 Welcome everyone to this, the 7th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2017. To remind members and others in the room to switch phones and other devices to silence, we've received apologies from Maurice Corry MSP and to substitute today is Edward Mountain MSP, so welcome to you. Can we move to agenda item number one on continued petitions? First item is consideration of three continued petitions. We will hear evidence on each of the petitions from the Deputy First Minister, and we're grateful to him and his officials for attending this morning's meeting. The first petition is petition 1548 on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools lodged by Beth Morrison. Members of copies of correspondence from Dr Brodie Patterson, the Deputy First Minister and two submissions from the petitioner. The Deputy First Minister is accompanied by Laura Meagle, team leader and melony low relationships and behaviour in schools policy officer. As we have learned in time this morning, we will move straight to questions from the committee. Can I welcome you, Mr Swinney? Maybe I can start off with a question about the communications passport, which is obviously covered in your correspondence to us. You say that this will be signposted and included, engaged and involved too, and will be part of a suite of documents to support schools and local authorities with implementation of the IE 12. The petitioner notes that you have indicated that the resource will be rolled out via the Glow Network. What is the timescale for the passport and other documents being published? The passport material can be available readily on the Glow site. This is a very important development that has been taken forward by the petitioner, but it has also been taken forward by one of my constituents, Mrs Kate Sanger, on behalf of her own daughter. I have had the pleasure of dealing with Mrs Sanger in relation to the support of her own daughter. I have a copy of her communication passport here, which is a fabulous piece of work that Mrs Sanger and her daughter Jennifer have put together on behalf of Laura Sanger. It really does represent a powerful resource to be used by anyone who is involved in the support of Laura. As a model, the communications passport offers a very clear way of advising individuals about how they can best support Laura in her needs. In addition to the communications passport tool that has been available on the Glow website, I have also asked Mrs Sanger and Mrs Morrison, the petitioner, if they would discuss the communications passport with a gathering of senior officials from the advisory group on additional support for learning, which is a Scottish Government group that is convened by Jan Savage from Enable. That brings together representatives of COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, representatives of Education Scotland and all the relevant bodies, who would be responsible for putting in place the guidance and also enabling the use of tools such as a communication passport within our system. I want Mrs Morrison and Mrs Sanger to have the opportunity to face-to-face with those bodies that will either be the enablers or the inhibitors to the communication passport being widely understood and utilised within our education system to have that opportunity face-to-face to explain the rationale behind the communications passport and to encourage participation and utilisation of such a tool within the education system. I expect that meeting to take place on 30 August. An issue about not just the passport existing but staff being aware of it, given the nature of some of the staff who may be supporting a young person. It's not necessarily just teaching staff but other support staff. Are there measures put in place to allow people the time to be able to actually reflect on what communications passport is telling them? I think that that's my rationale for—I don't think that it's just enough, for example, to put this tool up on the glow website and say, well, there it's there, it's a great resource to use. I think that that helps because obviously that means that there is access to this type of material on a widespread basis throughout our education system but also through the care and support system as well. In addition to that, I think that it's really important that we have very active promotion of the attributes of the communication passport because I think that, convener, you raise a fair point, which is that the value of a passport of this type is only if it has an influence on the practice and the behaviour and the actions of members of staff, that they have enough time to consume the details of that and to understand its significance. The gathering that I talked about there is important to provide that platform for the petitioner and for Mrs Sanger to explain the attributes and the benefits of the communication passport but it's also really important that the communication passport becomes part of the normal way of working to make sure that we support young people with additional support needs. Within that, there are obviously, if I look at the passport that I referred to earlier from Laura, there's a lot of detail in here but it's important detail to be understood and to be followed and by understanding that detail, members of staff of whatever discipline they come from will be better equipped to support individuals in meeting their needs if they have an opportunity to understand and follow the material that's within the communication passport and then reflect that in the practice that they take forward. Okay, thanks, convener. Good morning, Deputy First Minister. In your submission, you also say that you'll consider a refresh of the chair of protection guidance following implementation of the recommendations of the chair of protection improvement programme. As with the communication passport, I'm interested in the timescale of this work to be completed. Could you outline that to the committee and the expected conclusion of that programme and can you give an indication of when you would expect the recommendations to be implemented? First of all, in relation to the refreshed guidance, which will be set out in the context of the school exclusion guidance, the purpose of the guidance is to address the issues that have been raised in the petition from a perspective of encouraging positive behaviour. Although the material will be under the umbrella of school exclusion guidance, the thinking and the rationale within the guidance is all about encouraging positive relationships and positive behaviour. That guidance, I expect, is published by the end of May. It's taken quite a bit of time to get to this point because I think it's fair to say that we've not had unanimity that this was the right thing to do. We've had to work quite hard to persuade a variety of different bodies of the advantage of this approach, but I'm now satisfied that the guidance that we have developed has been considered by the Sagrabus group with which the committee will be familiar. I feel confident to be in a position to publish that in the end of May. Obviously, I want to hold off to hear if there's anything else that the committee wishes to say to me about those issues as a consequence of my attendance here today. On the wider issues in relation to the child protection improvement programme, as the committee will be aware, the Government is taking forward a number of strands to ensure that we can be confident that our child protection programme is appropriate and effective in meeting the needs of children in Scotland in the current environment. We received before Christmas the report from Catherine Dyer, which essentially looked at, if I might describe it, as the structural and procedural design of the child protection programme. The report from Catherine Dyer essentially validated the procedures and the processes of the child improvement programme, but challenged us quite significantly on questions of ensuring that leadership was effective in the delivery of that programme. Mr MacDonald, when he made a statement to Parliament earlier on this year, made it clear that that will be the early focus of our work to strengthen the child protection programme to make sure that we honour the recommendations and address the recommendations that were put in front of the Government by Catherine Dyer. I would expect that the updated guidance on the child protection programme would probably not be available until 2018, given the work that we have to do to strengthen the leadership elements of the programme. However, I will be happy to advise the committee on the progress that we are making in that respect. Looking at the drafting of the guidance on the use of restraint and physical intervention, the petitioners commented that she concerns that this has been treated as an education issue rather than a learning disability issue within an education environment. She has also suggested that some experts in this field offered assistance in drafting the guidance, but that those offers were declined. I wonder if you could respond to those comments and to outline how you have ensured that the relevant expertise has been drawn in to develop the guidance. The first thing that I would say is that we have consulted extensively with a wide variety of stakeholders who are involved in this field of activity, principally around the activities of the Sagrabas group, which is chaired jointly between the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. As I indicated in my response to the convener a moment ago, there has not been unanimity about the taking forward of this agenda. We have had to work very carefully to create that unanimity and to structure the guidance in the way that it is now structured. That has involved extensive stakeholder involvement to make sure that we had in place all the necessary attributes. What that resulted in is the development of a guidance document that essentially tries to take a proactive and preventative approach to the whole issue of addressing how one might consider the issue of physical restraint. A lot of that preventative, proactive approach is epitomised by the thinking that has gone into the communications passport that I referred to earlier on, where we are encouraging where the guidance is predicated on trying to avoid these situations materialising. The emphasis on the procedure and the process is all emphasising the need to try to create avoidance approaches based on positive relationships and a positive understanding of the needs of individuals and the communications passport is a really important tool in ensuring that that can be the case. The advice is predicated on the importance of recognising the knowledge that staff have and the detail of the assessment that they have of the child or young person is vital to predict and to plan for the type of situation that may cause any stress or frustration that can lead to challenging or distressed behaviour. It is about acknowledging the importance of planning situations and planning approaches that try to ensure avoidance, but where the communications passport is really helpful is that it advertises what will be the signals of distressed behaviour so that when those very early signals can be identified, there