Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, June 12, 2024
Official Report 742KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Dangerous Dogs (Breed-specific Regulations) (PE2083)
That brings us to item 3 on the agenda, which is consideration of new petitions. Just for the record, because there may be people who are joining us here or are watching online to hear their petition considered for the first time, I will explain that, ahead of the committee’s first consideration of a petition, we take two initial actions: we ask the Scottish Government for an initial view and we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to comment on the aims of the petition.
You may ask why we do that. We do that because, previously, those were the two things that we would agree to do the first time we discussed the petition, and it simply delayed the petition’s progress. We consider a petition with members having received early indications from the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body.
As I have said previously, SPICe does tremendous work on behalf of the committee, given the enormously broad range of petitions that we hear.
Petition PE2083 is on reviewing the rules to ensure that no dog becomes more dangerous as a result of breed-specific regulations. The petition has been lodged by Katrina Gordon, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and ensure that breed-specific regulations do not restrict responsible dog owners from undertaking exercise and training routines that support the dog’s welfare and reduce the risk of their dog becoming dangerous.
The petitioner tells us that an XL bully dog requires two hours of outdoor exercise a day, including being able to run off its lead, in order for the dog to be well adjusted and remain under its owner’s control. It is the petitioner’s view that recently introduced rules requiring XL bully dogs to be on a lead and muzzled while in public spaces risks making those dogs more dangerous.
The SPICe briefing draws our attention to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity’s announcement during the stage 1 debate on the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, of the Government’s intention to hold a responsible dog ownership and control summit later this month. The briefing also notes that one of the criticisms of the new restrictions is that they do nothing to address the issue of dog attacks that take place in private spaces—a point that Christine Grahame MSP raised during the Criminal Justice Committee’s consideration of the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and the motion to annul the order.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it
“understands the concerns expressed by dog owners about the impact that the new controls may have on their dogs.”
It goes on to say:
“There is however a balance to be struck between protecting animal welfare and protecting public safety.”
It is the Government’s view that allowing an owner
“to exercise their dog in a public place while off lead and without a muzzle would be counterproductive to the aim”
of the regulations
“and would create too great a risk to the public.”
We have also received two further submissions from the petitioner, sharing her own experience and wider research on the negative impacts that the restrictions have on the welfare of dogs and, indeed, their owners, potentially making the dogs more dangerous. She notes again that the rules may have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of dog attacks in people’s homes and gardens. The petitioner has repeated her call for the rules to be repealed.
Obviously, this is an issue that is very much in the public eye. It is also an issue around which there is some court action, which means that we are unable to discuss any specific individual cases. However, are there any suggestions about how we might proceed?
There is quite a lot in this that would be helpful to follow up with the Scottish Government. It is important that the committee notes that there is no such breed as an XL bully. It is the characteristics and type that have been subject to restrictions. We could follow up on the verification of those characteristics and the capacity of vets and other professionals to do that. It is important to ask the Scottish Government, for example, what training it is providing for owners to progress their dog to wearing a muzzle, which is one of the restrictions.
In addition to that, we should seek further details on the planned summit on responsible dog ownership and control, and ask specifically whether that will include owners of XL bully type dogs and provide the opportunity to consider the impact of the regulations on those owners, and what other measures might be put in place by the Scottish Government to ensure more responsible ownership and, ultimately, the welfare of dogs.
10:45
Thank you for those suggestions, Mr Golden. I know that you have previously concerned yourself with animal welfare issues relating to dogs—in particular, I seem to recall you speaking about electric-shock dog collars.
Are colleagues content to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries suggested by Mr Golden?
Members indicated agreement.
Cervical Cancer (Testing) (PE2088)
That brings us to PE2088, our next new petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help eliminate cervical cancer for women and those with a cervix in Scotland by introducing at-home human papillomavirus self-sampling to enhance the smear test programme, helping to increase the uptake and accessibility of smear testing. The petition was lodged by Emma Keyes, and I believe that she and supporters of the petition are present in the public gallery.
We are also joined by one of our faithful attendees from among our MSP colleagues, Monica Lennon. Good morning, Monica. I will invite you to address the committee in a moment.
