 I bring us to order, and can I welcome everyone to this, the 14th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2018. The first item on our agenda today is the consideration of new petitions. The first petition is petition 1693 on independent water ombudsman by Graham Harvey on behalf of the Lowland Canals Association. We will take evidence this morning from the petitioner, who is the chairman of the Lowlands Canals Association, and he is joined by Christine Cameron Cameron, who also represents the Lowlands Canals Association, and Ronnie Rusack, MBE, who is the chairman of the Lowlands Canals Volunteer Group. I welcome you all, and you have the opportunity to make an opening statement for up to five minutes after which we will move to questions from the committee. Thank you, chair. Ronnie Rusack and I have some in excess of 80 years experience with the Lowlands Canals right back to the early 1970s, when they were in a very powerless state. We were involved in setting up a variety of different organisations and canal societies, which in the initial days were looking after small sections of both the Union and the 4th and Clyde canals. Over the years, various areas were built up and became major tourist attractions. I am thinking specifically of my own area in Llynyddgo, where the Llynyddgo Union Canal Society and the Canal Basin are getting massive support on places such as TripAdvisor and all the rest of it. Over the years, we have been attracting a variety of tourism and various support for communities. When we started, we never ever imagined that the canals would be completely reopened as they were with the Millennium Link back in 2002. Since that time, things were initially improving. The terms and conditions of the funding for the Millennium Link included the requirement that the navigations must be maintained for a minimum of 25 years from 2002. Subsequently, in 2011, the Scottish Government changed the categories for the remainder canals from remainder status to cruising status, which then brought them under the remit of the Transport Act 1968, which clearly states that the waterways must be maintained permanently for the future and an indeterminate future period. That superseded the 25-year period. Unfortunately, since 2012, when the waterways were split up and the English and Welsh canals and rivers were put under a charity called the Canal and Rivers Trust, the Scottish Government decided to keep the remainder of British waterways in Scotland. It was given the trading name of Scottish canals. Part of the remit for the funding was that British waterways know Scottish canals should encourage the regeneration across central Scotland, which has been extremely successful. Several thousand jobs have been created, and over 5,000 houses have been built along the line of the canal and several other businesses. Sadly, because of the lack of maintenance by Scottish canals, we are now in a state where several areas of the canals are rapidly going back to the poor state that they were in in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Because of the lack of maintenance, the lack of dredging and the lack of weed cutting, plus, of course, as some of you may know, two major bridges on the Forth and Clyde canal have been closed for safety reasons. It is a bit annoying to some of us bearing in mind that the Forth and Clyde canal is 250 years old and some of the bridges that are 250 years old are still in great working condition, whereas brand new bridges built for them and I am linked are in a state of collapse through the lack of maintenance. Over the ensuing period, we have become greatly concerned about the management of Scottish canals using any profits that they have from property, etc., into regeneration projects rather than the maintenance of the waterways. Although it is fine encouraging regeneration across central Scotland, which we are all heavily supportive of, nowhere in their remit does it say that they should become actively involved in being a regeneration company, which they have subsequently done with an organisation called BIGG Regeneration, which was set up around about 2012. The regeneration company is now involved in building houses and various other projects. It has also been noticed that it has been hoovering up lots of granted, including £237,000 in Fort Augustus from the coastal regeneration fund for a property that it bought in Fort Augustus. We have, on numerous occasions, gone through Scottish Canals complaints procedure, been dissatisfied with the responses and have submitted applications to the SPOS. Unfortunately, the attitude that we have had back from there is that they will only deal with matters of maladministration, and it clearly says in their remit that they should deal with matters of maladministration or matters that seriously affect customers. They have declined to do on numerous occasions when we have put complaints in regarding their activities. When, in 2012, the waterways were split up, in England and Wales, they were allocated an independent ombudsman to look after all the waterways. That is Canals, rivers and other inland waterways. That is what we would like to see in Scotland because that is what we do not have. We need an independent overview so that we can take our issues to that independent overview. The other problems that we have are that, while we follow Scottish Canals complaints procedure, it is extremely difficult to find anybody who can deal with complaints against senior management because they are the ones who are looking after the complaints and making decisions. On occasions, we have found ourselves between a rock and hard place. We cannot complain or create any interest in things that are being controlled by senior management because we have got nobody to go to to complain about them. Complain is probably a correct word to use on some occasions but there are other occasions where we need an independent review of what is being done. Much money has been spent by them on regeneration projects, as I said earlier on. Tragically, the money has not been spent on their statutory duties, which is to maintain the waterways. We are in the situation, for example, on the Forth and Clyde canal of two major road bridges being closed. Several other bridges are also affected. Lack of dredging, there were complaints by Scottish Canals that the number of yachts transiting Scotland. The Forth and Clyde canal is the oldest sea-to-sea crossing in the world. It is therefore a major tourist attraction on its own. The yacht numbers for transit drop drastically because of the lack of dredging. On one occasion, when this was pointed out to the chairman that his literature stated that the navigation depth was 1.8 metres, but that was no longer the case. His response to that was, oh, we better look at changing our literature then. As you can imagine, that response that we were getting was not acceptable and extremely worrying. We are all heavily involved in various different organisations and groups. Most of the subgroups, such as my own Lullan Canals Association, Scottish Canal Volunteer Group, are now part of an umbrella body called Keep Canals Alive, which has other major members, including RYA Scotland, the Forth and Clyde Oughts Association. While initially we were looking at someone to look after the interests of canals and waterways, we rapidly realised that there are so many other boat users that need similar protection, coastal navigation and rivers. There are apparently major projects or major problems, for example in Auburn Harbour at the moment, affecting yachtsmen. Those are all things that seriously damage tourism. Lots and lots of people are using towpaths, for example. We encourage that because of great health benefits, etc. They are rapidly dropping off because nobody wants to walk along a stinking smelly ditch, which is what is happening rapidly. With a lot of regeneration, we are getting complaints coming in all the time from businesses. What happened to the boats that we were promised? The floating wallpaper no longer exists, so that is really our situation. Massive amounts of problems that we cannot resolve. That is the main reason behind the application. We can move to questions. You answered the question about an equivalent of England and Wales waterways on-between, because that would afford somebody independent to look at your complaints. What discussions have you had with the Scottish Government? Some of that must be really about policy. The fact that Scottish canals is operating in a way that you think that policy terms are bad and damaging the canals network is focusing on other than their core business. Have you had discussions with the Scottish Government? Fairly briefly with the Scottish Government, I should say that I was involved with canals, especially in the tourist area of the canals since 1971. The relationship with Scottish canals and their stakeholders and businesses was excellent right up to about 2012 when it was taken over by and became Scottish canals. Since then, there has been a total lack of communication from them. Because of that, we had to start Keep Canals Alive campaign, which has been really successful. At long last, it has been starting to listen to us. The Scottish Government has come along to our meetings and fully understand the problem that we have been having. I must admit that, recently, the Scottish Government appointed an instrument CEO to look after Scottish canals since the last CEO left. Things have improved quite a bit, actually. Her attitude has been excellent, and she was appointed last Friday as the permanent CEO for the future. Hopefully, we will be able to give her a wee chance and