 I call the meeting to order and welcome you all to the sixth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in this session. I remind members and others in the room to switch phones and other devices to silent for the duration of the meeting. The first agenda item is the decision on taking business in private. The first item in agenda is to consider whether to take agenda item 5, discussion and work programme in private. Members agree to consider this item in private. We can then move on to agenda item 2, which is consideration of continuing petitions. The first petition that we will consider today is petition 1595 by Alexander Taylor. The petition calls for a moratorium on chaired space schemes. We will be taking evidence on the petition from Humza Yousaf, the Minister for Transport and the Isles. The minister is accompanied today by two officials, Jill Mahond, Transport Scotland and Sandy Robinson of the Scottish Government. Can I welcome you to our meeting? Before we turn to questions, can I ask if you have any opening comments that you would like to make? Thank you, convener. The Scottish Government is committed through Scotland's road safety framework 2020 to achieving safer road travel in Scotland and protecting vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians, pedo cyclists, people with disabilities including those with visual impairments. The framework includes a commitment that states that the Scottish Government would publish national guidance on designing streets, focusing on the needs of pedestrians of all abilities. The national guidance on designing streets was published in 2010 and provides Scottish local authorities with key considerations and guidance for the design and redesign of new and existing streets. It sets out a street user hierarchy that considers pedestrians first and the private vehicle last. Clearly, it states that the design of all streets and spaces should be inclusive, providing for all people regardless of age or ability. Designing streets acknowledges the importance and complex role that streets play in supporting communities and in meeting ambitions in a number of policy areas, from supporting active travel options and improving public health, right the way through to reducing emissions, to increasing footfall and social interaction and, importantly, reducing the speed and dominance of vehicles and creating spaces that all people can access and enjoy. In order to do that, designing streets promotes a collaborative approach, which is based on balanced decisions and the importance of local context and local views. Designing streets includes information on shared space. It sets out some of the design principles behind that concept. It does not actively promote or recommend shared space, but instead highlights the potential benefits of creating streets that reduce the vehicle dominance, encourages social interaction and creates a positive sense of place. An important element of the guidance within designing streets is the emphasis on the need to ensure that design is inclusive and the need to consider the needs of those with a disability, in particular people with a visual impairment. The guidance acknowledges that shared spaces, if not designed and developed in careful conjunction with road users, can pose problems for some people who are partially sighted or blind and emphasises the importance in recognising that those with a disability may require additional supportive measures. The detailed design of particular schemes developed by a local authority must recognise and respond to the needs of all users. Designs should be collaborative with representatives from local disability groups and access panels invited to provide input from the early stages right the way through the development stages. Designing streets sets out the national policy perspective and key design considerations. However, the implementation and interpretation is, of course, a local matter and needs to respond to the specific circumstances and, indeed, the local context. Scotland's first accessible travel framework, which I launched in September, contains a vision where all people with disabilities can travel with the same freedom, choice and dignity and opportunity as other citizens. To achieve that vision, we are committed to listening to and involving people with a disability in making travel more accessible. Disabled people told us that that is not just about transport but also making sure that they can get to their transport. Having accessible paths on road, bus stops and stations must be a part of that. In conclusion, convener, that is why I am keen that roads authorities transport Scotland, for the trunk roads of course, local authorities, for the local roads collaborate and have on-going engagement with local residents, including those with a disability and the representatives to design a better streetscape for all. I am happy, of course, to take questions. Thank you very much for that. I may begin by asking, first of all, on the question of establishing a national policy. You say that it is a matter for local authorities to implement it, which I understand the physical implementation of shared spaces makes sense. Why would there be a local interpretation of those policies if there were simple issues of rights of disabled people that apply right across the whole of the country? There is also a bit of guidance, which I think is very helpful and useful, which goes alongside designing streets and the guidance associated with designing streets. That is produced by Scots and the chief officers of transport, who have produced from a local level guidance that they think should apply to all 32 local authorities. That is the national roads development guidance. Inclusivity of shared spaces is very much a part of that. There are examples of where shared spaces and local authorities have worked well. Inclusivity of people with a disability and visual impairments have been a part of that from early inception stage, right the way through to development. There are clearly areas where it could be done better, but we have done that in collaboration with local authorities—Scots, primarily—and those officers in transport producing guidance. That is not to say that I am close minded to seeing how that guidance can be improved. That is why we are here and have an interest in Mr Taylor's petition. I am trying to establish, as you recognise, that the national context of the rights of disabled people wherever they live to ensure that planning meets their needs. While there may be room for local expression of what shared space looks like, there must be pretty fundamental basic things about the rights of disabled people that would apply generally. If you were able to identify schemes that seem to be in contradiction to that, do you see a role for the Scottish Government in addressing that problem? I think that we are always happy to see if our guidance can be improved to that extent. In taking this issue, we recognise that level surfaces, for example, can cause difficulties for those with a visual impairment, but there are things that can be done in order to address that. I can come on to that later on. If there is a local policy that is not meeting the national standards, let us remember that local authorities have public sector duties. They have to adhere to the Equalities Act 2010. The arbitrators of that are the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ultimately the courts. There