 Rwy'n gwych yn gwybod, wrth gwrs, i gyd, sy'n gwybod eich cyfnodau ar Y Cymru Cymru 2015. Rwy'n gwybod eich gwybod i'w gwneud yn ffodol o'r gwybod ar gyfer hwn ac oedd gyfwyr, ac mae'n gwybod i'n sefydlu gyda'r sylwedd a'u gweld o'r cyfnodau â'r cyfnodau. Mae wedi'u fawr yn cael eu cyfrifau ar FFFF FFF. Mae yma eich bod yn cyfnod o'r cynhyrchu'r rhaglen. Mae ymgyrch yn cyfnod o'r cyfrifau ar y 5 ymgyrch yn cyfrifau ymgyrch. Mae yma eich bod yn cyrch am ymgyrch o'r cyfrifau ffraenwch gyfrifigaeth ymgyrch, ymgyrch o'r cyfrifigaeth, gan gynghreifio ymgyrch. Mae'r cyfrifigaeth yn zedafol o'r cyfrifigaeth. Maes eu lleolneith yr adwrs gyffredig, ydydd yn adegwadwyr eu celfu fel gennyn neu'r ddysgu y sgolig yn dweud ar y celfu eu cyffredig, y gynllun iawn, fel y celfu y cyffredig, mae'n sgolwch i'r ddweud o'i ddiweddech chi. Fy hwnnw'n ddweud o'r adws am yr cyfeirio cyfeirio. Angus MacDonald? Rwy'n gwybod y celfu eich celfau'n mynd i'n ddigonio'r ddweud yr adwrs gyfer y cyffredig. yw'r Llyw benosteron jesu ddweud ei wneud i ymddangos i ddwylliant y Llywbl i fwyngig i gael fddiadau ar hyn oedd tyhu maen nhw'n gwybod i chi i gael'r Llywbeth i ddweud i gael settingr yng nghyrch a'r Llywbl i'r Llywbeth i gael'r Llywbeth i gael'r Llywbeth i gael'r Llywbeth i gael'r Llywbeth i gael eu grifellu amdydd. Felly, ond yr Llywbeth i gael'r Llywbeth ei gael'r Llywbeth i gael'r Llywbeth i gael i'w ddweud i'r particular i gaeliio i gaeliwch â'r ffordd byw yn gweithio, yn gweithio i'w ddweud i'r recordu iailurau a'r ffordd byw yn gweithio i gaeliwch Scottish Government a'i gaeliwch cyst-Ęwyr ond mae'r ffrwng ddechrau yn y gweithiwch yn y rhaid? Be'r ffrwng. Porum i ddim yn cyd-dyniad, byddwyr eich cymryd fel Llawm Pwgol, os yw'r Gweithddai i ddechrau,摮ddio'n ei ddwyllfa i gaeliwch ein g Bloodlith, the limited number of people who fall into the category of being currently under the age that is eligible for care to whom the benefit would need to be extended. There was general sympathy and support from all parties. When we saw the former cabinet secretary there was general sympathy and support expressed that. I am not really clear why no further action was being considered at that time, and I am obviously pleased that yw brigadol, au gael credu'r gweldau oherwydd y ffathog. Ond yn dweud o'r ddefnyddio bod iawn i gael rhai caffi, oherwydd byd y ceryddio'r dda i gael amdanoeddol, gallaf yma, oherwydd hynny yn fynd frannwch â'r ddarlun o'r gweldau yn gwyllwg yma, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun o'r ddarlun, is not a principle that is accepted. Therefore, in writing to the cabinet secretary seeking to find out what further action they now consider, it would be fair to say that we would very much welcome some early confirmation of this. For the cabinet secretary to explain what she believes the issues are that would be weighing any decision by the government in either direction. I support Jackson Carlaw in that assertion. The difficulty with this is that, while we may write to the Scottish Government in the response from the cabinet secretary, the cabinet secretary makes reference to what is being undertaken by COSLA in relation to the financial assessment template. If we are going to write to the Scottish Government, I suggest that we also write to COSLA to find out when they expect to have the financial assessment template ready for use by local authorities throughout Scotland and ask COSLA what discussions they have had with the cabinet secretary and her staff regarding any changes that may be required in ensuring that the wishes of the petitioner are met in this case. I agree with the further comments that have been made. However, if we are writing to COSLA, I am wondering if there is any merit in writing to the breakaway group who have seemed to formed a separate organisation to COSLA. However, I am not sure how many local authorities have signed up to that. However, it may be something to consider in the future. I think that the petitioner has raised a number of other questions that I think we should quite rightly be asking the Scottish Government to consider. The petitioner has challenged the views expressed by the Government and has indicated that, contrary to the response from the Scottish Government, the testing regime, the ECM test, is not widely available in England, unlike some of the evidence that we have received. It would be useful, because the petitioner has raised a number of additional questions, to submit further questions to the Scottish Government and seek its responses to the issues that are raised. The only other issue that I want to raise in this matter is the issue of patient-centred care. The response from the Scottish Government indicates that it would be up to the clinician to decide whether or not they felt that it would be appropriate for a test to be carried out. We may want to get a message out to the Government that, given that we consider patient-centred care to be at the heart of NHS provision, it may be worthwhile reconsidering the wishes of the patient in circumstances where they feel that it may be appropriate for an ECM test to be carried out at their wish, not purely at the clinician's whim. John Wilson says that the petitioner has raised a number of further points, which merit a response from the Scottish Government. She states in her response to the latest letter that it raises even more questions. We should feed those points back to the Scottish Government to seek its further response. In addition, it would be helpful if the Scottish Government could provide a timeframe for the publishing of the revised booklet, Ready Steady Baby, which contains information about Strip B, as they have promised to include it in the next edition, so that we could find out when that's due out. Any other contributions from members? The members' happy takies recommendations forward. The next petition is PE1531 by Ashley Husband Pylton on removing charitable status from private schools. Members have a note by a clerk and the submissions may invite contributions from the members, please. Angus MacDonald. Thank you, convener. It's clear that, as the petition has progressed, it's generated quite a bit of debate and also flagged up a number of issues regarding state schools. It's interesting to note, for example, that local authorities have discretion to apply rates relief to non-profit-making organisations such as schools, so that may be a way forward for the future, perhaps creating a level playing field to coin a phrase for both state and private schools. I believe the figures would be in the region of £150 million for state-funded schools and around £9 million for independent schools, although one report I read, I think it was in Sunday Herald, mentioned £4 million, but I think it's probably nearer than £9 million for independent schools. Clearly, state schools deliver a social good, so perhaps they should be entitled to the relief as well. Much of the debate has centred on whether or not private schools deliver a social good as well. I think that there's an argument, perhaps, to ask Oscar to carry out some research regarding the contribution of private schools on the basis that Oscar must substantiate that those schools are delivering a social good. I suggest that we write to Oscar asking him to undertake some research with regard to the social good that is derived from private schools. Any other members? I would agree with those sentiments. I think that what needs to be established is the fact that there's a social good. If the state schools are looking for this type of relief as well, I think that it's appropriate that we ask Oscar to give us some guidance on this and carry out some work so that we can be a better place to make a decision. Any other members? I'm interested in that observation. Obviously, that is what is currently required. My understanding is that that is what Oscar do, and, of course, many independent schools have been found wanting and have had to correct the level of contribution that they are seen to make. I don't think that it's so much a case of challenging Oscar and all of this. The Government monitors the work that Oscar do. It seems to be content that Oscar is functioning in the way that it was intended, that the legislation is actually operating. I'm quite happy for Oscar to be invited to produce a report detailing what they think they've done and where they think they've progressed to. When we took evidence on the first instance, I did float the idea of state schools being extended the relief, and I have to say that I remain in favour of that. It seems to me a perfectly equitable thing. I gather that there are some technicalities with the law as to how it would have to be managed, but I believe that it could be managed. I do find the correspondence that we're receiving from the petitioner to be intemperate, to be lacking in respect to Parliament and to this committee, and to demonstrate a level of immaturity. I have to say that I regret that. I haven't found it constructive in the slightest. The letter that I have before me from the petitioner this morning is not one that is inclined to encourage me to think warmly of the approach that has been conducted. It has to be said that the suggestion of Angus MacDonald to extend charitable status beyond the independent sector was loftily dismissed by the petitioner when evidence was taken on the first occasion. Talk of extending a broader review of the act is extraordinary. 