see what happens. Part of the problem that Scottish canals have to be fair is that they do not have enough money from Scottish Government to do the job properly. That is one reason. The other reason that we have been really concerned with is the fact that they have spent so much money on regenerating businesses, commercial operations and all those things. It has been very obvious that they have not been maintaining their statutory duty of looking after the canals. That is why so many things fall down. There are major problems on the canal with lagging locks. If it is not addressed, it is going to become serious. If you have a big embankment burst in the Llyfrid, you have the town of Llyfrid. That is a bit extreme, but it gives you an example of what could happen if they do not look after them properly. To me, it feels that there are two separate things here. There is the role of the Government, since they have decided not to go the way that they have gone elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The role of the Government in determining policies and the resources to support that policy, but separately your request for an independent ombudsman is like a backstop for that, where policy is not being pursued. Is that right? That is pretty close to the mark, I think. One of the major problems that Ronnie has just referred to is that we know that there is not all that much money available. The main problem is that it is being spent in the right way. It is clearly not being spent as it should be to maintain the waterways. They are a major tourist attraction. They are a major benefit to the communities health-wise. I got off the plane early Monday morning and my taxi driver on the way home was telling me that he is a classic case of what happened. He massively overweight, virtually on the edge of diabetes and everything else, managed eventually to find the canal, get himself a bike, and from being able to cycle maybe 100 yards, he can now cycle 30 miles. He has lost a massive amount of weight over five stone, and he is no longer in danger of developing diabetes. That is one out of thousands of cases. Again, that is not going to continue unless the canal environment is properly maintained. We are losing boats and boat owners on a weekly basis. At the moment, nobody can navigate the full length of the 4th Clyde canal. We have another instance of the new canal built and opened by our Majesty last year, the Queen Elizabeth 2 canal. Again, the design specification was that that should cater for yachts with a draft of six feet. What do they do? They build it to six foot depth. No vessel with a draft of six foot is going to be able to move in six foot of water. Again, millions of pounds of public money are possibly wasted because, even if it was operational, nobody can go anywhere. We are losing massive amounts of tourism business from northern Europe, Scandinavia, where yachts regularly came across and used the transit to get to the west coast of Scotland, which is reckoned to be one of the best sailing areas in the world. We are going to come back to question finance from Rachel later, but I will maybe ask Angus just now. I am science convener and good morning to the panel. I should declare at the outset that I am a member of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism. I have also got small sections of the union canal and the 4th and Clyde canal in my constituency. I am acutely aware of the challenges that have been experienced by boaters and other stakeholders regarding their dealings with Scottish canals. I recognise many of the examples raised by Graham Harvey and Ronald Russell, including in particular the frustration regarding the lack of dredging. I might come back on those points later on, but your petition refers to the monopoly position that Scottish canals has and that it is operating unfairly in relation to, for example, access to the waiting lists for moorings and the setting of fees. Can you give us a bit more detail about your experience in relation to these issues? Yes. When the change happened in 2012, one of the schemes that they introduced was their living on water scheme, where they were trying to encourage people to bring boats on to the canal and live on those boats. To establish the market rate, in their words, they put 10 moorings throughout Scotland up for auction on eBay. In two cases, there was one family applying for each of two particular moorings. One was in Edinburgh and one was in Inverness. The mooring suggested fee was £3,500. Every time those people put a bid in, they were outbid. In the case of the people in Edinburgh, when it reached £4,300, they said, no, enough is enough. They cannot afford any more. Within two weeks, they received communication from Scottish canals saying that the person who had outbid them had disappeared, so they could have the mooring at £4,300. That is in total contravention of all auction rules. In the case of two bidders, if one drops out, they either rerun the auction or the remaining bidder gets the product or service at their original bid. One was bad enough, but we found out that it happened to two people. I was waiting for the third because, as an ex-police officer, I was looking at potential criminal action under the Moor of Doctrine. Those were subsequently withdrawn and the auctions on EV were cancelled. They then went to looking at a complete price review across the whole length of all the canals. Originally, they tried to base it on a consultancy report that was submitted by one of the directors and his company. That eventually got blown out of the water, if you will pardon the expression. They brought in a so-called independent team of consultants called Gerald Eave Stroke GVA. We questioned the independence because they were a subsidiary group of one of the major funders of the Kelpies project. Gerald Eave has also been used by Her Majesty's Treasury to do various things on business rates, so their independence could be called into question. They used a variety of standards to ensure that they were coming up with proper costings. Most of those were seriously questioned. They were using comparisons with house rents for local authorities throughout the country looking at costings from marinas, but all the marinas that they were looking at were in England and Wales because we don't have equivalent marina facilities in Scotland. On a number of occasions, they came up with costings that were 100 per cent higher than what boaters were originally or at that time paying. Falkirk is a good example where they decided that the annual fee per metre would be £106.80, which was £20 short of what Scottish Canals told them they were intending to charge or that was being charged when, in fact, the boaters were only paying around £53.54 per metre at that time. With those price increases, most of us who were boaters at the time had increases in excess of 100 per cent. In their kindness, they decided that they would introduce the increases by £100 per annum until such time as people reached the maximum amount. In some cases, that was going to take about 20 years. They also added in that they were going to review the situation again in five years time. We are having all those dramatic increases forced upon us. The other problem with that is that people living on water in their boats have no security of tenure, so many of them are frightened to complain in case they get forced off the water by Scottish Canals, which has been threatened on numerous occasions. Their latest missive sent out recently to all boaters reminding boaters that they had to keep their craft in a clean and tidy condition along with the environment. They had to display their licenses prominently on their craft, which would be fine if they had sent out the new licenses to people because people were submitting their payment for their licenses and waiting well over two months for them to be sent out from Scottish Canals. On the one hand, they are claiming that if you don't show your license, we are going to put you off the water, but they haven't sent the licenses out. That is the sort of issues that we are continually facing and our members are continually facing. When we were unhappy about the price increases, I had written to the Minister of Transport to ask what was the legislation covering this. I was told that Scottish Canals brought over the legislation from England, and the main remit was to set prices. There was no amount of constraints on it or how much they could charge or how little they could charge, so they just charged what they liked. That causes a great deal of hardship to people who are living on the Canals. People have had to sell their boats because they can't afford to live in the Canals. In the PIDA report, which was used as part of the evidence for the millennium funding, one of the things that was stated clearly in the PIDA report was that while income from boaters was interesting, it was irrelevant. Now, boaters on the canal network throughout Scotland are the only ones that are paying for the use of the canal. When we have questioned this in various formats, the response from Scottish Canals has always been, well, 99 per cent of our customers are quite happy. 