Chamber and committees

Thank you. I was quite struck by the petitioner’s submission, and I am grateful to the petitioner for bringing the petition back. I understand that evidence was taken on the petition in the previous session. I did not hear that evidence, but I was quite affected by the petitioner’s submission. I noted the difficulties that the petitioner continues to experience in relation to family members and other individuals whom she is seeking to support.

I very much take the point that we do not properly understand what additional impact the pandemic may have had on the Scottish Government’s programme and on what the Government is trying to achieve, or the way in which the pandemic has compounded the difficulties that people are experiencing and our ability to deal with them. I start from that position.

That is a good idea and I would be interested to hear whether there has been any enlightenment in the various health boards in relation to alternative medicines and other therapies. I recall from a previous petition that practice was very variable and that some health boards subcontracted the work to other health boards or used their facilities, such as those at the centre for chronic pain or whatever it was that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde had at the time.

It would be useful to get an update from other health boards. Is there anywhere that we could find any evidence on the issue? I ask the clerks to pursue that. When we are told that the evidence is not there, where can we go to find some evidence?

Given that the Scottish Government’s submission makes it clear that it has no plans to review or amend the legal and policy frameworks that would operate around the issue, I am minded to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should certainly, as Paul Sweeney suggests, draw the petitioner’s attention to the new cross-party group that has been established. I take note of Tess White’s suggestion. We could write to the chief pharmaceutical officer about the petitioner’s family member potentially being eligible to participate in the clinical trial that is being talked about. That is a useful, productive and proactive suggestion.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and wait to hear back from those we wish to write to?

Members indicated agreement.

We could write to the Scottish mental health law review asking for an update on its work in relation to compulsory detention and to care and treatment under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

I know that there was a previous petition and that evidence was taken on that. I understand that the petitioner is keen to speak to us again. Do we agree in the first instance to write to seek further clarification on whether there is anything new and substantive, of which we have not been made aware since our consideration of the previous petition?

Members indicated agreement.

In our letter to the Scottish Government, I am quite happy to ask for the scope of the options that are explored to be broadened. The issue can hit any family and, depending on where they are and on accessibility, the incurred costs could be much higher or much lower. If they have to travel regularly but reimbursement is slow, or if they do not have access to funding to undertake that travel, even if the costs are subsequently reimbursed, that can be very prejudicial for families who are already highly sensitive and concerned about their child’s welfare.

I am quite happy to write to the Scottish Government to draw out all those issues. The willingness is often there, but without there being a full appreciation of how complicated the process for accessing funding can be.

Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1881, which is on the sentencing of paedophiles and sexual predators, has been lodged by Carol Burns. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the length of time that sexual predators serve in jail.

In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that

“the maximum penalty for the most serious sex offences, including rape, sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault, is life imprisonment.”

The petitioner suggests a minimum sentence of four years in order to provide victims with some peace of mind.

The SPICe briefing notes that work is being done by the Scottish Sentencing Council to prepare

“sentencing guidelines in relation to rape, sexual assault, and indecent images of children.”

I am minded to write to the Scottish Sentencing Council to seek an update on the progress of its work in that regard, particularly in relation to guidelines on rape, sexual assault and indecent images of children. Given that that work is under way, it would be useful to receive an update on it.

Is that agreed?

The fact that the Scottish Government cannot take forward the aims of the petition because it is outwith legal competence is certainly significant. Are colleagues minded to support David Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2021 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our principal agenda item today is the discussion of new petitions. I say to petitioners who might be tuning in and others who might be watching that, in advance of considering petitions, we receive submissions, including from the Scottish Government, which help to inform discussions such as those that we are about to have.

The first petition for consideration this morning is PE1869, which was lodged by Dillon Crawford. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that would require all railway stations in Scotland to have step-free access.

The Scottish Government’s submission highlights work that has been undertaken by the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments to fund accessibility improvements and create step-free access at more than 30 stations across Scotland’s rail network. The submission stresses, however, that rail accessibility is a reserved matter, so it is not possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area, as requested by the petition.

It was interesting to receive notes in relation to work that is being done to establish step-free access at various stations and the other work that is being done to improve access in stations generally, but it seems that there is an obstacle as regards our considering a petition that seeks a legislative solution.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.