can be steps taken to try to reduce the stress and the difficulty that is created. The guidance is predicated on that preventative proactive approach and presents any question of physical restraint as an absolute last resort that should only be considered when there is risk of physical harm being undertaken as a consequence. The wording of the guidance that we have gone to great lengths to try to ensure that character comes through the wording of the guidance. That essentially brings me on to the other point that Rona Mackay raises with me, which is about the concern expressed by the petitioner that is being considered as an education issue. I would like to assure the committee and I hope that my explanation in getting to this part of my answer is designed to address the fact that that has not been the way that the Government has approached this. I obviously respect the fact that individuals will have to come to a judgment about that when they see the guidance, but my thinking and the thinking that my officials have taken forward in that respect has been about trying to take that proactive preventative approach to equip individuals with knowledge and understanding beforehand to try to avoid situations of materialising. That requires—that cannot be just a narrow educational view. That has to be a whole-person approach that is taken. I hope that that is clear from individuals looking at the guidance that the Government publishes at the end of May. As far as the guidance is concerned and the document that you are talking about, how do you see that being promulgated down to the people who are going to have to deal with it? I know avoidance should always be the first call, but in the case where, for example, my wife was a classroom assistant and was assaulted, she was unclear when the situation flared up how to respond. Although she had been given guidance, it is very difficult sometimes to remember the guidance, so will there be training undertaken to ensure that the guidance is promulgated down to all those who need to know it? As far as I know, there will be a number of levels of communication that are required to make sure that that message can be received. Once the Government publishes it, the guidance will essentially be there for local authorities to take forward. As the principal organisations operating facilities in which those policies will need to be put into practice, it will be for local authorities to ensure that staff are adequately and appropriately trained to ensure that that is the case. Obviously, there will be particular environments in our education system in which some of the issues that will be associated with the guidance will be much more prominent, and there will be circumstances, perhaps in the ones that Mr Mennon's wife faced, of a more isolated nature, in which knowing the guidance inside out is not going to be at the top of the training programme list of priorities. We have to make sure that staff put in this situation are able to be aware of the guidance and to be able to have the necessary support available to them through leadership within the education system and through training to ensure that staff can be properly and effectively supported. The petitioner has highlighted the UNCRC recommendation for the development of a national recording system and has observed that, in response, she has stated that details on how that should be undertaken should be included in the local authorities policy on de-escalation, physical intervention and restraint. I understand that the petitioner would welcome clarity on what that means and how the inclusion of those details in a local authority policy would comply with the recommendation for the development of a national system. I wonder if you care to respond to that point. That point gets to an important issue about how we respond to calls from the UNCRC and reflect the type of system that we operate. The committee and Mr Whittle will know that local authorities have the responsibility to deliver education services at a local level. I often face the question—I face it on a regular basis—about what degree of intervention the Government should have in that delivery. This is one of those issues where the local authorities have that responsibility and I come along and say, well, look, I want to monitor you to another extent in this respect. I quite understand why the UNCRC asked for that to be compiled at a national level, but our system is fundamentally a decentralised education system within Scotland where our local authorities have that operational rule. The way that I have considered this is to essentially ask our local authorities as part of the guidance to undertake that recording of information. Obviously, we can gather that from local authorities, but I think that it makes the most practical sense to respect and reflect the character of our own system in how we respond to that call from the UNCRC. On the issue of local authorities policy, will the guidance provide a clear framework or mechanism of how policy should be developed and whether the guidance will outline a role for the Scottish Government in ensuring that any framework is followed? Again, my answer is quite similar in that respect. The guidance is sufficiently clear to set out to local authorities what we would expect to see in that guidance. Some of the detail that I went through through my answer to Rona Mackay about that fundamental reliance on a proactive, preventative approach of understanding the young person to make sure that they can be properly supported to enable us to avoid situations that are developing is at the heart of the nature of the advice that we are setting out in the guidance that we are putting forward. Obviously, we would look to see local authorities reflecting that. Education Scotland has a responsibility to carry out the inspection of our education system. Obviously, that will be one of the issues that Education Scotland will look at as to how the policy has been formulated and applied at local level to make sure that the aspirations that are set out in Government guidance are being followed at local level. Clearly, if we find a situation, if we come back in a couple of years' time and find that we really have not made the progress that we all would like to see being made here and the guidance is followed, then obviously the Government can take further action if that is necessary. However, I would rather operate on the basis that the Government is promogating the guidance and, as a consequence, we are looking to local authorities to turn that into practical reality. However, if we find that that is not the case, then obviously the Government will have to take account of that in the actions that we take in future periods. If I can maybe just highlight, Dr Paterson, in his evidence, within the evidence from the petitioner and Dr Paterson, are quite strong in underlining their concerns about those questions. He says that a significant number of authorities continue to have no such policies. The petitioner has also commented in a recent BBC Five Live investigation on the use of restraint and seclusion in special schools, which found that, in 37 of the UK's 207 local council areas, there were 13,000 restraints used with over 700 injuries caused to children as a result of restraint. The petitioner notes that the true figure across the UK is not reflected, given that the number of authorities that are not included in the small number of authorities that responded to the FOI requests. It is really to go back again to the question of the balance between the role of Government and the responsibilities of local authorities. Do you consider imposing a requirement on local authorities to develop a policy in this issue? Will they require to report annually to the Scottish Government? Is that something that you would consider? I think that some of my response to that relates to what I have just said to Brian Whittle. We have embarked on the approach of setting out national guidance and therefore requiring local authorities to take forward guidance of their own to be reflected in their own provision. We have done that essentially to take forward what I would characterise as a voluntary route in this respect, so that we are not putting this in statute. We are encouraging and motivating good practice in this respect. However, if we come back in a period and find that this is not been successful, I would have to consider other options. Yes, in response to your question, I would have to be open to considering other greater requirements if I found that that was not resulting in the formulation of guidance at local level, which reflected the guidance that has been agreed by Cegrabus. Of course, Cegrabus involves the Government, local authorities and the Association of Directors of Education. I am trying to take people with me as I embark on this agenda, but if we find in due course that that has not been effective, I will consider whether or not a greater obligation perhaps of statutory forces is required to put this into practice. Is there a test of effectiveness, whether there are policies and guidance developed, or whether there is a transparency around reporting on incidents? There is transparency in reporting on incidents and also the feedback from members of the public as to whether parents and carers of young people feel that what I am saying here is reflected in what they are experiencing in different settings around the country. If that is not what members of the public experience, I have to accept that I have to come back here and do something different if that is not reflected in what they experience. How do you see that channel of communication from the public to your self-working? In individual constituency cases, there is the petitioner. There is this concern that this is not just an education matter, it is about the expertise of people dealing with young people with learning disabilities. I think that you have made an offer that I am sure would be welcome in terms of engaging and involving the petitioner and your own constituent. Is there something more formal around the organisations that properly understand learning disability around the issue that you mentioned earlier, a group that has been brought together? Is that the vehicle by which the gap between what you hope is happening and what may be happening and how you deal with that information loop can be closed? That would undoubtedly be within my view of how that needs to be taken forward. I made reference to the event on which I intend to ensure that Mrs Morrison, Mrs Sanger, is able to explain the communications passport. That is the Scottish Government advisory group on additional support for learning. That is chaired by Jan Savage from Enable that brings together a range of key stakeholders, including Cosla and Addis, but other organisations that can be the conduit for the information that you talk about, convener, about established practice. I would be looking to that group to be giving the Government advice on how that is proceeding and how it is being experienced at local level. You will be aware, convener, from the discussions that we have had separately at the Education and Skills Committee, where the committee has taken a strong