Good morning, and I'm delighted to welcome everyone to this, the second meeting of the Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022. Our first item on the agenda today is actually to decide whether we wish to take agenda item 4 in private. Can I ask colleagues if they are agreeable to that? Thank you very much. We move then to the consideration of continued petitions. I apologise, there are one or two of these petitions where the update I have to give is quite lengthy, so I do apologise in advance for an uninterrupted speech, which I don't often get in the chamber. In any event, our first petition is on petition number 1804, Halt Highlands and Islands Highale air traffic management strategy lodged by Alasdair McGeachan, John Doeig and Peter Henderson on behalf of the Banffecular Community Council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt Highlands and Islands airports limited air traffic management strategy project to conduct an independent assessment of the decisions and decision making process of the ATMS project. I'm delighted to welcome Liam McArthur, who's joining us online this morning, and Rhoda Grant, who is back with us in the chamber, to speak to the petition. Before I come to both of them, may I, just as I said a moment ago, offer a little more background? The Scottish Government's latest submission provides an update following the Assurance of Action plan conducted in the week commencing October 25. The plan was set in the context of the Highlands and Islands airports limited highale from here on in announcement that a framework for discussion had been agreed with Prospect, the Trade Union, to establish a new way forward for the implementation of the air traffic management strategy ATMS programme. It noted that programme delivery activities were largely paused to enable further delivery options to be appraised. The submission confirms that the Digital Assurance Office, portfolio programme and project assurance team and Highale would continue to liaise to ensure that appropriate assurance arrangements were planned as decisions are taken on the programme's direction. In its most recent submission, Highale explains that, as a result of these developments, all industrial action was suspended while talks continued. In addition, new ATMS working groups were established with 27 air traffic colleagues from across several airports to help detail the benefits and risks of a potential way forward. The first of those groups met on 6 December. Highale subsequently made an announcement at the end of January that the Highale board had agreed the future strategic direction for the ATMS programme. That will comprise a centralised surveillance operation for Sumbra, Kirkwall, Stornoway, Inverness and Dundee airports, based at Highale's existing approach radar facility on the Inverness airport site. Air traffic tariff services will continue to be provided locally at each of these airports. A late submission from the petitioners commenting on the detail of this announcement has been circulated to members. In summary, the petitioners raised concerns about the timescales for these new developments, the £9 million suspension so far, the implementation of surveillance radar, concerns regarding the timeline for Inverness to be granted controlled airspace, whether Highale intends to introduce controlled airspace at Dundee, Stornoway, Kirkwall and Wick and Hwen, Bambecula and Wick moving from ATC to AFIS, what will happen to New Century House, the building bought to house the combined surveillance centre and remote tower centre. The petitioner asks that the committee correspond directly with the CAA regarding the issues that he raises and would also welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns with the committee in person. I understand that we heard from the petitioner two years ago. Like others, I got quite excited when I saw reporting Scotland feature announcements in relation to all of this. I thought that maybe we were seeing progress of some kind, but the petitioner is underwhelmed to say the least. Before we considered as a committee, I would like to invite both Liam and Rhoda Grant to advise if there is anything that he would like to update us further on. We do not want to hear the original petition all over again, Mr MacArthur, but if there is anything that he would like to update us on, can I come to you first? Thank you very much, convener. I will try to be as brief as possible. The petitioner has set out very well some of the outstanding issues that remain. It is not at all clear, for example, where this idea of radar surveillance has come from. It certainly begs some questions about the £3.5 million that was spent on New Century House that now seems to be a rather expensive wide elephant in relation to TMS. That speaks to the concerns that Rhoda Grant and I have. More importantly, the petitioners were raising previously about the incremental costs that have been incurred through this process for an objective that we have seen as the only show in town. That has now been temporarily dumped. I think that there is an on-going concern, however, convener, that Hial may simply dust down the remote tower proposals four or five years down the line and seek to reintroduce them. I think that the other point out, perhaps stress at this point, is the extent to which they are relying on co-operative surveillance. There has been some suggestions from Hial that it was oven-ready and ready to go. That has absolutely been refuted by the CAA. It would certainly be interesting to hear what Hial's response to that challenge is, because, fundamentally, if the CAA is not convinced, it is not going to get off the ground. There are many questions there that are left to be answered. The immediate risk to jobs in the islands and at the other airports is that they have been lifted, but there is some deep anxiety about the medium to longer term. Hial is also handling a project that seems to have been calamitous and is set to rack up more and more costs at the public expense. If the committee were minded and had time available to hear directly from the petitioners, that would be very valuable in laying out more detail. I think that some of the issues that the committee can usefully continue to keep under review. Thank you very much, Mr McArthur. Is it the immediate lifting of threat to jobs that is maybe underpinned prospects? Can you welcome the immediate issue? Have you any contact with them that you can advise us of? I think that that must be the motivation. We got to an impasse where, in a sense, Hial suggests that the only way of achieving the modernisation that everybody accepts is necessary in terms of future air traffic services in the region, and that the remote towers are the only way of achieving that. Having reached an agreement that lifts that immediate threat to jobs, perhaps prospect feels that things have been moved on, but there is certainly anxiety among staff at a local level. That is, in a sense, simply at Hial buying the time that they were always going to need in terms of trying to achieve the remote tower. That anxiety is certainly there. I would be interested to know whether prospects themselves believe that to still be the case, but certainly amongst a number of their members and staff locally. I understand that other airports remain anxious about the longer-term intentions of the Hial management. Thank you, convener. I agree with everything that Liam has said, but it is welcome news that there has been a pause in all of this, because that is what prospects were asking for, and the staff and communities were asking for, because they wanted time to look at the alternative solutions. Nobody is arguing that we do not need to improve safety, but what was being argued was that those proposals did not really provide additional safety, but were centralisation, and they were going to cause huge economic damage and not provide the safety that people wanted. I think that there are a number of things that I would be really grateful if the committee would look at. One is the proposed discussions with regard to Bimbicula and WIC. That was quite overlooked because of the enormity of the proposals that have impacted all airports, but there is real concern that the downgrading of Bimbicula and WIC will go ahead. They really need safe surveillance and air traffic control based locally, because both those areas are looking at being sites for satellite launches. They need a safe airspace, and Bimbicula is also host to Kinetic's Hebrides range, which means that quite often, when there are tests taking place, there is a huge amount of air activity there. The Hebrides range also provides potential solutions in that they have radar there, so HIA could work with them to provide that in Bimbicula at a very affordable cost, without huge disruption. Also in Bimbicula, if you remember, one of the issues for all of that was the recruitment of air traffic control staff. The staff in Bimbicula that carry out air traffic control tend to be young, so they have staff into the future. They are local people, and they are not going to move anywhere, and they will be lost to HIA, if they stop air traffic control there. There is also a new islands impact assessment, so any downgrading in Bimbicula should surely wait for that islands impact assessment to be done, because that is within the spirit of the law. People will be aware of the closing of Dumre and the need for a real economic focus in the area. There is a lot of work going on with renewables and maintenance of devices. They need good air traffic links to other parts of the UK to be able to attract those jobs, so it is very important that they have a safe airspace. Indeed, we are trying to encourage more traffic in there. I will not repeat what you said about the CAA and what it was saying, but it would certainly be well worth the committee speaking to the CAA and finding out what is happening there, because there is some discussion around WIC and maybe being managed from Orkney. I think that the CAA is not keen. Staff recruitment is the other thing now. HIA used to be really, really good at this. They used to recruit from their communities, train them up, and those people obviously stayed. It was an Inverness. They had the biggest recruitment issue where people tended to be more mobile. To make them look at that again and make sure that they start the recruitment process again, because that is one of the provisals that they are stepping back. If they cannot recruit, they are saying that they are going to continue as was. I know that the petitioners were keen to see the second digital audit Scotland report published. HIA will have it, so it would be useful if the committee would ask them to publish that as well. There is the issue of the centralisation of radar surveillance into Inverness. That does not make sense, given that we are going to have air traffic control at the airports. There might be some scrutiny on how that was reached. I know that there are real concerns in Shetland about that, because they have their own radar locally, and the thought of that being centralised away to Inverness might have an impact on them. The other things that are mentioned, such as the new century house and the like, I would agree with that as well, but I do not want to repeat everything given that. Clearly, there are a number of increasingly focused but quite serious issues. Colleagues, whenever you like to come in, David Torrance. Thank you, convener. The petition has been going on quite a while since the last session, and we have not been updated by the petitioner for a long time. I am sure that, like myself and committee members, we have a number of questions that we would like to ask the petitioner. I would like to see whether we can bring the petitioner in for evidence and high-eval management, so we could ask him. I would concur with that. We have looked at the petition in depth, but it now seems that there are more questions than answers from the information that we have now received, so it would be useful to get the petitioner in. I think that there are also questions to be asked of the CAA in what they are doing with