 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the nine public petitions committee meeting of 2015. I would remind everyone to switch off their mobile phones and electronic devices as this may interfere with the sound system. We have one apology today as David Torrance, is there any other apologies? Today's business is agenda item number one is consideration of new petitions and The first item of business is the consideration of three new petitions, and the committee will hear from the petition of each. Unfortunately, the first petitioner has been delayed, so we will now move on to the second petition. The petition is PE156 by John Mayhew on behalf of the Scottish campaign for national parks and the association for the protection of rural Scotland on national park strategy for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and a spice briefing, and may I welcome the petitioner, John Mayhew, to the meeting. He is accompanied today by John Thompson from the Scottish campaign of national parks and Charles Miller from the association of protection of rural Scotland. I now invite Mr Mayhew to speak to his petition for up to five minutes, and therefore we will then move on to questions. Thank you very much, and thank you for inviting us to give evidence today. As you say, I'm joined by Charles, who's the chairman of APRS, and John, who's the honorary secretary of SCMP. So there's representatives from both of the organisations that form the partnership that's putting forward this petition. I'd like to give you a quick recap of the historical background as to how we arrived where we are today. Our two organisations campaigned for many decades to have national parks in Scotland, and we were successful with the Act in 2000 and the first two national parks in 2002 and 2003, and since then we've been continuing to argue for more. We ran a more formal joint project starting in 2010, and that culminated in our unfinished business report, which I think you've all just been handed a copy of, certainly given copies to the clerk for you. And that sets out our case in full. If I were to summarise our case, I would say that it really comes back to Scotland's landscapes, which are amongst the best in the world, and yet we only have two national parks, which is recognised across the world as the best way of protecting and designating our best landscapes. Those first two national parks have achieved a great deal in their first decade, and we feel that they really inspire pride and passion amongst local people and amongst visitors. There are other outstanding landscapes in Scotland which are also worthy of national park designation, and there is local support for this and national public support for this. We feel that more national parks would bring additional resources to those areas, would strengthen Scotland's international standing for environmental protection, and it would support our crucial tourism industry. We've had some good progress, but we do feel Scotland's now lagging behind other parts of the UK in national park designation. So, for example, 7% of Scotland is covered by national parks compared to 20% of Wales, and we therefore feel that we're missing out on those benefits and opportunities that more national parks could bring, and that's why we feel that the Scottish Government should prepare a strategy to designate more national parks. As the note which you are given observes, the word debates held in Parliament in 2008, 2009, 2013, and many of your colleagues, many MSPs praised the work of the two existing national parks, and some MSPs called for more to be designated. There's also local support. We're pleased to note that many of the thousand or so people who signed our petition were from residents of the areas that we've identified as suitable for more national parks, and many of those made supportive comments. In 2008, a clear majority of the residents of the Isle of Harris voted for national park status and referendum held in 2008, but that hasn't come to pass. We're in touch with local supporters in several of the areas who are keen to work with us, and we also feel that consideration of more national parks could support current efforts by Parliament and Government to promote community empowerment. We feel national parks bring real benefits to Scotland, obviously environmental benefits in terms of protecting our landscapes and protecting our habitats, and also socio-economic benefits in terms of job creation and the tourism industry. We've been working a bit more on this in particular, the socio-economic benefits, and we've recently published a report which I can leave with you called the socio-economic benefits of new national park designations in Scotland, and that sets out what we think these benefits are in rather more detail. Our proposals are widely supported by other organisations including, for example, Scotland or the Scottish Wildlife Trust, so although we're leading the campaign, there are plenty of others that agree with us. Finally, turning to possible action, I note your Clarke's suggestion that you might consider writing to the Scottish Government and to Scottish Natural Heritage about this, and if you felt that was appropriate, we'd certainly support that as that would help to generate the sort of debate that we're seeking on this issue. Thank you, that's all I have to say for now, and we're all very happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Mr Mehw. Perhaps I could start the question by asking what areas would you highlight as candidates for national parks and what argument would there be in favour of these areas? If you've got the report in front of you, I wondered if you could turn to page 28 where there's a map which summarises it most clearly. We were really setting out the principle argument that there should be national parks and that it was the Government's place to carry out the assessment and to prepare the strategy as to where those places might be and what order they should be designated in, but we also felt that we needed to put our cards on the table as it were and to say where we thought the national park should be. After long discussions within our organisations, we highlighted a possible seven areas and we feel that all of these seven areas have superb landscapes, have fantastic habitats and wildlife and would merit from the sort of additional input and integrated management which national parks can bring. Those are our seven proposed areas and we would be delighted if any of those were designated as a national park, but we are not Government