Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will keep the petition open. We thank Mr Muir for raising the issue with us. We will write to the Scottish Government and see what response we get in the first instance.

That bring us to the end of our public session. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 30 October. We will move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5. I again thank Marie McNair for joining us as a substitute for David Torrance this morning.

Thank you for that unsurprisingly compelling advocacy in support of the aims of the petition. I am old enough to remember the era before multiplex cinemas when the ABC cinema—the Regal—in Sauchiehall Street was a regular place to go. I can recall Charlton Heston going there for the premiere of “Earthquake”, with surround sound, when we were shaken in our seats during the earthquake. It seems that the cinema survived that, but is not surviving the calumnies that have been visited on it by Glasgow City Council’s planning process.

The argument that you make is an interesting one. Most of us are aware of buildings that are being lost without necessarily having fully understood what processes have led to their demolition. Sometimes that will, of course, have been completely necessary and unavoidable, but there is sometimes a suggestion that there is a shiny new model that might better suit the owners and they are keen to pursue it. I am minded, in relation to Glasgow, of the Odeon cinema on Renfield Street, where the magnificent façade was preserved and has been incorporated into the much newer building structure that was allowed to be developed on what had been the site of the auditoria of that cinema complex. There are solutions that can be found if people want to find the imagination to take them forward.

I am quite interested in the petition, and I think that the public is generally interested in it. I do not know whether we have a room in Parliament big enough for all the people whom Mr Sweeney was suggesting, but I am minded to conduct an informed round-table discussion on what is happening with the process and whether legislation might not be more appropriately drafted to give a little bit of weight to the idea of conservation-accredited engineers having a say on this. I think that those arguments were quite interesting.

I wonder whether there is anything that we might do to inform that panel. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what we might do in the first instance?

I should have noted that we received a late submission, which colleagues will have seen, from our colleague Beatrice Wishart on the petition.

Mr Golden has suggested that we keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary. Are we content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2108, which was lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

The SPICe briefing explains that a short-term detention certificate authorises a patient’s detention in hospital for 28 days in order to determine what medical treatment the patient needs and to provide that treatment. The 2003 act specifies the criteria that an approved medical practitioner must confirm have been met in order for a detention certificate to be used, and the act requires that a mental health officer must give consent before it is used. If the patient has a named person, that person must also be consulted and have their views taken into account.

In England, the decision on whether to detain a patient is made by an approved mental health professional following an assessment by two doctors. When the Mental Health Act 1983 was being debated, it was stressed that the independence of the two doctors making medical recommendations was important in order to avoid collusion, influence or interference with clinical judgment.

In her response to the petition, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport outlined the use of short-term detention certificates and highlighted the right of appeal. The submission also highlights that reducing coercion is one of the priorities that emerged from the Scottish mental health law review.

The petitioner has shared his view that the certification process

“does not contain sufficient safeguards”

because the mental health officer who grants consent is not necessarily independent of the approved medical practitioner. His view is that the mental health law review was “not fit for purpose” and that, although the review stated that coercion should be reduced, it is not clear how that will be achieved. The petitioner would like

“supported decision making to be the norm rather than substituted decision making.”

These are important issues. I think that I recognise the name of Andrew Muir—he might have lodged petitions with the committee previously. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

The final continued petition—PE2042—which was lodged by Undine Achilles-Day on behalf of Taynuilt community council, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish car parking charges at all Forestry and Land Scotland sites to promote access to forests and green spaces across Scotland.

The petition was previously considered at our meeting on 22 November. We agreed to seek more information from Forestry and Land Scotland, and I am pleased to note that we received a response from it that sets out the rationale for car parking charges at specific sites. The response provides details of the revenue that is received from the charges and of the management costs of maintaining its trails and car parks. The response states that the management of trails and car parks costs Forestry and Land Scotland £5.8 million annually, whereas the income that it receives from car parks is about £1 million.

We have a detailed submission with interesting information about the costs and the sums that are raised. Do any colleagues wish to comment or make suggestions on how to proceed?

Mr Ewing, you looked as though you were bursting to say something, or were you just bursting to say something but thinking better of it?

The second of our new petitions is PE2100, by Gary Wall, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to produce guidance under section 54 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 to clarify the criteria for consideration of “no other satisfactory solution” in relation to licensing and to include the sustainable cultural use of natural resources under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

In his written submission to the committee, the petitioner notes that

“NatureScot can change their ‘will’ because they have no transparent conservation ‘objective’ to apply when making a licensing decision on sustainable cultural use.”

The petitioner is concerned that NatureScot’s application of the satisfactory solution test is not clear, and that Scottish Government guidance is therefore required.

In its written response to the committee, the Scottish Government highlights the fact that NatureScot’s licensing guidance includes specific guidance on the interpretation of the “no other satisfactory solution” test. It sets out the points that are considered by NatureScot when it applies that test and notes that

“where another solution exists, any argument that it is not ‘satisfactory’ will need to be strong and robust”.

I emphasise the fact that, in its response, the Scottish Government states that it has

“no intention to bring forward legislation to include the sustainable cultural use of natural resources under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.”

The key here appears to be interpretation of the “no other satisfactory solution” test and the petitioner’s assertion of something that I am not sure is actually detailed in the way that the petitioner believes that it is, together with the fact that the Scottish Government has said that it has no intention of bringing forward legislation, which is a pretty clear steer.

In the light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we should proceed?

Do colleagues agree with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open, and we will seek to pursue the objective of securing a defibrillator for every school in Scotland.

Welcome back. Before we suspended, we were considering PE2102, from Anna-Cristina Seaver, which seeks to require that anyone who is found guilty of rape or sexual assault to be registered as a sex offender. I read out and detailed the general principles of the petition.

Fulton MacGregor MSP has now joined us, and I am delighted that he will contribute some thoughts to the committee ahead of our consideration of the actions that we might take. Good morning, Mr MacGregor. The committee would be delighted if you would detail your thoughts to us.

Would that be for the Scottish Sentencing Council to respond to? Should we invite it, insofar as it is able, to identify circumstances in which absolute discharge would have been granted, without prejudicing the particular circumstance of any individual case?