90 per cent of those 99 per cent customers do not have any financial connection with Scottish Canals, so they cannot really be considered as customers. They are able, like everybody else, to use the facilities, but they are certainly not paying for them. The only people who are paying for the facilities are the boaters. That is all very helpful. Presumably, your concerns regarding the Scottish Canals' pricing policy were fed back to the management at the time, but I am just wondering if you have raised them. The Ombudsman came back and said that he had no remit to deal with the finances, because Scottish Canals have been given the price setting, but there are no constraints on how much price they set. Did you raise the concerns with the chair, not the CEO, but the chair of Scottish Canals at any point? Yes. We were told in no uncertain terms to suck it up sunshine, take it or leave it. That is why we felt that we had to come today to ask about a water ombudsman who will only deal with issues to do with waters, whether it is rivers or canals. Our specific interest is the canal, because canals are dying just now. They are close for a year. In that year, people will stop using the canals, and we are going to lose a very valuable facet. You have answered quite a lot of what I was going to ask, but I just wanted to reiterate that you stated that you have actually tried to resolve your issues with Scottish Water. You have talked about some of the responses that you have had from Scottish Canals, if you want to expand on that. Is there a new CEO in place? Do you feel that there might be a little bit of movement in there? Hopefully. Several of us have already met the new CEO, and as Ronnie mentioned earlier on, she seems to be extremely switched on and capable. Our main concern is that she might be hamstrung by the current chairman, who, to be honest, has clearly stated on several occasions that he is totally against powered craft on waterways. He does not understand that powered craft are needed to help to keep the weed down. He thinks that the waterways should be left for canoes. He has made a variety of threats over the past two or three years, which have been extremely unhelpful. She is not able to defend himself. No, yes, I apologise. I think that you have highlighted your concern. It is certainly something that we will pursue at a committee in terms of whether we believe that we are conducting the role properly. In general terms, one of the major issues has been a total lack of consultation with stakeholders and others who may be involved. The price increase, there was no consultation on that until the decisions on the costings were made. When we complained to the Scottish Government, the response that we got back was a letter written by Scottish canal saying that we are consulting with people. The consultation was basically that this is what is happening, take it or leave it. From a purely practical perspective, I know that you are looking for an independent obnisman that is in England and Wales. I am just wondering whether Scotland has enough inland waterways to justify that. You have kind of alluded to this, but who ultimately is responsible here? Somebody has to ultimately have the decision-making powers to be able to deal with those matters. Basically, the ultimate responsibility is with the Transport Minister or the Scottish Government. They are the ones that signed the agreements for the millennium funding and the requirements for on-going maintenance. It is just that the ask here is to have an independent obnisman. If that is your ask and that falls through this process, it does not leave you anywhere. Why am I asking whether the responsibility lies here? I think that we have gone through the obnisman and the channels that we have gone through the Minister of Transport. We have basically been left with no other option but to look at maybe somebody who would just specifically deal with water board issues, canal issues and water issues in terms of the monopoly that Scottish canals have and the attitude that they have towards their customers. We feel that somebody needs to listen to us. We are not being listened to by Scottish canals. They have the power. They are a monopoly. They can decide what is happening. They can say what they like and they do. There needs to be some check and balance. We have been to the obnisman. We have had no satisfaction there, so we are asking for a water obnisman or somebody who will specifically deal with those issues to do with the canals. There are two other options available to us. Under the Transport Act, we can request a judicial review or we can request a formal public inquiry. The public inquiry can be organised independently by ourselves, without government involvement, but the judicial review could be seriously embarrassing for so many. We are not particularly keen to go down that route. It would be expensive, but raising the funds would not be a major problem. That really is the situation that we are in. If we have an independent waterways ombudsman, that can then follow up most of our issues once they have been investigated. It still remains for us to make a decision on whether we go with a judicial review or a public inquiry. Your submission in Scottish Canals has what it refers to as a strong network of advisory groups to assist it in carrying out its regularities duties. Can you expand on who you say a strong network of groups is? There are a number of canal societies across all the canals, including the Caledonian Canal. As I said in our introduction, between Ronnie and I, we have got over 80 years' experience. We have a hell of a lot of members in those organisations that have vast amounts of experience in engineering and building a whole range of areas. One of our members on the Lowland Canal Volunteers Group is the retired senior British Waterways engineer. We have access to information assistance through the Inland Waterways Association and various other organisations that also have their expertise. We have put forward on numerous occasions solutions for issues, in particular things like landing stages or whatever for canal side businesses. They insist on providing floating pontoons, which are not necessary because there is no tidal movement on those canals. £40,000 was quoted for a landing stage at the Bridgeport 49 Bistro on the Union Canal, for example. Putting in a basic landing stage would cost a tenth of that maximum, but they are not prepared to look at those alternatives. I appreciate that, on a number of occasions, including Bridgeport 49, there have been issues with Historic Scotland in the past, saying that we cannot put anything new, but in that case, we are not putting anything new, we are replacing something that existed right back in 1824 when the canal was open and the remains of the original landing stage are still there. That sort of situation pertains. We do have the skills, the expertise, the marketing skills and the rest of it. We have offered them on numerous occasions and the response was all great, yes, all will get in touch. Our overall objective is to work along with Scottish Canals, as we have done for many, many, many, many years. That is where we want to end up. I think that the new CEO fully understands that. We do not want to be in a conflict position with him. That does not get us anywhere at all, but at the moment we are just not being listened to. You also say that some of his advisory groups might be working to their own agendas. Can you tell committee what his agendas are? You also say in your submission that some of the advisory groups might have their own agendas and are working to them. Can you tell committee what his own agendas are from the advisory groups? I think that the agendas from all the advisory groups is to get the canals back to where they should be and stop the degeneration that is going on at the moment. Most of us spend years and years and years trying to get canals improved, to get them open, and so on. The agendas, I would suggest, are more on the side of Scottish Canals, rather than the volunteer groups. As far as all the volunteer groups are concerned, including all the constituent members of Keep Canals Alive, as I said before, involve people such as RYA Scotland, various different yachting groups such as the Fourth Yachts Association, canals and river organisations. Other users, such as fishermen, canoeists and rowers, a whole range of people are being affected or potentially affected. Our objective is to keep the canals alive, basically. The other agendas clearly, from our point of view, are on the side of Scottish Canals. Setting up regeneration companies owned and by Scottish Canals, and getting involved in million-pound projects all over the place, not really, as far as we can see, covered by the legislation or even the Scottish Government's requirements about encouraging regeneration. Nowhere does it say that Scottish Canals should abdicate their responsibility for the maintenance by going down different routes. Last year, the Scottish Government had a consultation document out about the future of planning in Scotland. Scottish Canals responded to that, and one of their answers was that Scottish Canals are moving away from being a canal company to a more leisure-orientated organisation, and we have had considerable problems with various different local authorities in their planning procedures. They have clearly stated in writing, in a Government document, that they are moving away from being a canal company. I just wanted to ask what does the independent waterways ombudsman in England and Wales provide that is not being delivered in Scotland? The word is independent. Issues that we have raised with the ombudsman have not been dealt with. Therefore, the issues that we are raising in Scotland are the same as the ones that are raised in England, but we have nobody in Scotland that will listen and deal with the issues, whether it is to do with monopoly or about residential boaters' rights, because there are no rights apart from the right to be evicted and taken to court. That is the only right that you have as a residential boater. Several