 Rydw i'n rhaid i gyd ar gyfer cyflawn i G keddo i'r gweithio y Quokloedd P地fynol Y Llywodraeth yn 2017. Rydw i'n mynd i ffawr i gefnodd rwy'r ddysgu gwirioneddydd, sy'n gweithio gwndtweithio ddysgu ddyddiwyllu sy'n cael ei cadw i gweld. Rydym yn gilydd i'n iawn i G oedd eitem 1, ael i gwrsiau lleol aelio'r gweithio i'u cymhyslu'r gwylltadau ddod datgwyd ymateb ond petitions 1605 by Peter Gregson on behalf of Kids Not Suits on whistling in the NHS, a safer way to report mismanagement and bullying. At our last meeting, we heard evidence from City of Edinburgh Council, Public Concern at Work and Unison Scotland. This morning, we have the director general of health and social care and the chief executive of NHS Scotland, Paul Gray, to give evidence. Ms Gray is accompanied by Shirley Rogers, director of health, workforce and strategic change from the Scottish Government. I thank you both for attending this morning. We also had a number of issues raised at our previous session, so I would suggest that we move straight to questions from the committee. Perhaps, if I can start by asking for your views on the level of understanding about the purpose of the whistling helpline and can it be conflated with raising a grievance, is that an issue for the organisation? Thank you, convener. I'll begin the answer and then ask Ms Rogers to fill it out, and we're happy to take your guidance on length of answers. The awareness of the national confidential alert line, I am certain, could be improved. There's no circumstances in which I would say that it was perfect, but I think the awareness is fairly broad. It's certainly known by all of the boards and by the employee directors on the boards who of course represent the interests of the trade union side of the partnership. It's something that we seek to make staff aware of through a number of routes. The other part of your question was whether that could be conflated with grievance, and, of course, a grievance is a matter that I understand in law needs to be dealt with between the employee and the employer. To that extent, if someone phones the national confidential alert line and expresses a grievance, it would be referred back to the employer. If there were other aspects to their concerns, of course, that's not the only route that the national confidential alert line can take. It can also refer matters, for example, to healthcare improvement Scotland, and it has done so. If you would like more detail from Ms Rogers, we can provide that. I think that the observation that I would make is that there are issues where those two things come together. By the very nature of people feeling aggrieved at work and having issues of concern, sometimes those things are not easy to separate out completely. I think that there are times when those matters have to be taken as a whole. Sometimes, depending on the response to the whistle blowing issue when it's raised, that can lead to employees having a sense of grievance or feeling that they have not had those matters dealt with in the first instance and the manner that they would have wished. I think that, as a general principle, when people are feeling unhappy about something, it is sometimes possible for those issues to become conflated. A lot of work happened in respect of raising the awareness of the line. Public and Senate work, for example, attended the NHS staff conference and had small pocket-sized guides to the line that was issued and various other bits of materials that have arisen. I think that the honest answer to your question about awareness is that that awareness has grown over time. Is there an issue then, or where is the judgment that somebody feels that they have been asked to do something that might be to the detriment of the service itself? It's about them as an individual, but they're actually flacking up something broader and they're concerned to protect their own that they don't want to be identified in case there's greater problems for them. What advice would be given to that person in those circumstances? Well, it would depend on the nature of their concerns. For example, if it was a concern about a clinical matter, then that must go through the appropriate clinical governance, otherwise we would be breaking the chain of accountability. It's probably difficult to answer the question without a specific example. I'm more than happy to take any specific examples. I'm not trying to dodge the question, but it very much depends on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. If what you're prompting me to think about is a situation where a member of staff may be concerned about their immediate line management, for example, and therefore, to be simple about it, be afraid of what might happen next, we would certainly be urging, in all circumstances, staff to contact their trade union representative or other appropriate representative. There is escalation available in board governance and, ultimately, of course, there is a whistleblowing champion now on the board to whom matters can be addressed. Does that answer the question? A previous session of the petition, the chief executive of public concern at work indicated that she didn't agree with the aims of the petition, but noted that what is called for within the petition is not within the terms of the current contract for delivery of the national confidential alert line. Can you give me your views on that? I think that what public concern at work we're referring to was the matter of an independent assessment of a case. That's why, in the consultation that we've done, the proposal of an independent national officer has been put forward, and the favoured option in the consultation was that that independent national officer role should rest with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. Clearly, ultimately, that would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament corporate body, but, to be straightforward about it, there is a recognition that an ultimate recourse to an independent national officer is something worth having. Is that recognition within the health service or just generally? Well, by me, as the chief executive of the national health service, by ministers and director of workforce, we agree that that is something that ought to be put in place. How likely is that to be put in place? I'm very clear that it should be. Ministers are very clear that it should be. It is, of course, to say ultimately a matter for the Parliament to agree, given that it would be a role for the public services ombudsman if the public services ombudsman was content to take it on, but we are working closely with them on that. I am confident that we should establish an independent national officer and that we would be very disappointed if we did not. I was a past chairman of the Argyllin bute integrated joint board, which I stood down from in August last year. The Scottish Government's submission in October confirmed that the contract had been extended until June this year to ensure a continuation of a cost-effective service. In light of the most recent six-month review for the period August 2015 to January 2016, which reported a 75 per cent decrease in the number of calls to the helpline since it was established, can I ask for your views on whether that is not just a cost-effective service but an effective and trusted service? If I might respond to that, we are on record as committing to an ongoing call line as part of the remedies available in respect of whistleblowing across the NHS. We are not committed at this stage to peak or any individual supplier in that process. That contract comes to an end in June as we have identified and we will undertake the normal procurement processes in that space to look at who else might be able to provide that facility for us. We receive six-monthly reports from PCOR at the moment and, as you say, some of the usage numbers are of interest to us. One of the important messages for the committee to hear is that, whilst the national confidential work line is an important part of those remedies, it is only one part of those remedies. We have been working for two or three years now on the implementation of the NHS Scotland Workforce Strategy. The first component part of that strategy is around values and culture. We are now receiving some indications that those values and that approach to the culture of patient safety and various other aspects are starting to be embedded in NHS board activity. We have some support in that space. The policies and procedures and pen guidelines that some of you may be familiar with that we have established across NHS Scotland are also starting to give us a more consistent approach to how these kinds of activities are rolled out across Scotland. I think that your point is well made in terms of whether or not people are actively using the alert line. I do not think that that is the only indicator of the sort of temperature and whistleblowing culture or support. I will be very honest in saying that there is still much more that we need to do about how the service is aware of the facilities and remedies that are available and about how consistently well those processes are brought to bear when they are required. I think that following on from that question there does seem to be some concerns about the effectiveness of the current helpline facility. Indeed, issues around low usage and lack of confidence in the system have been widely reported in the media, including your piece in the Herald in September last year. What sense do you have of whether confidence has increased among staff in recent months and how do you measure or assess staff confidence in the system? Do you agree that we need an open learning environment in the NHS when things go wrong and that people feel able to come forward? There is a question about confidence in using the service and, as Shirley Rogers said, the other remedies that are available will take that first and then the point about an open learning culture. Every year, boards have an annual review and sometimes that is a ministerial-led review and sometimes led by officials. At that annual review, the ones that I attend, there is always an opportunity to meet the partnership forum. That is one of, by now means the only mechanisms whereby we hear direct from the partnership how staff in that board are feeling and issues that they wish to raise directly with the minister or with me. My sense is that there is a degree of confidence in these arrangements, but, as I said earlier in response to the convener, of course we could and are make sure that it is more widely known about and understood. The other point, which the data is hard to interpret but may suggest, is that the spike in calls at the beginning was because people had, in a sense, a bottled up set of issues that they felt they had nowhere to go with. The national confidential alert line met that need, so the reduction in calls may not indicate a reduction in confidence or loss of confidence in the system itself. Before