 I can call a meeting to order. I welcome everyone to this, the 13th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2018, and I particularly welcome our new committee member, David Torrance. I take this opportunity to place on record our thanks to Rona Mackay MSP, who served in the committee in the last year and has now moved on to other commitments. I want to thank her for the work she did in the support of the committee while she was here. The first item on our agenda today, then, is the declaration of interest. In accordance with the terms of the interest of members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, I invite David Torrance to declare any interest relevant to the remit of the committee. Thank you, convener, for your welcome, and I have nothing to do with Claire. Thank you very much. We now move to the next item on our agenda, which is the consideration of new petitions. The first new petition for consideration is petition 1694 4, by Rallaf Riddaf, on the free instrumental music services. I welcome Liz Smith to the meeting for the consideration of this petition and understand that John Scott may join us during this session. We will take evidence this morning from the petitioner. He is accompanied by Alison Reeves, manager in Scotland of making music, a membership organisation for amateur music societies, and Mick Cooke, who some may associate with Bell and Sebastian, but who is here in an individual capacity, representing too many Cooke's music limited. I welcome you all, and you have the opportunity to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, after which we will move to questions from the committee. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today about musical instrument tuition in state schools in Scotland. I've brought with me 2068 ink signatures, and I'd be grateful if that total could be added to the number gathered online so that you get a measure of the support that was gathered during the six weeks when the petition was open for signatures. This is not just a matter on which many people feel strongly. It is a matter of national importance, raising questions about the national curriculum, our goal to get it right for every child in education, about equity in the classroom and fairness, about the health and prosperity of our nation and about the need to ensure maximum return for us all on precious public resources. We're here to ask for a change in the law so that musical instrument tuition is available as of right to all children attending state schools who wish it free of charge. In the last 10 years in Scotland, we've seen a 50 per cent reduction in the number of specialist musical instrument teachers in our schools. We've seen an increase in the numbers of groups in groups receiving tuition, and we've seen the end of free lessons for all children. The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility to ensure consistency and excellence in education right across Scotland. It is not right that children have to pay for their education in state schools in Scotland, and it's even worse the divergence in the experience that children are having across Scotland. Some children still enjoy free lessons in some parts of Scotland. For everyone else, the fees range from £117 a year in Inverclyde right up to a completely unaffordable £524 a year in Clackmannanshire. That's not equitous, it's not fair, it's not consistent and it should be a matter of grave concern to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government has so far taken the view that it's for local authorities to determine local priorities and local needs, but I think that a change in the law is appropriate because of the divergence, the lack of fairness and the lack of equity across Scotland. The Scottish Parliament has a remit in ensuring that consistency and that excellence. Fees are a barrier to education. Introducing fees has a result that some children cannot afford to pay for their education, with the ironic result that precious resources are concentrated on children who already have the most. Schools should not be seeking customers for their services, they should be providing lessons for free to all children. We believe that instrumental music services should move away from this discretionary service and become a protected statutory service where it belongs. All children deserve the same chances in school, irrespective of their location, whether they live in a city or in a rural area or in Edinburgh or in Clackmannanshire or in the borders or the islands. They deserve the same opportunities and they deserve the best opportunities. Fees in state schools are wrong. Since the days of Lonnie Donoghan, the Scottish music scene has been a hugely successful and globally recognised brand. When I played trumpet for Balanced Sebastian, I would often be asked in interviews with, for example, Japanese journalists, why are there so many great bands from Scotland? Is there something in the water? Many of these musicians benefited from free instrumental tuition at school, including household names such as Katie Tunstall, Ricky Ross and Eddie Reader. I myself took advantage of free trumpet tuition. I was sat in my primary four classroom at Hellside Primary School in Dundee when there was a knock on the door, and a funny wee guy with a wondrous shiny instrument walked through the door saying, does anyone want to learn the trumpet? I immediately thrust up my hand and there began a wonderful journey of discovery, which opened so many doors for a small, shy boy from Dundee. It helped my confidence, it helped me make friends, it helped with my other schoolwork. I got good grades and I went on to get a science degree from Glasgow University. It would also eventually lead to a career, one that allowed me to travel and see the world and play on stages like the Albert Hall in London and the Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles. I am certain that none of this would have happened if I hadn't been inspired that day by that funny wee guy with a shiny instrument. I believe that every school child in Scotland should be given the same opportunity. Good morning. I am speaking on behalf of Making Music, where the membership organisation for amateur music groups. There are 257 member groups in Scotland, including orchestras, brass and wind bands and traditional music groups. That is around 13,000 individuals. Our members are concerned about the erosion of instrumental tuition, as they recognise it as a gateway to lifelong participation in music making and all the benefits for those musicians and their communities. We have a huge, rich and varied amateur music culture in Scotland, much of it volunteer-led and self-financing, with very little direct cost to taxpayer. However, the sector relies on an infrastructure of services provided by local councils and government, including instrumental music tuition, which provides a steady flow of skilled musicians from instrumental services and their associated bands and orchestras, those who do not make music their job but for whom it remains a valued part of their leisure time. The upfront investment intuition pays back many times over in improved health and wellbeing of lifelong music makers and in the economic benefits of healthy, connected and empowered communities. We believe that making the service statutory will stop the uneven provision that we have currently, ensure consistency and quality and, in the long term, retain access for whoever chooses it to excellent lifelong music making opportunities. Thank you very much for that. We can now move to the questions and the first question from Angus MacDonald. Okay, thanks, convener. Good morning, everyone. Can I say at the outset that you certainly present a strong case for the petition? Our briefing refers to a survey conducted by the Improvement Service in 2017, which found that fees charges covered between 2 per cent and 58 per cent of the cost of the service. Now, the report found that there was no correlation between numbers of pupils taking lessons and the fees charged, although it added that, and I quote, this does not mean that the cost of fees do not influence parents' decisions as to whether pupils partake in lessons. So, I wonder if you could give the committee your views on that. Okay, happy for me to answer that. Well, thank you. That's a good question. The report that you refer to is one of the annual reports undertaken by the Improvement Service. That's from 2017. The next one is due out, I think, at the end of October. What that report will capture is a very significant development from the last round of local authority budgets, where things suddenly got a lot worse. In Clackmannanshire, the fees were already high at £228 a year, but they had been doubled to 524. We don't have all the figures yet for the drop-out rate, but early indications are 40 per cent in Clackmannanshire. In West Lothian, that is a part of the country that has been absolutely outstanding in its music making. The budget decision was to cut the funding by half. Where that story ended up, as you probably know, is an introduction of fees of £345 a year. I have friends who teach in that area and they are telling me that 90 per cent of their students have handed back their instruments. In East Lothian, in March, fees of £290 were introduced. That's a poor area. A teacher approached me to say that a girl handed back her instrument in tears at the end of the year and that she can't afford the fees. She reappeared after the summer to say that her mum had had a whip round and that she could please have lessons again. In South Ayrshire, where I'm from, that is a part of the world where there is extreme deprivation but also considerable affluence. There are 216 children who have handed back their instruments since the fees were introduced. That's out of a total of 1200, 100 of whom are on free school meals. However, in areas where there is sufficient affluence, I predict that what we'll see is instruments being taken out of the hands of children who are in the squeezed middle and can't afford to continue and handed to children whose parents are better off. It's such a valuable service. Parents know how valuable this is and it has traditionally been an oversubscribed service. In areas where there is sufficient affluence, you will see an unjust movement of instruments from children who can't afford it and who then have to watch the instruments turning up in the hands of children who can't afford it. That is divisive. No child should have to come back to school and say, I can't afford to carry on with lessons. That is just wrong. The picture across Scotland is a complex one. It's difficult to draw direct correlations between decisions on fees and uptake of a service and success. Fees of £117 in Inverclyde are at the low end, but I would suggest that, if you introduced that in Edinburgh, where mortgage poverty is a real thing, that would have a different effect to an introduction of £117 in an area where that isn't an issue. The picture is complex. Any attempt to justify fees is going to run into complexity. I want people to be aware of the complexity of that and to hold on to some principles that education should be free. Viewing children as customers is not progress. It's helpful that you've provided the example of the drop-out figure for Glickmannanshire, but if you have any other figures that you could share with the committee after the meeting, even some anecdotal evidence of what's happening out there would be helpful. The report found that a number of the full-time