20,000 charities are involved in all that. I think that the implications of the time cost and the aims and objectives that would underpin any of that are not clear. I'm quite happy, as Angus MacDonald has suggested, to ask for some sort of report as to how they feel they've conducted. I'm sure that they've already, in fact, had to make such a report, so I think that if such a report could be made available to the committee, that would satisfy that, in fact, the terms of the act and the regulations are being rigorously enforced, as I think is evidenced by comment in the public media where a number of schools have had to adjust the support that they give. Some of the evidence that we've received for discussion today has been quite interesting, particularly the evidence submission from the independent schools. The issue for me and amongst us is that we seem to be pulling two things together. I think that it's a definition of private schools versus independent schools, because the issue is here and I've done some calculations. Based on the letter from the independent schools, it works out that some 22.26 per cent of pupils attending independent schools in Scotland are in some form of grant support or funding support. However, part of that calculation takes in the schools that provide additional supported needs for pupils in Scotland, schools like Donaldson's, where there is quite clearly a need for that type of school provision, because local authorities themselves feel it's more valuable to have that specialist support being provided for some of those pupils. If we are writing to Oscar and the Scottish Government, could I ask that we request that they break down what is meant by independent of private schools in Scotland? Unfortunately, some of the more charitable elements in the private or independent schooling system are lumped together, which mixes up the message of what we're trying to do and examine. I think that there are a number of good school provision, but it's the additional supported need provision that we need to separate out, because we need to understand that the independent school sector or private school sector is not all the same. There are schools that are included in that private or independent sector that are providing valuable services—not that all schools don't provide valuable services—but there are particular schools that are delivering additional supported needs to pupils in Scotland today. We need to recognise that situation as separate from some of the other arguments that Jackson Carlaw has quite rightly identified in terms of the petitioners' issues regarding private education in Scotland today, because we need to get that distinction made. Unfortunately, we have two elements in the education system that are included in the independent school sector, and I would like to see that if we can, separated out. They were clear about the 600 pupils or students who are on full means-tested support when they receive education and the ones that are receiving some form of bursary support or support from within the private education sector. The only slight confusion that I have arising from that is that what Oscar is required to ensure is that any school that is currently covered within the charitable status terms has to demonstrate that it, irrespective of its founding principles or definition, is meeting the test. I am not sure how interesting it would be to have the number of pupils educated in either sector identified. It would not really mitigate the need for each and every school to be able to demonstrate that it was fulfilling the obligations in order to be eligible for the charitable status. I think that Angus MacDonald's initial request is one that incorporates what would effectively have to be their judgment of their work in ensuring that the charitable test is fulfilled by everybody. In response to that, it depends who sets the test and how that test is applied. One of the issues that has been raised by the petitioner is that he is quite clearly identifying. In his view, the test is not currently sufficient to determine whether or not some of the schools in the private or independent school sector should be receiving charitable status. What I am saying is that I think that there are schools that genuinely would meet, I think, society's wider concern about charitable status compared to some of the other fee-paying schools that exist in Scotland that may be run and operated on a profit basis or a not-for-profit basis distribution system. Is that not the responsibility of Oscar? Is that not the raison d'etre? It's not the raison d'etre of this committee. It's the raison d'etre of Oscar to ensure that they believe that the test is being adequately applied. And the guidance from the Government? Can I just say that Oscar assessed school by school, not across the sector, so it's an individual school that are assessing every time on their charitable status. Like any individual group who hand in their accounts or whatever at the end of the year, that's assessed as an individual group. Are we happy to take Angus Macdonald's recommendations forward? An expedition is PE1541, by Chris Cormor, on the flower of Scotland to be efficiently recognised as Scotland's national anthem. Members have a note by a clerk and the submissions. May I invite contributions from members, please? Come on, Jackson. I was, obviously, somewhat disappointed not to be here when you were able to take evidence on this petition, having something of a track record of commenting on the number of petitions we receive encouraging us to adopt a national list that of the next thing. My understanding is that a lack of enthusiasm was expressed by the Scottish Government for moving forward at this time. I think that it is interesting to see the level of... Curiously, I think that this has stimulated... The existence of this petition has stimulated something of a limited national debate on the issue. A little bit, it seems like marmite. This particular anthem is either loved or loathed. I think that, at this stage, it would be inadvisable for a committee of MSPs to embrace any particular anthem. I think that the issue may arise in due course in some way, but I would prefer to follow a natural evolutionary route at this time and believe that, at this point, I would suggest that the petition be closed. Angus Macdonald's recommendation. Thank you. I think that consensus is breaking out on this one, perhaps clearly from the submissions that we've had from a number of contributors. The jury's still out as to which is the best national anthem for Scotland. I think that, in all the evidence that we've received, the most salient point in all of it is in the letter from the Scottish Government and, dated the 13th of February and the final paragraph in which it states, Scottish ministers believe that consideration of whether Scotland should officially adopt a national anthem and, if so, what that might be should not be led by the Scottish Government or by any single political party. We therefore have no current plans in this regard. Given that that's the position of the Scottish Government and given that there's still a considerable amount