cow's milk and extend it to other species, which was based on widespread support from industry enforcers and public health bodies. Food Standards Scotland also highlights that, while raw drinking milk is available in other UK nations, bans and restrictions on the sale of those products are in place in several EU nations, as well as in several states in the United States of America. The Food Standards Agency has provided information on the restrictions that apply to the sale of raw cow's milk in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, while also sharing details of the policy review conducted in 2018, which looked at the current controls and made recommendations for enhanced controls. That led to the industry guidance that was published in 2020, which reinforces the advice that raw drinking milk may contain harmful bacteria. The Food Standards Agency also notes that it has regular productive meetings with the Raw Milk Producers Association. The committee, additionally, has also received a submission from the petitioner, which suggests that the information provided by Food Standards Scotland and others may not be representing a complete picture of the level of risk posed by unpasturised milk products. The petitioner highlights information from a senior researcher at the University of Utrecht, which argues that inappropriate evidence has been used to affirm that raw milk is a high-risk food. At the time, we very much sought those views without an expectation that there was going to be a likely change in policy. If we had hoped to understand why there was a policy different to the rest of the UK, I do not think that any of the responses that we have received actually do identify that, but they are all really unequivocal in their determination that we have the right policy in place and that it should remain in place. I think that that is the one to which the Government is responding. I should also say and seek the committee's guidance that under our new policy, we have received an unsolicited additional submission and we have to determine whether, by exception, to accept it. I would like to thank the submissioner for that submission, but I do not know that it does add materially to the evidence that we have been considering, so I am inclined to suggest that we do not accept the additional submission on this occasion. Mr Torrance, you looked like you were ready to offer a comment. Thank you, convener. I wonder whether, with the submissions from Food Standards Scotland, Dairy UK and the National Farmers Union, we can close the petition under rule 15.7 of stand-in orders. I do feel that we are pushing a rock up a hill in the answers that we have received. Is there any view that we might pursue the matter further? I think that we have to thank the petitioner and say that, unfortunately, the representative bodies that advise the Government and from whom the decisions will subsequently emanate is not advocating a change, and therefore I feel that we have to close the petition on that basis. Petition number 1983 improved the transparency accountability of Scottish legal courts, lodged by Daniel Osula, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system. To do that by ensuring that clear information is provided to members of public about how their case will be considered and information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff. We considered that last on 8 March, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to ask what steps it takes to ensure that procedural rules and practices of the courts and their complaints procedures are transparent and accessible to members of the public. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has provided a submission that notes that, while every court case involves different parties, facts and circumstances, information on the common procedures and rules used in a broad range of cases is made available. That includes an overview of the SCTS website of the most commonly used court processes, with SCTS staff available to provide procedural advice to people engaged in court or tribunal actions. However, it is noted that staff must remain impartial in relation to the merits of each case and are unable to provide legal advice. The response also provides information on the SCTS Complaints Procedure, which is based on the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman's model complaints handling procedure. SCTS highlights that, as part of the steps taken to achieve customer service, excellence accreditations, details including what services users should expect when accessing the courts and tribunals services are displayed in its website and in SCTS locations. In the light of the responses that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that we have had quite an extensive response back. Under the current situation, I think that we would close this petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, because the Scottish Government considers both matters raised in the petition as operational matters, and that in itself creates some issues. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service provides an overview of the most commonly used court procedures and rules within their website, and staff are providing assistance of people engaging in such actions. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has adopted the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman's model on complaint handling procedure, and that provides general information on the procedures on the website. In reality, we have a number of areas that are already being done by the court service to try and manage that situation. I do not believe that there is any further action that we can take with reference to this petition at this time. Again, for the reasons that Mr Stewart has just outlined, we thank the petitioner, but we will move to close the petition. Petition number 1992 to dual the A9 in improved road safety lodged by Laura Hansler calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025 and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A4. Members will recall that we considered the petition at our previous meeting, the last meeting on 14 June. At that meeting, we heard from the petitioner herself, Laura Hansler, from Graham Barn, the chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland, and from officials from Transport Scotland. During those two evidence panels, we heard how dualling the road and installing a central reservation can dramatically reduce the likelihood of head-on collisions on the A9, and we are provided with details of the road safety measures that are put in place to help to reduce road traffic collisions and the resulting road closures on that route. We explored issues around the procurement process, including the impact existing processes have had on the level of risk that is passed to contractors and timescales for the completion of the project. We also discussed the petition's call for a national memorial for those who have lost their lives on the A9 and, significantly, identified that the petitioner was not calling for this to be on the A9 itself, which Transport Scotland had felt would be vexatious, and we look forward. In fact, I think that they undertook to consider that further and to come back to us in writing and due course. At that meeting, we agreed to reflect in the evidence, and we were joined at the committee meeting also by Edward Mountain, who is in the capacity as a reporter on behalf of the Net, Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Mr Mountain is not with us this morning, so do members have any thoughts or suggestions? David Torrance. I wonder if we could, as a committee, invite Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net, Zero and Just Transition to give evidence to the committee at the earliest opportunity after she or the Minister for Transport have provided a statement to the Parliament on the revised timetable for the duelling of the A9. The procurement side of it is in particular of interest, given the recent failure of the latest phase to achieve a successful procedure. It seems to me that having it broken down into phases is potentially an inefficient method of delivering this programme, and whether a continuous mobilisation for road construction is necessary. If it is about improving the route in terms of duelling, rather than constructing a new road, that is something that is compliant with our goals around climate change and so on, so it is about road safety on an existing route. However, how the Government delivers that programme is critical. There are other examples around the world. For example, I had the opportunity to go and visit India recently. It was on the world's highest metal road in the Himalayas. It is delivered by a state corporation called the Borders Roads Organisation, which mobilises a national mission to deliver strategic road networks in India. However, it is just another example of how they are delivering it as a continuous programme. They do not stop and procure phases that introduce huge stop-start inefficiencies. They know what their national road network is going to look like and they build it over a continuous period. I wonder whether we need to fundamentally look at the sanity of the current approach. I certainly know that railways have achieved significant efficiencies in having continuous rolling electrification. The teams do not stop between phases. They just run across the network, putting up the pylons and running the cables, so whether a similar approach cannot be done for the strategic road network and the trunk road network might be an interesting proposition. We touched on that a little bit in the discussions that we had last week, but it certainly would be an area that we would want to pursue with the cabinet secretary. I should note that Mr Torrance's suggestion that we invite the cabinet secretary would be different to our original suggestion, which was just to have the minister for transport, but nonetheless, we would do that after the statements but deliver to Parliament. Are there any other suggestions as well, Mr Stewart? I think that it would also be useful for us, convener, to write to Road Safety Scotland. I am Road Smart, RAC Foundation, the Road Safety Foundation and the Road Safety Charity Break, because all of them seek their views on how effective Transport Scotland's road safety improvement schemes and road safety campaigns are likely to be in reducing road casualties and whether measures might be put in place during the period before dualling work is completed. They all have a view and an opinion on all of this, and I think that it is useful for us to clarify that. I was very impressed by the presentations that we had previously from the petitioner and others who came to the meeting, convener, and that is a major issue and has received a huge amount of publicity and continues on a weekly basis nearly. There is much more that we can do on this committee to try and progress many of the petitioner's views and the community's opinions. I recall Mr Torrance during the evidence that we took that you were somewhat aghast at the idea that the road might just be closed for a period of time, because businesses have to survive. I wonder if we might want to also be considering trying to find evidence of organisations, local residents and businesses from whom we could actually take some evidence about, the timed scales, the prioritisation and the scheduling of this work, and about their views about the road safety work that has already been completed, and also from those communities about whether they would welcome the siting of a memorial at some place within the general area of the A9. Any other thoughts? Another thought that has occurred to me was also in my experience of visiting India was that they have extremely intensive road safety signage, which in some cases is quite witty. You might get ahead but do not lose your head. We found it quite amusing, but it certainly caught your attention. You could not go 100 metres without a sign that would indicate the risks of the road safety. It might be worth looking at other jurisdictions where they have had much more intensive signage of issues to do with road safety, because I do not think that there is that presence on the road to the same extent. It might be worth looking at a short-term measure, which could be to