 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you all to today's meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. As always, I could ask everyone to switch off any electronic devices because it interferes with the sound system. No apologies have been received to date. Please note that the meeting will be suspended at around 10.45, to allow those who wish to go to the Remembrance Day commemoration and the Garden Lobby at 11 am. The meeting will reconvene once the commemoration has concluded. Obviously, members of the gallery are very welcome to attend that as well. Gender item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first item of business is consideration of four new petitions. The committee agreed to invite the petitioners to speak to three of the petitions. The first new petition is PE1530 by Spencer Files on behalf of the Scottish Secular Society on guidance on how creationism is present in schools. Members have a note by the clerk that is my briefing on the petition and the submission. I welcome the petitioner. I thank you very much for coming along and Professor Paul Braderman, who is the board member and scientific adviser for the Scottish Secular Society to the meeting. If you could speak for around five minutes, I will have some questions and then I will ask my colleagues to come along as well. Good morning and thank you for giving us an opportunity to come along and present a petition. This petition has attracted international attention because of the issues that were involved. Scotland's future depends on science, especially the life sciences, a topic which the convener has addressed in the chamber. The signatories and those who have written messages of support, including teachers, ministers of religion and three Nobel prize scientists. Evolution in the unity of life are central concepts to modern biology, just as the existence of atoms is central to the concept of modern chemistry. The alleged objections to a common ancestry, such as those put forward by the centre for intelligent design, just as much as the objections to an old earth put forward by so-called creationist scientists, lack all intellectual merit. If you disagree with what I just said, you should dismiss our petition and give your reasons for doing so. However, if in your assessment of the signs you agree with us, with the overwhelming scientific evidence, a sample of which we have sent to the committee, with the science outlined in the curriculum for excellence and with the massive stated consensus among the world's scientific communities, the only remaining question for us to answer is how do we best protect our children from this campaign of disinformation? This is not about religion, this is about science. Despite some reports, the Scottish Secular Society is neutral on matters of faith. It is a faith-diverse membership, as the spice briefing paper shows that we have no wish to restrict the discussion of any religious or philosophical viewpoint. There is indeed a strong tradition across the faith spectrum welcoming evolution as a manifestation of divine creativity. In view of what we have seen recently from the challenger bus from people with emission ministries, the plain declaration of intent by the centre for intelligent design and other evidence that we can present is no longer credible to ignore the fact that there are organisations attempting and with some success to penetrate our schools in order to present creationism, young earth doctrines as a valid alternative to the established science. Why can we not, as the Government suggests, simply just leave this to the good judgment of our teachers? Firstly, and let's hope not many, some teachers may well themselves be creationists. I personally have come across this through interactions with my child's nursery nurse. Secondly, there are places where even teachers, although they may not be creationists, may experience pressure from that community to introduce creationism and, in fact, ignore the teaching of evolution. Thirdly, teachers may feel unprepared to teach about evolution, especially if they expect a creationist challenge from the local chaplain. This will be especially true at the primary level with religious, moral and philosophical education, which is rarely itself taught by science graduates. Finally, most importantly, it is rarely the teachers themselves that are actually the problem. But volunteer visitors and externally funded chaplans whose offerings are often gratefully accepted by the schools who are currently coping with many other pressures. That is why we refer our petition in materials being presented rather than taught. In the absence of the guidance, we seek that any teacher who would want to object any particular creation activities might well find themselves placed in an impossible position. You will all be familiar, hopefully, with the scandal at Kirkton Home Primary School, and what was most alarming about that incident is that the chaplain responsible had been imposed and assisted by volunteers from his church for eight years undetected. The material distributed their beggars belief. That is why we have prepared copies for the Committees to Peruse. Such material is typical of so-called creation science, a mid-20th century development, as my doctor, Colin Bratman, could possibly explain later on. The Perth-based challenge of bus pays a regular visit to many schools throughout Scotland visiting the bus is incorporated into the school day, where children are strongly urged to take part, and parents, where they are given permission, are not normally told that the bus itself is provided by people with admission ministries, an organisation that features materials from Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, and a torius, US-based, young earth creationist organisation which has attacked the petition twice now. Other creationist organisations also distribute materials or offer speakers to schools. Numerous schools are known to have creationist chaplins and creationist denominations, including US-inspired extreme creationist sets. They are often represented on school chaplaincy boards. We can supply details for the councils from some local authority committees and some examples around South Lanarkshire, Clackmannanshire and Falkirk. Members from those churches that were extreme creationists, young earth views, could potentially make things difficult for teachers in their employ. The organisation Truth and Science, young earth creationists have sent copies to every school copies of creationist pseudo-text misnamed explore evolution. This book is a production of the Seattle-based discovery institute, of which the Centre for Intelligent Design is closely associated. The creation research institute, which promotes creation sciences among creationist groups offering speakers to schools also. One school in such in the Highlands has used the Genesis story being taught as literal truth and has indeed designated one corner of the classroom in the past called the creation corner. At least three schools to our knowledge have hosted debates between creationists and defenders of mainstream science. Although two such cases, the relevant councils later denied it in a freedom of information request, that is such a thing that never happened. In the words of one of the schools, last session our higher RMPS class attended a Q&A with a creationist. That was then followed up with a similar event with an evolutionist as part of their course. However, that was not part of their studies, and it was part of the studies not advocating one particular set of beliefs. Now this is absurd having a Q&A session, it is almost like having a Q&A session from a flat author and for the sake of balance having a discussion with a sphericalist. Creationist presentation but the fact that this is even staged implies that there is an intellectual parity that just does not exist. Given these facts, it is no longer credible to deny that the existence of a problem, that this is a problem in need of official attention. The first step in solving any problem is to recognise that Scotland actually has one. A couple of questions I have on the other bits of evidence that we had to our committee. One argument was that what you are suggesting would in fact may well breach the European Convention of Human Rights, which is the right for parents to have children educated in line with their religious and philosophical views. What is your response to that? No, I do not think that it does breach any right, because if that right was implemented as such as they view it, you would be teaching that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old to the majority of pupils, which would clearly contravene many areas of the curriculum for excellence. The other criticism was that your petition did not recognise the difference between creationism and intelligent design. How would you respond to that? The professor answered that question. I take out whistle that you do not agree with that. It is a magnificent sight to see the director of the centre of intelligent design asserting, turning purple in the face, that intelligent design and creationism have nothing to do with each other, and yet he will see, as I put in my response to his submission, his submission paragraph 1.7, it is of the essence of his case to cast doubt on the idea that natural processes, such as primarily evolution, could have given rise to the diversity of life by pretending that there is serious doubt about what he calls macro evolution and which most of us would call evolution full stop as part of the overall unity of life. In other words, while I am sure he is sincere here, I believe he is a bit muddled, while he believes that intelligent design is not creationism, it incorporates as part of its rhetorical structure a questioning of what is, in our submission, and what I think you should also regard as the established science of common descent of living things. Creation, all advocates of intelligent design, nearly all advocates of intelligent design, deny what they call macro evolution, in this they are going against the evidence. Indeed, one of the web organs for the intelligent design community is called uncommon descent in order to emphasise the fact that common descent, which is what we claim to be part of the absolutely established science, is in their view not established science. By our definition, they are definitely creationist. I am sure that you are aware that this is a very large area, and I suspect that we could debate this all day. Unfortunately, we have got 20 minutes. I am sure that my colleagues will be focusing on the practicalities of education policy, because I think that that is the crucial issue for us. I bring in Chick Brodie. Good morning. Having heard your evidence regarding the role of teachers and the fact that you are not dissembling in terms of what they should or they shouldn't teach, why shouldn't they be allowed to present intelligent design or creationism to pupils? It is not a case of whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to. It is the context in how it is presented. For instance, my son was in the woods when he was asking the question about natural fauna. The teacher was unable to give a scientific or biological response, so he immediately referred to God makes all things, and we were all made from Adam and Eve. My son came home asking me more questions about that. I am personally an atheist, so I was not happy about it. I went back to the school to— Forgive me. The petition says that you want to bar the presentation in Scottish Public Funding Schools of Separate Creation and of Young Earth Doctrins. As valid alternatives to science, that is important. If you think that they are valid alternatives to science, you should say so when you should throw us out. That validity is underpinned by the fact that you have made it. It should be done to teachers to determine the curriculum and how they present it. If it is done to teachers in my personal experience, then that has not been implemented fairly. What evidence do you have of that? The evidence that I have of that comes from many areas. I have just given you my own personal experience, so you have heard it from the top. You have a wider experience, because you have a frame of reference quite clearly because of a particular nature. What wider evidence do you have in that case? What we have through the Scottish Secular Society is that we offer platforms where people from all walks of life in all fates report into us and discuss with us, in an open debate platform and also privately through email. Many of the concerns that are raised to us unfortunately come through as a private matter and they always wish to remain confidential but nevertheless make the complaint. They do not want to be named. However, their statements are quite happy for us to refer them to the committee. One such statement of evidence of creationism and the discussion of creationism taking place comes through from one concerned Highland parent who wishes to remain anonymous. If I can just read out one quick paragraph from her, a couple of years ago I went to an open afternoon in the school's children's work on display. A banner in the corner of the classroom said, creation corner. Intrigued, I went over to investigate. And in my naivety thought it was going to be an art display. No, it was exactly what it said. A big handmade wall chart with flipping pages detailing how the world had been created in seven days. In the beginning there was light and dark. I was pretty horrified and seemed to remember asking one of the teachers where evolution corner was only to be met by dirty looks from the teacher. On the basis of the need for that debate, what debate have you had with the main bodies of perpetrators of intelligent design and creationism? It seems to me that we're throwing bricks at each other without you before even coming here. Have we had that discussion? No, because we're not seeking compromise with them. I can't be compromising the science class with creationism. No more questions. Jackson Carlaw. Good morning. I'm something of an atheist too, albeit an unconvinced and unhappy one, but nonetheless. You said that your petition had attracted international interest and support, although I notice that it's got no signatories attached to it, which I've just had to review and explain. I'm also strapped with the fact that Charles Darwin might rather recognise your predicament, because, at one point, the role was completely reversed, and it was the science that was being challenged rather than the alternative. I wasn't present at the creation of the planet. I'm sceptical about most things, although I tend towards the evolutionary scientific theory that you yourself espouse. I really would like to know what you think the worst is that can happen. The worst is that there is a distortion of learning in the classroom. Scotland, at the moment, is the life sciences and biomedical side of our industry, is flourishing. We have some of the greatest stars coming through, some of the most creative minds. From a young age, I would be horrified to think that there is any potential for those minds to be distorted