high-eval, and I think that that would be useful to try to have some correspondence with them, with reference to the cooperative radar system that has been discussed in the papers. I do think that more information is required for us to really understand that it is very useful to have the other members who have given us a lot of detail, but there are still questions that we can ask from the petitioner and from the CAA. Mr MacArthur, you would like to come back into our consideration. Thank you very much, convener. I will be extremely brief. I very much welcome the voice convener and Alexander Stewart's comments there. Following on from what Rhoda said in relation to local recruitment, that is absolutely essential. When they did it last time, they almost made an exemplar of it since then. They moved away from that model and sought to hire reggae-made air traffic controllers, which was always a short-term fix and has left the company with some issues in relation to retention. I think that it would offer a degree of reassurance to staff at the various airports if Hyal were to embark now on a local recruitment drive, which has proven itself in the past to be the best way of not just recruiting but retaining staff. If you have Hyal management in front of you, that is a question that could be very, very usefully asked. Thank you very much for that. Can I say to you on your role as Deputy Presiding Officer that you promoted Mr Stewart there? I mean, in fact, my deputy convener is, in fact, David Torrance. Somebody, I was talking about the deputy convener and Alexander Stewart, rather than the deputy convener and Alexander Stewart. Well, thank goodness for that. Obviously, David Torrance was on the previous Petitions Committee who heard from the petitioners. Given the recent moves that there has been, I am minded to fall in very much with the suggestion that we have Hyal. I think that we might write to the CAA in the first instance to get their views on the petitioners' latest concerns. I think that I quite like some thing from Prospect as well in terms of the welcome they have given and what underpins that and where they are now sitting in that process. It may well be that that would lead to us inviting them as well to give evidence, I think. So the petitioners are Hyal and Prospect at the moment, I think. Anybody else any suggestions or is that seem reasonable? Paul Sweeney. Can you hear more from operators of their space as in, for example, Loganair? People are actually going to be using it to understand what their concerns might be. So, whether it's the training school that's done the airport and the main scheduled carrier, which is Loganair, I'm interested, just to get something from them, I don't think. No, thank you. I was just going to ask the clerks whether that had been part of any continuing evidence. Could we just review that and then potentially see whether there's scope to follow up on Paul Sweeney's suggestion in relation to any evidence that we might take? I think that that would be another facet of the approach that has to be understood. Is there anything for us at this stage to write to the minister of transport on, or are we content to take evidence in the first instance? I think that we are. Thank you all very much and hopefully that takes us forward a little bit and we can make our own contribution to this long-standing issue. Our next petition is petition number 1812 protects Scotland's remaining ancient native and seminative woodlands and woodland floors, lodged by Audra Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of help trees help us. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation, giving Scotland's remaining fragments of ancient native and seminative woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection. Initially they'd hoped before COP26 in Glasgow last November. I'm delighted to welcome Jackie Bailey to our meeting this morning and before I come to Jackie, a little background the committee last considered this position on 8 September last. We agreed to write then to the Scottish Government to seek an update in its response to the dear working group. To date, no response has been received from the Scottish Government. However, the petitioners themselves have made a further submission, raising concerns that Scotland's ancient woodland, Atlantic Rainforest Country parks from Oaklands areas of outstanding beauty and farmland are all now being overrun by invasive non-native ecosystem engineer conifer species. The submission explains that this species already covers around one sixth of the country where conifers are not being deliberately planted and they are planting themselves. It's the petitioner's understanding that Scotland added around 10,500 hectares of new invasive conifer-dominated plantations last year and is aiming to plant a further 18,000 each year for timber. This will be filled by 24. The submission explains that in the first part of the United Nations COP15 biodiversity conference in China, the intergovernmental science policy platform and biodiversity-stated invasive species and destructive land use are two of the five biggest threats to the natural world. The petitioners explain that the UK law on escaped non-native trees is set out in the wildlife and countryside act 1981 and states that any person who plants or otherwise causes to grow any plant in the wild at a place outwith its native range is guilty of an offence. The petitioner is concerned that no-one appears to be upholding this law with the forestry industry being exempt. The petitioner calls for the act to change to reflect the growing scientific understanding of the impact of invasive ecosystem engineers as well as the forest industry's inability to manage the risks associated with planting invasive conifers across Scotland. I should express disappointment that we have not had a response from the Scottish Government, but I am very happy to invite Jackie Baillie, who is with us this morning, to update us with any comments that she may wish to contribute. Given your comprehensive introduction to the petition, you have taken most of my comments away. I am worried that that might be the case. I am grateful to you and to the committee for the opportunity to speak to this petition from Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker, both of whom are my constituents. Members will know that I am not an expert in ancient or native woodland, but in learning about the petition I am absolutely persuaded of the need to protect our woodlands and I therefore hope that the committee will support the aims of the petition. The petitioners do believe that our ancient and native woodlands are being colonised. I have copies of pictures that I do not know whether it is appropriate to circulate to members of the committee, but I think that a picture does what a thousand words do and it shows you the invasion of non-native species to our countryside. Scotland's ancient woodlands, its Atlantic rainforest, other land is being colonised by invasive non-native conifer species, which already covers, as you said yourself, convener, one-sixth of the country. It is interesting to note that, while New Zealand, which is remarkably similar to Scotland, is spending hundreds of millions of dollars removing invasive conifers, we have the opposite situation in Scotland. As you rightly referenced, 10,500 hectares in the last year with an ambition for an additional 18,000 hectares each year for the next three years. However, New Zealand is not alone. Irish authorities have issued contracts for the removal of self-seeded conifers in an attempt to protect their woodlands from being colonised in a similar way. As I understand it, conifers take anything from six to 40 years to mature. They produce copious seeds, which can live in the soil for decades before they germinate. Once they take hold, they rapidly invade, outgrow and destroy native woodlands. Another set of issues is the impact on local communities, which members may have experienced. Those are often plantations promoted by faceless investment companies, some of them global actors, able to buy up land in Scotland. The Daily Record, in an article a few days ago, described the tax haven companies such as Gresham House that are taking advantage of tree planting in Scotland. Their investment opens access to tax breaks. There are no income tax, no corporation tax, no capital gains tax in relation to growing timber. In their brochures, those investment companies talk about forestry funds providing their high net worth clients with inheritance tax-efficient structures. I know that I digress slightly, but the committee should be aware of the motivation of some of those companies. It is not about climate change or the environment, it is about tax-efficient funds. Some might even describe it as tax avoidance funds for wealthy clients. Those companies outbid local communities for land, and often the farmers in those areas are extremely concerned that productive land is lost. Community consultation is meaningless and road safety concerns about large haulage lorries going through small rural communities are swept aside. I know this because there is currently a consultation affecting my area for a 200-acre afforestation scheme that is stuck enough involving the one and only Gresham House. In nature and in life it is all about balance. It would be interesting to know how many commercial afforestation schemes there are, how many are conifers and how many are native woodland. As the original petition noted, we only have something like 1 per cent of our ancient woodland left. We need to protect the remaining fragments of that ancient woodland, semi-native woodland and indeed the woodland floor as well, for future generations. That does mean providing full legal protection. Let me turn to the law in closing, convener. You were right to reference the Wild Life and Countryside Act 1981, because it does state that any person who plants or otherwise causes to grow any plant in the wild at a place out with its native range is guilty of an offence. The forestry industry is exempt, but I would be curious to know how often this has been enforced in Scotland in the last 41 years and indeed why there are no controls on the forestry industry because they will have a direct impact on our ancient woodlands. Let me leave you with a surprising fact, which I confess to not being aware of before and indeed the convener referenced it himself. That is according to the UN COP15 in China that invasive species and destructive land use are two of the five biggest threats to the natural world. I certainly did not know that before, so surely, convener, it is time for Scotland to update its legal framework to take account of that growing body of knowledge of the impact of non-native invasive species and act to protect what remains of our ancient native woodland. Miss Bailey, I now invite members of the committee who would wish to comment. I thought David Torrance. Thank you, convener. Like yourself, I was disappointed that we did not get anything back from the Scottish Government. I am just wondering if we could invite the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands to come and give us evidence about what has been asked. I think that it is quite concerning that the evidence has been put before us. Ruth Maguire? Sorry, I am pressing up on myself there. I think that it is a really important topic and I would be interested to hear directly from the cabinet secretary as well. I think that it allows us to move things along a bit quicker than the letter writing seems to have done in this instance. I think that it would be helpful to hear from him. Are you waving a pen, Alexander Stewart, or seeking to catch my eye? Thank you, convener. I would also indicate the disappointment at not having a response from the Scottish Government on this issue. I think that it is very much in our favour, if we do invite the cabinet secretary to now come. The evidence that we have heard and it is useful to have the photographic evidence as well, does indicate, and Ms Bailey gave us a very informed approach. It would be useful to get the cabinet secretary to answer some of those questions