of debate out there as to what the national anthem should be, I think that we should perhaps close the petition reluctantly and allow the debate to continue out there, outside. I believe that the petitioner was very passionate in his presentation in regard to considering the anthem, but I think even on the day it was suggested that perhaps more working need to be done, I don't see that's happened to date. Hence, I think I would go along with what's being suggested today that, with the absence of additional support and works in terms of justification of which anthem that should be adopted, I'm of the same view. It still allows the petitioner to come back with fresh information and a later date and I'm quite happy to look at and reexamine it at that stage. It's a committee update. Close the petition in. Agreed. The next petition is PE1542 by Evelyn Mundell on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith on the human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by a clerk and the submissions. May I welcome Jamie McGregor MSP to meet today? Mr McGregor has a constituency interest in this petition. Can I invite contributions from the committee? As members will know, I've spoken on this two or three times before on this petition. It's a long-running thing. Thank you for allowing me once again to make a statement on support of my constituents, Mr, Mrs Mundell and other affected dairy farmers that they represent, several of whom I know. My constituents are disappointed with the responses received following their appearance at the committee on January 13. They remain of the view that this issue is a human rights one since the affected dairy farmers in the ring fence area were prevented by government from using their property, i.e. the quota they owned, to allow their businesses to survive. All other dairy farmers out with the ring fence areas were able to sell their milk quota. Many of those in the ring fence were dairy farmers with less good quality land which meant they were unable to diversify into alternatives such as arable crops and many therefore went out of business and individual dairy farmers were not consulted before the ring fence was decided upon. My constituents believe that the Scottish government has repeatedly failed to address their concerns and recognise that their human rights were infringed. While we are aware that the role of First Committee has been looking at the current and very significant challenges facing the Scottish dairy sector, this is quite a separate issue and they would welcome the Public Petitions Committee continuing their petition and asking further detailed questions of the Scottish Government on this matter as they suggest in their own response. They would also like to present scanned copies of further evidence on the case for the perusal of members of the committee and ask if they can be allowed to do this and for the petition to remain open. I am of a similar opinion. I do believe that there is a case to be answered and also I see from the cabinet secretary's response as well that there seems to be a measure of acceptance as well and I think that's helpful. Therefore, I would suggest that perhaps he would continue open and look for the fresh evidence that's being presented to see how it would help the situation. I guess McDonald. Thanks, convener. I think the mic's working. There we go. You'll be aware, convener, that I raised the issue of ring fencing with the cabinet secretary, Richard Lochhead, when he was giving evidence to the Iraqi committee during the urgent inquiry into the dairy crisis. As he pointed out, at the time, the milk quota system is being phased out at a European level. Therefore, the ring fencing in the southern Isles and Kintaya and Orkney will ultimately be less relevant or, indeed, just academic. He did, however, raise the point that protection to the island communities, as far as dairy production is concerned, still needs to be looked at. I take on board the petitioner's views that it hasn't been helpful to have the ring fencing in that particular part of Scotland. However, the petitioners clearly feel that they've got a retrospective case with regard to their human rights. However, I think that that would require to go down the legal route rather than the petition's committee taking any further action. Clearly, if there's a challenge to the Scottish Government, it has to be done in the courts, not through this committee. So, I would be a review to close the petition or at least wait until we have the debate at the end of the month and see if the issue is discussed in the chamber. Thank you, convener. I'm optimistic and I always feel that people should be given the extra mile. The fact that the petitioners are prepared to bring fresh information, I think that's helpful. I think that we shouldn't crush people's hopes and aspirations, and we should allow that to come forward and allow us to look at that as well. I don't believe that it would be helpful to close it at this stage. I think that we should allow that extra mile and allow that information to come forward. I'm very keen to see it. Jackson Carlaw? I noticed that Angus MacDonald put questions to the cabinet secretary at a committee elsewhere. The cabinet secretary undertook to consider these matters. I think that there is an expectation that they might be addressed in the debate that is taking place, but the debate itself could very well, as debates very often in this Parliament do, focus on some other aspect of the dairy industry. We might find after the debate that there hasn't really been a satisfactory further examination of this issue, so I think that it would be wise to take into account the debate itself and for us to make a determination in the back of that whether or not the cabinet secretary has been able to give further expression to the thinking that he said he was going to do, and if not, for us to write to the cabinet secretary asking him where that has taken him to. It's a committee that's quite happy with that. I thank Jamie McGregor MSP for attending today. Can I suspend for a few minutes to enable a petitioner to be seated at the table for the next item on the agenda, please? Agenda item 2, consideration of new petitions. Our next item of business is consideration of new petitions. The committee will hear from the petitioners for two of these petitions. The first new petition is P.E.1551 by Scott Paterson on the mandatory reporting of child abuse. Members have a note by a clerk, the spy for racing and the petition. May I welcome Scott Paterson to a meeting? I would now invite Mr Paterson to speak to his petition for no more than five minutes to explain what the petition seeks after which we will move to questions. I'm here today to protect and speak out for the most vulnerable, the most abused incidents that have had their humanity taken away from them by a sickness that has been in this country for far too long. There are satanic people in society that are and have been involved in the most sickening acts that involve sexual abuse, torture and even murder. This cannot go on and this is why I'm here to try and protect victims from institutions that have utterly failed in many incidents to protect and care for in the matter they deserve. From Kerylaw, Dolphin Square, Larch Grove Boys Home, Kinkora Boys Home, Nazareth House, Rotherham, where the council has resigned en masse when over 1,000 children were found to be abused, Fort Augustus School in Loch Ness, Nottingham Care Homes, which involved the police investigation called Operation Daybreak, to name but a few where abuse has taken place and not been acted on. Thank you Mr Paterson. The national guidance for child protection in Scotland 2014 is widely arranged in an irrelevant legislation in relation to child protection. Why do you not think that it's sufficient? I think with some of the incidents that I've mentioned that there's been a history of people that have just not been heard. I think with the induction of mandatory child abuse reporting that it will enable people from within the care services to come forward and not be afraid in essence. I think that this will push people to make the right decisions about the people who are the real victims. I have only one other further question. Where it's mandatory in places like Canada, Australia