 Ieitwch ein ffifffindio gydag ddatblyrightd wedi'i Myfyrny Mod CM 2018. Cyngorau mewn cyfnodau a chael gondong ddaeth i ddweud hynny'r rydyn ni, ac oedd amddaint cyfnodau sydd o'r ddrwyabeth. The first item on the agenda is consideration of two new petitions. At this stage, we will not hear evidence on these petitions. Petitions 1680 and private water supplies in Scotland were submitted by Angela Flanigan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the private water suppliesScolton regulations 2006, produce guidance for all relevant bodies to comply with the private water supply Scotland regulations 2006, transfer the regulatory powers over the drinking water quality of private water supplies from local authorities to the drinking water quality regulator for Scotland, and ensure an equal right of appeal in the planning process, where objections on public health grounds are intimated by interested parties. Members have a copy of the petition and a spice briefing. The petitioner raises a range of issues in relation to private water supplies, including inconsistent compliance with an EU directive. The petitioner is of the view that her suggestion of ensuring an equal right of appeal in the planning process would avert unduly preferential treatment of commercial developers over individual households. She is also of the view that developers would not be able to pass on provision and maintenance costs for essential services to individuals or their communities. As members will note from my briefing paper, the Scottish Government has no current plans to review the regulation of private water supplies, following the recent introduction of the Water Intender for Human Consumption Private Supplies Scotland regulations 2017. Furthermore, the Scottish Government is introducing the Planning Scotland Bill to the Parliament in 4 December 2017, and ministers have specifically ruled out the introduction of a third-party right of appeal as part of the bill. I wonder if members have any comments. That strikes me as is connected to one that we passed on to the Environment Committee a couple of weeks ago. It certainly has the same sort of intonations. I know that the Environment Committee met and discussed that petition earlier on this week, and they have decided to move that on as well. Again, I am correct me from wrong, but I think that they are meeting the Scottish Water in a couple of weeks and are raising no specificities. You sit on that committee. I wonder whether or not this is sufficiently linked to that petition that they could almost be. Are you suggesting referring it immediately? I am wondering whether we have heard that petition and it has been moved to the Environment Committee particularly around the quality of drinking water in areas and the way that the water board is conducting themselves. They are going to be questioned quite soon on that, whether or not there is a way that we can link this to that one. Michelle? A slight problem with this petition is that it is about two things. It is about water quality on one level, which is what the previous petition was talking about. It is also about that responsibility and some of the planning regulations that sit around that. Private water supplies covers a myriad of things so that you have whole estates that have private water supply and then you have individual houses that have private water supplies and the needs of each might be different. Whilst on one hand I agree with Brian Whittle that there is a direct connection, my other concern is that this is partly about who is responsible for a water supply and where does that planning responsibility in the handover, particularly when there has been perhaps a rural or isolated set of houses built and how does that responsibility get handed over. I think that there are those two elements and I am not sure, perhaps Angus can answer that better whether that element sits in the Environment Committee in the same way. I take on board what Brian Whittle has said, but the previous petition that he referred to was highlighting an issue with regard to chloramination. This is more about issues with the quality of private supplies. This also involves the planning regulations and clearly we have a planning bill going through committee at the moment. I think that it is going into stage two. The petitioner details four main asks. However, until we can get further information from the Scottish Government, I do not think that the committee can take this further. As I said, the current planning bill is going through Parliament, but Scottish ministers have specifically ruled out the introduction of a third party right of appeal. I am sure that quite a number of people are disappointed with that. However, it would be helpful to get an official response from the Scottish Government first before we consider any further action on the specific points that the petitioner has raised. I do not think that it would be helpful to refer it straight to the clear committee at the moment. It would be worthwhile to flag up to the committee however that this is a petition that has been flagged up to us and perhaps to provide the paper work around it from the petitioner. That would at least inform the members in their conversations whether Scottish Water is coming in. We could ask the Scottish Government for more information specifically on third party right of appeal or equal right of appeal, as it is now called. That will be getting debated in the Scottish Government as a view. I think that the individual parties will become into a view and the committee will become into a view. In a sense, that bit is going to be interrogated pretty strongly in the parliamentary process. However, if we can agree that we would write to the Scottish Government asking for the review on the issues that are highlighted in the petition and we flag up to the rule of affairs committee, if that is the right one. The clear committee is easier to flag up to the content of the petition and the argument made by the petitioners in order to perform further discussion. Would that be agreed? In that case, if we can then move on to the next petition, which is petition 1685 on log burner stoves in smoke control areas, lodged by Jim Nisbit, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to prohibit the use of log burner stoves in smoke control areas. The petitioner considers that the Clean Air Act 1993 is not fit for purpose and refers specifically to section 21 of the act, which he considers is open to interpretation. In the background information to his petition, Mr Nisbit sets out his concerns that the Scottish Government is not treating the issue of log burner pollution as seriously as diesel-veal vehicle pollution and refers to a number of research studies and media articles to support his position. The briefing paper refers to the Scottish Government's Clean Air for Scotland strategy and provides a summary of the environment, climate change and land reform committee's findings on this issue from its recent inquiry into air quality in Scotland. The report notes that the inquiry identified, quote, a gap in regulations around installation of wood burning stoves with conflicting guidance coming from environmental health department officials, planning regulations and building standards. The recommendation set out in the report included asking the Scottish Government to review the current regulations and to undertake research to understand the extent of pollutants emanating from wood burning stoves. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action in this petition? As we have just discussed, I am also a member of the Eclair committee, which recently concluded its inquiry into air quality in Scotland and published its report exactly a month ago. It is fair to say that we took conflicting evidence on the impact of wood burning stoves and the impact that it has on air pollution, and the jury is still out on the issue, mainly due to the lack of available data. It was interesting to hear that the cabinet secretary was on a cunning acknowledge when giving evidence to the committee that the 1993 Clean Air Act might need to be updated. The Eclair committee asked the Scottish Government to undertake research and to review the current regulations and guidance. However, the committee is still waiting on the Government's response, and we await with interest. There is certainly another evidence that we took that was highlighted that there are issues with multi-fuel and log burning stoves. Do we have a timescale for the response from the Scottish Government? They must have to do it within a certain amount of time. I am not sure. I am understanding that it should be within two months of the report that has been published. It has been a month. It would be certainly interesting to see what the Scottish Government has to say. I think that we should just wait and see what the response is, because that is going to be the starting point for where we go with this until we know why it is there and what the Scottish Government's position is. If they come back and rule against it and say that there is an issue, we can look at it from there, but it seems very little point in doing anything until then. Fair consideration. Until the Scottish Government responds, there would be an expectation that that would be done within the expected timescale, so that is not something that has been deferred to some big time in the future. There would be quite explicit timescales for that. Thank you very much for that. If we can then move on to the next agenda item, which is current petitions, the second item on the agenda is consideration of continuing petitions. I intend to change the order of petitions under this item slightly to take petition 1591 first. That is on the basis that some of the MSPs who are interested in this petition also have other parliamentary commitments this morning. I welcome David Stewart, Dave Capeforbes and Edward Mountain for this agenda item. The next petition for consideration is petition 1591 by Catriona MacDonald on behalf of SOS NHS, a major redesign of healthcare services in Sky, Lochalsch and South West Ross. We have received submissions from the cabinet secretary and the petitioner, and those are included in our meeting papers. Members also have a copy of more recent correspondence received from Councillor Ronald MacDonald. Following our previous consideration of this petition, including representations from local members, we wrote to the cabinet secretary regarding a possible mismatch between what she understood to be happening and what was reported to us as actually happening in terms of the redesign of health and social care. The cabinet secretary indicates that she has sought reassurances from NHS Highland and in her submission sets out relevant texts of correspondence between the board and local councillors. The cabinet secretary also refers to the locality planning group, which she asked NHS Highland to establish, which should include all key stakeholders to discuss and address any on-going local concerns. The petitioner refers to the review of out-of-house care being conducted by Lewis Ritchie. Members will note that the terms of reference for that review state that it will not be considering the wider redesign. However, the petitioners repeat their concern that out-of-house care cannot be reviewed realistically without considering the impact of the redesign on other key aspects of local services. They are also concerned that the board has already implemented some changes without the associated arrangements being tested. They believe that that is to be contrary to the condition set by the cabinet secretary when she approved the initial agreement. The petitioners feel that NHS Highland has not acknowledged the deep health view within the local community that the redesign proposals are fundamentally flawed. The petitioners conclude their submission by stating that they do not have confidence in NHS Highland's ability or willingness to redesign health services that have served their community for decades in a safe and person-centred manner and reiterate the request for an independent scrutiny panel to be set up. That briefly summarises the submissions that we have received. I will be looking for comments on the petition, but I ask members to reflect on the role of the Public Petitions Committee to consider matters of national policy or practice. We do not have a remit to intervene in operational matters. Although that can sometimes be a fine line, it is a pertinent reminder in respect of the petition given the position of the cabinet secretary regarding her decision to redesign the nature of some of the concerns that have been mentioned by the petitioner. I will take comments from our invited guests after members of the committee themselves. I am uncomfortable with the way in which NHS Highland and the cabinet secretary have conducted themselves. I feel that they have tried to hold us and the petitioners at arm's length. I understand that the petition committee is not here to intervene in the regional areas, but I feel uncomfortable with the way in which this particular petition has been handled. I am not sure what we do with it, but I want to put that on record that I do not think that it has been handled particularly well. Convenient clearly, since the petition was submitted way back in October 2015, there have been additional issues, particularly on Sky, not least the frequent suspension of the out-of-hours service at Port Tree and recruitment processes on Rassie. Now, while it is clear that the cabinet secretary is adamant from the responses that we have received, that there will be no reversal of the approval of the major service change and that the issue is an operational matter for NHS Highland. There may be some merit in waiting for the outcome of the external review of out-of-hours urgent care services in Sky, Lechowshire and South West Ross, which she mentioned, has been conducted by Sir Lewis Ritchie. It may be good to get that back before we decide to proceed any further. I am concerned, as my colleagues, that if it had all been fine, there would have been a better relationship and a better conversation. I am concerned that it has been a bit obstructive on both sides. There has been an enormous difference of opinion here, but there is now an independent review having a look at it, which would suggest that both sides have agreed that that would be useful. From a petition point of view, I would be more comfortable if we waited to see what the outcome of that independent review was before we made a decision to close. On the out-of-hours services, it is not looking at the redesign, but it may, given how these things all connect to each other, it may reflect some issues that might then impact on a broader question. They are all interconnected at the end of the day. If there is a problem with out-of-hours and what they have put in place as part of the redesign is not going to work, they will have to rethink some of the back-end of how that links in as well. For me, this is about closing the loop. I think that we need to allow that to go through. It is difficult. It is not our role to interfere in operational decisions, but somebody has petitioned us because they feel very strongly that the decisions that are being made are not right. I think that we need to satisfy ourselves that everything that can be done has been done to make sure that that due process has been followed. I agree with what has been said. The review that is going on is one part of a huge issue, and it is in a very important part. Although it does not encompass the whole issue, it would be wise to wait until we see the outcome of that. Kate, do you want to kick off? Thank you very much. My views have been made clear at previous meetings of the committee. In a nutshell, I believe that North Sky deserves a resilient, excellent access to healthcare services. At the moment, that is not being provided particularly in terms of out-of-hours, which, as