is redress if those national guidelines, both from a Scottish perspective and UK national guidelines, are not being adhered to. If the suggestion is that the guidance needs improved and further flesh needs to be put on that guidance, I am happy to explore it. There should not be local schemes that go in contradiction of national policy if they do. As I said, there are some very fundamental duties that they have to adhere to. If that is not being done, then there are enforcement measures. It seems quite a significant escalation that somebody would have to go to the courts to enforce their rights. I suppose that what I am trying to establish is the extent to which the Scottish Government, in its planning guidance, is able to identify its basic issues around disabilities. I will give you a simple example and get your response. Design Street says that there is a preference for controlled crossings for old and visually impaired pedestrians. The word preference, I think that we would agree, would seem to suggest a stronger liking for one option, but other options would be acceptable. I think that characterisation differs from the strength of opinion that we have received and can come across in its submissions about the petition. Would you consider changing the language and design streets to reflect the strength of opinion that we have heard? It is not a question of slight preference for one view or the other, but it is a very strong preference for controlled crossings. If the committee would like me to do that, I think that it is an eminently sensible suggestion to do so. The reason why the word preference is that there can be other options in tactile paving. For example, there can be very small delineations in the road of 25 millimetres. For example, there would not constitute a kerb, but it would be marked enough in terms of a delineation so that somebody using a stick might be helpful to them. I am absolutely more than happy to look at the guidance. I looked at Mr Taylor's petition and seen some of the genuine concerns that he has raised in having the chance to even speak to him very briefly before coming in here. One of the suggestions that I have explored with my officials was whether we can work with our partners. When it comes to the guidance, we can work with our partners at Edinburgh Napier University. They have a transport institute. Maybe we can have a seminar to explore the exact concerns that the petitioner has raised in his petition and see again how we can strengthen those guidance notes that exist. There is our own guidance. There is the Scots guidance, and members may be aware that there is some UK Government work being done on this in the back of Lord Olm of Richmond's report. If we can take any suggestions on changing some of the wording, as you have suggested, convener, or perhaps more detailed discussions on the petitioner's concerns, I might be more than happy to explore that. First, I declare an interest in this as I am backing the campaign in this constituency with regard to the scheme. Transport Minister, part of the whole concept of shared space seems to be the anticipated behavioural change on the part of the drivers, pedestrians and other uses of the space. A number of the submissions talk about the role of eye contact in that sense, and what that means to be able to safely use the non-controlled crossing. However, the point has been made that many people are simply not in a position to make this type of change—for instance, the visually impaired people or people with cognitive issues, learning disabilities or other conditions. I am conscious that you use the word inclusivity a lot in your opening speech, and you have now been talking about guidance. The particular scheme that I am talking about here is about to go live, if you like, in about two or three weeks. It is time with four-way non-controlled crossing, which, frankly, is terrifying. My constituents are the very thought of going to it, particularly if they are less able. I know that, for instance, in this instance, with this local authority, visually impaired groups and others were not consulted, and I know that you say that that is part of the whole premise of it. Can you clarify what can happen if that has not been done and it is going to be going ahead regardless? Is that not a contravention of people's rights if they were not consulted and are not being listened to? I am reluctant, as the member would understand, to get right into the integrity of every local decision on every local high street. I cannot, as a Government minister, mandate what happens in every local high street, but I absolutely understand her concerns about the scheme that she has mentioned as a local representative. If that was the case, as she has surmised it, it would be deeply worrying, because all of the guidance, be it our own guidance, be it Scott's guidance, which was just from a local authority perspective, or, indeed, even DFT guidance, although not necessarily applicable, the outputs are useful and helpful. I will all talk about collaboration with local access panels, local disability groups and so on and so forth. I should say that designing streets is predominantly aimed towards residential and what we call lightly trafficked streets. That is not to say that it is not applicable to town centres. I am just saying that it is aimed towards those lightly trafficked and residential areas. Therefore, if the guidance of designing streets and the guidance associated with it were being implemented on to areas, town centres that are vehicle dominated, vehicle heavy, then clearly consideration has to be taken to those with disability and visual impairments. If that has not been done, if it is causing danger to them, then we would certainly urge the local authority to do more to reconsider and to have further conversations. Can I, in direct answer to perhaps her question, overturn a local authority decision? Of course, I could not do that, particularly where there is no planning. That goes back to the petitioner's request, in some regards, to a moratorium. It is partly why a moratorium would not be effective. Many of those shared space schemes do not require, for example, a change in planning at all. They are already spaces that are designed for that use. In terms of local authority, of course, we are always happy to have conversations in the case of Easton-Bartonshire. Others, on the equality and human rights commission, of course, can also be asked to look into the matter if it is felt that the public sector duties are not being adhered to. Can I ask—I do not mean to put you in the spot—if you would write to the local authority in this instance to express your concern? I will certainly have a conversation with the local authority and I will report back to the member on that. I have got no concerns in doing that at all. Ultimately, I would have to leave the decision for the local authority to make, but I am more than happy to have the conversation with them. I suspect having read their submission to the committee that they would characterise what they have done slightly different to your characterisation. That is again not for me to be the arbiter of that, but it seems to me that in any shared space, if there are these genuine concerns, the utmost should be done to try to resolve and try to give reassurances, particularly to our most vulnerable road users, which in this case are those with a disability or indeed a visual impairment. Looking