Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next new petition is PE1879, on providing an accessible and professionally developed learning and teaching resource on Israel and Palestine. Before we proceed, I should declare an interest as convener in the previous parliamentary session of the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel. The CPG has yet to be reconvened, but I hope and expect that that will happen later this month.

The petition, which has been lodged by Hugh Humphries, on behalf of Scottish Friends of Palestine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge the right of Scotland’s pupils to a bias-free education on the topic of Israel and Palestine by ensuring that Education Scotland hosts an accessible and professionally developed learning and teaching resource on its national intranet service and re-establishes a strategic review group to oversee any revision of the original resource developed in 2016.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that, in 2015,

“A working group was established to scope out appropriate materials to support practitioners to deliver learning on the conflict and issues around Israel and Palestine.”

In 2017, an initial set of resources was made available on Glow, Education Scotland’s national learning platform, on a pilot basis.

The Scottish Government states that, by February 2018, it was apparent following engagement with interested stakeholders that the consensus on the resources sought by Education Scotland could not be achieved. It further states that an offer by Education Scotland to develop the resource further was not agreeable to the Educational Institute of Scotland as a joint owner of the resource. However, the EIS offered to publish the resources on its own website, where they are still available. The Scottish Government states that, given

“the lack of consensus across stakeholders, and the EIS publishing the resource on a publicly available platform, the Scottish Government and Education Scotland concluded that the matter was closed.”

The committee has received several submissions, including three, I think, from the petitioner. In his response to the Scottish Government submission, the petitioner states his view that it was clear from early 2017 that

“there would be no consensus between stakeholder groups”

on the resource. He believes that the Scottish Government has been lobbied into amending the resource and then removing it from Glow. He also highlights that Glow is promoted as

“the destination hub for staff looking for additional learning and teaching resources”

and argues that, with a teaching resource being placed on another platform, it is effectively being consigned “to obscurity”.

Since the publication of our papers, the committee has received a late submission from the Scottish Friends of Israel and a further submission from the petitioner, which provide opposing views on the development of the education resource. These have been circulated to members and published on the Scottish Parliament website.

I would be grateful for members’ comments on the petition.

The questions that Bill Kidd asked are important and go to the heart of Stephen Leighton’s petition, so I am glad that we have touched on the matter.

In her submission, Professor Jean McLellan, former director of Autism Network Scotland, highlighted the creation of one-stop shops across Scotland. She thought that the pilot had been “highly valued”, that the space had “lessened social isolation” and “anxiety and depression”, and that it had been informative for people, who gained useful advice and support. However, finances were withdrawn following the pilot, and only some of the spaces that the pilot had put in place had survived. Do you have a view on the success of the pilot and on future accessibility in that respect?

The final new petition is PE1885, lodged by Karen Murphy, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states:

“electricity generation is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. As such the Scottish Parliament does not have the legal competence to change the law for a purpose relating to the regulation of the control of electricity generation”,

as requested in the petition. In the absence of powers to change the law, the Scottish Government has developed best practice documents to encourage community shared ownership for onshore renewable energy developments.

The petitioner’s submission argues that without a mandate to offer community shared ownership, the Scottish Government will not meet its new target of 2GW of community and locally owned renewable energy by 2030. The petitioner suggests using existing land and buildings transaction tax powers to raise a form of tax that requires all developers who do not own the land to offer 15 per cent community shared ownership to locally impacted communities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Do members agree to keep the petition open and make inquiries along the lines suggested by Paul Sweeney and supported by Bill Kidd?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now discuss PE1837, which is a continued petition that was lodged by Stephen Leighton. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder can access support, and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

When we last considered the petition,?we agreed to invite?the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to give evidence at a future meeting. The Scottish Government has advised that the issues raised in the petition are within the portfolio of the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. I am therefore delighted to welcome the relevant minister, Kevin Stewart. He is accompanied by Hugh McAloon, deputy director for mental health complex care; and? Jacqueline Campbell, unit head, learning disability, autism and neurodiversity.?

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement that might help inform our discussion.

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.