organisations, we are non-Government organisations, therefore that is merely our proposal and that map has no official status at all. It's simply borne out of long experience and knowledge of the areas concerned. Questions? Small ones. Who's actually funded this publication? I think the funders are listed on the inside front cover, so it was a range of different charitable trusts. We carried out some fundraising beforehand and that was where it came from, but that didn't just fund the report, it funded the project which led up to it, the research and the consultancy work which led up to it. Thank you. The second question I wanted to ask was in terms of Irish support and you said that you were not able to convince the Scottish Government what was the Scottish Government's reaction to this particular fund? My memory of what happened at the time was that the local people of Harris, there was a local study group called the Isle of Harris National Park study group and they commissioned research and they carried out a feasibility study and they organised the referendum which as I say ended up in a clear majority of people voting and also a clear majority in favour. They then sought support of the local authority, Western Isles Council, because obviously that would help their case as well. Western Isles Council then carried out quite a bit of research including seeking evidence and carrying out site visits and ultimately the debate which took place in the full council was inconclusive, so they agreed neither to support it nor to oppose it, but they agreed to pass the decision to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Government at the time felt that they weren't willing to proceed without local authority support, although looking at the act, the National Park Act does not say that it has to have local authority support. Obviously it's preferable if it does but there's no legal requirement for that to take place. I'm going to ask John if I remember that correctly. Yes, that's certainly my recollection of it and perhaps one further comment in relation to local authorities. I think there is only one case in the UK where the creation of a National Park has been favoured by the local authority and that was actually Lacholoman and the Trossocks interestingly enough, partly obviously because of its history as a regional park which had been set up by local authorities in the first place, but certainly the opposition of local authorities to the establishment of National Parks is a very well-established tradition. I think the... If I remember the debate in the Western Isles, some of the councillors on Western Isles Council were not in favour of the designation because they felt it would prevent development, wrongly in our view because we feel National Parks support sustainable, appropriate development, they do not stop development, but that was their perception of why we were limiting it just to Harris and should not Lewis be included or the whole of the Western Isles be included. So there were boundary issues as well as issues of principle and I think that that's a very brief summary of my memory of that debate. Yeah, there's also a comment on... This is my third question about the SMP's manifesto and the commitment in the manifesto and you've gone as far as 2013, now we're in 2015. Is there any progress or do you feel the government is just sitting on its hands on this issue? As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been any progress in implementing that manifesto commitment which is quoted in here and it says we will work with communities towards the creation of more National Parks, which was a commitment we're really welcome to, we thought that rather than saying we will designate more National Parks we thought it was entirely appropriate to work with communities, but as far as I'm aware there hasn't been any progress on that, which obviously disappoints us and we'll be seeking to ask all the political parties to put a commitment to more National Parks in their manifestos for elections a year's time. Bring in the Jackson. Why do you think local authorities are perhaps opposed to National Parks because it may stop any future development in the areas? I'll answer first and then ask my colleagues if they've got anything to add. I think it's not so much that, I think they sometimes fear loss of power, loss of control, loss of influence particularly in planning and although National Parks are not just about planning a lot of the controversial debates which take place in National Parks as in other parts of Scotland are to do with planning applications and proposed developments and local authorities are used to being the planning authority for their area and when a National Parks is set up those planning powers can be transferred to the National Park authority or they can stay with the local authority the act, the 2000 act which this parliament passed is very commendable in that it's very flexible and provides different governance models so in Loch Lomond and the Trossocks we have the full planning authority which makes the forward plans and also determines the planning applications the situations different in the Cairngorms where the local authorities have retained planning powers and that was negotiations which was done at the time that the local authorities were unwilling to as they saw it give up those planning powers but the National Park authority has a right to call in for its own determination any applications which it feel influence are concerned with the special qualities of the National Park itself so for example small householder extensions to individual dwellings would clearly be the province of the local authorities but a major housing development a hotel or a major recreational development would clearly be relevant to the National Park authority so they would call that in so I think the concerns revolve around planning but there are ways in which local authorities can still be involved in the planning of National Parks and indeed the way the legislation works the majority of the board members are either representatives of the local authorities or they're directly elected local people as I think is right and so even if planning powers are transferred the people who are taking those powers are predominantly local residents could I just check if I've missed anything from either of my colleagues You've captured that, yeah I just add that I think there is perhaps a distinction to be drawn and we do mention this in the report between parks that lie wholly within the territory of a