Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will touch on something that I noted in the petitioners’ most recent written submission. We have talked quite a bit about commercial forestry and issues arising from that, but the submission also touched on mountain biking. I am not a mountain biker. Those days are behind me. However, as it happens, I do quite a lot of walking in the Alps, on the continent, where I have seen a fairly massive expansion of mountain biking as a pastime.

It is interesting to me that, in France, Switzerland or wherever else, an awful lot of Scottish families participate. I am aware of that because of being suddenly struck by the accents. There is a very strong Scottish thread through it. It is interesting for those of us who are walking in the Alps or wherever, going down, to see the various biking trails that have been put in place, which tend to be designed to get from the top to the bottom in the fastest possible time. They are not stopping for a picnic halfway down; they are getting to where they have to get to. Clearly, that is an emerging and growing sport, and the thrill of it is that it is not through open country but through forested country—the whole thing is in the cuts and turns of doing it.

Given that that appears to be an emerging, growing and popular sport, for which there could be an ever-increasing demand, how do you see its being accommodated? It will have to be accommodated, if it is popular. How should such a thing be accommodated within the landscape? Where is it appropriate and where would it be better not to facilitate it? Does it need to be managed in some way, rather than just produced on a whim?

Thank you, both, very much. I know that it was a very early start for you. I hope that you can see that the committee is very interested in your petition, which has opened up a number of issues that it would be worth while for us to pursue and further examine in some detail. That process began with your evidence this morning, and it will now continue with the round-table discussion. We will liaise with you as we take the petition and the discussion further forward.

I suspend the meeting briefly.

I invite David Torrance to lead us into an area of discussion.

Good morning. I am delighted to welcome everyone to the second meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do we agree to take item 4 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The associated concern of hernia mesh was referred to from time to time during the progress of the committee’s dealings with the mesh petition previously. There was an immediately united, informed body of women who drove the transvaginal mesh petition forward. The issue of hernia mesh was understood to be there but did not have the same profile.

What is depressing is that the pathway seems to be 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, and 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. Even during the debates on recent legislation, I was reluctant to conflate the two issues because I felt that we did not have the same body of evidence. As a consequence of our pursuit of this petition, the wider body of evidence is beginning to emerge. Therefore, I think that it is very much an issue that the committee should pursue further and that we should leave the petition open.

I would very much like to welcome the minister back to the committee. The minister should have the opportunity to properly consider the evidence that we have received from the Shouldice hospital. Taking evidence from representatives of the Shouldice hospital would be slightly problematic in terms of timing because they will not be working to the same clock as our committee—I imagine that they are all fast asleep at the moment—but we could think about that.

I would like to hear from the chief medical officer and the minister. I would certainly like to understand that evidence and flag up in advance the procurement of the particular mesh material because I do not understand why that has happened. All the issues look broadly similar. When we heard from the minister previously, the Government was working on informed consent procedures. That seemed fair enough, but we have been here before.

We can assume that there is now a broader body of men who have concerns. However, a number of men have contacted me to say that they have had perfectly successful mesh procedures and it has made a huge difference. I want to understand the volume and the relationship between those who feel that they have had successful mesh procedures and those who have had unsuccessful mesh procedures. In the case of transvaginal mesh, the balance was fundamentally on the side of those who had experienced serious health consequences. That may have to form the basis of any informed consent in the event that there is an argument for the mesh process proceeding.

Are we content to take and consider further evidence from those parties that have been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1867, which was lodged by Scott Macmillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

I am delighted to say that our meeting is being streamed in BSL for those people watching and hopefully for our petitioners, who might now be watching the consideration of the petition.

The petition was last considered by the committee on 8 September 2021. At that meeting, the committee agreed to write to the SQA to establish whether the qualification called for in the petition could be introduced, what would be required in introducing it and what, 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 SQA’s gift.”

It advises the committee to seek advice from those in the Scottish Government with responsibility for the language learning in Scotland: a 1+2 approach policy. The submission explains that the particular qualification types that are deemed to be part of the national qualifications suite include national courses and national units at each level from SCQF level 1 up to SCQF 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 it 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 within Scottish education; and 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 British Sign Language (Scotland) Act 2015 was passed and while the BSL national plan for 2017 to 2023 was being developed. Those were the evidence for demand for 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?

Thank you very much. We will close the petition and forward that evidence to the Scottish Government based on its commitment to undertake a forthcoming and early review.

Are we happy to write to NatureScot?

Members indicated agreement.

As there are no other suggestions, I take it that the committee is content to hold the petition open and we will write to NatureScot.

Thank you very much, Mr McArthur.

Has the immediate lifting of threats to jobs maybe underpinned Prospect’s welcome? Have you had any contact with Prospect?