and USA, there has been no convictions for not reporting child sex abuse. Do you think that the system would work here in the UK that would be convictions if you didn't report it? With regards to America, they have had a success in bringing this in, especially with the percentages and the amount of people that have been helped. I just feel at the moment that we have to bring this in because the time is right, especially with our current climate and what the media has reported. Especially in Scotland, I feel that it would be a great success because there are scandals surrounding places in Scotland that could have been helped but weren't. John Watson? Just for clarification, Mr Paterson, in terms of your petition, you are talking about making a criminal offence to fail to report child abuse. Could you give us some indication of who you mean or what organisations would be encompassed by this proposal? At the present moment, the way that it's worded is quite broad. Do you mean that everybody in society, if anyone of us sitting around this table or sitting in the gallery today, were to fail to report it? Could we be potentially subject to a criminal offence? From the wording of my petition, I meant it in regards of people who are caring for the most vulnerable and who have a duty to look after their interests and wellbeing. That's where my main concern is. One of the issues that the committee has previously examined in our petition was child sexual exploitation, and you made reference to a number of cases that are currently live in relation to child sexual exploitation in the UK as a whole. We as a committee have made recommendations to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has taken on board most of the recommendations made by this committee. Is there anything other than what we, as a committee, have already recommended that you think should be put in place? We are working at the present moment with legislation that was just introduced in 2014, so therefore would it not be advisable to give that legislation an opportunity to bed in, rather than moving to criminalise the failure to report abuse, when we expect, through the named person route and through recommendations to teaching staff, medical staff and others in society, that they should be more vigilant and more aware of any abuse that may take place? In those circumstances, it would be advisable to let the legislation bed in, rather than take further action at the present moment. I feel it could be done in conjunction with it. There definitely is a system that can be used that will work with my proposals. I think that with the structure in place and with the right people, the whole thing could fit together, like a jigsaw. You indicated in one of your comments about the most vulnerable children. Clearly, what has been identified in the media is that sometimes we do not fully understand where child sexual exploitation is taking place and where abuse is taking place. In some cases, it has been reported that it has happened to children that would not have, under normal circumstances, been viewed as being vulnerable children. What would you say? Would you want this to encompass every child, rather than just those who are most vulnerable or identified as most vulnerable? Primarily, I would have to say that the ones that put in care homes or any kind of institution, I feel that it has to be these places, because through my own personal experience, I think that there are people out there who are predators and who look for these opportunities to embed themselves within these services. There have been a lot of occasions that this has been the case. Good morning. Obviously, there is a very heightened atmosphere at the present time surrounding those issues. Almost daily, there is further information coming into the public domain, which, of course, is undermining public confidence considerably. Since you lodged your petition, the Prime Minister's office has stated that new criminal sanctions for those who have failed to protect children from sexual exploitation are going to be the package of measures to be announced imminently. In the terms of reference, they appear to include the sorts of issues that you have identified. Given that, it is what you would hope for, that, rather than having a piecemeal approach to this, it would be useful for there to be a fairly standard and common analysis and legal basis established across the whole of the United Kingdom to any further extension of measures in this area. I think that what they are proposing at Westminster could be made available for the whole country, but maybe it would undermine your position as a Parliament. I am not sure on that, but I think that we would probably have to act independently because the England situation and the Scotland situation are different in regards to it seems to be more reported down in England than it is up here. I think that a different model would need to be implemented due to the difference of the two countries. We would certainly have to legislate separately. There is no question of that, but legislating similar terms was a common understanding of what the offence might be. I give my apologies and welcome Jim Eadie to the committee in place of substitution for Kenny McCaskill. Thank you very much for your presentation. It is very impressive. I like what you say. I would have liked to have covered all children, not just only those who are in one form of institution or another, but I am also glad and grateful that you are allowing us to give it consideration in terms of how it affects children in Scotland. I think that is important. You are quite right. I am very happy for this to be continued and possibly even get advice from the legal committees to see what life they can throw on if they are in the process of actually trying to introduce legislation. It might be an idea to ensure that we encompass this while this is going on rather than an add-on at a later stage. I think it would probably be more appropriate and I think that it would probably satisfy Scott in what he is trying to achieve as well. Any other questions from Jim Eadie? Thank you, convener. Good morning, Mr Paterson. Thank you for your evidence this morning. I have a point of clarification and that is in terms of the scope of what you are proposing. Is it that this would apply to professionals working in child protection or would it be wider in its application in terms of covering the general public? I feel that this petition has to be targeted at people who work in care homes and also people who work within social services, those in perhaps hospitals but not as much. The main ones for me would have to be care homes and social services. Have you given any thought or consideration to the possibility of there being any adverse unintended consequences arising from what you propose, particularly in relation to diverting resources towards investigation of complaints that may, in an environment where there are limited resources, mean that the focus is not on children who are at risk? Yeah, most definitely that's a very good point you've raised. There is a real danger of people being taken away for the wrong reasons, which has happened in the past. Children taken away from their families through misreporting of abuse. I think that, as in, I don't think I've answered your question too well. You've done fine. It was really just to understand whether that was something that you had considered, because if the resources are being diverted towards investigation of what would be likely to be increased in number of complaints, there might not be as much resource focused on children who are at risk of abuse. Yeah, that is a good point and I would take it on board. Okay, thank you. No further questions. Do you have other questions? The committee will now decide what action it wishes to take on the petition. Members have a note by clerk suggesting a possible course of action. What are members' views? Given that there is the prospect of some legislation proceeding at Westminster, it would be helpful to write to the Scottish Government asking whether they plan to have any conversations with Westminster to establish the terms of reference of that legislation and whether they might be minded to move similarly in Scotland. Firstly, to establish whether