equivalent music instructor posts fell from 660 in 1516 to 640 in 1617. You stated in your opening statement that there was an increase in the numbers receiving tuition, so it's something that's growing in popularity. What impact do you believe that charging for musical tuition will ultimately have on the availability of music teachers? The report statistics are from the last report, 2017. It all lies on the next report because what we've seen in the last round of local authority budgets has been unprecedented. You're going to see a very different picture coming out of the next report because we've seen a shocking round of cuts and a just unsustainable number of increases. Perth and Kinross have decided to increase charges by 60 per cent over the next three years. Where else do you expect customers to absorb a 60 per cent increase in such a short period of time? On the point about the numbers of teachers, 10 years ago we had 1,200 specialist musical instrument teachers in Scotland, and now we've only got 600 and so many. That's a horrendous reduction. I went to state school for help primary in Ayr in the 80s. I can remember not being able to get into the building because it was shut, because there wasn't enough coal to heat the building to keep the children warm. That was a difficult decade. My dad was a teacher in the local authority. My mum was a secretary at the local hospital. They had a mortgage. Interest rates got up to 15 per cent. I hope I don't embarrass my parents if they watch this, but I remember the strategies that my parents deployed in order to keep paying the mortgage. If I'd come home and said, can I have £100 a year to continue learning my trombone lessons, it would have been heartbreaking. No. If we can provide one-to-one tuition in Scotland in the 80s, which is what I got, that's what you got, Mick. Alison, did you get one-to-one tuition? If we can provide it in the 80s, a very tough decade in Scotland, I don't understand why things are so much worse now that we can't do it now. Margaret Thatcher scrapped free tuition in England in the 90s. We held on to it in Scotland until 10 years ago. 10 years ago was when the financial crash took place and things got tough. We've come through a tough decade, but during that decade, we have not held on to a service that we have held on to in previous difficult decades. In Scotland, instrumental music tuition really took off in the 70s. That was a tough decade. In the United Kingdom as a whole, the increase in provision in schools has been at its greatest in the 1920s and the 1950s. You don't get tougher decades than post-war decades, but the vision was there and the appreciation of the service was there to invest in it and to give children this opportunity. Why are we taking our eye off the ball? I think that we're being complacent. As Mick said, you go around Scotland and people know how good we are at making music in this country. It's not the quality of the water that we drink, although it is. It's the quality of the education that Scotland is famous for and the inclusive nature of it that has led to that. So we're talking about children getting lessons in schools and the benefits to them of that and the way it strengthens communities. Let's not forget that this is a massive export industry. I don't know if you saw the Ed Sheeran interview on the news a couple of weeks ago. He made the really interesting point that the tax receipts from the creative industries are enormous. Not only that, our highest paid musicians who went to state school and got their lessons there tend to stay in the United Kingdom and pay their taxes here. The economic returns are tremendous, if that is the box that you want to take to justify free lessons. If Alison Reeson and Mick Hook have any comments that they would like to make on the impact of charging for musical tuition that we'll have in the future on the numbers of teachers that are coming through the education system, please. I cannot have a negative impact. As Ralf pointed out, it's going to make a two-tier system where it's only children whose parents can afford to send them for free lessons, sorry, and that can only make a two-tier system. I want to add to Ralf's point about why music is so strong in Scotland. I think that it's the value that people in Scotland place upon music. In fact, your story about the wee girl who had to hand back her instrument and there was a whip round in the community to pay for her lessons proves the point that people value music so much in this country. To see it being charged for is entirely wrong, in my opinion. I think that the point that you raised about the numbers of music tutors dropping while the numbers of children learning stays the same is the crucial point, because that is the numbers game that the councils will continue to play. They will continue to tell us that it's the same amount of children, but the same amount of children learning in groups that are much larger, so the quality of the service that they are getting is much poorer. If there is a limited provision, as Ralf has pointed out, those children who can't afford it will drop out and be replaced by children who may have less of an inclination to learn, but whose parents can afford to pay for it. At the moment, eight out of 30 children in my son's class are going to be offered the opportunity to play the violin, and if he then had to pay for that or we had to then pay for that, and we dropped out, his place would be taken by somebody who was potentially had less of an ability or who had less of an inclination to learn, but who could afford to pay for it, and that is not fair. My sons go to school in Mary Lee in Glasgow and they have not been offered lessons until P5, and eight out of 80 children are being offered violin lessons, so it's a very small number being offered. Compared to when I was at a state school in Dundee, it was offered to anyone who wanted to try an instrument. We had a symphony orchestra in the school because our headmaster was very into music, and he actually played a trad jazz band, and he used to play alongside the children, play trumpet alongside the children on a wheelchair. It was amazing. Unbelievable opportunities, which I have stayed with me to this day. It's been unbelievable. Thank you, Kiwi Nacka. Thank you to the panel for their evidence. I recognise Mr Cook's journey and that sort of access to opportunity within school. I think that you can substitute music for art or drama, or in certain cases sport. Having had that opportunity at school, having gone on a journey that took me round the world, that's an opportunity. I wouldn't have had it not been for that introduction at school, so I just want to put that on record. Do you refer to business leaders calling for changes in the way that children are taught with a move away from a knowledge-based education? I wonder what sort of business leaders are you referring to here and do you have examples of those? Thank you. I would recommend that you go on to the World Economic Forum, Facebook page and website and look for the videos posted by Jack Ma, the way he describes it, can't be beaten. Absolutely phenomenal. I was sitting in the backseat of a car at the weekend, being driven down to Middlesbrough to take part in a brass band competition. I play with Dalmellington band and the driver of the car said, look, I can press this button and the car drives itself and he took his hands off. I thought, this is amazing, computers can do so much for us these days, but there are three things that computers cannot do. They cannot show empathy. They cannot have original thoughts. They cannot mimic human creativity. Jack Ma's point is that these are the things that we need to focus on in education. I agree that we should keep teaching the three Rs and all the rest of it, but we must not let go of the education in the arts because it is those things that give children so much resilience and equip them to be creative. What jobs are our kids going to be doing 10 years from now? It's a real pause for thought because anything that can be automated will be automated. Even driving is becoming automated. We will have train drivers in 10 years, bus drivers in 10 years. Children need to be nourished in the humanities. You refer to Scotland's worldwide reputation for the quality of its instrumental music and state that music plays a central role in Scotland's cultural heritage. What are your thoughts on any impacts if the Scottish Government decides not to invest in musical services? Yes, our particular perspective is about the community music. All of you will have had the experience of being at the gala day with the brass bands and the choral concerts at Christmas. It is the value of that to our culture that we are particularly concerned about. Just reducing the flow of the skill set that is coming out of school and into our amateur music groups and our amateur music culture, there are huge amounts of evidence. I can send some links on to you about the impacts on health and wellbeing and all the knock-on economic impacts that that has. All through life, we are talking about mental health for young people. We are talking about community health. We are also talking about the impact on people playing musical instruments on rheumatoarthritis or for those people who are singing on cardiovascular health. Those impacts are provable. That is the concern that we would have. You are taking away the opportunity to have those benefits for people for the whole of their life and the impacts that that will have on the communities that they belong to. Just reducing the opportunity for those people who are least able to afford it and who would most benefit from that. That is what is mostly our concern in this case. From a commercial music point of view, I have been doing some research in the past 10 days or so. I put a shout-out on Facebook to get some names of people who have got free musical instrument tuition as a child. As well as Ricky Ross, Katie Tunstall and Eddie Reader that I mentioned, Stuart Murdochran, and four of the members of Balancing Bastion, Stuart Brathwaite from Mogwai, Donald Shaw, the TV composer and member of Cappacallie. The current basis is with Iggy Pop, the head of A&R at Decca Records. The list goes on. Those people have been supported by free musical instrument tuition at school. All their emails said that they would not be where they are today. From a commercial music point of view, I do not think that we would be where we are today without the support that people had when they were children. You are going to see a kind of lost generation of all that is going to die without the support. I have benefited from free music tuition and have spent years playing the guitar and would probably have never been able to play a guitar to the level that I can. I could sympathise with your petition. However, our briefing refers to a report that John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, has agreed to discuss the future of a service with local authorities and members of the music education partnership group. What are your views on that? Just to clarify my views on the work with local authorities and them yet. That is great. I have become involved in what is an enormous campaign to preserve free musical instrument tuition in Scotland. You mentioned the MEPG which John Wallace chairs. When he and I first spoke about six months ago, we had a few conversations and he said to me, How are you feeling? I thought that that was quite an interesting question, because I think that he probably detected