Angus MacDonald said, has been suspended semi-regularly, which I just believe is completely unacceptable. That is where this platform has been very useful to discuss some of those issues. Thank you for the committee's work in trying to get answers. Although the subject has perhaps moved off the main ask in the petition, which was for the independent scrutiny panel, I think that there are still outstanding issues that are of grave concern. The most significant development in the past six months—it goes back to a meeting that I had with campaigners in October when they explicitly asked for an independent external review of what was going on. I know that Professor Sarah Lewis-Ritchie has been actively engaged with members of the public, community councils and front-line staff. It is not complete yet. Obviously, the main remit is out-of-hours. I believe, too, that it needs to be a wider review than just out-of-hours. I would hope, though, that you cannot look at out-of-hours independently and in isolation from other issues such as beds. If the committee was minded to wait until the outcome of that review, or at least our review, was reported on, I would be very supportive of that. There are hard-working staff here, but we need to protect them. There is a problem if out-of-hours is being suspended as it is being. That, to me, is just completely unsustainable. For that reason, I would be grateful if the committee would keep the petition open until the review has been reported. Thank you, convener. I will make a few points, if I may. First of all, it is an interesting petition because it seems to be working together across all parties. The fact that three of us are here today representing all the people who have taken a specific interest. We work closely together to remind the committee that the petition came because of a lack of trust of the way NHS Highland was working. Therefore, the petition is still seen as very vital to the people on the sky and Rassay. I was there two weeks ago, and I know that Kate is there pretty regularly, and Rhoda and David are there as well. They still feel that the petition is causing the NHS Highland to focus in on the issue. As far as the petition's committee concerned, considering the national position, I think that this is a national position in the sense that, as far as the sky is concerned, what happens in the sky, if it works, if the review works and if something good can come of all this, it could be something that is worth all of Scotland looking at. There is a national position on trying to resolve a local issue. I totally agree, convener, with what you have said. That is interconnected with everything that has been brought up. I am delighted that each member of the committee, from Brian Angus, Michelle and Rhoda, have all said that they believe that there is merit in keeping the petition open until we have finished the review from Salish Ritchie. I think that we have met Salish Ritchie and we are looking forward to seeing what comes out of his review, but it has been pretty in-depth from what I can see. I think that this petition will allow the people on the sky to feel that their views are being considered and focused. I urge you, convener, to go with, as it appears, everyone on the committee is saying, to keep the petition open. Thank you very much for allowing me to come for a second time in two weeks to your committee. I thank the committee for allowing me to come along with my colleagues. As you know, I spent many happy years on the petitions committee in the last session, and I know what a powerful piece of work all the committee members do on petitions. Can I first of all endorse the comments that both Kate Forbes and Edward Mount have made? My colleague Rhoda Grant has been leading within the Labour Party on this and has done a great job with colleagues to fight the case for the petition. I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions. My request is simply, can you keep this petition open until we have had the review completed? The fact that we have such strong cross-party supporters as Edward Mountain has identified says a lot about the Highlands and Islands, so I am strongly in support of the petition and my request is please keep the petition open until we have had the review. I do have a letter of apology from Rhoda Grant and I maybe just highlight a couple of things that she says as well. I am in support of the petition, so I want to keep open the petition on the major redesign. I strongly believe that building new hospitals in Broadford cannot be delayed. That said, Sir Louis Rich's report will not cover all the areas of concern that are expressed by the petitioner, however it may provide a greater insight and the committee should hold the petition until they have that and can then assess what other pieces of work flow from that and indeed may be required over and above that. The people in the north of Skye need to know what services they will have going forward. There has been poor information and indeed disinformation in the process so far, as I have discovered from talking to local constituents. For example, people were told that there would be inpatient beds at Portree and now discover that there will be no beds in the hospital and any beds will be in clear homes. There is also need for emergency care and step up and step down beds and people need to know what services such as clinics and physio will be available. I guess that the point that she makes about inpatient beds and outpatient beds is that Sir Louis Rich will have to look at that if he is looking out of our services. That is something that is probably quite integral to that. I do not know if there are any other comments from committee members on that. I think that people are really kind of endorsed by the view that we hold on to the petition until we see the review from Sir Louis Richie. Is there anything else that we want to add? No. In that case, we are agreeing not to close the petition but to await the outcome of the review before we take further consideration on the petition itself. I thank my colleagues Kate Forbes, Edward Mountain and David Stewart for their attendance and can I suspend just briefly? I recommend the meeting with the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1480 by Amanda Coppall on behalf of the Frank Coppall Alzheimer's awareness campaign and petition 1533 by Geoff Adamson on behalf of Scotland against the clear tax. Members will recall our last consideration of these petitions. We agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what conditions, in addition to dementia, will be covered under free personal care to people under 65. The Scottish Government's response confirms that adults with any long-term condition or those who develop dementia or other degenerative conditions under the age of 65 who are assessed as needing it will receive free personal care. The committee also asks the Scottish Government whether other services such as day services will be included, given that they are not currently captured by the current definition of free personal care. The Scottish Government's response states that free personal care is subject to the Community Care and Health Scotland Act 2002. It is understood that the Health and Sports Committee will be the lead committee for scrutiny of the legislation to give effect to the proposal to extend free personal care to people under 65. The petitioner has submitted two written submissions, the first of which is included in our meetings papers. Due to the deadline for issuing meeting papers, the clerks were unable to include the second submission in our papers, but we received that information separately. I also understand that the submission has now been published on the petitioner web page. The petitioner expresses concern about the way that the extension of free personal care will be funded by the Scottish Government as such the petitioner suggests an alternative approach that would involve a personal care rebate. The