in any way by suffering any form of cognitive dissonance when it comes to young earth doctrines creationism, and what is actual science and what is real? Not the case of philosophising over science but teaching the facts. Do we not live in a slightly more real environment? My mother, for example, was told in her biology class that she was delivered by a stork. She obviously went to a biology class and heard that there was a more scientific way in which she was delivered. Went home and her mother told her that, maybe how they do things in Scotland, but it's certainly not how they do them in England. The point I'm trying to make here is parents have a role in education. Young people are impressionable, but education is a much more rounded thing. I just wonder, really, by in a sense seeking to drive what you and I might, I think, both regard as a ridiculous notion underground, it really doesn't serve any particular purpose. I'm not persuaded that any real harm is being done in all of this. I think that in the wider context of education, in the wider context of the parental involvement, in the wider context of the school, do you not think that the evolutionary model will prevail? Yes, it will prevail in all matters, Jackson, and what you're kind of doing there is diluting the arguments somewhat. As far as your mother being told about stocks, I think that's pretty much still the case in Scotland, so we have an issue there with sex education, I believe. I'll refer this moment up. My point is that people through a form of education come to understand that the truth is somewhat different without it necessarily having been emphasised in the way that you might have wished. I'll pass this to Paul, but before I do that, why should we assert such untruths to our children in an educational establishment, particularly in the science class? That isn't a whole-world view. I've gone through life with children being taught about socialism, which is equally discredited, but it doesn't do any great harm than being told what it's all about. I wonder just what you really think the physical damage to the intellect of a child in the round is going to be, and if you can point, or is it just a concern that you have that this might lead to something more sinister, but can you point to anything at the moment that has actually been damaged in the kind of development of children and to adults as a result of having been exposed to this theory in the midst of all the real science? Yes, there have been cases reported in the press of not in Scotland, I'm glad to say, of students actually walking out of lectures at university level because the lectures are based on evolution. There is concern in the scientific community about the effect of evolution rejection on subject choice at university level. My colleague, Roger Downey, emeritus professor now in the Department of Biology at Glasgow University, has carried out interesting research into the effect of creationist belief on subject choice among students. I think that he is certainly one of the people, if I may presume to say so, that this committee should communicate with. I know that you are a strong believer in individual choice, individual freedom, individual making up of your mind, and I absolutely agree with you on all this. Nonetheless, if you tell children and truths at a stage when they are going to believe you, that is going to affect their outlook on life indefinitely, especially when you remember that most of them will not actually be studying science at university level. But we tell children that Santa Claus exists. Are we telling children that Santa Claus exists, as it were, in inverted commas? No. We don't tell children that Santa Claus exists and their internal salvation depends on believing that Santa Claus exists. Okay, fine. Can you just ask if witnesses and members can go to the chair, otherwise it becomes what they call a rami in Glasgow terms. Before I bring John Wilson in just for the record, I understand that it's actually nearly 700 people have signed the petition. John Wilson. Thank you, convener. Good morning. You've mentioned, Mr Feld, the issue about Clutmanusher, Falkirk and South Lannyshire and issues that have been identified there. Could you expand on what those issues are, because I think that this goes to the heart of your petition. I would like you to expand on the reasons why you think it is necessary to bring this petition forward to this committee and to the Parliament at this time. Yeah, I mean, we obviously have to present our evidence base here to demonstrate and illustrate that this is actually going on. I think that that is a primary concern. So we've made freedom of information requests asking specific authorities if they have indeed invited anyone to talk on creationism or debate on creationism. An example of how I can possibly say how some educational authorities are unaware that this is taking place comes from East Renfrewshire. East Renfrewshire responded to our freedom of information request asking that, within the last three years, have East Renfrewshire publicly funded schools addressed by speakers from creation ministries international or by any other speakers who claim that macroevolution is speculative or the evidence supporting separate creation over evolution or a young earth over an ancient earth? The answer was no. However, our friends in the Scottish Secular Society were made aware that this was not actually the case and reported us back to us. I have a statement here that was forwarded to us through a conversation that took place through one of the reverents who had indeed been in a school saying, I went to Wellingwood High School yesterday at the request of an R.E. teaching friend to discuss creation with his higher class. I had a great time. They were very nice and all left claiming to take the creationist position more seriously. The basic message was, I believe in the Bible, you believe the scientist's theories. Neither of us can prove our positions, but I am hopeful of the view that life in God will do right in the end and the saviour who will give me everlasting life. Like I say, I had a great time. With that response, the issue that I picked up in some of the evidence was concerned that, whether it is a pastor, a preacher, a minister, a reverent or whoever from a particular organisation, particularly the creationist and intelligent design side of the argument, we are going into schools and presenting arguments in the schools outwith the R.E. lessons and we are actually bringing in volunteers to come in a system in the schools. What evidence do you have of that? The current guidance at the present moment by the Scottish Government is that teachers are responsible for what is taught in the classroom. As you said in your earlier comments, if someone comes along and says to a teacher, I have three people who are prepared to come in and work with your class on a particular issue, what is wrong with that? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as they operate within the confines of the rules and the curriculum for excellence. However, unfortunately, it is the case that some do come in with alternative agendas, as in the case of Kirkton-Holm primary school last year. We have one instance here, that is just one instance in East Wrenfrewshire that has gone unnoticed, but it went unnoticed in East Kilbride for eight years. There is no real mechanism in place or no reporting structure or audit trail or I do not know, forgive me, because I do not know how the school inspectors deal with that. However, there is no reference point or guide as we are seeking that anyone can refer to to record such matters or incidents. That is what we are asking you to do. Sorry, convener, just to expand this slightly, because in the Scottish education system at the present moment, we have three types of education. We have the private sector, we have denominational education and public schools, in Scotland we talk about private education and we have non-denominational schools. We know in terms of denominational schools what the religious affiliation is. In non-denominational schools, we have a number of teaching staff who have a particular faith belief. Is it wrong that those teachers impose that faith belief in non-denominational schools on the pupils that attend those schools? Yes. It is to ask in good morning panel. You have now mentioned Mr Fields that it is failed. You have mentioned on several occasions that it went unnoticed in an area, I am sure that it was Hamilton, for eight years. How do you think that you could rectify that? By this committee, going back to the Education and Culture Committee and actually seeking evidence, I am asking for different groups to come in and ask for their references on this and their consideration of opinions on whether or not it is needed, because we believe that it is needed. I can just show you one other thing that comes through. This is a six-day mural from a school in Kirkcaldy. It has been evident that it was placed on the school corridor for all of the school to see. If someone has commissioned it, someone has asked for it to be produced. I called an email to the authorities in Fife to ask about it. They referred it directly to the school. The school phoned me and the head denied that it was on the wall. I have photographic evidence sent by an anonymous parent, but it has been on the wall, but it has since been taken down. Those kinds of things go on. As soon as there is a challenge, they tend to contend that they do not go on. We do not want that conflict. That is what we are trying to avoid by asking for clear and explicit guidance. Just for the record, if you are referring to an item that we have not seen, could you leave it with the clerks so that we could reference it for the first record? I had that figure in the answer, so I will post it on that. Thanks, convener. If it was recorded, would that satisfy you? It is not a case of satisfying us. It is satisfying teachers and parents. They are the ones that are primarily at the root of this. It is to make sure that they have the knowledge that their children are going to go through primary and secondary school with their scientific knowledge and exposure to science unhindered. That is all it is. We are not asking for a massive change in legislation. We are not asking for much here. We are just asking for some guidance to be issued to rid any ambiguity around us. Also, you mentioned earlier that you had not been in contact with any other agency with regard to the petition. Could that actually explain a bit more as to why? First and foremost, we are a secular society. We are of many faiths and none. We have a discussion with members within the secular society on our open group, which is one of the most hotly debated areas. We consult with our administration board. We hold monthly meetings and administrative meetings. On our board, we have pagans, Muslims, Christians, ex-Muslims and so on, but the most important people that we speak with are the parents who directly contact us regarding the matter. It is through their consultation and complaint that we are here today, because they are the ones who are writing to us with the complaint and the distressed emails telling us that they want something done. The problem with the system is that they want to remain anonymous because they do not want their names put out in the open for fear of reprisals from the school. If we have a system that says, well, you cannot do that, because this piece of guidance says that you cannot, that makes it so much easier for all bodies. We are very short of time, but we have time for a very quick and final question from Chick Bull. Do you now go to summation? Leaving the subject aside, have you any idea where we should bar Scottish publicly funded schools by talking about alternatives? Have you any idea whether it is in other areas of science or in English or what have you? When you are in art, you do not teach maths, and when you are in biology, you do not teach chemistry. I think that it is fairly self-explanatory. I do not think that we should bar anything else. I think that we should make a clear distinction that creationism is incompatible with science. That is merely it. If there were people who wanted to go into the schools to deny the reality of atoms, we would be here talking about that as well. It is not the case regarding atoms, but it is regarding the fact of evolution. That is healthy if there is a compromise in on-going discussion, is it not? The parents and children and people of faith have their church, their home, their religious and moral education philosophy. They have many avenues in which they can discuss that. They should not be discussed in the science class. If you are talking about compromise, you were within the biological community, of course, there is on-going discussion about the mechanics of evolution, justice and on-going discussion about the ultimate causes of gravity. However, there is no dispute that if you drop something, it falls, and there is no dispute within a scientific community. Apart from synthesised disputes, there is no real dispute. That is the fact that you and a monkey are second cousins, you and a monkey are fourth cousins, you and a mushroom are fourth cousins. That is how it is, and the record shows it. To deny that, it is a good high-stabber shot. I am not sure if that is an parliamentary language, but I will quickly move on. Thank you very much for the debate. As I said at the start, I suspect that we could debate this for several hours. However, the committee is now moving to summation, so there are no further questions from the witnesses or from the committee members. We need to look at the next steps. Committee members will be aware that we could write to the Scottish Government, who are in charge of education policy, or a variety of other groups. The other option is that we could refer this to the education committee, which has the raison d'etre of this particular issue, or a variety of other options that members may welcome up with. Could you get a steer for us? A comment. There is no such thing as doing nothing at this stage because to do nothing is to send a signal that you are happy with how things are. Among people you should write to, I respectfully suggest, the Association for Science Education, which is now in charge of education policy. I should have said at the start that we have stopped contributions from witnesses. To just to summarise what we are looking at, we could write to the Scottish Government, which is in charge of education policy. We could refer this to the education committee, or a variety of other options that members may welcome up with. Or, of course, we could close the petition, which is always an option. Any occasion that we have a petition trip. I subscribe to the last view. We have already had, as recently as August, a statement from the Government on leaving the tradition that we should not determine the curriculum and that it is a matter for the educationalists. I do not know what to write to them and then get back the same answer that does not seem to me particularly constructive. My view is that we should write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on