at examples of shared space schemes that have been introduced in Scotland, we understand that some of those schemes have had controlled crossings added retrospectively. Deafblind Scotland's submission on the petition noted the difficulty experienced by people who can neither see nor hear traffic. They highlighted that deafblind people rely on controlled crossings, mainly with the rotating cones and tactile markings to alert them to cross the road safely. Without such crossings and other elements of street design, the submission argues that the shared space may take away the independence of people leaving them feeling unsafe and lacking confidence, also excluding them from their town centre. Deafblind Scotland questioned why aesthetic appeals should be given priority over safety. Can I ask you to respond to that point and say how the Scottish Government supports the development of design that protects the safety of all users? I would not agree with the premise that aesthetics takes priority over the needs of particularly vulnerable road users. I would not accept that for my point of view. The guidance does not suggest that having a controlled crossing would certainly demyspace no longer a shared space. I know that that is the opinion of some. I think that if level crossings are added in so that they make the shared space more appealing—and, of course, they are necessary, I should say, for vulnerable road users—there is no reason why they should not be as part of the development and design stage of a shared space. That is why we encourage and the guidance encourages collaboration right from the beginning, right from the inception or conception stage of an idea. Local access panels and disability groups—the one that the member mentions—should be involved in those discussions. If level crossings are necessary in a shared space, there is no reason why they should not be there from the very beginning, as opposed to retrospectively being added in. Minister, another element of the shared space scheme is the use of level services. We appreciate that there is a balance to be struck here and that level services may be beneficial to some, but not others. However, a particular concern has raised about what level services mean for people who use guide dogs or long sticks and long canes to navigate streets, with kerbs being an essential part of that navigation, so they cannot obviously feel when they get to the edge of the pavement. That is recognised in designing streets under the heading of inclusive design, which sets out the role of quality audit and the place for the collaborative design. Is there an area in relation to designing streets that you consider strengthening or providing supplementary guidance on in respect to what I have just said? Yes, we would be the short answer. I think that from everything that members have said and the concerns that Mr Taylor has raised in his petition, there is definitely merit in us looking to examine the concerns that have been raised. My suggestion of doing that alongside Edinburgh Napier Transport Research Institute would probably be the best forum I would invite members around the table here and the petitioner himself to be involved in that discussion. It should be said that in some shared spaces where there is no kerb, other measures have been put in place, such as tactile paving, which members will understand. Even a slight delineation in the road—a small one that is 25 millimetres, for example—has been shown in summons to provide the necessary delineation, so that somebody using a stick or even a guide dog would be able to notice the difference in the level surfaces as subtle as it may be. The member's suggestion of exploring that further is a sensible one, and we should do that. As I have mentioned on the back of Lord Homes' report into shared space, the DFT is now doing some work. The report is due to Lord Amid of Wimbledon, who is the minister, who is leading the response. That report is due at the end of the year, and I will be very interested to see the outcomes and outputs of that. I think that that can inform our own discussions here in Scotland as well. Can I ask what the timescale for the forum being arranged might be? Yes. I was thinking that it would make sense to wait until the DFT report that was just due at the end of the year comes forward, and that can perhaps also help to inform us, but I think that we should look to do it. I will speak to, of course, Edinburgh Napier and put them into a timescale that they are not able to meet, but we should look to do that early next year. Again, we can explore the timescales if that can be done earlier, and the committee thinks that there is merit in doing that earlier, then I will explore that up early next year, when we should explore to do that. One of the concerns raised by Sandy Taylor has related to the issue of sources of funding available to assist local authorities in meeting the costs of redevelopment of areas. Specifically, he has mentioned funding allocated by Transport Scotland to Sustrans. His view is that the scoring or the waiting given to applications for Sustrans funding have contributed to greater weight and focus has been placed on meeting the needs of cyclists over other users. I would be interested to hear your view on Sandy's view. Yes. I spoke to Mr Taylor just about that before we walked in and tried to give him some reassurance if I can. In the first six months of this job, I have had many conversations with Sustrans Scotland, as you would imagine. Their commitment to inclusivity and accessibility is beyond question. Everything that they do, they always take into account how they can help and assist and include the most vulnerable as part of their ethos for them, primarily cycling, but also working with PATH for all and other organisations so that walkways and footpaths are part of that conversation. On criteria for shared space schemes, Sustrans, any bid that they support must comply with the national policy, the design guidance that I have explained already, the Scots guidance and our own guidance, from a national perspective. That is part of what they do. I do not think that there is a conflict for them. I do not think that, because the scheme receives assistance and funding from Sustrans, that does not mean at all to give them any carte blanche to ignore the needs of pedestrians at all in favour of, for example, cyclists. In fact, Sustrans are aware of the road user hierarchy that I have already mentioned, which puts pedestrians first and the private motor vehicle last. Again, I have read Sustrans' submission to the committee and I thought that it was very powerful. I have no questions about their potential conflict at all in terms of the scheme. Another issue that has been raised with us by Sarah Gaten, a campaigner who has looked at shared space schemes across the UK, is the collection of data on accidents in shared space schemes. Have any concerns been raised with the Scottish Government about the collection of data on accidents in those schemes? Just to go back to what you were saying earlier about the schemes that have been primarily or preferably initiated in residential areas, the particular one that the petitioner is referring to is probably one of the busiest junctions in the west of Scotland, with cars and lorries going through it at alarming speed. It is a big bus route, so it is far from a residential area. Yes, I was just reiterate that designing streets guidance