PPC/S5/18/6/A

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE

AGENDA

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

The Committee will meet at 9.00 am in the Adam Smith Room (CR5). 1. Consideration of continued petitions: The Committee will consider the

following continued petitions—

PE1640 by Eileen Bryant on Action against irresponsible dog breeding; and will take evidence from-Roseanna Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, ClimateChange and Land Reform, and Andrew Voas, Veterinary Head of AnimalWelfare, Scottish Government.PE1671 by Lisa Harvey and Andrea Goddard on behalf of Let's Get MADFor Wildlife on Sale and use of glue traps;and will take evidence from-Roseanna Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, ClimateChange and Land Reform, and Hugh Dignon, Head of WildlifeManagement and Protected Areas, Scottish Government.

2. Consideration of continued petitions: The Committee will consider thefollowing continued petitions—

PE1626 by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite Scotland on Regulation of BusServices;PE1632 by Amanda Macdonald on Concessionary transport for carers;PE1634 by Jessica Mason on Equality in council tax payment options;PE1635 by Emma McDonald on Review of section 11 of the Children(Scotland) Act 1995;PE1643 by Jack Douglas, LGBT+ Officer on behalf of NUS Scotland onIntroduce individual risk-based blood donation in Scotland;PE1651 by Marion Brown on behalf of Recovery and Renewal onPrescribed drug dependence and withdrawal;PE1653 by Michaela Jackson on behalf of Gorebridge Community Truston Active travel infrastructure;PE1662 by Janey Cringean and Lorraine Murray on behalf of Tick-borne

PPC/S5/18/6/A

Illness Campaign on Improve Treatment for Patients with Lyme Diseaseand Associated Tick-borne Diseases; andPE1678 by Robert Reid on behalf of Scottish Countryside RangersAssociation on National strategic framework for Countryside RangerServices in Scotland.

Catherine Fergusson

Clerk to the Public Petitions CommitteeRoom T3.40

The Scottish ParliamentEdinburgh

Tel: 0131 348 5186Email: petitions@parliament.scot

PPC/S5/18/6/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows— Item 1

PRIVATE PAPER PPC/S5/18/6/1 (P)

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/2

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/3

Item 2

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/4

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/5

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/6

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/7

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/8

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/9

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/10

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/11

Note by the Clerk PPC/S5/18/6/12

PPC/S5/18/6/2

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1640: Action against irresponsible dog breeding

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Eileen Bryant

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate what actions it can take to address the farming and illegal transportation of puppies.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01640

Purpose

1. This petition was last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 22 March. At that meeting the Committee agreed to invite the petitioner to provide a written submission, and to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform to give evidence at a future meeting.

2. The Cabinet Secretary will give evidence to the Committee at this meeting. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition.

Committee consideration

3. At its previous consideration of the petition, the Committee considered the Cabinet Secretary’s submission of 12 October 2017, which provided updates on—

• The Scottish Government’s plans to update regulations governing dog breeding

• Progress of discussions with UK and Ireland counterparts • The timescale for publication of the research commissioned by the

Scottish Government into tackling the illegal trade of puppies from a supply and demand context1

• An indicative timescale for any consultation relating to ongoing court proceedings and providing better enforcement and prosecution of offences committed, including the review of penalties available for animal welfare offences.

1 The report was published on 9 November 2017. Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scoping-research-sourcing-pet-dogs-illegal-importation-puppy-farms-2016/pages/14/

PPC/S5/18/6/2

4. Emma Harper MSP also attended the Committee’s previous consideration and provided further updates, including reference to a meeting with stakeholders on 19 March at which Scottish Government officials talked about ongoing work on a national programme of awareness. She also referred to progress she considered was being made in terms of closing routes for illegal transfer of puppies from Europe.

Conclusion

5. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on this petition. Options include—

• To reflect on the evidence heard at a future meeting

• To invite the petitioner to provide a written submission

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submission is circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1640/H: Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform submission of 12 October 2017 (112KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/3

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1671 Sale and use of glue traps

Note by the Clerk

Petitioners Lisa Harvey and Andrea Goddard on behalf of Let’s Get MAD for Wildlife

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale and use of glue traps and boards in Scotland.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/gluetraps

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition, last considered on 15 March. At that meeting the Committee agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary to give evidence. The Cabinet Secretary will give evidence to the Committee at this meeting.

Committee consideration

2. At its last meeting, the Committee noted the submissions received, which acknowledged the issues and concerns raised within the petition and supported restrictions on the sale of glue traps for use by the general public.

3. The submissions broadly fell into two categories—

• Support from animal welfare organisations for an outright ban on the sale and use of glue traps

• Representations from within the pest control sector that glue traps should remain available to the sector on public health grounds.

4. The submissions from within the pest control sector highlighted that any professional in the sector should be sufficiently trained and qualified in the use of glue traps. The British Pest Control Association noted that there is currently no clear definition of professional pest control operatives.

5. In its submission of 1 December 2017 the Scottish Government indicated that it was considering three options regarding the use of glue traps—

• No legislative action, but develop a code of practice for the use of glue traps

• Change the law to limit the use of glue traps to professional pest controllers only

• Change the law to ban the use of glue traps entirely

PPC/S5/18/6/3

6. In their submission of 2 March the petitioners identified what they considered to be alternative humane options to glue traps and indicated their belief that it was “incumbent on the pest control industry to develop and invest in new control mechanisms which are demonstrably both humane and effective”.

Conclusion

7. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include —

• To reflect on the evidence heard at a future meeting

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1671/H: Scottish Government submission of 1 December 2017 (88KB pdf) • PE1671/K: Petitioners submission of 2 March 2018 (145KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/4

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1626: Regulation of Bus Services

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite Scotland

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to regulate bus services in Scotland and to carry out an inquiry into the benefits of bringing bus services in Scotland into common ownership.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/busregulation

Purpose

1. This is a continued petition, last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 21 December 2017. At that meeting the Committee agreed to invite the petitioners to provide a submission in response to the two most recent submissions from the Scottish Government. A submission has been received and the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.

Committee consideration

2. In its submission of 27 April 2017, the Scottish Government provides its definition of “wholesale regulation”—

“Wholesale regulation refers to nationwide re-regulation of bus services carried out either through a national franchise or by compelling all local authorities to franchise or directly operate bus services.”

3. The petitioners explain their view that franchising and municipal ownership are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They note that “several local authorities in Scotland have expressed a desire to set up municipal bus companies”, and believe that those local authorities should be allowed to do so, with support from the Scottish Government.

4. The petitioners consider that if such companies were established it may enable local authorities to “bundle” routes (such as those essential routes within a local community) for franchising, or to invite municipally owned bus companies to compete with other operators. It considers that—

“…the regulatory powers of the local authority would enable them to include requirements on issues such as frequency of service, levels of fares, standards of rolling stock, workers conditions etc. in the franchising process.”

