Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1867, which was lodged by Scott Macmillan, calls on the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at SCQF level 2, under the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. The petitioner is calling for the new qualification so that BSL can be eligible to be an L2 language, which would allow it to be taught from primary 1.

In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills explains that the establishment of new qualifications is a matter for the SQA. However, she highlights that children must be able to study an L2 language

“at secondary school to the level of a National Qualification”.

There are currently no national qualifications in place for BSL. Therefore, as matters stand, even with the creation of a national qualification in British Sign Language at SCQF level 2, BSL would still not be eligible to be an L2 language.

That is definitely a chicken-and-egg definition. What thoughts do members have in response to the petition?

I agree. I think that we should write to the cabinet secretary to find out what stage the Government is at on the issue. We should specifically draw attention to the fact that the committee has been made aware of the Dundee facility. That might have arisen before but, nonetheless, the fact is that the facility exists and, therefore, whether the treatment should be offered is clearly down to the approvals process in the health service, and the fact that it is offered elsewhere is reasonably compelling testimony in support of the view that it should be approved.

I think that I would like to hear the response to that in the first instance, but I certainly do not rule out hearing from the petitioners themselves, because I know—whether it be on the petition that we started with today, on mesh, or on petitions on other medical conditions—that that can often give committee members a unique insight into the condition concerned. Therefore, it could be well worth hearing from Mary Ramsay and Ian Sharp.

Do members agree to proceed in two stages: first, to keep the petition open—

It seems sensible for us to do that as well. We will keep the petition open, we will write to the cabinet secretary and the University of Dundee, and we will reserve the option to bring the petitioners before us, depending on the progress that we subsequently make. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

For our next continued petitions, we are joined by Emma Harper MSP and Elena Whitham MSP. We also have comments from another colleague, but I will come to that shortly.

PE1610, by Matt Halliday, calls on the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 Euro route to dual carriageway for its entirety as soon as possible. PE1657, by Donald McHarrie, calls on the Scottish Government to dual the A77 from Ayr Whitletts roundabout south to the two ferry ports located at Cairnryan, including the point at which the A77 connects with the A75.

During the Public Petitions Committee’s consideration of the petitions, it took evidence from the Minister for Transport and the Islands in 2017 and received 31 written submissions. Our meeting papers summarise a number of written submissions, including the submission from the then Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, which was raised at the previous consideration of the petitions. The written submission gave details of investments that were made in the A77 and A75, the second strategic transport projects review in the Dumfries and Galloway area and the parallel study that engaged with stakeholders and considered the rationale for improvements to transport in south-west Scotland.

The United Kingdom Government has also committed £20 million to developing projects that were identified in the interim report of Sir Peter Hendy’s union connectivity review, including upgrading the A75 between Gretna and Stranraer.

In his most recent submission, Donald McHarrie, the petitioner for PE1657, points to research that was conducted for the strategic transport projects review that highlighted that the current A77 is behind the current required standard. The submission notes that, in the week commencing Tuesday 24 August, there were two fatalities and two casualties between the A77 and the A714 diversionary route, causing the south-west corner of Scotland to be cut off to traffic to the north. The petitioner is calling for the committee to hold a round-table session in Stranraer, as discussed by the session 5 committee, so that members can hear at first hand about issues that are raised in the petition.

Finlay Carson MSP hoped to be able to attend, but he is currently convening another parliamentary committee. He therefore sent the following:

“I have been a long-term advocate for improvements to both the A75 and the A77 and I have given evidence at the Committee on numerous occasions stressing the need for action and not further delay.

The Conveners Group met the First Minister on 13 November 2019. The First Minister said that she would respond to the petition in writing and that she would use PE1610 as a case study to describe the process that the Government goes through to reach decisions. Despite repeated requests for information from the committee, no response as far as I am aware has been received.

In light of the current continuous problems particularly on the A77 at Carlock Wall, I would like the Committee to consider a Stakeholder meeting as previously suggested. It should include the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and The Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport and Transport Minister.”

I will now come to our two colleagues who have joined us. They might want to add to our deliberations before we consider what steps to take next.