is primarily focused towards likely traffic in residential area spaces. That is not to say that it explicitly excludes town centres or even busier areas, but clearly with those busier areas the needs of vulnerable road users must be taken into account. Those reassurances must be given to those individuals as best as possible. I can tell from the submissions that you have had and the written submissions that you have had to your committee that disability groups and local access panels are not convinced by the plans that the local authority has put forward. As I said, I have given a commitment to the member to speak to the local authority about that. Clearly, it is not just the voice of one petitioner at all that suggests that those concerns exist. In terms of our first question, the pedestrian injuries and pedestrian casualties, thankfully the trajectory is a downward trajectory. Of course, one casualty and one fatality on our roads in our shared spaces is one too many. In terms of our specific question, we do not have statistics for casualties specific to shared spaces. It is something that I will speak to colleagues at Transport Scotland to explore whether that is possible, feasible and whether we are able to break it down by that. I am not necessarily convinced that it will be all that easy to do, but there is no harm in exploring that issue. Just follow on from that. If it was feasible to collect reliable accident data to understand whether the shared space scheme is creating a higher risk and it is found to be a higher risk in general or accidents associated with certain features of the shared space, where would you see the role for Scottish Government guidance in inflecting that risk? If there was a risk, that is not my understanding. I have not had correspondence to suggest that that would be the case, but if hypothetically speaking we collected the data and showed us the data, then clearly national guidance would have to reflect the reasons for that. If it was vulnerable road users, for example, that were the victims of those casualties, then we would have to, in our national guidance, ensure that we put in additional measures that gave them the reassurances that they needed, whether that was, for example, stipulating level crossings or any other such measure that would help to reduce casualties, we would look to do that. That is an uber hypothetical scenario when we do not have the data yet. We do not know if we are able to collect the data yet, and we do not know if we do collect that data and are able to collect that data and what it will reflect. I have to say thus far that I have not had correspondence to suggest that those shared space schemes that exist currently are more dangerous or even less dangerous than other spaces on the road. Can I maybe just flag up another question that has been raised by Sustrans? In its response to the committee in the petition, it says that we contend that the introduction of controlled crossings into an infrastructure project in the urban realm causes that project to cease to be considered a shared space scheme and become a standard orthodox treatment for the urban environment, such as can be seen in many high streets in Scotland. Do you think that argument that you have said in designing streets that you can have a preference one way or another and have already accepted that you might want to strengthen that? Is there contention that, to do that, stops it being a shared space? Does that match with your understanding that a shared space is set out in policy statements such as designing streets? I would say that it is not necessarily their opinion. Designing streets does not go into the definition of what a shared space necessarily constitutes and what exactly it is. We give general guidance since then for local authorities and others to interpret that, but no, I would not say necessarily if there is a level crossing put in a shared space to make it more accessible for vulnerable road users. That should take away from it being quote-unquote a shared space, so no, I do not share that exact interpretation, convener. It is not a level crossing but a controlled crossing? Yes, a controlled crossing or indeed a level crossing for me. There can be other characteristics of a shared space that still makes it a shared space. What we are looking at in a shared space is the reduction of vehicle dominance. If that can be produced, that can be the final output, then I do not see why that should not be a shared space. Do you think that there is an issue that your funding sustrans and they have a directly opposed view to what you have about what happens if you put controlled crossings into a shared space? They seem to be arguing that it stops becoming a shared space. You are saying that it does not, while at the same time our petition and others are concerned that because shared spaces presumably support the such-trans view that you cannot have controlled crossings, they are ending up in a position where their constituents are no being addressed? That comes down to a matter of interpretation and that is why the recommendation from petitioners, from members around the table to see whether we can strengthen the guidance, I think, is a good one. Such-trans should be part of that conversation. Local authority should be part of that conversation, but that is not what I believe, for example, local authority. They should not be taking guidance. They should be using our national guidance that we have produced from designing streets but also Scots have produced. That should be their overarching guidance and that suggests in that guidance that any approach to a shared space should be inclusive of disability groups. If that includes a level crossing and a controlled crossing, I would have no concern—it would give me no concern from a governmental point of view—on calling it a shared space. That is a matter of interpretation but I am happy for the guidance to be strengthened on. Surely, with respect to such-trans, it should not be a matter of interpretation if you are funding them to deliver a national policy, you would expect them to have a position that understood that. You are clearly saying, and I recognise that, that there is a place for controlled crossings. Such-trans is saying that, if there is a controlled crossing, that means that there is no longer a shared space. That seems to me—would it be fair to say that it would be worthwhile that you are exploring with Such-trans what their understanding of the impact of putting in controlled crossings on your commitment to shared spaces that are also safe for people with disabilities? I am more than happy to have that conversation with such-trans, although such-trans receive our funding as many organisations and many bodies do. The guidance that is produced by Scots should be what local authorities look towards when designing their shared spaces, not what third party organisations necessarily or their guidance or their interpretation. It should be the guidance of designing streets and the guidance that has been produced by Scots that I think they should be looking towards. Of course, I am more than happy to take your suggestion and convener and have a conversation with such-trans about their understanding of a shared space. Do you have any further questions, Brian Whittle? Yes, I have just a point of clarification and a point made earlier. I just wanted to, from my own pace of mind, if local authorities are deemed to contravene