issues have come up over the pricing, independence and community moorings. There are a lot of separate issues that have come up that are predominantly to do with water issues and canals, and we feel that an independent body would deal with that or an independent person. That is not being dealt with here because we have gone through the channels of going through the ombudsman, going through the Minister of Transport, and we have received no satisfaction at Scottish Canals. Although we have a new director, we still need to feel that there is not just one issue, but several issues that have to be dealt with to do with the security of tenure for people on the boats, to deal with pricing, which is a continual going, comparing living on a boat to living in a house, the two are separate. There has been a lot of issues that have come up about that, about the monopoly, the fact that you cannot discuss things with Scottish Canals because they have the monopoly position of saying that we can set prices. There is no constraints and there is nothing to stop them from doing what they want. I think that that is why we need an independent water board. In Wales and England, are the canals maintained? They have many of the same issues that we have up here. Funding is always a problem, but, over the years, there have been several organisations that have appeared. There is an organisation called the Waterways Recovery Group, which is all volunteers, and they have regular camps where people turn up for a fortnight working on sections of the canals and all the rest of it. They have actually been in Scotland before, many, many years ago, helping some of the volunteer groups out. Funding is always an issue. Nowhere is perfect. The situation in England and Wales is not perfect, but they seem to be far more innovative in many areas down there than what is happening in Scotland. For example, on the modern brick canal in South Wales, which is gradually being reopened all the way down into Newport to the river can and sea connection, one of their members is an engineer and he is designed and built new lock gates out of steel. Their intersections can be easily installed, do not need massive crane worker or anything else, and they will last up to 100 years, whereas current timber locks are acceptable and will last about 25 years. What I am trying to establish is whether an independent ombudsman, as they have in England and Wales, would then unlock the funding that you need for the maintenance and the assage management, because you are currently in a position where the revenue is not going to meet that need for the assets to be maintained. I wanted to ask you specifically, you say that the regeneration company has a statutory obligation to maintain the canal, why is that not being fulfilled? You ask the Government. So if you had an independent ombudsman, because ombudsman is all about process, would that then ensure that they maintained the canal? I think that independent ombudsman dealing with water issues would be able to bring the issues to government and would be able to look at not just that but other issues as well. There are lowland canals, three quarters of it is closed for almost a year now, people cannot use it. In England, I do not know of any canals that have been closed, I know that there are problems with fixing things, but they seem to get it done a little quicker. It is not just the issues of maintaining the canals, it is issues to do with the pricing and the fact that there are no constraints on Scottish canals, it is issues in relation to residential boaters having no rights. Most people, if they have a house, have rights, so residential boaters do not have any rights. On the licence fee, is any of that hypothesised to the maintenance spend? The last figures that I saw, the licence fees and moaring fees, the income from boaters amounts to roughly 5 per cent of their income. They get a grant every year and the grant has been increased over the years in comparison to what other organisations have received. Our main issue is that we need money, the other £70 million backlog of repairs and maintenance is required. The Government gives a grant. What is happening to the equivalent amount that they are raising through their own revenue sources? That is not being plowed back into the maintenance and on-going upkeep because of being put into various regeneration company projects. On that point, have you asked Michael Matheson for a judicial review? Not yet. He is so new into being the transport minister. We have not really got in contact with him yet. All those issues have been brought to the minister of transport. Over the last year, there have been several letters with each issue that has been sent to him. The issue has been raised in Parliament. Thank you very much. I think that we have spent a lot longer in this than I had anticipated in terms of managing it, but it is because you have been raising really interesting issues. I am sure that the committee agrees with that. I have got a particular fondness for the Crennan canal in terms of my own experience of the canal. There is a lot of goodwill towards the canal system in Scotland. I think that what you say is very interesting. I suppose that what the committee has to decide—and we will want to make a judgment on this—we agree that there is a problem, or that there seems to be a problem, around maintenance. Whether your solution is the one that will address that problem or give you a backstop is something that I would certainly want to explore, but I wonder whether members have suggestions about how we take that forward. I am looking at what the petition is actually asking for. I think that what I was trying to get to in my questioning was that that is going to be the best solution, because if it falls on a practical level in terms of creating an independent organism specifically to look at this, if that is not practical, where does that leave us? I wonder whether that is what the ask is of the petition. Do we have the latitude to explore a little bit further? I am specific to looking at it. For me, it is the question of our Scottish canals actually exercising the statutory duties as per policy remit, but who are they responsible to? What we need to explore is the policy failure that has driven people to the point where they think that the only solution is to have an independent ombudsman who is going to uphold your rights and listen to your concerns. If that is why we are asking for that, I think that we have to identify why things are not being done, why they are not constrained and charging, why they are not a focus and maintenance, why they are able to diversify their business and not do their core business, which is what feels to me to be the suggestion. Why would you call yourself Scottish canals and then not allow the canals to be open for the year? In terms of the spirit of the petition, which is to identify, you have identified a problem, you think that an independent ombudsman might be the solution to that. I think that that is what we are going to explore. I suggest that, certainly, we would want to write to the Scottish Government, specifically to the Minister for Transport, to recognise those problems and what he is going to do about it, and his view on whether there is a necessity for an ombudsman. Convener, as a publicly funded body, would Audit Scotland not have eroded Billy to see if they have deviated from a remit in their statutory duties? I would be keen to write to Scottish canals to establish their position on their statutory obligation for investment to maintain the canals, because this is seriously going to have an effect on tourism. Tourism is a really important aspect of the economy in Scotland. From what we have heard today, there is a category of failures. I think that we also need to hear from other stakeholders, such as the Scottish Waterways Trust, the RYA, which has been mentioned this morning in evidence, and the Canal and River Trust, and the Inland Waterways Association. It is a range of organisations. I would be quite interested to see the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, to see why they do not feel that it is within their remit to comment or do something on this. I suppose that my experience of the ombudsman tends to be pretty limited to what they can do. They can only identify whether the process has been flawed or if the process has flawed. I do not know whether that leaves you. I think that we are coming at this from two angles. I would speak for the committee and recognise the problem and the way that you have identified them. We then need to look at whether there is an option of an ombudsman that exists elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Why is the Scottish Government actively chosen to maintain Scottish Canals separately from a charity? Does it therefore have an obligation to do the maintenance and the responsibility to make sure that the thing is maintained? We want to ask them about that, Rachel. Is it worth also asking the Canal and River Trust in England and Wales their comments on that particular petition? We could ask them what is the view of their role in terms of protecting the maintenance of their waterways. As well as to look at where they have been investing their money and what return they are getting for that money. When they broke up between British Waterways and became Scottish Canals, they received over £100 million as a dowry, if you like to call it. I have been asking since February for a set of specific accounts on that, because it is those investments that have to be plowed back into the Canal to maintain it and keep it running. It feels like it might be