that were posed during that submission. Thank you, convener. I think that it is incredibly important. Certainly during COP26, RSPB did a fantastic showcase on Scotland's rainforest, which was quite an eye-opening educational experience. I think that a lot of people do not realise that the rainforest exists in Scotland in a temperate climate. I think that there is probably a broader need to mobilise a debate around this issue. I wonder whether we ought to consider a wider group of stakeholders to take evidence from and to broaden the base of the evidence that we are seeking to obtain, perhaps linking with the Forestry Commission, RSPB, just as two suggestions. It definitely is an urgent concern, particularly in the nature of the invasive growth in existing weight ancient woodland and the displacement caused by conifer plantations, which I think were originally planted for this First World War. I think that that is the origin of the Forestry Commission, so it was about war needs, especially to rapidly grow timber, but obviously it has had severe long-term effects over the last century. Thank you very much. I am very much welcome all of the comments from the committee. I thank you Jackie Baillie because I thought that was a very helpful, comprehensive suggestion. Our original thought was that we might write to the cabinet secretary again, but given the focus that there is in Scotland on the whole environmental agenda and the importance of this issue, it does seem to be one of those things that the petition's committee was designed to pick up and make some running with and interrogate in some detail. I would very much welcome the suggestion that we have the cabinet secretary here. I am happy to concur in the other suggestions that were made by Mr Sweeney. I think that we might, but I do think that the photographs are very helpful in terms of illustrating what invasion can look like. I am very happy for the cabinet secretary's sight of these before he comes to give evidence, so there is an understanding of the practical reality that we can see and that I imagine where the petitioner is responsible for those, Ms Baillie. They were indeed my photographic skills and not as good as this. No comment. I will thank them very much as well. I am just wondering whether we would like to have the petitioners involved in that as well. I think that it might as a courtesy be nice to have them given the opportunity too. I think that that would certainly be welcome by the petitioners. I agree, so we are content. We are. Ms Baillie, thank you all very much for your contribution in relation to that petition. We move on then to petition number 1860, which is new legislation for prescription and limitation act, which is lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham, calls on the Scottish Parliament towards the Scottish Government to amend the prescription and limitation act to allow retrospective claims to be made. The petition was last considered on 17 November. Members will recall that, in her previous submission, the minister for community safety advised the committee that the Scottish Government does not hold data relating to the exercise of section 19 of the prescription and limitation act 1973 and that the Scottish courts and tribunals service cannot interrogate the information that it holds as it is held in a court interlocutor. The committee, therefore, agreed to write to the minister to ask how the Scottish Government intended to address the data gap identified by the petition. I think that we were all quite surprised. The minister promised to write once again to the Scottish courts and tribunals service to raise the issue with them. The minister also notes that section 19A empowers the court to discipline the time limit and that this discretion is unfettered, stating that what matters is the circumstances in which the courts have exercised the discretion not necessarily the number of times that it has been exercised. Colleagues, I thought that the response that we received from the minister was the response that we might have hoped to receive the first time round, but can I ask if there are any comments from the committee? David Torrance Thank you, convener. I wonder if we could write to the minister for community safety for an update and have we got on with the Scottish courts and tribunals service? Indeed. I do not know when we can expect that the minister will have written, but I think that we will chase that up until we get some understanding of what has progressed. Is there any other recommendation at the station? Petition number 1862, to introduce community representation and boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities, lodged by Ronan Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the used economic task force, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation and boards of public organisations, delivering lifelines services to island communities in keeping with the islands Scotland Act 2018. I am delighted both online to welcome back Liam McArthur and to welcome Alistair Allen to the committee to speak to the petition, but before I come to our guests just a very little additional background, we last considered the petition on 1 September 2021 and at that meeting the committee discussed an earlier submission by the Scottish Government which explained that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board are set out in the public body's founding legislation. The committee highlighted that there was quote, nothing in the Scottish Government's submission to suggest that it has any plans to amend founding legislation for public bodies on the basis that lifeline services to island communities require community representation on their boards. The committee therefore agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it had any plans to amend founding legislation for such a purpose. As with our last petition, we have had no response as yet from the Scottish Government ahead of our consideration today. However, I am very happy to bring in both of our parliamentary colleagues for further comment and I will ask Alistair Allen if he would like to comment first. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to begin by thanking Rona Mackay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Brenner for what they have done in my constituency on behalf of the US economic task force and letting this petition to you. As island communities, we are all reliant on lifeline transport links, and they are vital to every aspect of our lives. However, the organisations that are tasked with delivering those services have virtually no one with experience of actually living in the communities that they serve on their boards. The petitioner's submission, rightly in my view, states that the community and place should be at the heart of good government. Given that the principal mission of organisations such as David McBrain Ltd, Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd and Highlands and Islands airports is to serve island communities, it is not in the interests of good governance of the boards of those organisations to be as remote from their service users as they currently are. I say that as no criticism, convener, of existing board members, but I do not think that any of them probably face the experience that I fairly enough have of hearing people's views about CalMac services, literally every time I go to buy a pint of milk. Since the committee last considered this petition in early September, as you said, I led a member's debate in the chamber on reserving seats for islanders on the boards of CalMac. There was a large degree of cross-party consensus on the need for more representation of islanders. The Transport Minister at the time, Graham Day, also signalled that the Scottish Government is open to changes and in responding to a recent parliamentary question of mine, the minister also stated that he had tasked the newly appointed chair of David McBrain on appointing ways of getting an island-based presence on those boards. Briefly, one other development that is relevant to a previous petition that you have just heard this morning, convener, is that Hial has recently confirmed that they will now be taking a different approach to the ATMS plans on air traffic control jobs. That issue also partly motivated the petition that we are discussing today. I think that it comes after five years of bitter dispute with the communities affected and the air traffic controllers trade union. I think that it is fair to speculate on whether that would have been as long as acrimonious and protracted if more board members of that organisation had been based in island communities. On closing, I will borrow a point that was made by Rona Mackay from UST to me. Last year, UST and Lewis won titles of social enterprise places of the year. That is a testament to the large number of social enterprises in the islands that each have unpaid boards of islanders. Islanders are not strangers to boards and are not relevantly here. Are there any shortage of islanders who know about seafaring? There exists a large and healthy degree of involvement in public life in the islands. It would be in everyone's interests that could be utilised in the boards of the organisations that deliver lifeline services to them. I would urge the committee, if it is there, to wish to do that, to keep the petition open and to push for changes in the criteria of board appointments in the organisations that we have discussed today to give much more prominence to the experience of living in an island community. Thank you very much, Mr Allen. In the interim, Mr MacArthur has been called to another meeting, so we do not have his further contribution to hear. I wonder if members of the committee would like to comment. Ruth Maguire. I think that the update on the members' debate was interesting there, and Alistair Allen indicated that the transport secretary at the time was open to that suggestion, so I wonder if the best thing for us to do is to write to the cabinet secretary and ascertain what their current position is and take things from there. I think that we could reference that very much on the back of the members' debate to which Mr Allen drew attention in terms of there being quite a wide cross-party interest in the issues that are underpinning that. I think that we will see what the cabinet secretary says in response to all of this, and it may well be that in fact that leads to an evidence session on this issue at a later date. Mr Sweeney. Thank you, convener. Is it also worth making the lead committee aware of this petition in the sense that it might be worth an inquiry into the basis on which public appointments are made to the boards, particularly CalMac and CMAL? I mean, I'm approaching it less from a rural perspective and more from a shipbuilding perspective, but my understanding is that the board is problematic to say the least in how it is governing that agency. I think that there is very little public oversight of the sort of characters that have been appointed to these boards and the potential for conflicts of interest and the ignorance of many other aspects of how the organisation should be operating. I suggest that the clerks liaise with the clerks of that committee just to see what understanding they have of the issue and maybe they can come back to us and then we can decide from there how that might fit in with anything that we're doing. We agree. Thank you all very much. Thank you Mr Allen as well. We move then to petition number 1864 to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions on on on on shore windfarm, sorry. This has been lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland against spin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for on shore windfarms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of on shore windfarm developments, empowering local authorities to ensure local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries. Last considered by us on 1 September last, the committee agreed to write to a range of stakeholders. A pleased to say we responses have now been received from Scottish renewables, Planning Aid