an inclusive policy, what would the Scottish Government's position be and potential action? As guidance as opposed to what is in the statute, when it comes to that guidance, there are, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, organisations and individuals can seek redress through the Equality and Human Rights Commission because every local authority must live up to its public sector duties, so they are seen to be in contradiction to that. Then, of course, there would be a last resort of going down the course, but it shouldn't have to, as the convener has already suggested, get down there. However, I would hope that there would be a resolution before it got to that stage. Petitions allow some of those issues to be aired, but as a Government minister, I wouldn't look to, for example, impose my view on every high street and every local authority in Scotland, but I am more than happy where appropriate, as has been suggested today, have a conversation with the local authority to express concerns that have been expressed to me and see if we can come to some sort of resolution on that. However, the guidance is very, very clear, both from a national level and from a local level, that including disability groups and access panels from the very beginning is the best approach to take. That seems to me quite an arduous process. The petitioners had to go through to get their views aired. I know that we cannot speak on specifics here and you are already committed to speaking to the local authority. As I said, it seems to me a very arduous process to get to a point where views are heard. My concern would be that many people in the same position would probably give up before they got to here. That is a fair point to make. If I can suggest for the seminar that I have committed to doing to explore some of those issues, perhaps that can be one of the issues that we discuss about if there are real issues of concern, not just one lone voice. In this case, it seems to me that there are a number of voices that share those concerns, that the process is made easier to appeal. It is up to whether local authorities choose to listen to those voices or not. I am not making a judgment on a specific or individual case, but if there are 10 or 20 disability organisations and local access panels saying the same thing, I think that it would be an abdication of responsibility from a local authority to just ignore those or speak those to the side. I am not making that on the specific case of the petition, but I am just saying generally that that would not be a particularly wise approach. You would think that a local authority should listen to those voices, but if the guidance needs strength and to try to encourage that in a stronger way, then we can explore that. Thanks very much. We also now have to think about how we want to take this petition forward. Can I maybe say from my point of view that the minister says that the guidance is very clear, but it seems that, as far as local level, it is not very clear. There is certainly some dispute with Sustrans and others about what the guidance actually means. I think that it might suggest that we would seek, following this session, that the Scottish Government is back and really looks at and indicates how it would be looking to strengthen the guidance or respond to the concerns that have been raised. I would also be interested if the Scottish Government would be willing, in general terms, to raise the question with local authorities, because I recognise that we cannot deal with a specific petition, but with the issues that are more broadly highlighted. I think that we would be asking the Scottish Government to do that. I think that we would welcome the forum and, at some point, we can get correspondence back from the Scottish Government about when that would be and how it would be envisaged and what the aims of it would be and what you would seek from the other end of it. I do not know whether other members have other suggestions of what we might do. I agree with everything that you said. I would also like to take the petition to the Equalities Committee, because I believe that the council is not complying with the Equalities Act 2010. It would be good if it could have a look at it to give an opinion on that. I am not quite sure how we would do that. First of all, I think that we would need to take the issue as opposed to the local authority, given that we are dealing with it because the local authority is not being able to argue its position. The question is, is the guidance strong enough to protect the rights of people with disabilities and are shared spaces as an idea that is problematic for people on terms of equalities? Perhaps when we get information back from the Scottish Government, we might then want to refer the petition at that point. I think that if we refer it, we will then let go of it. That might be something that we want to look at further. I think that we have also heard from the minister today, specifically to the petitioner, that there are avenues open to him in terms of taking it forward as well. Are there any other suggestions? No? That has been a very useful discussion. I thank the minister very much and his officials for their attendance this morning and for the commitments that they have made in terms of addressing the petition. I suspend the meeting to allow for a change over witnesses. I bring the meeting back to order. We now turn to agenda item number three, which is consideration of new petitions. Turning out new petitions, we have two to consider this morning. First of all, petition 1612 on the criminal injuries compensation scheme changed to the same roof rule. This is a new petition, lodged by Graham McKinley. Members have a briefing paper along with a copy of the petition. I am pleased to welcome Mr McKinley to this morning's meeting, to speak to his petition and to answer any questions that members have to help our consideration of his petition. Mr McKinley, you now have an opportunity to provide a brief opening statement after which we will move to questions from members. Thank you for seeing me. Here today, father to my petition, in respect of compensation for victims of childhood sexual abuse who have thus far been denied compensation under what is called the same roof rule, there are many factors and experiences in our childhood that influence our future path. I have served on the children's panel. I have witnessed some pretty awful cases of neglect and cruelty. I have been a foster carer and witnessed the trauma that children have had to live with. I have family members who are alcoholics. With an alcoholic, one can relatively spot when they have been drinking, times of sobriety, times of reckless abandon. With an alcoholic, there is usually some trigger. A loss of a loved one, family breakdown, the pain is obvious. The pathway walk is usually fairly obvious to see. Sure, we can all have good days and bad days, but so many victims of childhood sexual abuse suffer in silence. They have been abused, betrayed, let down, often threatened to keep quiet and to tell no one or else. So they experience the mental anguish suffered by, for example, alcoholics or those with mental health issues. To an outsider or even with close family members, the cause of their anguish, their pain, is often so hard to establish. It is a time of silence for such victims. They dare not speak for fear of retribution, but worse than that is the fear that somehow