Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our last new petition is PE1916, which requests a public inquiry into the management of the Rest and Be Thankful project and was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly.

As promised, I am delighted to welcome back Rhoda Grant for the final petition this morning. I will come to her shortly.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which is to provide a permanent solution for the route.

Transport Scotland explains in its submission that, following a number of landslides across Scotland in 2004, a nationwide Scottish road network landslides study was carried out. The study concluded that the A83 Ardgartan to Rest and Be Thankful is one of the most highly ranked debris flow hazard sites in Scotland.

In 2012, Transport Scotland commissioned a study to identify and appraise potential options to minimise the effects of road closures. The final A83 route study, which was published in February 2013, explains that the decision was made to progress with the red option, as it was considered at that time to offer the best performance and the most cost-effective way of meeting the study’s objectives. Those objectives included maintaining the existing alignment of the A83 with a range of landslide mitigation measures such as additional debris flow barriers at locations where the landslide hazard was considered highest; the improvement of hillside drainage adjacent to and under the road; and the introduction of vegetation and planting on the slope.

In its submission, Transport Scotland provided a range of data that shows the number of days on which the various stretches of road in and around the A83 were closed due to landslides. The data shows that the events that occurred in 2020 and 2021 were significantly larger in scale than any of the previous events.

Following that, several new measures were introduced to make it quicker, easier and safer to open the road should it be closed by a landslide. In 2020, a consultation exercise was carried out to consider 11 route corridor options to address issues at the Rest and Be Thankful route. More than 650 people provided feedback, and the Glen Croe corridor was chosen as the preferred route.

The Transport Scotland submission advises that

“timescales for completion of a long term solution to the issues at the Rest and Be Thankful range from 7–10 years”.

In the interim, Transport Scotland advises that work is progressing

“to look at a medium term resilient route through Glen Croe”

and that

“that work will seek to develop a finalised proposal by Autumn”

this year. The submission states:

“Since the A83 Taskforce was set up in 2012, meetings have been held every 6 months”

and that “a substantial project update” is due

“at the next Taskforce meeting in early 2022”.

A project-specific web page has also been launched on the Transport Scotland website.

Against that background, I am happy to invite comments from Rhoda Grant.

I remember standing there on a site investigation with the previous committee. You are absolutely right that the military road sits in the shadow of the principal route. It is hardly a wonderful alternative, but at least it was an alternative, although not when there was a significant landslide. The route in the valley opposite was regarded as being far too steep to be developed for heavy goods vehicles or other larger vehicles. It has been a significant on-going problem.

Our second agenda item is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1723, on essential tremor treatment, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

I am delighted to welcome Rhoda Grant MSP back to the committee to speak to the petition. Before I come to Rhoda, I will provide a little more background. When it last considered the petition in September of last year, the committee agreed to write to the University of Dundee to seek an update on the magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound—MRgFUS—scanner system.

A response from the University of Dundee has now been received, which confirms that its focused ultrasound system has been used to treat five patients with essential tremor. Funding approval has been obtained from individual national health service boards for patients to be treated in Dundee over the coming months.

The committee also wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport requesting an update on plans to submit a proposal to the national specialist services committee to allow the treatment to become a standard form of care. Applications to the committee have now been halted due to the pandemic. At present, the majority of those wishing to access the treatment are forced to travel long distances to access care in England.

Although I sometimes tease that she is with us more than some of our committee members, it is a pleasure to have Rhoda with us again this morning. Would you like to update the committee on anything in relation to the petition?

No other members of the committee have indicated that they wish to comment.

To summarise, we are keeping the petition open. It looks as though Natalie Don will propose a member’s bill. We might require some clarification on our ability to progress the petition if a bill is introduced and proceeds but, in any event, it looks as though the scope of such a bill will not comprehensively cover the scope of the petition. Therefore, we will keep in mind members’ desire to hear evidence from the petitioner at a future meeting, clarify with Ms Don when she might be likely to lodge the proposal for the members’ bill and invite her to participate in our consideration of the petition on that date.

Does that course of action meet with the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1877 was lodged by Alex Wallace. We considered the petition in September of last year. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland. Members should note that the Public Petitions Committee considered a similar petition from the same petitioner in session 5.

The committee wrote to stakeholders to seek their views. In its submission, the British Medical Association raised concerns about how the use of body cameras might affect confidentiality and patient trust and suggested that, if a patient thought that their remarks were being filmed, that could prevent them from seeking help or being honest about their situation.

The clerk’s note that accompanies the petition sets out data that the Scottish Ambulance Service has provided on reports of physical or verbal abuse against its staff. In its submission, the service notes that it has recently considered and approved a limited trial of the use of body cameras and sets out a number of perceived benefits, including a potential reduction in staff absence due to assault, the provision of better quality footage that would support prosecutions and wider improvements to staff wellbeing.

I invite comments, starting with Paul Sweeney.

Before I close the meeting, I will come back to Mr Sweeney on an issue relating to PE1912, on funding for council venues. When you said that you wanted one of the stakeholders to be contacted on the points that you made, the clerks were not entirely clear which stakeholder you meant. Can you confirm who you want us to contact with the concerns that you highlighted?

Thank you, Rhoda. That was helpful, and quite disappointing in some respects.

PE1878, which has been lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate why there have been so few prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 September 2021, when we decided to write to the petitioner, and also to the Scottish mental health law review to ask for an update on its work on compulsory detention and care and treatment under the 2003 act.

The review has responded that, as part of its remit, it is

“considering patients’ experiences of care and treatment whilst subject to compulsion, why there has been an increase in compulsory detention and treatment and the reasons for variation in compulsory orders across Scotland.”

That includes “issues of concern” around accountability, complaints systems and strengthened advocacy rights. A link to the review’s full submission can be found in members’ papers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Our next continued petition is PE1881, which is on longer sentences for paedophiles and sexual predators. The petition, which was lodged by Carol Burns and was last considered in September 2021, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the length of time that sexual predators serve in jail. At that previous meeting, the committee requested an update from the Scottish Sentencing Council on progress on developing sentencing guidelines in relation to rape, sexual assault and indecent images of children. The committee also sought updates from Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland.

We have now received from the Scottish Sentencing Council a submission that provides information about

“the development ... of three general guidelines ... to create a high-level framework for sentencing ... and .... a ... foundation for the development of offence-specific sentencing guidelines”.

The council also says that

“work on the development of guidelines on rape, sexual assault, and indecent images of children is now at”

stage 2, which focuses on

“engaging with key stakeholders, gathering evidence and developing a first draft for each guideline.”

However, the SSC

“is not yet in a position to set out a definitive timescale”

for the publication of the guidelines.

In its submission, Rape Crisis Scotland shares the petitioner’s concern that some

“sentences ... feel disproportionately short to those affected”

by the crime, and it welcomes the SSC’s review of sentencing guidelines.

Do members have any comments?

I note the recommendation that you have made in addition to your suggestion that we close the petition. Do members agree with the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.