the situation, particularly in light of the examples that have been given by the petitioners today. I think that there is an issue that we need to get clear from the Scottish Government, because clearly we are not in a situation where we read the headlines in Birmingham where there was allegations made against a particular religious grouping who were trying to influence teaching in the school curriculum in Birmingham. I think that it would be useful to get an up-to-date view from the Scottish Government in light of that. However, convener, I would also suggest that the committee write to the Educational Institute for Scotland, because the petitioners have made reference to the Educational Institute for Scotland in terms of their views. Also, the secondary school teachers association in Scotland, as well as the head teachers association of Scotland. I think that there needs to be, in my view, a clear steer given to teaching staff about what is permissible to be taught within the lessons that I know my colleagues not too particularly happy with that. However, I think that there needs to be a steer that we do not find ourselves in a situation where, because a group or individuals have resources to go into an educational facility and teach something that may conflict with the current views and current science, that we need to be very careful about how that is taught in the classroom. I do have experience where my daughter's primary school, where we had a head teacher who came from a particular faith background, who was imposing that faith background, particularly on religious education classes, and was not widening out the curriculum to bring in other faiths or other beliefs in the teaching in those classrooms. We need to get a clear steer from the Scottish Government about how that is done, but the other organisations are important to contact, because they need guidance as well. I am happy to go along with John Wilson's recommendations. Thanks, convener. I am not happy to go along with John Wilson's suggestion. The Scottish Government spokesman just on 31 August clearly stated that teachers, head teachers and professional educationalists decide what is taught in Scotland's schools. Like what Chick Brody had said, it is not for politicians to determine the curriculum. It is highly valued and remains a cornerstone of the Scottish education. That is effectively going for closure then, just to check for the record. I think that there is an argument to refer to the education committee. However, at this early stage, I feel that it is only fair that we should get an up-to-date response from the Scottish Government, despite the fact that it has given a statement to the Sunday Herald as recently as 31 August, in which it says that the long-standing tradition that politicians should not determine the curriculum is highly valued and remains a cornerstone of Scottish education. However, I think that it would be unfair to close the petition at this stage. We should give them the benefit of a doubt and get an up-to-date response from the Government. It is to that statement that Angus MacDonald has referred, that it is slightly terrified by John Wilson's suggestion that we become very prescriptive about what is taught in schools. I am not myself in favour of closing the petition at this stage, but, in light of what the Government has already said, I would be in favour of writing to them to ask them to confirm their view that they believe that the systems and the discretion that exists just now is robust enough to ensure that, in the round, children come out with the broadest possible education, based on rational common sense, without there being a need to interfere in the content of that. I did hear from the witnesses when I asked what actual harm had been done, some anecdotal examples of things that might have occurred at international universities, which I thought seemed very distant and far removed from the experience of primary schools in Scotland today. It would be more that the Government was committed to the view that the robust enough systems existed for them to cope with any curious views that might emerge, and perhaps for them to say that, at some stage in the future, if they ever felt that that was under threat, they would review that particular issue in the light of those changed circumstances. I thank all members of the next book. Clearly, there is a majority that will be right to the Scottish Government. Can I just confirm that members are also happy to be right to the various educational institutions that John Wilson referred to? Is that agreeable? No. There is a majority that is right to the Scottish Government. Can I then confirm the other points that John Wilson mentioned, such as the EIS and the Scottish Secondary and Head Teachers Association? Can I then ask them to show those who are in favour of writing to those organisations as well? That is the majority. Members, do you have any other issues that you want to raise before we move on? Thank you. As you have heard, we will now take action to write to all those organisations. We will have that on a future agenda when we will discuss your petition again. The clerks will keep you up to date. You are welcome to be in the gallery that day if you just checked with the clerks when it is coming up. Thank you for coming along and giving evidence to us. There is a spend for two minutes until our witnesses to swap round. Thank you. The second new petition today is PE1533 by Jeff Adamson, on behalf of Scotland Against the Care Tax on the Abolition of Non-Residential Social Care Charges for Older and Disabled People. Members, if I know by the clerk the spice briefing and petition, I welcome the petitioner, Jeff Adamson, Ian Hood and Dr Pauline Nolan. I will invite Mr Adamson to speak for around five minutes and set the ballroom with some questions. As I intimated at the start, we will have to conclude at quarter to 11 for the Rembrans Parade. However, I will make sure that you get your allocate at half hour of time, and if you do not get that time now, then if you come back after the Rembrans Parade, I will make sure that you get your full quota, because it is an important issue. Can I ask Mr Adamson to speak then? Can you make it a maximum of five minutes, Mr Adamson? Thank you very much. I would like to focus on three areas of community care charging. How it affects me, the inconsistency of charging and the detrimental effect that charging has on carers of disabled people. In 1999, an undetected tumour next to my spine hemorrhaged leaving me paralysed and needing 24 hours' care each day. After my discharge from hospital, I tried to continue working but it proved to be impossible and I had to retire. I was comforted by the knowledge that, having paid into a pension scheme, I would have an income which, along with disability-related benefits, would allow me to lead a decent life rather than merely exist. The reality proved to be quite different. In 2000, I agreed a support package with my local authority, Midlothian. I employed personal assistants to assist me with various tasks that will allow me to continue to lead a normal life. However, there is a price that disabled people who need support have to pay, a price that severely restricts their choices, control, freedom and dignity, care charges. Those are means tested. In my case, I am allowed a personal allowance of £137 a week. Any income that I have above that amount is taxed by Midlothian council at the rate of 70 per cent. In my case, £661 a month. No account is taken of any disability-related expenditure. For example, the average family fuel bill is approximately £1,200. As I need a warmer temperature, my bill is nearly £2,000. No account is taken of the cost of maintaining my house, whose mortgage I paid up when I stopped working. If I was still paying my mortgage, the interest payment would be added to my personal allowance. If I was renting a property, that cost would be added to my allowance, and any repairs would be paid for by the landlord. Many people would think that I was foolish to pay off my mortgage and should have invested in the money. However, disabled people who receive community care support are discouraged to save. In Midlothian, as soon as any savings reach £6,000, every extra £250 is judged to be earning £52 a year. Any savings over £16,500 would mean paying the full cost of my support package. So far, I have only mentioned Midlothian Council's charging policy, but since 2002, COSLA has been trying to achieve consistency in charging policies throughout Scotland. How consistent are these policies now? If we look at the areas that you represent and take my 80-hour support a week and monthly charge of £661 as an example, in East Wrenfisher I would pay £93 less per month, in Glasgow £188 less, in East Lothian £235 less, in Highland £263 less, North Lanarkshire £378 less, and in Falkirk a staggering £558 less per month. I should add that Midlothian is not at the top of the charging league. If I lived in Moray I would be paying £948 a month, £287 more than I currently do, so 12 years on and we are still nowhere near achieving consistency on charging policies. Care charging also affects my wife. She cares for me for over 43 hours each week. When I first came out of hospital, my wife was working full-time. Adding these hours and the hours providing my daycare meant that she was working at least eight hours a week with no days off. This way of life eventually took its toll on her physically but more importantly affected her mental health. Diagnosed with depression, she had no choice but to reduce her working week by half. This has meant a positive change to her health and wellbeing. However, the downside is the effect on her earnings. She has been financially penalised for providing me with care in two ways. By losing half her pay and by having to subsidise me because of my reduction in income due to care charges. Like me, she has had her choices, control, freedom and dignity eroded. Community care is needed to eliminate discrimination, promote equality of opportunity and protect human rights. Without it, many disabled people cannot participate in society on an equal basis with others. We believe that charging teaches at least seven different rights. Is this a fair and just society? Is this the way in which a fair and just society should treat disabled people and their carers by taxing them to live a normal life? I think not, I would challenge anyone to disagree. Thank you very much. Thank you much for your contribution. Apologies, I should have mentioned that Jackie Bailey is a strong supporter of the petition. Do you wish to speak to the petition? I'm happy to let the committee go. Okay, right. Thank you very much. I have just a couple of questions and I'm bringing my colleagues in. In your submission, you mentioned that care charges have risen by 12 per cent by local authorities over the past three years. You mentioned that it was Aberdeen City, didn't you? I think that Aberdeen City had doubled in the past two years. Is there a line for having a much stronger consistency across Scotland? Otherwise, you get to the sort of cliched postcode lottery if you begin to live in one area, you mentioned that Murray is much higher and you live in another. Ian Hood? We would like to say that those figures that we put in the report turn out to be for the three years up to last year. If we add in those figures, the actual increase over the last four years is now 21 per cent in care charges. There is indeed, and unfortunately, very much a postcode lottery. The rate of increase is being very, very high in some areas, and in other areas, for example, like Dundee, only really increased in line with inflation, and that continues to extend across Scotland and creates a really mixed pattern of care charges. I suppose that there is a philosophical problem between having a very centralised approach to local government whereby the Scottish Government lays down a diktat, if you like, from Edinburgh and every local authority follows, versus giving local authorities a bit more autonomy to carry out their own decision making. Those things are very difficult to work out. What is your view on that dilemma? We think that there is a real problem here. There is a dilemma that needs to be managed. In 2002, the Scottish Government gave local authorities quite clear instructions to sort out the problem with inconsistency in care charging, and they gave them three particular areas to sort out. They wanted to look at disability-related expenditure, the different tax rate, the taper rate that is mentioned, and the amount of money that people got to keep. In the 12 years since then, COSLA has not been able to move at all closer to achieving any consistency in this matter. In 12 years, and that is because every time somebody suggests a reform, and myself and some colleagues work the COSLA on this, any reform that is suggested will benefit some councils and lose and cost others. Every council is willing to accept a reform that does not cost them anything and costs somebody else something. There is a real problem here because COSLA does not have the authority to tell everybody what to do—they have to negotiate, and there are many different things that they have to negotiate. That is the key reason why COSLA has not managed to deliver that consistency. It may indeed be a really good thing to allow local authorities to make their own decisions, but the question has to be why are neighbouring local authorities differing so much North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire? Are neighbouring local authorities, but, if you live in one and you are under 65, you get £50 extra a week to live on, then the other one is not because there is a difference in the way that people live. Good morning. I thank you for this petition, which I think is really very important and quite excellently presented and has at its heart, I think, a very clear issue of concern. I note what you say about the variable charges, and perhaps if I can run some questions together. I am interested to understand why you feel that the Scottish Government has asked COSLA to harmonise the system so long ago and what action they, to your knowledge, have taken in the light of nothing further having been done. I am interested to know if you believe that this is a direct consequence now of a permanent council tax freeze, that, although that was a sustainable measure for a period of time, councils are now left with no option but to seek to raise charges from groups, whatever the variable nature of them, which is then compounding the effect on families, and that this is one area where we can see that not everything is a bunch of roses as a result of council tax freeze. Secondly, I imagine that the level at which charging now cuts in at one time bore some relation to the threshold for income tax, which, of course, has now significantly increased its way beyond six or even eight thousand. It is now ten thousand and set to rise further. In those circumstances, whether it really is not a clear injustice on people in those circumstances, that, with a level of income tax threshold much higher, charges