Scotland, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Petitioners and we've also received a late submission which colleagues will have from Finlay Carson MSP in support of the petition. The petitions submissions we received were very detailed and comprehensive so I'd like to thank those who have taken the time to submit their views to us to research the information and to forward it to us on this petition and all of these submissions have been shared with members as part of the papers you've received in advance and they're all publicly available for people following our proceedings on the petition's website. The common themes across these submissions include the role of local planning authorities as decision makers, ensuring communities have access to professional help in navigating the planning process, ensuring communities have early notification of section 36 applications, capacity issues for local authorities in relation to meeting future net zero targets, potential learning from elsewhere in the UK, for example local authorities applying English planning law, the use of inquiries and how communities can best contribute to these mechanisms to enable any issues with the developer's conduct to be formally raised. Do the members have any comments or suggestions for action? David Torrance. Thank you convener. The submissions have been very detailed but there are still a lot of questions I think that need to be answered. I wonder if we could invite the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero Energy and Transport to provide evidence to come in. Any other questions? Alexander Stewart. I would agree convener that the information that we receive from those organisations and individuals is very comprehensive and once again it gives us the opportunity to put some of those to the Cabinet Secretary when and if they attend and take response and evidence at the committee. Ruth Maguire. The issues that seem to be raised feel to me a bit more like a planning issue rather than a environmental issue. I do not want to be interested to hear others' reflections on that. I think that with the new national planning framework being developed currently it might be an opportune moment to try and be clear about feeding this into the process. I cannot remember off the thought of my head how the relevant minister is leading that effort but it would be worthwhile perhaps to engage with them in light of the evidence being raised here. I think that there is a willingness for us to take evidence but we want to be sure that we are taking evidence from the right source so we would just clarify. Are you happy to delegate the decision to me as to who that would be? I suppose that I am quite interested to hear on those repeated references to the powers that local authorities in England have in relation to all of this. I wonder if we could maybe touch base with a representative organisation of local authorities in England to understand a little bit better about the actual application of that. I mean it keeps getting referred to but I would like to know whether in practice that has actually worked in the way that is being suggested and whether there are any concerns or anxieties among them about the responsibility that has been devolved to them. Otherwise, are we content to proceed on that basis? We are, thank you. Our next petition is number 1865 to suspend all surgical mesh and fixation devices and this I again apologise quite a long preamble this morning. This has been lodged by Rosanna Clarkin, Lauren McDougall and Graham Robertson and calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices. This has had something of an earring in the Parliament just in relation to the bill that has recently passed in relation to the compensation for the transvisional mesh surgery. However, it calls on us to suspend the use while a review of all surgical procedures which use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out, guidelines for surgical use of mesh are established. The petition was last considered on 17 November and at that meeting the committee agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health, Women's Health and Sport and Shoulders Hospital in Canada. Responses have been received from the minister, the shoulders hospital, sling the mesh campaign and the petitioners. I'm delighted that Jackie Baillie is still with us this morning and I'm also delighted to welcome online Carol Mawkin MSP, both of whom wish to speak to this petition. Before I bring in my colleagues, I'll provide a little bit more of the background that I apologise for the length of a moment to go. In 2019, the Scottish health technologies group SHTG carried out a review into the use of mesh in primary inguinal hernia repair in men. That concluded that compared to non-mesh procedures, using mesh resulted in lower rates of recurrence, lower rates of serious adverse events and similar or lower risk of chronic pain. The advice for NHS Scotland was therefore that surgical mesh should be used in elective repairs in inguinal hernia in adult males. The SHTG review was subsequently expanded to include women, examining the outcome of mesh versus non-mesh surgery in a variety of groiner abdominal wall hernias. The Scottish health technologies group concluded that current evidence does support the continued availability of surgical mesh for elective repair of primary ventral hernias, incisional hernias and primary inguinal hernias in adults in Scotland. The group recommends, however, that consideration should be given to patient reference and that patients should also have access to alternative hernia treatment options such as non-mesh, suture and natural tissue repair. The chief medical officer has also undertaken a number of activities relevant to this petition, including writing to the board executives and medical directors to draw their attention to the SHTG reports findings, asking health boards to consider the availability of non-mesh surgery within their health board and how any skills gaps where they exist can be addressed, asking health boards to consider the development of local clinical groups and broader clinical networks for the management of complex cases, and asking medical directors to remind clinicians of their obligations under the principle of realistic medicine of informed consent and the importance of recording both the content and outcome of such discussions. With regard to the issues raised with the quality and authenticity of certain materials being used, the minister states that the Scottish Government contacted the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in 2018, who confirmed that there was no evidence to prompt regulatory action and that the products and questions remained acceptably safe when used as intended. The committee also wrote to Shoulders Hospital in Canada as the leading experts in natural tissue repair. In what I thought was a fascinating submission, Shoulders States, in relation to its own practice, surgical mesh is not used unless absolutely necessary, and that has led to it being used in less than 2 per cent of cases. The hospital specialises exclusively an abdominal wall hernia repair, where the body's natural tissue is strong enough to support the surgical repair, natural tissue repair should always be used, where underlying patient tissue as poor surgical mesh may be necessary in some femoral and large incisional hernia repairs. All surgeons are trained to do a natural tissue repair as their first choice. Natural tissue repair should be the first choice for all primary inguinal hernias, most recurrent inguinal hernias, most femoral hernias, most epigastric and umbilical hernias and small incisional hernias. Shoulders also notes that the recurrence rate for inguinal hernia repair is more than 85 per cent of most of their hernia repair, since mesh was introduced in the 80s, has not improved. There has been a staggering increase in post-operative complications not seen prior to mesh. Chronic and debilitating pain and other severe complications such as mesh shrinkage, mesh migration and related nerve entrapment are widespread. There are no side effects of tissue repair, if it is done correctly. Training for surgeons on natural tissue technique ranges from three months for an experienced fellowship general surgeon to six to nine months for an inexperienced general surgeon. The Sling the Mesh campaign shared the results of their recent survey of its 9,300 members with the experience of vaginal abdominal pelvic rectal hernia mesh and mesh following mastectomy, noting that one in four have considered taking their life. Six in 10 suffered depression. One third have been forced to give up their work. One in four now need a stick to walk and one in 14 who now need a mobility scooter or wheelchair. In their submissions, the petitioners welcomed the information contained in the shoulders hospital submission and asked for further information to be sought on the use of protaxe, devices used to fix mesh to soft tissue. The petitioners believe that there is evidence to suggest that a considerable sum of money has been spent recently procuring hernia mesh and other fixation devices, and they feel that this money could have been spent on investigating and teaching natural tissue repair. The petitioners also query why mesh is still being bought and why clinicians are not yet accurately and systematically recording the effects of this material on patients. We have gathered quite a lot of evidence since we last considered the petition, and I am going to invite both Jackie Baillie and Carol Mocken to contribute ahead of committee comment. Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much, convener, and again many thanks to yourself and the committee for allowing me to speak to this petition. Given your detailed knowledge and interest in this area, I feel as if I am pushing at an open door. I have been contacted by one of the petitioners, Rosanna Clarkin, and she shared with me the evidence that you have referenced from Sholdice Hospital in Canada, and I know that the committee has seen that evidence. However, I have also been emailed in the last week by a number of men and women across Scotland who have experienced post-operative complications after the use of mesh. Their story is frankly heartbreaking. They are living in excruciating pain. Many of them have had to give up work. Their fears are somehow being dismissed as psychological and not physical. Some have had to go private because the NHS is refusing to help them, and some have been so low that they have considered taking their own lives. These stories, convener, you will appreciate, are remarkably similar to the stories that we heard from women who experienced difficulties as a consequence of transvaginal mesh. The evidence of problems with mesh appears to be increasing, not just in this country but in other countries around the world. I am astonished that, on 25 January, the Scottish Government signed a deal with mesh providers to provide more mesh for more mesh surgeries for the next 24 months at a cost of £3.5 million. I equally am not aware of whether it is a matter of routine for alternative surgeries to be offered and whether that is something that the committee would consider exploring. Given the experience of the transvaginal mesh campaigners, I would ask that the committee ask for an independent review, not an internal review, and get the data to understand the scale of the problem that is starting to emerge here, and to consider asking the Scottish Government for measure of removal and other mitigations for those affected. Coming quite new to the subject matter, I wanted to place on record that I am interested in the way that this matter has progressed, because, similar to others on the committee, I have been involved in the mesh debates with the women in the transvaginal mesh. It seems important that we take evidence that we have from other areas. I support the overall sentiment of the petition, and I feel that it is perfectly reasonable request that a review is held and that guidelines for such co-use of mesh are established. The petitioners have brought forward evidence to the minister, and, obviously, they