Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will keep the petition open. We thank Mr Muir for raising the issue with us. We will write to the Scottish Government and see what response we get in the first instance.

That bring us to the end of our public session. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 30 October. We will move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5. I again thank Marie McNair for joining us as a substitute for David Torrance this morning.

Thank you for that unsurprisingly compelling advocacy in support of the aims of the petition. I am old enough to remember the era before multiplex cinemas when the ABC cinema—the Regal—in Sauchiehall Street was a regular place to go. I can recall Charlton Heston going there for the premiere of “Earthquake”, with surround sound, when we were shaken in our seats during the earthquake. It seems that the cinema survived that, but is not surviving the calumnies that have been visited on it by Glasgow City Council’s planning process.

The argument that you make is an interesting one. Most of us are aware of buildings that are being lost without necessarily having fully understood what processes have led to their demolition. Sometimes that will, of course, have been completely necessary and unavoidable, but there is sometimes a suggestion that there is a shiny new model that might better suit the owners and they are keen to pursue it. I am minded, in relation to Glasgow, of the Odeon cinema on Renfield Street, where the magnificent façade was preserved and has been incorporated into the much newer building structure that was allowed to be developed on what had been the site of the auditoria of that cinema complex. There are solutions that can be found if people want to find the imagination to take them forward.

I am quite interested in the petition, and I think that the public is generally interested in it. I do not know whether we have a room in Parliament big enough for all the people whom Mr Sweeney was suggesting, but I am minded to conduct an informed round-table discussion on what is happening with the process and whether legislation might not be more appropriately drafted to give a little bit of weight to the idea of conservation-accredited engineers having a say on this. I think that those arguments were quite interesting.

I wonder whether there is anything that we might do to inform that panel. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what we might do in the first instance?

I should have noted that we received a late submission, which colleagues will have seen, from our colleague Beatrice Wishart on the petition.

Mr Golden has suggested that we keep the petition open and write to the cabinet secretary. Are we content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2108, which was lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

The SPICe briefing explains that a short-term detention certificate authorises a patient’s detention in hospital for 28 days in order to determine what medical treatment the patient needs and to provide that treatment. The 2003 act specifies the criteria that an approved medical practitioner must confirm have been met in order for a detention certificate to be used, and the act requires that a mental health officer must give consent before it is used. If the patient has a named person, that person must also be consulted and have their views taken into account.

In England, the decision on whether to detain a patient is made by an approved mental health professional following an assessment by two doctors. When the Mental Health Act 1983 was being debated, it was stressed that the independence of the two doctors making medical recommendations was important in order to avoid collusion, influence or interference with clinical judgment.

In her response to the petition, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport outlined the use of short-term detention certificates and highlighted the right of appeal. The submission also highlights that reducing coercion is one of the priorities that emerged from the Scottish mental health law review.

The petitioner has shared his view that the certification process

“does not contain sufficient safeguards”

because the mental health officer who grants consent is not necessarily independent of the approved medical practitioner. His view is that the mental health law review was “not fit for purpose” and that, although the review stated that coercion should be reduced, it is not clear how that will be achieved. The petitioner would like

“supported decision making to be the norm rather than substituted decision making.”

These are important issues. I think that I recognise the name of Andrew Muir—he might have lodged petitions with the committee previously. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Unfortunately, our colleague Fergus Ewing is unable to join us and has asked us to accept his apology. Additionally, the deputy convener, David Torrance, is unable to join us, but we are joined in his place by Marie McNair MSP. Good morning, Marie. She has, of course, been here with us before, so I need not ask for any declaration of interests to be made on this occasion.

Agenda item 1 is to decide whether to take in private item 4, which is consideration of our work programme, and item 5, which is further consideration of the draft report on our inquiry into the A9 dualling project. Are colleagues content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Are colleagues content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As there are no other suggestions from colleagues, are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open, and we will proceed to make that further inquiry.

As there are no other suggestions, are colleagues content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open and act on Mr Choudhury’s suggestions.