 We will make a start. Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in this session. Apologies have been received from Johann Lamont. Today we have one agenda item, consideration of continued petitions. However, today we will be considering 23 continued petitions, some of which are being considered by us for the first time, having been carried over from session 4. The first petition is PE1223 on school bus safety. This petition is by Ron Beattie and members will see that we have received submissions from Transport Scotland and the petitioner. This is the longest-standing petition that we have under consideration. The committee will also see that Transport Scotland recognises Mr Beattie's contribution in its latest submission, noting various ways in which it has influenced policy on school bus safety. If Transport Scotland notes that the UK Government is not willing to increase the minimum size of the school bus sign or make overtaking a school bus an offence, if furthermore the UK Government is not minded to devolve the relevant powers, as it has done for seat belts on school buses. Ultimately, Transport Scotland takes the view that a one-size-fits-all approach to school bus signage is not practical due to the different types of vehicles and settings across Scotland, and, as we see from Mr Beattie's submission, he has expressed his disappointment with Transport Scotland's submission. Do members have any suggestions for action? I think that we understand where he is coming from here, but to me it speaks to practicality and to enforce it would be incredibly difficult to do. I think that it is current, guys. I think that we should close, I have got to be honest. Okay. Any other views? I am minded to agree with my colleague in the sense that I think that we have probably taken it as far as it can go, given the Transport Scotland response and the difficulties in enforcing what the petitioner wants. Obviously, we understand his good intentions, but I do not think that we can take it any further forward, so I would recommend closing. We have been joined by Stuart Stevenson, MSP, who is the local member. Mr Stevenson, would you care to add to the debate? Thank you very much. I will do so comparatively briefly and view you very long. Mr Beattie has once again travelled from Gameray. That is a six-hour journey, by the way. Continuing engagement with Mr Beattie in this important subject is probably the only petition that has been carried forward from session 3, so it is a very long-running petition. We have seen some success in Mr Beattie's previous petition, as the clerks note tells us, with the seat belts and school transport bill coming forward. I would simply say a couple of things. First of all, I think that it is actually relatively straightforward perhaps to consider taking an approach such as being taken with the seat belts bill to enforce different signage via placing a duty on local authorities. I do not necessarily recommend that. That is not where I am coming from. I am merely saying that I do not think that we should be too deceived by the idea that it would be difficult to do. Previous work has established perfectly legal for the school bus signage to be substantially larger than it currently is. I think that the key thing that I would take your attention to as a committee, if I may, is on page 3 of the clerks note paragraph 12, which relates to Transport Scotland's submission on 23 February this year, when it continues to consider the implications of the Glasgow pilot. Piloting in urban areas, of course, may be quite different from what the requirements and effects might be in a rural area. Abedincia's pilot, I think, gave us some indication in a different area. However, I think that the committee might care to consider keeping the petition open until Transport Scotland has provided a substantive response to following the consideration of the Glasgow pilot. Let me tell the committee the obvious. I know none of the members of the committee who were here when it first came, of course, are now present. It will cost you a little to keep it on the agenda, at least for that purpose. I think that there would be some benefit in doing that. We are, of course, entirely in the hands of the members of the committee, and it is not a matter which I will have a deliberative input to, but I would encourage you to take that. Okay, thanks, Mr Stevenson. Is the time scale on? When will we get that narrative back? That is a matter that they would need to address. I think that Mr Beattie's comments to the committee that Transport Scotland's enthusiasm for this is at best comparatively modest, may mean that they might need a nudge to bring this to a conclusion of their deliberations. That might be something that the committee might consider doing. Okay, I think that that is reasonable. Okay, the rest of the committee are happy to follow Mr Stevenson's advice or suggestion. I think that it is reasonable to press Transport Scotland for further clarification. Given that explanation, I think that there would be no harm in doing that. Okay, thanks. Having read Mr Beattie's latest submission, I have to say that I can understand his frustration. I think that it is well worth approaching Transport Scotland. Once more, I understand that Mr Beattie's family have been personally affected by the issues raised by the petition and, as Mr Stevenson referred to, he has campaigned tirelessly ever since. I think that perhaps we should approach Transport Scotland once more and see what we get back from them. Everybody agreed? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mr Stevenson. Okay, we shall move on now to petition PE1319 on improving youth football in Scotland. This is another long-running petition by Willie Smith and Scott Robertson. We will ask consider this petition at our meeting on the 30th of June. At that meeting, we agreed to take oral evidence on this petition and arrangements have been made for this to take place. In the meantime, our members are content to note the submissions that we have received from various footballing bodies, PFA Scotland, the Children and Young Peoples Commissioner and the petitioners. Okay, that's agreed. Thank you. We move on now to petition PE1408 on updating of pernishus hermenia, vitamin B12 deficiency, understanding and treatment. This petition is by Andrea MacArthur and concerns the method of diagnosing pernishus hermenia. Members have a clerks note and submissions from the petitioner and the Scottish Government. It is noted in the papers that progress was made by the Scottish hematology society on developing a draft summary document for use in the Scottish