5. The petitioners indicate that they are “open to discussion on a range of options which may be progressive improvements” to the current situation. They identify

PPC/S5/18/6/4

such options as “a regulatory approach, franchising and alternative forms of ownership (including municipal and cooperative ownership).

6. With regard to “wholesale regulation” the petitioners note that they would wish “further information on the reasons why the Scottish Government do not favour a regulatory approach”.

7. The petitioners also seek further information on the issue of “partnership”. They refer to the Scottish Government’s position of the need to consider whether the legislative framework regarding statutory Quality Partnerships is adequately flexible to provide a true basis for partnership between local transport authorities and bus operators. They note that the current statutory provisions “were introduced as a consequence of the previous failure of a wholly flexible and voluntary approach in relation to QPs and QCs”.

8. In response to the Scottish Government’s submission of 28 July 2017, the petitioners note that meetings that it has attended as part of a delegation of STUC transport union affiliates were not specifically arranged to discuss the petition.

Conclusion

9. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on this petition. Options include—

• To write to the Scottish Government for a response to the petitioners’ submission

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1626/I: Scottish Government submission of 3 May 2017 (66KB pdf) • PE1626/J: Scottish Government submission of 28 July 2017 (36KB pdf) • PE1626/K: Petitioner submission of 16 April 2018 (148KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/5

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1632: Concessionary transport for carers

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Amanda Macdonald

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow free concessionary transport for carers.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01632

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition that the Committee last considered at its meeting on 21 December 2017. At that meeting, the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government. A response has been received and the Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.

2. The Committee may wish to note that it has not received a response from the petitioner.

Committee Consideration

3. At the last consideration of this petition on 21 December 2017, the Committee considered a suggestion made by the petitioner to introduce a national flat rate for carers on public transport if concessionary transport was considered too expensive to be rolled out through the National Concessionary Transport Scheme. The Committee therefore asked the Scottish Government for its views on this suggestion.

4. The Scottish Government’s response reiterates the same calculation that was made in its previous written submission of 1 August 2017 that if usage of the bus pass is at the same level for carers as for other cardholders, the estimated cost of providing over 600,000 carers in Scotland with free bus travel would be approximately £100 million. The submission estimates that this figure would reduce by £34.5 million if each carer contributed 50p per trip towards their travel and would reduce by £69 million if carers contributed £1 per trip.

5. The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that the National

Concessionary Travel Scheme is relatively straightforward to administer and understand” and that the introduction of a category of eligible persons who

PPC/S5/18/6/5

contribute towards the cost of their travel would increase the complexity of the scheme and incur additional administrative costs. For these reasons and “due to current budgetary constraints”, the Scottish Government states “it is unlikely that we will be able to consider this option at this time..

Conclusion

6. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include —

• To close the petition under Standing Orders Rule 15.7 on the basis that the Scottish Government has estimated the cost of rolling out to carers both free concessionary transport and transport at a flat rate but does not consider the change called for in the petition to be affordable at this time.

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1632/J: Transport Scotland submission on 30 January 2018 (64KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/6

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1634: Equality in council tax payment options

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Jessica Mason

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify and improve current Scottish council tax legislation in order to make council tax payment over 12 months a mandatory option for council tax payers, as it is in England and Wales.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/counciltaxpayments

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition that was last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 30 March 2017. At that meeting the Committee agreed to seek views on the action called for in the petition from the Scottish Government and COSLA.

2. A response has been received from the Scottish Government. The petitioner has also provided a written response.

Scottish Government submission

3. In its response, the Scottish Government notes the terms of the Regulations regarding payment by instalments “usually beginning in May and ending in the penultimate month of the relevant (financial) year” which would equate to a ten-month period. The Government states that “Although we have not been able to identify the justification for this at the time the Regulations were made, it does appear to mirror practice under the old Rating system.”

4. The Government comments on the interpretation that most local authorities have taken and that council tax is viewed by Ministers as being a local tax and, therefore, a matter for individual authorities. The Government states that as “the present legislation already enables local authorities to reach agreements to allow individuals to pay over 12 months - and as Ms Mason notes most local authorities do – the Scottish Government has no plans at present to amend the relevant Regulations.”

Petitioner submission

5. The petitioner has stated that the Government response is “not unexpected as it mirrors the response I received from Derek Mackay MSP.” The petitioner goes on to state that the response is “disappointing as it seems again to miss the point of my petition in the first place.”

PPC/S5/18/6/6

6. The petitioner notes that the Scottish Government’s position regarding the

interpretation of the Regulations but finds this approach “quite depressing” noting—

“I can now pay my council tax over 12 months but 29% of Scottish eligible households still can’t. The fact that other councils interpret the law differently is unlikely to be much comfort to them.”

7. The petitioner concludes by stating—

“There are many instances of laws and regulations that have no clear black/white lines- where it is down to interpretation, or where mitigating circumstances can blur the lines between what is permissible and what is not. These sorts of circumstances are inevitable when dealing with complex matters. However, this is all the more reason to ensure that where Regulations can be clear and concise then they should be, especially when there are no apparent downsides to such clarification but clear benefits.”

Conclusion

8. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition. Options include—

• To write to the local authorities identified by the petitioner as not allowing payment over 12 months to ask whether they would review their approach on the basis that this option has been widely interpreted as being permissible within the terms of the Regulations.

• To close the petition under Rule 15.7 of Standing Orders on the basis that the Government has confirmed that most local authorities interpret the Regulations as allowing payments over 12 months and that it therefore has no plans to amend the Regulations.

• Any other action the Committee wishes to take.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1634/A: Scottish Government submission of 26 April 2017 (64KB pdf) • PE1634/B: Petitioner submission of 1 March 2018 (70 KB pdf)

PPC/S5/18/6/7

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1635: Review of section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Emma McDonald

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the current system and operation of child contact centres and the procedure under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 so that the rights, safety and welfare of children are paramount in relation to child contact arrangements where domestic abuse is an issue, and to ensure that section 11 of the Act is consistently implemented across Scotland.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01635

Purpose

1. This is a continued petition, last considered by the Committee on 23 November 2017, when it took evidence from the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs.

2. This note provides a summary of the evidence session with the minister and invites the Committee to consider what action to take on the petition.

Committee consideration

3. In her evidence to the Committee, the minister recognised the concerns about contact raised in the petition and reiterated the Scottish Government’s commitment to consult on primary legislation in that area.

