Official Report 610KB pdf
Perinatal Mental Health Support (PE2017)
Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to petitioners who might be tuning in to watch our proceedings for the first time that, ahead of our consideration of each new petition, we invite preliminary views from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research service.
The first of our new petitions is PE2017, which was lodged by Margaret Reid and is on extending the period that specialist perinatal mental health support is made available beyond one year. I welcome Tess White—a former colleague of ours on this committee—who joins us for the consideration of the petition.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 24 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 to extend maternal health support beyond one year, to introduce a family liaison function at adult mental health units across all health boards, to introduce specialised perinatal community teams that meet perinatal quality networks standard type 1 across all health boards, and to establish a mother and baby unit specifically in the north-east of Scotland.
The SPICe briefing highlights a short inquiry undertaken by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in 2021. One of that committee’s recommendations—recommendation 26 in its report—was that perinatal mental health services should not be restricted to the one-year period after the birth of the child. In its written submission, the Scottish Government says that it is considering the two-year review of mental health law that was undertaken by Lord Scott, and it expects to provide an initial response by this summer.
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report also said that there is a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a new mother and baby unit serving the north of Scotland. The Scottish Government’s written submission notes that it consulted on the best way to increase mother and baby unit capacity and says that it will produce a report on its options appraisal in late autumn 2023.
On meeting perinatal quality network standard type 1, the Scottish Government highlighted that it was invested in delivering new services in 11 health boards and expanding services in three. It also noted that the provision model recognised that PQN standards are less easily suited to areas of low population and more rural areas.
Before asking colleagues how we might proceed, I ask Tess White to contribute to our thinking.
I am here to represent my constituent Maggie Reid, who has worked tirelessly over the past year to advocate for her sister. This is an emotional petition, and it deals with an issue that is of critical importance. I pay tribute to those two extraordinary women, and I hope that I can do justice to their voices.
Maggie’s sister was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis after she had a baby girl, and she was initially treated at the mother and baby unit in the central belt, which was a long way for her to travel from the north-east. However, the treatment was successful and her condition improved. Unfortunately, she had a relapse and she could not be admitted to an MBU because her baby was too old and, instead, she was sectioned at the Carseview centre in NHS Tayside. Maggie shared with me that her sister was frightened, confused and very scared. It was a truly traumatic experience, and she was also separated from her baby at that time.
For many mothers with mental ill health, the 12-month mark is a precipice where the nature of support changes or falls away, but it should not be that way. As you have pointed out, convener, the Scottish Government committed to look at the parameters for perinatal mental health support two years ago, when the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee recommended that mental health support should not be restricted to the one-year period following the birth of a child. Since then, however, it feels like the Scottish Government has been dragging its feet. Recently, I went to the newly constructed maternity hospital in Aberdeen, and I found that there are no plans for any mother and baby units there. That issue needs to be considered now, while that hospital is being constructed. If it is not, we could just build in delays.
No health authority in the north-east is any closer to establishing a mother and baby unit, and research conducted by the Maternal Mental Health Alliance shows that women outside the central belt are missing out on the highest standard of specialist perinatal mental health services, as perinatal mental health services are concentrated in NHS Lothian and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.
I thank the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for its consideration of PE2017, and I urge the committee to use all the available levers to ensure that women such as Maggie’s sister have the access to the treatment and support that they need. The issue must be addressed with urgency, so that no other women experience the trauma that Maggie’s sister has experienced.
Thank you. In the lifetime of this Parliament, as we have successfully sought to destigmatise issues of mental health, we have brought to light the inadequacies of some of the provision and policies that exist in various fields of life. It seems arbitrary to determine that, irrespective of the personal circumstance of the person concerned, when someone’s child reaches the age of one, the ability of that person to be treated as they would have been when their child was not yet one disappears, with—as is the case in the petitioner’s sister’s circumstance—potentially harrowing consequences.
Do members have any suggestions for further action?
I thank Tess White for her evidence, which has highlighted some areas of real concern. I think that we could further investigate some areas. I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government requesting an update on how it is progressing recommendation 26 of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s report, which Tess White spoke about. We should also ask whether the Scottish Government plans to amend section 24 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and request that its report and options appraisal to expand mother and baby unit capacity be shared with the committee when they are published in autumn 2023. I think that that would give us much more information about where we are and would help to progress the petition.