that there was an intensity in my involvement. He said, I have been doing this for years and years and years. I am glad that you are frustrated and I am glad that you are showing the anger. I believe that this is an enormous task to try and secure the place of music in our curriculum. We are very fortunate to have the dialogue that we have. We just need to make sure that it converts into some change, because if we continue on the current trajectory, I think that I can quote John Wallace on this and say that the instrumental music services will be gone in a period of years. We need to find a solution to this. It is extremely exasperating to approach a local authority and say, please prioritise this and to be told that we are not getting enough money from the Scottish Government. Therefore, we will have to find the savings somewhere. Then you come to the Scottish Government and you are told that it is an issue for local authorities to determine as they see best. I use the image of politicians shrugging their shoulders and blaming each other. It is not good enough. This is really important. The backwards and forwards blame game is not getting us anywhere. With all due respect, please find a way of exerting the power that you have here to change the law. Local authorities are up against it. Everybody is up against it. Times are tough. If there is an opportunity to make a cut lawfully, local authorities have to consider those opportunities. That is why I am asking the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law. It does not make sense for instrumental music tuition to be separate from the curriculum. Music is a curricular subject. It is in the curriculum. You have to learn music all through primary school and you have to learn it in first year and second year at school, same as maths, English, history and all the other subjects. That is great. If you want to go on and study music in third year and beyond, you need to arrive at that point able to play a musical instrument. You just do. You cannot study music seriously and not be very competent on a musical instrument. If you do not start your free tuition until third year, it will not happen. We will have a situation where children in primary school, which is when you need to start, who can afford it will get their lessons and they will arrive in third year and think, I want to study music seriously and I have already got five years of musical instrument tuition under my belt. Other children will not have had that opportunity. That is wrong. I think that there must be a failure to understand how important it is to the study of music, to be able to play a musical instrument. If you want to learn a foreign language but you have to pay for grammar lessons, it does not make sense. If you want to learn biology but you have to pay for hands-on time in the lab, it does not make sense. If you want to learn mathematics but you have to pay to be introduced to the concepts of algebra, it does not make sense. It does not make sense to be unable to learn a musical instrument if you want to study music seriously. Very often people say, well, can we afford the small group lessons? Well, we have afforded it before and I do not think that we should be apologetic that learning to play a musical instrument is a difficult challenge and it is best achieved in small groups, even one-to-one groups. I would like to make the point that a friend of mine who is retired as a musical instrument teacher in England after a long, long career told me that, because he was dyslexic himself, he spotted 37 students over his career who he thought were dyslexic and he referred them on. It turned out that they were able to receive specialist support. Because of that close working between student and pupil, he spotted something that was not apparent to others. Other teachers have told me that they have received disclosures from children, confidences because of the trust that is created in a small group setting. To lose that would be very wrong as well. To come back to the point about interest rates, local authorities are doing their best, I hope, to keep fees as low as possible. However, if we see a spike in interest rates, if we see a return in interest rates to any kind of normal level, there is going to be a clear out of children learning. Is it acceptable to the Scottish Parliament that an increase in interest rates could wipe out an educational service? The panel is obviously very well briefed to get to this point today, but I wonder if I could cast your mind back to 2012, when the Scottish Government set up the instrumental music group. That was to examine some of the issues surrounding musical tuition. Do you have any comments on the recommendations that were made from that and would you use that as a blueprint with what you are trying to achieve now? One of the recommendations that came out of Green's report in 2013 was that we need to have a national vision statement for music that includes instrumental music tuition. That was one of his recommendations, and we do not have that yet. John Wallace tells me that there is considerable research underway at the moment to help inform that, so that we have a proper understanding of the role of instrumental music within the study of music. I think that if we could get there, that would pave the way for good decisions. As I alluded to earlier, for some reason there is a disconnect between the study of music in the curriculum and the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument properly. I think that if that can be connected together and if the importance of playing a musical instrument can be properly understood in the context of music and we have a national vision statement for that, I think that that would be in a much, much stronger place. It would be easier for local authorities to make decisions if the power is to remain with them and it would be easier for the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation to put instrumental music on a proper protected statutory footing, so I would like to see that piece of work reach a conclusion. It was one of Green's recommendations in 2013. Okay, thanks. I can refer back to our meeting papers, which refer to written evidence that was submitted to the Education and Skills Committee earlier this year. Have you had the opportunity to look at those submissions and, if you have, do you have any comment on them? I have seen them. They are publicly available. I do not have any particular comment on them. You believe that, ultimately, the Scottish Government should just take matters into their own hands and invest in instrumental musical services. I wonder if you can tell us what you think that would look like. If you get a sense of the level of investment, would it be the National Fund or a ring-faced fund to local authorities? Have you looked at how you think that might work? The improvement service report from 2017 says that local authorities currently spend £27 million a year delivering the service, from which £4 million of that comes from fees. To quantify our request, we can look to that report. You are probably talking about £30 million a year if instrumental lessons are to be free. That is to stand still to where we are. Remembering that, while things are still good, we still have something worth preserving, but only 10 years ago, we had something considerably stronger than we do. If we can secure the current level of spending on it, that would be, I hope, a platform to then start progressing, because this is an opportunity. If we can increase the take-up by children of musical instrument tuition, we are winning. We are absolutely winning. I would like to say just a word about the concessions that are available. Local authorities try very hard to make sure that children who are in the least well-off parts of our communities can still access tuition for free. Typically, if children are entitled to free school meals, then they are entitled to free tuition. I applaud that, but the truth is that take-up from children in our most deprived areas of musical instrument tuition is stubbornly low. It is very difficult to get children from our poorest communities, our most deprived communities, to take up that opportunity. No doubt, there are many reasons for that, but, for sure, introducing fees so that children in the squeezed middle are excluded and the proportion of children from the most well-off families taking up the service is increasing. For sure, that will not improve uptake from the areas in society where, arguably, uptake is most needed. There is a vicious circle around staffing levels. Having anecdotally known some folk who have who are musicians themselves and have ended up, they might have looked at that option, but I have thought that it was too insecure and increasingly insecure, and indeed folk who have done that job around schools being instrumental teachers have found it to be a more difficult and less stable career than it was in the past. Do you think—I do not know if you have access to young people who are studying as musicians and who are not looking at this as an option for the future? How do we stop that lack of confidence as a career option, which then means that there will be fewer opportunities for young people? I think that, historically, becoming a parapetetic music teacher, as they are known, has been a real career aspiration for many children leaving school who are well-equipped musicians. It cannot look like an attractive proposition. If you started school 10 years ago and you are coming out of university now, you can see that half of the teachers who were teaching 10 years ago are no longer doing it, and you can see that the one-to-one tuition is by and large gone and children are being taught in much larger groups. That has got to look less appealing. The ability to teach one-to-one is a different thing from the ability to teach in larger groups. I recently read an article about training ships from 150 years ago, where boys who were homeless could go on to a training ship and learn industrial skills. Those ships had bands. 