they have only themselves to blame. The abuse leaves victims feeling dirty, unwanted, worthless. What will happen to me if I tell my mother? What will happen to my siblings? And where does that leave me? Surely I am damaged goods. I have been mentally and physically abused. Who would ever want to love me for me with all the baggage that has been forced upon me? If I tell someone, will they believe me? Will they help me? What help is out there? And who can I turn to? And who can I trust? So many victims of childhood sexual abuse for many reasons remain silent. It affects their whole lives. It affects their mental health. It can affect their physical health. Studies have shown that victims often have medical problems and may even have a shorter lifespan because of their abuse. I know this. Me, I had a great childhood. I was not aware of childhood sexual abuse until my wife, until I met Linda, who I was to marry and be with for some 25 years. Linda had been abused by her father from a very early age up until she ran away from home on the day of her 16th birthday. It was a year or so after we had been together that Linda felt able to tell me about the abuse. Linda got help and by and large it worked, but it did not stop the memories, the feelings of fear, the feeling of being used, of being worthless. It did not stop the nightmares or the sense of shame and, yes, somehow, the feeling of being in some way to blame. Linda died at the age of 58 some three years ago. Poor health and terrible memories were with her every single day. What I am seeking is not just financial compensation for such victims, but, perhaps more importantly, recognition of the wrongs inflicted upon them. To explain being abused as a child is quite, honestly, beyond any words, let down by family, let down by everyone, including themselves. Let down by a system that discriminates against victims because of some arbitrary dates, chosen as a money-saving scheme. Linda, along with so many others, was let down by the powers that be. I am here in Parliament and I would ask, as requested in my petition, that you give help to those presently excluded under this so-called same roof rule. It is not fair, it is wrong, it must be changed. I, with many others, have tried over many years to have this rule abolished. This is the very place and the very building containing very people who have the power to bring about such a change. The law applies equally to all. No one is above the law. All persons shall be equal before the law. Apart from it seems those victims so far denied compensation. It is not just about money, it is about recognition for what happened to all those who still suffer many years after they were abused. I would most respectfully ask for your help. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the fact that it is a personal thing to you that how difficult that must be for you. I very much appreciate your very powerful statement today, if I might say so. I will start off with some of the technicalities around this. Why do you think that we suggest that there is a cut-off date simply because of financial consideration? Why, specifically, or perhaps to help us to understand why, on 1 October 1979, do you know what the thinking behind that was? I have tried relentlessly, as has other people who have been involved with this. Solicitors, MSPs and MPs, nobody can give me a reason for those arbitrary dates. No reason at all. That is something that we may first pursue. Can I ask Rona Mackay for a question? Your petition suggests two options for making a change to enable people to claim compensation for injuries that have suffered. I think that we are obviously going to try and tease out a bit of detail about each of those options as we go on, but to start with, can I ask whether you would have a particular preference for one option over the other? No, not really. I think that recognition is the primary objective in terms of whether they get a lump sum from whatever source or whether they get what they are entitled to through the criminal injuries compensation scheme in many ways is irrelevant. I think that recognition and some acknowledgement have not been excluded from what other people can get by law and by rights. You are flagging up both options, but you have no real preference for one or the other? None whatsoever. Having said that, I am aware that it comes out of the public purse, as it were, so that is at the back of my mind as well. You offer two suggestions in your petition. The first is to seek a change in the rules applicable to Scotland. Can I ask you how you envisage that that might happen? For example, our briefing paper refers to the eligibility criteria set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the current scheme, the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012. Is it your view that the wording could be adjusted to say that that does not apply to Scotland? I understand that that can happen, similarly because Scotland, if there is money paid through the criminal injuries compensation scheme for victims in Scotland, comes out of the Scottish purse. Yes, if it can be added that that is not applicable in Scotland, that might be a simple, easier way to do it. As we know, the eligibility restrictions under the same roof rule are less restrictive after the 1 October 1979 date, which only applies to adults after that date. However, unfortunately, that did not apply retrospectively back to 1964. We know that the power to establish a separate scheme for Scotland lies within the devolved competencies of the Scottish Parliament. Clearly, we need to find out what the Scottish Government's position is on that at the moment. However, your alternative suggestion that the Scottish Parliament creates a separate mechanism to ensure that individuals who are currently unable to claim under the present scheme are fully compensated for their injuries. Have you considered how such a mechanism might work, including who would administer it and whether it would mean complete withdrawal from the existing scheme? I do not think that it needs complete withdrawal from the existing scheme. I think that the criminal injuries compensation scheme—I have spoken to it—would be able to provide a list of people who have been refused under the same roof rule. It would then be possibly open to reexamine those particular cases and to make a decision exactly who would do that. I am not certain, but I think that if the criminal injuries compensation scheme were able to provide a list and able to provide reasons why it was refused and if it was simply only under the same roof rule, that would be reasonably simple to remedy. Do you think that the model of the existing scheme works? I think that, by and large, it does, but I think that there are inequalities in it. I think that there are different rates depending on the type of injury and the nature of injury and the long-lasting effects of it. I think that, generally, the criminal injuries compensation scheme could possibly do with an overhaul. I am not sure that it is entirely up to date, or as fair, to everyone, not just to victims of sexual abuse. It possibly needs to be reexamined. The briefing on the petition that we have notes that the rule was introduced to stop offenders benefiting from compensation paid to victims who lived with them. Successive Governments have decided not to change the same roof rule for costs and other reasons. Perhaps you could explain to us your view