an opportunity at some point to bring the Scottish Canals before the committee, but we can see what it is. Sometimes it is easier by direct questioning rather than by correspondence, but we will start with correspondence and say when these issues perhaps your point is raised through David's suggestion that we highlight those questions to Audit Scotland. Thank you very much for your attention. It has been really interesting and quite thought-provoking, because the solution that you have identified might not be the one that eventually emerged from that, but we would certainly want to shed some light on why our waterways do not appear to be maintained in the way that we would hope. You have given us a lot of things to think about and we are going to pursue those with all the bodies that we have identified. I thank you very much for your attendance and I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave the table. The next petition of consideration is petition 1701 on change the law to allow adoption for people over the age of 18 by Nathan Sparling. Members will be aware that Spice published a blog this week providing impartial information and analysis on the issues raised in the petition. We will take evidence today from the petition, Nathan Sparling, who is joined by Caroline Dempster, who also has a personal interest in the petition. I welcome you both and perhaps apologise for the slightly later starting point for your petition that we might otherwise have expected. You have up to five minutes to make an opening statement, after which we will move to questions from the committee. Thank you very much, convener, and to the rest of the committee for inviting Caroline and I here today to give evidence on this petition as part of the campaign to change the law to allow people over the age of 18 to be adopted. My dad came into my life when I was 12. I have never known my biological father. In fact, my birth certificate reflects this as it is blank where most people would have a father's name. I have never wanted to know who he was. My dad, Brian, shaped me as a person. He continues to provide love and support to me and I was a very delighted big brother to just five years ago when we welcomed Thomas and William into our family. It wasn't until the age of 18, however, that I considered how I could repay that love and support. For many families in the US, Canada, Germany and Spain, step children over the age of 18 could approach their step parents with adoption papers for a very emotional birthday or Christmas present. Finding out that I was not able to be adopted because I had reached an arbitrary age set by the state left me feeling though my special moment of asking my father to adopt me was stolen from me. I remember as if it was yesterday walking my mum down the aisle at their wedding allowing them to make their commitment of love in the law, yet rather than being too young to make such a milestone decision to show our commitment as father and son before the law, I found myself too old. I launched the campaign in March this year because I believe the right to a family life, to the important feeling of belonging to a family that adoption can bring, should not be restricted to those under the age of 18, that every family deserves the ability to formalise their relationships in the eyes of the law and that we should not force people to make such a big decision as adoption before they turn 18. The 2011 census showed that over 50,000 families had a step parent in the household. Now, whilst not everyone will want to be adopted by their step parent, what became apparent after I launched the campaign was that many people found themselves in a similar position as I did. Shockingly, many contacted me to say that they did not even know that this was the law. Just last week, I was contacted by a young woman who said that she turned 18 in April and, thanks to the spotlight being shown on this issue in March, she and her stepfather were able to rush to get the papers in before she turned 18. Interestingly, her adoption was granted after she turned 18. I am sure that Caroline will be able to tell her own story, but adoption UK told a meeting in this Parliament that they regularly deal with calls on their helpline from families who want to adopt step children or foster children who have passed the age of 18. I have argued that the law needs to change in order to comply with the Human Rights Act. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life and that there should be no interference by public authority with the exercise of this right, except in such accordance with the law and, as is necessary, in a democratic society for the protection of health or morals. In making this argument based on a confliction with human rights, we have to consider if the law as it currently stands interferes with my right to respect for family life. I would argue that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company, which includes a sense of belonging to one another, constitutes a fundamental element of family life and that the law as it currently stands interferes inappropriately and may hinder this enjoyment, lacking the sense of belonging to a family member. There are also three other arguments to consider. Is this interference on human rights in accordance with the law? When it comes to people over the age of 18 who want to be adopted, I believe that the current legislation held in the Children and Adoption Act is simply arbitrary and prejudicial, therefore cannot be in accordance with the law. Secondly, does the interference pursue a legitimate aim? What I believe lawmakers have to consider is what is the purpose of blocking people over the age of 18 from being adopted. I would argue that, in an ever-changing world, growing and blended families, there is no legitimate aim for this restriction. Lastly, where the measures taken necessary in a democratic society simply put, I do not believe that restricting adoption rights in this way is necessary, and therefore there is a need for legislative amendments. In looking at those areas, it can simply be said that, for people over the age of 18, whether they be a stepchild in a blended family or a care-experienced young person who wants to be adopted by a foster family, the law as it currently stands is not human rights compliant. There are a number of challenges that, in the interests of time perhaps, we can discuss during the questioning, but I would just add that I believe that there is definitely an opportunity afforded in Parliament through the family law bill, which would allow adult adoption to be considered in Government time, and I am very grateful for the committee's time today. Thank you very much for that. Perhaps I can open up the questions. In your petition, you referred to the Scottish Government's response to the parliamentary question asked by Kezia Dugdale, and the full text of that is included in our meeting papers, but can I ask you for your thoughts on the Scottish Government's response? I was very surprised that there was a quick change of tone from the Government. Initially, when this campaign was in the media, the Government said that it would look very closely at this issue. Then, for a parliamentary question to be submitted and say that it had no plans to look at it, I have since engaged with the Government on a number of occasions, and at a meeting in Parliament that was chaired by Kezia Dugdale MSP just a few months ago before recess, a couple of Government officials in this area attended, and I know that they have briefed the minister on their thoughts on this. What is your sense of the key motivation in saying that there won't be change? It is quite difficult when you have the responsibility for adult adoption landing with the minister for children. I guess that there is a difficulty there where they not only the minister but the officials are looking at adoption from very much a child-focused and child protection issue. What this petition in the campaign is trying to do is broaden that out and say that the right to family life and protection support of a loving family does not just end at 18. That is probably where there is a challenge at, but that is what the hope is to move that debate on. It might be to redirect the question to the justice minister. Potentially. Okay. Thank you very much, Brian Whittle. Good morning. The committee understands that there are other legal steps that could be taken to achieve similar ends to adult adoption such as step-parent, including the step-child, in the will or formalising a change of surname to match the step-parent. I would be fair to say that you don't think that those steps go far enough and, if not, could you maybe tell us why not? I don't think that they go far enough. It's already steps that I've taken in my life. In fact, I changed my name before I was 18 but never considered adoption before I was 18. One of the main important issues is forcing a young person to decide between adoption before the age of 18 is quite a milestone step. The current legal aspects, whereas changing your name and including in a will, are important steps. For me, having my father's name on my birth certificate is more important than knowing whether or not I would inherit from him, because that simply isn't a motivation in this area. However, being able to feel that sense of belonging and family life like that important step of having his name on my birth certificate is more than changing my name could ever do. I think that it is different from that. I have made a will in favour of my daughter. We have mutual power of attorney, but it is different from child adoption where child protection is a vital