practice setting. However, the Scottish hematology society has now withdrawn from the process and it is not clear how the draft summary document is being taken forward. Do members have any comments or suggestions on what action we may wish to take on this petition? Why did you withdraw? Do we know? Okay, I believe that it was an issue with resources. Does that mean that the draft summary document is no longer going to be continued? I'm not sure. Clearly, there is a bit of uncertainty here, so I think that we need to write to the Minister for Public Health asking for clarification of the status of the draft summary document and whether it will be published. Is that a agreed course of action? Okay, we'll move on now to petition PE1458 on a register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. This petition is by Peter Cherby and calls for the establishment of a register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. Members will have seen the note by the clerks and submissions from the petitioner and Professor Patterson. Members will also be aware of further information that was provided by Mr Cherby in respect of the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service and the judicial complaints reviewer. The action called for by Mr Cherby's petition receives support from a number of MSPs in the last session of Parliament, but neither the Scottish Government or the Lord President, both current and former, support the introduction of such a register. Do members have any views on what we may wish to do with this petition? I basically, have you read this? I don't think that the opening of the proposed register would be the worst thing, but since the views of those that decide are set, the motion should be closed. Okay, any other views? Yeah, I mean I have sympathy with Mr Cherby and I actually do think that there should be a register, but I'm just not sure how much further we can take this. What road we could go down to progress it? Clearly, I have some background to this. There was a debate in the previous session in the chamber and the petition did receive quite a bit of support from members across the chamber. We had the former Lord President, Lord Gill, in to give evidence. I know that we've had a submission from the current Lord President, Lord Carlywy, who is basically opposed to the suggestion. However, I would be interested to ask if he would be keen to come in and give oral evidence to back up his earlier submission. I also note Professor Alan Patterson's comments and criticisms in relation to the perceived inadequacies in the current recusals register. Therefore, it could be helpful to give oral evidence from Professor Patterson as well. I also note from Mr Cherby's suggestion that we should invite the judicial complaints reviewer, Gillian Thomson, to give her thoughts on proposals to create a register of judicial interests. However, we have already taken oral evidence from her in session 4 on the petition, so I'm unsure whether her view has changed and her view was that there should be a register. On those points, would members be interested in hearing from Lord Carlywy and Professor Patterson, or I still have the view that it should be closed? I think that the petition is not unreasonable. I would be quite keen to explore it further and to hear evidence. We can ask the Lord President if he is prepared to come in and give evidence. There was a difficulty in having the previous Lord President in, so we will see if he is willing to do that. Failing that, we will just have to revert to the written submission that he gave us. Is that agreed course of action? Yes. We move on now to petition PE1463 on effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment, and we've been joined by Irene Smith, MSP, who has been campaigning vociferously on this issue for some time. This is a petition by Lorraine Cleaver on the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid and adrenal conditions. As members will be aware, the Scottish Government commissioned Thyroid UK to conduct a patient survey that was to form a listening exercise. The results of the survey were published last year. Following that, the session for public petitions committee held an evidence session with the Minister for Public Health and her officials to discuss the survey results. Members will see in the meeting papers an update from the Scottish Government, dated 2 August 2016. The Scottish Government advises that Scottish data cannot be extrapolated from the survey results. We wrote to the Scottish Government to ask what action it will take to address the issues raised by the survey results, and a clear answer has not been provided so far. We have received a number of submissions expressing disappointment with the Scottish Government's response, including from Thyroid UK and the petitioner. Do members have any comments? Perhaps we should hear from Elaine Smith. Thank you very much, convener. I do not know where to start, to be honest. Possibly with John Midgley, because the submission that John Midgley has goes through the letter from the Government and basically tears a lot of holes in it. It asks huge amounts of questions and a lot of the answers that he has received. He talks about things such as the logical arguments that are being made. Under recommendation 5, he talks about the need for more research. He also talks about studies being fatally flawed, and he does not explain why. When you read through Dr Midgley's response, that is hugely interesting. Recommendation 9 says that the leading US scientist Dr Bianco and Dr John Glass of the US have publicly expressed doubts as to the appropriateness of the uniform use of thyroxine monotherapy and have questioned currently held positions against combined therapy in a significant proportion of patients. I think that a lot of this has been going on for five years, but I think that a lot of this is about unchanged opinions in medical profession. That is quite worrying. I went to a meeting in Edinburgh on Wednesday night where an endocrinologist addressed a packed room, and the room, of course, was packed with women, because this is also primarily something that affects women. The men in the room happened to be the endocrinologist and a man who was there with his daughter, who was only well and functioning because she was getting her medicine desiccated thyroid hormone from Thailand. We should not in 21st century Scotland be having women having to go on the internet to source medicine that is bringing them back from the dead. I am not being dramatic about that. I have been there myself. They are having to source it from Thailand or America or