single local authority which was obviously the case with the proposed Harris one and those which straddle the boundaries as do the existing two National Parks and although straddling boundaries can itself give rise to some problems one can more readily see the justification for a separate authority where that applies rather than where it lies all within the territory of a single authority but we do address that in the report and we make the point which I think is very important in a Scottish context that there is flexibility in the legislation and it does enable you to tailor the precise governance arrangements to the circumstances of a particular area and we would certainly see rather different arrangements applying somewhere like Harris from those that currently apply say in Loch Lomond and the Troswyx Jackson Themes I'd like to explore one just touches a little bit where you've been answering just now and possibly in fact has covered it but the term National Parks itself as you say we were slow on Scotland to evolve these they've evolved elsewhere internationally and probably in the public mind then there is an expectation of what they think a national park is is this wholly variable and flexible arrangement that you talk about in some ways an obstacle in the sense that it creates complications variations and perhaps raises expectations in people's mind as to what it is that a park would be only then to find it ends up being a very complicated arrangement which loses the sport and will of people along the way to its implementation The term means different things to different people across the world but the crucial advantage of it as I suppose you would call it a brand is that it's a term which is recognised worldwide it's the only designation which everybody from across the world has heard of so if I go on holiday to Italy for example I would seek out the national parks to go and visit because they are likely in my experience to be spectacular places with wonderful wildlife and crucially a warm welcome a system for welcoming people welcoming visitors and helping them to get the most out of their visit same applies when people come to Scotland people come to Scotland they say where are the national parks and they head for the Cairngorms Boclone and the Trossocks which is wonderful but we would like to see those benefits spread to other places which merit them I think what we have to remember is the basic concept of a national park which is it's a special area and it should be managed in a special way it's worthy of extra national resources going into it and all the complexities of actually managing it it's a subsidiary to that basic idea that this is a place which Scotland can be proud of and it's somewhere which is internationally famous and it's somewhere that we're really trying to do our best to look after the place look after the people that live there and welcome visitors as well so people do have different expectations and different understandings of it and there are reasons for that across the world but I think it's important to remember the basic principle of what it stands for so it does have a very variable interpretation I mean if I went anywhere in the world and needed a keyhole gallbladder operation I would probably get the same thing but when we're talking about a national park it can be very very different depending on the circumstance what is the financial model that underpins a national park and particularly the two national parks that we have and by extension have the national parks and the financial model that has been in place for the two that we have have they been successful and what do you think the financial model ought to be that would underpin a national park and is that financial model itself politically controversial and an obstacle to their establishment the model is that national parks in Scotland are 100% funded by the Scottish Government in recognition of their national importance so I like to say that they are nationally funded but locally controlled now the board, the authority which runs the national park and takes the decisions and approves the national park plan is as I said majority local councillors and locally directly elected people but there are also national appointees to represent that national funding and to represent the national interest so I don't think the model is an obstacle the actually providing the money might be because obviously this would be additional expenditure and that's for the Scottish Government amongst its other priorities I would say that we would say that it's relatively good value for money that the joint budget for the two existing national parks is approximately 13 million pounds a year Has that been consistent throughout? Broadly although the national park authorities are also very good at adopting what they call shovel ready projects so they always have some projects lined up a visitor centre they'd like to build a village hall they'd like to do up or whatever it is and so that if the Government finds some extra money towards the end of the financial year or from an unspent pot the national park authorities in my experience are the first to put up their hands and say we could spend that money to benefit our local area what I would stress is in the same way as John was mentioning that future national parks would be more likely to be wholly within one local authority they would also like it to be smaller in scale and expenditure and the two existing ones the two existing ones are quite large and quite complex and involve arrangements to bringing together three local authorities or five local authorities the ones that we're proposing would either be wholly within an existing local authority or at the most shared between two they are generally smaller in area and smaller in population and therefore the budget is likely to be substantially less for example the feasibility study done in 2008 for Harris reckoned that the Harris national park could be run on approximately £1 million a year so just because the two existing ones are costing round about 13 although we think that's good value please don't think that that would be the additional expenditure for every other OK John Thank you Mr Mayor for the copy of the report that you've done unfortunately that arrived in front of us just as we sat down it would be useful to actually have a good read through that and it would also be interested in getting a copy of the socio-economic report that you've produced in relation to national parks just to see the benefits Jackson Carlaw has asked