Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

PE1926, which was lodged by Alison Dowling, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision to all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils. We previously considered the petition on 20 April, when we agreed to seek more views and information from the Scottish Government and a number of stakeholders. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Public Health Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, and the Trussell Trust.

Members will be aware that expanding provision of free school meals has been the subject of discussion in the chamber—notably in relation to our consideration of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill.

Do members have any comments or suggestions of actions that we might take?

I am happy to do that. We might advocate taking the petition to the chamber for a debate, but in the first instance we will wait for a response from the cabinet secretary.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions.

PE1927, which has been lodged by Claire Mooney, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to install CCTV into every additional support needs school in the country. Members—Mr Torrance, in particular—will be aware that the petition is similar to one that was considered by our predecessor committee and was also lodged by Ms Mooney. It was closed on the basis that, from written submissions that were received, it appeared that there was limited support for the action that was called for in the petition. Further information on the previous petition and written submissions are included in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper.

In the background information, Ms Mooney shares her experience of a family member being injured while being restrained and the challenges of ensuring that a full investigation was done and a full explanation of events provided, particularly when the child is unable to give an account of what happened. We have also received submissions in support of the petition from Patricia Hewitt and Elaine M, both of whom suggest that CCTV could be used as a tool to support and protect vulnerable children, as well as the staff who work with them.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it is for local authorities to determine whether use of CCTV cameras on their premises is appropriate, and that, in making such a decision, consideration must be given to balancing the privacy and protection of children, young people, and staff. The Government also notes that new guidance is being drafted on minimising use of physical intervention, physical restraint and seclusion in schools. That draft guidance on physical intervention in schools has been made available and the public consultation on it is due to close on 25 October.