4. The minister indicated that the consultation was anticipated to be launched in spring 2018 and will run for twelve weeks. It was expected to include “consideration of the regulation of child welfare reporters, including issues to do with training; the regulation of child contact centres; the protection of domestic abuse victims when contact cases are being heard and the need to consider further how contact cases are dealt with when domestic abuse has been alleged; and further steps to ensure that the voice of the child is heard in contact cases”.

5. In reiterating this position, the minister indicated that, where possible, the Scottish Government was also committed to making changes to improve the system in advance of primary legislation.

PPC/S5/18/6/7

6. In response to a question on confidence in contact centres and whether their potential regulation could be taken forward as a discrete piece of work outwith the broader issues covered within the consultation, the minister indicated that it would be something that the Scottish Government would “bear in mind” but that she would not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation.

7. The minister also indicated that she would give careful consideration to how best to ensure that the consultation reaches people that the Scottish Government would want to hear from. This might include speaking with representative groups such as local women’s aid groups and the Scottish Youth Parliament.

8. In her evidence to the Committee, the minister explained that the Scottish Government had been working on guidance and training for child welfare reporters. She advised that the Lord President considered that this would require to be set in a statutory basis and would therefore be included within the forthcoming consultation.

9. In the interim, the minister advised, the Scottish Government had written to the Law Society, Faculty of Advocates, the Family Law Association of Scotland and Social Work Scotland, encouraging them to reflect on what training they can provide for their staff, to ensure that child welfare reporters are able to efficiently and effectively fulfil their role.

10. In response to a question about whether children’s rights officers or children’s advocacy workers might be used to “bridge the gap” to manage workloads and ensure that a child’s voice is heard, the minister stated that this was a matter for individual local authorities.

11. The minister acknowledged that there are concerns about consistency in the level of training for contact centre staff and volunteers, particularly with regard to the in-depth training and knowledge required to facilitate supervised contact. She confirmed that this will be one of the issues covered in the forthcoming consultation.

12. On the issue of funding, the minister confirmed that Relationships Scotland was given £1.5 million in both 2016-17 and 2017-18 to support the operation of its contact centres, with a further £370,000 over the past three years for the establishment and development of its parenting apart service.

13. The minister highlighted that this funding came from the early years portfolio, with the justice portfolio being responsible for the legal aid fund, which can be accessed to facilitate supervised contact. She confirmed that in 2016-17 “the amount that was sanctioned for supervised access was £481,973”.

14. The Committee discussed the scenario of what might happen in the event that people are unable to access legal aid for supervised contact. In her subsequent correspondence of 19 December 2017 the minister confirms that her officials have sought this information from Relationships Scotland, and notes the information previously set out in the Relationships Scotland submission of 6 July 2017.

PPC/S5/18/6/7

15. With regard to the issue of a child being at the centre of the process and having their voice heard, the minister acknowledged that “[T]he welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. That is the overriding benchmark by reference to which a decision has to be taken”.

16. She referred to some of the submissions which were based on the presumption against contact, for example in instances where domestic abuse is a factor. The minister noted that other stakeholders took the view that “if there is presumption in those circumstances, that may cut across the voice of the child, and therefore the overarching test that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration”. She added—

“Those issues are very weighty, difficult, complex and sensitive. A benefit of having the consultation is that those issues can be fleshed out and we can have the much-needed discussion that many stakeholders want.”

Conclusion

17. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on this petition. Options include—

• To seek an update from the Scottish Government on its consultation; • To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1635/M: Relationships Scotland submission of 6 July 2017 (9KB pdf) • PE1635/Q: Families Need Fathers submission of 5 December 2017 (145KB

pdf) • PE1635/R: Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs submission of 19

December 2017 (70KB pdf) • PE1635/S: Petitioner submission of 10 January (157KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/8

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1643: Introduce individual risk-based blood donation in Scotland

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Jack Douglas, LGBT+ Officer on behalf of NUS Scotland

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the regulations that prevent people within the LGBT+ community from donating blood and to replace it with an evidence based system that examines people on their individual risk to provide blood rather than their sexual orientation and gender.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/blooddonationpolicy

Introduction

1. This petition was first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 27 April, with its most recent consideration being on 29 June 2017.

Committee consideration

2. At its most recent consideration of the petition, the Committee noted support for the action called for in the petition from SNBTS, Terrence Higgins Trust, Equality Network and HIV Scotland.

3. This was reflected in the submission from the Minister for Public Health and Sport on 19 May 2017, who indicated that the Scottish Government was “very much open to revising the deferral criteria for MSM and other categories of donors”, and referred to improvements in the testing regime—

“The Scottish Government is also sympathetic to the petitioners’ argument that, given the improvements in the reliability of the tests now used to screen donated blood for blood-borne infections, a twelve month deferral period may well no longer be necessary…”.

4. In its submission of 28 July 2017 the Scottish Government confirmed that it had accepted all recommended changes to the rules on donor deferral criteria in Scotland, following the review by the Standing Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO). These changes came into effect from 27 November 2017.

5. With regard to the suggestion of introducing individualised risk assessments, the minutes of the SaBTO meeting in June report that the review working group “had investigated the idea of having more individualised risk assessment to allow lower risk MSM to donate [but] had not been able to identify questions to

PPC/S5/18/6/8

use on the donor health check that they were confident would serve this purpose”.

6. The Committee has invited the petitioners to provide a written submission, in response to submissions previously received. To date, there has been no response forthcoming from the petitioners.

Conclusion

7. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include—

• To close on the basis that progress has been made and the Scottish Government has accepted and implemented the recommended changes on blood donation in Scotland.

• Any other action the Committee wishes to take.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1643/D: Minister for Public Health and Sport submission of 19 May 2017 (45KB pdf)

• PE1643/F: Scottish Government submission of 28 July 2017 (76KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/9

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1651: Prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Marion Brown on behalf of Recovery and Renewal

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to appropriately recognise and effectively support individuals affected and harmed by prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01651

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition that the Committee last considered at its meeting on 18 January 2018. At that meeting, the Committee took evidence from the Minister for Mental Health and agreed to reflect on this evidence at a future meeting.

2. A summary of the evidence session as well as recent developments in relation to the action called for in the petition is outlined in this briefing note. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.

Committee Consideration

Written submissions

3. The Committee has continued to receive a high volume of written submissions in connection with this petition. The majority of submissions received are from people with direct experience of taking prescription medication such as benzodiazepines and anti-depressants, the symptoms they have experienced when taking and withdrawing from these drugs and the impact this has had on their lives. Members will note that submissions have been received from individuals in a range of countries and reflect experiences other than those solely in Scotland.

4. As was the case in the previous note for this petition, it is not possible to address each symptom identified by people who have provided a written submission. However, there are a number of common experiences described including —

PPC/S5/18/6/9

• Akathisia – feelings of inner restlessness and an inability to remain still. Some submissions refer to the severity of akathisia in relation to suicidal thoughts.