I come on to the point about an open and transparent culture, it may be that Shirley Rogers would not add something to what I have said. I think that it is very difficult for me to sit here and say that everybody is confident in something. I think that people's confidence depends on the response that they receive and how closely they feel that that response addresses the issues that they have raised. We started this evidence with a question about conflating issues, and sometimes it is impossible to be able to separate those out for people in a way that is as optimal as they would wish us to be. Sometimes issues are raised that are appropriately dealt with, and sometimes that response is not always as optimal as it should be. I think that it is also fair to say that we have put a great deal of investment and with some external validation of that process in partnership working in the NHS in Scotland and in our staff governance arrangements. Whilst I think that that has taken the agenda forward a good deal, I think that it is also fair to say that for some individuals that in itself is not helpful to them. Sometimes the relationships between individuals and their representatives are not ideal. I am not going to say here that I think that system works perfectly every time. I think there is a huge investment in making people aware of whistleblowing. It is not something that was talked about in any setting 10, 15 years ago. It is something where there is increasing awareness of what works in being able to address whistleblowing. There is increasing awareness of the effectiveness of listening. Quite often what individuals are looking for is a process in which they feel that they have been respectfully, appropriately and considerably listened to. I think that is something that we are building in terms of our leadership development capacity, our whole approach to how a modern NHS is managed, how people experience the workplace. That is something that I think that we have got demonstrable evidence, some of it externally validated. We have had a report into partnership working in the NHS through the University of Nottingham, who were very complementary about the work that had taken place. Even in that, it recognises that there is still more to do. As we continue on this journey, we are continuously trying to improve that situation and to learn from it. I think that the other thing that I would add into that space is that whilst that activity is taking place in the board, I think that we are also in policy terms. It is my pleasure and sometimes with some sadness, my role to meet frequently with people for whom the system has not always worked as well as we might wish it to. It is very helpful to us in policy-making terms to be able to learn from those experiences too. I believe that openness and transparency is a fundamental building block of improvement. You do not get improvement if you do not have openness and transparency. The issue is, of course, how openness and transparency is dealt with and treated. If, for example, something very minor happens in relation to the care of a patient, first of all, it is essential that the patient is told—that is absolutely fundamental to this—but secondly, it is essential that that is recorded. That might be something as minor as the wrong drug was brought, so it is not administered but simply brought. That is recorded as what would be called an incident of harm. There was not actually harm to the patient. There was potential harm but no actual harm, but it is still recorded. The issue then in terms of how that plays out is partly how it plays out within the space in which it happens—a ward or a theatre or whatever—and partly how it plays out in public. I am encouraging people to make sure that people are able to report any incident at all and to record it. Of course, if the public discourse is that incidents of harm have rocketed, you can understand why that is an external inhibition to people being transparent, when, in fact, what we are trying to do is to make sure that not that harm has rocketed but that we are recording what has actually happened. Internally, if that recording is met defensively, people will be less inclined to do it. If it is met openly, with a view to learning from those incidents as part of people's professional and personal development, they will be encouraged to do it again. There is, of course, the issue of the duty of Canada. People are required to report things. I am absolutely clear that, although it may mean that it looks as though incidents are increasing when they are not, proper reporting, openness, transparency and recording are absolutely essential. I have no doubt about that at all. If you had a senior clinician here, I am certainly following it. Do you have national guidelines for that? I am thinking along the lines of, for example, say a significant adverse event. There seems to be a huge disparity from one NHS board to another. I am wondering whether, as there are national guidelines on how you classify these incidents, and is there pressure on boards to push those numbers down? All I can say, Mr Whittle, is that there is not pressure from me. I would not be pressing people to call something. If it is a significant adverse event, that is what it is. I would not be pressing them to call it anything else. The only way that we will learn is by treating things with the appropriate level of seriousness. I would be very happy to share with the committee the guidance that we have around those matters. It would be too voluminous to go into detail now, and some of it would require the advice of a clinician rather than me as a professional administrator, but it would be of no difficulty to share with the committee the guidance on all these issues if you would find it helpful. Unison Scotland suggested that awareness of helpline may be low because some concerns might be normalised low-level or regular currencies, and some staff may not feel that their concerns were not a full-scale referral. I wonder what your views are on those observations, and how do you think that that reflects on the current mechanism? I will bring my sodgers in in a second. First of all, to be simple about it, there is no such thing in my world as low-level bullying. It should not happen ever at all anywhere. If there is a sense that something like that is being normalized, then that is utterly fundamentally wrong. If there is a culture in a place where certain things are tolerated, my view is very clearly what you permit you promote. If I as a leader and manager permit something to happen, in effect, I am promoting it. Again, I would regard that as wrong. We greatly value the partnership relationships and arrangements that we have with trade unions, such as Unison, and we work with them to ensure that awareness is raised. Where people have what might seem to be low-level concerns, there is still scope to raise them, because there is very clear evidence that where the workforce is engaged and feeling valued, they will deliver better. There is an absolute line of sight between an engaged workforce that feels valued and the care that we provide to people. However, Ms Rogers could say more. Our intent is that the right thing happens the first time. The quicker a resolution of a matter happens, the better. If it is the case that what Unison is alluding to is something of a relatively modest nature, which is raised and resolved and therefore not reported, then there is an issue about reporting. However, what we want to have happen is that the right thing happens the first time. There are instances, and we have had conversations with RCN, Unison and Unite, where they have been able to give examples of individuals who have raised concerns and had those concerns immediately addressed by their line manager. That has happened and has been resolved and we move on. It is important that we are aware of those things, because, again, coming back to the point that the DG was making, we need to be aware of issues when they are arising and be able to fix them. We want boards to be responsive at every level of leadership within the organisation. If somebody is raising something that says, I need x and they get x, then that is helpful. We need to reinforce that every opportunity is the standards that are expected to apply both in terms of our relationship with the boards and the boards' relationships with their employees. The standards of conduct, behaviour and on the rest of it, which are expected, and those are reciprocal things. They are not what we expect of employees. It is also about what employees can expect of the organisation that employs them. We do want to hear about every instance where I could not agree more with the DG. I do not think that there is low-level bullying. I think that you are either bullied or you cannot be a bit pregnant. If something bad is happening to you in that space, then we need to be able to respond to that quickly. The way that boards can respond to that quickly is by matters being safely and appropriately brought to people's attention and resolved. If I could go back to the issue of confidence, when we took evidence from the City of Edinburgh Council, they provided a positive impression of their independent external hotline facility and suggested that anecdotal evidence and feedback demonstrated good confidence and trust in that particular system. To the extent that, prior to the introduction of the council hotline, they had received three public interest disclosures over an eight-year period. By comparison, since the hotline was established in 2014, it received 53 calls, 11 of which resulted in major investigations. That clearly indicates a sense of confidence in that particular independent external hotline. I would be interested to hear your views on that. I will ask Ms Rogers to come in in a second. There are just a couple of things to say. For example, there are a number of reports by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which have been published as a result of issues raised through the opportunities that people have. I think that there is evidence that not only those issues are listened to but that they are taken seriously. Secondly, we have different arrangements for reporting fraud, for example. That would not come through this hotline. I am not saying that someone who was concerned about it could not contact the hotline, of course they could, but there are other arrangements for reporting fraud. It may be that some of the issues that were seeded in Edinburgh were slightly differently dealt with, but Ms Rogers can come up with more detail on that. I think that that point is very valid. I think that the whistleblowing helpline, and we are learning about that as we go. I have already made a comment previously that we will review the effectiveness as we go forward in the next contracting round around a whistleblowing helpline, but it is one of a range of remedies. The NHS has a number of policies and procedures, pain