intensify the road safety signage on the road. We could add that to the list of organisations. Certainly, the India experience is obviously free of the pious and humourless guardians of social media that we have here, which I am sure would take a contrary view. I think that that would be the case. That is quite a long cycle of people that we might want to take evidence from, particularly the local businesses group. Are the committee content to delegate to me as convener just the responsibility of working with the clerks to identify who those local businesses and community individuals might be? Yes, we are. Thank you very much. That brings us to position number 1994 to review the trial process for sexual offence cases, lodged by Margaret Fagan calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases. We last considered that in 8 March, and at that time agreed to write to the faculty of advocates of the Law Society of Scotland, rape crisis, victim support Scotland and the Crown Office for Crocurator Fiscal Service. In that last letter, we sought information on the use of section 275 of the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1985, under which an accused person can apply to the court to lead evidence at trial that would otherwise be prohibited by section 274 of that act. We requested information on how many applications have been made under this provision and what proportion of them have been granted. I think that we did this in response to this having been advanced as a way in which these matters could be progressed already. The Crown and Procurator Fiscal Service response highlights that the provisions of sections 274 and 275 apply equally to the Crown and the defence. Indeed, it cites data that suggests that a substantial minority of applications are made by the Crown and that the majority of applications made by each side is granted. However, it should be noted that the response provides limited information, which is what we were trying to seek on the total number of applications, and it suggested that the committee might wish to seek more robust data from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. I think that we wanted to understand whether, if this was a route that was open, it was being properly accessed by those to whom it was apparently open to. We have also received responses from the faculty of advocates and victim support Scotland. The faculty's response raises concerns about the unpredictability and narrowing of the interpretation of section 275, which might have negative implications for the balance between the rights of complainers and the rights of the accused. Meanwhile, the response provided by Victim Support Scotland strongly contests the petitioner's view that law reforms have resulted in innocent people being wrongly convicted. It argues that that view does not align with the experiences of people affected by crime, nor does it reflect the conviction rates for sexual offences. In the context of our deliberations, it is important to point out that the issues raised by the petition are within the scope of the Victim's Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, which is currently at stage 1 of its parliamentary process. Do members of any comments or suggestions for action in the light of that? With the committee's agreement, we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the issues raised by the petition are within the scope of the Victim's Witnesses and Justice Reform Scotland Bill, which is currently being considered by a Parliament. In closing the petition, the committee might write to the petitioner and highlight an opportunity to submit her views as part of a call for views on the proposals in the bill. The calls for views is now open and closes on 8 September. Any other thoughts, suggestions, are we content? In the light of the fact that we now have a legislative proposition progressing through Parliament, we invite the petitioner to contribute to that. That brings us to item 2, which is consideration of new petitions. We move as always to the first petition saying to petitioners who might be tuning in to watch our proceedings for the first time that, ahead of our consideration of each new petition, we invite preliminary views from the Scottish Government and also from the Parliament's independent research service spice. The first of our petitions this morning is petition number 2017, to extend the period that specialist perinatal mental health support has made available beyond one year. It is lodged by Margaret Reid and I welcome Tess White to the committee. Back to the committee, as a former colleague of ours on this committee, for the consideration of the petition. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Scotland Act 2003 to extend maternal health support beyond one year, to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health boards, to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality network standard type 1 across all health boards, and to establish a mother and baby unit specifically in the north-east of Scotland. The spice briefing highlights a short inquiry undertaken by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2021. One of that committee's recommendations, recommendation 26, was that perinatal mental health services should not be restricted to the one-year period after the birth of the child. In its written submission, the Scottish Government says that it is considering the two-year review of mental health law undertaken by Lord Scott and that it expects to provide an initial response by this summer. Another recommendation of the health committee inquiry was that there was a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a new mother and baby unit serving the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government's written submission notes that it consulted on the best way to increase mother and baby unit capacity, and it will produce a report on its options appraisal in late autumn 2023. On meeting perinatal quality network standard type 1, the Scottish Government highlighted that it was invested in delivering new services in 11 health boards and expanding services in three. It also noted that the provision