wherever. I just think that that is pretty unacceptable. The other thing that the women that night said to me was that they really felt strongly that, because it was a women's problem primarily, it was not getting the attention that otherwise it might have. Sorry to the men in the room, but that was the considered opinion at that meeting. Hugely interesting things were said. The endocrinologist there was quite open-minded. He had his own views on certain things, but he was certainly open-minded about combined therapy with T3. He does not feel that he could prescribe desiccated thyroid hormone because of the current status with that. There were women in the room who were on desiccated thyroid hormone as a child. It was only taken away as a treatment if you remember in the 1980s, and she has never felt well since her treatment was changed. She remembers feeling well on her desiccated thyroid hormone. You have also got another submission from Professor Rudolf Herrmann, who is an endocrinologist for more than 30 years. That is a really interesting submission that he has put into you as well. At the end of it, what he says is, I would expect less lecturing from an outdated knowledge base and more awareness from the undeniable existence and magnitude of the issues. At the very least, patients and doctors are lectured, not be unnecessarily and unreasonably restricted in the treatment options. That seems to me to be the bottom line. On Wednesday night, we also heard that desiccated thyroid hormone was one of the very first ever actual medical treatments, which is something that I did not even know. I would really like to put a plea to you as a committee. Perhaps you have a whole host of information. You have patient stories direct from the horses mouth, if you like. Perhaps it might be something that Spice could pull together, because there is a whole lot of medical information to support in the petition. Maybe Spice might be able to pull something together. For instance, Dr Midgley is looking at the Government and taking out the bits where there is contradictory evidence. He has put together a paper for the committee on all of this, taking some of the patient experiences as well. Maybe you could then decide what sort of action you would want to take beyond that. Personally, for me, after all this time, and with all the evidence that seems to have been unfolding over the five years, I would be extremely keen—I am sure that the petitioner would—if the committee would consider a short inquiry. I do not know what your workload is like. I am sure that it is very busy, but it has been a really interesting petition for the committee. It has unveiled a whole host of issues, so that would be something that I would be keen on. Beyond that, if you were going to take evidence again from the Minister for Public Health, then perhaps Dr John Midgley as well, if you were just going to do even a one-off evidence session. However, if you were to hear yourself personally from some of the women who have been affected by this and their lives have been affected, that would add very much to that whole process. We talk about preventative medicine. If we could get the treatment for thyroid disorders correct, we would make real savings in the NHS. We would make savings on things such as fertility treatment. There would be savings on issues such as people being put on antidepressants when the thyroid medicine is wrong. The list is endless. We could bring people back into the economy, because at the moment there are many people who just frankly cannot function because their medicine is not right, and that is a bit of a scandal, I think. Clearly, you feel extremely passionate about this issue. It has certainly opened my eyes to learn of the predicament that the petitioners and others find themselves in. I have stated previously in this committee that it is beyond me why desiccated thyroid treatment is not available in this country, particularly when it was available in the 1980s. How do members feel with regard to Ms Smith's suggestions? Clearly, a more detailed paper from Spice would certainly not go wrong. I agree entirely with what Elaine McLean was saying. I want to, as a first stage, get a balanced, detailed paper from Spice for our information, but I would then like to go on, as Elaine suggests, and have a proper inquiry into it, because it is far too important not to explore it even further. It seems to be dragging on, and that is five years. I think that if we are going to move that on, I agree with the paper on Spice, but I would really like to have the sides in the chamber. If we are going to move it on properly, we will interrogate it, because otherwise it is just going to keep dragging on and dragging on. I think that the best course of action is to ask Spice for more details, and then ask the clerks to draw up a paper, looking at the options with regard to a mini-inquiry, and also options with regard to taking oral evidence, possibly again from the Minister for Public Health, and possibly from Dr Mudgeley. We will expect a paper back on this, and we can take a further decision on that at a later date, but hopefully sooner rather than later. Is that agreeable? Dr Rudolf Hellman, as well. If the clerks can take that away, we can hopefully move on this pretty quickly. Of course, feel free. We will move on now to Petition PE1480 on Alzheimer's and dementia awareness, and Petition PE1533 on abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people. Those petitions have been brought by Amanda Cappell and Geoff Adamson respectively, and both petitions relate to aspects of social care charging. Do members have any suggestions for action? Suggestion for action is to write to the cabinet secretary. Are we agreed in that course of action? Any submission from the cabinet secretary yet? No, nothing so far. Okay, we're agreed. Right, we'll move on to Petition PE1517 on polypropylene mesh medical devices. This petition has been brought by Elaine Holmes and Olive McElroy on behalf of Scottish mesh survivors. The chief medical officer has provided an update on the SIMS trial, and MHRA has provided information on completed and on-going projects. That includes the interim report, published in October last year by the independent review team. The expert group's work is on-going, and in carrying this petition over, our predecessor committee suggested that the petition should be considered again once the final report of the independent review is published. Do members have any comments on that suggestion? I think that perhaps we should defer further consideration of the petition until the final report of the independent review is