on the issue of preventing offenders benefiting and the reasons for not changing the rule that has been given by Government? I think that the reason for not changing the rule given by Government is money-saving, to put it bluntly. If a father, for example, had abused a daughter and the daughter received money, it is understandable that the perpetrator should not benefit by getting hands on money. However, that is slightly misleading. I do not think that any body paying out money is going to do it in such a way that either the person is too young or that the person is going to have access to that money where somebody else could also have access to that money. I do not think that that is a desperately valid reason for the rule. Can you also say a little bit about your view that changes to the rule were not applied retrospectively because it was consistent with the general Government approach that rule changes apply to future claimants? I think that I am still uncertain as to why those specific dates exist. I am not sure why it was not made retrospectively. I have just at loss as to why that happened. I cannot explain it. I am angry that it happened had my wife at the time been successful. That would never have taken place. However, I know that having spoken to many other victims and to support groups and solicitors and the like, there are still a number of people out there who have been denied this. I am not sure if that answers your question. Mr McKinley, that might be a bit of an unfair question, so I will understand if you are not able to answer it. Are you aware of any financial projections of how much would be required to meet any future claims if they were in respect of abuse prior to 1979 if that were allowed retrospectively? The criminal injuries compensation scheme publish in the annual report the number of cases that have been refused. I cannot remember the exact numbers given the age of victims nowadays. I do not think that there are going to be that many. I do not think that it is going to be millions and millions of pounds. The alternative way of ensuring that whatever budget is set that it is adhered to is that there is a limit put on it, which might be considerably less than they would get under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. However, if Scotland said, okay, we will pay retrospectively on those cases, but we will limit it to, for example, £5,000 or whatever the figure, then that would be one way of ensuring that the budget is not blown out of all proportion. First of all, to clarify the sense of injustice, if someone were abused by their father in their own home and they were living as a family together, they would not qualify for compensation. However, if their father were estranged and were living somewhere else, they would. I had this conversation earlier today, just deciding where the line is drawn, if you like. I think that the sense of injustice, and I think that each case is obviously looked at on its merits, but I think that the sense of injustice is where, for example, a person is abused on one occasion by a TV celebrity and receives many, many thousands of pounds, and yet someone who has been abused from the age of two to the age of 16 receives nothing when they are abused by their own family member. I think that that is where the injustice is more apparent and more personal to me. I think that that is an issue that certainly I have been aware of more generally in relation to issues that survivors feel quite strongly about, that the attention paid is sadly sometimes in celebrity in order to focus on some of the things that are happening. The other issue is that I am interested in what you say about the flaws of the criminal compensation scheme specifically. I am aware of a case many years ago now that I dealt with where someone had suffered terrible trauma in the murder in his family, but his compensation was reduced because he had a conviction for being, I think, a breach of peace or something, which you could probably relate to the trauma of what had happened to him in his family. Do you have a view on the way in which compensation is reduced more generally by this kind of tariff? Is this something that you would like to be looked at too? I think that there is possibly a good reason for having it. I think that one of the sort of background reasons possibly for that existing is that if somebody is going to benefit, but they have also committed crimes themselves, which other people have been compensated for, I do not think that that is fair. I think that there is a need to look at the background of the individual applying and their history as well. Does that explain that? Absolutely. I wonder whether, finally, the issues that you raised around the impact of this, but other issues as well, on somebody who is a survivor or a victim of that kind of abuse, you know that there is a national inquiry into historic cases of abuse against people who are in care. The issues that you highlighted, do you think that there is a way of them being fed and not so much into inquiry because it is something that happened at home, but is it something that you think should be informed or presented to Government in terms of their broader strategy for dealing with people who are victims of abuse? I have spoken to, it was not Boyle QC at the time. I had correspondence with them. I think that the inquiry is superb, but it seems mostly obviously to relate to people who have either been in foster care or been in an institution. I think that I would like to see expanded to look into and take account of those victims who have been abused out with those particular areas that are being looked at. Is that a childhood sense of not being believed and frightened as then compounded by a system that says that your abuse does not fit into the hierarchy of abuse that we are looking at? Exactly. Are there any further questions? The puzzle to me really is that the idea of not getting compensation because the victim lives within the environment in which they were abused seems highly unlikely to me that such abuse is highlighted that there would be remaining within. I understand what you are saying. My wife was abused, lived within the same family roof because there was nowhere else for her to go because she was scared to speak. She did not speak about it until she was in her late 30s, early 40s, and that is where the problem arises. Certainly if a child of 14 was abused and nowadays went to social work with police, everybody else became involved and the child would either be removed from the home or the perpetrator would be removed from the home. Nowadays, there are a lot more safeguards, certainly for younger children, but what we are really talking about is victims who were not able to speak out at the time of the abuse. There are people in the age of 80 who are now coming forward to say that they were abused and they have lived with it only these years. No, I think that my point was that if it came to light that there was abuse happening, the likelihood is that there would not be allowed to remain within the family roof. Correct. One would certainly like to think so nowadays, yes. Oh yes. I do not know if you will get any further comments you want to make in conclusion before we try and pull us together. No, I hope that I have been able to answer your questions and explain what we are looking for. Okay, thanks very much for that. I wonder if people have using how we can take this forward. Well, I