are being levelled on people with an income substantially less than we would deem it appropriate to level income tax? We are a little bit disappointed in what the Scottish Government has taken. We think that they are aware of the problem, and we met recently with the Minister for Health, Alex Neil, and he is going to be referring the issue to a working group on non-residential care. However, over the past 12 years, there have been a lot of priorities for the Scottish Government, and this one has not really focused. One of the things that a lot of supported MSPs have asked questions about this and the reference that we get back is that the COSLA working group is looking at the matter. We have seen that in the briefing that you have for today's committee. They have talked about, for example, that they are doing a new initiative in financial assessment forms and how that will deliver a whole big change. I have a financial assessment form from East Ayrshire. It is a sheet of A4 that simply totes up the money that people have to pay. The idea that, if you simply have a standard sheet for toting up the money, it will make a lot of difference to people is really COSLA's and managing that situation, I think, quite difficultly. The point about the council tax freeze is an important one, and I am sure that it has had an effect. We are not really in a position to assess that, but undoubtedly one of the things that has happened over the last four years is that the council tax freeze has been there. Councils have been forced to do what they would call income maximisation, and they have now got departments and officials whose job it is to go round the council and say, how can we get some more money in? How can we bring in some extra money in to help us? Those officials are the ones who see care charges as being an income source, not about individuals that need care and support. Those two things are the things that merge together to help create that. I would be afraid that, even if the council tax freeze ended, we would not see the end of the story, because income maximisation remains a real important drive for local authorities. They have to find ways of increasing their income. Finally, I could not agree more with Jackson's point about the income tax threshold. I think that the coalition Government has made a very important change for people in raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. It means that everybody should know and understand that they have at least £200 per week without having to pay off that, but if you have a disability, if you are under £65, you have had £22. There is surely something wrong when we say that the most disabled people in our society have a worse deal than even the poorest paid. Just for clarification, I would like to ask the petitioners. The petitioner says to abolish, to accuse the Scottish Government to abolish all local authority charges for non-residential care services. What we have heard is the disparity in the charging regimes that currently exist in local authorities. Just for clarification, are you seeking total abolition or are you seeking some uniformity in the charging regimes that are applied by local authorities? It would be useful for us to know if the bottom line is that we want the Scottish Government to abolish all care charges, because one of the issues that will come from the Scottish Government, and Mr Hoots has made reference to it in terms of the financial situation in local authorities, is that if the Scottish Government were to support the petition, the argument from local authorities would be that somebody has to pay for those services, and if the Scottish Government abolished them, it would be that the Scottish Government would have to fund it. Is there a compromise position there whereby you would say that there should be charging regimes in place, but those charging regimes should be fair and consistent throughout Scotland? One of the problems would be that if the Scottish Government tried to reform the system, that because local authorities could continue to, in a sense, game the system to maximise their income, the Scottish Government would take on the responsibility for care charges, but it would also take on the blame for when they continued to go up because they had not resolved the problem. We cannot see if local authorities cannot satisfactorily reform the system. How could the Scottish Government reform the system adequately to deliver fairness across the fold? That is why we believe that abolition is really the only way to go forward. I want to pass on to my colleague Dr Nolan, who has some issues to say about the human rights aspect of it, because we think that there is a serious breach here. I think that that helps to understand why we think that it should be abolished. All the rights protected by the Equality Act, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act and, in subsequent human rights conventions signed up to by the Government, belong to disabled people. Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People, or the UNCRPD, states that disabled people have a right to live in the community with the sport they need and can make choices like other people. We think that charges for care breaches the following instruments, the UNCRPD, the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act and its direct contravention of the EU directive on freedom of movement. I could go on and list the rights. Would that be okay to do now? Yeah, or it's very lengthy, perhaps, should like to give us a note of these. I could give you a note of them yet. But you can also ask me questions about any of those. Okay, thank you for that. Do any of the members wish to come in? Just very briefly, because I know that we've only got two minutes now. In the briefings that we had, there was a reference to news articles that highlighted that some councils may be charging terminally ill people under 65. In terms of the discussion with COSLA, are you happy that the definitions in the categories of disablement are broadly consistent or do they vary greatly? There are real challenges. The issue about how people were treated terminally ill highlights part of the problem. I know that there was quite a serious debate between the Minister for Health and the local authority concern to try and resolve that particular problem. It comes down to the way that local authorities treat the whole issue of care charges, and it is very much managed as a financial issue, as opposed to one about the... I'm sorry to interrupt, but the first part of the equation that we're trying to resolve is in terms of consistency in getting COSLA to achieve. Is the interpretation of disablement consistent? We now know that action is going to be taken on terminally ill, but in terms of the degree of disability and what have you, has there been any rationalisation of that? I don't think that that's a particular problem. I think that councils have a quite clear understanding of who they apply these charges to, and I don't think that's so much of an issue. I think that what's more difficult for many people is whether or not you get a care service in the first place. One of our concerns would be that if care charging was abolished, councils may worry that more people would come and get services and might push more people out the door. That would be a real problem. For all building users, we'll be invited to observe two minutes silence of the members, for all those who have suffered and died in service of the country, and all those who mourn them. There will be a further announcement. Do you think that that's the end of period silence? As you've heard, we have to suspend now. As I promised earlier, I would invite our witnesses and Jackie Baillie to come back after the service that we're going to have. It will be approximately 10 past 11. I could also invite members of the gallery who wish to attend. Please laze with the security staff who will direct you to the garden lobby. I now suspend until approximately 10 past or whenever the service is concluded. Good morning. I continue our meeting. The second new petition is PE1533, which we started to discuss before the memorandum service, and I think that Chick Brodie, the floor was yours. Just following on the question that I asked, was there any consistency across exercise through COSLA to ensure that there is parity, or at least that that can be a consistent view? Has that discussion been in your knowledge taken place with the Scottish Government in terms of them raising with COSLA to ensure that there's a consistency of approach? Yes. The Scottish Government has representatives that sit on the COSLA working group, and there was a flow of information backwards and forwards. Unfortunately, we still have this whole pattern. Jeff gave examples of his own, about his own care varies, and we have a whole series of variations. For example, the taper rate that applies will vary from 100 per cent in half a dozen local authorities down to just 15 per cent in the Orkney Islands, so there's a huge variation in what people are expected to pay just depending on where you stay. The intervention of the Scottish Government on this working group hasn't really helped. In terms of the working group, where are they at in terms of deliberations and fruition of looking at things like this? I and a number of other people sat in this working group from its formation, and they've been there all that time. In effect, a number of us walked out early this year simply because we spent time and it wasn't delivering the change, and we really felt that there was needed to be a different approach that the working group couldn't deliver, which is why we've taken part with 29 other voluntary organisations across Scotland and launched this petition, and it's why we have over 2,500 signatures for the petition. In support, we think that there needs to be a different way of resolving this problem. You tell me that it's a working group, but they've got no outcomes, no times. Unless they're there to serve a purpose, which is to produce meaningful outcomes, why aren't they there? I've been asking about occupational pensions, which some local authorities regard as earned income, and that attracts a £20 disregard, so I've allowed £20 extra on my personal elements. Some local authorities don't regard it as income. My own local authority doesn't regard it as income. However, the DWP and HMRC consider that an occupational pension has been income. I've asked about that for the last two or three years, and all I get is cosler looking into it. That's all. Can I ask a question to Dr Nolan? You talked about some legalities earlier on, and you were going to give us a note of those. The question I had at the time was, under any of those bits of legislation, has there been any legal challenge in the courts? Currently, there are no legal challenges, but we are likely to look into a legal challenge in terms of people being able to reclaim the money that they've spent on care charges. There are lots of rights being affected, as well as the right to live independently, being included in the community, personal mobility and employment and adequate standard of living at a time when people probably don't know what the root cause of their poverty is, because they are being hit by so many different cuts, by so many different welfare reforms to say what people, as we know, are disproportionately affected by those cuts, and to have those charges coming along at the same time and just pushing people into poverty. That's the biggest concern, maybe. There would hopefully be a test case. What would the time scale for the test case be? We've been doing some pre-work with a lawyer called Tony Kelly, who was involved in a human rights case that went about prisoners and slopping out to the European Union. The previous experience, this is not a quick solution. Therefore, for us, it's a last effort, a last resort. We would much rather resolve this amicably and have it sorted out now, rather than come back and say, actually, it's not the councils that you have to compensate for the ending of care charges. Some people have paid them illegally, who need to be compensated. Rather, this was sorted out now, properly, before it got worse. We're told this year that Edinburgh Council is proposing to take another £1 million off disabled people, west loading £750,000, as part of the budget plans, and we expect other councils to follow suit. The longer that it takes to act, the more it will cost to resolve this. I certainly deal with other petitioners. It's also a very expensive route. I understand that you may be getting some pro bono work, but nevertheless it's an expensive tortures route, but it's useful to have that on the record. Could I bring in Jackie Baillie? You've been very patient. Thank you for coming along to the committee. Perhaps I know that you've been very supportive of the petition. Thank you. Patience, of course, is one of my well-known traits, convener. It strikes me—Jackson Carlaw raised his eyebrows. I'm disappointed. It strikes me that we spend a lot of the time in the Parliament talking about prevention and taking action before people end up in a crisis situation, and we all agree that sustaining people in their homes is absolutely the best option, yet we're doing exactly the opposite. I know of constituents who are cancelling vital services because they feel they can't afford it. People cancelling personal alarm systems or whatever, and I think that that is a backward step. To answer Jackie Baillie's question, because I'm conscious that the COSLA Scottish Government working group is probably a circular process that is designed to be referred to when difficult MSPs or indeed others in the voluntary sector raise the question of consistency of charging or of charging at all. I certainly believe in a much more simplistic form. If you don't charge, then there aren't issues of consistency to worry about, because I know when I compare my own two local authorities—an FOI done by the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland some years ago—that one service for a learning disabled person was £30 a week in Western Bartonshire, but it was ten times that amount—£300 a week in neighbouring Argyll and Bute. If we're honest about it, Scotland is far too small to have those wide differential in charging, but it's not just charging, it's differences in the criteria on which people are assessed. Again, that happens in neighbouring local authorities. It's sad to say that I've now experienced care tourism, where people with a condition make very clear choices about where they live depending on how good a local authority may be in meeting their needs. Again, that shouldn't be happening at this point in my view. We've seen the bureaucratic responses with the financial assessment papers and all of that, but actually no change to people's experience on the ground. I think that there's a real opportunity here for the Government and for the Parliament. We are on the verge of health and social care integration, where we're bringing two systems together, one where, if you are dealt with by the health service, you turn up, they treat you, your free, your treatment is free at