Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1812 was lodged by Audrey Baird and Fiona Baker on behalf of Help Trees Help Us. It calls on the Scottish Government to deliver world-leading legislation to give Scotland’s remaining fragments of ancient, native and semi-native woodlands and woodland floors full legal protection before the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP 26—in Glasgow in November 2021.

In its submission, the Scottish Government highlights that it has committed to maintaining or exceeding EU environmental standards, where appropriate and practicable to do so, through its environment strategy vision and outcomes, and in legislation through the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. It states that it will bring forward a draft policy statement, regarding the use of the discretionary power to align with EU law, for consultation early in this parliamentary session.

The Scottish Government also intends to produce a new Scottish biodiversity strategy no later than 12 months after the 15th Convention on Biological Diversity conference of parties—COP15—and to increase the area that is protected for nature in Scotland to at least 30 per cent of land area by 2030.

In response, the petitioners describe the Scottish Government’s submission as a

“catalogue of failure barely disguised by ‘statements of intention’ on meaningful action to protect native woodland and stem biodiversity loss in the future”

and argue that most of their petition’s objectives have been ignored by the Scottish Government.

With that endorsement ringing in our ears, I ask whether anyone has any comments to make at this time. I think that there is some work still to do.

Right. I was not sure whether that was a completely fresh development, but we are aware of that.

The clerks can update me on that.

Thank you. The previous Minister for Community Safety, who Christine Grahame noted was Ash Denham, said that regulation would require full consultation and primary legislation. I take Christine Grahame’s point in that regard. I do not know whether what the minister said was meant to be a disincentive to us to pursue the issue or whether it was identifying the course of action. I agree, and I think that the committee agrees, that if primary legislation is required because the case is compelling and correct, then that is what would have to follow. Therefore, in the first instance, it would be interesting to know whether the current Minister for Community Safety is prepared to commit to the Scottish Government undertaking the consultation that would be a precursor to any legislation on the regulation of non-statutory child services. Are we content to pursue that? That would be the first step in the pattern that was identified. We would keep the petition open on that basis and see what response we receive.

Members indicated agreement.

The final continued petition that we are considering this morning is PE1845, on an agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland. For the petition, we are joined again by Emma Harper MSP and Rhoda Grant MSP. You are competing with each other this morning to ensure that you are with us for the same number of petitions, but we are glad to have both of you.

The petition was lodged by Gordon Baird on behalf of Galloway community hospital action group and it calls on the Scottish Government to create an agency to ensure that health boards offer fair and reasonable management of rural and remote healthcare issues. The petition was first considered in January 2021 and the clerk’s note outlines the work that the session 5 committee carried out on the petition.

The written submissions on the petition highlight some of the issues experienced by rural and remote communities as they try to access medical care, including patients being required to take long, often awkward journeys for not only critical care but routine out-patient appointments, of which I think we have all heard examples from colleagues in the chamber at various question times; outreach clinics to rural communities being dependent on individual consultants rather than organised programmes; and a failure by key organisations to understand the importance of dispensing GPs to rural and remote communities.

In alphabetical order, I will take Rhoda Grant first.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. It might be useful for anyone who is following the proceedings to know that, as a standard working practice, the committee used to meet and then agree to ask the Scottish Government for its views on a petition. Now, as a matter of course, the committee writes to the Scottish Government and other stakeholders to ask for their views on petitions, in order that, when considering a petition, the committee is as informed as possible for each meeting. I would not want anyone who is following our proceedings or any petitioner to think that that unduly influences the committee’s subsequent discussion or consideration. It allows us to have at least a basic understanding of the Government’s reaction to the petition, along with the response of other stakeholders.

The first new petition, PE1854, which has been lodged by Keith Park on behalf of the MS Society, calls on the Scottish Government to

“remove the 20 metre rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs.”

The adult disability payment is due to replace the personal independence payment in Scotland from summer 2022, following a pilot scheme that will take place in spring 2022. Under the principle of safe and secure transition, the Scottish versions of the Department for Work and Pensions disability and carer benefits will, at least in the short term, have much the same rules as their DWP equivalents. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it consulted on the draft regulations for adult disability payments between 21 December 2020 and 15 March 2021. The Scottish Government has advised that it will review the responses to the consultation and, if required, adjust the draft regulations in light of the feedback.