petitioner also asks the committee to write to the Scottish Government to clarify its policy objectives in relation to the extension of free personal care and its funding approach to support its policy objectives. I wonder if Members have any comments. Michelle? It feels like the Government has, if I be honest, used the word, made a mistake when they looked at how that funding will be distributed. I hope that it is just a mistake because I think that the petitioner has actually quite clearly pointed out why the current suggestion is likely to backfire on the people who need it the most. I think that it would be very important that that was revisited. In terms of how it is revisited, I would be interested to hear whether Brian Smith sits on the Health and Sport Committee and whether it is appropriate that it picks that up as part of the scrutiny of the legislation, but I definitely think that it needs looking at it. The petitioner's proposal makes a lot of sense, but I am not sure that it is for us as a committee to decide whether that is the best approach, but I think that it needs revisiting. Brian Smith? I think that this has been raised at the Health and Sport Committee as well. My colleague Miles Briggs also sits on the Health and Sport Committee and I know that he was quite instrumental in pushing forward this legislation. I think that, quite frankly, there are consensus across all parties, obviously, that the Government has brought in this legislation. I think that it is the implementation of it that we are currently scrutinising. I would be quite comfortable for the Health and Sport Committee to pick that up, if that is what the rest of the petitioner's committee decides. You are suggesting that we refer it to them? I certainly think that we should give them cognisance of this particular petition. Maybe not pass it on, but I would like to see his right to the Health and Sport Committee and give them details of the petition. It would allow us more information going forward. The unintended consequences of the funding model, which seems to be... I cannot believe that nobody would intend it so that the local authorities get the extra money, but there is actually not one coin extra in the pockets of people who have been campaigning for this to change. That does not make any sense to me. I hope that it is just a mistake that has not been properly thought through. I personally find it quite confusing that the whole follow-up to the petition. I think that, if we could get some clarification, I agree that it would come within the remit of the Health and Sport Committee for post-scrutiny. However, as an initial step for further straightforward clarification, if they have made a mistake, we need to find out. The issue around letting the Health and Sport Committee alert them to the issues that have been flagged up around the funding model, we need to be done in time for the regulations to go through, and that is within four weeks. We would want to inform enough of that discussion with the minister around the proposal, but I think that there is a broader question here, which might not be specifically around what they are planning for now, which is what the regulation will deal with. Extending it, I think, is a massive thing to extend it to people below 65. However, the nature of the conditions of people under 65 who might require free personal care, the kind of care that they require, we asked the question, did not we? We did not include day services and so on. We may not be capturing what the scale of the problem is. I might have flagged up before a particular instance that brought to my attention of an amazingly talented young woman who said that her student loan was calculated as income in terms of her care package, which I found astonishing. That is not going to be sorted in the next four weeks in relation to the regulations that they are bringing forward, but I think that that part of the exploring of the issue is still very important, which is really to do with the second petition, which is around potentially scrapping the social care tax altogether. I would not want to lose that broader piece of work. Whether it is possible to agree to write to the health committee around the specifics about the funding model that has been used ahead of the regulation and ask them to factor that into their considerations, but also agree to write to the Scottish Government more broadly around their understanding of what those care needs will be and how people can be supported and try to get a centre, particularly in the second petition, which is predicated on the idea that you cannot have a care tax, which denies people the right to live out their lives to me that everybody else would, so it is like levelling up the playing field so that people can work and study in the same way that other people might do. I think that it would be worth asking the Scottish Government to reflect on that as well. We do those two things, so we are at a very specific issue around the regulations. We will make sure that we try to inform the health committee from the work of the petition, but we actually ask the Scottish Government to respond to those broader questions as well. If that is agreed, we can then move on to the next petition, which is petition 1577 by Rachel Wallace on adult cerebral palsy services. I welcome her to Fraser MSP for its attendance for the petition. At the last consideration of the petition, we noted that the Scottish Government had not contacted the petitioner since the beginning of 2017, despite making a commitment to work with her. The Minister for Public Health and Sport has since apologised for his lack of engagement. The petitioner and Murdo Fraser MSP have now met Scottish Government officials to discuss the main issues of the petition. The petitioner indicates that this was a positive meeting and hopes to build a constructive working relationship with the Scottish Government. The petitioner refers to several projects and evidence-gathering exercises that are currently on-going by the Government, which relate to the action called for in the petition. This information is set out in her meeting papers. The petitioner highlights that this work is still at an early stage, and I ask the committee to monitor the Scottish Government's commitments regarding the petition closely. I look for comments from members or suggestions for action, but perhaps I can ask Murdo Fraser first to give us an update from his perspective on that of the petitioners in dealing with the Scottish Government. Thank you, convener. I thank you and other members of the committee for keeping the petition alive and pressing the Government for action. It has been quite a long process, but we seem to be making a bit more progress. I am pleased to say that there was, as you indicated, a meeting with a Government official in January that I attended along with the petitioner. That was a very positive meeting. There are a number of strands of work that are being taken forward, which you have referred to and are referred to in the papers that committee members will have in front of them. The petitioner is engaged quite closely with that work and is pleased to have that role. Things are progressing. We can now see a route towards trying to achieve some of the objectives behind the petition. Where we are now is that, while work is starting, clearly there is a long way to go before we see how that works actually going to progress. The petitioner would be keen to see if some time is allowed to let these work projects proceed and see how they develop. I think that the petitioner's view would be that it might be appropriate for the committee to keep the petition alive, but perhaps revisit the issue in the autumn when we have a better idea of how those workstreams are developing. I suppose that we need to reflect on the issue. I think that we are grateful for the progress that has been made and recognised what you have said. The timescale for the consultation and national action