interest in the arrangements for additional support for learning. I expect there to be considerable more dialogue with that committee on many of those issues. I would obviously be keen to make sure that we respond positively to any flow of information that suggests that the guidance is not having the effect that I am suggesting to the committee. I think that it may be what it should be able to have. I would like to ask about the issue of seclusion. The petitioner and Dr Paterson appear to be particularly concerned about the suggestion that the term seclusion might be replaced in the guidance by a term such as supported separation, with the effect of allowing seclusion rooms to remain. That is in the context of the UNCRC recommendation to abolish the use of isolation rooms. Can you respond to those concerns and explain whether support to separation would allow seclusion rooms to be used? There is the possibility that seclusion may have to be used as a very last resort in such circumstances. However, what the guidance will do is set out firstly that that should be absolutely a last resort. It will set out secondly that that must be with support and supervision but it must be part of a plan that has been proactively considered to be utilised in certain circumstances should those circumstances prevail. It should not be used as a form of punishment. That would be wholly and utterly unacceptable. However, there may be an argument for it to be used as part of a plan to properly provide safety and security for individuals concerned. However, it should only be used on those terms as a last resort and as part of a plan and never be used as a form of physical punishment or punishment of any form. I wonder though if you accept that the UNCRC recommendation is pretty clear that isolation rooms should be abolished and simply recasting them as seclusion rooms does not deal with the fact that the petitioner and Dr Paterson are quite explicit in this too, that simply changing the words does not address the question that UNCR recommendations is asking us to address, which is that those rooms should not exist. Even as a last resort, they simply say that they should not be there. I would want to assure the committee that I am not sitting here having a plan words about this. I am not using terminology to try to perpetuate an existing practice. I am trying to explain how there may be circumstances as part of a considered approach to de-escalating a situation that may emerge that a period of supported time, which is quite time, is defined within a plan, can be utilised in an effective way to de-escalate a situation. However, I stress some of the fundamentals of my answer to Rona Mackay that should never be viewed as a punishment and it should never be presented or positioned as a punishment. It should be only as part of a proactively considered plan about techniques that may be necessary to de-escalate a situation, but it should never be on the basis of personal isolation. It must be on the basis of support to assist in the de-escalation of a situation. I accept that there is a problem there that the danger is. How would it look different? Would it be a separate room? Is there an issue around the environment? I think that some of the evidence says that it is at the physical characteristics of the room that can sometimes cause greater distress to the young person. It would not be removing somebody to a physical space, but it would be with a member of staff. I am not sure. You understand the cynicism of people who think that basically delete isolation, insert seclusion and deal with the question of UNCR, but they are quite explicit about their desire for those rooms to be abolished? As I said earlier on, I have met Mrs Sanger, who has produced the communications passport on numerous occasions as a constituent of my own. I have also met Mrs Sanger with Mrs Morrison, the petitioner. Mrs Morrison has shown me pictures of what I suppose might be described as isolation rooms, which I would judge to be wholly and totally unacceptable to be utilised. When I talk about the need for, as a last resort for seclusion, I am talking about a separate room or a safe space, which is defined and deemed to be appropriate to help to de-escalate that situation. It could not be taking a young person to any old room. It would have to be to a particular space where a situation could be de-escalated, with support from a member of staff as part of a plan that would recognise this to be an issue of the last resort. It is simply to recognise that there may be issues of safety for the young person or for other members of staff that have to be considered at that time. I do not want to convey the impression that the guidance gives encouragement to the use of seclusion, but the guidance essentially recognises the fact that, in certain circumstances, there may be a need to de-escalate the situation, but it has to be done as part of a planned, supported approach in accommodation that is appropriate. Some of the images that I have seen of accommodation that has been used historically, I would judge to be utterly inappropriate, and the guidance would essentially make that point clear as part of this process. Whose job is it to deem, whether it is appropriate or not? That would have to be undertaken by those who make the assessment of what are the appropriate care needs for individuals that will be undertaken at local level, in the context of the judgments that have been made about what is appropriate to support an individual in meeting their needs. I come back to the wider assessment that has to be made of the needs of individuals and the requirement to ensure that those needs are properly met in the system. I apologise, Deputy First Minister. I do not know if you have alluded to some of this already. My question is that, with the effectiveness of the policy and the outcomes that you alluded to before, any required adaptations of the policy going forward will come down to the measurement resource that is put in place and implemented. I wonder whether a specific requirement from Government ensures that the proper measurement of the policy's effectiveness going forward will be required? That relies, first of all, on the quality of information gathering and reporting that is undertaken at local level. That is where the data will be generated. It is important that, as a consequence of the application of the guidance, that data is collected effectively at local level. What we then do with that information gets into, I suppose, the discussion about whether that guidance has been effective in meeting the expectations that are contained in the Government's intentions in responding to that petition. Some of that will emerge from inspections undertaken by Education Scotland and by us determining whether or not the proactive approach has led to a lower incidence of reported events, which is what we would like to see emerging out of the application of that guidance. I do not think that the reporting of this needs to be undertaken to ensure that we have a picture of whether the policy approach that we are taking is being effective or not, and that it is leading to good practice at local level. Obviously, if we find that that is not the case, we will have to come back and revisit some of those issues. Will you be looking for a sort of uniformity of data gathering across councils? We certainly need to have consistency across local authorities. One final point to go back to this question about who is responsible for deeming something to be appropriate in terms of seclusion, stroke and isolation rooms. Clearly, some of those spaces have already been deemed to be appropriate by people who have been responsible for supporting a young person and have put them into a space that parents have regarded as inappropriate. In terms of progressing this question, do you see there being parental involvement in defining what is acceptable around seclusion as opposed to the abolition of isolation rooms? I think that the first thing that I would say, convener, is that if we go back to the point that I have made myself, that I have seen the photographs of seclusion rooms, which I would judge not to be appropriate, I have to accept that practice has not been appropriate so far. If I accept that, then other people have got to accept that as well within the system. One of the purposes of the guidance is to improve practice and to make sure that, as a consequence of taking this step to issue this guidance, we are actually improving practice at local level and that the guidance gives pause for thought to improve and strengthen that provision. The second point that I would say is to go back to one of the fundamental points of my evidence to the committee today, which I think is central to this whole discussion. That is that there must be considered careful preparation of the support arrangements for any young person who has additional support needs. That process, in any shape or form to be good practice, must involve parents and carers in that process. Any organisation that is formulating a plan to support—if I just take an example of the communication passport that my constituent Mrs Sanger has put in place—what organisation would not take this seriously because it has been devotedly put together with quality and depth of information? Why would that not be embraced by an organisation to say that this is a fabulous resource to help us to understand how we can best support Laura in her needs? As part of that, as one looks at the difficult territory that might get in where situations will escalate, having parental involvement in identifying how a situation might be de-escalated would be crucial information to assist a provider in making sure that they could do that satisfactorily. Parental involvement is crucial, and parental and carer involvement in that process is absolutely crucial. Finally, I think that the importance cannot be understated of us being on a journey to improve practice. The guidance is designed to help that and to encourage more and more. There are many examples of this around the country where there are thoughtful, careful preparation of plans to support young people to ensure their needs are met. That is an essential part of the system that we have in place. If I and members of the committee will have heard me and heard other ministers talking about the importance that we attach to the arguments around the policy principle of getting it right for every child or young person, we have to make sure that that is followed through in practice by the provision that is put in place. If it is not, we will have to be open to being challenged about exactly that. Thank you very much for that. That is all our questions. In terms of taking this forward, I wonder if people have any comments on what we would want to do as a committee. It might be an opportunity for us to reflect on the Deputy First Minister's evidence and perhaps the class can produce a note that we would consider at a future public meeting of the petitions committee. I think that there are lots and lots of food for thought there around both the evidence that we have heard today and obviously the comments that have been made by petitioners and others. Would that be acceptable? One