model recognised that PQN standards are less easily suited to areas of low population and more rural areas. Before asking colleagues how we might proceed, I am delighted to welcome Tess White and ask her if she would like to contribute to our thinking. I am here today to represent my constituent Maggie, who has worked tirelessly over the past year to advocate for her sister. It is an emotional petition and something that is of critical importance, and I pay tribute to these two extraordinary women. I hope that I can do justice to their voices. Maggie's sister was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis after she had a baby girl, and she was initially treated at the mother and baby unit in the central belt. That was a long way for her to travel from the north-east, but the treatment was successful and her condition improved. Unfortunately, she had a relapse, and Maggie's sister could not be admitted to an MBU because her baby was too old, and instead she was sectioned at Carsview in NHS Tayside. Maggie shared with me that her sister was frightened, confused and very, very scared. It was a truly traumatic experience, and she was also separated from her baby at this time. Many mothers with mental ill health—the 12-month mark—is a precipice where the nature of support changes or falls away, and it shouldn't be that way. As you have pointed out, the Scottish Government committed to looking at the parameters for perinatal mental health support two years ago, when the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommended that mental health support should not be restricted to the one-year period following the birth of a child. Since then, it feels like the Scottish Government has been dragging its feet. Recently, I went to the newly constructed maternal hospital in Aberdeen, and there are no plans for any mother and baby units there. It really needs to be looked at now, while that hospital is being constructed. Otherwise, we could just delay. There are no health authority closer to establishing a mother and baby unit, while research from the maternal mental health alliance shows that women outside the central belt are missing out on the highest standard of specialist perinatal mental health services. Perinatal mental health services are concentrated in NHS Lothian and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Finally, in closing, convener and committee, I thank the Citizens, Participation and Public Petitions Committee for the consideration of our petition, P2017. I urge the committee to use all the available levers to ensure that women such as Maggie's sister have the access to the treatment and support that they need. I am also pleased to have their needs to be urgencies in this, so that no other women like Maggie's experience experience the trauma that she has experienced. It has been instructive in the lifetime of this Parliament as we have successfully determined and sought to destigmatise issues of mental health that it has brought to light the inadequacies of some of the provisions and policies that exist in different fields of life. It does seem a very arbitrary thing to determine that, at the age of one, irrespective of the personal circumstance of the individual concerned, that the availability to be treated as they would have been up until the age of their child being one disappears. In this circumstance, the petitioner's sisters experience with very harrowing consequences. Any suggestions from the committee this morning? Alexander Stewart. I thank Tess White for her evidence this morning, which has highlighted some real areas of concern. I do think that there are areas that we could now further investigate and suggest, convener, that we should write to the Scottish Government requesting an update on how they are progressing recommendation 26, which Tess White spoke about, with reference to the health, social care and sports committee inquiry into mental health. I also ask whether it plans to amend section 24 when it comes to the mental health care and treatment Scotland act of 2003 and requests that it reports on the options appraisal that was extended to mothers and baby units capacity to be shared with the committee as they are publishing that, and we believe that that will come out in autumn 2023. All of those, I do think, would give us much more information about where we are and would help to progress the petition as it goes forward. I wonder if, in respect of that last recommendation in the light of the evidence submitted by Tess White, that, given that they have said that they are looking in relation to the north east, the north mother and baby unit, what thought or consideration has been given to the incorporation of that unit into a hospital that is currently under design and construction? It seems to afford an obvious opportunity, and it would be interesting to know whether that is being considered and whether it is not being considered and why it is not being considered, and whether, in not considering it, that would delay significantly the ability to realise the ambition, because I do not think that, given the lead time very often to identify suitable premises, if there is an opportunity to do that in the shorter term, then that is one that we should seize rather than simply have an aspiration that may take a very long time subsequently to fulfil. Are we agreed on that? Any other suggestions? Are we content? We are content. Thank you and thank you very much, Tess White. Petition number 2019 withdraw rates relief under the small business bonus scheme from holiday let accommodation is lodged by Alan McLeod, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to rent all owners of self-catering holiday accommodation from obtaining rates relief under the small business bonus scheme. The Scottish Government highlighted the reforms that the scheme were announced in the Scottish budget, aiming to make it the most generous scheme in the UK. Those reforms take effect from April 1 this year and provide 100 per cent relief for properties with a cumulative rateable value of up to £12,000, and the upper rateable value for individual properties to qualify relief was extended from £18,000 to £20,000. A