published. However, we could consider writing to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the work of the expert group. Yes, absolutely. This is another one that has been dragging on for quite some time. Okay, we now move on to Petition 1540, sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself, yeah. Our next petition was lodged by Douglas Filland and calls for a permanent solution to be found for the issues experienced on the A83 at the rest and be thankful. The issues relate to the closure of that section of the A83 following land slips on the hillside beside the roadway. Members have submissions from Transport Scotland and the petitioner, as well as an note from the clerk. So, do we have any views on what further action we should take? The detailed knowledge chair about this. I think that what the suggestion of writing to the Minister of Transport and Islands is an appropriate action to take. There are clear solutions to this, one of which is to move the road to the south side of Glen Crow, which I know is an option that was already brought forward before to the Parliament, but I think there has been, the biggest problem is really the economic impact into Argyll and Bute, because it is a main artery in there. And I think clearly what's coming from the petitioners, as I read it and indeed as I know on the ground, is this clear thing of permanent solution. It's no use trying to patch up. So, I think we need to accept the fact that writing to the Minister of Transport and Islands is asking for confirmation, et cetera. That paragraph, I would seem appropriate to be done at this stage, because they're still on information gathering, there are still consultation groups meeting in Aarich, a town hall, a village hall to go through this, so there has been an active participation by the Government in trying to come to solution to this. And I think it'd be fair to let this review go forward. I think that the review should go forward as well. I just want to task my colleague the £6.6 million investment. Is that regarded as not a permanent solution? The problem is the geological nature of the issue and the worry is every time a net, every time there is a landslide, the nets get strained and they have to be renewed. We're talking of hundreds of thousands of pounds and we just feel that it's money, dare I say, down the drain. I can see the problem with that. There is a fear sometimes of people going up that road. I've travelled it many times, as we all know. The issue, as I say, and I think that is a point of thinking, there is a permanent solution and we're getting close to the fact that the money spent on the temporary solution is getting very close to option B, which is there. I hope that the review will redress that. That's why I feel that it should be looked at in that way. Okay, thank you. It's good to get some local insight into the issue. Just to clarify, are we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport and the Ireland's asking for confirmation of the timing of the review of the national transport strategy and the strategic transport projects review and also how the issues affect in the wider communities of Argyll and Bute? It's a bigger issue than just simply repairing it, this is the problem. Okay, so we're agreed on that course of action. Okay, we'll move on now to petition PE1545 on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled. This petition is by Anne Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust. Members will see from the papers that we've received two submissions from the Scottish Government. Since the petition was lodged, the Scottish Government has consulted with the petitioner and committed to funding a project to improve data collection on the demand for residential care. It has also launched a project to identify suitable alternatives to out-of-area placement in Scotland. The Scottish Government has been engaging with the petitioner on these projects and provided a two-year project plan. I'm sure members will join with me in welcoming the Scottish Government's engagement with the petitioner on these issues. Do you have any suggestions for the way forward? I know that the two years was up in March 2017. It seemed reasonable to wait until that's completed and see that report. Okay, that's just the first stage of the two-year project. That might see you a bit. Okay, so you prefer to defer further consideration until after that point? How do the other members feel? I think that that would be sensible until we actually see the report. Okay, okay, that's fine. Okay, we'll go with postponing further consideration until March 2017. When the first stage of the two-year project should have been completed under the timeframe proposed by the Scottish Government. But at this point, can I thank the petitioner, Ann Maxwell, for the significant amount of work that she has put in by bringing this petition to Parliament? It's good to know that the Scottish Government has engaged positively with the petitioner. Okay, if we can move on now to petition PE1563 on sewage sludge spreading. This petition was brought forward by Dorian Goldie on behalf of Avonbridge and Standburn community council and relates to the use of sewage sludge on land. The Scottish Government's position on the issue raised by the petition has not changed in recent months and it's confirmed its commitment to improving existing legislation. The petitioner in turn has expressed her disappointment with the Scottish Government's position. I should declare a local interest, as I've previously been dealing with the petitioners and some other local residents, for a considerable period of time on this issue. Do members have any views as to whether there's anything more that we as a committee could do at this stage, given that the Government has a clear approach in mind in terms of strengthening the regulatory framework? I think that we've come to the end of the road with it, but I think that a letter to the petitioner expressing the concerns to the Government would still be in order. Okay, is that agreed? Yes, I agree with everyone. Okay, it has to be said that the petition has been partially successful in that it encouraged the Scottish Government to undertake the sewage sludge review earlier this year and action has been taken locally to address a number of the issues that have been raised. However, it would seem that the petition has been partially successful, but I think that we have taken it as far as we can go with regard to what the power of this committee has. So, are we agreed to close the petition? Yes, yes. Brian? Yeah, okay. Okay, perhaps it would be an idea to remind the