Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Official Report 627KB pdf

---

Continued Petitions

---

Essential Tremor (Treatment) (PE1723)

Welcome back. Item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. PE1723, on essential tremor treatment in Scotland, was lodged by Mary Ramsay. The petition, which was last considered by the committee on 19 January, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

Rhoda Grant will be joining us again.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the National Services Division. We have had a response from the Scottish Government that indicates that the National Services Division is expected to resume applications for the commissioning of new services this month. That was roughly the timetable that was suggested when we last considered the petition.

The National Services Division continues to engage with the clinical team in Tayside to understand what would be required to provide focused ultrasound in Scotland, should it be decided that that is the preferred option.

The Scottish Government submission informs us that

“the Scottish Government has not committed funding to the MRgFUS service in 2022/2023. The evidence base ... will inform consideration on any future financial investment.”

The Scottish Government also provided information about its work to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals.

The petitioner’s most recent submission highlights that there are 100,000 people in Scotland with essential tremor, and she has suggested that that figure does not include those who are waiting to see specialists or those who have been misdiagnosed.

Rhoda Grant is with us. We are not necessarily taking a lot of additional evidence, because we are waiting to hear what progress can be made, but would you like to contribute anything that would further our understanding?

I just have a very quick comment.

I am reasonably disappointed by the Scottish Government’s response, in that it just goes over what it has said before. There is not an awful lot that is different in it.

I note that the National Services Division has not yet responded although, at the time of the previous meeting, it said that it was working with NHS Tayside and was due to meet it at the end of January. It also said that it might be able to consider a formal application in either May or June. It is important to keep the petition open until summer, so that we can see what conclusion the National Services Division reaches.

Mary Ramsay has pointed out that a number of people are affected by the condition, so it is important that we make some progress. Mary has also stated that she would be happy to give further evidence to the committee, if it wishes, and Ian Sharp, who has benefited from focused ultrasound treatment, has also made that offer.

I encourage the committee to keep the petition open and to keep scrutinising the issue in the hope that we make some progress.

Thank you very much for that.

I believe that we will keep the petition open. We are still awaiting some of the key information that we feel would be critical to our coming to a determination. Would colleagues like to make any further recommendations?

I recommend that we keep the petition open and write to the National Services Division’s national specialist services committee to highlight the evidence that we have received on essential tremor treatment and recommend that any application to roll out MRgFUS across Scotland is given early consideration when the application process opens in April 2022. In writing to the National Services Division, the committee could ask for further details of the decision-making process and timescales for next steps, should an application be successful.

We could write to the Scottish Government to highlight our engagement with the national specialist services committee and ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to a public awareness campaign, should any application prove successful. In writing to the Scottish Government, the committee might also wish to ask for further information about the national patient, public and professional reference group, including its role, remit and membership.

Thank you, David. Are colleagues content with that, or do they have any other recommendations?

I reassure Rhoda Grant that we were given to understand that the National Services Division and the Scottish Government co-ordinated the response that we received. I understood that, although we did not receive separate responses, there was input from both into the Government’s response.

Are colleagues content that we keep the petition open and write to see whether we can expedite some of the information that we are looking to receive?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Upland Falconry (PE1859)

PE1859, which was lodged by Barry Blyther, is on retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 1 December 2021.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

In our meeting in December, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on how it expects captive falcons to differentiate between legal and illegal species. We thought that the whole thing sounded a bit difficult to follow through. For example, how is a bird of prey supposed to tell the difference between a rabbit and a mountain hare when it is exhibiting natural behaviours?

The committee also asked the Scottish Government to clarify when falconers would face prosecution should their bird take a mountain hare, including what the penalties might be for a breach, and how the current legislation is enforced.

The Scottish Government’s response states:

“It is the responsibility of the falconer to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce ... risk ... by only undertaking falconry where mountain hare are unlikely to be present.”

I felt that we had verged on the slightly ridiculous there. I will not say that the landscape is riddled with mountain hares, but it transpired that the Government’s definition of where they are unlikely to be present amounts to some 2.5 per cent of Scotland. Allegedly, they are present in 97.5 per cent of the landscape. It reached a point at which I almost felt as though the Scottish Government was advocating that falcons should be trained in the use of satnav, because they were apparently to understand that the M8, the Harthill service stations, Aberdeen and points towards the coast were where they could go about their business. That all struck me as being slightly removed from reality and playing to the questions that we were considering.