think that the obvious one is to try and establish why this date has been set and how would we go about, you know, who would we ask to establish why this specific date has been set because obviously from the petitioner's comments he has been unable to find out. Okay, so it would be worthwhile, you know, asking more generally the Scottish Government for their comments on the evidence that we have heard, the criminal and use compensation authority may be able to address these questions and the broader questions that have been highlighted about their willingness to review their own processes. Anything else? Can I just add that, you know, I've got notes going back many, many years. I've written to the Ministry of Justice, I've written to every department, including David Cameron, Prime Minister at the time, to try and establish why these dates were set and nobody can tell me. Even if we were able to get them to accept it, it is arbitrary and maybe there's something to address there, it would be interesting to see what their comments on that are, because from the information that we have it looks that even where people, this was highlighted to successive governments, it was not something that they were willing to shift on, so it would be interesting to know what the thinking in that would be. Some of it is about the perpetrator benefiting from a scheme that is meant to protect victims. Anything else that we could do? Also seeking the views of survivors trust and victim support Scotland, etc. It's very important, because some of the points that Mr McKinney has brought out, I think we need to dig down a bit on that, because this is going to our argument against this date problem, which is what brand the rules were. Perhaps with the clerk's help, we could look at what survivors organisations would have an interest in, because there are clearly a range from those who have been abused in care, but the sense that in the abuse in the families, perhaps not being focused on so much in terms of recompense and recognising the challenges. Anything else we might use to do at this stage? There's quite a lot there, I think, for us to be able to investigate. In that case, I thank you very much for your attendance, and we will obviously make sure that, once we have responses, we'll come back to keep you informed of the progress with the petition. If we can move on then to petition 1620 on the Museum of Fire, the petition is by calling Fraser and, on behalf of the Friends of the Museum of Fire, the petition calls on the Scottish Government to meet with its Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to discuss the future of the Museum of Fire, including its collection and location in the context of the national strategy for Scotland's museums and galleries. Members will note that we have received copies of correspondence from Gordon Lindhurst MSP, in which he corresponded with the chief fire officer and the chief fire officer's response. Members will see from the meeting papers that, since the petition was lodged, the building in which the Museum of Fire is located has been sold to the University of Edinburgh. The petitioner has provided a written submission to explain the friends of the Museum of Fire have met with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to agree a way forward for the museum. As such, the petitioner has indicated that he would like to withdraw the petition. I wonder if any members have comments or suggestions on how we then deal with the petition. I think that we can, as suggested by the clerks, close the petition understanding order rule 157 on the basis that the petitioner has indicated that he would like to withdraw the petition, because the museum volunteers have come to an agreement with SFRS as to museums future. Is that agreed? We can thank the petitioner for bringing the petition before us. We are now moving to agenda item 4, consideration of continuing petitions, petition 1615 on a state-regulated system for game bird hunting in Scotland. Again, I would want members to note that we have received correspondence from Tim Baines, the director of the Scottish Moorland group, part of Scotland in the States, and Dr Colin Beesheddon, the director of Scotland British Association for Shooting and Conservation, highlighting some of their concerns about the evidence that we received at our last meeting. We did, of course, consider the petition at our last meeting and discussed the option of referring the petition to environment, climate change and land reform committee for consideration as part of its scrutiny of the wildlife crime annual report. However, before agreeing whether or not to do so, we asked the clerks to see updates on the anticipated timescales for publication and consideration of that report. Updates have been received, as members will have seen from their papers, so we are now asked to consider what action we wish to take. Members have any comments on the best way to proceed? Just to clarify, we do refer that. It goes out with our control, does it not? I do not know if people have used it. My view would be that it would probably be useful to refer the petition to the ECCLR committee to highlight to them the correspondence that we have received in response to the evidence that we have heard, and I think that we can be reassured that, if they are taking evidence, they would take evidence on all sites. It would simply be that they would have the evidence that we have heard, but they would want, I am sure, to take evidence from those who have corresponded with us. You referred to the submission that we have just received from the Scottish Moline Group part of SLE and the British Association of Shooting and Conservation. In the interests of balance and impartiality with regard to this committee, had there not been a suggestion to refer it to the ECCLR committee, I would have been keen to allow them to come in and give their side of the argument. It might be helpful to the ECCLR committee if that were done by this committee in advance of being referred to ECCLR or not. It is an option for the committee if they so wish. If that is the case, I would be happy to refer it right away, but given that the committee has taken evidence from one side of the argument, it would only be fair to take the argument from the other side. Do we have fusion up? Because there are regulations in place that can be enacted, and it is down as far as reading everything that I have read about this, is the strength of the authorities implementing it and bringing people to vote. Absolutely, because there are not only just a person who is perpetrated by the crime, but the landowner also gets called to justice on that. I think that you are right now, because we saw the other side that we need to. At least, I will allow us to refer a much clearer picture. That is not going to cut across the timescale that we might have for dealing with it. Clearly, if the committee takes that view, and I think that either way, we will see it going to the ECLAR committee at one point, but perhaps in terms of fairness and balance, because there is very much the feeling that comes out of the correspondence that should be an operation through the petitions committee to hear that evidence, and then we can refer it on. Is that agreed? I thank committee members for that. That ends the public part of the meeting. Can I now suspend the meeting until our members are public to leave and the committee to move into private?