petitioner, as I think Rona referred to it, the rules around bringing back issues are that there's a rule that you have to wait a year before you can take a petition back. However, if progress hasn't happened, the petitioners may well wish to do that in the future. Okay, if we can move on to petition PE1568 on funding, access and promotion of the NHS CIC. This petition was lodged by Catherine Hughes amid concerns over the provision of services at the Centre for Integrative Care. We've received correspondence from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which indicates its plans for the public engagement strategy in relation to its current proposals. Aerin Campbell, Minister for Public Health and Sport, confirmed in her correspondence on 26 July that designation of a centre or facility as a national resource is not a matter for the Scottish Government. She confirmed recently during a member's business debate that the public engagement on the proposals will run from September until November. Members will also note that the proposals on the CIC are part of a wider number of proposals made by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which have been subject to discussion and debate in the Parliament as recently as yesterday afternoon. Do members have any views on what actions we might wish to take with this petition? I would be referring to the other committees and seeing what they are doing about the work on this particular issue. It would be the Health and Sport Committee. Aerin Smith stayed for this petition specifically, so can I ask Aerin to contribute? Thank you very much, convener. I suppose that there is a slight update on the petition because it was part of the motion that was passed in Parliament yesterday, which asked for the Government to call in certain proposals. The CIC was in fact one of those that was mentioned, but of course it is up to the Government to decide how they want to take that forward. There is also a meeting tomorrow. I have passed three in the old York Hill hospital for MSPs who are interested in the issue, so I know that some MSPs are going to go along to that. Certainly, I am going to go along to that, so there might be some information that comes out of that that might be useful for the committee. Personally, I am slightly confused because I did think that it was a specialist national hospital. I think that a lot of people did think that. I think that the committee maybe had some evidence in the past indicating that that was the case. It is certainly a hospital that receives referrals from all over Scotland, or it did until NHS boards started to seem to be cutting back on those referrals. Now it seems to be that the Government is saying that it is not a national service or a national resource. On your paper that you have, the Government is saying that a highly specialised clinical service might be considered for national designation through application to the National Specialist Service Committee. Personally, I am not very clear who would make that application. Would it be the health board that runs it, or would it be the Government that makes that application? I think that there are some questions around that. It has been viewed as a national resource. The petitioners are very passionate about the service because it seems to have very good outcomes with patients who have maybe reached the end of their treatment and there isn't anybody else to go, so the inpatient service is highly valued. It has extraordinarily high patient satisfaction ratings. Personally, if something is working, why would we be trying to change it? I can understand if things are not working, then obviously change may be necessary. It is just some information that I am giving you. It is clearly up to you what you want to do with the actual petition, but I think that that is just some further information that I wanted to impart to the committee. That is helpful. Are there any other comments from the members? It is difficult to know quite how to deal with it because it is part of the health board review and it is on-going. We are right in the middle of it. I see no harm in referring the petition to the health and sport committee. I think that that would be one action that we could take. I do not see the point in writing to the health board for an overview of its engagement strategy, because you know the predicted response that you will get back. That would be my view, because it is on-going. However, there would be absolutely no harm in writing to the health and sport committee. Aileen Smith raises some valid and salient points. Rather than defer the petition and delay it even longer with the public petitions committee, given that the health and sport committee are working on the strategic plan and vision 2016 to 2021. I think that there is a strong argument to refer it to that committee as soon as possible. Is everyone agreed? I agree to that. We move on now to petition PE1577 on adult cerebral palsy services. This petition is by Rachael Wallace. Members will see that we have received a submission from the petitioner and it would seem an appropriate point in the new session to ask the Scottish Government whether it is minded to introduce or consult on a national clinical pathway for adults with cerebral palsy services. I understand that the petitioner considers that it is important that NHS professionals and other stakeholders are consulted on this issue. Do members have any views? It is entirely reasonable to have a set-out clinical pathway. It is entirely reasonable that I would be in mind to write to the Scottish Government to see where they sit on this. I think that we should do that. We agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it is minded to introduce or consult on a national clinical pathway for adults with cerebral palsy and to consult with NHS professionals and other stakeholders on this issue. We move on now to petition PE1581 on Save Scotland's school libraries. This petition was lodged by Duncan Wright on behalf of Save Scotland's school libraries. Members will see that we have recently received submissions from author Theresa Breslin, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland, Literature Alliance Scotland, as well as from the petitioner in which it refers to the open letter sent from Gruffalo author Julia Donaldson expressing concerns about the provision of school librarian services. Each of the submissions suggests that the changes run contrary to initiatives to support and promote literacy and to make reading fun and an integral part of the curriculum. I welcome members' views on this petition. Again, being of a certain