The final submission from the petitioner focuses on the role of falconry in pest control, and points out that there is an exemption for falconry so that gulls can be deterred, even though they carry the same level of protections as the mountain hare.

The Scottish Government’s submission notes that Police Scotland is responsible for enforcing legislation and that penalties for wildlife crime vary depending on what offence has been committed.

I know that Fergus Ewing is quite keen to contribute on that particular item in the first instance.

Yes. Thank you very much, convener. I entirely endorse your comments.

Falconry, albeit that it is not a huge area of life in Scotland, is nonetheless an important part of rural life and the rural economy. Lots of things that falconers do are valuable and of real worth to society. I have seen falconers teach children about birds of prey at agricultural shows and game fairs such as the ones at Moy and Scone. They also take birds into schools. Children therefore learn about birds of prey directly—and probably primarily or even solely—from falconers.

From speaking to a leading falconer—not the petitioner, but another falconer—over the weekend, I know that falconers also rehabilitate birds; they make them better. That is surely something that should be recognised.

Falconry also plays a part in the control of pests, including in relation to the overpopulation of gulls, as has been mentioned, and it is part of the rural tapestry. I say that because I was very disappointed when I noticed that, in its first response last year, the Scottish Government did not say that it valued falconry; it just said that it recognised the history and culture of falconry.

On where we go from here, I am bound to reflect that, when the ban on mountain hare culling was introduced in 2020, the Werritty report, which preceded that, did not consider falconry at all. As far as I know, no one mentioned falconry in the stage 3 debate for the 2020 act, which was the first time that the proposed ban was introduced.

I have been in the Parliament for 22 years, and I think that falconers are in a unique situation, in that they have not only not had a fair hearing about their activity being banned; they have had no hearing whatsoever. They have been completely ignored. That seems to me to be redolent of the grim world that was created by the author Franz Kafka, in which people are banned from doing their preferred occupation without any opportunity to have that fair hearing, which is the first principle of natural justice—audi alteram partem.

11:00  

Where do we go from here? I suggest that we take oral evidence and that the petitioner should have an opportunity to be heard and to put forward what I think is the very strong argument that the activities of falconers account for only a small proportion of mountain hares that are taken. I think that Dr Nick Fox said in the supplementary submission that we have just received that the figure is 1,000, but it is certainly a fraction of the number that are taken by shooting.

The petitioner should be heard, and I recommend that Dr Nick Fox should accompany him, if he so wishes, so that the petitioner is not alone. We should also hear from NatureScot, as it has licensing powers, which could be part of the solution, and from the Scottish Government.

I know that the committee is time constrained, but we should do that, given that we are talking about a group in society that has not had any hearing whatsoever from the Scottish Parliament. The purpose of the committee is to allow David to take on Goliath, if you like, and our particular role is to equip David with a sling.

I very much concur with that recommended route. When I read the Scottish Government’s response, I, too, was slightly disappointed. I had hoped that, given the circumstances and the fact that the legislation emerged out of a stage 3 amendment, discussion with the Government might have led to some sort of resolution. I felt that the Government gave a rather disdainful brush-off to the issue that we are trying to explore. Therefore, taking evidence seems to be a reasonable course of action.

Are colleagues content that we proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested? It might also be useful to write to the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, just to find out their wider concerns about the conservation impact of the proposal. Are members content with that, too?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Body Cameras (National Health Service) (PE1877)

PE1877, which was lodged by Alex Wallace, is on the provision of body cameras for all front-line national health service staff. We previously considered the petition on 19 January 2022. We agreed then to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish Government to find out more about the body camera trial that we understood was under way.

We understand from the responses that the trial is still in the scoping and planning phase, due to the extreme pressures being experienced as a result of the pandemic. The Scottish Ambulance Service listed the ways in which it intends to evaluate the technology and stated that the timescale for initial evaluation will now be towards the end of 2022. Given that we have already undertaken to await the outcome of the evaluation, it would seem sensible to wait for that.

I acknowledge that the pandemic has had a knock-on effect on the process. The most sensible approach would be to wait until we have the pilot evaluation. At that point, we could communicate with the Scottish Ambulance Service on the outcomes of the pilot and the evaluation, and the next steps. We should continue the petition and see how we progress in the timescale that the Ambulance Service has set out.