• Depersonalisation – when someone feels disconnected from their body and/or thoughts.

• Sensory effects – such as feelings of electrical impulses within the body, described in some submissions as brain zaps.

• Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) – a condition which can arise

following antidepressant use, in which sexual function does not completely return to normal after the discontinuation of prescription drugs.

5. Submissions have also been received from representatives of the medical

profession in support of the petition and from the petitioner for the Welsh petition on “Prescription drug dependence and withdrawal - recognition and support” which is currently being considered by the Welsh Assembly.

Evidence session with the Minister for Mental Health

6. During the evidence session with the Minister, the Committee explored whether GP’s have the expertise, knowledge and training to support people to safely come off prescribed medication. The Minister responded by stating—

“…the quality of antidepressant prescribing appears to have improved in recent years. Too often a less than effective dose was prescribed for too short a period of time. Now, higher average doses are prescribed for longer, more appropriate periods …which reduces the risk of recurrent bouts of illness in the long term”.

7. The petitioner raises significant concerns about this view, highlighting that the Scottish Government is basing policy on Scottish research conducted in 2010/11 “covering only new and relatively short-term antidepressant prescribing” and –

“is forcing people into dependency, resulting in ‘medically unexplained symptoms’ , long-term illness and disability and effectively forfeiting the opportunity for people to recover from stressful periods and successfully resume normal healthy life”.

8. In response to the same question of GP knowledge, Dr Mitchell of the Scottish Government clarified that drugs that can cause dependence and withdrawal problems include painkillers, particularly opiate medications and sleeping tablet drugs such as benzodiazepines and the Z-drugs which are anti-anxiety and sleep medicines.

9. In contrast, Dr Mitchell highlighted that anti-depressants have discontinuation reactions which do not cause dependence in the same way as the other drugs do which are “mild and self limiting”. He went on to explain that based on the Royal College of Psychiatrists guidance, for antidepressants, “tapering should

PPC/S5/18/6/9

take place over four weeks in order to allow the body to adjust to those medicines”. The petitioner strongly disagrees with Dr Mitchell’s comments in this regard and states—

“…guidance for tapering antidepressants is found to be far too fast and throws people into withdrawal”.

10. Dr Mitchell also highlighted in the evidence session that there is a health literacy action plan for Scotland “which is about how we have conversations with people about the treatments that we provide for them and which is being revised”.

11. In response to the suggestion that GP’s are left on their own to manage the potential side effects and withdrawal problems of prescription drugs, Dr Mitchell highlighted that there are now a variety of different prescribers including doctors, pharmacists and nurse practitioners. As such—

“I do not think that we expect GPs to be left feeling that they are on their own in managing the complications of prescribing across that range. However, a GP who initiated a medication would certainly be responsible for that treatment”.

12. The Committee asked the Minister and her officials whether they accepted the

fact that some people are prescribed the drugs as aforementioned and are not provided with sufficient support to withdraw from them. The Minister responded by stating—

“I would not accept the premise that it happens routinely. Obviously, the petitioner feels that it has happened in some cases”.

13. In the petitioner’s written submission of 12 February 2018, she raises concerns that the form of language used by the Minister and her officials shifted “patient and petitioner evidence to make out that it is just what some individual and unusual people may feel and believe”. The petitioner states that based on the many written submissions that have been received in relation to the petition—

“It has become abundantly clear that patients’ own experience of taking antidepressants and/or benzodiazepines – and trying to reduce or withdraw safely - is not being believed by the medical profession, or anything learned from real life experience”.

14. The petitioner’s written submission of 13 April 2018 refers to Dr Des Spence’s, written submission in support of the petition and states that prescription problems are the responsibility of the medical profession and “we are harming patients every day and everywhere across the country”. The petitioner suggests that other GPs she has spoken to agrees with these comments but are afraid to express this opinion publically. The petitioner has suggested seeking the written views of Scottish GPs in relation to the action being called for in the petition.

PPC/S5/18/6/9

15. Jenny Simmons of the Scottish Government highlighted that NHS Scotland has developed a psychological therapies matrix, an evidence-based resource that highlights different combinations of therapies and approaches to treating a range of different conditions. The matrix, as well as SIGN guidance, is available to GPs. In response, the petitioner states that alternatives in the matrix “do not seem to be available”. As such, it is the petitioner’s view that “medication – and especially enthusiastic prescribing of antidepressants – has trumped everything else.

National 24-hour helpline

16. Members will recall that the British Medical Association has recognised that there is an issue with prescribed drug dependency and has called for the introduction of a national 24-hour helpline. The Scottish Government’s written submission recognises that while a helpline has merit, resources to be able to fund such a helpline are currently not available.

17. The Committee sought to understand what services are in place to help people who are addicted to prescription medication. The Minister responded as follows—

“We are aware of the BMA’s call for a helpline…however we would indicate strongly that the best person to help with withdrawal from antidepressants is the person who prescribed them in the first place. They will know the clinical history of the person who has been on the drugs.”

18. The Minister explained that if people wanted to seek other advice, NHS 24 and NHS inform operate in Scotland and community pharmacists can also provide advice. The Government has discussed the BMA’s suggestion with the Department for Health in Scotland and asked NHS 24 in Scotland what the response would be to a person seeking advice about how to come off medication. NHS 24 responded by stating that a nursing telephonic service and material on the NHS inform website is available as well as pharmacy advisers to provide a higher level of advice. However, it would also advise a Scot to discuss matters of drug withdrawal first and foremost with the original prescriber of the medicine and/or seek advice from pharmaceutical services.

19. The petitioner’s written submission highlights that there is “no informed support whatsoever for people in Scotland” and urges the Scottish Government to participate with the rest of the UK in the provision of a national helpline for prescribed drug dependence.

Non-pharmalogical treatments

20. The petitioner has previously raised concerns about the waiting times for availability of non-pharmalogical treatments. The Committee therefore sought to explore this issue during the evidence session. The Minister confirmed that the Scottish Government recognises this issue in its mental health strategy and has recently committed an extra £500k to NHS 24 to develop online services which include computerised cognitive behavioural therapy.

PPC/S5/18/6/9

21. The Minister also highlighted that NHS 24 has an ongoing counselling service and—

“there will be a further expansion of online services, and there are funding packages in the mental health strategy for developing and enhancing the supply and training of the workforce for evidence-based therapies”.

22. The Minister also stated that the Scottish Government is currently running distress brief intervention pilots in six areas across Scotland which gives access within 24 hours to counsellors for anyone who presents to accident and emergency or who becomes known to police or is in police custody. The Minister also highlighted that the Scottish Government is committed to delivering an extra 800 mental health workers to address issues of out-of-hours service provision.