guidelines, internal grievance procedures and NHS counter fraud services, as the DG has alluded to. To date, Health Improvement Scotland has looked at nine specific cases of potential concern for them as they are rising from PICOR from that line. They have been able to put some fairly substantial weight behind some of those investigations to make sure that there is an appropriate conclusion and the remedy of concerns where they have been raised. But it is not finished yet. It is one of a range of remedies that we are developing as we go. We believe that there is some considerable menace in pursuing the independent national officer role. We are intending to pursue that. A previous question was how confident are we that we will do that. It is our intention that we will have a proposition for parliamentary consideration in reasonable order of time. We are hoping to be in a position to consult by the autumn. We understand the additional assurance that might be given by that independent national officer role. I want to ask you if you are aware of concerns about the culture of fear within the NHS. Fear of whistleblowing in case that person would be penalised. I wanted to ask your thoughts on that and if you considered any other sort of mode of ways of people bringing forward a complaint other than whistleblowing. I will start and then Shirley Rogers will follow on. It was one of the reasons that I decided that it was appropriate to speak to the press about this. There was an article in the Herald and reported elsewhere in September of last year. Because I believe that as chief executive of the national health service in Scotland I need to set the tone for our behaviour and I wanted to make it clear that from my perspective there is no place in which people should be inhibited through fear from raising concerns. Clearly I did that because I recognised that in some places there was some fear. I wouldn't have done it if I had thought that there was nothing to fix. I am accepting that that can happen. Sometimes the fear is well founded. In other words, people have had bad experiences in the past and that has caused them to think that they might have a bad experience again. Sometimes it is not very well founded in that it is just a vague fear that if I do something or say something, something bad might happen. In either case I want to continue to work with people through the partnership arrangements that we have to ensure that people can, without fear, raise concerns. That is why in response to Mr Whittle's question I am pressing so hard on this issue of transparency. Even at a very basic level if there is a way to do something that is clear and understood, that is a lot easier than having to work out what to do. My soldiers will be able to speak eloquently about pin guidelines and their in place. My point is that there needs to be something that is locally visible that says, if I have a concern, that is how I raise it. If you have already got a concern, then having to work out what to do next with it is an inhibition in itself. I am seeking to set that standard. I am seeking to be clear that bullying and harassment in any form whatsoever has no place anywhere in the national health service. Have I got it completely fixed? No, I have not. You said that some of the fears were well founded. What action do you take when you know that that has happened? Let me give you an example. Obviously I cannot talk about individual cases but this example is sufficiently anonymous that I believe it could be usable. An MSP approached me on behalf of a constituent and put before me some documentation about that constituent's experience. I read that documentation and I gave it to Sirly Rogers, director of workforce and to Fiona McQueen, the chief nursing officer. Between them, they engaged with the health board in question and with the nurse director in question. As a result of that, the person's concerns were taken up and addressed appropriately. What I am saying to you very explicitly is that up to that point, they had not been. That person was not treated respectfully, their concerns were not heard properly and there were many factors. There are always two sides to every story but the basic bottom line was that person's concerns were not properly heard and when they were, the situation was resolved satisfactorily. No, what that resulted in was that some issues that this member of staff had been experiencing as in relation to their ability to perform their work effectively, those issues were not being treated as trivial and secondary and were treated as issues which ought to be addressed and resolved and there was also appropriate professional development and training put in place in that area so that staff generally could understand the appropriate way to deal with these issues and the appropriate way to listen to concerns as they were raised. If I might just add to that in a number of ways, I have personally been involved in issues where remedial action has resulted in disciplinary action on a range from guidance to dismissal. But if I might just talk a bit more broadly about the culture of fear question, so I have been an NHS manager for well over 20 years and all of that time in NHS Scotland. NHS Scotland is a big place, 136,000 people, 22 health boards across our geography. I think when we describe culture it's very difficult for us to make a sweeping statement around any of that so the culture in South Glasgow is not the same as the culture in North Glasgow, never mind the culture in Glasgow versus the culture in Orkney. So I think one of the things that we need to be is culturally intelligent and sensitive to the circumstances around. That said we have been very clear about the standards that we expect to see in NHS Scotland. We have an internationally regarded workforce strategy, the first of only five elements of that strategy are our own culture and values, how we behave to each other in a modern workplace that is supportive of people who have a right to expect to be treated in a particular way in the way that we work. We review all of our policies, our employment policies in light of the everyone matter strategy and in light of those values and behaviours and we do learn from the experiences of individuals who come and talk to us about their experiences. Over the last year we've been focusing particularly around leadership and management development activity. As committee members will be aware leadership and management development has been an issue for the NHS in Scotland. We had a target to reduce managerial costs where we could and at the same time as we've been doing that we've been very successful in reducing managerial costs. We've also been working very hard about improving the level of managerial and leadership behaviours and the quality of that input. We've been doing a lot in that space but we've also listened to other voices. So we've had trade union representatives, experts in this fields and a variety of others come and share with us their experiences of how they are managed within the NHS and we've learnt from that. Indeed I've shared the platform in a number of different forums with organisations and individuals from royal colleges to organisations such as Stonewall and various others about how we create the kind of environment or support the kind of environment which at its best I think is world class but is not at its best everywhere. So we've been doing a lot in that space. You'll have seen from evidence produced that we've also been investing around the board table in terms of understanding at a governance level about boards responsibilities in this regard and we've introduced the concept of board champions in some places that's landed extremely well in other places there's still more work to do to make sure that people are confident about those roles. We have more to do in terms of telling the successful stories as well. So if we're serious about shifting culture then we need to have some messages where we're able to demonstrate that people have raised concerns and those concerns have been appropriately and satisfactorily addressed and we've got some examples of that. We're just not as complete yet in how we're able to talk about those things in a way that gives people confidence around it. I'm not going to talk to this committee. I'm sure you will be more than well aware of the I don't feel the need to talk to you about what it takes to be a learning organisation. But all of the evidence about how you create and support and develop learning organisations is that you fundamentally change the relationship that you have with your staff in the area of blame. That's really where our efforts are targeted. So when we're talking about the alert line, when we're talking about our champions, when we're talking about our pen pulses and procedures, when we're talking about the INO, we recognise that in order to shift that culture it will take a number of initiatives working together to make sure that we've always got the response that our workforce deserve. Can I turn now to the new concept, the integrated joint boards, which, as Mr Gray knows, I've a bit of experience about? How would you address the concerns expressed by Tim Hiddleston of Unison Scotland on this issue, in that integrated joint boards create issues of whistleblowers knowing who to approach as local councils and health boards have vastly different terms of conditions and policies? If you are an employee of the NHS of NHS Scotland, then you can and should still use the policies that your employer has. Similarly, I can't obviously speak for local authorities, but similarly I would expect local authorities to do the same, local authority staff to do the same rather. Clearly, as integration proceeds, people are working very closely together and an incident may become known to two people, one of whom works for one employer and one for another. I accept that that might be something that they would need to think about, but the route for any employee as an individual remains unchanged by their working within an integration partnership. Can I build on that? Mr Gray is entirely right when he talks about the fact that, if you are an NHS Scotland employee, you continue to enjoy and be subject to NHS terms and conditions. Similarly, if you come at it from a local authority perspective, the reality is that, for most people, their experiences of what happens when things go wrong are determined by the first response they get. If they raise a concern, we need people to be more confident than simply saying what terms and conditions are you subject to. We are working very carefully with the chief officers to make sure that each—you will be aware of this with the background that you have—some of them have come from local authority backgrounds, some of them from the NHS and some elsewhere. We are working very carefully with the chief officers to make sure that they all have an understanding of the terms and conditions that pertain so that their first response