150 years ago, somebody wrote that teaching boys is an interesting thing. Some boys, if you do not keep on at them and constantly harass them, will never make any progress. Other boys, one harsh word and they will not play a note, other children need to take what you have told them away and think about it quietly and bring back their progress and show you. Teaching one-to-one is a particular skill. Teaching in large groups is a very different thing. People who received one-to-one tuition 10 years ago but now emerge into the workplace contemplating a very different model might not find it quite as attractive as a proposition. I have a point about musicians careers. Creative Scotland produced a really good report last year on diversity in the cultural sector. A really high percentage of people working in the culture sector earn a really small amount of money from a portfolio career. A lot of musicians in the instrumental service are doing that as part of the portfolio career. People are earning well below national average for working in the culture sector. Your point is crucial about the impact on not just the pupils but the teachers and all the instrumentalists and the musicians working in that sector. The draft culture strategy is looking at ways of impacting on incomes for artists. It would be worth considering that as a good route for employment for those people who have very unstable and low-income careers. I am going to ask our guests today, Liz Smith and John Scott, if they want to take the opportunity to ask some questions. Thank you, convener. Yes, I would have. That is all right. Thank you very much for the presentation that you have made this morning. It is very persuasive. I sat with the previous convener of the education committee just before the parliamentary recess and heard exactly the same thing from many of your colleagues, including John Wallace, who I think you mentioned earlier. I had a visit to the Royal Conservatoire during the policies, and I heard exactly the same thing from them. I personally do not think that there is any lack of political will in this. In fact, I do not even believe that this is a political issue. I think that it is extremely important for all the reasons that you set out. I will go to a point that you mentioned earlier. When it goes into the blame game between politicians—and that is not helpful—it is because cutbacks have to be made in parts of public spending. If we are to find enough money to do what you are asking us, which I think is very important, I think that we are going to need far more than £30 million, because I think that the potential demand in this area is very considerable. We are actually going to have to find the money to be able to do this. What I am interested to hear from you is whether you think that we would have to muddle along with cutbacks to other services, which is not going to be very popular, and it is certainly going to politicise the debate. Is there scope to find additional funding? You have mentioned about the excellence of the Scottish music industry. If you look abroad to some of the examples of countries that have done a bit better than us, there have been examples of additional funding that have come in from other sources. Do you accept that that is a possible way forward? We are straying right into some big political questions here, and I am going to step back from that. I think that the case for universal access in schools for all children for free is strong. I think that it merits the investment. If we can secure the current spend of £30 million and then grow from there, I would be happy. You mentioned the wider context in which music exists, and I think that perhaps third parties could provide some funding and investment perhaps in a public-private partnership. I would ask why music, why not mathematics, why not English, why not history? There is something about education that should be protected. I do not think that the specific problem with instrumental music is lack of money. I think that it is lack of understanding of the importance of learning to play a musical instrument in the context of a proper, excellent education. That is where the problem lies. If you hand over responsibility for funding that to third parties for music, then why not hand it over for education as a whole? We are getting into political territory. In theory, it would be very nice to have everything that is free, but I do not think that we are there in terms of the practicalities. Local authorities will come back at you and say, we simply cannot afford this. We would like to, but we cannot. If you look to America, there are examples of third parties who have provided the instruments to the schools in order to boost the level of activity. I would be interested in your thoughts about that. I mean, personally, if we can get these instruments and we can provide some support for the teachers who could deliver that music education, I would be interested in looking at where we can get that. If we are going to be told by the Scottish Government and by local authorities that we cannot afford it, is it not better to have it through some other means and not have it at all? The Scottish Government finds in the budget every year enough money to pay for our national performance companies—the ballet company, the chamber orchestra. That money is found every year. The money to feed those orchestras has to be found as well. The investment can be found to pay for national performance companies, but investment cannot be found to pay for the education that is required to feed those companies. Where is it going to come from? That is the point that we need to do. We can solve that problem if we find that additional spend. That is what I am asking. We have to be realists in this at the moment. Public finance is very tight for all sorts of different reasons. I think that there are good examples abroad, and I think that the Royal Conservatoire would argue this too. There are good examples where some additional help has been forthcoming from outside sources. That will be a matter that should be on just the petitioners themselves and make them reasonable for the petitioners to make the case that they have done that should be funded by the state. Perhaps in our investigations we might want to look at what those examples are. Rather than an assumption, we will have to find that argument, but it is probably true now. However, we are going to take John and then Brian, and I would like to wrap it up after that. That is okay. Thank you, convener. Thank you for making me welcome here today. Welcome to Mr Riddiff and my constituent and your colleagues on the panel. As Mr Riddiff is my constituent, I am here to support him in his quest for universal funding for musical instrument tuition. I think that we have a duty as politicians to endeavour to produce the next generation of children as well educated as they possibly can be. I am concerned at the moment that all the indicators are that educational attainment is falling and without being political. I really do not want to be political, but those are the facts, notwithstanding. This would just be another component part of that. The uptaken language is reducing and I do not want to see musical instrument tuition also being reducing, so I am very much supportive. I think that if we are looking at budgets, there are possibly budgets such as Rapploch in Stirling, which has been to save budget, which the community benefits there in that area in Stirling where the musical instrumentation has produced and tuition has produced enormous community benefits. I think that that is an example where perhaps funding could be found, particularly if, as Mr Riddiff persuasively argues, it is the most disadvantaged families and children who are likely to not be able to afford musical instrumentation and tuition. I am very supportive of this petition. I have had other than Mr Riddiff constituents approach me, both parents working, just saying that they are handing back and that they cannot afford their tuition fees. My question was, did I hear you correctly when you said that there were 216 children in South Ayrshire who had handed back their instruments, which I find a very despairing figure, if that is the case? Yes, that is correct. There was an FOI in just over the summer, number 8385, which sets out all the information and it was 216. In the discussions today, we seem to focus very much on careers in music through the education system. Given that I am starting to recognise that my career, potentially, as a rock guitarist, is fading, much more due to the fact that a severe lack of talent. What I wanted to explore is the impact of being able to play a musical instrument. I use it as my frustration going to smash my guitar to despair of my neighbours. It is more around that, that is that confidence, resilience and the impact on life that being able to play a musical instrument. I wonder if that is something that we have not really talked about today. I wonder if you have an opinion on that. The good news in Scotland is that we have a very large and very healthy amateur music culture, so for the large numbers of children who come out of the service who do not wish to choose that as a career, there is an ability to move forward and to continue to play. It could be, in your bedroom playing the rock guitar, but it could be as part of a really excellent standard orchestra, for example the Glasgow Orchestra Society, which is almost 150 years old this year, or the Aberdeen Chamber Orchestra. I spoke to them this week and they affirmed that, yes, almost all of their players had come through instrumental music tuition services. They played to an extremely high standard. The fee to participate in an orchestra society like that is somewhere between £100 and £200 a year on average. It is not a significant amount of money if you think about how much a gym membership is or how much cinema tickets are now. There are vast amounts of opportunities to continue to play. We know from the research and the literature that the impact on health and wellbeing to the individuals is huge and mental health is reducing isolation, but the physical impact on your body of playing a musical instrument and particularly singing is crucial. It is important to note that a lot of singers who sing in choral societies need to read music. Where did they learn to read music? Learning to play a musical instrument. It is a transferable skill. We are not talking about turning out professionals, although there is an excellent turn-around rate for that. We are talking about investing in something that gives quality of life to everybody and should be available to everybody. I feel that we have not really looked at what the Scottish Government is currently doing with the regard to the youth music initiative. All the rebuttals in the press with regard to the musical tuition issues have been that the Scottish Government is providing this £109 million over the past decade. I just wondered if we should have explored a little bit more about that. I see the YMI as an amazing potential solution to the problem of children not having the confidence to stick up their hand and say, yes, I will take that opportunity, or from children not getting a chance for some other reason, because it is a whole-class situation. All the children in the class will get a half-hour lesson or something like that once a week for most of the primary school year, at the end of which I have seen videos of teachers leading a class. It is quite impressive what can be achieved. I think that that is absolutely tremendous. It gives a real opportunity to every child to have a go and to get something out of it, and that is really, really good. The problem—and I refer to it in the text of my petition—is that, at the end of that free tuition, if you go home and say to your mum and dad, I want to carry on learning the violin, can I hear an invoice, the answer might be no. Would it not be better to invest in generating and stimulating an interest in this subject, which is so valuable and so beneficial, as a way of feeding children in to the core service, which is the instrumental music service, where you can progress with your studies from a specialist teacher. In a classroom music setting in primary school, you might learn the recorder or strum a guitar or play some chords on a keyboard, but that is great. That introduces you to music, but if you want to master the violin, you need to be taught by a specialist violin teacher. If you want to play a brass instrument, you need that specialist tuition. Why am I stimulating an opportunity that is not capitalised on because some children cannot afford to carry on and because the core service is getting weaker and weaker? Thank you very much for that. I think that that has been a really interesting session, and I did let it run on longer than I would normally as an ex-school teacher allow anything to run on, but it was important that we had the opportunity to explore all those issues. We have learned a lot from that. I