a question about the Scottish Government funding existing funding to national parks but during your opening remarks you actually made reference to additional resources would come into these designated areas are you talking about additional resources solely from the Scottish Government or are you talking about additional resources coming in from other areas because it would be useful to understand whether or not the designation would rely solely on Scottish Government funding being made available I'll give you a quick answer and then invite comments from my colleagues predominantly I was meaning additional central Scottish Government resources coming into the areas in recognition of their national importance for wildlife, landscape, recreation tourism and so on however the national park authorities both in Scotland and elsewhere have proved themselves adroit at putting together project funding proposals which lever in funding from elsewhere so HLF funding or European Union funding for example so they're quite good at doing that so I would say that the national funding from the Scottish Government can act as seed corn to bring in other funding that's not unique to national parks obviously I acknowledge that local authorities can do this well as well and so can other agencies but it certainly is something national park authorities have shown that they're able to do anything you want to add just perhaps a point about why they're able to do it I mean what what the national park has which a lot of other designations don't have and this applies for example to geoparks which we've got in some parts of the Highlands at the moment is dedicated staff employed in effect on a permanent basis so you've got people there who are in a position not only to get to know the area and its needs and the opportunities that are there but also to go out and seek the additional funding that you're talking about and that is really critical if you have short term funding as you have with quite a lot of these others for the staff themselves they actually spend most of their time looking for money that will actually support the continuation of their posts beyond the two or three years for which they've been appointed in the first instance actually having a small body of core staff with a reasonable degree of permanence is critical to being able to generate a lot of these wider benefits I thank that for that response Mr Thomson one of the reasons the Scottish Government have given to date for not creating more national parks is the financial issue in terms of revenue and capital funding and the reduction in the budget since 2008 but it would be useful to know if there have been any discussions with the Scottish Government about looking at, as you described it, seed corn funding to allow the national parks to be created to allow those national parks authorities to then try and seek resources from elsewhere because there are a number of charitable organisations and the big lottery and various other organisations that could potentially be prepared to invest and fund projects if there was an area designated as a national park that may lessen the financial burden on the Scottish Government and allow us to achieve what you seek to achieve in your petition I think that's a very positive proposal the thing which costs revenue and capital funding is the creation of the national park authority and the employment of staff and the finding of premises and the running it what we're calling for at this stage is the preparation of a strategy for whether we should have more national parks and if so where they should be and I wouldn't be so naive as to say that would cost nothing that would cost comparatively little because it would broadly be carried out by officials in their existing staff time obviously we see this as a priority it's up to the Scottish Government to assess that priority against its other priorities but the actual preparation of a strategy which is what we see could be done relatively low cost and could then feed into the sort of model which you're proposing I'm given the work that you've already done in this report you produced would I hopefully greatly assist the Scottish Government to come to some conclusions about how the best way forward in creation of more national parks yes we very much hope that our report will be considered as a positive contribution towards any debate in the future and indeed if I may answer the other report we've produced on the socio-economic benefits and indeed further ones which we have in the pipeline on that theme as well sorry Mr Miller could you give some indication of what other reports you're referring to because we've got this unfinished business socio-economic what other reports are in the pipeline that may be of interest to the committee and to the Parliament and may help influence the Scottish Government to move on this because since 1945 in terms of the Ramsey report right through to the present date then clearly there is a clear indication from the general public and the example of Harris shows that people would like to see the creation of more national parks however there just seems to be a reluctance and I'm not just talking about the present Government I'm talking about with previous Governments to actually move the agenda forward in Scotland so it would be useful just to know what other reports you're intending to commission and take forward that would help assist in the debate in the wider debate in getting the national parks established indeed we would stand by unfinished business as our principal report and the main summary of our case what we've been doing since is thinking about should we call them subsidiary topic papers or issues papers on particular aspects of the debate the one about socio-economic benefits is the first one and I will make that available to all of you the other two that we are considering publishing is one about Governance models and one about the importance of national parks for the tourism industry so those are the two issues Governance and Tourism what we're trying to do with the Governance one is unpick to a certain extent what we've been talking about about possible models for national parks a national park in Scotland does not have to have a £10 million budget 50 staff and a board of 23 people they could have a £1 million budget 5 staff and a board which is a subcommittee of a local authority it would still be a national park under the 2000 act because that's so flexible so we're going to be putting that forward and also we're particularly keen to