As referenced in the SPICe briefing, the Public Health Scotland cancer incidence report notes that the drop in early detection of cervical cancers in 2020 is most likely due to the pause in screening services during the pandemic. The briefing also highlights that women from deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate in screening, and notes that self-testing is seen as a way of getting around some of the barriers to smear testing, and that self-testing has been trialled in some areas of England and in Dumfries and Galloway.
In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it relies on advice from the United Kingdom National Screening Committee. Although that committee recognises the potential benefits of self-sampling, it has previously concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend implementation. The Scottish Government notes that studies that are under way to gather further evidence are expected to conclude shortly, if they have not already done so.
The Scottish Government acknowledges the potential of self-sampling to increase uptake levels and reduce barriers to cervical screening. As such, a working group has been convened to assess potential models and understand any changes to the screening programme that might be required to support an initial roll-out of self-testing, following emerging evidence from global studies, including the one that took place in Dumfries and Galloway.
Monica Lennon, I welcome any comments that you might want to share with the committee.
It is always a pleasure to attend the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and I am pleased that I can speak today in support of the petition by Emma Keyes. A lot of work has gone into getting the petition to this point, and I am grateful to SPICe for its excellent briefing, which sets out that self-sampling is already common in countries such as the Netherlands and Australia, so, in addition to the work that is being done in England and elsewhere in the UK, we have international experience to learn from.
It is important to take a moment to remember why we are here and why the petition is necessary. We know that hundreds of people in Scotland are diagnosed with cervical cancer every year and that, sadly, many of those diagnosed lose their lives. Figures from Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust show that around 95 people died of the disease in 2023. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the trust and note that, sadly, the charity has recently had to wind down for reasons that we will not go into today. I know that colleagues know how much it has done to raise awareness of the symptoms as well as of the treatments and the potential that we have to prevent the disease. That is a message of hope today.
The World Health Organization has called for countries to come together to eliminate the disease, and, last year, I was pleased to hear NHS England pledge to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. Setting out how that could be done, the NHS England chief executive, Amanda Pritchard, outlined how the health service can help to achieve the goal of elimination by making it as easy as possible for people to get the life-saving HPV vaccination and by increasing cervical cancer screening uptake.
That is an important step, because we know that HPV causes up to 99 per cent of cervical cancers. An approach that involves vaccination plus screening plus self-sampling gives us an array of tools that we can use. In England, self-sampling is being trialled to determine whether it should be part of a national screening programme, and the message that campaigners want to send is that, if you get that invitation or opportunity to have that screening, you should take it without delay, as it could save your life. We also know that, for women and people with a cervix who do not take up that offer of screening, the opportunity can be missed, because cervical cancer often has no symptoms in its early stages.
Self-sampling has been identified as a factor that could support the realisation of the World Health Organization’s cervical cancer elimination goals.
As ever, there is always a human story behind petitions, and I pay tribute to my constituent, Emma Keyes, who is sitting behind me in the gallery today. Emma is a young mum from Uddingston in Lanarkshire, and she experienced a shock cervical cancer diagnosis at the age of 29. That would have been debilitating and shocking for many people, but Emma has chosen to use her experience to raise awareness, help women and save lives.
Emma’s message is that cervical cancer is preventable. She has become a bit of an icon online and is known on social media as Mrs Smear. We politicians sometimes think that we are the best message carriers, but Emma can speak to an audience in our community whose attention we cannot always get. She has got not only women talking, but partners, employers, friends, neighbours and families. Such communication is really important, because there are many barriers.
However, the petition is about much more than raising awareness; it is about making sure that our healthcare systems are fit for purpose and that we eliminate barriers to healthcare. The HPV self-sampling trial in Dumfries and Galloway went very well. I know that one of the MSPs in that region, Emma—I have blanked on her name. Emma Harper! I apologise to her—that will now be on the record, so I will say it again: Emma Harper. I know that, as a result of her background in nursing, she was passionate about the subject.
Emma Keyes and I have met two different public health and women’s health ministers, and I thank Maree Todd and Jenny Minto for those meetings. It is really good that the Scottish Government is looking to take advice from the UK National Screening Committee, which was mentioned earlier. However, we also need to work at pace on this. Again, we should look at the experience not just in the UK but around the world.