plan would have the consultation taking place in autumn. They run about 12 weeks. My anxiety is that, if we simply defer the petition, we would not be looking at it again until the spring of 2019. We are all very alive to the challenge presented to us by the petitioner. The petitioner says that he does not want to come back in five years' time and that there has been no progress. I am wondering whether we could close the petition but be explicit in saying to the petitioner that we would want to look at this again once that consultation is over. Depending on what that consultation concludes with, we would inform what the petitioner then says. Since we cannot edit the petition once it is lodged, it would give the petition an opportunity to, once she knows exactly where we are and you know where we are, the new petition could reflect that. That would be something that we would consider. It is trying to find a way, I think, as a committee, to be as helpful as possible to the petitioner and to the issues that she highlights. We would not want to create the impression simply by saying that we will defer it and look at it realistically. It would be almost a year down the line before we would do that again. I do not know whether other members have comments on that and I can bring it back in. I absolutely take your point, but it is really important to stress to the petitioner that we are not closing it and discarding it in any way at all. It is just so that it could be revisited with fresh information once we see the findings of the national action plan because that could alter entirely what she wants to bring back to the petition. It is important to stress that, if we close it, it is not because we think that this is no worth. It is just that we want to wait to see what comes back from the review. The initial response is always, we must keep this going because we need to answer this particular petition. On reflection, it would be important that any future deliberations by the committee are raised to the very specific issues that are raised or not raised within that consultation. As my colleague Rona Mackay said, it is really important to stress how important this petition is and that, if we close it, it is only because we want to look at the very specific issues raised out of the back-up of the consultation. I cannot speak for the petitioner in relation to this matter, as I do not know what particular view she would have. The advantage that the petition has had is probably drawing to the Government's attention the fact that there has been an issue to be dealt with. The interest that the committee has taken in this and other committee members has been helpful in encouraging Scottish Government ministers and officials to take this seriously. We are now seeing some more progress. My only concern about closing the petition would be that somehow the foot is taken off the accelerator if that were to happen. It is up to committee members to decide how they take it forward. That is the decision that we would have to make because we certainly would not want—I mean, my sense is that what the petitioner has been able to do is to get from a position where the Government has said nothing to see here, to accept that there is something, to accept that there actually needs to be action and has commissioned that action. So, I suppose that the judgment call for us is in closing the petition to send a message that we have drawn a line under it, which I do not think we have, or that the most productive thing would be to have a petition that reflected the gap between what the petitioner wanted and what the national action plan itself has perhaps developed. Brian? Is it possible to leave the petition open and for the petitioner then to submit a separate petition on the back of the report? I know. Yes, I know. I am just saying that if we do that, do we get the best of both worlds? One thing that we could do is to write to the Scottish Government simply saying that we do expect progress and that we would expect to reconsider this if there isn't progress. The foot is still on the pedal, but we are not looking as if we are doing something by simply letting a petition lie, Michelle. I suppose that I am trying to stand in the petitioner's shoes and think, what would I be thinking if I was listening to this. The petitioner is very specific. She is looking for the development and provision of funding for a clinical pathway and services for adults with cerebral palsy. Obviously, the Government is doing a national action plan on neurological conditions, which is a much broader look at things, I guess. I suppose my slight suggestion is that we are trying to second-guess the petitioner's position. I think that we should write to the petitioner and say, look, we are concerned that there will be a year's gap before it will come back to us because we need to wait and see what comes out of this action plan and consultation. Our suggestion is that the best option would be to wait and see what comes out of this action plan and consultation. Our suggestion is that the best option is to close it and then resubmit a petition if necessary. When you see the outcomes, would you be comfortable with that, or are we missing something in terms of your thinking following your meeting in January? I think that I would be more comfortable to ask the petitioner what she is feeling and explain why we think that it would be logical from what we know to close the petition. However, she might have a view or a thought that we are missing because we were not present at the meeting. I am not sensible to make. I suggest that we write to the petitioner in those terms and put the two options to her but also acknowledge the progress that she has been able to secure already with the work that she has done in the petition. If that is agreed, we shall write to the petitioner and, subsequently, make a decision on what action we will take on the petition. If we can then move on to the next petition from consideration, which is petition 1610 by Matt Haliday and petition 1657 by Donald McCarrie on behalf of the A77 action group, I welcome Finlay Carson MSP to the committee for this item. At the last consideration of those petitions in November, we heard evidence from the Minister for Transport in the Islands. The committee will recall that we covered a wide range of issues with the minister, including previous investment in the road infrastructure, the rationale for building a single rather than a dual carriageway at Maybow and the south-west transport study that the Scottish Government has recently commissioned. A summary of our discussion is contained in our meeting papers. In recognising the particular concerns that have been raised in relation to the condition of the A75 and A77 and the impact that that has on the economy of the area, the committee asked the Scottish Government for information to understand the economic profile of Dumfries and Galloway. That information has now been received and is also contained in our meeting papers. Members will recall that the committee asked the Scottish Government whether there was scoped pilot a 50mph speed limit for the HGVs on the A77, similar to the pilot currently under way on the A9. The Government has responded by stating that there are no plans to increase the HGV speed limit, as there is insufficient evidence to justify a change. The petitioners are providing further written submissions in response to the evidence session with the minister. They continue to raise concerns on a range of issues, including the impact of those roads to the economy, both across Dumfries and Galloway and Scotland more widely, as well as the decision not to pilot a 50mph speed limit for HGVs on the A77 and the options that are considered in relation to the Maybowl bypass. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action on the two petitions. You had a written parliamentary question that was due to be answered yesterday, and I wonder if A has been answered and B can you share its findings with us? It has been answered with one line, which basically says, no plans. As you know, convener, myself and my colleague Finlay Carson have been quite visifrous in the way that we have tackled this and gone after this, because I met with Stenner recently to specifically talk about their plans, the investment that they have made on the back of conversations and promises that they made some time ago. The P&O and the P&O are quite dismayed and disappointed at the lack of investment in the area. I will also point to the fact that the route from Dublin to Holyhead is starting to pick up a lot of the new traffic that is coming along, and that route is growing much faster. Again, Holyhead has had significant investment in the infrastructure around there, and it is an inevitability that that will continue to happen. I want to throw my hat out here to say that during the recess, I planned to take the trip in an HGV to get a feel from it. However, I travelled that route specifically to the A77 weekly, and I have been trying to raise this empowerment of the last two or three weeks. The way that route has crumbled, since the petition has been raised, is quite frankly quite scary. In fact, the past time that I was going down the route, my passenger took a picture of an HGV overtaking a line of traffic of which I was in. That is no slight against the HGV driver, but it is on the charge to try to get to Kerrmine. We have now had the Ayrshire Transport Summit fairly recently, which was well attended by MSPs and all the other parties. It keeps going back to the fact that the economy of the local area, the safety of that route, is suffering so much now and has continued to suffer. My worry is that there is movement on the Ayrshire growth deal, which will only quite rightly increase the volume of traffic. The whole infrastructure of that area is now under review, but by the time that review has come out, which is now the winter, the next winter, if nothing is done on that road between now and then, it will be on the sea. I cannot stress enough how poor the state of that road is, and you have got 44 ton lorries in convoy. Going up and down that route 26 times a day, that road, by the time next winter comes along, that road—I know that 75 is the same, but 77 is going to be on the sea. Somehow or other, we have got to get some movement on this. I agree with everything that Brian Scott said. We have got fantastic opportunity with the Ayrshire growth deal, the Borderlands growth deal and the establishment of the South of Scotland Enterprise Agency. That has got to be underpinned by good road and rail infrastructure. At the moment, we are looking at the end of this year into the winter before we even get the review. Everybody knows what the review is going to tell us, and there has been a severe lack of investment in both A77 and A75. It cannot be overstressed how key to the economic sustainability in Dumfries and Galloway and south there so that those two roads are. I can understand that we want to make decisions based on the evidence that is put in front of us, but I would call on the strategic review to be brought forward so that it can underpin the growth deals that we are seeing being brought to the table right now. I find that slightly frustrating. When we did our visit down there and had a look at it, we talked to people and the shipping lines. It is quite clear that there is a major issue here. I found when we had our conversation with the minister that quite frustrating because he seems quite dismissive. I understand that there is only so much money and you have to make decisions about where it goes, but it does feel like this is being allowed to disintegrate. The impact of its disintegration is going to be greater than just whether people can drive from A to B. There is a big amount of economic reliance on this road and it is reaching a stage where, frankly, whether you put a single lane bypass at Mabel is going to be neither here nor there because the rest of the road will be virtually unusable if it carries on. It is a time thing. As the time goes on, the bill is getting bigger. I would agree with Innecas and we could do with somebody moving the bill down earlier and a proper assessment of what needs to be done here. In the first instance, we probably need to go back to the minister and say, look here at the points that have been raised. Can you address them? I do not think that we have had satisfactory answers to the issues that are being raised by the petitioners. It feels to me that that is a starter for 10. We should be asking the Mabel bypass specifically what options were considered and what was the rationale for the decision that it finally came to. I was quite struck by the fact that the minister said that he would establish whether he would look at a pilot on 50 miles an hour for each TV. He then came back and said, we are not going to do that because there was no evidence. What was the consideration that was done between the minister saying that he would look at it or find out and then simply come back and say, we are not going to do it? There are two very specific things, but I think that there are a number of other issues that are there as well. It is not just about the economy of the area. There is a knock-on effect. For example, there is consideration that we are giving just now between treatment of cancer at the air hospital and Cymaroc hospital. The consideration is that we are going to shut that treatment in the air and move it to cross-house. The extra travel that that entails. If the route from up the S77 all the way down to governing balance rate was of a much higher quality than the one that we were talking about, that gives a different connotation to that particular conversation. Perhaps the centralisation of that treatment in Cymaroc does not become such a big issue when that road closes many times. The diversion that has to happen for ambulances coming up that road adds 40 minutes to an hour to a journey. We need to understand that it is more than just an issue around commercial decisions, which are massively important than they are. People's day-to-day lives and their ability to move up and down that route to the main conurbations in Ayrshire. I forgot to say that because I said a lot. I just want to put that on the table as well. Until we made our committee visit last year, I had absolutely no idea how bad the conditions were down there. I was shocked to be honest. When we write to the Government, we should be asking not just in retrospect about the Mabel thing but also what plans are there to go forward, ask them to come up with something concrete. They must have it in their sights to do something. Nothing much more to add, convener. I tend to agree with everything that has been said. I know that the two local members have met PNO and Steneline, but it is possible to get an update from them on their stance. They gave us evidence when we were down in Dumfries and Galloway on the committee visit. The committee has not heard from all the local members, so have we got to get their perspective? I was thinking that, possibly, we might want to invite representatives of the hallways and the ferry companies. The question is whether we do that in a committee session or around table, which then allows community representatives or whatever else to be around. It is a question of the focus of that. Perhaps that is something that we can reflect on with the class, but I certainly think that it would be worth hearing from them in some way in one other suggestion that we might want to look at. It is whether that would merit a committee debate in the chamber. Maybe once we have made a bit more progress with it, it would again allow—I think that the point that your owner makes is a telling one—that it is an issue that people are aware of as something that people locally are talking about. That broader question about the impact of the Scottish economy and safety is not such a delivery of public services, it