stress the tourism benefits which national parks bring both the job creation and the financial benefits to the area but also the benefits in terms of providing a service to visitors to Scotland could I perhaps add that although we haven't got a firm plan for it at the moment one of the other areas that we think we might wish to cover is the role of national parks in planning based on the experience of existing national parks both in Scotland and elsewhere because there is this perception that your chances of getting permission for a development in national park is significantly lower than elsewhere well that isn't actually born out by the experience the experience suggests that the success rate is pretty much the same and possibly even a bit better in a national park that doesn't necessarily mean to say that you get permission for quite what you might get permission for elsewhere because there's a role for the national park in guiding people who have got developments in mind to try and make sure that they're of a quality and character that's appropriate to the park he's been suggested that almost all of Scotland could be a national park and you've suggested additional seven do you think firstly that there's an optimum or maximum number of national parks that can exist and secondly do you see any detrimental aspects to areas either adjacent or perhaps equally scenic that aren't or wouldn't be classified as national parks we feel that up to seven is the answer which is why we've put these seven forward but one more would be wonderful so if you could argue that the place which always comes up in all the expert reports and hasn't yet been designated Ben Nevis Glencoe Black Mountain area you could also argue there's a strong case for having a national park in the south of Scotland because this is not a Highlands and Islands issue it is a Scotland wide issue so that would point towards Galloway or the Cheviots you could argue that the place where there's clear proven local support is Harris and therefore that should have the first choice so I could make a case for any one of the seven areas in terms of the maximum number point at which the benefits we've described cease to apply so we certainly feel that you could bring additional benefits to those places with more but the argument against designating the whole of Scotland or the whole of the north west as a national park is it would dilute those benefits so much as to be not worth doing in the first place so we would say we have said at least seven so we wouldn't rule out any more but we say that's heading towards the maximum number otherwise you're starting to lose the benefits which I've identified the issue of areas around the national parks is crucial to them and to other designated areas and it is possible to think of examples where if a national park for example excludes particular types of development which it feels are inappropriate those are more likely to take place and the national park you could also argue and there's been studies in the north of England which have shown this is that national parks bring benefits to places which are just outside them so people may stay in towns or villages which are outside the national park but do their cycling or their walking or their fishing or their golf or whatever they want to do within the national park that brings benefits not just within the boundary but to what you might call the gateway to the communities as well so once you start designating any area for anything you immediately come up with boundary issues but if we accept as we have as a society that some places are more special for others than others for their landscape or for their wildlife or for their cultural heritage then it's more important to designate those areas and to manage them positively than it is to worry about the boundary effects and certainly the existing national park authorities I know have been working with communities just out with their boundaries in order to make sure that the disadvantages are minimised but I think the advantages outweigh any of those disadvantages Could I maybe chip in with a couple of comments there I mean the first one relating to how many whether there's a ceiling I think perhaps it's better to think not so much in terms of the number of parks but of the sort of proportion of the land area of the country and that's going back to something John said I think in his introductory remarks and I think it is generally recognised that the landscapes of Scotland are by international standards of a very high quality and therefore I think you would expect at least the same sort of proportion as is designated in Wales to be of national park quality and deserving status and if you put the national parks together with the areas of outstanding natural beauty in Wales which are of similar landscape quality they've got slightly different arrangements for management you're talking about round about 25% and funnily enough it's actually similar in England so I think it would be not unreasonable to say well something like a quarter is a fair sort of not necessarily a target to be aiming for the sort of amount you might be considering the second point is really building up what John was saying about the surrounding areas if you have national parks dotted quite widely around the country as we're proposing to reach them people are going to have to travel through lots of other parts of the country and when they do that they'll realise just how good these other parts are so actually having magnets dotted around like that is actually a way of promoting the rest of the country as well Mr Thompson just in that last response to Mr McCaskill you talked about the management structures in Wales did I pick you up correctly saying that the management structures in Wales are different from the management structures in Scotland for the national parks not for the national parks I think there are marginal differences but they're essentially the same no it's the areas of outstanding natural beauty which are more equivalent to our national scenic areas which have different arrangements they are more clearly locally government local government controlled but they do have real management structures which is something that we don't have in the national scenic areas in Scotland with the exception of the three in Dumfries and Galloway and that is something for which we are currently being quite heavily criticised by some of the international organisations who are concerned with these things Thank you The Scottish Government has said that they