they think whatever is being proposed would have the appropriate scope. However, I imagine that, too, it would be underpinned by an examination of some of the very issues that Jim Meadie and others were raising during questioning. In the first instance, I would have thought that it would be helpful to know what that was and for the Scottish Government to familiarise themselves with it. Those issues have now attracted public interest and attention across the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that there is an argument for a common standard being applied, albeit separately under a respective legislative systems and legal systems, but there is an argument for a common standard of understanding being applied, which is rigorous, but which is universal. I suspect that members will be aware that there is a national inquiry in this. Can I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask what they are doing within this area, on top of what you agreed with Jim Meadie? I am reminded that we should try to get some fullness to this petition, write to a number of other organisations to seek their views on the petition. A couple of the organisations that I was thinking of were particularly Bernardo's, given that they instituted the earlier petition on child sexual exploitation, if I could write to Bernardo's, but I also think that it might be appropriate to write to COSLA as well, because given that the petitioner has raised the issue about care homes, then COSLA has a role within that in terms of care provision at the present time. I would also suggest that we write to the care inspectorate, because there are issues that arise just to find out what their views would be on bringing in such a petition and making it a situation where you get the criminal offence being instituted, because we need to be clear about the types of individuals and organisations that might be encompassed within that type of change in legislation and to find out what their views would be on bringing in that type of scenario where legislation is in place in terms of mandatory reporting. Angus MacDonald? In addition, convener, it might be helpful to approach the NSPCC to seek their views, the child protection and safeguarding consultancy, children in the UK, UNICEF and Shelter. I think that their views would be helpful. I think that just for completeness and view of the range of organisations that have been highlighted, we should add children first. I recommend you a happy to take all these recommendations. May I thank Mr Paterson for attending and giving evidence today, and I now suspend for a minute or so to allow him to leave the table and the next petitioner to take his seat. The next new petition is P1548 by Beth Morrison on the national guidance on restraint and seclusions in schools. Members have a note by a clerk, the spice briefing and the petition. May I also welcome round day MSP to the committee today and acknowledge a letter from Alice McInnes MSP. May I welcome the petitioner Beth Morrison to a meeting? She is accompanied today by Ian Hood from Learning Disability Alliance Scotland and Kate Sanger from the Challenging Behaviour Foundation. I now invite Mrs Morrison to speak to her petition for up to five minutes to explain what she's looking for after which we will go to questions. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm here today with a number of families to ask for your help in ensuring the safety of Scotland's most vulnerable children in Scotland's schools. The use of restrictive practices, including restraint and seclusion in Scottish schools caring for disabled children, is poorly understood and inconsistent, leading to many of our children suffering what we believe is, at best, institutional child abuse and at worst, criminal assault. My son Callum suffers from epilepsy, sensory and communication difficulties. As a small 11-year-old wearing clothes for an eight-year-old, he came home from school with multiple bruises on his arms and legs. He had abrasions on his spine, his upper chest was covered in a particular hemorrhaging rash and his lips were blue. The school told me that he had been restrained on the floor by staff. I was also told that he had urinated during the restraint. This happened twice in three days. Because of a current police investigation, I am unable to say much more than that at this time. However, families from all over Scotland have told me about their children being restrained at school, causing injuries like scratches, bruises and abrasions. I have heard of disabled but mobile children who use wheelchairs for extended walks being strapped in by so many strats that it was effectively being used as a mobile prison. The straps on one child's wheelchair were so tight that the child could hardly breathe. We are also hearing of children being manhandled and dragged into safe spaces without proper supervision or recording. We believe that this is a deprivation of their liberty and their human rights. We also believe that, in many cases, disabled children are being subjected to restraint or seclusion as a punitive measure. Corporal punishment was banned in Scottish schools more than 30 years ago, but, in our opinion, failures in guidance and scrutiny have allowed some schools to effectively reintroduce it illicitly for disabled children. Disabled children have a right to be cared for by school staff who are trained in understanding the function of challenging behaviour. Many children and young people with complex communication disorders, sensory and learning difficulties may present particular behavioural phenotypes. All of those things affect their behaviour, ability to express themselves or to communicate their needs. Our children are often unable to say, I am hungry, thirsty, tired or I am in pain, and without the essential training and knowledge to understand the function of the behaviour, staff use restraint and seclusion to overpower and control the child using brute force and this is completely unacceptable. We know that our experience is part of a much wider failure of public policy in Scotland and this is what we desperately need the Parliament to address. Specifically, it is a lack of national guidance on the support and management of behaviour for children with special needs in schools and appropriate independent regulatory oversight. Some guidance does exist for children in residential care, the document is called Holding Safely, but this was not designed with any consideration of or expertise in disability. As such, it fails to take into account the complex support that young people with special needs require. Holding safely may provide a starting point for a new national policy, but it is not a substitute for it. We need the guidance for protection of children who often lack language skills and who are not believed when they speak up. If there is one thing that Winterbone View has taught us, it is that sometimes the places that are meant to protect the most vulnerable can in reality be the most dangerous. At the moment it is up to each local authority to develop its own policy on behaviour management and physical intervention. That has led to a massive inconsistency in practice. There is also evidence of outdated thinking and frankly inhumane practice, where a failure to show any degree of empathy with or understanding of the child is evidenced by institutional treatment that would never be accepted if practiced on a typically developed child. Such ad hoc policies not only result in poor practice, there is little accountability and no effective mechanism for parents or other professionals to challenge failures in local council schools. This lack of an independent regulator, combined with outdated policies and poor training, is a dangerous combination. It provides an easy pathway for an abusive culture. We need you to make the best practice that is apparent in some schools and they do exist. Become the norm in every school where special needs children are educated in Scotland and to ensure that if abuse and neglect does occur, there is a truly independent body that uncovers and deals with it as swiftly as possible. There are things that are happening to disabled children in schools that would not be acceptable if those children were not disabled. Throughout Scotland, from Elgin to