Chamber and committees

I am very happy to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that has been suggested. Financial reimbursement is often something of an afterthought, with proper consideration not being given to the mechanisms that should be in place. When health boards take varying approaches, the process can be complicated or not, depending on the health board concerned.

PE1877, which was lodged by Alex Wallace, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide body cameras for all front-line NHS staff and paramedics in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has stated that it does not believe that bodycams would be necessary or appropriate for all front-line clinical staff as the safety risks vary considerably in different job roles. The submission highlights that the Scottish Ambulance Service has advised that the trade unions have shown no appetite for bodycams, and that attacks on paramedics in Scotland have decreased in recent years.

A feasibility study was conducted and the Scottish Government believes that the cost of the proposal would be prohibitive for health boards and would not provide value for money.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1882, which has been lodged by Laura Steel, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that any person who is charged with a sexual offence against a child is remanded in custody.

In its written submission, the Scottish Government explains that the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 forms the basis of the current law on bail. As a result of that act, there is a general presumption in favour of bail. However, the legislation ensures that an individual could be held on remand where there is a substantial risk that they might abscond or fail to appear at court, commit a further offence or offences, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, or where there is any other substantial factor that appears to the court to justify keeping that person in custody.

The Government states that the general presumption in favour of bail is reversed where an individual is accused on indictment of drugs, sexual, violent or domestic abuse offences and they already have a conviction in solemn proceedings on such a charge. In such cases, the presumption is that the individual be remanded.

The Scottish Government’s submission also states that the European Court of Human Rights has developed case law that requires decisions on the remand of individuals who are accused of offences to be made on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it would not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate to require that all individuals who are accused of certain offences, such as sexual offences, always be remanded in custody prior to trial.

Given that background, do members have any comments or suggestions?

PE1884, which has been lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the NHS, or to provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults in cases in which all other NHS epilepsy drugs have failed to help.

In response to the petition, the chief pharmaceutical officer outlines that the regulation, licensing and supply of medicines remains reserved to the UK Government under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and that includes the scheduling of cannabis-based products for medicinal use. The chief pharmaceutical officer states that specialist doctors across Scotland have a “clear and united view” that they would be unwilling to prescribe any CBPMs containing tetrahydrocannabinol—the longest word today—until there is clear published evidence available following a clinical trial.

The submission notes that there is currently a lack of data on dosage, toxicity, interactions and monitoring of long-term side effects. However, the chief pharmaceutical officer has been engaging with the development of clinical trials in refractory epilepsy. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will be writing to the UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to see what additional leverage can be brought to bear on potential solutions, to request an update on progress with clinical trials and to ask that manufacturers of CBPMs be encouraged to participate in those trials.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you for that. As someone who sat on the cross-party group on chronic pain, I know that there are individuals who will personally testify to evidence that they have heard or who are aware of somebody who has, under exceptional circumstances, benefited from use of the product. I ask the clerks to find out whether there is potentially a body of evidence from other countries where the use of whole plant cannabis oil may be an approved procedure. It is one of those issues on which we are told that the evidence does not exist, but it cannot exist within our own sphere. Various engagements are taking place in relation to potential trials. We should seek to find out what we can about those.

I am interested in the chief pharmaceutical officer’s assertion that there is a “clear and united view” among specialist doctors that they would be unwilling to prescribe such products. Perhaps we could pursue that a bit more, because I would like to understand the reasoning for it.

Are members happy to pursue the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That committee is already looking at the issue in detail. Does that suggestion meet members’ approval?

Members indicated agreement.

I sat on the cross-party group on chronic pain and I have come across people for whom some of those alternative approaches have clearly had a benefit. It is sometimes not clear talking to people in the medical establishment that they accept that those approaches can have a benefit.

I note that the UK Government regards hypnotherapy as a safe modality and that self-regulation should be sufficient. Is there anybody in the relevant UK department that we could ask about what it has done to come to that conclusion? We can see. Are members happy to try to establish different routes that we can pursue and keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1874, which was lodged by Dr Conrad Harvey, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to create artillery and firearms exclusion zones around places of spiritual importance and religious worship in Scotland.

In its written submission, the Scottish Government outlines the principles that determine what types of development require planning permission, how applications are considered and the conditions and mitigations that can be applied when granting planning permission.

The Scottish Government states that planning decision makers already have

“the ability to consider and control noise in a way that reflects the particular circumstances”

of any proposed development. It also believes that a 5-mile exclusion zone around existing places of worship would be

“a comparatively blunt approach to controlling noise-generating developments.”

In his response, the petitioner reiterates his belief that it is inappropriate to have a shooting range within 5 miles of an established cathedral, temple, synagogue, mosque or monastery.

Would anybody like to offer a view?

PE1875, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson, calls on the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the academic years 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Our papers explain that the Scottish Government has committed to establishing a public inquiry into the response to Covid-19, which it says will be “comprehensive”. Moreover, in its submission, the Government advises that, in 2020, it commissioned a review to provide it with a better understanding of how the school curriculum is designed and to identify areas for improvement. The remit of the review, which was conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was expanded from an initial review of the senior phase curriculum to a full review of curriculum for excellence.

The resulting report was published on 21 June 2021 and, on that day, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills confirmed that the Scottish Government accepted all of the review’s recommendations. She also stated that the Scottish Qualifications Authority would be replaced and Education Scotland substantially reformed. However, the petitioner states that replacing the SQA is not enough in itself, and that a public inquiry is needed.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Okay.