Recent developments

23. The petitioner highlights in her written submission that since the evidence session with the Minister for Mental Health on18 January 2018, there have been significant developments that relate to the issues raised in the petition. This includes an announcement made by Public Health England on 24 January 2018 that they are launching a year-long review into the evidence on the scale and nature of problems with some prescription medicines and how they can be prevented and treated.

24. The petitioner has made the clerks aware of an article titled “Call for action to fight ‘harmful’ medication”, published in the Helensburgh Advertiser on 15 February 2018 which states that the Scottish Government are “liaising with Public Health England to consider if its review of prescribed medicines addiction could extend to include Scotland”.

25. The petitioner highlights that given recent developments, including the review being carried out by Public Health England, the British Medical Association held a roundtable meeting on 18 April 2018 for stakeholders, to allow members of the group to provide an update on actions previously agreed upon and to discuss next steps. The petitioner was invited to this meeting and was asked to provide an update on her petition.

26. The petitioner also highlights that the Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a press release on 22 February 2018 in relation to a recent Lancet report on the study on efficacy of antidepressants, suggesting that many more patients should be prescribed anti-depressants. The petitioner states that this interpretation of the study outcome has prompted wide press coverage and deep concern, resulting in an open letter expressing this concern being sent to the President of the College by a group of doctors and professors.

27. Further examples of the recent press coverage in relation to the action called for in the petition is as follows—

PPC/S5/18/6/9

• “Number of patients harmed by prescription drug withdrawal ‘too difficult to say’, says Scottish Government psychiatrist, The Herald, 19 January 2018

• “Agenda: We should be wary of the myth of a chemical cure for depression”, The Herald, 3 March 2018

• “Royal College of Psychiatrists leaders accused of 'dangerous' and 'misleading' comments on antidepressant withdrawal”, The Herald, 12 March 2018

• “Letters: Antidepressants are not at all as benign as we might wish them to be”, The Herald, 12 March 2018

• “Support call for people struggling with prescription drugs”, Third Force News, 16 March 2018

28. The petitioner also highlights in her written submission the relevance of her petition to the current Scottish Government public consultation on the Suicide Prevention Action Plan 2018, citing specific written submissions that highlight this point. The petitioner has contributed to this consultation.

29. As members will recall, the Welsh Assembly is currently considering a similar petition on Prescription drug dependence and withdrawal - recognition and support. The Assembly’s Petitions Committee wrote to its Health, Social Care and Sport Committee in January 2018 to ask whether it had considered the issues raised by the petition in its recent work, or intend to consider them as part of any forthcoming inquiries. A response is likely to be considered by the Committee in May 2018.

Conclusion

30. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include—

• To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with Public Health England with regard to its review into prescription drug addiction and dependence.

• To ask the British Medical Association for its current position on its proposal to roll out a national 24 hour helpline.

• To seek the views of GPs in Scotland with regard to the action called for in the petition.

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

PPC/S5/18/6/9

Annex The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1651/NNN: Pamela Wilson submission of 9 January 2018 (164KB pdf) • PE1651/OOO: Petitioner submission of 5 January 2018 (145KB pdf) • PE1651/PPP: Janette Robb submission of 28 December 2017 (70KB pdf) • PE1651/QQQ: Loretta Sanders submission of 11 January 2018 (70KB pdf) • PE1651/RRR: Ann Kelly submission of 23 December 2017 (104KB pdf) • PE1651/SSS: Sandra Teale submission of 12 January 2018 (120KB pdf) • PE1651/TTT: Christian Forbear submission of 28 December 2017 (137KB

pdf) • PE1651/UUU: Andy Dalessio submission of 12 January 2018 (159KB pdf) • PE1651/VVV: Anonymous submission of 12 January 2018 (60KB pdf) • PE1651/WWW: Kim Frees Hren submission of 12 January 2018 (66KB pdf) • PE1651/XXX: Anonymous submission of 7 January 2018 (80KB pdf) • PE1651/YYY: Anonymous submission of 8 January 2018 (65KB pdf) • PE1651/ZZZ: Stevie Lewis submission of 7 January 2018 (76KB pdf) • PE1651/AAAA: Barbara Bell submission of 12 January 2018(74KB pdf) • PE1651/BBBB: Anonymous submission of 12 January 2018 (71KB pdf) • PE1651/CCCC: Joanne Elson submission of 14 January 2018(77KB pdf) • PE1651/DDDD: Rima Raj submission of 14 January 2018 (141KB pdf) • PE1651/EEEE: Sarah Feldhut submission of 15 January 2018 (65KB pdf) • PE1651/FFFF: Anonymous submission of 12 January 2018 (144KB pdf) • PE1651/GGGG: Wendy Beveridge submission of 12 January 2018 (6KB

pdf) • PE1651/HHHH: Anonymous submission of 20 January 2018 (65KB pdf) • PE1651/IIII: Rosalind Jones submission of 12 January 2018 (116KB pdf) • PE1651/JJJJ: Marius Romme MD submission of 01 February 2018 (62KB

pdf) • PE1651/KKKK: James P. Ward submission of 20 January 2018 (80KB pdf) • PE1651/LLLL: Heather Buchler submission of 20 January 2018 (85KB pdf) • PE1651/MMMM: Anonymous submission of 13 January 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/NNNN: Fiona French submission of 3 January 2018 (109KB pdf) • PE1651/OOOO: Anonymous submission of 21 January 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/PPPP: Anonymous submission of 21 January 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/QQQQ: Lucy Murray submission of 18 January 2018 (11KB pdf) • PE1651/RRRR: Anonymous submission of 21 January 2018(7KB pdf) • PE1651/SSSS: Mike Thomas submission of 23 January 2018 (10KB pdf) • PE1651/TTTT: Angel Ene submission of 24 January 2017 (12KB pdf) • PE1651/UUUU: Hilary Gardiner submission of 30 January 2018 (9KB pdf) • PE1651/VVVV: Belinda Steed submission of 28 January 2018 (72KB pdf) • PE1651:WWWW: Anonymous submission of 25 January 2018 (143KB pdf) • PE1651/XXXX: Anonymous submission of 29 January 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/YYYY: Lynne Smith submission of 31 January 2018 (71KB pdf) • PE1651/ZZZZ: Peter Lucassen submission of 30 January 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/AAAAA: Dr Andonis Yannakopoulos submission of 4 January 2018

(166KB pdf) • PE1651/BBBBB: Mary David submission of 23 January 2018 (79KB pdf)