In respect of that last recommendation, in the light of the evidence submitted by Tess White and given that the Scottish Government is considering the issue of establishing a mother and baby unit in the north-east, we could ask what consideration has been given to the incorporation of that unit into a hospital that is currently under design and construction, because that seems to afford an obvious opportunity. It would be interesting to know whether that is being considered and, if it is not being considered, why it is not being considered, and whether the Government believes that not considering it would delay significantly the ability to realise the ambition. Given the lead time to identify suitable premises, if there is an opportunity to do that in the shorter term, we should seize it rather than simply having an aspiration, which might take a long time to fulfil.
Do we agree with the suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Holiday Let Accommodation (Rates Relief) (PE2019)
Our next petition, PE2019, which was lodged by Alan McLeod, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent all owners of self-catering holiday accommodation from obtaining rates relief under the small business bonus scheme.
The Scottish Government highlighted that reforms to the scheme were announced in the Scottish budget, aiming to make it the most generous scheme in the UK. Those reforms took effect from 1 April this year and provide 100 per cent relief for properties with a cumulative rateable value of up to £12,000, and the upper rateable value for individual properties to qualify for relief was extended from £18,000 to £20,000.
A consultation on council tax for second and empty homes has been published. It seeks views on the current thresholds for properties to be classified as self-catering accommodation and liable for non-domestic rates. It invites comments on the non-domestic rates system for such properties.
Do members have any comments?
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Assessors Association, the Holiday Home Association and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition. We should also write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it will consider adding self-catering holiday accommodation to the list of properties that are unable to qualify for the small business bonus scheme, and whether it will consider any other legislative changes—such as changes to the definition of self-catering holiday accommodation and the 70-day rule—that could address the issue raised in the petition.
I would be content if we did that on the basis that we would be asking the Scottish Government whether it will consider taking into account the petitioner’s call for action in that regard—I would not want to give the impression that the committee had taken evidence that led us to advocate that course of action. With that qualification, does that meet with the agreement of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Fertility Treatment (Single Women) (PE2020)
The next petition, PE2020, which was lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered to couples on the NHS for the chance to have a family.
The SPICe briefing explains that, currently, the eligibility criteria for NHS-funded fertility treatment in Scotland apply only to couples and do not mention the eligibility of single women. The eligibility criteria for NHS-funded fertility treatment in Scotland were last reviewed in 2016, based on recommendations from the national infertility group. The focus of NHS-funded treatment is on treating infertility as a medical condition. In contrast, other parts of the UK, such as England, have allowed single women to receive NHS-funded fertility treatment if they are infertile.
The Scottish Government’s submission notes that access criteria for NHS in vitro fertilisation—IVF—treatment in Scotland are determined at a national level, and discussions regarding potential changes to those criteria are conducted by the national fertility group, which consists of experts from various organisations and considers clinical research, evidence and data in order to make recommendations to Scottish ministers.
The submission states that Public Health Scotland is working on collaborative modelling techniques to assess the capacity implications of expanding access to NHS IVF treatment for single individuals. That topic will be discussed at a future meeting of the group. However, specific timescales for the modelling and subsequent discussion are not yet available.
In the light of that interesting information, including information about comparators, do members have any suggestions for action?
We could seek more information on fertility treatment for single women. I suggest that we write to the Fertility Network Scotland, the British Fertility Society and Fertility Scotland to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for. We also have the opportunity to write to the national fertility group to seek an update on the work to understand the capacity implications of any future expansion of access to NHS IVF treatment for single women, as you suggested in your opening remarks, convener.
Given the changes that we have been advised have been applied elsewhere in the UK, it would be interesting to get not only an update on the capacity implications but the national fertility group’s view on why other parts of the UK have expanded their capacity to offer the treatment and we, as yet, have not. I would be very keen to understand its position on that.
St Kilda Sheep (PE2021)
The next petition, PE2021, which was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals that is contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation and to enable interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.
I apologise—I have quite a long introduction.
The petitioners have told us that confusion over whether the sheep on St Kilda are considered to be livestock or wild animals is contributing to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of large numbers of the sheep population on the archipelago.
The SPICe briefing provides a helpful history of the sheep population on St Kilda. Research suggests that feral sheep have been present on the island of Soay since the bronze age. The briefing notes that, in 1931, the archipelago was sold to the Marquess of Bute, who subsequently bequeathed it to the National Trust for Scotland in 1957. The petitioners suggest that that means that the trust has ownership of the sheep and, therefore, responsibility for managing them.
In response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated its position that the St Kilda sheep should be regarded in the same way as unowned and unmanaged populations of wild deer and other wild animals. The response also sets out the Government’s view on how the definition of protected animals in the 2006 act applies to the St Kilda sheep. It notes that the definition applies only if and when sheep are gathered up for a particular procedure and that they are otherwise considered to be living in a wild state.