the point of need, and there is no assessment of any charging whatsoever. We're now going to integrate that with a system that actually assesses some of these needs, decides what the priorities are, and then applies a charge. We have an opportunity, I think, at this point in time to create a change. I hope that the committee agrees that £50 million, to the ordinary man and woman in the street, is a lot of money. To us, it's a lot of money. Actually, in Government terms, is very, very small in the context of their overall budget. I hope that they'll refer the petition to the Scottish Government with a degree of urgency, but there are other people who I hope the committee might consider consulting. For example, is there any way that we could seek any opinion on whether there are breaches of human rights, whether it's Government lawyers or indeed from the Equality and Human Rights Commission? There are people in the field child poverty action group, poverty alliance, who actually can talk about care charging and its impact on disabled people living in poverty. There's research here from the group itself about the cost of abolishing care charges. I don't know whether that's something Spice might be invited to do a detailed paper on for the committee, but all of those things, I think, would be very helpful to advancing the petition. I'm very conscious of time, but do any members have any urgent points who haven't spoken, who wish to be in at this stage? Is there any final contributions from our— John. Sorry, I'll bring in John Wilson, then I'll bring in Winston. John Wilson. Can we hear sorry about that? You'd asked if anybody hadn't made a contribution, had they not made a contribution. It's just a question to Mr Hood. Mr Hood, you talk about the working group, the causal working group. Can I ask who convenes that group and who chairs that group? He said that the Scottish Government—I took a note of the comment that he made—has not been helpful in this situation, but could you get clarification on who coordinates the working group in COSLA? I'm afraid that I may have misspoke that it wasn't helpful. I said that it hadn't led to any significant change. That may be the same thing, but it wasn't as obstructive. I wasn't trying to position blame on the Scottish Government. The causal working group is convened by the COSLA policy officers, some of whom have been known to themselves in the past, Ron Culley and Gareth Maith. It doesn't meet frequently. On it, usually, it can be a representative of each local authority from some from the voluntary sector. Currently, there are only two voluntary sector representatives, one from Age Scotland and one from Alzheimer's Scotland. The rest have left along with myself. There are a couple of officials from the Scottish Government, older people's section, who go along to take part. It's a process of debate and discussion. The problem is that it hasn't started to meet for the next year's policy guidance, but, as I'm sure you've been reading the papers this year, East Renfrewshire, Inverclyde, Edinburgh have all started to set their budgets and made their plans for it. Any extra spending that the committee comes up with will not, at the earliest, be available before 16-17, and possibly longer than that, as we've seen from the difficulty in doing that. Thank you very much. Do you have any further contributions from witnesses, first of all? We would have just liked to say one other thing. We think that there is a serious issue with people who turn down services or reduce the amount of services that they take because of care charges. Evidence from, for example, some councils such as Fife have reported that this happens, the Audit Commission has recognised that it takes place, we have done a paper that looked at it, and in the debate of health and social care integration, when simple things such as community alarms are being turned down by up to 10 per cent of those who are being charged for it, it means that people not only have access to community alarms to help them when they fall, they lose access to things such as fall clinics that teach them how not to fall because they are no longer part of the social work system. We think that there could be a request to the NHS, part of that, asking what effect social care charges have on both bed blocking and access to preventative services and emergency admission into the healthcare system. We think that the NHS could play a useful part in helping us to understand perhaps some of the consequences of local authority actions on them further down the line. We will now come to the stage where we are looking at decision making, so we have finished the questions. I am sure that my committee colleagues will be with me. This is a very important petition indeed. Clearly, we want to get the view of Scottish Government and, obviously, there is a rule for health and local government. My own view would be, I think that this is a particularly interesting one, to get the relevant cabinet secretary along to speak to us in the future. We can maybe cover Jackie Baillie's point, which is to determine with the respective cabinet secretary whether they are satisfied with the current legal position, because it would be interesting to get the Scottish Government's legal view on whether they are compliant with various European legislation, which is Dr Nolan's point. I would certainly suggest that. I am getting the view of NHS Scotland and COSLA, but I am sure that my colleagues will have other suggestions. I would like to see the exercise of the COSLA working group to produce, if it is a circular, as Jackie Baillie said, and I am, as she knows, in favour of decentralising Government to local authorities. It is broader than just the charging. I have a circumstance in South Ayrshire where we are not getting best value because of competitive tendering and the lowering of charges. What is driving, for example, continuity of care, which is important for dementia suffers, for example, is being lost in the whole charging mechanism. I am not sure that we are getting the most efficient and best value. I encourage the COSLA working group to come up with what their outcomes are going to be and when they are going to achieve them. I presume that we could incorporate that in any letter to the Scottish Government Minister, as well as COSLA directly. John Wilson? Can I take on Jackie Baillie's suggestion that we write to EHRC to ask them the views on the charging mechanism and also the witnesses' reference to the situation and whether or not that is in line with the European guidance? I suggest that we write to COSLA, particularly the working group, to find out what the estimated total cost of covering care charges in Scotland is. Ms Baillie made a reference to a figure of £50 million being an insignificant amount of money to the Scottish Government's overall budget, but I would like to get clarification from the working group as to what is the total amount collected by local authorities in Scotland or the perception of what would be collected in the coming years in terms of care charges that are made at the present time, so that we can get clarification about what would be the actual cost to cover the delivery of those services. As well as writing to COSLA, I think that it would be appropriate to write to a couple of local authorities. We have heard a number of authorities mentioned by the witnesses today in relation to the charging levels that are made. It might be useful if we go through the list that is produced by Mr Hood and try to pick out a couple of the highest and a couple of the lowest and ask them to justify the charging regimes that are in place so that we get a better understanding of why the charges may be so high in one local authority but a lot lower in another local authority. I might not get that detail from the COSLA working group. I agree with that. I think that Jackie Baillie mentioned a Gaelan Bute and I think that Mr Hood mentioned Murray. It might be useful to approach them not just because they are in my region but because I am quite interested in the high cost as well. David Torrance. I am happy to go along with the recommendations. Ambi Taggart. Thanks, convener. It concerns me somewhat that we are now 12 years on and nothing seems to be shown about where there is nothing amicable delivered here. It also has raised a concern that not all local authorities are within COSLA, convener, so do we write out with to the local authorities who are not part of that group? What proportion of that £50 million or £56 million would be proportioned to the NHS? Could I ask for their views on that? Could I also ask that we write to Falkirk Council? I think that it was Mr Adamson who mentioned that there is a £500 difference between the figures in Midlodion and the figures in Falkirk, so it would be good to add them into the list as well. In the letter that we sent to the Scottish Government, can I draw a distinction between deferring the charging system to COSLA and abdicating all further responsibility for seeking to motivate it towards some sort of a conclusion? I would quite like to know what the Scottish Government's view is about the lack of progress and the consideration that it has given to achieving some, because what it deferred, it could always decide that it needed to take a slightly more direct interventionist view to drive to a conclusion. I would be interested to know in a way why they have chosen not to do that and for how long they would think not doing so would be acceptable. The initial suggestion that I had was that we would not just write to the Scottish Government, we would actually invite the relevant cabinet secretary and obviously there is a balance between health and local government. It looks like health is the main driver, so obviously I think that Neil would be the relevant minister. Just confirming that the committee members are happy that we invite Mr Neil to come here and give evidence at future meeting. John Wilson? Cymru, can I ask that we seek clarification from the Scottish Government about who they would think would be the best to represent the Scottish Government's view on that, because when you talk about local government budgets, it is under a different portfolio when you talk about health budgets. I think that we need to be clear about what portfolio, if we were to take on Jackie Bailey's suggestion and the petitioner's suggestion about abolishing care charges, about what budget would that come from or what budget would be the majority of that funding that would come from. I think that we need to be clear because there is no point in getting the health secretary and the finance secretary batting up between each other saying that we are not responsible for this element and them saying that we are not responsible for that element. That is a reasonable point. We are asking the cleric to lize with the Scottish Government officials to get the relevant and appropriate cabinet secretary, so that is fairly easy to sort of check brody and then amic tags. On the basis of the working group, which I do wish to focus on, it might be all that it was while getting the convener along as well. Yes, that is a very good point. In terms of local authorities to give a steer to the cleric, I think that we mentioned higher-cost local authorities, which were Murray, Agailin Bute and Falkirk. Are members happy that we write to those three? There are also points that John Wilson made about EHRC, which is really important. Amic targets. To remind ourselves the point that Jackie Bailey made is that we are at a crossroads just now about a new system coming into place, and I think that it is an ideal opportunity for us to be reviewing that. That is one of the points that we were recommending. Finally, I thank our three witnesses, Mr Ardys, Mr Hood and Dr Nolan, for giving evidence. It was very helpful indeed. I thank Jackie Bailey for coming along and for her very appropriate comments. It was very helpful in the committee deliberations. Obviously, we will be taking this away and having it back at future agenda. The clerics will keep you up-to-date when it is on schedule. You are welcome to be in the gallery, and we can lease about timings for that with you. I thank you for coming along. I will suspend for two minutes to our witnesses to the spot-ground. The third new petition today is PE1534 by Claire Simmons on behalf of the Planning Democracy on Equal Rights of Appeal in the Planning System. Members have a note by the cleric, the spice briefing and the petition. I welcome the petitioner, Claire Simmons. It was the chair and Helen McDade, the committee member, planning democracy to the meeting. Just for the record, I have dealt with Helen McDade in various other petitions over the last few years. I could invite Ms Simmons to speak to the petition. If I may expand in five minutes, I will kick off some questions and invite my fellow committee members to speak. Claire Simmons. Planning Democracy is an organisation that advocates on behalf of hundreds of communities that we have heard from in the course of our research, our case studies, seminars, conferences and through people who have contacted us or been passed on to us from other organisations. We represent a voice that is seldom heard in discourses in planning issues, the voice of citizens whose lives have been affected by planning decisions or who have sought to engage in the planning system. We are calling for equality in planning. We believe that there is a moral imperative to grant an equal right of appeal to communities and individuals acting in the public interest. We question what other aspect of life is there such inequality, where one stakeholder has rights whilst another does not. The current system is prejudice against the citizens of Scotland whose lives are impacted by planning decisions and in what democratic world is this justifiable. Why are we asking for equal rights now? The passing of the 2006 planning act was hailed by the Scottish Government as strengthening opportunities for democratic engagement in planning system. However, an equal right of appeal was not granted to communities. Delay was cited as a major concern about equal rights, while ministers claimed that there were plenty of opportunities for communities to be involved at earlier stages in the planning process through the front loading of community involvement. However, eight years after the major rehaul of the planning system, our research shows that the new system is not working for citizens in Scotland. People do not feel listened to when it comes to key development decisions. The promises of better participation are not working in practice. The lack of an equal right to appeal is seen by communities as one of the most unpopular and unjust aspects of the planning system currently. Exhausted, isolated, anguished, traumatised, frustrated, baffled, depressed, rejected, raw and wounded. These are the words that have been used by ordinary people to describe their experience of democratic planning in Scotland. The words are shockingly emotive and seem better to describe the feelings of someone exposed to civil war or extreme ill health than those of responsible citizens taking part