should declare an interest as the mother of a son who benefited from tuition in Glasgow and the experience of going away as a group performing in the city halls and all those kinds of things, which is much more than just about the music, but the joy of making music together. I always felt that Glasgow did not sing loudly enough. I am interested. I would hate to think that other young people were not getting that opportunity as we go forward. If we have comments or suggestions for action around this petition, my sense is that people feel very warm towards the petition, but we need to think about how we take it forward. Convener, the petitioners have given a very strong argument towards looking closer at that. Perhaps we should write to the Scottish Government to ask them for their consideration of this strong petition. I do not think that we would be looking for more from them simply than the stated fact that this is a matter for local authorities. It is how they respond to the fact that local authorities are not, for whatever reason, providing the level of service that the petitioners particularly would want. It would be interesting in the views of the musician unions, because they might have a view that you talked about precarious work and whether there is something there in terms of generating clear opportunities. Would it be appropriate to then speak to the local authorities? As I asked the local authorities, there seems to be a big disparity in the way that local authorities are approaching this, so perhaps having their opinion on this would be… I suggest that, given the benefits beyond learning of music and the ability to play an instrument, the benefits to communities and society are large. If those areas could be explored in a spin to save we and the fact that many young people are learning an instrument, they might otherwise have time in their hands and not enough to do. Those are also benefits to the communities and, I think, it was only touched on, but, given the report today that is out about mental health issues and the difficulties and the growing problem of mental health and the self-evident benefits that are coming from musical instrument learning and tuition in terms of mental health, I just think that there might be an opportunity to explore other budgets other than purely educational budgets and local authority budgets in the Scottish Government. I think that that is a fair enough point unless it becomes something that is everybody's responsibility and therefore nobody's responsibility, because I am interested in the point that is made about why is music tuition seen as something that is not core. There may be an argument that judgments have been made inside education departments and local authorities that are making precisely that decision, and I am very much alive to what it has said about that. My son went on to do an advance higher in music, but he would not have been able to do that unless he had started violin in primary school. Why are local authorities feeling that they can make that distinction about the subject? That then takes you to where the other opportunities are. Anyone else who should be speaking to Angus? Thanks, convener. Given that we are agreeing to contact local authorities, we should specifically ask each and every one of them what the drop-out rate is over the past year or the past two years, since we saw the cuts coming in and the charges doubling in some areas. As there was a specific request for that information, I think that it would be helpful and it might help to concentrate their minds if we asked them what their projected drop-out rate would be if things continue. I note in our papers that the EIS supports the petition and that the campaign has changed the tune running at the moment to protest at the budget cuts to music services, so I would be keen to get on record something from the EIS as well, so if we could write to them. I think that that is the reason why we are placed to start, to try and establish. I think that we really would be wanting in our correspondence to get beyond the line to take, which is budget cuts and is a matter for local authorities in trying to get a sense. Presumably, if there is a calculation around budget cuts, drop-out rates would then affect that, because you are not going to bring in the income that you might have otherwise projected, but those are all things that we can look at further. With that, I think that we are recognising the significance of this petition. I want to thank the panel today for the contribution that they have made, which has been a very interesting session. I can assure you that we will be coming back to this, and we will keep you aware of the petition as it progresses, and you will have the opportunity at each stage to comment on the submissions that were received by the committee. With that, I thank you very much, and I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave the table. If I can call a meeting back to order, we are now going to move on to the next new petition for consideration, which is petition 1696 on preserving Scottish battlefields by Jack Gallagher on behalf of the Boswell Historical Society. The petition is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to prevent the development on battlefields as listed on Historic Environment Scotland's inventory of historic battlefields. The SPICE briefing included in our papers explains that Historic Environment Scotland is responsible for designating and preserving Scotland's nationally important battlefields and maintains an inventory of historic battlefields as referred to by the petitioner. Our briefing also highlights that Historic Environment Scotland is a statutory consortie in the planning system, and it can formally object to a planning application if it considers that a new development would have a serious adverse impact on sites, including on the inventory. While objections from Historic Environment Scotland must be lodged at the consultation stage, if the planning authorities decide to grant planning permission and there remains an objection from Historic Environment Scotland, the application must be notified to the Scottish ministers. The petition raises concerns, however, that battlefields are currently not protected by any legislation, and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. You just quoted Historic Environment Scotland's policy statement, which says that it ensures that nationally important battlefields are given consideration in their plans. We surely should be consulting with them, writing to them to ask them for their views on the petitioner's perspective. I think that there is a really interesting petition in all these interesting sites, but I am sure that we will all have visited at certain times and the importance of preserving, I guess, the competition between where there is development needed in a community and to what extent the battlefields are then preserved. I do not pretend to have any expertise or knowledge in it, but I think that I would be interested in finding out a bit more. Teasing out is the fact that Historic Environment Scotland is a consultee sufficient. Clearly, the petitioner does not think that it offers sufficient protection because it can make a comment, but it does not really trigger anything. I suppose that it does mean that the Scottish ministers have to look at it. I think that I would be interested in the Scottish Government's view on Historic Environment Scotland to anyone else that we could be perhaps asking for information from Brian. Following on from that point, I mean that whole role is a statutory consultee. I would be quite interested in what went right to the Scottish Government anyway, but to understand exactly what is meant by statutory consultee and what impact it can potentially have on any plans coming forward. Are there any examples where development has been refused because Historic Environment Scotland has launched an objection? I think that Visit Scotland will be really interesting because it has probably put in context of tourism. We could maybe speak to Visit Scotland and the tourism bodies, their organisation, just to see if it is an issue for them. If the suggestion here is that this organisation, the Botherwell Historical Society and others feel that the protections are not sufficient, one of the things is that we would need to identify what the evidence is. I suppose that is the point that I have already made. I would be interested to know on how many occasions has an objection meant that the development has not happened, how many occasions has an objection simply been heard, but then the development has gone on. I suppose that those are questions that we can ask of the statutory body itself. Is there anything else that we would want to do? I will add to that convener. Would it be prudent to ask the local authorities as well, or is that just going a little step too far? Could we get all that information with regard to appeals? The first point is simply to ask COSLA. Is this an issue that they are aware of that has been flagged up to them? It may be. Depending on what we get from that, another response might be that we would want to look further at that. I guess that it is not something that is going to affect all local authorities and might as proportionate affect some. We want to thank the petitioner for highlighting this session. I think that there are some opportunities to explore further their concerns. We can move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1698, on medical care and rural areas, by Karen Murphy, Jane Rental, David Wilkair, Louisa Rogers and Jennifer Jane Lee. The petition is calling the Scottish Government to ensure strong rural and remote GP representation on the remote and rural short-life working group recently established as part of the new GP contract with Scotland. Adjust the workload allocation formula urgently in light of the new contract proposals to guarantee that both primary and ancillary services are at least as good as they are now in all areas, so patients do not experience a rural and remote postcode lottery in relation to the provision of healthcare. Address remote practice and patient concerns raised in relation to the new GP contract. The SPICE briefing included in our meeting papers explains that the new GP contract between the Scottish Government and the British Medical Association came into force on 1 April this year. The contract aims to improve access for patients, address inequalities and improve population health, provide financial stability for GPs and reduce GP workload through the expansion of the primary care multidisciplinary team. The contract offer proposes a two-phase approach. Phase 1 involves the introduction of a new GP workload-based resource allocation formula. Members will note that the petitioners have raised concerns that the new formula will reduce funding for remote and rural practices. Those concerns are shared by the Rural GP Association of Scotland, which states that the workforce allocation formula quote, seems heavily weighted against rural communities. The Scottish Government has set up a remote and rural short-life working group and the petitioners are seeking strong rural and remote GP representation in this group. In a letter to Scottish Rural Action in March of this year, the Scottish Government stated that quote, it will ensure that its membership represents a wide range of remote and rural communities from across Scotland. I wonder if members have comments or suggestions for action. Brian Whittle, in the Health