is not necessarily something that everybody is allowed to do. We could take that suggestion further in that I am quite convinced that, for example, Steno would host a meeting at the headquarters, which would then allow the committee the opportunity to go down the sum to sum and see it for oneself. I am quite sure that, if the committee was so minded, it would ask— Let us look at that, because I think that there is a question about whether the authority of a public hearing in committee session may be a productive way of looking at it, and realistically we are clear that we want to ask them for their views, so we can write to them. We then want to think about how best we can create a forum where those broader issues can be highlighted, but we can maybe make that in consultation with the deputy convener and the clerks about what would be feasible in that, if that was agreed. However, as a minimum, we would certainly be writing to the Scottish Government and writing to the Holyers and the ferry operators to get their views, because I think that the issue that is also flagged up in the papers is about the way in which other lines for travelling goods are being developed and the impact in that Scottish economy is also kind of a question that we want to look at. Can I say that, if we are going to take views from people at Steno and Pino, I personally think that it would be quite good to have it in a formal evidence session and maybe to add perhaps the ambulance service to that as well, because for me there is something about getting on formal evidence and allowing the wider population to be able to tune in and hear it and look at it as well, because our visit was really useful for us, but it was very much something that we all engaged with, but it was not open and visible. Let's look at the format, but I think that's the balance. We want to strike and we want to hear from the different voices, but we need to also have a focus, so there are a lot of different strands to this, but we can maybe look at how best that can be taken forward. If that's agreed, aren't there any final comments, Finlay? I just want to thank the committee for absolutely putting this at the top of the agenda. The transport minister has said that on more than one occasion that it's at the top of his entry, but I would like to see the top of his out-tree as something being dealt with. We talk about it, people in Dumfries and Galloway and those on the sides of the A77 are very aware that it's being discussed up here, but we certainly need a way forward, so we know that there's a timescale that we're working to or whatever. I welcome Brian's comments and Michelle Ballantyne's on the Ambulance Service of Water. We've got a health board that's looking to provide centres of excellence. By the moment, there are some patients in Srenard who are having to travel 75 miles to Dumfries, and that's not the patients who are having to travel to the central belt for cancer treatment and the travel times and the safety on these roads has got to be taken into consideration as well as the hauliers and the people who are using it to get to work every day. There's also the issue about going forward with more centralised health treatments, and we need to be able to get to these centres safely, and that's certainly not the way people are travelling at the moment. Just a final thought, just to ensure that when we write to the Scottish Government, can we ask them how members of the public can contribute to the South West transport study? That's also an important point. The importance of a good transport infrastructure matters, no matter where you're deciding. You're going to put individual services, there will always be some services that are centralised and we want people to get to them safely. I think that there's a number of issues that we can pursue, and I think that we should probably flag up to the convener's group our interest in having a chamber debate at some point on that issue as well. It may be at the beginning before the next stage or at a conclusion of what we can make further decisions on that. We'll cool with that. I thank Finlay Carson for his attendance and if we can move on to the final petition for consideration today, which is petition 1627 by Annette Mackenzie on consent for mental health treatment for people under 18 years of age. We'll ask to consider this petition at our meeting on 18 January, when we heard evidence from the Minister for Mental Health. The committee considered a range of important issues with the minister, including the prescription of anti-depressants to under 18s, GP training, early intervention and prevention measures, including CAMHS service provision and issues related to consent. A summary of the discussion that took place is contained within our meetings papers. In our written submission, the petitioner suggests a possible solution that might address the issue of consent for young people who have been prescribed anti-depressants through the use of a written consent form. I think that there was also submission circulated late, but that is now on the petition's web page, and we also have access to it here. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I'm really troubled, I have to say, by this petition. I'm really keen that we are progressing or are endearing to progress down a route that makes real change, because I think that there is an underpinning problem here in the way that when young people are going and seeking help, it is often the first call with the GP that what they are receiving is not appropriate. I say that in a way that I am not suggesting that GPs are deliberately or in other words not endearing to do their best, but I think that the circumstances that are driven by 10-minute appointments, by very busy clinics, and I think that in terms of the underpinning, training and on-going CPD that doctors are receiving mean that actually what we've got is fundamentally an inadequate approach to dealing with young people who are coming in with anxiety, depression or feelings of inadequacy. I think that it's clear from the evidence in front of us in our papers that GPs are struggling to get the kind of CPD they need, whether it's updating on safeguarding, on mental health, on appropriate use of drugs. Combined with the other petition that's sitting with us on the impact of antidepressants, I think that it paints a very troubling picture. I would like us to go back to the minister and ask clearly about what she feels about the need for some engagement around written consent, but I also think that I would be keen to speak again to the GMC and say that we've seen what you've got to say about the process of training and the elements that have to be undertaken, but we do think that there's an issue here. We would like your thoughts on what can be done to improve the engagement with young people, particularly around GPs. I think that the whole business of prescribing for young people when they come in needs to be a broader conversation about whether or not there should be some sort of stop on giving prescriptions to young people on a first visit to a GP. The sign guidelines clearly say that they shouldn't be prescribed until other therapists have been tried out, but clearly that isn't happening. We have a number of pieces of evidence in front of us that indicate quite clearly that it is not uncommon practice for young people to be given a prescription on a first visit. I think that that alone sends shivers down my spine, and certainly as somebody who's worked in children's services providing alternative therapies, I would be very concerned about any child being given a prescription on a first visit and extremely concerned about them being given it without any other person being aware of it and being able to give support to that young person. I think that that is our current circumstance in the system that we have. It is not about blaming any individuals, it's not about holding doctors to task, but it is about looking at a system that