have gone over other evidence. It is incumbent on us to ensure reasonable requests are respected. It seems reasonable to me that the citizens participation and public petitions committee take action and at least further scrutinise what can be done to support the petition. I thank you very much for the opportunity and I hope to keep an eye on what is happening around mesh for those people. I am amazed at what has already been achieved through the campaigns in the past, but it would appear that lessons have not really been learned when we are now looking at this situation, because there is a real similarity between what happened to the women, which is now happening to the men. The shoulders hospital report is absolutely eye-opening for us to have that information and to collate some of the issues that have been raised. I feel that we need to seek more clarity on all of this, and we should be at least writing to the chief medical officer here in Scotland to ask what is happening with the process. Ms Baillie has brought forward some very strong views about what is taking place and the funding that has been provided. Are we backing up some more problems for individuals for the future in all of this if we do not take some action with this? I want to write to the chief medical officer and to ensure that the minister of public health comes back to us and gives us more updates as to what is taking place here. As I say, I would hope that throughout the whole debate and the backhoe that happened with transvaginal mesh that we would have learned some lessons, but it would appear that, as I say, we are repeating some of the failures and we are putting those individuals through the trauma that happened to the women in the past. As I say, I think that we need to get real clarity on this, and I would continue the petition on those grounds. Mr Sweeney, I would like to support what Jackie Baillie said in regard to the submission from Roseanna. It was quite shocking to learn that the vendor Covid in the UK was supplying this paratex mesh that has been subject to FDA restrictions in the United States because it has been directly linked to post-operative complications and adverse effects in patients. We are in a position, perversely, in Scotland where we have less medical clinical protections for patients than in the United States. I am sure that, if you ask the average person in the street, which jurisdiction would offer more protections to patients, they would say, here when it is a result of this decision, not the case. It is very critical that we pursue this issue. The submission from the shoulder hospital offers an insight to an alternative model that is quite compelling. In light of that remarkable evidence, it would be worth asking the health secretary to engage with it directly and perhaps look at the opportunity to set up a pilot project in Scotland with a particular hospital or particular surgical centre to see if we can adopt those methods and use it as a control against standard procedures and see if it is producing demonstrable effects that could improve patient care. Ruth Maguire. I am thankful for the evidence that we have been given. It has certainly been eye-opening. One person in pain and distress has not been believed as one too many. That said, I think that it is really important that we understand the scale. Based on what has happened previously and an experience of what has happened to the women, I would like to invite the minister to come and give us evidence. To start that dialogue would be important. It is almost too big to just write and ask for some information. We should have an evidence session in the first instance. We did have the minister, but I think that there is every reason to suggest that we might wish to have the minister back. David Charns. Thank you, convener. I am, like my colleagues, petitioning is something that I am really interested in. Somebody who has been there from the very start with the mesh once, it is really important that we get to bottom this. Rather than right to chief medical officer, we could ask them in to give evidence. Somebody from hospital in Canada as well, if we could attempt to get them to give us evidence as well to commit, so we could ask questions. Let us just push it on and progress with it. Can I say, having been associated with the mesh petition that the committee previously dealt with, that the associated concern of hernia mesh was referred to from time to time as that progressed? What there was in relation to the transvaginal mesh petition was a very immediately united informed body of women who drove that petition forward. The issue of hernia mesh was understood to be there but did not have the same profile. What is depressing really is that the pathway seems exactly the same. A lack of any subsequent follow-up to establish whether issues have arisen. A denial of the association of any issues with the mesh that has been fitted. The calling into question of the motivations or understanding of those who are themselves feeling pain and that pain being dismissed as not real but imagined. On the debate, even in recent legislation, I was reluctant to conflate because I felt that we did not have necessarily the same body of evidence. As a consequence of our pursuit of this petition, I think that the wider body of evidence is beginning to emerge and I therefore think that it is very much an issue that this committee should pursue further, leaving the petition open. I would very much like to welcome the minister back. I would like the minister to have had the opportunity to properly consider the shoulders or shoulder eyes. Maybe your pronunciation is better than mine, Ms Bailey. Evidence that we have received. Taking evidence from them would be slightly problematic, I imagine, in terms of a timeline, because they will not be working to the same clock as this committee. I imagine that they are all fast asleep at the moment. However, we could think to that. However, I would like to hear from the minister, from the chief medical officer. I would certainly like to understand in that evidence and flag up in advance this procurement of the particular mesh material, because I do not quite understand why that has happened. All of the issues look broadly similar. I know when we heard from the minister last time that they talked about working on informed consent procedures, and I kind of thought, fair enough, that we have been here before. What I think that we can assume is that there is now a broader body of men who have concerns, but I would like to say that I am also aware that there are a number of men who have contacted me who have had a perfectly successful mesh, and it has made a huge difference. What I want to understand is the volume and the relationship between those who feel that they have had a successful and those who have had an unsuccessful mesh. In the case of the transvaginal mesh, the balance was fundamentally on the side of those who experienced really serious health considerations in consequence, and that may have to form the basis of any informed consent in the event that there is an argument for this process proceeding. Are we content then to take that further evidence and to consider from those parties suggested? We are. Petition 1867 to establish a new national qualification for British Sign Language, and this is a petition lodged by Scott McMillan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the SQA's Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at SQF level 2. I am delighted to say that our meeting has in fact this morning been streamed in BSL for those people who have been watching and hopefully for our petitioners who may be now watching the consideration of the petition. We last considered this in the 8th of September, and at that meeting we agreed to write to the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish whether the qualification called for in this petition could be introduced, what would be required in introducing it, and which, if any obstacles, there might be to doing so. A response has been received from the SQA. It advises that the decision regarding what qualifications must be in place to provide students with the opportunity to learn BSL or any other additional language from primary 1 is not strictly in the SQA's gift. It advises the committee to seek advice from those in the Scottish Government with responsibility for the language learning in Scotland, A1 plus 2 approach policy. The submission explains that the particular qualification types that are deemed to be part of the national qualification suite include national courses and national units at each level from SQF level 1 up to SQCQF level 7. Furthermore, the different levels in the national qualifications help SQA to recognise the attainment of learners of all abilities and ensure that there are appropriate progression routes. SQA advises that they would not normally seek to develop a course in a new subject at just one level. To ensure a fair appraisal of new requests, SQA advises that it has developed criteria that need to be met before considering developing national courses in a new language. Those are evidence of demand for a course, sufficient qualified and registered teachers, strategic support from a range of partners from within Scottish education, the availability of specific grant funding from the Scottish Government. The SQA advises that previously BSL has failed to meet the first and second criteria, which were the focus of considerable debate after the BSL Scotland Act was passed in 2015, and while the BSL national plan 2017-23 was being developed, those are the evidence for demand of a course and sufficient qualified and registered teachers. SQA advises that it has developed awards in BSL rather than national courses. I think that we know quite a bit more than we did before. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? It is an interesting point about the capacity to deliver the course. That is a fair response from the SQA. I am not aware of the actual number of people in Scotland who are qualified in BSL, but it might be worth trying to establish a route to a solution with Scottish Government colleges. It might also be worth trying to engage with the further education sector, perhaps certain colleges, who might be able to offer it as a qualification. On that basis, if we were able to establish some understanding around the logistics of delivery, it might enable the SQA to work towards developing a qualification that could be offered it. It might not have a BSL teacher in every school in Scotland, but it might have the course offered at a school within a given local authority or a college in a given local authority in that it would allow interested students to apply to do the course. I am sure that there is a way of working through that issue that has been identified. It might be worth looking at how we can try to bring stakeholders together to try to hammer that out. I think that you have the same sense that I have of the lack of ownership of the actual direction of the pathway to a solution, and that seems to be the point. I would concur with that. There is a demand and capacity issue, and there is a lack of possibly qualified teachers. There is a funding issue, and all of those would need to be in place for us to see if there was real opportunity. Mrs Wane makes a very good point about having a collective responsibility to provide it within a centre, a school or further education. That is very much part of the issue, but at the same time, if there is not the demand and there is not the resource, then it makes it very difficult to understand what the situation is, so clarifying that would be very useful. Ruth Maguire? In terms of demand, I would be interested to know how the SQA assessed demand, and whether it consulted with the deaf community on that. On that note, we should write to stakeholders such as Deaf Action and Choir, the National Deaf Children's Society Scotland and the Scottish Children's Services Coalition. I was just going to agree with my colleague Ruth Maguire.   