to things can be something that is appropriate and supportive. Can I ask supplementary to that, Chair? Obviously, I understand fully that the employers have this issue between local authority contracts and NHS contracts. Do you feel that that has some bearing on the current position and confusion and the lack of people coming forward? I do not have evidence to suggest that, but it is very difficult to say that something is not so. What I can say is that, early on in the establishment of the integration partnerships, I was asked at an annual review of an NHS board by the partnership forum if I would not simply impose the partnership arrangements that apply in the NHS to the integration partnerships. I said that I would not do so because, in fact, imposing arrangements on anybody is not a good way to get them to accept them or benefit from them. However, what we are finding in a number of partnerships is that the type of partnership arrangements that we have in the NHS are being drawn forward into the integrated joint boards. I genuinely welcome that, because if people can have access to one set of partnership arrangements when they are at work, I think that that is of benefit. However, I remain of the view that imposing things on people who work for other employers is not the way to gain their confidence. Can I just quickly drill down a bit? Is this lack of you imposing it? I am not saying that you should, and I understand fully, Mr Gray, where you are coming from, not leading a confusion and therefore denigrating the reporting system? No, I think the opposite, because there is not a circumstance in which any employee, regardless of whether it is from a local authority or a health board or, indeed, one of our third sector partners, can't raise a concern. It is not that there is a by not having the NHS partnership arrangements in place, they cannot raise a concern. I think that I would be more likely to damage the prospects of people having confidence in their arrangements if I were to impose them than if we did it by proper negotiation. A couple of issues about how we have been seeking to influence in that space, because you will understand, and committee members will understand, that it is not just a matter of the employees being the local authority and the NHS, but there are also third sector, independent sector and all sorts of other people who get involved in that space. Two things that I think might be of use for the committee to have an understanding of, the first is the NHS methodology for looking at employees' experience at work is something called iMatter. iMatter was something that was developed in concert with an academic institution in that instance, the University of Dundee, and it's essentially a piece of self-diagnostic and team diagnostic work about how people are experiencing their life at work. It's held in high regard. It's been rolled out to good effect across the NHS in Scotland. We've been able to share that with partners across the IJB landscape, and we've now got a large number of IJBs who are undertaking the same methodology, and indeed four local authorities in Scotland who are in discussion with us about how they might use that across the whole of their local authority workforce. That's been quite a useful tool. The other thing that might be helpful for the committee to appreciate is that, from before we enacted the IJB landscape, we started a process called the HR working group, which is essentially looking at the HR implications of an integrated service delivery using employees from different organisations. The HR working group, which is something that I've previously chaired, is something that has been looking at these particular issues and seeking to share experience and share methodologies, because I think that we'd also be the first to acknowledge that the NHS is not necessarily the best at everything, so we've shared methodologies around job evaluation, we've shared methodologies about workforce planning and, indeed, we've looked at things like staff surveys, taking the temperature, whistleblowing and various other bits and pieces. That's fine, thank you, Joe. That's very much for that, unless there are any final questions. I thank you very much for your evidence today. I think that we found that very useful. We have to now decide what action we want to take on the petition. There has been a suggestion that we refer it to the health and sports committee on the basis that they are having an inquiry on NHS governance, creating a culture of improvement, and it would seem that this conversation, this discussion around whistleblowing, would come to a foot into that. Would that be agreed? I think that that would be a little bit too much for me, so we'd be referring it to the health and sports committee under rule 15.6.2, which would mean that it wouldn't come back to the committee, but I think that we have probably come to the end of our consideration of it. Again, the evidence from this session and other sessions would be provided to the health and care committee. Is there anything else that people would suggest? No? In that case, if that is agreed, I thank you again for your attendance today. I really appreciate the time that you have taken to meet with the committee and the way in which you have answered very thoroughly the questions that we have raised with you. I thank you for your attendance, and I am going to just bend briefly for a change over our witnesses. If we can call meeting back to order again. We now move to agenda item 2 on new petitions, and we are taking evidence today on petition 161 by Maureen McVey on child welfare hearings. The first new petition that we will consider today is petition 161 by Maureen McVey on child welfare hearings. We are joined this morning by Maureen and June Loudon, the secretary of grandparents, as well as Scott McVey. I welcome you to this meeting and I invite Maureen to make an opening statement of not more than five minutes, and after that we will get the opportunity to ask some questions. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank the Public Permissions Committee for giving me the opportunity to discuss my petition. I am calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the laws that govern the recording of discussions at child welfare hearings, so that presiding sheriffs have access to such records. My petition is also under the auspices of grandparents, a part of which I am a member, who at their heart want what is best for our children involved in family disputes. Although the child welfare system has its merits, the recording of same would benefit all users. I do not mean to say anything in this regard, but I do not know if everybody knows that a child welfare hearing is different from a child children's hearing, and our comments are on the child welfare hearing. We have seen within grandparents families affected by how the child welfare hearing system works and how others have been affected by the experience of the same. We see how it could be improved for children and reduce the time for costs for the benefit of all concerned, and it is important to note that only 2 per cent of contact cases go to a court system. It is evident that changes are progressing with the Scottish justice system, and that is positive, and as is, changes take time. Grandparents, partners and members welcome change. My petition for a minute recording within the child welfare hearing should be a part of this change. Presently there is no method of documenting what is being discussed at child welfare hearings. Here are a few examples of where court costs, court time and children would benefit from recording of child welfare hearings. In many cases what has been discussed during a previous child welfare hearing becomes an issue for the sheriff, and he or she then has to again discuss the points with the relevant parent. If many did a recording the information would be available. Also without recording there could be a pattern of false information presented or of instructive behaviour which can continue unchecked. The sheriff may note that one parent has been instructive and this behaviour encroaches in the court's time. It is suggested that by the sheriff there will be serious repercussions if that happens. Sadly, in our experience, this behaviour is allowed to continue when a falling hearing, a different sheriff, is unaware of what has taken place at the previous hearing. If many did a recording the information would be available for the sheriff. A parent's legal team, as another example, tries to discredit the other parent on erroneous information provided by their client, and the presending sheriff informs their legal representative the duty of care to their client. The next child welfare hearing has a new legal representative and a new sheriff, unaware of what has gone on before, and again if there is a note of this, this would promote experience and it would not take so long for the child welfare hearing to continue. A legal aid aid parent who has been granted a motion fails to turn up court and the legal rep is laid, then deviates from the motion. That would be highlighted in the minutes. A pattern of instructive behaviour in the past should be shown by minutes of the recording as well. As the UN convention writes of the child article 3 says, all this is done in the child's best interest, to have the best system possible. A client moves from one sheriff to another and the only available information the sheriff has is re-contact via the interlocutor, which is the only thing that he gets after a child welfare hearing. The new sheriff has to elicit why the person has moved court and what the circumstances are. The new legal rep is taking up valuable time that can be used to discuss contact issues. Again, a pattern of instructive behaviour should be shown by minutes of recordings. Each of those examples has a detrimental effect in court time, court course but most importantly the child. As decisions are delayed it increases legal costs for parents which can have a ripple effect on children. Both legal aid and self-funding, some of our members have experienced such scenarios. I keep saying that the minutes of recording and highlighting what has been discussed are really an impressive way forward, I would think, to let people know what has gone before. I was informed by Mrs Anne Hampson, maybe some of you know Anne, policy officer for Scottish Civil Justice Council in January 26, that the SCJC family law committee are actively considering case management in share of courts, family cases and will shortly consider the findings. In speaking with David Ross just the other day there, who is the president secretary of the family law committee, he informed me that they are moving forward with this. There are many bit departments within the justice system that are looking to move forward and bring initivist practices to our legal system in Scotland and this all takes time. I do hope that all these departments will continue to enhance