more point, convener, which is that I intend to publish the guidance at the end of May, but I would want to have the opportunity to reflect on any thinking from the committee before I take that final decision. I am anxious to make progress in publishing the guidance, so if the committee was able to provide me with its thoughts reasonably soon, it would give me the opportunity to reflect on that and to see if the guidance needs to change any further to reflect the issues that the committee wishes to raise with me. I think that we would want to respond very positively to that offer and that is very helpful and important, not so much for the committee but for the petitioner, who has obviously been persistent in his question for such a long time. I think that, as in her own comments, she made the point that there has been progress and has welcomed the engagement with the Scottish Government in the matter. If it is helpful for the committee to have sight of the draft guidance as it stands today, I would be happy to provide that to the clerks for the committee to reflect on if it wishes that. That would be very useful indeed. I think that there is quite a number of things that we would want to take forward from that, but I thank the minister for his response to this petition. Can I suspend briefly the change of Scottish Government officials? I will call the meeting back to order. We now move to the next petition, which is petition 1581 on Save Scotland school libraries. The petition was lodged by Duncan Wright on behalf of Save Scotland school libraries. Copies of the most recent correspondence from Corsula, the petitioner and the Deputy First Minister have been circulated with the clerks note on this petition. Accompanied by the Deputy First Minister for this evidence session is Craig Flunkard, team leader for skills, literacy, numeracy and parents, and Katrina MacKenzie, policy manager. Again, to meet the most of our time this morning, we will move straight to questions from the committee and maybe I can open up the questioning. Use submission notes, Deputy First Minister, that libraries both school and public have a key role to play in supporting Scottish Government initiatives. The initiatives referenced have a particularly focus in early years. In an earlier submission, reference was made to national strategy for public libraries, developed by the Scottish Library and Information Council. That submission stated, quote, that it is important that school libraries continue to adapt to the needs of their users and the wider attainment aims of their schools. Given the recognition of the importance of school libraries, why should there not be a specific national strategy developed for school libraries? First of all, I want to say, convener, that I acknowledge and strongly support the provision of school libraries. I think that it is an important part of the work that we undertake in encouraging an appreciation of literacy and literature amongst young people. I do not think that there is unanimity on the need to have a national strategy, but I think that the petitioner makes a fair point of the importance of having such an approach, and it would be my intention to formulate such a strategy. In your submission on the 13th of April, you referred to how good is our school for and confirm that Education Scotland will be integrating the new library and focused guidance into the main framework. You go on to state that this will give greater prominence and help to demonstrate the fundamental and wide-ranging links between the school library and the school's broader aims on curriculum for excellence. Can you tell us when this is likely to be published and give us an indication at this time of the content of it? I would want to have it in place for the start of the 2017-18 school year—that would be my August of this year—and to ensure that that reflects the key elements that we need to encourage to school libraries, which is a combination of using school libraries to encourage literacy within learning and to encourage a general appreciation of the social value and personal pleasure of appreciating literature. Obviously, that fits in very comfortably with some of the wider policy objectives and approaches that the Government takes principally through. The recently launched but very comprehensively participated in the First Minister's reading challenge, which is attracting significant participation around the country. Obviously, the approach will also ensure that we are equipping young people through the wider work of curriculum for excellence to be conversant with information literacy, which we see as an important function and responsibility for school libraries within the wider school system. You said that you used information literacy. I am old enough to remember when libraries were—you learned all about it—I cannot remember what it is called now, but the system of the way in which you organise stuff—to get information and psychopedias, rather than just googling it, having your daughter contradicting you in front of the television because you can google it on your phone. Do you think— It is a pleasure for us all. Do you think that those skills around assessing information where it comes from is something that libraries should be doing that is being lost as a skill? I think that there is a very interesting conversation at the international council of education advisers with Pasi Salberg from Finland, who is looking very carefully at, frankly, the impact of googling everything in the learning process. I think that it is a fascinating area of inquiry. I am an old enough convener to remember preparing my university work where you had to stand at long drawers of index cards, working your way through—if I were to explain this to my children, they would look at me as if I was from the Stone Age compared to what they have access to, but those skills are really important skills because it allows you to assess the value you should apply to what you find out from particular sources. I think that that is a challenge that is not immediately obvious to individuals when they are just googling something and getting whatever it throws up. I think that those skills are important skills and that libraries provide an opportunity for an appreciation of that to be undertaken, but they will be, as you will be familiar, convened within some of the wider areas of our education system, the development of research techniques that enable young people to acquire those skills and that knowledge is an important part of our education process. If you accept that part of the concerns underpinning some of this petition, is that lack of appreciation of that role of libraries is not just about accessing books and understanding a joy of reading? Is this other bit? That may be the bit that they are particularly fearful that we are losing. That is why I use the term information literacy to cover exactly that point, convener, because I totally accept the point. Another issue that has been mentioned in consideration of this petition is the role of not just libraries, but also of professionally qualified staff within the libraries and the role that those staff play in enabling achievement of educational outcomes. Some concerns have been expressed that local authorities do not fully recognise that. I wonder if I could have your view on that. I think that it is difficult for me to generalise in this respect, because if I cite one anecdotal piece of evidence a few months ago in February, I was visiting Elgin academy and when I went into the school, the head teacher said to me that the first place we are going to go to is a library. The first time I have gone to a school visit and the first place we have gone to has been a library. It was a quite different experience. I went in there and it was precisely designed to make a point to me by the head teacher that there was a professionally trained librarian who was a very, very motivated, driven individual. He had transformed the library into essentially the epicentre of many other aspects of the school, which took into account some of the issues that I was raising earlier on about an appreciation of literature and an understanding of information literacy, but also a place of contact, friendship, dialogue and reassurance. So it was actually when you get into some of the thinking about how do our schools represent a safe, welcoming environment. If any child in the Elgin academy was feeling a wee bit lost, the library would be a place of, well it was a hub of activity where there was paired reading between older pupils and younger pupils and various escapades of acting out literary works going on on an on-going basis. Various projects and challenges have been taken forward, so it was actually a hub of activity that for isolated young people would provide them with a place to go and to have a good experience. I think that the professional strength of what librarians can offer is a really important part of the process, but it's difficult for me to give a general view in response to the question of appreciation of libraries, because obviously there's an example, a very good example, in my view, of the role of school libraries and that practice will exist in a range of other examples around the country. Okay, thank you. Thank you, convener. In most recent submission states that you would expect all local authorities to give careful and positive consideration of the future role of libraries given the statutory responsibilities for the delivery of education and ensuring that there is an adequate provision of library services for their residents. Is there a mechanism for determining what amounts to adequate provision and, if not, what would the Scottish Government's view on the minimum service that could be considered as an adequate provision? I think that we're constantly talking about this interrelationship between Government and local authorities. I don't see that to diminish the point, but it's a very important point. Ultimately, we'll have the tension between local decision making and the Government requiring. It's a tension that we wrestled with on we discussed it as being material to the last petition and we're discussing it again here as material to this petition on school libraries. I think that the Government sometimes, but we have to choose the ground upon which we make things a requirement if I can put it as bluntly as that. If we make everything a requirement, then there is no room for local discretion and local decision making. I wouldn't want anyone to misconstru what I'm saying. I think that school libraries should have a prominent role in the life of the school. I think that they are tremendous. I can't conceive of how teachers will be able to adequately convey the importance of an appreciation of literature and an understanding of literacy without being able to exemplify that within a school library. I think that that's something that really is very important, but I have to be careful that I'm not overprescribing to local authorities what I require them to do, but I certainly believe that this is a very important and significant aspect. As we take forward the formulation of a national strategy for school libraries, we can perhaps wrestle with the issue that