in one of society's democratic opportunities. Yet these emotive terms are not at unusual. We have spoken to many individuals who describe their feelings in such a way. We know that there is lots of dissatisfaction. We have our own evidence for it, but is anyone interested in hearing the voice of Scottish citizens? Certainly, we have found the evidence of government reports or reviews that ask these stakeholders how the planning reforms are working. There is very little information documenting the citizen side of the story. We ask for a thorough review into the planning reforms from the public perspective. Government and professional organisations tend to stress the problems of equal rights of appeal rather than seek a type of system that could work and address clear public desire to have some form of equal rights. We would like to emphasise that there is not a dichotomy of equal rights or no equal rights, but a wide range of possibilities in between. Debate in the planning system seems to be entirely focused on the agenda set by developers, for example, speed and efficiency rather than the quality of outcomes of decision making. We have been advised that the right of appeal to appeal system in Ireland, where it is called third party right of appeal, has enhanced the Irish planning system. There is clear evidence that equal rights has not detrimentally impacted the economy. There are no border effects with Northern Ireland to show that developers would build elsewhere to avoid a third party right of appeal. The Irish economy was absolutely booming in early 2000 with TPA as a key element of the planning system. We have seen evidence to demonstrate improved decision making where weak proposals have been strengthened and enhanced through the appeal system. Following the property crash in 2008, there have been a number of far-reaching reviews and inquiries on to the Irish system. These have pointed to the failure of overall regulation, overzoning, etc., but none have suggested that the system of third party right of appeal be reformed. This has come out of the failures of the system with its integrity. With the five minutes, are you just about at your conclusion? I am last sentence. I would like to finish in the words of John McBride, who is a consultant planning inspector with the Irish board that oversees planning appeals. He says, My Irish case work included a fair number of third party appeals. They were all of some planning cogency and merit and none were of the frivolous, vexatious or venal nature, often characterized by opponents of the system in the UK. I look forward to the time when a political party in Great Britain takes a leaf out of Ireland's book. Planning democracy hopes that we will be the first to follow in Ireland's footsteps. Thank you. Thank you for your statement. I have a couple of questions, and I bring my colleagues in. Those that support third party right of appeal have argued that in Scotland we have a gap in that we currently are breaching the Arhous Convention and also European Convention of Human Rights. What is your argument about that particular viewpoint? Halloweigh dead? Yeah, there certainly is evidence that it is unlikely that Scotland is Arhus compliant. There have been several complaints that have been to the Arhous Compliance Committee. We are not experts on them, but my understanding is that some of that was upheld, and certainly the trust that I work for is about putting a complaint to Arhous on our planning system. Not necessarily specifically about equal rights of appeal, but that would probably have resolved the problem at an earlier stage. I think that there is no doubt that many of the groups that have been involved in dispute on planning have gone forward and are taking forward complaints. One, we had a previous petition that was concerned about the use of minor developments, which suddenly became a major development. Is that something that concerns you in the planning process? Certainly, we have got case studies, particularly ones down in Canterbury, down in Dumfries and Galloway, where there have been quite about 20 small applications were put forward for the exploration and development of coal-bed methane, and they were divided up into small batches, but we think possibly together, cumulatively, they should be a major development. We believe that there are quite a number of these kinds of cases, and, of course, that would be a situation in which an equal right of appeal would be suitable. Finally, to give some balance on my comments, you will know that the CBI Scotland in the Scottish Chambers of Scotland has said that the third party right of appeal will undermine economic investment in Scotland. What is your view on that? I will go back to looking at Ireland. The proof is that it has not had an effect on the economy. We have spoken to several people from Ireland. Geraint Ellis from Queen's University of Belfast has done quite a lot of research in this, and he assures us that there has been no impact on the economy. In fact, it is booming. I would just like to add to that that very often it is said that objection or challenging a planning decision is what is holding up major planning developments. When you look at those individual developments, there are major other issues such as finance or, indeed, there is not the evidence that is being held up. In a way, that is almost an argument for ERA, because judicial review is long, complex and expensive, and people have only got that option at the moment. Obviously, there is a position that you could take where nobody has a right of appeal. You could consider that to equalise the playing field, and that would really speed up the planning system, whether it would get the right results. That is a different matter. Just to confirm for the record, my reference was, of course, to the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, not to the Chambers of Scotland. Thank you. Good morning. I just follow on that point. Last week, we had the Business and Parliament conference. In fact, I chaired a session in this very room talking about business in the communities, and the planning came up. I am afraid that the issue that you suggest—I know something of Ireland, having done business there—disavows the view that appeals such as that. Anything that prolongs the planning process will impact economic development, and they gave very good indications by setting businesses against businesses, having one business complain about another business and undermining competitive investment. I am not saying that the whole thing should focus on business, but there are facilities in the planning process through objections, such as the environmental impact assessment that they have to go through, as we have seen in some of the cases that we have discussed before. I wonder how much discussion you have had with the likes of local businesses and rural businesses as to what you are proposing. It does not have the resources that the Government has to do the research on this, and we would really welcome detailed research on this to take your specific example about business against businesses. Of course, they can already do that. They have the resources to take judicial review. In fact, what we see is that the people who do not have those resources are local communities or, indeed, often non-government organisations. The system already allows for, and there are a lot of judicial reviews on going at the moment, mainly—I do not know. You find there a handful in terms of businesses against businesses. That is not my understanding, and I will certainly come back to you on that. We will put that in, but we would really welcome figures from the Scottish Chambers Commerce or the RTPI and any of those organisations if they have done detailed research showing that that difficulty would come up. I could mention many major cases that are under judicial review at the moment and have been held up for two or three years. If we had equal rights of appeal, those local people, who had no right to say anything after an initial written objection until going to judicial review, those cases would be over and, quite likely, those businesses might have won, and that would be developed by now. In 2006, I served on the local planning committee in my local authority, and I have to admit that, when a third party right of appeal was removed, I certainly had concerns, as did the whole council group. I am sure that we are all keen to see improvements in the way that applicants, local communities and the wider public and planning authorities engage in the existing planning system. While the Government has tried to streamline development planning processes and appeal proceedings, I would argue that those actions are based on the assumption that local authorities or local planning committees are following their own local development plans. Unfortunately, in some cases, that is not always the case. Would you agree that the local failures or perceptions of local failures in the planning system require a third party right of appeal to ensure a proper balance with the planning system? Yes, I would agree harshly because I think there are two aspects of the planning system. We can look at the efficiency, but the planning reforms are also about improving public engagement in planning. If the public do not have some sort of certainty that the applications are going to be compliant with the local development plan, what incentive is there for them to get engaged at the early side of the process? We have case studies of people who have genuinely people from communities that are affected by landfill and coal mining who have had to engage with the planning system and have done so really well. There is so much so that, in fact, the Scottish Government cited them as an example, and they put in months and months of work working very closely with local development plan teams to get in particular areas. I have forgotten what it was called, and they were successful in their Glasgow and Clyde Valley structure plans and the local development plans. They got rural investment areas incorporated, only to find out later after the plan was published that a developer who circumnavigated the plan entirely came in with an application for an incinerator, which was totally contrary to this, and that was given permission. What incentives then? How do they feel that all their hard work had that gone? When we talk about having a plan-led system and public engagement, a third party right of appeal or an equal right of appeal can really enhance the front-loading and the engagement at the earliest stages. There is a right of appeal at the present moment that currently exists in terms of planning decisions, and that right of appeal is to the courts. Could you give an indication in your experience what the average cost of taking an appeal to the courts would be? I do not want to be too exact, because I do not know that that is something that we want to put out in the public domain, but the John Muir Trust, whom I work for, is currently engaged in that process, and we have not even got to the first court hearing and are spending well into six figures. It is totally underestimated by the legal and planning profession and politicians what it costs to actually go forward. We may not have to spend all that money, because if we win the case, we can get costs from the other side, but you do not know that until you get there. Going back to Mr Brodie's point about the environmental impact assessment, sadly, I cannot think of many successful cases that have been taken forward on the public interest and environment by such organisations that win. Our chances are already not really very even, so we have to have that money to go forward. The costs are incredibly underestimated, and that is one of the major points. We are a medium-sized organisation. For local groups to do that, it is just phenomenal that they manage to raise the money locally to go forward into the system. It is frightening. I was in court a few weeks ago watching this process start, and I am just doing it for work, and I have a lot of experience of these confrontational situations. It is very unpleasant. Public local inquiry has its deficiencies, but it is vastly better than judicial review. For a response, my understanding and what I have been told is that the average cost is roughly £50,000 for someone to get to the courts. Locally, in one of the areas that they represent, fortunately, a local community group has the local authority to support them and fund a court action. We have also had a situation within three miles of where I live, of exactly the scenario that Ms Simmons gave in terms of a developer after going through the local plan, going through the strategic plan, and a developer who bypassed that whole process, then submitted an application to build 540 houses completely with the local plan, which was then approved. How do we build confidence? It is not just about appeals. How do we build confidence in the planning process and the engagement process that would make local communities feel their views valued? Is it just an appeal or is there something else lacking in the current legislation that prohibits full engagement by communities in the planning process? One of the things that we lack is evidence. This is one of the things that we would ask for. The Government does go and ask people who have used the planning system how they feel about it and help them to identify the problems, but certainly one of the things that is not measured, and I think that Audit Scotland came up with this in their report a couple of years ago, is to say that look at the qualitative as well as the quantitative, because a lot of things are just measured by whether or not you have advertised something or whether you have held a public meeting, but it does not say whether or not those views will listen to or whether or not they have influenced the development plan, so I think that is one aspect. The next question, and one of the things that I am concerned about is we heard mention of the section 75 restrictions that may be applied, we heard about the environmental impact assessments that may have to be carried out. In planning democracy's view or evidence, do you have any indication of the number of objections beyond the planning decision that are made regarding the section 75 conditions not being adhered to or the environmental impact assessments not being fully carried out before the developer goes ahead, because it is an issue about trying to make sure that all the processes are in place, and I know that certainly in terms of the section 75 conditions, in many occasions at a local level, are completely ignored by developers and are given the sanction to go ahead by the local planning departments? Yes, I am not so sure about the section 75, but certainly conditions on planning applications, which is what, after all, makes a planning application acceptable to a community, and certainly that was one of the things, the lack of enforcement that goes on was when we were first starting out with our research, was something that came up very, very strongly, particularly with mining communities. Communities, perhaps, whose voices are not