Edinburgh, Dundee to Dunbarton, we know of children who have been put at risk and are damaged as a result. Please help us to protect Scotland's children. I ask the local authorities who are responsible for guidelines and training. Do you think that there is enough done by local authorities, especially in the training side? Absolutely not. They are not doing enough training. The training of staff is really important. I have Kate Sanger here on my right from the Challenge and Behaviour Foundation. If you do not mind that, I will let her talk a little bit about the training if you do not mind. Yes, it is quite apparent that the staff do lack the training and the skills to understand the function of the challenge and behaviour. I think that the staff are also supported in these instances. I think that when they face with challenge and behaviour, they do not understand that the child is trying to communicate a need, and they often respond to it in a more physical approach or a confrontational approach. That leads to injury to the child and the staff. I think that if there was clearer training and support and understanding of why our children challenge, they would do it, as Beth Seth, for a whole load of reasons. Some of them lack verbal skills. Some of them have complex communication disorders and only understand small chunks of language, so if they are overloaded with language, they become anxious and they may try to push the staff away and the staff will respond in a physical manner. There is a greater need for education for the staff. I will add to that. One of the important things that we would hope in our national guidance is time for reflection. There has been a lot of talk recently about mindfulness. If there is no time for support staff for teachers to take time after incidents have happened to think what happened and what might be dealt with, it can be quite easy for those people to think that if the willful act and not simply something that the child could not help—there is some evidence that suggests that teachers and support staff think that things are willful, then children should be punished or made to control themselves as a result of their condition. Therefore, we think that guidance should be able to influence local policies to have time for mindfulness to develop. If national guidelines were implemented, how important is it to you that an independent regulator is appointed? On that, I will add that we think that this is really important. Currently, local policies vary quite a lot and it is up to local authorities to decide how their policies are going to be checked. Right now, between two schools, where residential schools have children staying over, the care inspector has a duty to inspect all aspects of the care. In schools that are day schools, a Majesty of Inspection for Education has to consider issues with behaviour, but only in so far as that affects learning or in the management of the school, not in the management of individuals. Therefore, there is nobody right now who will look at the question of what happens to some of the children that we have come across so far. That is a gap and one that, in fact, it would not take a lot to either extend the care inspector's remit or the Majesty of Inspection for Education remit to cover that gap. We do not know which is best to do that. We think that that is a job for somebody who knows a bit more about it than it is for us to do that, but we want this issue to be looked at by those who really do know and understand these issues. Jackson Carlaw Good morning. I thought that that was a very powerful, articulate and well-rounded presentation. I refer you back to your petition because I am interested in a comment that you make here that you met the minister for children and young people and wrote to the minister in 2013 and received the response. I hope that you are assured that your concerns have been taken very seriously. I am going through shorthand unless you wish to contradict me and say that you are perhaps not altogether satisfied as a result of that response that they have been, but I wonder if you are able to tell me, are you aware, as a result of the meeting and the subsequent correspondence that you had, of any actions arising as a result or are the lists of specific requests that you have identified here, the agenda of issues that you have been recommending, which to date you have not managed to achieve any progress or support from the Scottish Government to move forward on? You would be right in assuming that we were not satisfied at the time with the response from the minister. We have had no feedback apart from that. We hope that you are satisfied that we did try to engage again a second time, but we were simply referred to the first reply and told that they would not engage any further, which is most unfortunate. Can I ask the guidance that you have produced that you would like to see implemented? Who has contributed with you to the development of that guidance? What broader coalition of parties do you think now support and have been a party to, in a way, almost evidencing the work that you have done? I mean, we have built on quite a group of people who have advised us, which ranged from people who spend some time teaching restrictive practices to people who are experts within childcare practice. We have had discussions with part of the children commissioners office. We have even got some interest and support from the person who supports Childline, whose name is quite well familiar, but I am not really at a position to name them here. We have had a whole range of interest in this. We have come up with some ideas. We have done that from good practice if it exists, but we do not pretend that we know all the answers just now. What we know is that there are some things that have to be addressed and we know of some of the problems that happen across Scotland that need to be done. We think that there is a lot more that can be done on what we have done. In fairness to the Scottish Government, we have been working on this issue for a couple of years and when we did meet with them a couple of years ago, national guidance was not the only thing on the agenda. It was something that we have developed since then. In fairness, we would not say that they have said that they would not do that. They have identified this document, which is called Holding Safely, which you will have seen mentioned in that as being part of what they think could be useful guidance. However, it does not refer to education law, it does not refer to the deprivation of liberty and it is highly focused on the practice of restraint, not on de-esculation and defusing situations. Finally, convener, it is a model of fairness when it comes to the Scottish Government, Mr Hoode. Have you in fact communicated this agenda of issues to the Scottish Government and had any response to them, or are you bringing them forward publicly to this committee, with a view to us potentially exploring them further? I am trying to understand whether, at this stage, this is new information that the Scottish Government would not have received from you in this particular forum. We have chosen to bring it through the Petitions Committee to raise the points that we wanted to make and to ask for the national guidance. Thank you for your presentation, Ms Morrison. The issue that Mr Hoode raised was that he indicated that there may be good practice out there, and that you are drawing down on that good practice. Could you give examples of where that good practice is being delivered and where you feel it may not be delivered at the present time? Obviously, I do not want to go into specific schools, but, thankfully, my son was removed from the school in which he was hurt. He is now very happily and very well supported in a school locally. They are excellent. They manage perfectly well. They concentrate on something called positive behaviour support. Our Angus Council has a no restraint policy, and they focus on positive behaviour support, meeting the needs of the child. That works much better. There is so much evidence out there that positive behaviour support with disabled children works what you need to do to look for the function of the behaviour. When I say behaviour, I have to make this clear. I am not just talking about behaviour that you