PPC/S5/18/6/9

• PE1651/CCCCC: Marita Franzén submission of 31 January 2018 (79KB pdf) • PE1651/DDDDD: Antón McLaughlin submission of 27 January 2018( 120KB

pdf) • PE1651/EEEEE: Peter Swan submission of 23 January 2018 (77KB pdf) • PE1651/FFFFF: Anonymous submission of 27 January 2018 (78KB pdf) • PE1651/GGGGG: Anonymous submission of 24 January 2018(72KB pdf) • PE1651/HHHHH: Anonymous submission of 21 January 2018 (90KB pdf) • PE1651/IIIII: Teresa Lantz submission of 23 January 2018 (69KB pdf) • PE1651/JJJJJ: Dr Thomas Leonard submission of 28 January 2018 (6KB

pdf) • PE1651/KKKKK: Jarret Cameron Burke submission of 29 January 2018

(9KB pdf) • PE1651/LLLLL: Diane Dunsmuir submission of 27 January 2018 (8KB pdf) • PE1651/MMMMM: Leigh Fanner submission of 26 January 2018 (150KB

pdf) • PE1651/NNNNN: Laurie Oakley submission of 31 January 2018 (6KB pdf) • PE1651/OOOOO: Daryl Brown submission of 21 January 2018 (13KB pdf) • PE1651/PPPPP: Christy Huff, M.D. submission of 27 January 2018 (77KB

pdf) • PE1651/QQQQQ: Jo Dennison submission of 26 January 2018 (83KB pdf) • PE1651/RRRRR: Meschelle Linjean submission of 6 February 2018 (90 KB

pdf) • PE1651/SSSSS: Conrad Evans submission of 1 February 2018 (8KB pdf) • PE1651/TTTTT: Anonymous submission of 21 January 2018 (5KB pdf) • PE1651/UUUUU: Anonymous submission of 30 January 2018 (6KB pdf) • PE1651/VVVVV: Anonymous submission of 30 January 2018 (92KB pdf) • PE1651/WWWWW: Anonymous submission of 05 February 2018 (72KB

pdf) • PE1651/XXXXX: Anonymous submission of 5 February 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/YYYYY: Anonymous submission of 8 February 2018 (57KB pdf) • PE1651/ZZZZZ: Anonymous submission of 22 January 2018 (49KB pdf) • PE1651/AAAAAA: Anonymous submission of 23 January 2018 (156KB pdf) • PE1651/BBBBBB: Anonymous submission of 1 February 2018 (8KB pdf) • PE1651/CCCCCC: Anonymous submission of 7 February 2018 (10KB pdf) • PE1651/DDDDDD: Anonymous submission of 21 January 2018 (6KB pdf) • PE1651/EEEEEE: Ann Kelly submission of 28 January 2018 (72KB pdf) • PE1651:FFFFFF Anonymous submission of 1 February 2018 (97KB pdf) • PE1651/GGGGGG: Anonymous submission of 31 January 2018 (9KB pdf) • PE1651/HHHHHH: Anonymous submission of 5 February 2018 (76KB pdf) • PE1651/IIIIII: Anonymous submission of 10 February 2018 (5KB pdf) • PE1651/JJJJJJ: Anonymous submission of 14 February 2018 (75KB pdf) • PE1651/KKKKKK: Anonymous submission of 01 February 2018 (20KB pdf) • PE1651/LLLLLL: Irving Kirsch submission of 11 February 2018 (61KB pdf) • PE1651/MMMMMM: Rachel Carroll submission of 12 February 2018 (9KB

pdf) • PE1651/NNNNNN: Laura Bell submission of 11 February 2018 (61KB pdf) • PE1651/OOOOOO: Anonymous submission of 15 February 2018 (10KB pdf) • PE1651/PPPPPP: Anonymous submission of 15 February 2018 (5KB pdf) • PE1651/QQQQQQ: Anonymous submission of 15 February 2018 (197KB

pdf)

PPC/S5/18/6/9

• PE1651/RRRRRR: Chris Aikman submission of 14 February 2018 (98KB pdf)

• PE1651/SSSSSS: David Healy submission of 30 January 2018 (77KB pdf) • PE1651/TTTTTT: Fiona French submission of 4 February 2018 (108KB pdf) • PE1651/UUUUUU: Anonymous submission of 14 February 2018 (66KB pdf) • PE1651/VVVVVV: Anonymous submission of 12 February 2018 (6KB pdf) • PE1651/WWWWWW: Petitioner Submission 12 February 2018 (295KB pdf) • PE1651/XXXXXX: Anonymous submission of 11 February 2018 (9KB pdf) • PE1651/YYYYYY: Anonymous submission of 11 February 2018 (82KB pdf) • PE1651/ZZZZZZ: Anonymous submission of 12 February 2018 (14KB pdf) • PE1651/AAAAAAA: Alison McPartlin submission of 11 February 2018

(172KB pdf) • PE1651/BBBBBBB: Desmond Spence submission of 14 February 2018

(182KB pdf) • PE1651/CCCCCCC: Thomas Power submission of 16 February 2018 (6KB

pdf) • PE1651/DDDDDDD: Margaret Skinner submission of 15 February 2018

(88KB pdf) • PE1651/EEEEEEE: James McKelvie submission of 23 January 2018 (6KB

pdf) • PE1651/FFFFFFF: Diana Hanley submission of 17 March 2018 (64KB pdf) • PE1651/GGGGGGG: Anne Bevan submission of 15 February 2018 (195

pdf) • PE1651/HHHHHHH: Anonymous submission of 19 February 2018 (9KB pdf) • PE1651/IIIIIII: Angela Visco Kaplan submission of 17 February 2018 (5KB

pdf) • PE1651/JJJJJJJ: Anonymous submission of 15 February 2018 (14KB pdf) • PE1651/KKKKKKK: Anonymous submission of 18 February 2018 (269KB

pdf) • PE1651/LLLLLLL: Vicki Laughlin submission of 2 January 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/MMMMMMM: Nina Davies submission of 31 January 2018 (15KB

pdf) • PE1651/NNNNNNN: Darius Ghanat submission of 14 February 2018 (76KB

pdf) • PE1651/OOOOOOO: Gwen Olsen submission of 2 March 2018 (7KB pdf) • PE1651/PPPPPPP: Hunter Watson submission of 20 January 2018 (92KB

pdf) • PE1651/QQQQQQQ: Sonja Styblo submission of 27 January 2018 (75KB

pdf) • PE1651/RRRRRRR: Petition submission of 13 April 2018 (864KB pdf) • PE1651/SSSSSSS: Alyne Duthie submission of 11 February 2018 (171KB

pdf)

PPC/S5/18/6/10

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1653: Active travel infrastructure

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Michaela Jackson on behalf of Gorebridge Community Trust

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop an active travel infrastructure strategy that will require active travel provision to be incorporated into all new major infrastructure projects for Scottish cities, particularly those projects designed to improve commuter routes from regional centres into city centres.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/activetravelinfrastructure

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition that was last considered on 21 December 2017. At that meeting, the Committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government. A response has now been received as well as a written submission from the petitioner. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take.