age, I think that it seems logical to have a school library. I think that we should have a national framework across the whole of the country. I do not see why that would not be the case. I have the opinion that it is certainly something worth pursuing. Yes, absolutely vital to pursue. It is an incredibly important part of the education system. A couple of actions that I would want to take would be to write to the Government to ask whether there has been any change in the position since last December and to refer the petition to the Education and Skills Committee to consider it in a wider context. I do not think that we can do both at this point. You cannot do both. We would have to seek an update from the Scottish Government and then consider it. That is fine. I think that we have to get that because one of the problems is that local authorities are taking different views on this, on this different amount of issues on the last running of budgets. I know in my particular area that it was a big issue on the islands and I think that, as my colleague says quite rightly in Rona, I think that we should find where they stand in the Scottish Government. Education is devolved to the local government, so I would say that I would be interested to see what the Scottish Government's guidance would be to that to local government. It would be good to see that before we take it. Can I come in and share? I think that the issue is that it is a wider remit than just local authorities. I think that it has got to take into all its concerns and how the education system has been programmed on there for the part played by research and librarians and things like that. I think that that is important, so we can only get that by going the route we are suggesting. Okay, so we are going to seek information or a further update from the Scottish Government as to whether the position has changed since December 2015. I think that it would be also useful to seek the views of the Scottish Library and Information Council at the same time. When it comes back to committee, we can look at further options. If we can move on now to petition PE1586 on statutory control measures for invasive non-native species. This petition is by James Mackie on behalf of Innes Community Council. Members will note that we have received submissions from SIPA and the petitioner. This petition seeks to create statutory powers to force landowners to destroy invasive non-native species that grow on their private property. This session for Public Petitions Committee sought the views of a number of stakeholders, many of whom consider the existing legislation provides adequate powers to address the issue raised by the petition. The stakeholders also supported a co-ordinated approach to invasive non-native species management, rather than a piecemeal one. SIPA provided additional information in its submission dated 12 May this year. It explained who leads research into biocontrols and the level of funding that has been set aside for relevant projects. SIPA also explained that it operates a 24-hour helpline for members of the public. Do members have any views on what action we should take with regard to the petition? I am inclined to follow the advice of the Scottish Wildlife Trust and SIPA who are the experts in the field and have given their response. I do not think that there is really any—I would want to close this petition. I do not think that there is any point keeping it going. I agree to close the petition. The sufficient legislation advice in place for the council authorities, for example, to deal with it, the issue is done to enforcing that. It is one of enforcement of the issue. Anybody else? I thank the petitioner for bringing the petition to the Parliament. I have to say that, as a member of the Scottish Parliament's Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I can understand Mr Mackie's and the NS Community Council's frustration with regard to invasive, non-native species. However, as Mr Corry said, enforcement is the answer. We look forward to local authorities and SIPA using those powers. If we can move on to the petition PE1591 on the major redesign of healthcare services in Skye, Lochalsh and South West Ross, we are joined by Rhoda Grant, presumably for this petition. We will hear from Rhoda shortly. The petition was lodged by Katrina McDonald on behalf of SOS NHS and is continued from the session 4 committee's consideration. We have two submissions from the petitioner, included in the meeting papers, which follow responses that are provided to our predecessor committee from the Scottish Health Council and NHS Highland. The petitioner provided her most recent submission following publication of the initial agreement on the plans for modernisation of the services and argues that this is based on a flawed economic appraisal. We have some options for consideration. I can open up to members. Rhoda Grant, do you have any options that are because it is new to me? Over to you, Rhoda Grant. That is quite a difficult situation because, as you will see from the petition, people are really concerned about the service redesign. It has been on-going for quite a number of years. The health board made this proposal a number of years ago. The community was not happy and the health board went back to full consultation with the community. The community is totally agreed that there should only be one hospital in Skye and neither of the hospitals that are there at the moment are fit for purpose. Indeed, we are losing services from Skye going back to Inverness, so people are having to travel further while we consider that. It is an argument that the hospital needs to be built sooner rather than later to get services back into Skye. That does not negate from the real concerns that the people in the north of Skye have, because the proposal is to build the new hospital in Broadford, which covers parts of Westeros as well, so it is for more than Skye. They have real concerns about emergency care. They have concerns that are replicated throughout indeed the Highlands and Islands about travel for non-emergency care to clinics, such as that there is not good public transport and poor weather. The patient transport service really does not work in that area. People without access to their own transport are rightly concerned about how they would access the hospital in Broadford and about palliative and elderly care, which is provided and portrayed at the moment. There are a number of issues. Although we all recognise that we need to move ahead quickly with building a hospital to allow people to access more specialist care locally, I think that there is also an