thing. It is two consenting adults wanting to make a public and legal commitment to their relationship as a parent and child. It is not just for inheritance purposes. My daughter is now married, so she has another name anyway. I think that you will know that changing a many law is a very significant step. In fact, that is an active law, and we go through the adoption process. I suppose what would happen if I played the most advocate here, what would happen once adoptions were taken place and when one of the parties changed their mind? What would happen in those circumstances? I cannot say that I have foresaw such an issue from everyone that we have spoken to. It has been such a long period of time that they have wanted to be adopted. I guess that the policy of how an adoption order could be rescinded is way beyond my knowledge, but I could certainly put the committee in touch with a couple of family lawyers who have been in touch with me that have looked at those issues. My daughter was not—I did not meet her until she was 21 when I met her father and married him later. I looked into adopting her. A lot of young people have been emotionally affected by her parents' divorce, and her father had brought her up since she was about nine. I asked her in her early twenties if she wanted me to call myself mum rather than anything else, and I asked her if she would like me to adopt her, and she said yes, she would. I went and found that I could not, which was disappointing for us, and we went quite as tenacious as Nathan, I am afraid. She is now 35, married in a much more stable position, but she would still like me to be able to adopt her. It is not just a legal thing, it is a public commitment and some kind of security. What would happen if you fell out with an ordinary child so that she cannot un-parent somebody very easily? Nathan has already covered partly what I am about to ask. However, the committee and our briefing papers include a section on policy issues that are associated with adult adoptions. I was wondering if you could expand a bit further on your views on the Scottish Government's position that the current adoption system is focused on safeguarding the welfare of a child, and it would also be helpful to get your views on the view that there is a dwindling welfare need once a young person reaches adulthood? I have no objection to the current adoption system being focused on safeguarding children. Essentially, what this proposal would do is to add another layer of an adoption process. One of the challenges that has been raised by legal professionals is what the current adoption order creates is the transfer of parental rights and responsibilities. Once you reach 18, those parental rights and responsibilities are dissolved. As is the case that I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Scottish courts do grant adoption orders to people over the age of 18 at the moment that provided their papers had been submitted before they reached 18. There is clearly legal will to be able to grant such an adoption order when the transfer of parental rights and responsibilities is not required. In the dwindling welfare rights, young people over the age of 18 can move out of their house, do work and do not have the need for those kinds of parental rights and responsibilities that safeguard children. Even in the care experience system, we have seen that the Government has changed its policy to allow people to return to care up until the age of 21. We know that the family life that is created by step parents and parents and love and support can be protected and has multiple benefits for young people no matter what age they are, even up to the age of 35, is with Caroline's daughter. It is too simple an issue to say that we do not have any welfare rights, because the love and support that my father has given me up to the age that I am now is priceless. The important thing to recognise is that family life does reach beyond 18, and it is very important. I want to ask about how you felt when you became adopted and what it really means to you. Not being adopted. Can you explain what happened when you were 18? When I discovered that I could not be adopted— Sorry, I did not mean that. What would it mean to you if you were adopted? As I said in my opening remarks, one of the things that I wanted to do was to give my father adoption papers to ask him to adopt me. That whole ceremony of such that is so evident that, even if you google family adoption on YouTube, you can see very emotional videos of people presenting adoption papers to their step-parents and asking that question. It is a very loving bond that can be created. I feel like the opportunity to have that moment has been taken away from me because the law states that it is only for people under 18, and simply as a teenager I had not considered that that was what I wanted to do. I am sure that and I have heard from many people since the launch of this campaign that they have said that they had never considered something like adoption before they were 18, and it is only in adulthood that they really see the benefits that being adopted by their step-parents can bring to the whole family and the wider family. As I say, I have baby brothers who are five years old now, and I cement that formal relationship with my father. However, if I was to get married, he would be in a marriage certificate as my stepfather. I do not have a name in my birth certificate. Those are important aspects of life that I would feel very disappointed in a state interference that says that he has to be put down as my stepfather in a marriage certificate. Adol adoption happens in other countries such as Japan, parts of the States and Australia. Have you looked at examples of what has happened there and how that has benefitted people? Do you think that it is unusual that that has not been explored before in Scotland? For me, I did explore the different areas in which adult adoption is legal, Canada is an area that probably has closer resemblance to Scotland, and I spoke to the Adoption Council of Canada. What they see from adult adoption being possible is a lot of foster kids being adopted by their foster parents once they have reached the age of 18, because that is a formalised relationship that they want to make. In saying that, there are also restrictions placed by the law in Canada that give the courts an ability to judge whether or not there was a family life in that relationship. That is a protection that would protect the system from abuse, and I completely support that. Can you repeat the second part of your question? Why do you think that Scotland has not explored this before? I do not know. For most people, as Caroline already said, when you find out what the law is, you just suck your shoulders and go away. I had many conversations with people over the last year to 18 months of talking about the fact that I was disappointed with the law, and I was told to just get on and try to change it. Finally, how do you believe that you can change the mind of the Scottish Government? I think that the Scottish Government's mind is open to being changed. On that issue, from informal conversations that I have had with the minister, I am aware that she is following the issue. It is about broadening the church of adoption and opening up the right to family life beyond the age of 18. As I have said before, we have already done that for care experience young people who want to return to care up to the age of 21. There are already those kinds of acknowledgments, and courts are already granting adoptions to people over the age of 18. There is clearly will in the system, but we just need to have some legislative amendments, either in the Children and Adoption Act or in the upcoming family law bill in order to make that happen. Where was your friend who was adopted the process before she was 18 but then adopted after she was 18 through the court? She was in Scotland. Because of the campaign, she did not know that there was that restriction, and then in the preceding month before her 18th birthday, she was able to get the paper submitted and it took about six months for the adoption order to be granted. Now, if there was really a legal problem with granting the transferral of parental rights responsibilities after the age of 18 and those who have dissolved, that simply wouldn't have happened. So I don't believe that there is such a problem. Your emotions don't change when you suddenly hit 80. What we're talking about is really the ability to make a public and legal commitment and a vow of the relationship that has developed. It's hard to put your finger on if you haven't been there, I guess, but it's important to us. I can sympathise because my eldest children are 18 and 21, and they've become more needy now than they ever were. I wonder whether you feel that the North Scottish Government is looking at this and considering it further. Are there other organisations or groups who you think are resisting it, or it's just something that you're not aware of? Are there faith groups or family groups or whatever who has anybody expressed any concern about it? Not in insurmountable ways. In the meeting that was held in Parliament, there was some concern over my initial thoughts and how that could be adopted was to remove the words under 18 from the Children and Adoption Act. That seems from talking to lawyers like it's too simplistic a fix for this issue and that actually because Scots law is quite complicated in the transfer of parental rights and responsibilities, some more simplified adoption order would need to be created for people over the age of 18. Those views were talked about quite in detail