���˿���

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.?We will begin our proceedings in the hope and expectation that the deputy convener will join us.

The first item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those who are joining us or watching us online that we have a large number of open petitions to consider before the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, with the last working week being week ending 26 March 2026. Our focus for the rest of the parliamentary session is now on identifying any areas where we feel that we can make progress during the time remaining, given that there are not many meetings of the committee ahead.

Our first continued petition is PE1865, lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review of all surgical procedures that use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established. We are joined by our colleague Jackie Baillie, who has a long-standing interest in such matters.

We last considered the petition on 19 February 2025, when we discussed potentially closing the petition but ultimately agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek more information on the points about data. We have received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. Although committing to keep emerging evidence under review, the minister stated that the Scottish Health Technologies Group—SHTG—analysed the most relevant research on the use of mesh for hernia repair and that evidence published since 2021 aligns with the group’s advice on outcomes and patient follow-up.

The Scottish Government is further guided by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—our old friends, the MHRA—which says that there is currently no evidence on which to base further regulatory action for surgical mesh. The minister also referenced the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—which regularly reviews evidence to update its clinical guidance, including on hernia repair.

The minister’s response then highlights a series of programmes in progress, which provide data for medical devices, including pelvic and hernia mesh, both at a United Kingdom and a Scottish level. It also points to the open initiative of the evidence directorate in Healthcare Improvement Scotland, whereby anyone can propose guideline topics or request research to be considered in Scottish clinical guidelines.

The petitioners reiterate their view that the SHTG’s recommendations are based on incomplete and outdated data. They also believe that meaningful action has yet to materialise on clear patient pathways for hernia mesh-injured individuals and guidelines for the use of mesh, suggesting that there are still patients who are neither being offered non-mesh alternatives nor receiving fully informed consent.?

Before I invite Jackie Baillie to contribute, I will say that I have raised the mesh issue, particularly with regard to the two reports by the late Professor Alison Britton, which were commissioned by the Scottish Government, and the First Minister offered to meet me. He did so after the summer recess. He, the minister and all relevant officials were there. Subsequently, he has written to me with a very detailed outline of all the work that has been done to implement the findings of the two reports. I have to say that there are still some gaps, so follow-up evidence is required.

I am also going to London to pursue, with relevant authorities there, progress on the recommendations by Dr Henrietta Hughes on compensation for mesh.

Mr Ewing recommends that we invite the Scottish Government to respond to the petitioners’ latest submission.

PE2056, which was lodged by Stephen Gauld, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation providing ministers with the power to call in and potentially override council decisions on the hire of public land for large-scale events.

We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government about it. The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government states that the Scottish Tourism Alliance’s submission does not change the Scottish Government’s previously stated position. The Government would not consider introducing the mechanism asked for in the petition, since that would go against the principles set out in the Verity house agreement, under which it committed to respecting local government’s democratic mandate, and vice versa. I did not know that that was still a thing. For the same reason, the Scottish Government would not pass judgment on what may, or may not be, a sound reason for refusing an application at a local level.

The petitioner’s additional submission details his recent experiences when attempting to hire land for events, which he found demoralising and expensive.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2129, which was lodged by Elizabeth Spencer, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require education authorities to adopt a uniform set of criteria and a standard consultation for assessing community demand for denominational schools.

We wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills after we last considered the petition on 19 February. The cabinet secretary’s response states that, when establishing a new school, local authorities are required to carry out a consultation under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. That consultation has to include at least 30 school days, engage with a specific list of relevant consultees and include a public meeting. Education Scotland also produces a report about the educational benefit of the proposal, and the local authority has to produce a final report summarising responses to that consultation. The cabinet secretary states that she has no evidence to support the view that the current arrangements for the establishment of new schools, including denominational schools, is unfair or inconsistent.

The petitioner has provided a written submission that states that, in the case of Aberdeen City Council, non-Catholic parents and grandparents were disregarded from the consultation. She calls for the committee to consider whether the criteria and consultations are being applied consistently and to examine whether the experience of Aberdeen families shows the need for national guidance and oversight.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I do not think that there is any question but that the committee wants to keep the petition open. Before we make any further recommendations, I think that we need to take some evidence. I suggest that we invite the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to give evidence on the matter, and that we invite the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s best start perinatal sub-group to the committee so that we can interrogate the process that led to the recommendation for three rather than four or five units. That seems to be the critical issue, as far as I can see. It would have been wholly consistent with the original report and recommendation for a fourth unit to be retained.

As Jackie Baillie said, this is an award-winning facility that provides support to such a large health board. Given all the issues that have been identified, those of us who visited the facility thought that the petition ought to be considered, and we are very sympathetic to its aims.

Welcome back. The next petition is PE2169, on facilitating a review and upgrade of the teaching resource “Palestine and Israel, understanding the conflict”.

Before we proceed, I indicate that parliamentary rules are clear that, if the convener is present at a meeting, the convener must convene that meeting. I declare my interests: I am the convener of the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on building bridges with Israel and, in 2017, I undertook a visit to Israel that was funded by the Israeli embassy. I maintain regular contact with the Israeli embassy; indeed, we spoke earlier this week in relation to the release of a constituent who was part of a flotilla that got itself into some bother.

PE2170, which was lodged by Paul Blaker on behalf of Accountability Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the General Teaching Council for Scotland and replace it with a Government agency. The petitioner believes that the General Teaching Council for Scotland is not supporting teachers’ professional development, nor helping children to experience improved quality learning and teaching.

The statutory functions of the GTCS are set out in a 2011 order, the purpose of which was to establish it as an independent self-regulating professional body for teachers working in Scotland. Some of its main functions are to keep a public register, set standards for the teaching profession, investigate individuals’ fitness to teach and provide advice to the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government does not see the ask of the petition as practical or achievable, as it considers the GTCS to be effective in its statutory role. The Government states that it cannot intervene in processes or decisions made by fitness-to-teach panels, and that panel members are independent and not GTCS employees.

The GTCS commissioned the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care to undertake an independent review of its fitness-to-teach process. The PSA’s findings highlighted some improvements that could be made, such as reducing the time that the GTCS takes to resolve cases, supporting vulnerable participants, simplifying public-facing guidance and documentation, and enhancing case management. The GTCS has committed to presenting an action plan to its professional regulatory assurance committee in the light of those recommendations.

The petitioner’s additional submission brings forth further examples to illustrate his concerns that the GTCS is not meeting its core mission to uphold professional standards and protect pupils. It is a very determined representation, but the Government clearly takes an alternative view.

That might be beyond the scope of the committee’s ability to properly explore.

In the first instance, are we happy to pursue Mr Ewing’s suggestion? Then, we will have a further opportunity to decide whether, as Mr Ewing is suggesting and as Mr Mountain is hoping, it might be one of our legacy petitions—or whether we think that it would be best served by a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session. We will write to the Scottish Government to seek a response to the petitioners’ latest submission. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Another committee might be able to do more than we can, given the limited scope that there will be for us to return to the issues that are raised in the petition.

Ordinarily, I would not invite our colleagues to debate the matter with me, but I will bring Mr Sweeney back in.

Okay. I am reluctantly coming to the view that, if that is the case, and given the limited time that we have, the route will have to be that we invite the petitioners to bring a fresh petition to the next session of Parliament. I do not say that happily, but that is the conclusion that I am drawn to. I am not sure that exercising the suggestion of writing to the NZET Committee would progress matters. Are colleagues reluctantly content with that position?

Members indicated agreement.