issue about the health board speaking and listening to the community needs and planning with them. That has been difficult because they have been at loggerheads for a period of time and to try to bring them together to say what can we have instead and to build services that meet the needs of the community is something that has been missing. I know that there are on-going working groups, but I would want to see the health board involved with people from the north of Skye very much and try to bring them in. The health board argued with me that they have tried to do that. The community did not feel that that has happened adequately. I am not giving you any answers, but anything that you could do to try to bring the health board and the community together around the table to look at how they design services that will cover all the needs of all the people and to make sure that it might involve getting the Scottish Ambulance Service involved as well about transport to the hospital and to make sure that there is adequate cover for people and that there is emergency cover, because, again, it is the Scottish Ambulance Service that provides emergency cover. I think that the community has a role in that as well as looking at what could be delivered from portry that would save people travelling, because we all want healthcare as close to home as possible. You have heard from one of the local members any further comments or suggestions on that? When I read this one, it looks like there is a bit of an impasse here. I was trying to understand what we as a committee can do for this. I was inclined to look at the possibility of taking all the evidence, quite frankly, on this one, but as a committee, just to try to understand more in that particular situation. What can we do as a committee here? It is certainly not something that you want to leave, in my opinion. We could write to the Government, I suppose, and I have an update on their position on it, but it seems something. When a decision like this is made, it is made. One of the things that struck me with what you were saying there was the ambulance service, for sure, would be able to give you a really good analysis of the issues that they feel there are on that. Perhaps, Tia, you could let us know when—what realistically, as a committee, can we achieve here? There would be nothing to stop us from taking all the evidence. I think that there is a strong argument to keep the petition open and to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it would reconsider the decision to approve the redesign in light of the economic analysis that has been received from Professor MacDonald and to take on-board grant suggestion that we write to the Scottish Ambulance Service. I do not think that we have had their view previously. Given the request from Rhoda Grant and the fact that there are previous examples of ministers overturning approved major service changes following reviews by independent scrutiny panels, I think that it is worth one further attempt to perhaps ask the Scottish Government what their view would be on setting up an independent scrutiny panel to look at it. I have just stepped down as chair of the IJB for Argym Bwt, and we have had exactly the same situation in Mull. I commend exactly what you are saying. I think that it is about engagement with the community and we need to engage with the Scottish Ambulance Service, and this was on the Ross of Mull at the north-west end of it. Obviously, we make sure that the redesigned proposals are conveyed to the community and understood that any adjustments have been made because we had it right back to ministerial level. Lots of lessons were learned, and I would not want that to happen in the sky. I think that it needs to be explored further, engaging with the agencies and the people, mainly the people as to what is going to be logistic. The key issue that I experienced was that people were not able to get to the facilities because they did not drive into a car or up a glen, and we have to consider that as a very important issue that it is actually accessible. We did it, we got there, but it was a bit of mind-bending and hard work, and I fully understand where you are coming from. I commend the Mull experience. Mull and Sky are two areas of the world that I know quite well. I am certainly aware of the issues. Are we agreed to take this forward to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Amgen service and then look at further options after we hear back from them? If we can move on now to petition PE1592 on group B strep information and testing. The petition is by Shaheen McQuaid, and members will see from the papers that the National Screening Committee is reviewing the evidence on group B strep at the moment. Do members have suggestions for what action we should take? The review of evidence on group B strep screening is due. Perhaps it would be realistic to wait till that evidence is delivered. I agree. I think that we need to wait until that evidence is published. Absolutely. We can't take this. Do we see that? No. It's agreed to delay further consideration of the petition until the National Screening Committee's review of the evidence on group B strep screening is published. If we can move on now to petition PE1593 on a full review of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communication Scotland Act 2012. The petition was brought forward by Paul Quigley on behalf of Fans Against Criminalisation. Since the petition was considered last session, James Kelly MSP has launched a proposal for a member's bill that would give effect to what the petition calls for. As members will note, the consultation period in that proposal runs until October. Do members wish to do anything further on the petition at this point, or should we defer further consideration of the petition until it becomes clear whether Mr Kelly's proposals will go on to be lodged as a bill? Agreed to defer. We move on now to petition PE1595 on a moratorium on shared space schemes. The petitioner is Sandy Taylor. His petition calls for a moratorium on shared space schemes until all safety issues have been addressed. In particular, Mr Taylor has concerns about the impact that schemes of this type have on the ability of the blind and visually impaired people, as well as vulnerable pedestrians, to be able to safely access the places where they are introduced. That is the first time that the committee has considered this petition, and members will note the submissions that we have received from Mr Taylor, Margaret Hutchison and Sarah Gaton. Do members have any comments on what action we may take? I declare an interest in