and Sport Committee, you are obviously very interested in this particular topic. I have started doing work on this as well. Is there a potential here for cross-referencing across to the work that has been done on that committee? Yes. They are pulling a lot of information together as well. That might be a hell of a petition. We could make sure that the clerks are in the two committees and maybe having a conversation about that. Anyone else? I am very struck by the strength of feeling that I do not represent a rural area, but I have a family who live in some pretty remote and rural areas. I am very struck by the suggestion that there had not been proper consultation, but when there was consultation they were able to get a lot of people out to meetings. It looks as if one bit of the GP contract has been fixed to some extent, but there is no confidence in it among those remote and rural areas. I suppose that we would be really wanting to get from the Scottish Government a sense of how they are going to deal with that lack of confidence that people are expressing. Angus? Clearly, that refers to phase 2 of the contract, and there is still a recognition in the contract offer with regard to the costs of dispensing or the diseconomies of small-scale GP practices. It says that that will need to be addressed by proposals for phase 2, so it is clearly on the radar, but this petition comes in at an opportun time to highlight the issues. It is concerning that there is an issue that has been a lack of dialogue or perceived lack of dialogue with rural and remote communities. I am just hoping that, obviously, I am looking at the reply from Jeane Freeman that was given on the 6th of the 7th this year with regards to a meeting that she was going to get the officials to identify the issues that the group had to discuss at the next meeting, which is to be held in September. I presume that we will not receive the first of all, what was discussed within that meeting, and to seek the views on the action that the Government is taking within that working group? I am not sure if we can. I am presuming that the group will report. From the petition's point of view, and I am sure that we would agree with that, we want to make sure that there is strong rural and remote GP representation on the short-life working group, so we can ask the Scottish Government how they are doing that. The other issue is about the workload allocation formula. We need to ask the Scottish Government for their response to that. It is also a suggestion that we would ask the rural GP Association of Scotland for their views on the petition and on those particular questions. I am not sure whether there are other community groups and organisations that represent the patient interest in remote and rural areas that we could be asking. Perhaps those petitioners are a reflection of that, and that might be an indication that there is an issue. Can I suggest that we start by making sure that there is a conversation between ourselves and the health committee about what has actually been done, and also ask the Scottish Government and the rural GP Association of Scotland for their views on the particular issues that the petition demands? Is that agreed? If we can now move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1699 by Amanda Digby on the release of murder victim bodies for funeral arrangements. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change post-mortem examination protocols to allow for the deceased to be released as early as possible, to enable families to make funeral arrangements for their loved ones. The briefing note explains that, in the event of a murder, an investigation takes place, which includes a post-mortem to establish the cause of death and to provide evidence for a criminal prosecution. In Scotland, when someone is then charged with that murder, the defence is the right to carry out its own post-mortem, which may uncover things that were not the focus of the original examination. However, it can sometimes take a long time, possibly years, for someone to be charged. As the petitioner has set out, that can result in a lengthy delay before the victim's body is released for a funeral. The situation is different in England and Wales, where, if no one has been charged and connected with a murder and they are pleased to not expect to make an arrest within 28 days, the coroner will arrange for a second post-mortem examination by a pathologist independent of the first. The body can then be released and the coroner retains a report produced by the defence if, in due course, an arrest is made and charges brought. Members will have noted that the Lord Advocate answered the parliamentary question in February to the effect that there is a review of post-mortem examination protocols taking place to enable more effective consultation between pathologists instructed by the Crown and defence. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I do not think that we have been given a timescale for that, but I think that that would be in itself a useful question to ask. I have to say that we obviously cannot comment on the individual circumstance of the tasal. We would like to thank the petitioner to highlight this general issue. I cannot understand why we cannot have the same situation as a model that has been developed elsewhere. It does feel unconscionable that you could be in a position because somebody has not—there is nobody being charged, presumably—that you could never have the remains returned to you for burial. I think that that must be very distressing. I would be interested to know why the idea that you would, after 28 days, instruct an independent pathologist to produce a second postmortem, which would meet the needs of a defence, should there be a case in the future. I am not clear why that is not an option that is being considered in Scotland. I would be wanting to ask the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Lord Advocate that question. It would seem to be the ideal solution to prevent any delay in releasing the body. We certainly need to ask that question. I suppose that if there is an issue about the Scottish system, perhaps we should be looking to the associations in Scotland, such as the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Terminal Bar Association, who might have a view on why there is a distinct system in Scotland that does not follow that route and get their views on that. I do not know if there is an issue about the availability of forensic pathologists in Scotland, and we should just be asking. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, if that is the case, because if it is simply the one of expertise, that is surely something that could be addressed. I might also be helpful if we could write to Victim Support Scotland and Pettar for seeking their views on the petition. People experience the trauma and loss, so there are other people in the system who might have had the same experience as the petitioner has, and they would be able to share their views. Whether that is something that has—I must confess that it is not an issue that has been flagged up to me in the past, but it does feel something that must add to the trauma that has already been experienced. I think that there is a good idea to speak to people who have a direct consequence of that kind of loss as well. We are agreeing that if not the model from what happened south of the border then hot, because we think that what is currently the situation is not desirable in any way or form, in fact, causes a lot of extra trauma and grief. We have agreed that we would write to the relevant legal bodies to Crown Office, Scottish Government and organisations that represent people who have been in that position. If that is agreed, we want to thank the petitioner for bringing that petition forward. The next petition for consideration is petition 1700 by Martin James Keatings on behalf of Forward As One on the progression of the process for a section 30 order to hold a Scottish referendum on independence from the United Kingdom. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to seek a section 30 order from the UK Government to enable it to bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament to hold a second referendum on Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom. The briefing note sets out the legislative background surrounding a section 30 order, which was a mechanism used for the referendum, which took place in 2014. The Parliament has already debated and voted on this in March 2017. The motion that was agreed to on division mandated, quote, the Scottish Government to take forward discussions with the UK Government on the details for an order under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. Members will note that the petitioner has sent a submission for consideration. In it he states that, quote, so far as the progress in political situation thus far has been left to the media and the politicians to comment, debate and otherwise direct to conversation. The purpose of bringing this matter before the committee was to press for a section 30 order, but more importantly to allow the electric businesses and civic organisations in Scotland the opportunity to directly interact with their Parliament on this substantive constitutional issue by way of the petition's process. I think that this is a cross-party committee, so it would not be expected that it will agree on the merits or otherwise of a referendum on independence. I wonder if members have any comments on the views expressed by the petitioner. I have been a petitioner itself or in a further submission. Do members feel that the electric businesses and civic organisations in Scotland have not been able to engage with the Parliament on this issue? If they have not, what would be the mechanism for that? The question for us to consider today is what action it might be appropriate for us to take on the petition. I am not sure whether there will be an update on what the Scottish Governments position is following the programme for government, but I wonder if members wish to seek the Scottish Government's views on the issue. As you have referred to already, this is a cross-party committee. However, that said, I clearly have a sympathy for the petition. I think that it is worth pointing out that the First Minister has stated that she will give clarity on the issue next month. Although there are suggestions, I note in the press this morning, that that announcement could be later in the year. In the first instance, we need to seek clarity from the Scottish Government, but I note in the submission from the petitioner, Martin Keating, in which he states his frustration at not being given the opportunity to give oral evidence on the petition. However, I do feel that the whole issue has been well rehearsed both inside and outside this Parliament, and the views of everyone are well known. In the first instance, we need to get clarification from the Scottish Government as to where they are with regard to this, and certainly with regard to section 30 order, and we should write to them forthwith. Is that agreed? That is one of the issues in which people have strong views, but there is also in my sense that this is a conversation that has gone on in different parts of the communities in different ways. Not just whether there should be a referendum, but what would the mechanism be for that? I think that it would be useful to know from the Scottish Government in the first instance what the review specifically is on the timing