I would very much like to write to organisations and the Scottish Government just to ask a team what qualifications must be in place, but I would like to write to all those parties, prefacing it by saying that the evidence that the committee has received so far does seem to point to a lack of clarity as to where the leadership for a resolution of this issue might lie. I would be interested in their comments on that, too, because I think that we feel from the evidence that we have received that that is actually not clear, and therefore we are amassing evidence without it being clear what would be the trigger to give effect to progress. I think that that is the feeling that we all have. We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis. Petition number 1885 to make offering community shared ownership mandatory for all wind farm development planning proposals. This is a petition lodged by Karen Murphy calling on the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development. The committee wrote to the Scottish Government asking whether the Scottish Government could use existing planning powers to provide incentives for developers to offer community shared ownership. The Scottish Government response highlights good practice guidance, which indicates that planning authorities should not seek to secure shared ownership through the use of planning conditions or obligations. The energy saving trust suggested that the UK Government's contracts for difference could be a route to making community shared ownership offers mandatory. The trust notes that, due to competitive bidding rounds, opportunities for community shared ownership could be threatened by bidders' cutting costs to try and win contracts. It was suggested that community shared ownership could be protected if additional points in the contract evaluation were awarded for bidders for offering a community shared ownership. The petitioner raises a number of additional issues, such as her view that some developers refuse to interact with local community, some refuse to offer community shared ownership and that others may make community shared ownership offers that do not meet the definition of community shared ownership, as defined by the Scottish Government. Energy saving trust and the petitioner make a number of recommendations for improvement and all of these have been detailed to colleagues in your papers. Do other members have any comments or suggestions for action? David Torbs, I like the previous petition. I wonder if we could get the correct minister in to ask questions about this and give us some evidence from them. It is quite important that community ownership of these wind farms are vital to small communities. I have several examples in the constituency where they have benefited. To me, it is important that we take this petition forward. If we could get the relevant minister or cabinet secretary to come in and give us evidence. We have decided that we will invite the cabinet secretary to come in in relation to position number 1864, which is a different aspect of the whole wind farm debate. I think that it would be perfectly reasonable to try and combine this petition with that on that occasion. Ruth Maguire? We are giving me not to disagree with you, convener, but did we not agree to ask the planning minister in for the other one? We delegated it to me to decide who was the appropriate minister. You are quite right. It may well be that we do. It could be either or, I think, in that event. Paul Sweeney? I was quite alarmed by the Scottish Government's submission in the sense that they suggest that good practice guidance and planning is that authorities should not use it as leverage. I think that it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and it should be actively encouraged, because there are very little or other forms of leverage available to democratic politics to overcapital of this nature and scale. If we have the ability to drive a harder bargain on behalf of communities to capture some more ownership of those projects, that would be a worthwhile thing to further interrogate rather than just simply suggesting without any real further justification why it is not seen as good practice. Further to the minister coming to the committee, it would be good to probe that particular matter with a view to NPF4 and how that could be changed. Particularly with the recent comment around the Scotland leasing round and how people felt that that might not have been the best deal possible, I think that it is a very timely issue to explore. Thank you for that. The same thought had occurred to me. Why is it not allowed? Therefore, I think that there is very much question that we could put to the appropriate minister, and if colleagues are happy to delegate determining who that is again to me, then we will proceed on that basis. Petition number 1887, create an unborn victims of violence unit lodged by Nicola Murray. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a special offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence, which causes miscarriage. The committee received submissions from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Scottish Sentencing Council, Scottish Law Commission and Victim Support Scotland. The Scottish Sentencing Council notes that it has established a committee to oversee the development of a draft guideline on domestic abuse. The Scottish Law Commission also highlights an opportunity to contribute to their programme of law reform consultation, which will open in the coming months. In its submission, Victim Support Scotland notes its support for the petition and its aims, stating that it believes that an update to the law is necessary. In view of the responses that are received, I welcome comments from colleagues. Ruth Maguire. I think that this is a really important topic. We know that women are at increased risk of violence through their pregnancy and early maternity. I would certainly wish to take more evidence. I think that we have some helpful stuff in our papers, but I would like to see us invite the petitioner and some other stakeholders in to give us evidence. Yes, convener, I think that this is very important. We have discussed in the past, and the Parliament has discussed this whole idea of violence. The whole creation of this situation gives us a chance to clarify and get some more evidence from organisations and individuals who are at the coalface of all of this. It is vitally important that we continue to understand the situation that many people find themselves in under the circumstance. It is alarming, because it seems to be growing and it is propensity, and that in itself is a problem. To at least have the organisations Victim Support and Women's Aid and them here would at least give us an opportunity. It would also be useful to find out from the Crown Office about what they would want. I think that having some correspondence to them or inviting them to give us some insight would also be useful. I was similarly taken aback by the issues that were raised that I had probably not given consideration to before. I think that it is a very appropriate petition. I was particularly interested in the Scottish Law Commission's submission about the idea that it could potentially be looking at developing a project around this. If it were to be submitted to them, that might be a process that is worth exploring for the petitioners in addition to this committee. It is the sort of thing that might be appropriate as a member's bill in that sense, and I wonder whether colleagues in the Parliament might be considering a member's bill but do not necessarily have a project in mind. Maybe there is a mechanism for our committee to fly up to colleagues. If they are interested in developing a bill, we have potential candidates that might be worth taking up. I wonder whether we should be making fuller use of the member's bill process, and that could potentially be a candidate for a member's bill. Thank you for that. That is a novel suggestion. The issues are very important. In the first instance, I think that we are going to seek to take evidence from the petitioners and some of the bodies that Ruth Maguire suggested. I think that we draw the petitioners' attention, as Mr Sweeney suggested. I think that we write to the Scottish Sentencing Council to draw their attention to the issues that are involved. I think that just that evidence that we might seek from the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal is trying to fathom and bottom out the scope of the potential issue that we are addressing. It is a very important issue, and it lets us, in the first instance, take more evidence, but it may well lead to recommendations that could form the basis of initiatives that others might wish to take forward thereafter. I think that that is right. I was almost going to say, are we able to initiate bills, but I do not think that we are. I think that we are actually, as a committee, so it is perfectly open to us as well. I went a little bit further down the road before we get to that, but we agreed, in the first instance, to hear from the evidence. Petition number 1892, to introduce a law that makes attacks by one dog and another a dog a crime. Lodged by Evelyn Boginski, the petition calls on Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make attacks by one dog and another dog a crime, and subject to a penalty requiring the owner to pay a fine and reimburse any expenses related to the incident. The initial Scottish Government response outlined existing legislation and recent consultations relevant to the petition, including stating that people and assistance dogs are protected under the Dangerous Dogs Act 91. Under the 91 act, an attack on another dog could be considered dangerous. If the test for the offences met, including reasonable apprehension, that it will injure a person or an assistance dog, one response to the consultation on the 91 act review highlighted that it did not raise the issue of whether legislation should be extended to cover attacks on another dog. The Scottish Government's most recent response also sets out the rationale for including assistance dogs in the 91 act, stating that if an assistance dog is attacked, the assisted person may suffer a significant reduction in freedom through their temporary loss of a dog whilst it recovers or permanent retirement and the resultant wait for a replacement dog. The submission highlights the Scottish Government's intention to undertake a review of the 1991 act in the near future. Information has been provided by Pullman Veterinary Clinic on injuries and associated costs from dog attacks on other dogs based on details from neighbouring clinics, and those costs colleagues are detailed in your papers. Do members have any comments or suggestions? David Torrance Thank you, convener. Considering the Scottish Government submission and its review of the dangerous dogs act, I wonder if we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standards orders, but in doing so in closing the petition, I wonder if we could write to the Scottish Government highlighting the evidence from Pullman Veterinary Clinic. David Torrance I think that that makes eminence sense, so we agreed on that, colleagues. We are. Thank you very much. We will close the petition and forward that evidence to the Scottish Government based on their commitment to undertake a forthcoming and early review. Petition number 1895, mandatory accountability for nature Scots decision making procedures. The next petition has been lodged by Gary Wall. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for nature Scots to explain its conservation objectives and decision making within the framework of the Scottish regulator's strategic code of practice and the Scottish Government's guidance right first time. The committee wrote to the Scottish Government seeking information on the application of test 2, including whether assessing licence applications on the basis of their being no satisfactory alternative as opposed to no other satisfactory solution, is likely to lead to a different outcome. The Scottish Government sought advice from NatureScot and responded to state that the terms no satisfactory alternative and no other satisfactory solution are considered to be analogous. This view is supported by the European Commission's recently updated guidance on the strict protection of species that refers to birds directive case law for the interpretation of test 2. The petition highlights that although NatureScot references EU commission guidance, the rejections that he has received in relation to licence applications have been on the basis of actions that are not challenged by the EU commission in other countries. He states that the Scottish Government recognised that proportionality is one of the foundations of regulation and yet in 10 years of licence refusals it has never been explained to the petition about what factors have been considered in relation to proportionality. The petitioner concludes by stating that at least a citizen should be able to expect clarity in what the conservation objective is in refusing a licence. Colleagues, do any members wish to comment? I suggest that we write to NatureScot to ask whether it routinely provides information about the conservation objects that it is seeking to achieve when rejecting a licence application or whether it plans to do so in the future. We are happy to write to NatureScot any other suggestions that we can tend. Hold the petition open and we will write to NatureScot. Petition number 1897, which is to reform certain of the procedures for the collection of council tax. This is a petition lodged by Richard Anderson calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform those procedures for the collection of council tax, which apply when a person has difficulty in making payment. We sought views from stakeholders when we last considered the petition and we have received responses since then from COSLA, from the citizens of Scotland and Social Security Scotland. In response to petitioners' concerns about individuals not receiving a council tax notice, COSLA suggests that, based on the reliability of postal services and availability of e-billing, this circumstance should be, and they say, an exception rather than the norm. Citizens Advice Scotland clarifies a number of points made by the petitioner and makes suggestions for improvements to the council tax system, including a review of the time between the points that someone falls behind and the issuing of a summary warrant, as they believe that it is currently very short. A review of whether liability for the whole year's council tax should be applied when falling behind one month's payment and a review of how CTR is promoted and ensuring that all councils have an automatic entitlement for those on qualifying benefits. The committee also asked Social Security Scotland whether systems would be designed to automatically notify individuals if they are eligible for a council tax reduction. In its response, Social Security Scotland states that the Scottish Government has commenced conversations with local authorities about opportunities that might exist to make access to entitlements automatic for clients. One example of that is that Social Security Scotland will explore automatic entitlement to free school meals, school clothing grants and or council tax reduction for those eligible for the Scottish child payment. I therefore, on the basis of that, open up the discussion for comments from colleagues. Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. I think that the information that we've received back, especially from Citizens Advice Scotland, about the timings and the ability for individuals and the liability that is there within the process and the increasing awareness that we have. We have to take on board that, at the moment, the whole idea of where we are with funds and support for individuals who are finding it difficult to pay is a very important topic at the present time. I really do think that we need to get more clarity from the Scottish Government as to how they are attempting to bring this forward and if there is the opportunity to undertake the review that is being sought here, because I do believe that it does give us the chance to see and to hear what the Scottish Government would be planning to do under the process. Given that Citizens Advice Scotland has indicated a number of specific improvements, they think that they would like to see made ad, like to hear what the Scottish Government and COSLA both think in respect of those specific proposals that are made. I would also like to undertake a review of the issues that have been raised in particular in the process by which summary warrants are issued and the timescales that are associated with that, because I think that that was quite significant when they say very short. I would be interested to understand that better. We are content to write to the Scottish Government bringing and COSLA asking for their reaction to the Citizens Advice Scotland recommendations. Petition number 1898, making entering someone's home without their permission or warrant a crime. This is our final continued petition this morning from Julia Gow and it calls on the Scottish Government to make it a crime for a stranger to enter your home without permission or a warrant. A response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlights that the individual facts and circumstances of each case are considered when assessing whether or not to prosecute. It also provides a non-exhaustive list of various offences that may be relevant in a circumstance where a person enters the home or another person without their permission. Similarly, Police Scotland stated that cases are dealt with according to the circumstances and evidence presented, stating that it is unaware of any scenarios where the existing law was insufficient to deal with matters criminally acquired. The petitioner's response recognises that there are offences that may cover specific circumstances but emphasises that no law currently exists for a specific circumstance outlined in the petition. She states that this is frustrating. Do you have any comments, David Torrance? Thank you, convener. I am considering evidence from the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. I do not know if we could take this petition any further, so I would like to close it under rule 15.7 of standard orders. I do know that Police Scotland does not believe that there are scenarios where they do not have sufficient powers. I am not sure that I bottomed out what the extent of the issue might be, but I think that, given what Police Scotland has had to say and the evidence response that we have received, it is unlikely that the Scottish Government is minded to take the issues further forward. Mr Torrance has suggested that we close the petition under rule 15.7. Do colleagues support that? They do. We will close that petition and thank the petitioner for drawing it to our attention. It must be a very uncomfortable circumstance. Our third item this morning is consideration of new petitions. We just have the one. As I have said to any petitioner tuning in for the first time, we in advance of consideration do send the petition to the Scottish Government to seek their views so that our discussion is just a little bit better informed before we launch into consideration of it. It has been lodged by Wendy Swain and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department within the Social Security Scotland that will fast-track future adult disability payment ADP applications for people with a cancer diagnosis whilst their undergoing treatment. I am delighted to welcome Mark Whitfield, our colleague this morning who is joining the committee, I think his first visit to the public petitions process. We will hear from him in a moment, but first I will just provide some further background on the petition. The adult disability payment ADP will replace the personal independence payment PIP in 2022 this year. The Scottish Government's submission states that the definition of terminal illness will be changed under ADP to remove arbitrary time constraints and ensure decisions are better informed by clinical judgment. Research into the impact of this new definition has revealed that the number of people with cancer accessing adult disability payment using the fast-track process will more than double compared to the DWP fast-tracking. It is estimated that the number of terminally ill ADP recipients who have cancer will increase from 2,800 to approximately 8,200 under the new definition, a warping increase. It is projected that the majority of ADP recipients with cancer at 62% will be able to use fast-track processes compared with less than a third who are able to do so under PIP. Further changes to the delivery of disability benefits through ADP are detailed in the Clarke's note before you. The Scottish Government has stated that it does not support an additional fast-track route specifically for people with cancer and that its approach will not prioritise any single condition over another. The petitioner shares the experience of her family member with incurable blood cancer, who has been told that his illness is not affecting his life enough to be in receipt of PIP. Before we, as a committee, consider this, I very much welcome Martin Whitfield and invite him to speak in support of the petition. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to both you and the committee. It has been a very educational morning, listening to your debate. Thank you for that. I would like to thank Wendy Swain for bringing this petition. She has shared family circumstances, which are incredibly trying. This week, Friday's world cancer awareness day is perhaps apt if only coincidental that this petition should come before your committee today. We are at the moment of transition from PIP, a Westminster-controlled benefit to becoming adult disability payment here within Scotland, where one of the great promises of devolution is the ability to do things differently. I welcome the additional submissions that the petitioner has made, which I think very eloquently expresses the circumstances of her own family. I thank Spice and your Clarke's for your companying notes. If we look at the Government's response, which came in on 1 December, I understand why the substantive part of their response relates to the changes for this benefit in respect of terminal illness. However, not all cancers are terminal, thankfully. However, cancers affect every individual and family when individuals receive that diagnosis. The petitioner's intentions behind this were to raise awareness of the circumstances where it is not identified as terminal early on within the diagnosis, but the effects are still enormous and substantial. I can really do no more than highlight the original background information that the petitioner gave, which was that she brought this to ensure that principles are being treated with dignity, fairness and respect or applied to people and that they are able to access ADP during the treatment when they most need support. That treatment needs to begin very swiftly, and it is that point that the financial impact of cancer hits families and hits them very, very hard. I know that the Government has identified that they do not want to orientate the prioritised dealing with it by the condition, but they nearly want to base it on the terminology of the condition. They have said—I think that we are all in agreement with that—that they hope that the voyage of any claimant is far better under ADP than ever it is under PIP. That is both applauded and welcomed. However, this petition talks about the effect of a cancer diagnosis and how that is exacerbated by the experience that this individual petitioner had with a family member trying to obtain PIP and the stress and mental harassment that occurred because of events that were outwith the individual's control. We need to have a fast-track system for people with cancer. It is certainly one of the few conditions where just the mere name of it sends a shadow of fear through people who have not experienced it and are often sitting in difficult circumstances to receive that. To have the financial barriers that loom so quickly afterwards is enormously challenging. I think that, because of this week and also because of the timing that