this petition. This petitioner is from my constituency, and I have been backing his campaign and do backing his campaign from the start. I am well aware of the issues surrounding this petition. Do you want me to say what action we should take now? I would be very keen to have the Minister for Transport provide evidence at a future meeting on the whole issue. I would also like the petition referred to the Equalities Commission, because the petitioner states quite clearly that this is a breach of the human rights of the less able community that feels effectively barred from their own town. The design of the shared space initiative in Kirkntilloch is entirely unsuitable, and it has caused a huge amount of public anger. I will clarify with the clerks where we would be with regard to inviting the minister to give evidence and simultaneously referring it to the Equalities Commission. We could hear from the minister first and then you would have the option of referring it to the Equalities Commission after that. That would be fine. That would be fine. That would be fine. That would be fine. That would be fine. I think that the chair would have just said that there was an article on television that asked not exactly about this issue and the place is called Point and and all these points, as Marona was saying, and what's in here have come out. I think that it's absolutely the right approach to take the way that I was suggesting to the minister. Agreed for that course of action now. So we look forward to hearing from the minister at a future date. Okay, we'll move on to petition P1598 on protecting wild salmonids from sea lice from Scottish salmon farms. This petition is by Guy Lindley-Adams on behalf of Salmon and Trout Conservation Scotland. Members will see from the papers we've received a number of submissions. What action do members think we should take? I think that the more I've read about this, the more concerned I'm becoming. I think that one of the questions that we asked in the last petition, the last time that it was in, when there was an oral petition, was that we asked that when they were in the treatment of lice and salmon actually killed all the crustaceans in the area as well. It speaks to ecology for me, and I'm certainly of a mind that we should be taking this forward quite robustly. I know that there are other ways of dealing with this. The introduction of, I think, it's a race into a more ecological way of dealing with it. I would like to know a lot more about this, because I do think that it's a major industry for us in Scotland, but if it's going to affect the wild salmon and other crustaceans in the delivery of the eradication of sea lice, the way that it's currently done, it does concern me. As a previous member of the Iraqi committee, we put through the agriculture bill in 2013, and we were on site, and we saw rats up in Lochaber. It seemed to be a good remedy to the issue. Would members feel that it would be appropriate to refer this to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, understanding rule 15.6.2, to allow them to look into this subject in more detail, rather than the petition committee prolonging it? I think so, because they've got the bigger picture and the effect on the rural economy chair, and I think that that's a quite appropriate action to take. We agreed to forward it to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I thank the petitioner for bringing this issue to the attention of the petitions committee. Okay. Can we move on now to petition PE1600 on speed awareness courses? This petition has been brought by John Chapman. We've received responses from I am Rodsmart, which was previously the Institute of Advanced Motorists at the RACC and the Scottish Government. Each response acknowledges the potential merits of what the petition suggests, but notes that any such courses would require the approval of the Lord Advocate. Do members have any views on this petition? I don't see what the Lord Advocate himself said, only on the petition, I think. I think it requires his approval. Chair, it's obviously a legal issue that's currently in statute and how they deal with it, so it's a major change. Okay. I agree that we'll write to the Lord Advocate's office seeking its views on the petition and its concerns about the effectiveness of speed awareness courses. We'll move on now to petition PE1601 on European beavers in Scotland. This petition is by Andy Miles. Members will see from the papers that the Scottish Government expects to make a decision on the issue raised by the petition by the end of the year. Are there any comments from members on this petition? It really should be referred to the Environmental, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, because it's, again, a bigger issue. It's the balance of nature, shall we say, and the cause and effect. I think it's really outwith this, we noted it, but I think it needs to be passed on to them for some consideration. Okay. Are members agreed? Agreed. Yes, agreed. I think I mentioned this at the last committee. It struck me that the decision on this has been imminent for about six months, so we look forward to seeing a decision soon and, in the meantime, we'll refer the petition to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. Okay. Thank you. The final petition to consider today is PE1602 on ECGs and heart echo tests within antenatal care. The final petition on the agenda, as I say, is by Carol Sonex. Submissions have been received from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Nursing Midwifery Council and the Scottish Government. You may wish to note what those responses say about current work that's under way in relation to PPCM. So, do we have any views on this petition? I note that they're looking at a good practice guide on cardiac disease and pregnancy. I note that that's due. It looks to me that we can write to them with a request for indicative timescales on that. I think that's hugely important. The petitioner has highlighted the importance of this, and the Scottish Government have acknowledged it. We see further publications on the issue from the good practice guide. Keep the petition open and just keep gathering more evidence. We're all agreed that we should write to the appropriate agencies to seek updates or indicative timescales for the publication of the good practice guide on cardiac disease and pregnancy. We'll take further action once we have heard back. That's agreed. Thanks very much. That brings us to the end of the proceedings. Thank you very much to the members of the committee and also to the MSPs who have attended to give further submissions.