That means a rather extended time before we can consider the petition in any informed way, but that is probably the right course of action. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Community Participation Requests (Appeal Process) (PE1902)

PE1902, which was lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. We are again joined by Rhoda Grant, who I will come to in a moment.

We previously considered the petition on 17 November 2021, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Community Development Centre to ask about the work that it is carrying out in exploring options for an appeals process. We have had a response that indicates that a working group has been set up, comprising people and organisations with a particular interest in participation requests. I understand that the group was due to meet some time between when we previously considered the petition and this month.

Our signal with Rhoda Grant has been lost, so we cannot hear from her. We will probably want to chase up any recommendations. Would any colleagues like to come in?

We should chase up the Scottish Community Development Centre, to seek an update on the working group’s consideration of potential models for an appeals process. Specifically, we should ask when it plans to report to the Scottish Government, whether the report will include recommendations on the introduction of an appeal process and what further engagement it anticipates having with communities on the issue.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open on the basis that has been suggested and to take those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Secondary School Uniforms (PE1914)

The next petition is PE1914, on banning school uniforms in secondary schools, which was lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms for older school pupils. The petitioner cites a range of reasons for lodging the petition, including uniform costs for low-income families, pupil choice and the need for comfortable and weather-appropriate clothing options.

The petition was previously considered on 19 January, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the National Parent Forum of Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that meeting, we heard that the Scottish Government had committed to updating its school uniform guidance and that a public consultation on the issue was imminent. We have now received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and all the other stakeholders that we have contacted, included the Scottish Youth Parliament, which was unable to come to a determination on the issue. I thought that that was interesting.

At this stage, we probably want to keep the petition open, pending the consultation that the Scottish Government is about to undertake. We believe that it is likely to take place during the summer.

Would colleagues like to make any comments or recommendations?

I concur that we should keep the petition open. We have received information from the Scottish Government about the consultation. It is very important that we highlight the evidence that we have received and that we seek assurances that children and young people will be fully involved in the consultation process, including in co-designing it, to ensure that they are willing participants. As we have discussed in the past, the focus is sometimes on the identity that a school uniform brings, but young people have the right to express their views. If they can do so through the consultation, we might receive more information that might help us to make a decision.

Do colleagues agree to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that has just been discussed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Rest and Be Thankful Project (PE1916)

The next petition is PE1916, which was lodged by Councillors Douglas Philand and Donald Kelly. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry into the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which aims to provide a permanent solution for the route.

We previously considered the petition in January, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it intends to carry out a public inquiry into the management of the project. We have received an update from Transport Scotland, which makes the point that a public inquiry not only would be protracted but would review only all that has been discussed to date and not necessarily identify any solutions.

David Torrance will know, and I can recall, that the committee has been involved in discussions on the issue for a long time. Although a public inquiry might look only at everything that has happened to date, Transport Scotland, in not seeking to pursue that route, implies that carrying out such an inquiry would delay it in taking forward a viable project. However, taking forward a viable project—or even the identification of one—is the big overhanging issue.

I am unwilling to close the petition at this point. It is not necessarily the case that I reject some of Transport Scotland’s arguments, but I would not want to rule out a public inquiry if Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government are unable to move the project forward in some way.

I suggest that we go back to Transport Scotland and make it clear that it is implicit in its submission that it intends to do something. We can consider afresh whether a public inquiry is necessary, which will be contingent on whether any progress has been made on the issue. Are members content with that approach?

I agree with that suggestion. Two sessions ago, our predecessor committee went to the Rest and Be Thankful to see the progress that had been made. Like the convener, I would not like us to close the petition, so I go along with his recommendations.

Although I do not necessarily accept the need to go down the public inquiry route, I want Transport Scotland to move forward with a proposal. I would rather not close the petition, only to find that another petition on the issue comes along at a later date.

I support what you and David Torrance have said. As we all know, for the people who are served by the Rest and Be Thankful, this is a hugely important matter. I entirely agree with the conditional approach that you have suggested. It would be very useful to get a much clearer idea from Transport Scotland and the minister about timescales for a viable proposal—when will such a proposal be forthcoming?—and, indeed, what has prevented such proposals from being brought forward. The situation has been going on for a very long time—far too long for the people on the peninsula that is served by the road.

I take it that colleagues agree to proceed on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.