Seòmar agus comataidhean

Welcome back. Our next continued petition is PE1905, which is on the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950. The petition was lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJWs Support and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950.

Today, we will take evidence from our petitioner, Angela Rosina Cousins. On behalf of the committee, I extend a very warm welcome to Angela and thank her for coming to speak to us about something that is obviously very personal to her and, I imagine, difficult to talk about. We very much appreciate that she has taken the time to come and speak to us this morning.

We know, from our previous consideration of the petition, that the Scottish Government’s view is that to extend the public inquiry would in some way undermine its ability to make progress in the short term, whereas other parts of the country are perhaps taking a different view.

We will move straight to questions. Angela, by way of helping with our understanding for our discussion, will you explain a bit about your background, what led to the petition, and the issues that you have raised in relation to child abuse in religious organisations?

What response did you receive to your endeavours to have the situation that you were facing addressed?

I am minded to accept Alexander Stewart’s suggestion that we close the petition. Do members agree with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

There might be some further information in relation to local authorities that is already available, which we can obtain. I can remember the matter coming up at hustings in schools. It falls within a particular area, the acronym for which I cannot remember—is it PHSA?

We will reserve the option of writing to local authorities if we find that we do not have the further information that is required.

The petitioner considers that there is no demand for Gaelic in the central belt, that funds are limited and should be spent wisely, and that there is no evidence of Gaelic being the “national” language of Scotland. The petitioner considers that money should not be spent on dual language road and rail signs, document and website translations, and local authority employee language education, as that has no economic benefit.

In the Government’s submission to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states that the Gaelic language has been

“spoken throughout Scotland for many centuries”

and that the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, which was designed to encourage and enable more people to use Gaelic,

“was passed with unanimous cross-party support.”

In addressing the petitioner’s concerns regarding signage, the cabinet secretary states that

“the Education (Scotland) Act 2016 places a duty on all local authorities across Scotland to promote Gaelic education”

and that there is growth in demand for Gaelic-medium education in the central belt. The Scottish Government advises that, to keep costs to a minimum,

“it is standard practice for Gaelic signage to be created as part of a replacement or renewal process.”

There is an implementation fund, which is open to bids from any public authority to help meet any project costs or development associated with its Gaelic language plan, including activities involving signage or staff training.

The petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government submission suggests that, in his view, there is confusion between demand for Gaelic and demand for smaller class sizes. He also points out that figures on how much is being spent have not been provided.

Bòrd na Gàidhlig also submitted a response to the petition, outlining the demand for Gaelic-medium education. It highlights 2011 census data illustrating that central belt local authorities accounted for 30 per cent of those living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic. The submission also details examples of economic benefits and research to support that position.

The Scottish Government’s budget 2022-23 sets out its funding to support Gaelic and the Scottish Government has stated that it is committed to increasing the numbers using and learning Gaelic, will maintain its support for Gaelic education, arts and broadcasting, and plans to introduce a languages bill in the current parliamentary session.

It occurs to me that I do not know what the comment that central belt local authorities have 30 per cent of those living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic actually means—it does not tell me how many people that represents.

Do we have any recommendations that we would like to consider? I would be happy to hear from Ruth Maguire.

Could I ask a question, because that is interesting?

That is helpful.

I am sorry. We would be happy to hear from Doug Howieson again. You contributed to our discussion a fortnight ago. Would you like to come in on any of the points that we have touched on so far?

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

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek information about the progress of clinical trials and further information on his discussions with the UK Government. The cabinet secretary’s response stated that he thinks that

“the lack of evidence on the quality, safety and efficacy”

of cannabis-based products for medicinal uses is “the main barrier” to them being prescribed by NHS clinicians, and he stressed the importance of development of the trials. He outlined plans to undertake two randomised and controlled trials of their use in early-onset epilepsy. The trials will compare medicines that contain only cannabidiol with ones that contain CBD and tetrahydrocannabinol and with placebos. That is to help answer the question of whether adding THC to CBD improves anti-epileptic properties. He also indicated that commercial discussions about the supply of products to the trial are under way, and that further details of the trials, including the timetable, will be dependent on the conclusion of those discussions.

The cabinet secretary stated that a meeting was scheduled for early February with the UK Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care, Maria Caulfield MP. It was to include a consideration of ways in which the trials can be expedited.

The committee also requested information on existing evidence from other countries from the Scottish Parliament information centre. Its review is included in your papers pack at annex D. It provides information on current guidelines from Australia, America, Ireland and Canada. It highlights that a review on medicinal cannabis in Australia was examined by the UK Government. The UK Government stated that the review showed

“limited but high quality evidence for the use of medicinal cannabis products”

to treat epilepsy.

The use and efficacy of THC treatments is addressed in the guidance from Australia, Ireland and Canada. It indicates that the evidence base for THC is complex in that it may have either pro or anti-epileptic properties.

Much of the guidance in other jurisdictions acknowledges that limited evidence is available for the use of cannabis-based products for medicinal use and frequently advises that such products should be prescribed as an add-on treatment with existing anti-epileptic drugs.

The petitioner points to three existing prescriptions across the UK, and reiterates that he does not accept that there is a lack of evidence for prescribing. He explains that the prescriptions have been in place for three years, and he considers that to be an example of “reliable evidence” for its use by the NHS.

Again, that was quite a long introduction. Do colleagues have any comments that they wish to add?

Thank you. Again, that is quite a comprehensive series of recommendations. Would anybody like to add to that, or is the committee content to support that?