the court system to come to its best practice within all forms of law and especially in the family law field of which child wheel fairing is a part. I know that any change to civil court procedures requires a policy decision by the Scottish Government and a subsequent change in legislation. As Lord Gill and the president Lord Carlawys wishes for a fairer and effective justice system are taken forward, I do hope that the review will look at using digital innovations within the child wheel fair hearing system to better support children and families. Thank you very much for that and I appreciate that explanation. Is it my understanding of what you say that a child wheel fair hearing can take place and there's basically no evidence of what was discussed in that or what would be the evidence? What would the sheriff have? We just a note that the meeting took place? Yes, it's just a piece of paper which they call the interlocutor and it only discusses the decision made by the sheriff on contact. You know this person gets so many days, you know that one parent gets so many days and one parent another. There is, if someone asks, a note can be appended to the interlocutor if someone asks for it but that's not normal practice, it's not always done. So the only thing that has been discussed at the child wheel fair hearings, whatever's been discussed is not mentioned really in this piece of paper, it's just what the contact is, the time and all the rest of it. So there's no patterns of behaviour or perhaps could be receivers blocking things that exist at all? No, nothing at all. Do you know if there are other types of hearings such as tribunal hearings which are routinely minuted or recorded, is it unusual that the child wheel fair hearing is different from other tribunals or is this the norm? I think it's different. It's heard in a closed court and it's only the parents and the legal representatives in the sheriff that are present. There's nobody else there, that's all that's there. The children's hearings are slightly different, they're held somewhere else before and there's a table with everyone there and I would assume that they are minuted but I'm not certain but I'm not aware of anywhere else that doesn't minut things. And it's in a closed court because it's dealing with a child. Correct, I think that's my understanding, yes. Just on your last point there, I'm a former children's panel member so the children's reporter sits and takes a note of everything that's happening and after each hearing all our notes are written up thoroughly so there's always a record. So I'm really surprised to hear what you're saying today, I have to say that. So how would you envisage it being recorded? What method would you think video, audio, what would you? Well, it really, I mean, I would think just recorded, you know, just IT, you know, just recording it. So an audio-digital recording? Yes, an audio-digital recording. I don't know whether it would be more beneficial to have it videoed but I know that there was a case by the Lord Gill had mentioned and there was a dispute that was slightly different in Melbourne and it was, they did video Lincoln-type thing to Melbourne that was in about an adoption case so he suggests if you can do it in Melbourne you surely can do that in Scotland, you know, record and you know, have that type of thing but that was sheet, that was a video-type link. In your sort of experience and dealings with court staff, have you ever heard any of them mention anything around that that it would be good to have a record or, you know, has anyone commented to you or has it just accepted practice that it doesn't happen? I think it's just accepted practice. I know that our members that we have in Grand Pience Apart mention it but however I've never heard them doing the legal profession or anyone in court mention it at all, no? Okay, thank you. Back to the point you made earlier about somebody can make a request for a note to be attached to an interlocutor, who would that be? Well, I think June could speak in this because you had experience in that didn't you with one of the members? It's really, if they have a particular concern they can ask for it to be noted but if they don't ask for it to be noted, if they don't know who to ask for it to be noted then it's not and it just bypasses whoever is new to the next child hearing and they constantly go over the same information again wasting time for the point of the meeting. It's just it's a cost thing, a time thing and it delays any decisions that are made about the child. Okay, thanks very much Brian Whittle. Good morning. Why do you think child we have for your hearings are not currently monitored or recorded? I think it's probably the confidentiality thing. I'm not sure. The answer is I'm not sure but I would think it would probably be the confidentiality thing and the sheriff does well sometimes the sheriff's don't, it depends, take the views of both parents but I don't know why I don't know why. I think it is mainly maybe a confidentiality thing but I think nowadays in this modern age we can you know either you know you just don't use the name in recording or if it's you know recorded in minutes and paper you don't redact it so I don't see why you know that that should put a stop to it just the confidentiality thing and the data protection type thing. Can I ask a supplement? Are you calling for it to be publicly available or just available within the judicial system? The minutes of the meeting? No probably just within the court system although I don't know just in the court system. So that the sheriff is aware of I mean in some cases some of our you know people and grandparents apart have had five and six different sheriffs each time they go to the sheriff court so the one sheriff that has been taking the case doesn't know what's happened before apart from the interlocutor or maybe they do write some notes but you know that's where I'm not party to that but as far as I'm aware it's just the interlocutor and I know that in a case where a family moved, the sheriff had no explanation you know previously of what had happened or nothing in front of him to say oh this you know so that I think is really would be helpful to sheriffs helpful all round to be open and transparent thank you andis mcdonald thanks community morning your petition notes that the sheriff court ordinary cause rules address issues of confidentiality and I was just wondering if you could explain a bit more about what confidentiality issues may arise as a result of the action that you're seeking I think the confidentiality is if a child as they go older maybe I don't you don't know what's going to happen in the future with these contact cases to go in for so long and I wonder if the reason is for this that in the future the child maybe wants to discover what happened when they were younger and request you know notes of the case then obviously they could see what happened so I'm not 100 percent certain in that one but I think that was the basis of that okay and after you'd raised that the scjc suggested that you should seek an update from the Scottish government had you did you do that I did that for speaking to David Ross okay yeah I spoke to him and he said because I couldn't see it in the minutes on their on their web page I couldn't see it so I contacted who I thought it was the secretary at and was informed it was now David and he said to me they were discussing the child welfare it's only it's only it's second phase just now and he said he would send me a copy but that was only yesterday so I haven't received it yet okay thanks good morning ladies and gentlemen with reference to your comments on confidentiality which we've discussed in just the last few minutes could you explain a bit more about how you who you think should be able to access the meeting records I think really just the sheriff that's in front of the case really just to access the records really because or you mean access the records to provide them with information yeah yeah I just think it should be the sheriff or I mean that's all I was thinking just so he's aware of things that are happening but it could be that maybe the lawyer's continuation but I don't think it should be common knowledge you know common knowledge as such you know because I would think that that's not so the confidentiality at that level yeah do you agree with that yeah it's just to to really enhance the process speed it up and make it easier for everybody concerned with it yeah and so it would reduce the repetition and lack of awareness yeah what do you think yeah it's purely for continuity to assist the chefs and making the appropriate decision it's also to stop the kind of ground hog day that that happens when you go to child welfare hearings that you go over the same same accusations and stuff that are put against you where it's already been dealt with by a previous sheriff and it just delays the process and it's costly for the courts and also it does not help the children get the correct decision to be made thank you John yeah I'm wondering is the issue then that there's not a proper picture of what's already been an argument before so that the sheriff comes to it and perhaps the same story is told which has already been rebutted earlier on so it's both unnecessarily delaying things in terms of getting an outcome for the young person but also perhaps there's no record the frustration of maybe somebody's argued the same line before which has been proven to be a nonsense but you have to start again it's almost like a it can be used as an intentional delaying tactic to get to reach a decision okay and isn't it I mean this is not maybe directly related to this but there is a question about in contact cases where if contact has not been maintained over a period of time and that the effort is broken if there is a delay then it becomes an issue is it in the interest of the child to try and re-establish a relationship is that sometimes why that delay is used that's right yeah because the longer the delay goes on the harder it makes it for parenting child to re-establish a relationship so obviously if one party or another wants to prevent that contact it can be used through this system to do that and to prevent the contact delay the contact and make it harder for the parents to have a relationship maintain a relationship or re-establish that relationship so the fact that there isn't a record of the meeting actually creates an incentive to delay because you can then keep repeating the same issue with the consequence that it's not the end of contact it's then much more difficult so it's more than just simply the information it's actually perhaps an active strategy for some yes yes that your suggestion is that this would deal with that hopefully yeah okay make it easier for for courts as well and then reduce costs greatly has there been any conversation with sheriffs about the sheriffs you know about whether they have a view on this no but i contacted