and I might think is challenging behaviour as in bad behaviour. Those are not naughty children. The most severely disabled children that we are talking about, as we have said, do not have language. To give you an example, a child that might not be able to ask to go to the toilet might just stand and look at you expectantly. If you are not trained and you do not understand what the child is trying to say to you, the child cannot say, I need to go to the toilet. It is not long before, when that child's needs are not met, the child is going to start getting agitated. Can you see where I am going? It is about getting to know the children. There is some really good practice in my son's school just now. He is really excellent. He meets the child's needs. If the child's needs are met, there is no need for the child to progress on to the challenging behaviour. What you have is a problem. When you have a school that has a control and management approach and they are not looking at the function of challenging behaviour, their response is to just restrain the child and control the child. That is not what we really want here. Are the two skills that you have referred to in your son's case in the same local authority area? No. In one local authority, and I am trying to generalise this, a local authority has adopted the positive behaviour support model and another local authority education provision has not adopted that model. At the time when Calum was hurt, his school had what they called a positive handling policy, which is not the same. We have a situation where some local authorities have decided to have no policy at all. That is not always great either because what happens is that teachers are left without training then and they often manhandle and restrain children based on their own limited personal experience. Claiming to use physical restraint as a last resort becomes no more than a cheap rhetorical phrase and that is impossible to monitor. What we want is the training to be universal and that is why we need the national guidance. There are too many discrepancies. One local authority has positive handling, which focuses on the restraint of a child and then another local authority which promotes positive behaviour support. That really works much better, but just now they are all left to do their own thing. That is not good. We need a national guidance. Mrs Morrison, you made reference to positive handling and you talked about once again positive behaviour support. You mentioned in response that you felt that some teaching staff were adequately trained in either method or the experience that they had. Do you feel that there is enough training out there for teaching staff to understand the particular needs of children with additional supporting needs in the education system? It unfortunately varies from local authority to local authority, but I would say that in general there is definitely a lack of training across the board. The training is there. It just needs to be accessed and brought forward, whether that is a funding issue. I do not know, but we really do have to have the training. For example, with children with autism, I know that autistic spectrum, the Scottish Government is introducing a new training strategy across Scotland to try and make sure that there is more consistent teaching for staff at different levels about what autism is and how it affects people, but right now it is very much a patchwork across the place. There are moves to address some of that, but sometimes for the support staff and teachers that Beth is describing, it can be as little as four-hour awareness teaching in autism is all that they get. One thing that we know about children with autism is that everyone is a different child and has different needs. I was going to ask Ms Sanger if she had any comments to me given the expertise of the area. The time has come to give the teachers the skills and the training. In Scotland, we could be leading the way in doing this, because we will be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. The change is definitely needed, and it would be good to see Scotland leading the way in this, because we are seeing problems up and down the country in this area. It is not rocket science. If you understand the need of a child and you change the environment or give them the right support, you change their behaviour. It could be something as simple as the young man who cannot cope in a busy activity and he does not have the voice to say it. All you can do is to teach him a sign to take a break. It is simple. The child may be challenging to escape from the situation when all you have to give him is the communication skill to make that difference in his life. Beth has been doing some talking to many teachers and she has been astounded by the response from the teachers saying that they do not even know what positive behaviour support is, which is quite sad. Good morning. Thank you, Ms Morrison, for your excellent presentation this morning. There is currently, as I understand it, guidance on the use of restraint in residential childcare holding safely. In that guidance, there is a statement, and I quote, "...restraining a child at the right time in the right way for the right reasons can be a better thing to do than failing to restrain them." Is there ever any circumstances in which restraint is an acceptable response within positive behaviour support, or is it something that you would want to make a very clear statement about not being acceptable? I think that when you do a positive behaviour support plan, the plan is made up of proactive strategies, and that is given the children as many strategies to help to support their behaviour to help their learning. You also have reactive strategies, and I think that restraint would come under a reactive strategy. I think that it is acceptable when there is danger to life to the child if they are going to escape from a building and they could be injured, but it has to be in a plan of a behaviour support. If it has been an emergency situation, therefore, after we learn from it and we go back and we include that in part of their plan, but I think that the British Institute of Learning and Disability says that restraint is acceptable when it is to safeguard someone's life or other people involved, but it should always be the last resort and it should always be part of a bigger plan. Is that holding safely was the big step forward for children in residential care, and it is highly appreciated by staff that worked on it. One clear thing to say is that it makes the recommendation that all holds that are to be used should be agreed by the child and by their caregiver, by their next of kin or their guardian, and therefore that it should not be sprung on children what is happening, and really that is what is missing without having a national guidance. The benefit of things like this, there is no care plan for any of the children at school, they just have a different system, and therefore it does not fit the exact circumstances that are there, so although people might say that you could use holding safely, it does not fit what people need to know in that situation. I think that the holding safety document, Dr Bode Paterson, that was part of that document, did say that it was never designed for children with learning disabilities. There is a very, very small part of it that touches on it, but it was never written for children with learning disabilities. That clarification is very helpful in informing our understanding of the issue. Can I just ask, in terms of taking the issue forward, that there is currently national child protection guidance, which was updated in 2014, which covers child protection issues, and there is also additional guidance for child protection for disabled children. Have you considered the possibility of either of those or both of those being amended, or are you wedded to the idea that you have to have separate national guidance? I think that we have to. I spoke to Dr Bode Paterson, who was part of the holding safety document, and his thoughts that we have to do a separate policy and guidelines for children with severe learning disabilities or learning difficulties, because they are a very different client group and they have specific needs and they have to be addressed in a