The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that the DWP has been clear that, in order for ADP to be considered a comparable benefit to PIP, and to ensure that Scottish clients remain entitled to various reserved payments, it must be delivered on a “like for like basis”. The submission notes that

“any changes which widen eligibility risk DWP deciding that ADP is not a comparable benefit to PIP and withdrawing automatic entitlement to reserved payments from Scottish clients.”

As such, it advises that while the period of transition from PIP to ADP is on-going, it has decided

“not to make any significant changes to eligibility criteria before ADP is launched.”

The submission advises that the Scottish Government is focusing on the significant changes it can make

“to how disabled people in Scotland experience accessing disability assistance, such as providing additional application channels and replacing assessments with person-centred consultations.”

The Scottish Government has committed to facilitating an independent review of ADP in 2023, one year after delivery has begun, which it believes will enable all of the eligibility criteria to be considered

“in the round rather than any changes being made in a piecemeal way.”

In their submission, the petitioner points to the Scottish Government’s consultation on proposals for ADP, highlighting that, in their responses, people with disabilities and organisations working on their behalf identified the need to remove the 20m rule. The submission notes that in the Scottish Government’s proposals for ADP, it is not argued that the rule is an effective way to measure mobility.

In response to the risk of ADP not being considered a comparable benefit to PIP, the petitioner argues that changing the 20m rule to a 50m rule would not impact on passported benefits on the basis that an enhanced rate of mobility, compared with the standard rate, does not entitle individuals to any additional DWP benefits.

That is quite complicated, but also direct. Do members have any comments?

PE1865 calls for the suspension of all surgical mesh and fixation devices. It is a new petition and has been lodged by Roseanna Clarkin, Lauren McDougall and Graham Robertson. The petition calls on the Scottish Government

“to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while ... a review of all surgical procedures which use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out; and ... guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established.”

In his submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has stressed the seriousness with which the Scottish Government takes all issues relating to mesh. He has outlined the actions that the Scottish Government has taken in relation to the use of transvaginal mesh for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. We discussed those things in our consideration of the first petition this morning.

The cabinet secretary has also highlighted the high vigilance scrutiny protocol, which was introduced for some other procedures, including abdominally inserted mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, and the research that was commissioned by the Scottish Government into the use of mesh in inguinal hernia repair, which concluded that

“mesh resulted in lower rates of recurrence, fewer serious adverse events and similar or lower risk of chronic pain”

than non-mesh procedures. As a result, the cabinet secretary does not believe that there is evidence to justify a pause in the use of relevant devices.

In response, one of the petitioners has highlighted the many personal testimonies that have been shared with the committee, detailing the life-changing effects of having mesh procedures. The submission suggests that not all patients are being given sufficient information to be able to give fully informed consent. Neither does it seem that all surgeons are clear about when it is appropriate to use mesh.

Since the publication of our papers, we have received two additional submissions from the petitioners. The first details key questions to which the petitioner seeks answers. The second highlights the importance of the Cumberlege review and asks why more progress has not been made in delivering on its recommendations—which, from memory, I believe the Scottish Government accepted, in full, in a response that it made in the chamber.

It is important also to emphasise, for those who have followed mesh procedures historically, that the petition relates to all mesh procedures—for men, women and children—and is distinct from the petition that we considered previously, which related to issues that affect women’s health exclusively.

The petition is new and is important. Do colleagues have any proposals that we might consider?

I am happy to do that and to keep the petition open on that basis. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am struck by the words in the response from the cabinet secretary that there are

“fewer serious adverse events and ... lower risk of chronic pain”

than for non-mesh procedures. I think that we received exactly the same testimony in relation to the original mesh petition at the first point of hearing. Until people knew that there was an issue to speak out about, it was not much in the public domain.

I think that the committee is inclined to make such a request. We might say that we will raise progress on the recommendations that the Cumberlege review made on mesh at the same time as we pursue the fresh issues.