quite a few of the agencies to find out what the you know the process was but you know i haven't spoken personally to a sheriff but law society and various people that have spoken to it can i just finally ask i know that or understand you're connected with grandparents apart UK and that organization attend the Scottish Government stakeholder summit on the forthcoming family justice modernisation strategy last october do you know whether your concerns about child welfare hearings were raised at that meeting yes yes they were join can speak to it weren't they they're not raised what was the meeting that you were raised i don't think they were raised specifically it was it was brought up what was the meeting it was brought up as a as a way of it was connected with the non non-compliance with court orders and just the recording of things was brought up as a potential for assisting with that sort of avenue as well okay just by creating the picture for on-going court appearances and such like it was just it's just part of the bigger picture of the improvements that really need to be made to speed up the process for the benefit of the courts and the benefit of the family okay i think there was a meeting in which yourself was present in other organizations and it's actually online okay and it did comment on the yeah and it's at the child welfare yeah okay i haven't got that to hand at the moment sorry no well we can we can have a look at that as well are there any further questions no okay can i thank you very much for that evidence i think people would agree there is an issue here it would be interesting to know why they're not recorded it's unusual what the view of the people who are managing the process the sheriffs and others are on this is it you know is there something about if you record it you then have to test it for proof i don't know these are these i think there is an argument if people are using the fact that there's not these questions are not being recorded as a means of further delay and we create an incentive in the system for that i think we would be anxious about that good suggestions what we might do certain logic to what's been said here obviously and i think we're quite interested to to maybe understand from the Scottish Court into a meal service and such such Scottish children's important administrations and others what their views are on this as to a reason why why they're not recorded yep government if and also if it's going to be included in the family justice modernization strategy but i think it's also important to write to the various court system courts and tribunal service and the children's reporter and the Scottish child law centre sheriffs association all these bodies that would be connected with us to find out their view on what's been said and and try and elicit some information seems there's a compelling case but there may be an equally there is a case that we haven't heard at what the other side of it would be the children young people's commissioners scotland might be another person to go to okay i think there's quite a wee bit of having to there and obviously you know the children's organisations and others that may have an interest to and that will certainly give us some information you can reflect further on the case that you've been made if there is nothing else can i thank you very much for your attendance we really appreciate you taking time to give us evidence in your petition and can i suspend briefly to allow witnesses to leave the table before we consider the next petition thank you bring the meeting back to order we're now going to deal with petition 1632 by Amanda MacDonald on concession of transport for carers so the second new petition we're considering today is petition 1632 by Amanda MacDonald on concession of transport for carers members have a note by the clerk and a spice briefing the petition is calling for a free concession to transport for carers the petitioner highlights the financial difficulties faced by many carers the limits placed on social life and the impact this has on mental health members will see from the spice briefing that there are an estimated 759 thousand adult carers age 16 and over in scotland and 29 000 carers under the age of 16 the spice briefing also explains that the existing concession travel scheme in scotland is available to people age 16 over anti-disabled people there is of course provision in scotland for so-called companion cards which can be used by eligible companions when they are assisting a person who is eligible for concessionary travel the companion cards can be used for journeys that commence and terminate at the same locations as the eligible persons being assisted and i wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action to take on this petition i think chair if i could the attended a sort of young carers event last year of which the opportunity and a sub-around table discussion and one of the things that was highlighted is that they have to pay out of their own pocket for example if they have to go down and collect a prescription because they have to go on the bus and collect a prescription or if they that sort of working working for the carer for the person that being cared for and it seems to me that in those circumstances having free transport would be a logical step to have now understand we can't be really difficult to apply that across the whole of the care system but in those circumstances it seems logical to me and not costly to allow them free transport would there be an issue about identification of who those carers would be mean there are some carers we know who have to give up work in order to look after the person they're caring for so they're actually in a position that they're on financial and emotional wellbeing is affected by being a carer but i don't and we know that some young people are you know taken on a caring role but is there an issue about identification i think i think there is an additional identification but i don't think that it negates the real real life issues around those who have this problem i think you know the issue of identification shouldn't prevent us from looking at this especially on a young carers if you're sitting on a if you're sitting on on a welfare payment to be able to to have to pay out you know a few pounds here and there every time you have to go and pick up a prescription or you know go with with the person you're cared for it shouldn't it shouldn't the impact on that i don't think okay any other views rona just i noticed that in 2015 the transport minister at the time derrick mckay you know stated the fact that there are there are over 153,000 car holders age 16 to 18 and young full-time volunteers up to the age of 25 who are entitled to concessionary bus and rail travel throughout scotland you know that's quite an important i'm not saying it means we shouldn't inquire again to see what's going up on the situation on young carers generally or carers generally but that's you know quite a robust response from from him two years ago i mean i think it's worth being reminded the scottish government has made a commitment to increase the award of carers allowance to the same rate as job seekers allowance but that said you know if that extra money was just to go on on bus fares then it wouldn't be long before it was used up so clearly there's a strong argument here which which we should put to the government to see that view i come in yeah i think i i think yes i agree what tangos are saying that but i think we're looking at impact on local authorities and therefore where this is coming from because you know bus passes are paying to come out of the local authority budget and therefore it's an impact so i think we're going to have to include cos learn this discussion and i know it's on the recommendations i certainly support that because there are things again we were talking about morality in different places where different distances and things of that i think this is very much a more local issue as well so we need to include that so i think we want to contact the scottish government cosler i'm also issued i know we know from our notes that enable has been highlighting the issue of round concession of travel people would learn disabilities and where that actually lies you know what the distinctions between it depends on what level of disability allowance you're entitled to so there's quite a lot of complexity here so i suppose we're interested in initial cuts on what these organisations think about this would this be a priority um i think it would also be worth meeting inform with the petitioner to discuss that's what what was the motive behind the petition and maybe to get a better understanding from their point of view of what what they believe that this petition would address what is the need that has been addressed and i think that Brian has identified some of that and we should i think probably be writing to the carers organisation i mean carers UK but there are also Scottish based organisations that might have a view at the carers coalition and so on might have a view to angus if we are writing to the scottish government i'm just wondering if it might be hopefully not presumptuous to ask them to give a costing given that the the number is estimated at seven hundred and fifty nine thousand adult carers over sixteen and twenty nine thousand under sixteen if they could have a rough costing of of the impact that would be helpful okay i think what we're seeing is this is an interesting petition want to explore further both the motives for it what is intake what's attended to address and whether it's you know being addressed in other ways in other in other places we're getting down to the realms of i jb's as well because this is going to impact on that so i think there is a really even the NHS of also there's a compendium of organisations before we can come to a decision on this and some of it is around transport and access to transport as well so it's like this whole it's a whole number of issues that we're obviously been flagging up in other places so if we're agreeing we write to the scottish government to causula to the carers organization and we will agree to meet with the petitioner to have an opportunity to get their perspective is that agreed okay if we can then move on to agenda item three and continued petitions fittingly on world book day petition 1581 by Duncan Wright on behalf of safe scotton school libraries on saving scotton school libraries so this petition was lodged by Duncan right on behalf of safe scotton schools libraries since the last consideration of this petition we've received submissions from causula and the petitioners from those responses it appears as though there is contrasting evidence about the accessibility and availability of e reading materials causula says that an increased use of technology allows children to access a wide range of reading materials while the petitioners claim that their evidence suggests that