at the meeting in Parliament, but I was surprised with the level of support from organisations such as Adoption UK and Scotland, who talked about the importance of the sense of belonging that adoption can bring and the number of calls that they get. Not only adoption organisations but a lot of legal firms have been following the issue since the campaign started and have been talking about how to overcome those challenges because they also get contacted by people who want to be adopted. So it's your sense that what people are looking for is something that's legally sustainable to deliver what you want as opposed to their being philosophical or ideological opposition? Yes, exactly. It is a different animal. It isn't a vulnerable child being placed with somebody. It is two consenting adults wanting to celebrate the relationship that's developed to make that commitment publicly and legally. It is a different animal. It has to be called something a little different. We've come to the end of our questions. I think that people have found that very useful. I wonder if members have suggestions of how we might take that forward. Brian Whittle is really interesting. I think that my initial response to that was that I didn't know that there would be an issue with that. I've got personal interest in this. I've actually coached a young lad who has foster parents who have come to me as he approaches the age of 18 to talk about the legal implications of that sort of arbitrary age. I definitely think that it's something that we should have a look at. I'd be interested to see what the Law Society would say from a legal perspective. I'm more about trying to work out what the objections would be. Presumably, the fear is that there's a law of unintended consequences that would be what you would be testing against. I think that we want to speak to the Scottish Government and blow society. We did say earlier that perhaps that doesn't fall under the remit of Marie Todd. Perhaps we should be looking to Humza Yousaf to ask him the same question as whether that really is in the right person's hands. That makes sense. The other suggestion is that we might be speaking to the Qualities Minister, Christine McElvie, if there's an issue around human rights, it might be something that as well. I think that we want to speak to the various organisations that might work with round adoption, adoption UK, adoption of fostering aligns and relationship Scotland. I think that we can maybe ask the class if there are any other relevant organisations that kind of are of an interest in this area that we would want to respond. Of course, through the petition's process as well, people are reflecting on this and thinking, well, I actually have a view on this, then of course the committee would be interested in that as well. Do you want to make one last point? In terms of one of the objections, one of the things that people had talked about was the abuse of a system, so whether people would be duped into adopting them for the transfer of inheritance rights. That was one of the questions that was posed to the Adoption Council of Canada about whether that actually had happened in Canada. They were quite clear that the abuse of the system wasn't happening because it's a court process and you have your going in front of a judge. The judge makes a judgment on whether there has been family life involved in this. I think that, certainly in our cases, a judge could make that quite confidently, but I think that if it was just a case of some young adult coming into an old wealthy person's life to be adopted, I think that a judge could make that judgment quite clear. However, there are other ways that you could put in those protections as well, and many different jurisdictions that have had adoption already have different kinds of protections in the system. Thanks very much for that. That has been a very useful starter. We will obviously correspond with the various organisations that we agreed with. If there are others that you in reflection think may be worthwhile of speaking to, then let the clerks know. Obviously, once we have submissions and we are going back to this, you will have an opportunity to provide a further submission at that stage. With that, I thank you very much for your attendance, both of you. I find that very interesting and will suspend the meeting briefly to allow the witnesses to leave the table. The next new petition for consideration is petition 1703 on access to broadband in rural Scotland. Members have a copy of the petition in a briefing prepared by Spice and the clerks. The briefing states that the Scottish Government has made a commitment to deliver access to superfast broadband to all residential and business premises in Scotland by 2021 through its reaching 100 per cent programme. The petition before us today calls for this commitment to be met more quickly than 2021, raising concerns that many rural areas of Scotland are at an economic disadvantage due to the lack of access to superfast broadband. The petitioner highlights the village of Laid in north-west Sutherland as an example of a rural area that has been negatively impacted by a lack of broadband service provision, particularly in relation to income that can be generated from tourism-related activities. Members will note that Audit Scotland published a report last week in the Scottish Government's progress in rolling out superfast broadband. The report stated that, while the Government had met its target of providing access to five of broadband to 95 per cent of premises by December 2017, its reaching 100 per cent programme will be more difficult to realise. A written submission was received this week, and copies have been given to members. I welcome the grant to the meeting for this petition. I wonder if members have comments or suggestions for action. I was really disappointed by the time scale of this whole delivery, and as someone who represents a rural constituency, I get many letters and emails about the broadband delivery. I do think that there can be, for example, the Highlands and Islands help from the Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I know that the legislation is not in place yet for the south of Scotland economic partnership, but I know that there has been a £10 million amount from the Government to set up SOSEP. I am hoping that we can write to Professor Russell Griggs to ask where we stand with regard to the roll-out, and if there is an intention to put money eventually towards the digital roll-out. Perhaps I should refer members to my register of interests on a non-domestic property in the Western Isles, which, I hope, is expecting to get a superfast broadband through the R100 scheme by September next year, all being well. I certainly have a lot of sympathy for the petitioner, but it is clear that every effort has been made to meet the target by 2021. It is an extremely challenging target, but we are all hoping that that will be the case. However, I think that we need to get further the current stance from the Scottish Government on where they are and how confident they are that the target will be met. I find myself agreeing with my colleague, which is troubling. I think that the Government has a target of 2021, and to arbitrary events, we want it faster than that without going into the practicalities of delivering it faster than that. I would like to understand from the Government's position where they are in terms of the belief that they can deliver against the target in the first instance before we start to squeeze that target faster than that. For particular communities, if there is a sense that, while the target might be getting pursued, they are not going to be any better off in 2021, with direct consequence for business and particular tourism trade. The examples that are given of people not staying in particular areas because they do not have access to broadband while they were there, I know that even in urban setting, in my own constituency, I dealt with cases where people were going to relocate their businesses because they were dealing with international companies and they could not download or upload quickly enough because of the support that they had. I doubt that there is any overstate and significance of it now for business. I wonder if we can maybe take the road in at this point to presume that we will have had representations in terms of our constituents. Yes, I have been in touch with the constituents who have put in this petition. I think that there are a number of issues, and I hear what the committee is saying about the targets and when that is going to happen. Ladies on the north coast is very remote and it is hard to get to. Broadband would be a game changer for them. I think that there are a number of things that we can do with regard to the Scottish Government when they are looking at R100. Will they give some priority to communities where it will be a game changer for them? Communities that are remote from services and it would boost their access to services, tourism but it would also boost work because it is a beautiful place to stay if you can only find work to do. That is one issue. I think that what is doubly frustrating for this community is that there is fibre running through it. This is the craziness. It is running past their door and they cannot get it. It is so near and yet so far. I think that it would be good if the committee would try and identify who that fibre belongs to. Does it belong to open reach? Does I know who it belongs to or does the Scottish Government know who it belongs to? I have been urging the Scottish Government for years to map the fibre that is lying in Scotland at