Thank you for that. Do you have a view on the suggestion that was made in session 5 about having a round-table discussion on the matter?

Thank you very much. Would colleagues like to make contributions? In the first instance, there is certainly an argument for keeping the petitions open. What further actions might we take?

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the third meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in section 6.

We have two agenda items, the first of which is consideration of continued petitions from the previous session of Parliament. We will then consider new petitions. We will be joined by a number of parliamentary colleagues who have an interest in some of the petitions that we will consider. We will consider 10 continued petitions, all of which have been carried forward from the previous session of Parliament.

The first continued petition for consideration today is PE1517, on polypropylene mesh medical devices, which is a petition with which I have had some engagement. It was lodged by Elaine Holmes, who is a constituent of mine—and Olive McIlroy on behalf of the Scottish mesh survivors hear our voice campaign.

The petition calls on the Scottish Government to suspend the use of polypropylene transvaginal mesh procedures; initiate a public inquiry and/or comprehensive independent research to evaluate the safety of mesh devices using all evidence available, including from across the world; introduce mandatory reporting of all adverse incidents by health professionals; set up a Scottish transvaginal mesh implant register with a view to linking it up with national and international registers; introduce fully informed consent with uniformity throughout Scotland’s health boards; and write to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to ask that it reclassify transvaginal mesh devices to heightened alert status to reflect on-going concerns worldwide.

Our meeting papers outline some of the many actions that the committee has taken since the petition was first lodged in April 2014. Those include a report and a chamber debate as well as several evidence sessions. Through those sessions, the committee has heard directly from witnesses, including, among others, two cabinet secretaries for health, chief medical officers of the day, key figures at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Dr Dionysios Veronikis, who is a surgeon specialising in pelvic mesh removal in the United States and—so memorably—the petitioners themselves.

Our papers also highlight the recent introduction by the Scottish Government of the Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Bill as part of its programme, which was announced yesterday. The bill will allow the Scottish Government to set up a scheme that could reimburse people who have paid private healthcare costs to have their transvaginal mesh implant removed. It could also cover travel costs and hotel accommodation paid for in relation to the surgery.

In their most recent submission, the petitioners state that they are heartened that the Scottish Government’s women’s health plan for 2021 to 2024 highlights the importance of learning from the mesh crisis. However, they also highlight some questions that they have regarding the treatment that women suffering with mesh complications can access.

Would colleagues like to comment?

The next petition is PE1852—I am tempted to pronounce that as the year 1852, as the petition relates to increased planning protection for Scottish battlefields, although I am not sure whether we had a battle in 1852. The petition was lodged by George Kempik on behalf of the group to stop development at Culloden. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to designate historic battlefields with a heritage status and to implement a stricter planning framework to protect them.

The submission from the Scottish Government states that current legislation, planning regulations, national policy and related guidance already set out the recognition and protection principles for battlefields. It explains that Historic Environment Scotland is responsible for designating nationally important battlefields and adding them to the register. Those battlefields are then given additional consideration in the planning system in terms of local development plans and individual planning applications.

The submission states that safeguards were strengthened in March 2019, when the Scottish Government

“issued a notification direction requiring authorities to alert us to new planning cases for non-householder development that may affect any of our designated historic battlefields.”

Although the petitioner appreciates that there are already substantial measures in place, he is concerned about the persistent nature of developers. He doubts that the measures that are in place are sufficient to provide protection to such historic areas as the Scottish battlefields in the face of such persistence.

I am happy to hear comments from colleagues.

We have had two suggestions, the first of which is that we invite the petitioner to consider the Scottish Government’s response, outlining the process of granting a pardon. Normally, that would happen by exception and individually in response to the case that was prosecuted. Secondly, Paul Sweeney is advocating that we ask the Scottish Government the broader question of whether there is a process by which it could make a political decision on the matter.

Paul, do you want to clarify your suggestion?

I wonder whether we could combine both recommendations that we have heard. We could still use rule 15.7 to close the petition but, at the same time, write to the Scottish Government to point out the experience elsewhere on the continent and to seek some clarification about whether there might be some areas in which it could extend the practice of the delivery of face coverings. Would that be acceptable?