The pilot scheme that has been mentioned was really important. I know that the pandemic set back a number of initiatives. The convener talked about the year during the pandemic when the number of cases being diagnosed went down because of a lack of screening.
This committee has a strong record on championing women’s health. That is best evidenced in the committee’s role in advancing truth and justice for mesh-injured women. We now have a real opportunity in Parliament to pick up the challenge that has been set by the World Health Organization and to show that Scotland has the necessary expertise and knowledge to do so, and we must not sit back and wait to get the wheels in motion.
I will end by reiterating my support for Emma Keyes’s petition and her campaign. I know that Emma, who is a cervical cancer survivor, at one point feared that she would not live to see her three children grow up. Thankfully, due to our amazing NHS and Emma’s tenacity, she is here to fight and to show others that, even with a dark diagnosis, there is hope. Emma has taught us that we can prevent and eliminate cervical cancer if we use all the tools that are available to us, and that is what the petition is about.
I thank the committee for looking at the petition, and I hope that we can discuss it again in the future.
I thank Monica Lennon for her contribution to the aims of the petition. You gave a heartfelt tribute on behalf of your constituent, who is the petitioner. You are quite right that over the years, the committee has been fortunate in the number of courageous people who have come forward to lodge a petition on the back of their experience. The committee has been able to give additional voice to the aims of those petitions, profile them and take them forward. Of the long list, you alluded to Elaine Holmes and Olive McIlroy on transvaginal mesh, but we should also acknowledge Amanda Kopel, who was successful in lobbying for changes to legislation in support of those who are diagnosed early with dementia, and our former colleague Elaine Smith, who was proactive on issues relating to women’s health and took those issues forward with the committee.
The petitioner is in the excellent company of women who have been at the forefront of ensuring that we are able to advance issues that have resulted in a material change in the way that the Scottish Government and Scottish public life approaches them. In light of that, we should write to the United Kingdom National Screening Committee to seek an update on its work to gather further evidence on the benefits of HPV self-sampling, including work to assess and validate a test for HPV self-sampling in the UK. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues?
I wonder whether we could write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the working group that has been established to assess potential models and understand any required changes to the screening programme to support the initial roll-out of HPV self-sampling. Monica Lennon has highlighted that that is really important, and my better half just lost a cousin at the age of 39 last Friday to the illness, so I know how important it is to get sampling done and to get tested.
Thank you very much to the petitioner and to Monica Lennon. Are members content with the suggested action, and for the petition to be held open and for the committee to advance its aims?
Can we also try to find out what the barriers are that prevent women from various communities taking up cervical screening? Is there a way that we can ask for that data?
We will incorporate that into the request of the Scottish Government and see whether it can give further insight into the best body to ask for that information. With the addition of Mr Choudhury’s suggestion that we seek to establish what barriers people face, are members content to proceed as suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
National Parks (PE2089)
PE2089, which has been much anticipated by members of the committee, has been lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the Lochaber National Park—NO More group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland; to instruct an independent review on the operation of the current national parks, including an assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling; and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of the said independent review.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government noted that the appraisal phase for the new national park has concluded and that a report is due imminently this summer. It adds that it has consulted local communities throughout the process and that further consultation will take place when the new national park process moves on to its reporter phase. It also points to evidence that existing national parks support thriving local economies, help to manage millions of visitors and protect the natural environment for the benefit of current and future generations. That includes 25 projects across the Cairngorms national park and the £450 million that was generated in the local economy in 2022 through visitor and tourism businesses in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
In response, the petitioner raised concerns that the Scottish Government appears not to have acknowledged the
“widespread and well-documented problems associated with the existing two national parks”,
and reiterates her call for an independent review of national parks to take place before a new park is created, especially given that no review has been conducted in the 21 years since the current national parks were created. The petitioner states that, in the current national park areas, landowners and farmers are increasingly concerned about overregulation and the needs of those who look after the land being dismissed.
Do colleagues have any comments?
11:00
I declare that I live in the Cairngorms national park and I used to live in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Back in 2006, I supported a petition relating to the creation of a marine national park when it came before the Public Petitions Committee. I have also been working with the petitioners on this issue generally. I just wanted to put that on the record.