we are in the process of designing what this benefit will look like in Scotland, it is an opportunity to understand, among the wider and through the third party and charity sectors that deal with cancer, how widespread this problem is and to understand the significance of why dealing with it quickly is a huge benefit to those who are going through the system. Thank you very much, Mr Whitfield. I thank you for that contribution, particularly on behalf of the petitioner. I do wonder when I read that somebody would not withstanding however this subsequently is resolved. I do wonder sometimes when someone is told that their illness is not affecting their life enough, how that definition has arrived at and whether the person imparting that sage advice would feel much the same way if it was being imparted back to them in return. It seems to me remarkably unsympathetic. Colleagues, are there any suggestions on how we might proceed? David Torrance and then Aled Lambsdured. Thank you, convener. I would like to keep this petition open and in doing so write to the challenge of my own cancer and cancer research UK to seek the views on what the petitioner is calling for but also to seek the views on our improvements by the Scottish Government will affect payments for people. Alexander Stewart. There is a real opportunity here, as Mark Whitfield indicated in his presentation, to engage with the third sector and to find out. When we are talking about dignity, fairness and respect under all of this, I think that this fits that criteria to ensure that we at least investigate and see where we can because for those individuals going through this horrific situation to be given that kind of news and then have to cope. As I say, the third sector organisations are there and have a wealth of knowledge and experience of how and what takes place with individuals who are suffering. So to have their input would be very beneficial and also to find out for the Scottish Government as to how they want to progress this would, as I say, mean that we keep this petition going so that we can clarify and take further information and evidence. Thank you. Anybody else? So we content then with those proposals. We'll keep this petition open and we'll write to the organisations as summarised. Can I thank Mr Whitfield for joining us this morning and we will hear and consider the petition further when we've received responses to those inquiries. Thank you very much. That concludes the open part of this morning's petitions committee. Can I thank those people who have been following our proceedings and we'll now move into private session.


welcome to New Year's Click. Today we are discussing the COP 24 climate talks. The talks have recently concluded in Poland on Saturday and following that we are going to be discussing more about what happened during those talks and what kind of implications the climate talks will also have. To join us to discuss this with us we have D. Raghunandan, thank you sir. So the talks have recently concluded and there was a concept of you know coming up with a rule book of sorts to implement Paris Agreement and over 200 countries came together for a two week long summit in Poland. So first we would like to break it down for our viewers as to what this rule book was and the background of the entire summit and how far have they been able to come to a conclusion on this? Let me just begin with the rule book itself. The rule book basically is a framing of a set of guidelines which all countries would follow to report on their commitments that they had made for reducing emissions in the Paris Agreement because countries have made commitments on different base years, different methodologies used for how they count reductions in emissions. So the idea of the rule book is that a standard methodology is available for countries to report on which they would be able to do after the Paris Agreement kicks in which is in 2020 and now with this standard rule book they would report on this once every two years. There was considerable disagreement over whether the rule book should be uniform for all countries given the fact that many least developed countries etc may not have the capability to be able to report very rigorously on reductions. So finally the rule book has provided some flexibility for countries which do not have adequate capacity to report the way they could. So this question of commonality and to have the uniform ground becomes very very important and this is a long-standing question like ever since climate talks were going on. So this has been a major bone of contention. So in this conference as well or in this entire context of things is that going to play out more do you think? I don't think so. I think in the past they were in the Kyoto Protocol for example they were far too many ifs and buts and conditions and so on which countries were using to hedge the way they reduced emissions and the way they reported. Now this has reduced those to a minimum but frankly if you ask me I think the rule book while necessary is a secondary part of the urgent task of the Paris Agreement which is actually how far are we away from meeting the target that was set in Paris. And talking about targets so they've discussed in greater detail certain aspects of finance and more on you know the kind of achievements as well so if you could shed some light on that. Well finance has been a bone of contention right from the beginning. Unfortunately they remain so particularly because the developed countries are not prepared to make firm commitments and ex-anti commitments as to what they would contribute. They have essentially said let's see what we can come up with and once we do that we will be able to report on it whereas what the developing countries wanted was for the developed countries to say up front that this is what we will be able to contribute. The other bone of contention remains again what it used to be earlier which is developed countries are not making a distinction between official grant in aid money given by the developed countries and loans given by the countries by agencies located in the developed countries by multilateral agencies by bilateral agencies. Today as things stand roughly 80% of the finances committed are loan finances not grant finances and compared to the hundred billion dollars a year pledges I think we are nowhere more than about 20 billion dollars right now. So financing remains one of the big problem areas. And this has not been able to sort of come to a conclusive stand. Not at all. Yes. The other related question on financing is the vexed issue of what's called loss and damage. Yes. Loss and damage means compensating the least developed countries in particular for damage already caused to them by climate change. The developed countries continue to resist this kind of classification of loss and damage ostensibly because they are worried about the legal implications of liability. If they are held liable for damage caused by climate change tomorrow they could be facing expanded bills for it. That fear has driven the developed countries to take a position saying loss and damage let's talk about that when we have a little more clarity and essentially they kick that can down the road. And talking of controversies as well another thing that dominated conversations was this 1.5 degree report. So what was it all about? Yeah well let me put it like this I think and we've carried this in an earlier interview on this channel that the 1.5 degree what is now emerged as a target and not merely as can we consider raising our ambitions from the earlier two degrees Celsius target to 1.5. I think this 1.5 target is a misleading target. It is framed incorrectly overambitiously and unrealistically in the sense that all the science indicates that we are already well set on a path to see 1.5 degree centigrade rise of so setting a target of 1.5 is really meaningless because as some scientists said earlier 1.5 degrees is already in the rear view mirror it's already gone. The target if 1.5 is to be achieved then in 2020 that's just a year and a bit down the road global emissions should peak should reach a maximum should start declining and should be half of what they are from 2020 by 2030 and they should taper off to net zero by 2050 we are nowhere near those targets and in fact even the two degrees Celsius goal we are far away from it and all the current science including the 1.5 degrees report of the IPCC says that we are looking at somewhere between 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius temperature rise so the issue really should have been let's focus on the two degrees Celsius target let's assess where we are on that and let's raise ambitions of the Paris agreement commitments now because the Paris agreement commitments are to kick in only in 2020 and we are then expected to do a global stock take of adequacy in 2023 and then maybe think about revising targets the issue should really have been to foreground what can we do today to raise the targets that were set in Paris why should we need to wait for 2020 or 2023 unfortunately the 1.5 degree has become an emotional issue of the small island states and others and frankly if you ask me the island states and many other least developing countries have been led up the garden path by the US and other advanced countries who have deliberately created this mirage in order to put more pressure on China India and other countries who will be then forced to carry more of the responsibility for it so the controversy this time was only because some countries like Russia Saudi Arabia felt that the 1.5 degree report for various reasons that they advanced they didn't agree with and therefore they objected to the use of the phrase this conference welcomes the 1.5 degree Celsius report that was essentially it's a paper tiger controversy really whereas frankly if you would ask me the 1.5 degree report itself is a red herring and should have been addressed in a very different way altogether which of course did not happen and talking of addressing issues and these red herrings that we are continuously getting so where is this going from here because of course they failed to address certain very very crucial questions amidst all the politics that was ongoing in this summit so where do we go from here problem is much of the dynamic of the negotiations has been set yes so every time the cop comes up you're dealing with the target set and the mitigation commitments of different countries that's only one item of the agenda then you've got finance and within finance you have how much of it should go to mitigation how much to adaptation and then you have loss and damage and then you have technology and then you have various little things that fall into place etc my feeling has long been that I think these are all these are issues which arise from the central issue which is what are we doing to contain climate change and ensure that we stay within the two degrees Celsius envelope that we have set for ourselves because if we don't financing loss and damage technology assistance none of this means anything because the worst things get you want more finance you want more technology you want and even what you have already committed you are not doing so I think we are multiplying problems for ourselves chasing false ambitions and chasing unrealistic targets you very ambitious ambitiously set a target of 100 billion dollars you're nowhere near 20 now should we spend time and energy chasing that or should we concentrate our energies on keeping within two degrees Celsius and then working towards letting the other elements fall into place unfortunately we don't seem to be converging towards that we are adding more and more issues as we go along every year so chasing more targets and the the question the real question that is at the end of all of it is that what are we really doing to contain climate change and COP 24 has concluded over 200 countries have come together it was a two week long process but these crucial questions still remain so thank you so much sir for joining us and thank you to our viewers for watching and we leave you with that question thank you