I think has a problem in it and addressing that problem, not looking just in terms of exonerating individuals, but actually saying, look, we've got a systemic problem here that we need to address. The petition is before us, and I think that as a committee it's something that we need to drive forward, and I think that we need to discuss how we do that and whether we can do it in this short session, I suspect, is not the case, and I wonder whether we should take it out of here and have a broader session on looking at what's going on and what might be the best way to approach dealing with this. I think that of all the petitions that we've heard on here, I think that this one is the one that's probably impacted me personally the most. I think that it's one of the most important petitions that we've had here, because I think, as Colin Michelle Ballantyne has highlighted here, it's raising a much bigger issue here. It's raising, for me, one of a better expression of protection of our GPs. I think that the CPD has not kept pace with the rise in mental health conditions. I think that it's over well as saying they're not following the sign guidelines, but that would then pedigate that other therapies and options are available to the GPs at the time. The idea that youngsters can be given medication on a first visit to a GP just frightens me, I can't tell you, so I think that we need to have a particular longer session to look at this petition somehow or other. We need to be able to consider this in a much and environment that's not so constrictive as we have in here just now. I would back a call to take a specific session on this if we could. If we do that, what we're doing is implementing the public decisions that we've made and we would report back on those. It just gives the wee bit space to reflect on all of the evidence. It's not that we wanted to take out the public domain and not return it, but it would certainly give us a chance to think through some of those issues. I think that, for me, from the minister's evidence, I don't think that we've got a satisfactory answer on to what extent prescribing antidepressant drugs or other drugs are the first port of call, the last port of call, when we know that the guidance says that it shouldn't be the first thing that's done. The minister and her official didn't seem to be able to give evidence of what happened, so they could say, well, yes, the evidence is that it's only where someone is in crisis. That was a question for me. I think that there's a question about access to CAMHS, and this is something that I've picked up elsewhere, that people feel that there's gatekeeping going on, which may be because the resource is so precious and so limited that it's ending up, that it's not something routinely that MGPs can lean on. I think that we should be specifically writing to the minister now and asking for her to comment on the petitioner's view on written consent, and we didn't really get, and I can see where the complicating of it were easy, it would have been sorted by now, but the question of the difference between going and telling somebody about somebody else's right to confidential advice and understanding that, in circumstances like these, somebody would need a bit of support. The minister herself accepted that, if it were cancer, then, of course, the family is brought in, and how can we support the person with cancer? The presumption is that, for somebody who's got a mental health issue, that support wouldn't be as positive a thing, and I think that that is an interesting indication of the way in which we deal with mental health issues separately. I also noted that, from the submission from the Royal College of General Practitioners, they talk about communication and consultation and say that, to enable parents or carers, children and young people to participate in their own care, be routinely involved, but it actually flags up the need for confidentiality, balance with the parents' need for information, and whether that is specifically for under-16s, I don't know. I don't think that this is something that is absolutely black and white, but there are issues here. How can you be as supportive as possible of somebody who may need particular treatments, but to reach out to people who would be supportive of them and allow them to be? Again, the petitioners have underlined that, even if they felt that it wasn't appropriate for the drugs to be prescribed, if they had known, it would have explained behaviour changes and she might have been able to help with dispensing the drugs, so there are questions there. I think that we want to go back to the minister with those points, and if there are other points that people want to flag up that should be included in the letter, I'll take them in a moment. I think that we want an opportunity to reflect a bit on how all the different ways in which we can pursue this, we do want to flag up to the minister the question of written consent that is highlighted by the petitioner. Are there any other issues that people would want to add to that? As has been said, my colleagues have said that it is hugely troubling and massively important for the petition, and it encompasses so many different things that we have to get as much information as we can. The responses that we have had so far haven't added much, I'm sure that the petitioner won't feel that it has added much to her reasons for bringing the petition, so we need to get closer to that. Certainly, writing to the Government and asking about the consent forms would be one aspect, but it definitely needs longer. I think that that is an issue that we can't do in 15 minutes every fortnight. I think that we have to—it does need a longer session, it's a much wider issue. Yes, I think that what has been suggested is what we should do for now, but I think that we need to look at it longer term as well. You mentioned the issue of funding for CAMHS a week ago, convener. I think that the minister referred to extra funding that had come in. I think that it was about £10 million, but clearly there are capacity issues, so there's no doubt about that. Could we possibly write to Young Scot for an update on the work of the youth commission to explore the extension of CAMHS to the age of 25, and also ask Health Improvement Scotland for further information about its work with health boards to improve CAMHS services in Scotland? It would seem from what the minister has said that the intention is there to improve CAMHS services, but funding is clearly required. Some of it may not be about funding as well, it may simply be the kind of, do we wait till somebody's crisis before we access support for them, or does CAMHS have a role in preventing the work, and I don't know the answer to that. I think that, certainly from evidence that I've heard elsewhere, people who you would have felt would have been seen as somebody who would access CAMHS and haven't been, so I think that it's quite interesting to explore that. I think that your suggestions around Young Scot and Health Improvement Scotland would help that. As we have said, we want to write about the written consent forms. Perhaps we should ask them to reflect on the finding of the SAMH survey regarding GP knowledge of signing other guidelines and how they would promote the available guidance to all GP practices in Scotland. I think that we are agreeing that we will reflect on this in private, but we will report back in evidence taking session, a public session of committee to reflect on what the conclusions of that would be at a future meeting, if that's agreed. Anything else? No, I think that there's quite significant issues that I think that were flagged up from the minister, but also from the submissions that we received that give us the opportunity to pursue that further. If there's nothing else on that, I indicate to everyone that I hope that they have a good recess and a happy Easter. I look forward to seeing you in the new session and with that I'll close the meeting.