the take-up is low they claim this can be due to costs licensing restrictions and wi-fi availability in schools the causula submission broadly acknowledges the benefits of the action called for in the petition but considers that these should be weighed against other factors including the benefits from other areas of educational provision the potential strain placed in other areas of local authority services and quote the erosion of local democracy by undermining the role of local authority councils in making budget decisions the petitioners suggest that having a national strategy will ensure the positive impact a professional staff school library can have on attainment and curriculum delivery they add that there is perhaps a lack of knowledge about what a modern library school modern school library story and librarian can offer and i wonder if members have any views on what action we can take on this petition that with the cab secretary i think i think i mean a given the cabinet secretary's already agreed to appear in front of this committee to give evidence on another petition it would be opportun to ask him to give evidence on this one as well so when we have these decisions to make i have to declare an interest but i think it has to go to that level from my experience this is an issue for all local authorities and so i think we need to generate it to a higher level to the cabinet secretary i was going to suggest you know writing to the cabinet secretary's for his view rather than invite him here but as you pointed out if he's coming to committee anyway maybe we could do it at the same time yeah it is not till later in April so maybe writing would be we can write and flag up the issues do you think that i suppose what it seems to you what the petitioner is suggesting is local authorities making decisions in the context of constraints the budgets do they properly understand the importance of a librarian and a professional librarian in a school when you know people can access information in loads of other ways now many years ago while i was still a school teacher in the school librarian was really important i suspect a librarian won't look or sound the same now as it did then given that in the past you would go to the library to get information which you can now get off your phone but at the same time are local authorities understanding properly i think the case being made by the petitioner that there is an added value there maybe not appreciating and that's really what we might want to explore further both with the cabinet secretary and what advice and guidance has been given to local authorities it feels a bit like the petitioner suggesting that in times of constraint the library is a luxury whereas i think for librarians and those who really understand the system is it actually it actively encourages in terms of closing the attainment gaps i think these are the questions we want to explore i mean there is a wider issue of libraries closing because not enough people are using them i'm not saying that they should in any way but that that seems to be happening out with schools i think asking the cabinet secretary for his view would be the way to go initially okay i mean we have got a session with the cabinet secretary of education on a whole number of issues so it would be a kind of a multi-purpose attendance would be quite useful libraries are wonderful wonderful places okay so i think we're agreed that we'd recognise issues are important what is the information advice local authorities have in a sense of the importance of libraries and we're an opportunity to explore that with the cabinet secretary okay if we can then move on the next petition is petition one six zero zero by john Chapman on speed awareness courses in december we agreed to write to the department for transport for an update on its timescale for publishing its report on its three year evaluation of speed awareness courses on the basis of deferring consideration of this petition until that report was published we also agreed to write to the Scottish government the department of transport has indicated that its final report won't be presented to the project board until the middle of this year an announcement in publication will be made after that it's difficult to interpret precisely how long that may be but it could be up to nine months from now before any findings are published the petitioner feels that the department for transport are quote dragging their feet in this issue the submission from transport scotland is a little more encouraging it confirms that in december in september 2016 the speed awareness course steering group advised the strategic partnership board that the introduction of speed awareness courses in scotland would be worthy of a trial it notes that police scotland was to develop a full options proposal which will be discussed at the strategic partnership board meeting on 22 march it was also noted that any pilot of such courses in scotland should be supported by ongoing evaluation and assessment as data becomes available can invite members views and actions to take on the petition if anybody has any comments so we've heard you know till the petition has reported back in 20 later this year so we're waiting for the department for transport but is there something we can do in relation to the Scottish government in the meantime we can ask for an update strategic partnership board to establish action that might be taken or in the absence of progress i think is probably where the petition is coming from here and we'll be pushed to the department of transport on that one so we can write to the Scottish government to ask them for an update following the strategic partnership board meeting in march and ask what action it's going to take to establish a trial and perhaps we can ask the department for transport to keep us advised when they're actually going to move on this question although i think i don't know what the difficulty is i don't know what the problem is either from the department of transport or from the Scottish government it does feel to me to be eminently sensible that if we can do stuff to address the question of speed awareness then we should be doing so i think that's been adverse in the on the television recently i think it's a public awareness campaign just now but i'm not sure who it's by and that is obviously encouraging but it just doesn't feel to me as if this would involve anything horribly complex or complicated to say we should do something in this so i think we can maybe raise that with the the Scottish government say that we do think it's something that is important um and we would like to have some sense of direction around it if not urgency is that agreed yes agreed here okay so um i think we can agree to write to Scottish government and perhaps just to ask the department for transport to keep us informed but i think we do agree with the petitioner that this is something we'd be moving it a bit more of a pace okay if we can then move to petition 1603 by mary camberjack and douglas beattie on behalf of quakers in scotland and forces watch on ensuring greater scrutiny guidance and consultation and armed forces visits to schools in scotland this petition calls for greater scrutiny and armed forces visits to schools in scotland we've received a number of submissions since we last considered this petition most of which express support for the action called for in the petition the submissions we have received come from a range of organisations representing areas including children's rights faith communities in scotland the scientific community and parents of school age children we've also received a response from the minister of defence which provides some information about activities in schools and makes the offer of a briefing for the committee skills development scotland has also provided submission outlining how they work with the armed forces what members views and how they what actually may wish to take on this petition well i'm on record as supporting this petition and you know i'd be interested in hearing from the cabinet secretary for education or or a minister and from cosla because it's obviously relates to schools and local authority control over schools the submissions i mean there's that there's a a large amount of submissions who who agree with the petitioner the eis the national union students the scottish parent teachers council so i think it's it's definitely one we should take forward to to get more information from decision makers and to take it forward it's it's a big issue and i think it has to be it has to be looked into thoroughly yeah so we we set the offer of a briefing from the ministry of defence and also maybe ask for the senior officers from each of the services to come forward if we feel the briefing is not not detailed enough or come up to the standard we want and that that's a fullback okay is that agreed so we would want to hear from the cabinet secretary and from cosla we would want to accept the offer of a briefing from the ministry of defence and that i think at this initial stage we are recognising the very strong views that have been expressed by people who responded to this but also that you know i think that the perhaps there's some folk who think is appropriate for the armed force to come in at all but actually the petitioner is just simply saying there should be guidance and it should be transparent and i think this is the question that we want to explore but i think we we would want to acknowledge and and thank all of those who responded to the petition and given us further information okay if that case if that's agreed we can move on to petition 1604 by Catherine Matheson on inquests for all deaths by suicide in scotland the next continued petition on the agenda is petition 1604 by Catherine Matheson on inquests for all deaths by suicide in scotland members will see that we've received three submissions and a response from the petitioner the minister for mental health supports the petitioners call to extend the scope of the review under section 37 of the mental health care and treatment Scotland act 2015 to include both patients who were released from hospital or receiving care in the community under compulsory treatment orders the minister has also explained the process that has been followed to introduce the duty of candor procedure in health and social care settings under the health tobacco nicotine etc and care scotland act 2016 it appears to be a lack of support from stakeholders to expand the section 37 review to include an inquest type system the views expressed consider that this may be duplicative and will not add value the petitioners considers this is necessary because the existing systems are too slow and inadequately address the complexities of suicide there is support from some stakeholders for the petitioner's suggestions to improve the suicide review process such as the guidance on who should participate in a suicide review the