of a mechanism that the Scottish Government has already identified as the one that would be useful for me. We want to thank the petitioner for the petition and the further submission that was sent to us. If we can then move on to the final new petition for consideration today, it is a petition 1702 on counselling provision in all schools by Joan Waddle. The petition calls for the Scottish Government to ensure that, by 2022, all pupils will have access to trained counsellers in schools. As members will be aware, the Scottish Government's programme for government includes a range of new measures to help children and young people to access schools' counselling services. The petitioner has indicated to the clerks that, based on this announcement, she is content for the petition to be closed. This petition emphasises the importance of early intervention and prevention to support children and young people with mental ill health. While the petitioner has indicated that she is content to close the petition, we may wish to reflect on the detail of the petition as we consider the scope of the committee's inquiry on how young people can access mental health services and treatments. I wonder whether members have any comments or suggestions for action. I think that the petition obviously raises issues that are consistently spoken about within the chamber and across all the political spectrums. It has been really useful, some of the evidence that they have brought forward has been very useful. I would be inclined to, as you say, before we go to the point where we are going to close the petition that we have the opportunity to reflect on that evidence as it pertains to others. We can do both. The petitioner says that she is content for the petition to be closed. I think that we could close the petition, but in this bit of work that we have already agreed to do around access to mental health support for young people, prompted in particular by Alison MacKenzie's petition. We can draw on some of that, and it may indeed be that the petitioner herself may want to reflect later on whether what has developed with the Scottish Government satisfies what prompted the petition in the first place. There is a question about professional councillors, but there is also about the training of front-line teaching staff in counselling, which is maybe something slightly different that I would be interested to explore as well. I suggest that we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7, on the basis that the petitioner has indicated that she wishes to withdraw the petition, but that absolutely we take on board to the issues that are highlighted in the petition around our own inquiry. Would that be agreed? Okay, thank you very much. So we are now moving on to agenda item 3, which is the consideration of continued petitions. Our next agenda item is petition 1463, effective thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment by Sandra White, Mander Dyer and Lorraine Cleaver. The committee last considered this petition earlier in the year, in March, and subsequently published its report. The report focused on four main areas, guidance framework, diagnosis and testing, treatment and research. The committee also agreed that it should seek time in the debating chamber for consideration of the issues raised in the petition. The committee has received a response from the Scottish Government to the report and the response is included in the briefing paper. Elaine Smith, MSP, has also provided some information that the committee may wish to note. Elaine has given her apologies for today. She is unable to be here as she is unwell. Obviously, many of the issues—I will make sure that that is circulated to the committee—will be an opportunity to raise those issues in the debate. She does specifically ask a number of questions, one of which is emphasising the importance of a consistent approach that is needed in primary care, not just in secondary care. She wants to know whether the Scottish Government will now issue a written edict to health boards before any more patients are removed from their life-saving medication. I certainly have no experience of this being inconsistent at the GP level. In terms of listening, she particularly flags up the question of whether the Scottish Government will undertake another properly conducted listening exercise, having admitted that the previous one did not meet its objectives. She also highlights the feedback from the recent Scottish Women's Convention health conference. I think that those comments can be included in our considerations. We have asked for time to be set out in a business programme for the chamber for a debate, and I think that we anticipate that that has been scheduled for later this year. I wonder whether members want to comment on the response or at any other aspect of the petition. We will be given time to debate in the chamber the issues that have been raised. I think that it is highly likely, because we have raised it with the community group already, and it has been agreed by the community group, so it would be a committee slot. I think that it is one that they recognise that there is an interest in. There was certainly an interest when there was a members' debate held by Lane Smith, as a consequence of that. I think that we can be confident that we will get a good slot in the chamber. Of course, because of that, there is an obligation that the Scottish Government has to respond to the debate, so it will be an opportunity to explore those issues that we identified in our report, but also that other members have concerns about. I think that getting a debate in the chamber is obvious. I do not think that there is much else that we can do currently, rather than wait for our timeslot. We are noting the Scottish Government's response to the committee's report, and we are noting, too, that in the parliamentary business programme, a debate in the chamber will offer an opportunity for those issues to be further explored. Is there any other action at this stage? Perhaps it is something that we can come back to after the debate in the chamber, because there may be issues flagged up around the end that would be useful. In that case, if we can then move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1600 by John Chapman on speed awareness courses. We last considered this petition in September 2017. At that meeting, we noted the Scottish Government's position that speed awareness courses was a matter for the Lord Advocate. We also considered previous submissions from the Lord Advocate in which he noted the three-year evaluation that has been undertaken by the Department of Transport, and confirmed that he had given authorisation for Police Scotland to undertake more detailed scoping work on the viability of speed awareness courses. In the most recent submissions, both Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate note that the Department for Transport published the findings of its three-year evaluation in May. Police Scotland adds that scoping work is continuing and no proposal has yet been submitted to the Lord Advocate. The clerks note identifies findings from the Department for Transport evaluation include that speed awareness courses appear to have a greater effect than fixed penalty notices and those effects appear to persist over time. The petitioner sets out his concern that Police Scotland is delaying submitting a proposal to the Lord Advocate due to financial implications of delivering speed awareness courses. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I have to say or share the petitioner's frustration that something that feels and looks sensible and straightforward is just not being progressed. I think that we need to think about, in my view, how we break that log jam. The Lord Advocate is saying that he is doing a scoping exercise. The Scottish Government is saying that this is a matter for the Lord Advocate. I wonder if it is a matter for the Scottish Government to be a matter of policy saying that it wants something developed through Police Scotland. We changed our laws on drink driving. I do not think that we just left that to Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate to decide when that would happen. I might be missing something that feels eminently sensible and works. I would want to be asking the Scottish Government whether it agrees that the evidence says that it works and, if so, what can it do to make this scoping plan stop scoping and start working? I agree with you that it is quite frustrating that this scoping work is taking so long to complete. I am afraid that I cannot blame the petitioner for coming to the view that the delay in delivering the action called for and the petition is owing to the financial implications of doing so. I will certainly be keen to write to the Scottish Government to get the view. However, you are always wary of being accused of interfering in operational issues with Police Scotland. However, given that it has taken so long to get this scoping work done, I think that it is legitimate to try to find out why there has been such a delay. Would it be worth asking them to come before the committee? It is a policy issue to get the minister along and ask Police Scotland to come. The parallel that I draw is the one with changing the drink driving rules. I think that it is a policy change that was then enacted by the Government. It is not by the Government, but by Police Scotland. Whoever it is, it will be enacted by the Government. Who is it being acted by? It is a chicken and egg situation. I suppose that what I want to know is that, if they think that it is a bad idea, can they just tell us? If it is a good idea, why is it not being progressed? If it is a good idea that is not being progressed, what is stopping it being progressed? I hear what the petitioner says, that it is about finance. Presumably, in the longer term, if it is more effective, it is what we were talking about earlier, about spending to save, because it would save lives and stop people, perhaps re-offending in the same way around speed. I would like to add that is it the perception that the financial implication is regarding the scoping work, or is the financial implication about bringing it into existence? What is it that is holding them back, as you quite rightly say? Perhaps we should write to the minister to ask him to give us his views on why this is taking so long, and whether you say yes or no. I was quite surprised. I suppose that it is a symptom of being old. It did not feel like 10, 2017, when we were last discussed this. Maybe we should just cut to the chase and get them to come to committee and maybe get the clerks to get the Government officials and the police or whoever would be the appropriate people to come and explain. Is it because of the scoping exercise that is expensive, or is it what is coming out of the scoping exercise that is a concern, or is it simply not a priority because there are a million other things that they have to do? I suppose that it would just be worthwhile hearing from them. That is fairly obvious. There is obviously a bit of financial implication, but that should not be the driving policy. You are not going to have fixed penalties any more than there is a financial implication. My sense is that you can still have both. You cannot keep going to speed awareness courses. There comes a point where you have to be triggered off into penalty notices and losing your licence anyway. I think that we are agreed that we want to respond to the petition's