Mr Whittle puts in front of me as to just how firm we should be on making some of these aspects of this debate a requirement. Can I use the word then, persuade, rather than implement and make a requirement? Is there a policy perhaps to start from persuade? In a sense, that's the territory that we're in with a national strategy and guidance. We're trying to exhort good practice and persuade good practice to use Mr Whittle's words. As with other issues, if we don't achieve satisfaction, we can consider a requirement. What I try to do in my work with local government and it's perhaps not always perceived this way is to try to encourage joint good practice between government and local government. I would be surprised if local authorities were to mass an argument saying that they don't think that school libraries are a good thing. I'd be very surprised to hear that. Whether a due prominence is given to school libraries is perhaps a different matter. I suppose this is the question, isn't it? This is causally set out. It's for you that the creation of a national school library strategy would quote also further undermine the role of local elected councillors in making budget decisions and would be a further erosion of local democracy. The petitioner expressed his appointment at this comment. Do you think that having a national strategy does have that impact or what are the mitigations? I think that I agree with you that nobody is against libraries and the pressures that would come on use the Government Minister to develop a national library strategy would be the same as the pressures on a local authority, a local level campaigner saying that there should be libraries. If we assume that nobody is malevolent in their hostility to libraries in this situation, what is the balance then ground understanding why perhaps local authorities have not given their promise to libraries that perhaps a national strategy would develop? As with all those questions, there will be a range of different approaches taken around the country. I gave the committee an example of Elgin academy, which is absolutely the library's epicentre of the school, and they view it so and they couldn't make it more central to the life of the school. There will be other examples where we know that in Argyll and Bute there have been proposals to significantly reduce the school library provision within the local authority area. I think that a national strategy may be helpful because I think that it is a good thing that school libraries start to get eroded. No, I do not think that that is a good thing, I think that it is a really bad thing. I have looked at the material that has come from the petitioner and I have looked at the evidence, and that is why I gave the answer and I gave to you on your first question, convener, that I think that, in actually weighing this all up, we have to give clearer signals about what we expect. This is where I come into my discussion with Mr Whittle a moment ago. It is a fine balance between me saying that you must have a school library in every school where I appreciate there may be practical challenges and issues that go with that, particularly with the very wide and diverse geography that we have as a country. There will be ways in which we can provide school library services in a sustainable way if we attach due priority to them. What persuaded me of the need to have a national strategy in this respect is that I think that we need to give a stronger signal than perhaps is being given in this respect. I think that the petitioner has prompted me to come to that conclusion. I think that, again, in terms of the balance between local authorities and Government, there is the balance around what priorities you make within the budget constraints that you have and to what extent you can have an impact on the budget constraints that perhaps have been created for local authorities as well. We are having a fairly harmonious morning until we have got to three minutes past 10. I was actually surprised. You will appreciate, convener, that local authorities have been fairly supported in the Government's settlement, not least of which by the additional resources that were provided to local authorities by the budget agreement that was arrived at for 2017-18. I think that you would expect me to say that that would require some library schools to interrogate the actual view of the extent in which that budget process is one that everybody is happy with. I would be quite happy to put my research, gathering skills to the test convener with the index cards of the old Edinburgh University library at my disposal. She won't say what a good education wastes it on, but there you go. I thank you very much for that. Again, there has been a lot of useful dialogue around that issue. We know that the petitioners in particular are concerned that there is a kind of a reduction process around the role of a library. I think that they would probably get some comfort from that understanding of the broader role of the library and the professionals operating within the school library as well. In terms of action to take forward again, I think that it would be useful to reflect on the evidence from the Deputy First Minister with a note to the future meeting of the petition committee. We can look at what further action we may take at that stage. Of course, that will afford the petitioner the opportunity to respond to what has been said around the establishment of a national strategy. If that is agreed, I can suspend until we change the Scottish Government officials. If we can bring the meeting back to order again. We move to the next petition, which is petition 1603 on ensuring greater scrutiny, guidance and consultation in armed forces visits to schools in Scotland. The petition was lodged by Mary Campbell Jack and Douglas Beattie on behalf of Quakers in Scotland and Forces Watch. Copies of the petitioner's recent submission and correspondence from the Deputy First Minister have been circulated with the clerk's note on this petition. Accompting the Deputy First Minister for this evidence session are Mary Swinney, team leader and Catherine McNab, policy adviser. As with the previous two petitions, we will move straight to questions from the committee and perhaps again I can open up the questioning. Deputy First Minister, as you know, the committee has received a submission on the petition from Skills Development Scotland. In your submission, you note that Skills Development Scotland's career services, quote, are shaped by the Scottish Government's career information advice and guidance strategy and the recent refresh of the youth employment strategy. You have gone to say that the quote aligns with the recommendations of the commission on developing the young workforce so that there is a range of existing guidance to ensure that careers advice is impartial and focused upon the individual's needs. As well as being impartial, do the various strategies support the provision of careers advice that presents a full and accurate picture of careers, such as outlining the possible risks, as well as opportunities that may be represented by particular career choices? That has to be the central requirement of a career service to provide a dispassionate assessment on any career opportunity and how that would relate to the individual's skills, interests, attributes and outlook of any young person interacting with the career service. In some of the submissions that we have received, references have made to the studies carried out by organisations such as Medact and Combat Stress that consider the longer-term outcomes experienced by some who have joined the armed forces. How does the Scottish Government take into account such reports when reflecting on the issue of armed force visits to schools and ensuring that young people are supported to choose post-16 destinations that will enable them to fulfil the potential in the long run? The key point is the one that the convener has raised with me and lies at the heart of the petition. In the careers information advice and guidance, it is a requirement that advice is presented about all attributes of a particular career choice, the strengths, the weaknesses, the opportunities, the threats. That is relevant to the perspectives, the interests, the attributes and the experience of the individual young person that is seeking that advice. There must be a tailored approach taken to meeting the needs of young people in relation to that advice but also ensuring that that is done in a way that is truly dispassionate in making that assessment for young people. None of the matter here really from the petitioner is that with any career opportunity or somebody coming in to demonstrate a career opportunity, they will always try and make that career look as positive and as good as possible. That is a given. Do you see within armed forces that there is an inherent issue there? I am not sure that I agree with Mr Whittle's presumption there. No, the inference of the question is my apologies. I did not choose my words well there of the proposition there. Going back to my first answer to the convener, careers advice has got to be dispassionate. It has got to give you the whole picture, what might be the excitement but what might be the risk. I would be interested to assess the careers advice that might have been given in my direction as to where I have ended up about the excitement and the risk relationship in all of that. I think that it is essential that careers advice is presented in that fashion and that young people are then enabled. Of course, that is a core part of the purpose of curriculum for excellence, to equip young people with the decision-making capability to be able to look at what is presented to them and to say, well, I have weighed that all up and that is right for me and I have weighed that up and that is wrong for me and to make that judgment. I think that there is an obligation on the careers and it is an implicit part of the careers information advice and guidance that it must be dispassionate and it must present the whole picture. That enables young people to make their judgments about what is appropriate for them and what is not appropriate for them. Can I just clarify, then, that you would expect in dispassionate careers advice around career-enarmed forces for somebody to highlight the issues that have been highlighted by med-act and combat stress around long-term consequences of being in armed forces? I would have thought that that was fair material to be involved in that assessment. Concerns have been expressed about the possibility of there being some targeting of schools, particularly in areas with higher rates of deprivation. They have been allegedly receiving a disproportionate number of visits. Would that concern you if that was the case? The first thing for me to say is that I have no information that supports that point and it would be wrong of me to suggest otherwise. I have also seen the communication that the Ministry of Defence has shared with the committee on that point and it makes clear that that approach is not taken. The armed forces are part of the employment possibilities of young people in Scotland but they are a part of them and they have to be presented as