heard as vocally as some of the high-profile things such as Craighouse's decision, but those communities who are living in areas that are quite deprived and so on, and they are finding that their lives have been made quite intolerable by the lack of enforcement of conditions, leading to anything from blasting going on at the bottom of their gardens to six o'clock in the morning to traffic going past hundreds of lorries and so on, so I think that enforcement is indeed a big issue. I think that we are a bit short of time with ganastas, very short questions and answers. Jackson Carlaw. I wonder if you could just help me with the deficiency of my knowledge. Who are planning democracy? How are you constituted? How are you funded and who do you formally represent? We are a charity. We've been going five years. We represent, as I said, the voices of the people, which is going into hundreds and thousands now of the people who come to us through our email, through our contacts, through other organisations. We're a part of Scottish Environment Link, for example, and so those are the voices. We're not a membership organisation. We have no staff. We're entirely voluntary and I think that's probably about us. How are you funded? We don't have any funding. You don't have any funding? Well, it's a small grant for a conference, but that's about it, isn't it? It's almost entirely voluntary at the moment. Thank you. Unless any member has any urgent questions, I'm afraid we're out of time. As you will know from your previous experiences, we've finished with questions and now we're going to summation. If you just give us a few minutes, we are now looking at next steps. Clearly, it's an important petition to ask the Scottish Government its views on the sort of search that suggests that we write to the Scottish Government planning aid for Scotland and the Royal Town Planning Institute for Scotland to get their views on the petition. Can I ask members' views on the next steps? The other thing is to consider writing to heads of planning in some local authorities just to get their view of how this might be implemented or not. John Wilson? Can I suggest that we write to homes for Scotland as the trade body for many of the housing developers in Scotland to get their views on how they see this right-of-appeil would sit within the current process? I would normally suggest that we write to the John Muir Trust by giving Helmwood dates here today. There's no point in writing to the John Muir Trust. Can I suggest that we write to the Scottish Wildlife Trust and ask them their views? I know that they are being involved in some issues and I have to declare my membership of the Scottish Wildlife Trust here. I just did try to get a balance in terms of some of the environmental organisations' experience apart from the planning democracy, but I think that it would be important to hear from homes of Scotland. I have a long recommendation. To continue the petition and write to some of the people who have been listed, convener, the Scottish Government, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Planning Aid for Scotland and Heads of Planning for Scotland. I am content with the suggested contact with Jackson Carlaw. As you have heard, we are pursuing your petition actively in all those areas. It will be scheduled in a future meeting and the clerks will let you know when it is. Clearly, if you wish to come along and be in the gallery, that's perfectly possible. I can thank you both for the evidence that you've given today. It's been very helpful to the committee, so I can thank Calomite Dade and Claire Simmons for both coming along. Because we're short of time, I'll just move quickly to the next item. Thank you very much for your time and attention today. I can move quickly to the fourth and final new petition, as PE1532 by Gary Stagg, on stopping public bearing of violence by the police. Members have been note by the clerks' price briefing the petition and a submission from the petitioner. The petitioner has indicated that he no longer wishes to proceed with the petition. On that basis, I firmly move that we agree that the petition now be closed. John Wilson. Just to be on the record for clarification, convener, once the petition has been submitted, the petition becomes the property of the committee, not the property of the petitioner. To formally acknowledge that, even though, in this instance, the petitioner has been asked for the petition to be withdrawn and the committee is happy to do that, the formal process is, once it is submitted, it becomes the property of the committee. I move to item 2, consideration of current petitions. The next item is consideration of nine current petitions. The first petitions that we will be taking together is PE1098 by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of King City Community Council, and PE1223 by Ron Beattie on school bus safety. I note that Mr Beattie is in the gallery again, and I thank Mr Beattie for all the efforts that he has done over the years in the petition. Members have been note by the clerks' price briefing. I know that Stuart Stevenson has had a long-standing interest in the petition. I do not think that he is able to be here today, but nevertheless I will note Mr Stevenson's interest. I suggest that there are two options for each petition in relation to PE1098. The committee may wish to defer further consideration into early 2015 and seek an update from the Scottish Government on the progress of the devolution of powers relating to seat belt provision at that stage. Is that agreeable? It is agreeable, but I said two weeks ago about speeding up the whole process. I will be 125 if that comes forward next year. We really need to get an understanding that the petitioners spend a lot of time bringing this forward, and this has been going on almost forever. Perhaps in the letter to Transport Scotland we might press upon them that we want to come to a conclusion on this. I think that Mr Brodie's frustration is felt by the committee. With regard to a pilot being undertaken in a rural or local authority area, clearly the reason that they are holding back is given the current financial situation. Is there any way of suggesting that it is probably not within our remit, but wouldn't any harm to suggest that Transport Scotland could cover the cost of a pilot? If that seems to be the sticking point. Are the committee agreeable that we write to Transport Scotland in the terms of Angus Macdonald? In relation to PE1223, the committee will wish to write again to Transport Scotland regarding the views of the petitioner and ATCO Scotland that a rural local authority should take part in the pilot scheme on enhanced signage. I agree that we should write to Transport Scotland again, but I want to draw Transport Scotland's attention to the submission that was made by Ron Beattie, in particular the way that the consultation took place, as expressed by Mr Beattie. I think that when this committee makes a recommendation to a public agency to engage with the petitioners, I think that we mean meaningful engagement, we do not mean in a cafe where no notes are taken. I think that Mr Beattie's description of being in a public cafe, trying to discuss the issues of concern, is not adequate. Given his description that they then went into a meeting in the council offices, I think that that should have been afforded to the petitioners as well, the same rights. Transport Scotland should be made aware that, when we talk about consultation with petitioners, we talk about meaningful consultation in an appropriate place, in an appropriate time and consideration given to the views of the petitioners being expressed. I think that the committee is happy that we write to Transport Scotland these times. I think that our committee agree with my earlier suggestion about PE1223. I can again thank Mr Beattie for his time and commitment. I think that the Petitions Committee acknowledged all the work that he has done over the years. The next petition is PE1431 by Nick Riddaford, on behalf of the Fair Isle and Community on the Marine Protected Area for Fair Isle. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions. A possible course of action for the committee is when we wish to defer again for the consideration petition until early next year and seek for information from Green Scotland on the outcome of the assessment of Fair Isle's demonstration and research proposal at that stage. The next petition is PE1493 by Peter John Gordon, on a Sunshine Act for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions. A possible option for action, of course, is that, given information provided by the Scottish Government detailing the measures that are put in place by individual health boards and the concerns that are highlighted by the petition in this regard, that the committee may wish to write again to the Scottish Government to ascertain what action has been taken since this information was gathered to ensure that guidance in the NHS HDL 200362 is being complied with fully and consistently by all health boards in Scotland. The next petition is PE1506 by Alison Tate on behalf of the Robert Burns World Federation Ltd on renaming Glasgow Pesquot Airport to Robert Burns International Airport. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions. I invite Chick Brody to make an opening statement. Obviously, I will not agree with the recommendation of the petition committee. It will be largely because of my involvement with Pesquot Airport. I think that the first thing that we have to do is drop the Glasgow Pesquot. It is in Pesquot in Ayrshire. It is quite interesting that we are asking to rename Pesquot as Robert Burns International Airport, which we cannot do apparently, while we sit in a committee room called the Robert Burns Committee Room. I suspect that the committee will wish to close the petition with the imminent announcement of the board of Pesquot. I can assure you that that will roll on, but I suspect that there is no point in continuing the argument, although I will continue the argument within the committee. Obviously, I understand that you will continue individually. Is the committee minded to close the petition in light of the Scottish Government's view, or is there an alternative view from the committee? The difficulty, convener, is that, like Mr Brody, I am loath to close the petition. The justification for the decision of the board, I do not think, has been made. As far as I am aware, the board has not tested the market in terms of the renaming of the airport. We know and the feedback that we are getting from other airports that have renamed or rebranded themselves as they see those rebranding exercises as being a major success for the popularity of the airports and actually brought in more carriers into those airports. I would have liked to have seen more evidence coming forward from the Pesquot board and the Scottish Government to show us what they have done to test the market, not only in Scotland but internationally, because we have to retain the Pesquot airport as an important hub not only for Scotland but for the UK. However, as I said, I would have prefered to have seen more clear evidence from the Scottish Government and the board on this issue. Obviously, the committee has done a power of work within this, but is there anything else that Mr Brodie may be able to see why it should be continued? First of all, the name Glasgow Presswick Airport was adopted largely because of one carrier who wanted to call Bovey Airport Paris, so it takes you 45 minutes to get from Bovey to Paris. I think that because of my involvement, and I spent almost all this weekend at the Pesquot airport in terms of business opportunities, I clearly would like this to continue. It is quite instructive that, last week, Edinburgh is now asking that Edinburgh Airport be called Robert Louis Stevenson Airport. The evidence and the discussions that I have had with the chief executives in Liverpool, in Belfast and what have you, is that the naming, although not greatly important, has ramifications. The fact that Burns is translated and produced in 159 countries worldwide suggests to me that there is a real marketing opportunity. However, I will say no more. I certainly take on board what Mr Brodie is saying. I have to reluctantly accept the recommendation to close the petition. It is clear to the Scottish Government that I am going to budge on the issue. However, I wish to take Brodie's success in his future endeavours. Jackson Carlawd, do you have any suggestions? Well, since we last met, we did write to the Cabinet Secretary again, Nicola Sturgeon, very soon she who must be obeyed. She replied saying that we have considered very carefully the suggestion that the airport be renamed Robert Burns international. On balance, we have decided that there are strong commercial reasons to retain the Glasgow press pick name but the importance of recognising the rich legacy of Burns is accepted. Therefore, the Government that now owns the airport has said that it is not going to change the name. The management committee that they have appointed to run the airport has concluded that they will not change the name and I therefore cannot see what, as a committee, we believe is yet to be achieved. Therefore, whatever the strength of opinion that underpins the petition, it is clear that it is not going to proceed any further. On that basis, I think that whilst individuals, of course, will pursue the matter, we could not really have stronger or clearer grounds on which to close it. For clarification, the management committee has not been involved because the board has not yet been appointed. Who knows what will happen? I am reluctant to open that up. I think that members have all discussed this. I think that Mr Carlaw had a very strong know there, if I picked that up correctly. I think that we all respect the work that Chick Brody has been carrying out in individual ways, but I can't see any other option bar to close the petition, in particular, in light of Mr Carlaw's points. I think that all committee members have perfectly said that. Relactantly, we are closing the petition because of the position of the Scottish Government, but we all wish Mr Brody well in his endeavours and individual basis. The next petition is PE1517, by Elaine Holmes and Olive MacRoyn, on behalf of the Scottish mesh survivors. Here is our voice, campaign on mesh medical devices. Members have a note by the clerk and its submissions. I think that we all recognise that this has been a first-class petition. I know that we have got a number of supporters in the galley today, and I welcome them back. I am also putting a record of thanks to Neil Finlay, who has carried out a very strong campaign on this particular issue, particularly the work that the Sunday mail has carried out. There is obviously a suggestion that we defer a consideration of the petition to early 2015, to await the outcome of the independent review set up by the Scottish Government and the opinion of the scientific community in emerging and newly identified health risks that are requested by the European Commission. Before we make a final decision, I want to hear from