Committee consideration

Legal framework for active travel

2. At the last consideration of this petition on 21 December 2017, the Committee reflected on concerns raised by the petitioner and Sustrans that there is currently no legal requirement to include active travel in any new major infrastructure projects in Scotland. The Committee therefore asked the Scottish Government for its views on the establishment of a legal framework for active travel in infrastructure projects.

3. The Scottish Government’s written submission states that a legal framework for including active travel in all infrastructure projects may not be appropriate in all circumstances. For example, where a roads project is adjacent to an existing National Cycle Network or for “Special Roads” (including motorways) which cyclists are not permitted to cycle along.

4. The Government’s submission highlights that the Rail Enhancement and Capital Investment Strategy (published on 15 March 2018) sets out its new approach to planning and funding of rail projects. This strategy requires Network Rail to work with key stakeholders to consider “enhanced modal integration including cycling and walking as appropriate in the development of rail projects”.

PPC/S5/18/6/10

5. The Government’s submission also highlights its commitment to ensure suitable provision for all road users, including cyclists, is considered as part of all major roads projects as set out in a range of documents and plans in including A Long-Term Vision for Active Travel 2030, the Cycling Action Plan (CAP) for Scotland (2017- 2020) and the Trunk Road Cycling Initiative.

6. It is the petitioner’s view that while Scotland has policies in place, the action is lacking. The petitioner remains of the view that if the Scottish Government does not legislate to ensure active travel is central to new transport development, there will not be appropriate measures in place to address increasing levels of air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and congestion.

7. The Scottish Government’s submission outlines the following projects which it believes demonstrate its commitment to ensure that there is suitable provision for all road users, including cyclists —

• The A9 and the A96 Dualling programmes, where the A96 Dualling Inverness to Nairn includes proposals for nearly 30km of off-carriageway shared-use facilities.

• The A82 Tarbet to Inverarnan upgrade, where a shared use facility is proposed adjacent to the full length of the 17km scheme.

• Grade separation at Sheriffhall on the A720 Edinburgh City Bypass which aims to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists compared to the existing arrangement.

8. The petitioner welcomes these projects, however is of the view that they are

“stand out examples of good practice” and “the exception to the norm”. For example, the petitioner cites the Maybole bypass as an example where active travel routes were not considered in the planning for this new route.

9. The petitioner also highlights the importance of connecting central economic hubs such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, to surrounding areas from which people commute stating—

“Transport by definition links regions but each region has different priorities and focuses, meaning a cohesive approach for active travel is particularly challenging”.

10. The petitioner expresses concern that there is a lack of a joined up approach between Transport Scotland, the City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council in relation to the improvement of cycle routes between Edinburgh and Midlothian. The petitioner suggests that a £50m surplus resulting from the Edinburgh and South East Scotland city region funding deal to improve Sheriffhall roundabout in Midlothian could be used to create proper segregated cycle routes that connect Edinburgh and Midlothian.

PPC/S5/18/6/10

Development of new strategies

11. The Committee also sought clarification from the Scottish Government about its Trunk Road Walking and Cycling strategy, which was due to be published in September 2017. The Government’s response states that the strategy has been drafted but was put on hold in order to take cognisance of the findings of the Active Travel Task Force.

12. The Active Travel Task Force report was due to be published in February 2018 and will include recommendations for better planning processes, improved community engagement and better alignment of policies at a national and local level. At the time of writing this note, both the Active Travel Task Force report and the Trunk Road Walking and Cycling strategy had not been published on Transport Scotland’s website.

13. The Scottish Government’s submission highlights that a review of the National Transport Strategy is underway which has in its scope a focus on active travel. National working groups are currently developing policy proposals for the new strategy with plans to launch a public consultation on these proposals in early 2019.

Conclusion

14. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include —

• To seek clarification from the Scottish Government about the timescales for the publication of the Active Travel Task Force report and the Trunk Road Walking and Cycling strategy.

• To ask the Scottish Government whether there is scope for members of the public to contribute to work of the national working groups in the development of the new National Transport Strategy.

• To close the petition under Standing Orders Rule 15.7 on the basis that there are sufficient plans in place to address active travel in Scotland.

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

• PE1653/F: Scottish Government submission of 31 January 2018 (87KB pdf)

• PE1653/G: Petitioner submission of 1 March 2018 (208KB pdf)

PPC/S5/18/6/10

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.

PPC/S5/18/6/11

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1662: Improve treatment for patients with Lyme disease and associated tick-borne diseases

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Janey Cringean and Lorraine Murray on behalf of Tick-borne Illness Campaign

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve testing and treatment for Lyme Disease and associated tick-borne diseases by ensuring that medical professionals in Scotland are fully equipped to deal with the complexity of tick-borne infections, addressing the lack of reliability of tests, the full variety of species in Scotland, the presence of 'persister' bacteria which are difficult to eradicate, and the complexities caused by the presence of possibly multiple co-infections, and to complement this with a public awareness campaign.

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/lymedisease

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition, last considered by the Committee at its meeting on 21 December. At that meeting the Committee agreed to consider a note on options for taking oral evidence on the petition, once the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published its guidance on Lyme disease.

Committee consideration

2. The NICE guideline on Lyme disease was published in April 2018. The guideline includes recommendations on—

• being aware of Lyme disease • symptoms and history taking • which tests to use and when • treatment with antibiotics • treatment and support for ongoing symptoms • managing Lyme disease in pregnant women and their babies • information for people with Lyme disease

3. The guideline includes a visual summary of the recommendations on testing for

Lyme disease, and also includes recommendations for research. The recommendations for research cover five areas relating to developing a better evidence-base for the prevalence, presentation, diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. The areas identified are—

PPC/S5/18/6/11

• Development of a core outcome set which would enable comparison across studies and trials relating to the management of Lyme disease (currently different studies use different outcome measures which makes comparison difficult)

• Collection and analysis of data on the incidence, presenting symptoms, treatment and outcomes for Lyme disease which may enable the assessment and tailoring of interventions to properly meet the needs of people with Lyme disease

• A study into the prevalence of Lyme disease and other tick-borne infections in the blood serum of people in the UK (to understand the epidemiology of such infections, including issues such as areas of higher or lower prevalence and the interpretation of test results where people in high prevalence areas may have tests which indicate an infection but which may not be a recent or acute infection)

• Multicentre studies to consider the effectiveness of antimicrobial treatments used in different presentations of Lyme disease

• Determination of the most clinically and cost-effective test for the diagnosis of Lyme disease at all stages, including reinfection.