the minute, much of it has been paid for by public funds. We have had Pathfinder, Swann and so many different fibre that has been installed by the Government. Every time a contract is relet, that fibre stays belonging to the person who has put it in rather than the Government. We need to get that back because it would save us a fortune if we utilised that. It would be good if the committee would do at the same time to identify who owns the fibre and can it be utilised by the community. That would be a very cheap option for them just to be able to plug into that. I urge the committee to do that, because it could make a difference to this community. There are other communities along the north coast. There are communities everywhere, but the roads are poor. There are no alternative forms of transport. A superfast broadband would open up those communities. Is there a sense that in reaching the target, understandably, the Scottish Government might be counterintuitively prioritising the areas that are easier to reach but are less needy? If you want to get to your target, you take all the low-hanging fruit first. Do you think that there is a sense in which the more distant communities, the more remote communities that would benefit more, are less likely to be part of an approach that is target-driven? We have seen that in the past with the targets that are currently in place before R195 per cent for the rest of Scotland, in the Highlands and Islands. I think that it is 75 per cent or maybe 70, but it could be as high as 75. Therefore, we are already facing an injustice where the areas that are needed most have had a much lower target to reach. We have agreed as an issue. We recognise that the Scottish Government has set targets, but whether there are unintended consequences of how that is playing out and we need reassurance that even if that target is there, it will be met. For the concerns of communities being addressed, we would want to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands. I think that it is a great point about the implications for that part of the world about what the provision is going to be there, which would also be useful. I wrote a grant's point about mapping where the fibre sits within. Who would know that? We have paid for what Government has paid for. Organisations such as the energy distribution companies have fibre in all their distribution lines. A network rail has fibre in all its rail lines. There are some big MODs fibre and the Scottish Government has laid fibre on a number of different occasions for different purposes. You might not get all of it, but even through those few large organisations you would map a lot. We could flag that up in the questions that we raised. It will be in the official report that it might want to reflect on. We are agreed, as suggested, that we write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Enterprise, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to raise the issue that is highlighted by Rhoda Grant and by Rachel Hamilton around specifics around the Highlands and Islands and South Scotland as well. We would look forward to a response from those organisations about the concerns that have been highlighted by the petitioner. I thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us. If you can move on to the final new petition for consideration today, which is petition 1704 on improved targets and outcomes for autistic people in Scotland by Duncan McIlveray, members have a copy of the petition and the briefing prepared by Spice and the Clarts. Members will note that the petitioner refers to delaying the processing of the petition. As we are aware, the Public Petitions Committee has a high volume of new and continued petitions to consider. That can result in delays to the petition's process, which can feel frustrating for petitions, and we do understand that concern. However, while we recognise and understand that frustration, I hope that the petitioner and indeed all petitioners are reassured that we value all petitions we receive and the importance of giving those petitions to consideration. Turning to the petition itself, the petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that an agenda of real and meaningful change for autistic people is pursued by introducing a number of targets and outcomes by 2021 are set out in our meeting papers. As our briefing explains, the Scottish Government published the Scottish Autism Strategy Outcomes and Priorities for the period 2018-21 in March this year. The publication updated the Scottish strategy for autism to focus on specific priorities for the next three years. The petitioner is of the view that this document fails to commit to quote to real, meaningful and measurable improvement for autistic people in Scotland and that they have been subjected to yet more vague and largely meaningless rhetoric. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I should say that I attended the launch of a report, which is a combination of three charities brought, which was Scottish Autism, National Autistic Society and Children in Scotland, who had brought together really compelling evidence around the experience of families, particularly for young people who have been excluded from school—either informally, illegally—or being on short-term timetables or, indeed, the petitioner from Beth Morrison that his petitions committees dealt with before about inappropriate restraint. I think that there is a lot in that report, which probably chimes with the petitioner's sense that there is a lot of discussion around support for people with autism, support for children and education, support for autism, but there is a gap between that and what the lived experience of these young people is. The question will be whether the targets that are identified by the petitioner are the appropriate ones. We should be asking the Scottish Government to reflect on the petitioner's view that there is a gap between what is being said and what is being done. I have a very specific interest in the fact that I am working with some constituents who have issues in that particular area. One of the things of being a list MSP is that you work across several different councils. What strikes me is that there is a huge disparity in the way that councils approach the education of issues around autism, dyslexia and dyspraxia. For me, that is something that I would be delighted to be able to get into and to explore. Why that is the case, why you can live in one—I have constituents who have moved house from one about 10 miles down the road, so that they can get a different kind of support package that is put in place for the child within school. That is without question for me an issue that needs to be addressed and we need to explore if we can within that particular petition. I have no comment on what the petitioner says about the writing assessment. The thing about a child in mainstream school—this is something that came out very powerfully from the launch of the event—is that young people in mainstream schools who have been diagnosed with autism identify and identify the support that exists. There was also highlighted whether it is a presumption favour in mainstream, which might mean that young people have to go through mainstream in order to access specialist provision later, in that sense of having to fail first before they get to the appropriate place. It is interesting that the petitioner talks about an Autism Act enshrining specific rights and services for autistic people. One of the things that parents spoke at the launch, they talked about very simple, small things that could be done in the school system. It does not all have to be hugely expensive. Simple things that—we had this again from Beth Morrison round her particular petition on restraint—there are things that you can do to avoid the crisis where you then have to deal with it. There are huge amounts there that we could usefully look at. It might be interesting to speak to individual local authorities on what the different approaches are and the relevant children's organisations that support people with autism. Are there any other suggestions? I think that we need to take on board what the petitioner has asked, which is over and above the—he believes that the Scottish autism strategy does not go far enough to actually be meaningful or have measurable outcomes. Brian is absolutely right that we need to establish what the local authorities are doing. The petitioner also says that there are inconsistencies and unacceptable delays in waiting times. It is quite soon to work out what the outcome of the autism strategy will be, but we must, I suppose, imprint on the Government's mind that that is what people are looking for to make measurable difference for people with autism. I think that that would—perhaps teaching unions and staff, unions representing staff who are not teachers within the school setting, because very often what is the support given in initial teacher education that teachers know properly? Strategies for supporting a young person with autism, what are the training needs of people who are maybe classroom assistants or additional support needs staff that are able to support young people who have been interested in their views as well? In that case, I think that there is quite a substantial amount of work to be done in that and establishing just the extent to which the strategy is meeting needs and the aspiration of those who want to see more support for people with autism. I again want to thank the petitioner for submitting the petition, and there will be further opportunities for us to discuss this once we have had the submissions returned.