Guidance on the 2006 act allows for animals that live in the wild but whose behaviour, life cycle or physiology is altered by being under human control to be classed as protected animals. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that the sheep on St Kilda are an exception to that general guidance on the basis that they have adapted to live on St Kilda over many generations, so they are not dependent on humans in the same way that more recently escaped or released domesticated animals would be.
In response to the Scottish Government’s submission, the petitioners questioned whether the sheep are really “free to move anywhere” on such small islands, particularly as the population increases. The petitioners also highlighted the research of the historian Professor Andrew Fleming, which shows that inhabitants of St Kilda combined fowling with sheep management, which suggests that the sheep were domesticated 10,000 years ago and have been feral only for less than 100 years, when the last inhabitants of St Kilda left.
We have also received a submission from Alasdair Allan MSP, which details the action that he has taken on the issue and further highlights the petitioners’ concerns that the interpretation of St Kilda sheep as non-native animals means that researchers might have committed numerous offences during the St Kilda Soay sheep project’s triannual capture and release of the sheep population. Dr Allan has suggested that the policy on St Kilda sheep does not reflect best practice for the management of other animals in Scotland, and he reflected that, if the Scottish Government’s position is accepted, there might be a moral and a legal duty to manage the sheep population on St Kilda to avoid mass starvation events.
Members will note in our papers that requests to make submissions in relation to the petition have been received from the National Trust for Scotland, researchers from the St Kilda Soay sheep research project and OneKind, the animal welfare charity.
There is a lot to unpack in all of that. I apologise for the fairly detailed exposition, but that is what was required. Do members have any comments or suggestions? In the first instance, given that they have asked to contribute, we might wish to seek views from the organisations that I mentioned.
I agree that we should write to the National Trust for Scotland, the St Kilda Soay sheep research project and OneKind, and also to NatureScot, to seek their views on what the petition calls for.
Do members agree with the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Safeguarding Guidance (Higher Education Institutions) (PE2022)
That brings us to the last of our new petitions this morning, PE2022, lodged by Ellie Wilson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national safeguarding guidance for dealing with cases of sexual misconduct in higher education institutions, including clearly defined measures to ensure campus safety when a convicted sex offender or someone awaiting trial for a serious sexual offence is enrolled at an institution.
In the background to the petition, Ellie Wilson explains that she was raped while studying at university and that her attacker was charged and found guilty. However, while awaiting trial, Ellie’s attacker began studying at another university and was, in her view, afforded the opportunity to have a normal student experience before being sent to prison. That, Ellie tells us, brought into sharp focus the lack of safeguarding measures that are in place at Scottish universities for dealing with such cases of sexual misconduct.
In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that Scotland’s colleges and universities should be places where students can live, study and research safe from gender-based violence. The Scottish Government has recognised the concerns that Ellie Wilson has raised and says that it is working in partnership with the higher education sector and gender-based violence experts to facilitate the adoption of a consistent approach to data collection and safeguarding that will help to protect students.
The response also notes that, last year, the petitioner met the former minister for higher and further education, and it makes reference to the working group that was established by the equally safe in colleges and universities core leadership group to review the collection and use of student data in relation to relevant unspent criminal convictions and extant criminal charges.
The petition raises a serious issue. Do members have any comments or suggestions?
As you indicate, convener, this is a serious issue and one that we require to get more information on. We have the opportunity to write to a number of organisations, and I suggest that we write to EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland, Universities Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland and the National Union of Students to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition, including the suggestion that students who are awaiting trial for sexual offences should have access to online classes only and that anyone who is convicted of such an offence should face disciplinary action.
As I have said, this is a serious issue, and I think that getting up-to-date information from those organisations will provide the committee with a much more structured way to take the petition forward, which is important because I think that there is merit in it progressing.
I agree with the proposed actions, and I have some familiarity with the petitioner’s case from press coverage—I think that it has had quite a high profile in recent months.
I will make one additional point. The university in question—the University of Glasgow—is not affiliated to NUS Scotland, so it would be appropriate to also ask that university’s student representative council to make a submission, simply because the institution is not under the ambit of the NUS.
Thank you. Do members agree to the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of new petitions, and that final flourish from Mr Stewart concludes his contribution to the work of the committee, which I again thank him for.
I wish our clerks and my colleagues on the committee a happy and restful summer. I look forward to seeing who we have on the committee when we return after the break, and we can all live in hope that we will be suitably refreshed when we meet again on 6 September.
Meeting closed at 10:59.Air ais
Continued Petitions