Conclusion

4. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include —

• To write to the petitioners for their views on the NICE guideline in relation to the action called for in the petition

• To seek the Scottish Government’s position on the NICE guideline as it relates to the petition

• To consider options for oral evidence on the petition in the context of the NICE guideline, and whether this might include seeking evidence from experts or medical professionals in this area, as well as representatives from outdoor organisations

• To take any other action the Committee considers appropriate.

Clerk to the Committee

PPC/S5/18/6/12

Public Petitions Committee

6th Meeting, 2018 (Session 5)

Thursday 26 April 2018

PE1678: National strategic framework for Countryside Ranger Services in Scotland

Note by the Clerk

Petitioner Robert Reid on behalf of Scottish Countryside Rangers Association

Petition summary

Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement the strategic framework for the network of Countryside Ranger Services set out in the document Rangers in Scotland (SNH 2008).

Webpage parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01678

Introduction

1. This is a continued petition, first considered by the Committee at its meeting on 1 February. At that meeting the Committee agreed to seek the views of a range of stakeholders, including all local authorities.

2. Written submissions have been received and are included in the annex to this paper. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition.

Committee consideration

3. In its correspondence to local authorities, the Committee sought information on the number of rangers employed in their respective areas, including in any arms length external organisations (ALEOs). It also sought to establish whether local authorities had a three-to-five year plan for their rangers services.

4. Thirteen local authorities responded with confirmation of the number of rangers they employed. The majority of submissions indicated that the authorities did not have a specific three-to-five year plan for their rangers services, as they were integrated within wider strategies and policies.

5. Submissions from stakeholders including the National Park Authorities, Scottish Land and Estates, Community Land Scotland, Forest Enterprise Scotland and Crown Estate Scotland all refer to the “valuable contribution” made by countryside rangers to help to successfully deliver a number of public policy agendas and express their support for the action called for in the petition.

6. Scottish Land and Estates (SLE) expresses some concern about the future funding of countryside ranger services. It says—

PPC/S5/18/6/12

“SLE is concerned by the reduction in grant support made over the last decade and the damaging impact this is having on both the funding of existing ranger posts and on the opportunities to develop new posts.”

7. Community Land Scotland outlines some of the benefits it considers the ranger services contribute to, including “enhancing health and well-being, encouraging active citizenship, promoting social inclusion, promoting sustainable economic development, and enhancing the natural and historic environment”.

8. Forest Enterprise Scotland states that its rangers have “often worked with schools and groups as the local expert providers of environmental education and awareness” but notes that this “valued service is now far less prevalent”, which it consider is due to a lack of resources.

9. The Cairngorms National Park Authority refers to its National Park Partnership Plan, which “provides a focus across the public, private and voluntary sectors”. Crown Estate Scotland notes the benefits that have come from the plan and considers—

“A similar framework for a national approach would therefore be welcomed to help support the future of the Ranger profession within Scotland.”

10. Similarly, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority refers to the National Park Partnership Plan and its benefits, and considers that a national strategic framework for rangers in Scotland “would be a positive first step to safeguarding the valuable resource they represent and support a sustainable future for the profession”.

11. The Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage also recognise and acknowledge the value of Scotland’s Countryside Rangers. The Scottish Government states—

“They are a valuable asset, undertaking functions and tasks that help to deliver a range of environmental, social and economic benefits, such as promoting the health and well-being agenda and implementing the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy.”

12. Scottish Natural Heritage provides examples of how its continuing support for ranger services has contributed across each of the strategic actions in Rangers in Scotland.

13. It considers that “well trained and resourced ranger services are a key resource for helping to deliver a wide range of benefits for people and nature”. It refers to a meeting its previous chairman held with the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association in 2016, and notes that a meeting with current Chair of SNH is being planned.

14. Scottish Natural Heritage confirms that it does not monitor ranger numbers in Scotland but that it is aware “from anecdotal evidence that ranger numbers, particularly in local authorities, are decreasing”. It adds—

PPC/S5/18/6/12

“It is for local authorities to make decisions on whether to fund ranger posts in the context of other funding priorities and budgetary pressures.”

15. The petitioners’ submission of 9 April addresses issues and questions raised by the Committee at its initial consideration of the petition, and includes the findings of the survey conducted by the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association in February.

Conclusion

16. The Committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take. Options include—

• To invite Scottish Natural Heritage to give evidence at a future meeting

• Any other action the Committee wishes to take.

Clerk to the Committee

Annexe

The following submissions are circulated in connection with consideration of the petition at this meeting—

PE1678/A: Highland Council submission of 13 February 2018 (61KB pdf) PE1678/B: Clackmannanshire Council submission of 14 February 2018 (5KB pdf) PE1678/C: Aberdeenshire Council submission of 15 February 2018 (64KB pdf) PE1678/D: Falkirk Council submission of 16 February 2018 (94KB pdf) PE1678/E: Aberdeen City Council submission of 16 February 2018 (62KB pdf) PE1678/F: South Lanarkshire Council submission of 16 February 2018 (62KB pdf) PE1678/G: Orkney Islands Council submission of 27 February 2018 (42KB pdf) PE1678/H: East Ayrshire Council submission of 23 February 2018 (18KB pdf) PE1678/I: Scottish Natural Heritage submission of 27 February 2018 (191KB pdf) PE1678/J: Argyll & Bute Council submission of 27 February 2018 (64KB pdf) PE1678/K: Scottish Land and Estates submission of 28 February 2018 (69KB pdf) PE1678/L: Fife Council submission of 1 March 2018 (4KB pdf) PE1678/M: Cairngorms National Park Authority submission of 1 March 2018 (162KB pdf) PE1678/N: Comhairle nan Eilean Siar submission of 1 March 2018 (18KB pdf) PE1678/O: Scottish Government submission of 1 March 2018 (64KB pdf) PE1678/P: Angus Council submission of 1 March 2018 (72KB pdf) PE1678/Q: Community Land Scotland submission of 1 March 2018 (60KB pdf) PE1678/R: Forest Enterprise Scotland submission of 1 March 2018 (68KB pdf) PE1678/S: Crown Estate Scotland submission of 2 March 2018 (24KB pdf) PE1678/T: East Lothian Council suubmission of 2 March 2018 (4KB pdf) PE1678/U: Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority submission of 2 March 2018 (1.13MB)

PPC/S5/18/6/12

PE1678/V: The National Trust for Scotland submission of 13 March 2018 (142KB pdf) PE1678/W: Glasgow City Coucil submission of 22 March 2018 (81KB pdf) PE1678/X: Petitioner submission of 9 April 2018 (1,313KB pdf)

All written submissions received on the petition can be viewed on the petition webpage.