consultation and council tax for second and empty homes has been published, it is seeking views on the current thresholds for properties to be classified as self-catering accommodation and liable for non-domestic rates. It invites comments on the non-domestic rate system for such properties. Do we have any comments from the committee, David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I wonder if the committee would agree if we could write to the Scottish Assessors, the Holiday Home Association, the Association of Scotland's self-caters seeking views on the actions called for repetition. I would also like the committee to write to the Scottish Government, asking whether it will consider adding self-catering holiday accommodation to a list of properties that are unable to qualify for a small business bond scheme, and whether it will consider any legislative change to the definition of self-catering holiday accommodation and the 70-day rule that could be addressed in the issues raised in the petition. I would be content if we did that on the basis that we were asking the Scottish Government whether it will consider adding the petitioner's call for self-catering. I would not want to give the impression that the committee had taken evidence such that we were advocating that as a course of action, but I am quite happy to qualify both those things as the petitioners call for these matters. Does that meet the agreement of the committee? It does. Petition number 2020, to provide fertility treatment to single women lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered on the NHS for the chance to have a family. The SPICE briefing explains that currently the eligibility criteria for NHS-funded fertility treatments in Scotland only apply to couples and do not mention the eligibility of single women. The eligibility criteria for NHS-funded fertility treatment in Scotland was last reviewed in 2016 based on the recommendations from the national infertility group. The focus of NHS-funded treatment is on treating infertility as a medical condition. In contrast, other parts of the UK, such as England, have allowed a single woman to receive NHS-funded fertility treatment if they are infertile. The Scottish Government's submission notes that access criteria for NHS IVF treatment in Scotland are determined at a national level and discussions regarding potential changes to these criteria are conducted by the national fertility group. The group consists of experts from various organisations and considers clinical research, evidence and data to make recommendations to Scottish ministers. The submission states that the Public Health Scotland is working on collaborative modelling techniques to assess the capacity implications of expanding access to NHS IVF treatment for single individuals. This topic will be discussed at a future meeting of the group. However, specific timescales for modelling and subsequent discussion are not yet available. In the light of that interesting information and comparator, do we have any suggestions from the committee? Mr Stewart? I think that there is more information that we could seek on all of this with reference to the treatment for single women. I would suggest that we write to Infertility Network Scotland, the British Fertility Society and Fertility Scotland to seek their views on action called within the petition. I also think that it gives us an opportunity to also write to the national fertility group seeking an update on the work to understand the capacity implications in any further expansion to the access of NHS IVF to single women, as you suggested, in your opening remarks. Do we have any other suggestions? Given the changes that we have been advised have been applied elsewhere in the UK, it would be interesting to understand not just the update on the capacity implications, but the national fertility group's view on why other areas have now expanded their capacity to offer this treatment. We, as yet, have not, and I would be very happy to understand their position in regard to that. Petition 2021, to ensure the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, applies to the sheep of St Kilda. This petition has been lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals contained in the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 and the associated guidance to ensure that the fferyl sheep on St Kilda are covered by this legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep. I apologise for quite a long introduction here, because the petitioners tell us that confusion over whether the sheep in St Kilda are considered as livestock or wild animals is contributing to the unnecessary suffering and death of large numbers of sheep or the sheep population on the archipelago. The SPICE briefing provides a helpful history of the sheep population in St Kilda, with research suggesting that fferyl sheep have been present on the island of Suey since the Bronze Age. It also notes that the archipelago was sold to the Marquess of Bute in 1931, who subsequently bequeathed it to the National Trust in 1957, which the petitioners suggest means the trust as ownership of the sheep and therefore responsibility for managing them. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states its position that the St Kilda sheep should be regarded in the same way as unowned and unmanaged populations of wild deer and other animals. The response also sets out the Government's view of how the definition of protected animals in the 2006 act applies to the St Kilda sheep, noting that the definition would only apply if and when sheep are gathered up for a particular procedure and that the sheep are otherwise considered to be living in a wild state. Guidance on the 2006 act allows for animals that live in the wild, but whose behaviour, lifecycle or physiology is altered by being under human control to be classed as protected animals. However, the Scottish Government's view is that the sheep of St Kilda are an exception to this general guidance on the basis that they have become adapted to live on St Kilda over many generations so are not dependent on humans in the same way that more recently escaped or released domesticated