part of that range of activities. We have a very good framework in place now through developing Scotland's young workforce, which has been a fantastic piece of work that Sir Ian would have produced for the Government back in 2014. It is now being used very widely across the school system with a lot of employer engagement and participation at local level. That is helping to structure many aspects of our interaction between schools and the world of work. Of course, within the world of work, the armed forces will be part of that world of work and should be presented in that dispassionate way that I have talked about within that context. To follow on from that, you said in your answer that you were not aware of areas being targeted particularly. Do you see a role for the Government in collecting data that the petitioners are calling for this to ensure that there is a system so that you could find out if that was the case? Is that a Scottish Government role? It depends. Through developing Scotland's young workforce activity, we are encouraging schools now to be much more engaged with the world of work. We have not collected data so far on the existence or the substance of that activity. Obviously, we can give consideration to whether that would be appropriate, but I am mindful of how much information we have tried to collect from all our schools, given my general desire to reduce the volume of bureaucracy that we apply to schools. Ultimately, I think that school leadership will make judgments about the interaction that they have with the world of work and to make sure that that is appropriate for the needs of their young people and to ensure that it is presented effectively in all circumstances. Can I remind the committee that I was a soldier for 12 years and my son is still a serving soldier? It may affect my questions, but I wonder if you would accept that soldiers today are very professionally trained and the costs of training them up to the standards that are required to deal with the equipment that they have and are issued with are considerably more than they were when I joined the army. Therefore, there is a huge investment by the military in making sure that they get the right person and the right person then completes the training. Do you accept that the military actually have to make sure that they get the right person rather than the quantity of people? Therefore, they must make sure that the person is happy in their job because there is no point in taking somebody on getting him through basic training and then advanced training for him to leave. They would look for a long career from that person, possibly a minimum of six years, probably more likely 12 or 22, which is a good career. Do you accept that that is the premise of where they are coming from and where they are starting from? I think that that would be a pretty fair point, yes. Can I ask just on this question about the dispassionate approach around careers and you would give information of what all the different options would be? One of the questions that is really flagged up by the petition is not just when the armed forces come in around a careers visit, but they come in around something to do with the curriculum and very often the connection with the armed forces at a local level with the school. It won't be about careers, it's actually about affording other opportunities. Would that dispassionate approach be reflected in those kinds of visits as well? What kind of safeguards are there around those kinds of contacts with schools being a softer contact, if you like, which doesn't deal with that dispassionate element that you've already highlighted? Fundament of the judgment about points like that, which are different from the recruitment argument, are about the relevance to the curriculum. This is where I perhaps follow up part of what Mr Mountain raised with me. There will be elements of understanding the curriculum from a STEM perspective, for example, where there may be a relevance in how an issue can be understood through an example or an exemplification involving something to do with the military. That would ultimately be a professional judgment for teachers to make about what would be an appropriate exemplification for a particular topic within the curriculum. We rely on our teaching profession particularly through curriculum for excellence to come to that judgment as to what is an appropriate exemplification for aspects of the curriculum and to deploy that judgment as they see fit. Angus MacDonald? If I could turn to the issue of parental consent and with regard to involving pupils and parents or guardians in decisions about education, the question of consent has been addressed in the petition. We have received differing views about this with the Children and Young People's Commission of Tambail. It has been the view that children and young people in secondary school should be assumed as being capable of informed consent. However, the Scottish Parent and Teacher Council stated that it believes that any proposed armed forces recruitment activity must be subject to detailed consultation and the view of parents listened to and respected. Would you support the call for consent to be given in advance of any armed forces visit and, if so, do you see a role for the Scottish Government producing guidance in setting out the rights and responsibilities in this regard? Fundamentally, the issues around where consent is secured must be carefully judged by individual schools. I make that comment within the context of my belief with which the Parliament will be familiar that schools should be involved in a very active process of parental dialogue on an on-going basis on all issues. I would want to encourage an extensive and deep process of dialogue with parents within schools on a habitual basis. I think that that is good for the school and it is good for the parental community. It creates strong, well-founded and well-supported schools. As part of that dialogue, any issues of consent are most effectively resolved within that context. You do get into the complicating situation that once young people are 16, they are free to offer their own consent on those issues. That becomes a more complicating factor in all of those questions. I think that the issues that are best resolved at local level through the established mechanisms of the encouragement of active parental involvement in the agenda of the school and in ensuring that, at all times, the school leadership is operating in an environment in which it is seeking consent within the parental community. I hope that we all agree that the armed forces should be seen as a legitimate career and as potentially fulfilling as any other career. It seems to me that, with the petition of Scotland, there is a mini-two-square circle here. To give Scotland and the petitioners a suggestion, this is an issue that should be subject to a child rights impact assessment. I wonder if that is something that you would consider commissioning. I am certainly very happy to consider that point and to see whether such an approach should be taken. Obviously, we would have to weigh up in such a circumstance a whole range of different factors, but I am certainly quite happy to give consideration to that point. In previous evidence, a particular concern has been expressed about armed forces' visits to special schools and the petitioners call for an inquiry into this and whether it should be prohibited. Is this something that you are aware of and do you have any views on this prohibition? I am not aware of this at all, so I would be interested if there was more detail that the committee could share with me at that point and be happy to hear that. I am not aware that it is undertaken either, but it is something that the petitioners have raised. I am certainly happy to explore that point. The last question that I would like to ask you to reflect on is what is evident to the committee on the strength and feeling of the petitioners and the reassurance that they are seeking that we are not in a position where vulnerable young people or young people who have fewer economic opportunities are disproportionately being drawn into a life-in-the-arm force without proper understanding of the consequence of that, simply because of their circumstances. I will go back to the question that Rona Mackay asked earlier about the idea that young people in poorer communities are targeted, that they are vulnerable to the lure of a life-in-the-arm force. I am not suggesting that I agree with any of that. If you want me to be the devil's advocate for this, perhaps that is the way to put it, but that is in essence the concerns of the petitioners. I said at an earlier meeting that poverty is the greatest recruiting sergeant for the army. That is maybe a way in which it has been characterised in the past. How do you respond to that? I think that we have had an interesting conversation about the measured way in which you would want to deal with it, but I wonder how you respond to the thing underpinning the petition, which is really quite strong from the petitioners, that there is an injustice here or a potential exploitation here that I am not suggesting that the armed forces themselves would want to be partied to. Is there a sense that that is happening? How would you, as a Government, respond to that? Do you have a role in addressing those kinds of concerns? The first thing that I want to say, convener, is that I quite understand the concerns that have been expressed by the petitioners. In general, I think that one of the great strengths of this committee and this process is that it is an opportunity for members of the public who are concerned about certain things to have the issue aired in an organised parliamentary fashion so that we can reflect on those points. I have nothing but respect for the motivations behind all of the petitioners that come forward with a point of view. They have citizens of our country that are entitled to be heard and heard properly and with respect. I would, however, want to reassure them. I have tried to do that by considering the issue within the context of what is our general approach to careers guidance. The general approach to careers guidance is to make sure that when young people are engaging careers advice, they are getting dispassionate advice, they are getting it all the ups and the downs, they are getting everything about it and they can make their own judgment about it. If I was to find that that was not the case, I would be deeply troubled about it. That is not just about an armed forces career, it is about anything, because young people need to be properly advised about the ups and downs of every particular career that they might decide to take forward. That is my first point, and it is my main point of reassurance that I hope helps in this discussion, because it highlights the fact that, in all circumstances, no matter what career a young person is contemplating, they are entitled to that dispassionate assessment of its ups and downs. The second point is that, and I accept that this is work in progress, but the whole thinking behind the Government's agenda on education just now, which I think is widely supported in Parliament and within our local authorities and