bigger document, an wider range document. Have you been able to raise those issues directly with the Scottish Ministerial Working Group on child protection and disability? If not, why not? I believe that we did try. We were working with an organisation in our local authority, and they met some time ago, but it was not followed up. Our understanding is that there was a proposal to put it in the agenda for that working group. That is the way I understand it, but we have not heard any more since then. That is helpful. Perhaps the committee might want to follow up with the Ministerial Working Group on consideration that they have given to the issues that you have raised. John Dawson Just a further question. In relation to a comment that Mr Hood made, that was the issue about individual care plans for school pupils. I know from previous experience a number of years ago that I had to become involved in a child that was in primary seven, and only found out after investigating the matter. I was a child with autism that there was no individual care plan put in place or had been put in place. How important do you think that individual care plans are for children who attend any educational facility to ensure that their appropriate needs are met by that school or establishment? That is absolutely essential. I will go back to my son. When that happened to him, he had no care plan, no IEP, and we had met with the school on a number of occasions, but he did not have a care plan at that point. We absolutely must have this as part of their care plan. I was not even aware that the school could do that to a child because my son had been in a school previous to that one and without incident. The only time that he was ever subjected to that was in one particular class on three days, and he has not been affected by it since. Now that he is in another local authority, he has a care plan, he has an IEP, and that is good practice. Unfortunately, it is not the same across the board. Again, that should be part of the national guidelines. They know that best practice dictates that, yes, they should have a care plan, but the reality is that it does not always happen. I would be wary about adding another layer of planning within schools. Already, there are co-ordinates support plans for children with additional social work and health input. There are individual educational programmes for children who have special needs, and there are child plans being introduced. Some local authorities—50 per cent of kids with additional support needs—have those plans. In other local authorities, it is as low as 5 or 10 per cent. Therefore, there are already a lot of planning structures there. For reasons that I do not understand, they are not always being used currently, and it may be that those particular structures, child plans, for example, which are just being introduced in some areas, could, where necessary, introduce issues about how you handle behaviour, how you teach children communication for time-out and all sorts of other things within that. I suspect that the tools are there for different resource reasons that they may not be being used yet. I am interested in that response from Mr Hood, convener, because clearly the figure that he gave there was in some areas it may be as low as 5 or 10 per cent, in other areas it may be up to potentially up to 100 per cent. He is trying to get the consistency throughout the education system, because it is clearly highlighted in one local authority, where there was no provision in place for behavioural planning and yet in another authority, where it is in practice that the child can maintain an educational service or be part of an educational service that is fulfilling their needs. We have not spoken about the seclusion issue so far, but I think that the seclusion issue is important in the wider mix in terms of this petition, because seclusion does mean that children are taken out of what someone in the teaching profession, whether that be the teacher or the support staff, or the headteacher, decides that the child should be secluded from the rest of the educational learning that is taking place. It is trying to make sure that those issues are highlighted and that we deal with it and that we have the best practice as much as possible throughout Scotland. Seclusion does not teach the child anything, it is just used as a method of control. A lot of children with learning disabilities have a high rate of health problems, and they cannot communicate that they are in pain and that they will use their behaviour to try and escape. It is very sad that children who are in pain are getting carried along the corridors and put in safe spaces, seclusion areas and not even monitored or looked at from time to time. It is a very serious area and I do not think that it benefits the child in any way. I think that it gives the teacher control of the classroom, whether it should put in the proper strategies in the first place, they probably would not have had to remove the child. I think that sometimes seclusion and restraint is being used as a punitive measure to punish the child. If you look at the guidelines produced by the British Institute of Learning difficulties, it does say that you must not use restraint or seclusion to punish a child. What we need to get across to staff is to teach not to punish. You cannot punish disability out of a child. My little boy has got epilepsy. His brain is broken. I cannot help that. He cannot either. He should not be punished because of his disability. That is the key thing for trying to get across. Those children are not behaving badly just for the sake of it. They have no control. They do not have the cognitive skills to turn to them and be little ruffians. It is about their disability and we have really got to meet the needs. Graham Day, would you like to add anything? Just an observation, if I may convener. I came along with Mrs Morrison's constituency MSP today to support her. I did so because it strikes me that what the petition and its summary calls for is simply reasonable and eminently sensible. I am sure that that is something that you will take on board when you come to your conclusions. If there are no further questions, the committee will now decide what action it wishes to take on the petition. Members have a note from the clerk suggesting possible courses of action. What are the member's views? Jackson Callough. I think that it has been a very interesting petition. Usually, it is not just set out its aims but it is set out some very specific objectives. The petitioners to be fair have said are not necessarily exclusive or finite, but nonetheless it does set out some very specific objectives. It is a petition that we should take forward. The clerks have produced a list of organisations from the Scottish Government, the Care Inspectorate, the Commission for Children and Young People, the Enabled Scotland, Scotland's Coalition of Children Services, the EIS and the Learning Disability Alliance for Scotland, to whom we should address the petition for a response. I am certainly supportive of that. John Olson. I add causala into that list of organisations that we are out to because, clearly, based on the evidence that we have heard this morning, there is good practice out there, but there is some less in good practice being carried out by some local authorities. It would be useful just to get a view from causala as to how they see this issue progressing because, clearly, it would be up to local authority education departments to deliver the services that we are requesting. I would also like us to contact children for Scotland. In view of my earlier comments, I think that we should make a direct approach to the Scottish Ministerial Working Group on child protection and disability. Is the committee happy with those recommendations? Yes, thank you. Great. I thank Mrs Morrison, Mr Hood and Ms Seng for attending and for giving evidence today. I suspend for a minute or two till I will leave the table. The third new petition today is P1559 by George Nelson on disabled parking on private property. The members have a note by a clerk. The petitioner has indicated that he no longer wishes to proceed with the petition. On the basis, I invite the committee to formally close the petition. I formally close the meeting.