animals would be. In response to the Scottish Government's submission, the petitioners question whether the sheep are really free to move anywhere, quote, on such small islands, particularly as the population increases. The petitioners also highlight the research of historian Professor Andrew Flemming that shows that inhabitants of St Kilda combined fouling with sheep management, suggesting that the sheep were domesticated 10,000 years ago and have only been fferro for less than 100 years when the last inhabitants of St Kilda left. We have also received a submission from Alasdair Allan MSP, which details the action that he has taken on this issue and further highlights the petitioners' concerns that the interpretation of St Kilda sheep as non-native animals means that the researchers may have committed numerous offences during the St Kilda soy sheep project's triannual capture and release of the sheep population. Dr Allan suggests that the policy towards St Kilda sheep does not reflect best practice for the management of other animals in Scotland and reflects that, if the Scottish Government's position is accepted, there may be both a moral and legal duty to manage the sheep population of St Kilda to avoid mass starvation events. Members will also note in our papers that requests have been received from the National Trust for Scotland, researchers from St Kilda soy sheep research project and the animal welfare charity One Kind to make submissions in relation to this petition. There is a lot to unpack in all of that, and I apologise, but it required a fairly detailed exposition. Do members have comments or suggestions to make inconsequence? In the first instance, given that they have asked to, we might wish to seek views from those organisations. Mr Torrance? I would agree with you, convener. I wonder if the committee could write to the National Trust for Scotland, a St Kilda soy sheep research project, NatureScot and One Other Kind to seek the views of what is called in the petition. Are we content? We are, so quite a long exposition, quite a quick recommendation and consequence, but that will allow us to have a fuller discussion when we next consider the petition. That brings us to the last of our new petitions this morning, which is petition number 2022, to introduce national safeguarding guidance on how higher education institutions should handle cases of sexual misconduct. This has been lodged by Ellie Wilson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national safeguarding guidance for dealing with cases of sexual misconduct in higher education institutions, which includes clearly defined measures to ensure campus safety where a convicted sex offender or someone awaiting trial for a serious sexual offence is enrolled at an institution. Ellie Wilson explains in the background to this petition that she was raped while studying at university and her attacker was charged and found guilty. However, while awaiting trial, Ellie's attacker began studying at another university and was, in her view, afforded the opportunity to have a normal student experience before being sent to prison. This Ellie tells us brought her to sharp focus the lack of safeguarding measures in place at Scottish universities for dealing with cases of sexual misconduct like this. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that Scotland's colleges and universities should be places where students can live, study and research safe from gender-based violence. The Scottish Government has recognised the concerns that Ellie has raised and says that it is working in partnership with the higher education sector and gender-based violence experts to facilitate the adoption of a consistent approach, both to data collection and safeguarding that will help to protect students. The response also notes that the petitioner met the former minister for higher and further education last year and makes reference to the working group that is established by Equally Safe and College and Universities Core leadership group to review the collection and use of student data in relation to relevant, unspent, criminal convictions and extant criminal charges. Serious issue, do members have any comments or suggestions? Mr Stewart? As you indicate, this is a very serious issue and one that we require to get more information on without question. We have the opportunity to write to a number of organisations, and I would suggest the following. The charity Ellie test, the Victim Support Scotland, University Scotland, Scotland's Women's Aid, Rape Prices Scotland and the National Union of Students to seek their views on the action called within this petition, including the suggestion that students awaiting trial for sexual offences should have access to online classes only and that anyone convicted of such an offence should face disciplinary action. This is a very serious issue, as I have said, convener. By getting some of that information from those organisations, it will be able to provide the committee with a much more up-to-date and structured way to take the competition forward, because I think that there is merit in this petition progressing. Mr Sweeney? I agree completely with the proposed actions and have some familiarity with the case. From press coverage, I think that it was quite high profile in recent months. I think that one additional point that I would raise is that the university in question, Glasgow University, is not affiliated to NUS Scotland, so it would be in that instance appropriate to, in addition, ask for the student representative council of Glasgow University to make representations, simply because they are not under the ambit of NUS. Thank you very much. Are we agreed? Well, colleagues, that concludes our consideration of new petitions. A final flourish from Mr Stewart concludes his contribution to the work of the committee, which I again thank him for. I wish all our clerks a very happy and restful summer, as I do to colleagues on the committee. I look forward to seeing who we have on the committee when we return after the summer. We can all live and hope that we will be suitably refreshed when we meet again on 6 September. With that, I formally close the meeting.