within the country, is on the attainment challenge, and at the heart of the attainment challenge is to make sure that every single young person in our country is able to fulfil their potential regardless of their background, so that poverty is not an inhibitor to that young person fulfilling their potential. Now, I stress it, I accept that is work in progress, but that is what we are driving to try to address, which I hope partly addresses the concern that somehow there is a predisposition for young people from deprived backgrounds to end up in the armed forces because it is the only option available to them, if I can put it as crudely as that. The final point is to then come back to Mr Mountain's point to me about what the army and the military are looking for, that, increasingly, the armed forces are more recruiting by skill requirement than by volume requirement, if I can put it like that. So it's not just a case of a numbers game, it is about a range of people who can do certain things, and I think that changes some of the dynamics of this discussion. Out of all that, I think that there is an obligation on ministers like me to make sure that we are presiding over an education system that is able to fulfil the potential of young people and to equip them with the educational capability and the skills that enable them to fulfil their potential as a consequence. One of the recurring problems that the petitioners say they have had is obtaining information from the armed forces, and this goes back to my earlier question about data collection. Would you consider asking for a commitment from the armed forces to make accessible good quality data available to the public or to the Parliament? I'm very happy to do so, and if the committee wants to specify what it would think would help in this discussion, I'm very happy to make a request to the UK Government on that perspective. Just to reiterate a point that I made earlier, I hear what you say around clears and the needs of the modern armed forces, as opposed to perhaps in the past, but there is a question about the way in which the armed forces now come into schools that is not about careers, and in some areas it may be that they can offer fun things to do that other groups and organisations can't offer, so they just... It's the kind of soft power, the soft attract, the decent... We're doing interesting kind of team building type things with the armed forces, and that maybe suspicion is too strong a word by the petitioners around the way in which that becomes a great way to recruitment. I'm not sure what... I've got a view on the guidance that you would offer to schools in that, but it may be that it's something we can find out more than ministry and defence on how they view that kind of role. There's a... I think that's a slightly more difficult issue because we are generally in our developing Scotland's young workforce activity, encouraging schools to be much closer to the world of work. So having businesses and economic organisations, which would include the armed forces much, you're able to demonstrate what the world of work involves. So your overwhelming majority of school interaction with the world of work is not going to be with the armed forces, it's going to be with local companies and local organisations who are able to demonstrate what it's like to work in particular areas and to give work experience. Schools are now involved in much more systemic work experience activity, which for some young people, on a pathway which is going to see them taking a more vocational route through school, is going to frankly increasingly dominate that young person's journey through the education system, and we judge that to be a good thing. That will be the very small minority that will be in relation to the armed forces, but I do accept the point that you make that that might be a softer introduction to the armed forces, but it might also be a softer introduction to a chemicals firm or a softer introduction to a social enterprise provider, and it's just about how we manage that so that young people don't deduce the wrong impression from that, and it's a slightly more difficult thing for us to police when we're generally, and I think we're all agreed on this, exposing young people to the world of work and making that more seamless is a designable policy objective. I think again that the petitioner makes the point that choosing a life in the armed forces brings with it more risk than perhaps in other careers, but they're not suggesting, I don't think we're suggesting to the committee in any way that that wouldn't be a legitimate career choice for people. I don't know if there's a question or a comment really that and I don't know the answer to this and maybe that's something we can explore, but it seems to me that the route to armed forces is really through cadets because armed forces have this gateway into full career by going through the air training corps or the army cadets or whatever. I wonder whether or not, as I said, I don't know the answer whether or not we're looking at direct recruitment from schools is actually where the petitioner has an issue and whether or not it's a bit of a red herring because the real recruitment comes through the cadet process. I think that the point that Rona Mackay makes around data collection, that sense of what environment everybody's operating in relation to those kinds of visits and it might be a useful conversation I guess to have with the Minister of Defence to what extent do they see the cadet as that kind of role or indeed to make the case for them having worked with young people who were involved with cadets, sometimes they were an opportunity to create a bit of space and energy in their lives, an opportunity they wouldn't have had otherwise, even just simply a structure in their lives that they wouldn't have had otherwise, but that's at the heart of the contention round I suppose some of what the petition says. Can I just thank the Deputy First Minister very much again for that. I think we've kind of come to the end of our questions and comments in the question, but I wonder what suggestions we have in terms of dealing with this petition. I apologise if I should have made this sort of comment just slightly earlier. You know when I joined up with the Army I certainly knew the risks and I think Mr Swin is right that the Army you know we must take cognisance of the fact that the Army's dropped from 200,000 and I joined to 82,000 so it's looking for a very particular set of skills and I'd like to reiterate the cost of training for each of those soldiers that goes through so it's absolutely right and vital to get the right person and therefore I think that actually saying that they're trying to get people who are looking for a way forward is the wrong way and I would urge and I think it's very good that Mr Swinney's going to write to the department you know the defence and ask them but I think something that may help the committee and I sat the last time I think that the committee had considered this. I think that the committee should ask the relevant people in Scotland to come and give evidence to the committee on what they do and I see no reason why they wouldn't and I think it would help the committee understand what they're trying to achieve with the teams that they send out. I personally don't think there's anything sinister in it and I think they'd welcome the opportunity. I think just for information the committee is in a process of taking up the offer of a briefing from Minister of Defence on how they see these matters arising and from that briefing we can then make a number of decisions about how we report back to the committee in that. I think that the point is an important one. Can we suggest that we again reflect on the evidence of the Deputy First Minister? We asked the clerks to produce a report and we can look at that in terms of action taking forward. Anything else, Rona? No? We would agree as we have done through the conversations about how we want to take this forward but we'll have a report to a further meeting. I thank the Deputy First Minister very much for his evidence on that petition and indeed all three petitions today. I appreciate quite how busy a person you are so three petitions worth of you are very much appreciated by the committee and I'm sure the rest of your day is just a bit of a doddle in comparison. So I can thank you very much and I'll allow a brief suspension for witnesses to leave. If we can call a meeting back to order and move to agenda item 2 on continued petition. The first continued petition we will consider is petition 1627 by Annette MacKenzie on consent for mental health treatment for people under 18 years of age. Members will see we've received a number of submissions from a range of stakeholders as well as the petition's response to the submissions received. There appears to be a consensus in the submissions received that the principle of patient confidentiality should remain unchanged and there was no support there for the measures called for in the petition to change the processes for under 18s being able to consent to treatment for themselves. On the issue of guidance, there appears to be a consensus that existing guidance is adequate. Notwithstanding this, the Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland and the petitioners considered that it may be worth reviewing the guidance specifically on young people's mental health treatment. In this regard, the Scottish Association for Mental Health noted that its recent survey of GPs found that only 53 per cent were aware of non-pharmological approach to depression. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency suggested in this regard that the committee may wish to seek more information from the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Other stakeholders such as the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Scottish Youth Parliament mentioned the benefits of social prescribing. The RCGP considered that the provisions of the links worker programme, which is funded by the Scottish Government, is very beneficial in helping patients to navigate services. However, we understand from the SCGP submission that only very few general practices are participating in the programme. The Scottish Government explained that the chief medical officer has committed to review the consent process for people who receive care and support in Scotland. The Scottish Government advises that this review will include the issues raised by the petitioner and the petitioner has noted her interest in participating in any discussions and the development of guidance in the area. Do you have any comments or suggestions for action? I think that the evidence that we took from the petitioner is very moving. It throws for me a much wider reminder issue in terms of how doctors assess people who are presenting with mental health issues. How do they assess their ability to then follow a process of medication themselves? That is something that I have wrestled quite a lot. I know that this is a bit under 18s, and I appreciate that. I am looking at the SAMH, suggesting that, with the nice guidance on social anxiety and children, young people should not usually offer medication but should be offered cognitive behavioural therapy. For me, I am just wondering, within a 15-minute consultation, how does a doctor assess a patient's ability in these circumstances to follow that medication? I do not know the answer to that, and I think that that is something that I really want to try to explore further. I think that the difficult thing for the family to come to terms with was the fact that, if they had known, they would have understood the changing behaviour and would have been able to be supportive. Actually, there are two things. The fact is that she was taking the tablets, but it was the tablets that she used as a means of killing herself. It is beyond bearing, it is beyond belief. I understand why the issue of consent was the one that was focused on. I understand that the general good is not that it is a breach of confidentiality, but that the question of what is the guidance to GPs—I mean, I am astonished that 53 per cent of GPs would not be aware of non-pharmological approaches. I find that astonishing. The other question that the GPs are revising is that, is it within the GP's remit to be able to say to the patient or suggest to the patient that is in their best interests if another member of the family or close to them is brought into that sort of circle? I do not know if that is within the GP's remit. I think that it is something that would be worth exploring further. I think that I said before hearing a report on—I think that it was either House Awards or House Commons committee, which said that, while they understood the issue of confidentiality, the GP could bring into the conversation whether it would be helpful or useful for you to have somebody that you trust to be involved in your care around his medication. It is not that you breach confidentiality, but it is part of your guidance that you would ask that question. Not all young people will have bad relationships with their parents. If it is suggested to them and they think that there is not a stigma involved in me admitting this to my family with GPs' encouragement, they might have done that. I am being interested to know what the guidance to GP round 1 is. It is the first time that somebody presents reporting to have mental health issues. What is the guidance around moving to a medical prescribing response as opposed to some of the social prescribing that has been suggested? If guidance exists and evidence is being presented to us, that guidance is obviously not filtering through to the front line. How can that process be taken forward? One of the suggestions is that we contact the Royal College of Psychiatrists' faculty of children and adolescents' psychiatry's view on the petition and ask about the clinical guidelines for mental health conditions in children and adolescents. That is beyond most of our comprehension what has happened here. It is an absolutely huge issue that we have to explore as much as we can. We should also seek clarification from the Government on how the petitioner could contribute to the review that she is wanting to do. That is fundamental that she is able to do that. Then, possibly further down the line, we might be asked for the minister for mental health to come and give evidence once we have got through the first stage. Those are very post-it suggestions. The question of what the guidance is, I think, can make an important point. What are the guidelines and to understand where you can utilise the families to support the young person? One of the questions that I would ask is that I am aware that you will not routinely be prescribed antibiotics, even if you will not ask for them. You are told no, no, because of the consequences. In my lifetime, Valium, at one point, would have been routinely prescribed. It is not now. Presumably, doctors are in a position where they can say, perhaps you are asking for tablets, but we are not going to give you them because we do not think that it is in your interest. How does this filter through in terms of this kind of issue? Perhaps there should be an exemption. I mean, I know that I understand the confidentiality issues and consent issues, but given that the ethos in mental health now is that it is talked about, it is not something that should be a sort of hidden illness. In this instance, the whole family could have helped if they had known that that is what she was being prescribed and that is what was happening. That is something that we could explore later with the minister. Is this an example where it should be an exemption when it comes to mental health? I understand and worked with young people who were not able to talk to their families and perhaps the families were the cause of their problems, but in circumstances where it must be possible for the GP to list or would it be possible to test that question with a young person because it is not that they do not think that their families would be supportive, but with the nature of mental health issues, they perhaps feel as if they let their families down, but even having to say that they have got this problem. When Mrs McKenzie gave evidence, it was that her daughter was not asked if she minded, if surely the GP could say, do you mind if I ask your parent or tell your parents about this, and that would be a form of consent that the young person would give. I do not think that that was even asked. It has followed up with a reassurance that this is nothing to be ashamed of. These are things that happen to young people and to adults. Your mum and dad, your family, would want to be supportive of me, while understanding that for some young people that is not going to be the case, but at least testing that with a young person. I would have thought that family support is absolutely critical to getting to a sensible solution. Certainly, the experiences I have had in this situation would suggest that leaving the family out is actually making the problem worse. I would have thought that I agree, convener, with what you are saying, that it should be part of the doctor's procedure to ask whether families should be included and to make it a positive suggestion rather than a negative suggestion. I agree with your proposal that you made earlier. Are we agreeing then that we write to the Scottish Government to clarify how Alison Mackenzie can be involved or contribute to review the consent process for people who receive care and support in Scotland? We are interested. The funding for the provision of link workers programme is for the dependent surgeries. It is surgeries in some of the most vulnerable communities where people present with a whole range of issues, so I am not sure whether it would have applied through the current procedures for the family involved, but it would be worth knowing whether that kind of model is something that they are looking at rolling out. To write to Royal College of Psychiatry, the Faculty of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, to get their view on the petition and to flag up, as Rona Mackay has suggested, the potential of getting the minister in at a later stage. Is that agreed? Thank you very much for that. If we can then move on to petition 1628, consultation and service delivery for the elderly are vulnerable. The petition 1628 by Maxwell Barr on behalf of Stru and Lodge Development Group and Drun Community Council concerns, consultation and service delivery for the elderly are vulnerable. We have received written submissions from Audit Scotland, the Scottish Health Council, the Scottish Government and COSLA. The petitioner has also provided his views on the submissions received. Audit Scotland and the Scottish Health Council raised concerns that the existing guidance could cause confusion about lines of accountability and decision making. In this regard, the Scottish Health Council states that it firmly believes that the chief executive led to a fourth of 2010 guidance and a supplementary guidance on identifying major health service changes should be reviewed and revised. The petitioner supports that point of view. COSLA explained in its written submission that it does not consider any further guidance or consultation requirements are needed, but the Scottish Government has explained that it has no plans to update chief executive led to a fourth of 2010 guidance. Members will see from the clerk's note that the Health and Sport Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into integration authorities consultation with stakeholders. I understand that the petitioner has made a submission to the inquiry and the committee will take further oral evidence and inquiry shortly. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for the action. As you have mentioned, the petitioner has made a written submission to the Health and Sport Committee's scrutiny on engagement with the public and the third sector. I am given that the Health and Sport Committee is due to consider this inquiry again, I believe, next week. I think we should refer the petition to them. What was that, any delay? Okay, do we have any other views? Impasse in terms of, you know, the health council does need to be revived. The Scottish Government is saying they're not going to look at it further because they're saying it's not necessary. There's also a whole big question there and I think that it's part of the health committee's work that would usefully be interrogated there and necessarily need to be duplicated by us. So, if we're agreed, we're going to refer the petition to the Health and Sport Committee. Okay, thanks very much for that and of course we would want to thank the petitioners and all those who contribute in response to our request for further information. And the last petition that we want to deal with, the next petition is petition 1639 by Moray McMillan on enterprise agency boards. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 30 March and members will recall that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work was due to make a ministerial statement on the enterprise and schools review later that afternoon. The Cabinet Secretary explained that Highlands and Islands enterprise and the other agencies will be retained with their existing powers. More information is statement is set out in the clerks note and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. The only point that I would make is that we have also not asked the petitioner for a response to the statement by the Scottish Government and I wonder whether it would be worth asking for that. It looks as if clearly the Cabinet Secretary has responded to the pressures and concerns that have been on a cross-party basis highlighted in particular about the role of HIE but I wonder whether it would be worth it before we close the petition and ask the petitioner for a view. If we ask the petitioner if the Cabinet Secretary's response is adequate for what she is asking for. In that case, we are agreeing to contact the petitioner for her response to a statement made by the Scottish Government subsequent to her appearance at the committee and will not see it as a consequence of her appearance at the committee. We can also reflect on her response at that point once we have received that. With that decision, I thank members for their attendance and close the meeting.