frustration in this and just get the appropriate people in before the committee. If that is agreed, we can move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1642 on sale and marketing of energy drinks to under-16s by Norma Austin-Hart. The committee last considered this petition in March and agreed to defer further consideration until the publication of the Scottish Government's new diet and obesity strategy. The strategy has now been published and includes a commitment to consult and restricting the sale of energy drinks to young people under the age of 16. Members may also be aware that the UK Government has recently launched a consultation seeking views on the banning of energy drinks to children. The petitioner welcomes the action taken by the UK Government and questions whether the Scottish Government will take similar action. I have had a headteacher come to me with regards to this and saying that pupils in the class were being disrupted because of their consumption of energy drinks. I did write to the justice that will demigr Matheson at the time. His response was that the Scottish Government would wait until it heard what position the UK Government took. I am unclear as to how the UK Government's decision impacts on the Scottish Government's decision. Perhaps we have to wait to see how the UK Government will take that forward. Is it devolved? I am not seeing me do it. We could take a different path if we are so desired. I am not quite... I am assuming that the UK Government is consulting in England. I am assuming that it is not consulting in Wales, but it is something that we could establish. I think that the petitioner said that he welcomed the fact that the UK Government was looking at a ban. I suppose that the question to the Scottish Government is, are you looking at this too? I think that everybody is in the same page in the green, there is an issue and a problem. It is whether you restrict it in public buildings or buildings over which you could control or do you go for an all-out ban? That is what seems to be being consulted on at a UK level. Would it be sensible to ask the Scottish Government for an update and ask whether it has any plans to consult in the same terms as the UK Government is? The only issue that we need to decide is whether we would keep the petition open until we get that response. Is that agreed? We can move on to the next petition. For consideration, petition 1665 on common law of blasphemy by Mark McCabe. We last considered this petition in March when we reviewed the Scottish Government's response to the petition, which stated that there were no plans formally to abolish the common law crime of blasphemy. The committee, however, agreed to defer consideration of the petition until the independent review of hate crime legislation in Scotland had been published, as crimes motivated by religious hatred would be covered in the review. The recommendations resulting from the review were published in May. The review concluded that it was not necessary to extend the religious aggravation to capture religious or other beliefs and that the courts can use common law powers to impose higher sentences if necessary. An additional written submission in relation to this petition has been received from the Humanist Society Scotland since our papers were circulated and members have been provided with a copy of the submission for our meeting today. The submission states that the Scottish Government intends to launch a formal consultation in response to the review of recommendations based on a period of engagement, which will include consideration as to whether the common law offence of blasphemy should feature in the consultation. The society, however, raises concerns that attended the Scottish Government's first hate crime stakeholders group in August, and blasphemy was not part of any of the Government's written plans at this meeting. The society is therefore of the view that the Government has no plans to take any action in relation to blasphemy in a formal consultation. The Scottish Government has contacted the clerks to explain that the Humanist Society Scotland met with officials in June to discuss the society's campaign on blasphemy law, among other issues, and that they were represented at the stakeholder engagement meeting in August when blasphemy law was considered. The Scottish Government confirms that it is currently engaging with stakeholders in relation to the independent review of hate crime legislation recommendations to help to inform the key issues and concerns for inclusion in a public consultation to be launched in autumn this year. That will include seeking views on the common law offence of blasphemy, and whether there is justification for including relevant proposals relating to that offence in the public consultation. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. We already understand that the Scottish Government has no plans to abolish common law crime or blasphemy. Given the Scottish Government's position, we should consider closing the petition. That is one option, and the other option is giving the later submission to the Scottish Government clarifying their position whether we simply ask them to update us on a public consultation planned in autumn, or to take a view that the petitioner has raised these issues. The Scottish Government is aware of them and they are engaged with stakeholders, including the humanist society in this, and that perhaps there is not a role for the Public Petitions Committee any longer. Having read the submission from the Humanist Society Scotland, they have made the Scottish Government aware at the hate crime stakeholder group on 15 August of their views. It may well be that the Government decides to include that in any formal consultation, but at the moment I am minded to close the petition. Given that the Scottish Government has already stated that there are no plans to abolish the common law crime of blasphemy, perhaps we could write to the Scottish Government, if we are to close it, we could still highlight the humanist society Scotland's submission to the Scottish Government in closing it. Is there an alternative view? Are we agreed that we would want to close the petition, but we would write to the Scottish Government simply highlighting as Angus has identified the new information of the humanist society in Scotland? Is that agreed? The piece of evidence that came in just says that there is a lack of commitment to a formal consultation at this stage from the humanist society. I just wondered whether we would be confident that the review will inform a period of formal consultation and that would be sufficient. I might suggest that we write to them and highlight the humanist society's view on that, but I also remind the petitioner that they, of course, can submit petition again in the future if they feel that that has not been addressed. I think that that might allow the matter to be addressed or not. We do know that the Scottish Government has already said that it is engaging with stakeholders in relation to independent review of hate crime and helping to inform the issues in terms of their consultation. However, if we are agreeing that we close the petition, we would want to thank the petitioner for highlighting those issues and remind him, as I have said, that in the future there is an opportunity to resubmit the petition on those issues or on us how the matter is developed. The final position for consideration today is petition 1686 on homelessness crisis in Scotland by Sean Clarken. We are last considered this petition in May when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and Shelter Scotland. The briefing summarises the submission that was received, including from the petitioner. Members will note that the submission from the then Minister for Local Government and Housing was essentially superseded by the minister's statement to the Parliament on 27 June. In his written submission and subsequent statement to the Parliament, the minister states that the Scottish Government's homelessness prevention and strategy group will consider all the recommendations of homelessness and rough sleeping action group, as well as the Local Government and Communities Committee, and will report back to Parliament in due course. In her statement on the programme for government last week, the First Minister stated that, before the end of the year, the Scottish Government will publish a comprehensive action plan that will set out how the Government expects to deliver on all of the homelessness and rough sleeping action group's recommendations. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. For certain, the petition has a great deal of merit and, in my mind, makes a great deal of sense. I wonder whether it would be for another committee to take that forward until the Local Government and Communities Committee for work that they are currently doing at the moment. I know that the petitioner has suggested that the petition should be sent to the Local Government and Communities Committee, and I am happy to move that convener. I was very struck by the general consensus that the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping should be prioritised. Those are important matters. Where there is contention is where the way in which the petitioner envisaged how the money would be spent, which would be to front-load it and build houses against some of the people within the housing sector who felt that the running time for those things is longer than that, but a lot of the sports that homeless people require, not just simply about the tenancy but about the supports that they can wrap around them. Although there was clearly very interesting argument to be had there, merit is on both sides. I certainly take the view that, perhaps, given the petitioner's own preference for it being referred to the Local Government and Communities Committee, which has done quite a lot on housing, that that might be a useful way of it being taken forward. I think that you are right that there is, in terms of how the money should be spent, there is obviously a lot of negotiation going on or different discussions going on there, but the actual premise of front-loading, I think that that is definitely something that should be brought, continue to be brought forward. Rachel? If we do pass it to the Local Government and Communities Committee, there may be an opportunity to, for other housing federations or whatever it might be, to give submissions and for this to be looked at in much more detail. There are huge amounts of expertise out in the sector, I mean, there is no doubt about that. Angus? There are, of course, issues with front-loading. I am aware of the situation in the Western Isles, where there is a time limit to when the building can proceed. The Western Isles situation is that there is having difficulty finding enough land to spend the money that has already been allocated, and if that is rushed even further, then that will create more difficulties. It needs to be looked at in more detail, and certainly the Local Government and Communities Committee can do that. I think that we agree that we want to refer the petition to the Local Government and Communities Committee, and we want to thank the petitioner for bringing the petition forward. Obviously, he will be able to follow the considerations of the Local Government and Communities Committee in relation to issues that he has flagged up. I think that that has come to the end of our agenda, and I want to thank everyone and close the meeting.