any committee members who wish to speak on that point. If I may, convener, despite what some people think in terms of members of the Government backbenches, in items 12 and 13, I cannot remember when the cabinet secretary was here, but it was made quite clear what action had to be taken. I am not concerned, probably more than that, that, since June 2014, I acknowledged what Mr Finlay has done, that 29 women have received mesh devices from NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I thought that the decision of the cabinet secretary was very clear, and, if I am surprised, the minister for public health said that there will be individual circumstances where clinicians and consultation with women involved will consider all the potential risk factors. I would like to understand that. What the basis of that is? That is something that I am sure that we could write specifically to the health cabinet secretary about, Jackson Carlaw. Can I echo that? When we took evidence, I think that the committee at the meeting at which that evidence was presented was largely asswaged on the assurance that the cabinet secretary had given that he had instructed a moratorium to be placed. He explained the limitations on him from that, but I felt that the response of the chamber to the question that was put was somewhat cavalier in its generality. I think that we had expected something a little bit more absolute from the assurances that have been given to us. I think that we should acknowledge the public recognition that has been given to the petitioners in terms of the recognition that they have received for this work, but I also believe that, as a consequence of what they have been doing, the Department of Health in the Government at Westminster has now taken an interest in that issue. As we continue to review the petition, it would be interesting to note what their conclusions have been and how that might yet have an effect on the position that we adopt and pursue here in Scotland. I thank you for your action. We are obviously still part of the European Commission to its and the European Commission, so it is very useful to get its view on that as well. I agree with that. Thanks, convener. Unlike Chick Brody, I am aghast because I was here and listening to the evidence that the cabinet secretary gave and the instruction that he gave so that the kinesian tail wagging the dog springs to mind here. I would like some more information with regard to that. I am going to become a bore on that. We had a discussion two weeks ago on one particular element and how long it is taking. I think that we need to start asking those that advise ministers not just when, in early 2015, we will see the outcome of that. I think that we need to start asking for exactly when. If I was asked to do something in business, or if I was asked to do something, I could not say, well, I will give you it in early next year. I think that there is an incumbency now to start asking when are we going to see information, when are we going to see outcomes, what the outcomes are, so that we can promote the interests of those that bring petitions in front of us. I bring in Neil Findlay, who has been a champion of this particular issue. This is the patient information leaflet that is being produced to run alongside the current trials that are on-going. It is the belief that, given the lack of information in the leaflet that people are actually being in effect hoodwinked into taking part in trials, they are being asked to take part without knowing that they will have a mesh device fitted and without knowing that the procedures have been suspended by the Scottish Government pending a safety review. I think that that is a very concerning situation. There is no mention in the leaflet of mesh. Since that has started, we have seen the suspension in Scotland or the alleged suspension in Scotland. We have a working group set up. We have revised consent booklet being created that should include the word mesh. We have had products that have twice been found effective in the US courts. We have also had the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, one of the most senior medical officials in the country, encouraging women to take part in the trial. We have also had two and a half pages of details of settlements in the US courts. On 4 March 16, 3 April 1.2 million, 5 September sorry, 3.27 million, 8 September 73.5 million, 30 September 1.6 billion and 21 October 21 million, and it goes on and on and on. My concern is primarily for the women who are affected but who may be affected if they go down the route of this trial and they are injured because of this product. There is another concern, because those lawsuits are massive. We know the numbers that have been affected in Scotland. The consequences for our national health service are eye-watering, if that goes the way that it happens in the US and is likely to go in Australia. I thank you very much for that, and perhaps you could leave the information that you have quoted with our officials for the official record. The other point, just to make sure that this is in the public record, is that we are shortly, as a committee, going to Brussels, and we made attempts to contact the European Health Commissioner's office to try and raise the specific issue. Although we will not have a meeting in the next few weeks when we go, we are assured that we will be able to meet his officials at some stage. I think that that is very important. We want to put this whole issue to bed, because it is crucial across the whole of Europe and America, as Neil Findlay has stated. We will give friends information about that when we have had the meeting. John Wilson. Thank you, convener. Just in the back of Neil Findlay's comments, I think that one of the problems that we have, and it has been highlighted by the petitioners in their updated report, is the lack of certainty that we have in the reporting mechanisms from health boards around Scotland. The petitioners have highlighted some of the evidence that has been provided by health boards, but some of the evidence that has been provided clearly indicates that they do not keep or may not be keeping accurate records of where there have been incidents where patients have reported concerns about the devices that have been fitted. There are concerns there, and I think that the petitioners have raised the issue that does that include referrals to specialist services? Does it include GPs' referrals? The BMA recognises that many women have suffered complications following the insertion of a proper medical device. The difficulty is that we do not accurately know because, due to the reporting mechanisms and who the patients speak to after the operation, are they only speaking to their GPs, raising concerns there or are they being referred back to the consultants that carried out the operation in the first instance? It is trying to impress upon the Scottish Government that we need to find accurate ways of measuring the level of operations that have now become complicated in later years or have been complicated immediately after the operation has carried out. It would be useful to get some clarification, because if health boards are not clear about the reporting mechanisms, then we cannot be clear about the number of incidents that have been in Scotland. There was a specific point that Neil Findlay raised about the future liability to court actions of the Scottish Government. Will members agree that we make a specific reference to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport? There is the whole issue of the information that is provided to those who may be considering or being considered for the trial. I think that that is a major concern that people are being approached about clinical trials without the full evidence. I do not want to tell the committee what to do, but it might be appropriate to write to the Scottish Government and the other agencies involved about it. There was a wider issue when we had the minister about informed consent, and I think that is an issue that you are raising at that point. Is it informed or not? Any other member wishes to come in? I have just one point to do, and I know that this is live. Like Jackson Carlaw, my understanding was that there was to be a moratorium on that. The letter from the chief executive of NHS Grampian, who I think is no longer with us, to suggest that we avoid that medical recommendations should be based on medical literature, high-quality medical research focused on patient-reported outcomes and clinical expertise. The last penultimate sentence is that we must avoid basing any recommendations on the basis of media or political pressure. Well, anything that comes out of this committee, I believe, and I will personally ensure that the political pressure comes from those who come here with petitions. If the balance of probability results in a cabinet secretary announcing a moratorium, then the people who run the various health services should understand that that is properly directed political pressure. I think that the wider point that Mr Brody makes correctly is that we have had several opportunities of petitions in the past where there has been quite a clear, well-accepted Scottish Government policy, which has not been fully implemented by various health boards. That is a common theme that we have raised time and time again. I am conscious of time. Is there any other further points? Our members think that it is agreeable that we write to the Scottish Government, write to the Scottish Health Cabinet Secretary about liability costs and informed consent, and that we defer it until 2015 to wait the opinion of the Scientific Committee of the Merging and Newly Identified Health Risks, requested by the European Commission. I want to know when. I can just get to the question first. Can you add to that, convener, of which I have not read out, as the records are being kept by health boards of incidents? Because I think that it is important that we do get an accurate record. The patients who are suffering are able to be ensured that they are getting their issues heard and reported in the appropriate manner. I thank Neil Findlay for coming along and giving us some evidence today. I also thank all the supporters in the gallery who have come along again today. We are obviously with you in this petition and thanks for all the work that you are doing in this area. If we move on to the next petition, it is P.E.1521 by Gerald Teckleton and Jane Radonald on no more page 3 in the Scottish Sun and the Scottish Parliament. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I think that Jackie Baill has got an interest in this issue as well. Can I first of all invite any members of the committee who wish to raise any specific points? There is obviously a couple of opportunities. For example, we could write to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission asking for its views on the sale and availability of the Scottish Sun in the workplace while it carries the page 3 feature. Can I ask for any comments on that before I bring Jackie Baill in? Are members happy with that as a course of action? Thank you very much, convener. I am pleased that the committee agreed to write to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. I wonder whether I might encourage them on the back of the letter from Gordon Smart, the editor of the Scottish Sun, whether the committee would also write to Rupert Murdoch, because, in his letter, he suggests that Rupert Murdoch is considering the future of page 3, so that might be a timely intervention by the committee. Unless I have read this wrong, there does not appear to be a response from the SNP group. I do not know whether that is an oversight or not, but it is the largest group in this Parliament. I would have hoped to have seen a response from them, so that would give the committee an opportunity to chase that down. I just feel to let you know that, since the last time you met a complaint against the sun, the press complaints commission was lodged for the use of offering a date with a page 3 model as a prize in a contest organised by the paper. I am pleased to say that the press complaints commission upheld the complaint on the basis that it objectified women. For all those reasons, I hope that the committee will continue the petition. Thank you very much, Jackie Baillie. Jackie Baillie has recommended a date to Rupert Murdoch. I have made it clear before, and I will make it clear again. Why specifically are we talking about the sun? We might as well widen the whole aspect. Those who are involved do not approve of it, but if they wish to do it, we are now encroaching upon certain freedoms. In general, while supporting that, let's not particularise on what it is like. Another petition that we had was about saying no to a particular supermarket. If there is a general issue, I have the concern that we will pullery one particular item. Let's look at the whole thing. I am not going to involve in the debate, but we can only deal with the petition in front of us. The petition in front of us specifically mentioned the Scottish Sun, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. That is why Jackie Baillie made that suggestion. Can I ask the committee's view on whether we are right to Rupert Murdoch or not? Yes, I totally agree that we should be righting to Rupert Murdoch. I am absolutely disgusted that we have such newspapers in the Parliament. I fully appreciate the letter that has been sent from the corporate body. I am not really sure why we are still here deliberating this. There are other areas that the Sun does distribute without page 3. Why not here? I am absolutely appalled that it is still on-going. My recommendation, if the committee agreed to this, would be to write to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission about that very point. I think that it is on record that when this petition came before the committee at the start, I did suggest that we write to Rupert Murdoch. I clearly concur with Jackie Baillie. I am Jackson Carlaw. The first point is that our members agree that we are right to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the terms that we identified earlier, such as being sent and, secondly, we are right to Rupert Murdoch. In turn, I am effectively asking views on the petition, which is obviously in front of us. Can I just express again the deep concern that we are particularising? You might as well run Dailystar, Dailysport and all those other organisations. I think that Mr Baillie made a point clear that I just re-emphasised the point of making that we are dealing with a specific petition that mentions a specific paper. If other petitions come and deal with other papers, we obviously deal with that. I am conscious with time that with the member's agreement it is possible that I could defer the other petitions and go straight to private. I can just get your permission first that we do defer to future meeting the other petitions and apologise to the petitions that we have to do that and go straight into private session, which only take a minute. Is there nobody in the gallery? No. Thanks. You are sprinting. Thank you.