Chamber and committees

I am mindful of scottishathletics having highlighted the potential challenges of implementing a ban. Such things are said very often, but bans are sometimes very difficult to apply. However, I am inclined to support Mr Stewart’s suggestion. Do colleagues agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

At the same time, we could ensure that the petitioner is aware of the consultation that is under way. The fact that the Education, Children and Young People Committee is considering a similar petition allows us to close PE1927 at this stage. Are members comfortable with that?

Members indicated agreement.

In a previous life, I used to deliver lorries to customers—but not the largest ones. I did not have to have a heavy goods vehicle licence, but they were big enough. I always thought that the view from the cab was fascinating.

Mr Whittle gave us a figure about a transference from the Cairnryan route to the Dublin to Holyhead route. Did I hear you say that it was something like 6 per cent? Is that traffic that would previously have gone on the Cairnryan route that is now going on the Dublin to Holyhead route?

Perhaps I could ask for advice from the clerk. We could advise the petitioner about the trials and the fact that Scottish patients will be eligible. I am told that we do not know from the response that we have received how the petitioner could seek to make himself available.

I crave the indulgence of the committee and ask that we hold the petition open one more time. I would like to see whether we could find out from the Scottish Government how someone would go about making themselves available, to establish whether they would be eligible to participate in the trials. It would be one thing for us to tell the petitioner that he could do so, but it would be more helpful for us to be able to tell him how he could so. Subject to our having that information to augment our response to the petitioner, I would be happy to close the petition at that point.

They do. If the petition is closed, the petitioner can come back after a year if they feel that nothing has advanced in relation to the petition during that period of time. However, obviously, we will have a clear idea from the Government about the route that the petitioner could take, and we have a clear direction that it does not intend to take, or is unable to take, any further action at this time, as doing so would contravene a law over which it does not have particular responsibility.

PE1944, which has been lodged by Alan Ross, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enforce the engine idling ban and take action to introduce instant £80 fines for offences; reclassify idling as a high traffic offence; legally oblige local authorities to enforce the engine idling ban; create contact points for public reporting; and increase anti-idling signage in public spaces.

The SPICe briefing explains that statistics on engine idling enforcement action are not routinely published but that FOI requests indicate that fixed-penalty notices are rarely, if ever, issued.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the current approach to enforcement is fit for purpose and proportionate, with penalties being viewed primarily as a deterrent. The response states that local authorities undertake educational and awareness-raising campaigns to prevent idling and target enforcement in areas of known concern.

The petitioner believes that the response is inadequate and does not address the petition’s proposals or reflect the gravity of the issue. He points to the rise in the number of vehicles on the roads since the legislation was updated, in 2003, and to the health risks associated with inhaling car fumes. He also raises enforcement issues and stresses the climate impacts.

In my experience, since 2003, a lot of cars now cut out automatically to prevent engine idling. The manufacturers have incorporated into the mechanics of more recently produced vehicles an engine idling cut-out facility.

Do members have any views on the petition or on what we might do next?

Does anyone else have any thoughts?

PE1865, which was lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review of all surgical procedures that use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established.

I am delighted that we have Katy Clark with us. Welcome, Katy. I will invite you to contribute in a moment.

We last considered the petition on 8 June, when we heard evidence from Maree Todd, Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport; the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Gregor Smith; and the senior medical adviser, Terry O’Kelly.

Following that meeting, we received two new responses from the petitioners, who both remain unconvinced that the Scottish Government has listened to the concerns raised through the petition. We have also received a submission from James Young, who shares a powerful account of the impact that a mesh implant had on his quality of life.

In a moment, we will discuss in the round the evidence that we have received, in addition to the evidence that we heard from Shouldice hospital in Canada. Before we do so, I invite Katy Clark to speak to us in relation the petition.

I suggest that, when we write to the RAC Foundation and the Road Haulage Association, we ask them what information they have on the reimbursement or restitution that affected individuals actually get. That is a material consideration. Are members content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1937, which has been lodged by Gillian Lamarra, is entitled “To give children the respect they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for P.E.” It is an important issue. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their PE kit to school on the days they have PE.

The petitioner considers that these protections are necessary to ensure children’s privacy and tells us that, while Covid-19 restrictions were in place, some schools brought in the option of children wearing their PE kit to school. However, since the pandemic restrictions have been lifted, schools have allegedly taken that option away, which means that primary school pupils have to get changed for PE in front of their teacher and their classmates in mixed-gender classes.

The Scottish Government’s response indicates that

“policy decisions on school clothing ... are best taken by schools and education authorities”.

It also highlights the

“statutory responsibility on all local authorities to manage and maintain their school estate”

and the expectation that local authorities will

“provide appropriate changing facilities”.

We have received a submission from the petitioner in response to the Scottish Government, which highlights the fact that some schools do not have appropriate facilities for pupils to get changed in. It also raises concerns about the onus being put on parents to contact the teachers to resolve the issue, rather than the relevant authorities ensuring that appropriate changing facilities or alternative options are provided. Do members have any comments?