The key ask is that before you create new bodies, you should, logically, have an independent review of how the existing bodies are performing. That is a fairly strong argument. That review should be independent and should be conducted after careful thought has been given to the remit. A number of people should be consulted about that. I make no bones about it. That is logical and desirable, and it should take place.
As far as I can see from my reading of the Scottish Government’s response, which is two pages long, there is no response whatever to that argument. I find that quite shocking. I am bound to reflect that this is not the first time that that has happened. The permanent secretary should be asked to have a look at Scottish Government responses before they come to the committee, because they are surely quite insulting. The main thesis that I have outlined is simply not addressed at all.
The only bit that I could find that remotely approached the issue was the last paragraph, which says:
“An overview of the performance of the ... National Park Authorities ... is provided annually through their published Annual Report”.
That is their own document. Yes, the annual report is a statement about what has been done during the year, but it is by no means independent, and nor can it ever be professed as such. Therefore, the reply is utterly irrelevant. Irrespective of the fact that I have a clear position on the matter, I think that, as a committee, we should be concerned about receiving irrelevant documents from the Scottish Government instead of reasoned arguments about why it thinks that something is not appropriate.
There are lots of other points that I could make, but I will make just one substantial point. Paragraph 9 of the petitioners’ response of 4 June points to a recent online opinion poll that was conducted in Aviemore by the community forum. I think that 444 votes were cast on the basis that the park was not working well, and 10 local residents—a paltry 3 per cent—felt that the park was performing well. I am quite fond of referenda, and I would quite like to get 96 per cent in a referendum. That result shows that the Scottish Government’s presentation that all is well in the garden, and that all the good things result from the national park and not from people’s hard-working efforts, is just not the case at all. I thought that I would mention that for the sake of balance, because there is none in the Scottish Government’s response.
The options for action that I would advocate to committee members are threefold. First, I would like to write to the Scottish Government to draw attention to the remarks that have been made.
How strongly would you like that to be worded, Mr Ewing?
I have strong views, but I accept that this is a committee and that other members may have different views.
I take your point that the Scottish Government did not really address the issues of the petition in its initial response. I also take your point about drawing attention to the Scottish Government’s own homework as evidence of anything. It would be surprising if the Scottish Government came back and said that it did not think that it had been doing a good job or that the whole thing was not a stunning success—that does not tend to be what Government reports on its own homework do. Therefore, there is nothing particularly independent in the character of that.
Should the committee be quite strong in the recommendation that the Scottish Government should respond seriously to the issue that the petitioner has raised and that an independent voice should be appointed to conduct a review of the petition?
Yes. I think that that would be in the Government’s interests because, if an independent review was conducted and it came back with a positive outcome, people like me would be bound to act on the basis of evidence. I do not think that that would occur but, if it did, as a result of a genuinely independent review, that would strengthen the Government’s position to argue for more national parks.
A complete absence of an independent review seems to represent a gap, and a lack of logic in creating a new body, in particular when it costs a lot of money. People in Lochaber have said that they want the new Belford hospital—they do not want a new national park.
The two suggestions that are before us should be taken up. As you suggested, convener, we should write in strong terms to the Scottish Government to ask whether, after 21 years of national parks, it will arrange for an independent review in the terms that the petitioner has set out.
The second question is one of consent, and how the Scottish Government will verify evidence that is provided to it in new national park proposals, in particular with regard to the levels of local support and community engagement. The petitioner argues that there is strong opposition in Lochaber and elsewhere. The NFU Scotland has come out against further national parks; it is somewhat unusual for the NFU to be so clear, and that is significant. Opinion polls have been taken among farmers in places that were candidates for the creation of new national parks. For example, on Skye, in a meeting of more than 100 farmers and crofters, every single one of them was against a national park.
We should also hear evidence from the petitioners so that they can describe the situation in their own words. Deborah Carmichael and Ian McKinnon are friends of mine; I think that they, along with one other, have a very strong case, and it is right that they be heard. I fear that, whatever we say, the Government seems to be hell-bent on the process, no matter what. We therefore need to give a voice to people whose voice has been ignored thus far, to the extent that, in the response that we have had from the Government, their arguments have been completely ignored.
I am sorry to go on at such length to colleagues—I seek your discretion, convener, because of the obvious interest that I have in the matter.