existing guidance says that the chair quote should be sufficiently removed from the event in the petitioners view the guidance should explicitly require the person to be independent such as from a different health board and I wonder if members have comments or suggestions for the action I think writing to the HIS for sure looking from information how many health authorities are meeting the targets to convince a suicide review within the two weeks and complete it within the three months I think also it would be seeking information how we families or carers can raise their concerns with HIS when they consider that authorities are not learning from suicide reviews particularly the ones that have been highlighted in findings by the Scottish public services on this month okay I think we did find this a very compelling petition when it came before us and I hope that the petitioner feels that there is at least some progress in the acknowledgement of the fact that they would extend the review to people who have committed suicide in the community when under under a compulsory treatment order I think that is progress and it would I would hope that the petitioner would be encouraged by that is there anything else that we think we should be doing so we want to write to the health improvements Scotland asking about the question meeting targets and how bereaved families or carers can raise concerns is there anything else we may ask the Scottish government to you know the timescale of the section 37 review and just to get some more information surrounding that just ask them for an update an update yeah is that agreed yes agreed yeah thanks very much for that we're now moving on to petition 1619 by Stuart Knox on access to continuous gold coast monitoring the next petition is by Stuart Knox we've received responses in this petition from the Scottish government and the juvenile diabetes research foundation as members know we have also previously agreed to undertake fact finding engagement activities on this petition with arrangements for this being taken forward by the clerks do members wish to seek further information relation to the petition at this point and I think we will get details of the engagement event soon but that is something that I think that gives an opportunity to get a proper sense of what is driving this petition and more generally the issues around the care for people with diabetes across party group for diabetes and there's not an awful lot of information coming out from there around the accessibility for this the gold coast monitoring and it's it's that old cliche of postcode lottery it depends which way you live whether or not you get access to it so I think that definitely something we need to explore further I think there is this clearly that from our notes the Scottish government has provided additional funding but the question is where is that funding going to go will it go between provision of insulin pumps and this cgm technology which you know that certainly the evidence we're receiving it's quite compelling argument this is really effective so it would be I suppose we would be asking the Scottish government about some of the details around that the extra funding is clearly welcome but how is it going to be distributed I mean it certainly was compelling evidence from from some sufferers from diabetes who have gone on to this kind of focus monitoring and the impact that's had on their no significant impact that's had on their lives but I think also the fact that technology is moving forward so quickly that the worry is the thing we get to conclude with or on something else okay so I think that if we agree then that we write in those terms and we will get details about the engagement event in tube course we can move on to petition 1622 by Stephen Duff on making failure to recycle a criminal offence following our initial consideration of this petition we've received submissions from the Scottish government, COSLA and the petitioner the Scottish government is not considering making failure to recycle a criminal offence and COSLA does not support the action called for in the petition the Scottish government and COSLA highlight work that is currently progressing through the Scottish household recycling charter which is a joint initiative designed to introduce a consistent approach to recycling across the country financial support to the charter is being provided by zero way Scotland and the most recent information says that 23 local authorities have already signed up to the charter progress in the charter has been monitored by a steering group made up of relevant agencies including industry representatives and its effectiveness will be assessed by local government once it is more fully embedded the petitioner appears to welcome the move to standardise recycling methods saying that it's quote long overdue but makes the point that proposed penalties are quote urgently needed to change attitudes and will reinforce the central message of recycling properly wonder of members of any comments or suggestions for action Angus? Yes, thanks convener. First I'm sure we all understand the petitioner Stephen Duff's sentiments contained in the petition I'm sure we would all like to see 100% recycling rates sooner rather than later but I think the Scottish government, COSLA and the individual local authorities not to mention the five million Scots out there have to be given the chance to come on board with regard to the Scottish household recycling charter before we go down the route of criminalising the failure to recycle. Zero way Scotland has indicated that the support is available to local authorities as you've already mentioned convener it was a guide to educating the public so I think we should perhaps close the petition to allow the Scottish household recycling charter to bed in and given that there's nine local authorities that still haven't signed up to the charter would certainly encourage them to do so but I think it's maybe premature to go down the route that the petitioner's suggesting and allow people to come on board over the next few months and years. Any other views? I agree with my colleague I think it's a work in progress and I think it's premature to do that it's just not practical so I would agree with closing it at this stage. I mean even the issue of practicality and prosecution here would be I don't see how that could possibly work so I do agree with my colleague here. I think we are acknowledging what the petition is wrestling with which is the importance of recycling and the consequences for all of us if we don't recycle but I think we're also acknowledging that the Scottish household recycling charter the commitment of the Scottish Government and COSLA to concentrate people's minds is probably the right route at this stage. I think that other initiatives such as the deposit return systems being talked about that's been highlighted recently there are sort of things that are going forward so I think there's enough issues that will bring the balance back and I favour we close this petition because it's I believe will achieve things another way. Okay so as I agreed then we close the petition we recognise the issues that are there clearly it's a matter for you know COSLA Scottish Government we would expect them to monitor in closely the effectiveness of their own charter and it's something that could possibly be revisited that agreed okay in that case if we can move on to petition 1624 by Akri Jones on the definition of adultery the final petition agenda today is petition 1624 by Akri Jones on the definition of adultery members will see we have a submission from the Scottish Government and a response from the petitioner members will recall that the petition is calling for the Divorce Scotland Act 1976 to be amended so that adultery is defined in such a way that can be committed between people of the same sex as well as people of different sexes the Scottish Government submission does not support what has been called for it does not intend to consult or legislate on this issue in the current session of parliament and believes that the issue was sufficiently explored during the passage of the marriage and civil partnership scotland act 2014 petitioner considers that the act is not human rights compliant and she considers the issue should be explored by the Scottish law commission the clerk's note explains that the law scotch law commission will be consulting on its 10th programme of law reform in a year ahead do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I don't think adultery actually comes up anymore within divorce cases. Do you think it even comes up now? Is that unreasonable behaviour, does it not? It comes under unreasonable behaviour, it doesn't stand alone anymore, I don't think. I think the suggestion from the petitioner that it must do and the definition of adultery is you know between opposite sexes which is presumably is kind of at the heart of this. I suppose what we need to establish is another option open to the petitioner is obviously to test it in the courts round whether it's human rights compliant and that's not really a matter for us. Are there other means by which a marriage can be dissolved? I think the contention is that there are other means by which unreasonable behaviour can be established. On that basis it wouldn't be discriminatory but that might be a matter for the courts. The point that the Government makes is that this was discussed as recently as 2014, which suggests that those matters were explored in the Parliament at that time and they didn't want to take this forward. I don't know what conclusions we would… We're in a position where the Scottish Government's saying they're not going to consult or act on it. There are other options open to people in civil partnerships or equal marriages in order to be divorced and it's very recently being debated. I don't think we have really much further we can go with this other than to close the petitioner. I don't think that we can do anything with this. The chair talked to the Scottish Law Commission once they've published their consultation and taken an individual case themselves. It's a matter for the petitioner. Absolutely right. I think we may essentially close the case. It's quite clear in Scottish Government's guidance that there's no move and they've also done their research in 2014. Okay, so we're agreeing to close petition understanding order rule 15.7 on the basis that the issue that was raised by the petition was considered recently during the passage of the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Scotland Act and the Scottish Government has no intention to consult or legislate on the issue in the current session of the Scottish Parliament and we're obviously able to let the petitioner know that she's able to respond to the Scottish Law Commission's forthcoming consultation. Is that agreed? Agreed. In that case, can I thank you all for your attendance and close the meeting? Thank you.