I also note that 78 per cent of land managers in Perth and Kinross were against a national park. At present, the issue that probably has most traction in the minds of many people is that of the Flamingo Land park, which is being proposed within the national park in that area. Something like 94,000 people have objected. People then wonder just exactly what the basis of a national park is. I suppose that it is open to the committee, through our interrogation of other witnesses beyond even the petitioners, to potentially establish an independent assessment of how these matters are progressing.
Are colleagues content to write to the Scottish Government in the first instance, on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open; I thank the petitioners for raising the issue. We will proceed as I set out in the first instance, and I expect that we might potentially take further evidence on the issue later in the year.
Digital Display Boards (Legislation) (PE2090)
PE2090, lodged by Stephen Henson, is on updating the legislation on granting permission for digital display boards.
I see that some people are leaving the room—I gather that they were attending especially to hear consideration of the petition on national parks. I thank them for being with us this morning.
PE2090 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) (Regulations) 1984 to require application for express consent to advertise using a digital display, including where a site has been upgraded from a traditional paper-based display.
The SPICe briefing that we received notes that large digital display boards are very likely to fall into the “express consent” category of planning regulations, which means that permission must be obtained before they can be installed. It also notes that many local authorities already set limits on where digital advertising displays can be located.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government details the requirements for notification of a planning application for digital advertising, including the statutory requirement for a planning authority to notify in writing any neighbours whose property is within 20m of the site of the application. Therefore, the Scottish Government considers that the existing provisions are appropriate and that there is no requirement to amend them at this time.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which notes that many of the notification requirements mean that members of the public must be proactive, for example by checking online planning portals for submissions of new applications.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Given that it is a new petition, perhaps the committee could consider writing to Heads of Planning Scotland to seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition and information on the number of applications that are submitted for digital display boards, including on what proportion of applications are granted and what proportion are rejected, and to the Royal Town Planning Institute and Outsmart, which is the membership body for the outdoor advertising industry, to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition.
Do members have any other thoughts?
I quite like digital display boards. I have a few in my constituency. They tended to replace roller display boards, where the picture changed, or ones with slats that used to turn. Now, it is all modern tech.
We will keep the petition open, and we will seek to find out the views of the bodies concerned on digital display boards. It is perfectly possible that they could be located in much more intrusive locations, which could be of consequence to people locally.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (High Schools) (PE2091)
Our final petition for consideration this morning is PE2091, which has been lodged by Kirsty Solman on behalf of Stand with Kyle Now. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to enable a CAMHS worker and a school nurse to be placed in our secondary schools. The petitioner believes that access to a CAMHS worker and nurse would allow children who are struggling with their mental health to be identified early and would make it possible for any referrals to be completed correctly and efficiently.
The SPICe briefing notes that school counselling services for children aged 10 and over are available in all local authorities, although the delivery varies across local authorities, with some providing authority-wide services rather than allocating practitioners to particular schools or areas.
A 2023 report by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland identified further barriers to accessing school counselling services and recommended that all local authorities should have clear waiting time targets and that compliance with those targets should be part of the Scottish Government’s evaluation of the services.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights that all primary and secondary schools in Scotland are able to access the support of school nurse services, and that the school nurse role has changed over time and now includes a focus on emotional health and wellbeing. School nurses can support the mental health of children and make referrals to CAMHS, where appropriate.
This is a new petition. If we wish to keep the petition open and to seek further information, do colleagues have any suggestions about action that we might take or who we might contact?
Perhaps the committee could consider writing to the Scottish Government to ask how it evaluates the provision of counselling in secondary schools and how CAMHS referrals are monitored in secondary schools to ensure that they are completed correctly and effectively, and to highlight the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland’s 2023 report on counselling in schools and ask what consideration it has given to the recommendations, especially the recommendation about establishing clear waiting time targets.
Perhaps we could also seek a bit more information on the assertion that all primary and secondary schools in Scotland can access school nurse services. I would like us to quantify what the level of that resource is across Scotland and to what extent it is being accessed, as it would be useful to have an understanding of that.
Are colleagues content with the suggestions that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on the second-last day of the parliamentary term—Wednesday 26 June.
11:14 Meeting continued in private until 11:23.Previous
Continued Petitions