have no current plans to designate further national parks in Scotland Do you think that's because you have been unable to convince them that national parks should be seen as opportunities and not as obstacles and you think you may have some other work that you need to do I really wish I knew why the Scottish Government doesn't want to designate more national parks because obviously we're very committed and very passionate about the subject and clearly we've not managed to convince them and we will carry on trying to do so because that's what campaigning organisations do but I think it would be worth hearing from them why they haven't agreed to do so the most recent reasons that we've heard and I think you'll have seen this in your notes are concerns about the financial commitments and that's a matter for government priorities for government spending obviously we think this is a priority and the other one is not wishing to raise expectations in a wider areas that in a process whereby not everywhere will end up being a national park and we feel that raising expectations is a good thing for government to do if you're raising expectations of something positive happening that's good and that doesn't I think most people understand that if expectations are raised about something happening what will not happen in every area so we don't think either of those are good reasons for failing to move forward but clearly we have work to do in carrying on trying to persuade them which is why we submitted the petition and sought support for it and why we're very pleased to be able to discuss it with you Angus It's picking up on your last question I think it's maybe worth pointing out that in the most recent chamber debate which was in May last year the Scottish Government's most recent statement suggested that it's preferable to concentrate on the two existing national parks given the current financial climate however they didn't rule out a further designation in the future I'm just skimming through your unfinished business document and in section 6 you state that in 2009 the Scottish Government announced that it would establish a ministerially chaired a national park strategy group which hasn't materialised yet have you had any indication from the Scottish Government why that hasn't happened yet? Sorry we haven't all we know is what I think is in one of the notes which the clerks hopefully provided to you which was in 2010 applied that the group's establishment had been delayed until after the next spending of you That's right We haven't heard anything since then OK Could I ask the committee what action they would seek to take on this petition? I'm keen to ascertain why the Scottish Government has not taken any action despite a manifesto commitment more than openly What is it that's stopping the Scottish Government participating I'm not wanting to criticise the Government but I think this is a very important issue and we really need to try and find ways of moving forward and if it means the Scottish Government has an issue in terms of resourcing such a thing then perhaps if we can explore possibilities of finding that resource elsewhere and allow volunteer groups to assist the Government in identifying those sources so that we can physically move this forward I think to drag our feet for this length of time is unhelpful at best Can I also agree that we write to the Scottish Government to find out what's happening but in particular, convener, a couple of issues that we ask specifically what happened to the national park strategy group because it was part of the recommendations from 2009 so it would be useful to get an indication that we're now six years on from that to find out where the Scottish Government are with that I would also like to bring around to the Scottish Government to ask them about the sustainability of the existing national park areas because if it is an issue about revenue and capital funding then it would be useful to get an indication from the Scottish Government about what they view as sustainable developments in the sustainable future of the national parks authorities in Scotland because clearly some of the evidence we've heard today where you could actually set up a national park based on Mr Mason's figures of £1 million clearly is a lot less than the 13 million that's being spent in the national parks at the present time is right to a number of organisations who may be interested in assisting us to take this debate forward those would include and declare an interest in a couple of these the organisations Scottish Wildlife Trust John Muir Trust the RSPB National Farmers Union Scotland and the Scottish Landowners Association because I think they all have a role and as well as many others in actually trying to determine what would be the best use of existing areas to be designated as national parks because I think that goes back to my earlier point that a number of these organisations can bring resources with them and additional resources over and above what the Scottish Government may be asked to contribute would I think help deliver more national parks in Scotland Any other member could I therefore maybe agree that we write on the points that have been raised and could I also maybe add that we also write to the Scottish National Heritage the campaign for national parks and the association for the protection of rural Scotland we could also suggest that we may write to the rural committee just to keep him advised and informed us to this petition here members agreed okay thank you very much thank you very much Mr Mayhew and Mr Mulla for attending and I will now suspend for a couple of minutes for a change over the next petition today is PE1562 by Arn McLean on Perverse Equital members have a note by the clerk in a spice briefing and may I welcome the petitioner Arn McLean to this meeting he's accompanied by Steve Kicker and I now invite Mr McLean to speak to the petition no more than five minutes and to experiment with your petition and see if we will then move to questions thanks ladies and gents I would like to bring this information to your attention if some of you may be aware we lost our precious son on May 28th 2011 due to knife crime which is every parent's worst nightmare as no parent should outlive their child especially to knife crime the devastation, the everlasting pain and emptiness will remain with us for the rest of our life this change to our normal family life has been forced upon us due to someone else's intent actions and wrong choice this can happen at any time anywhere and to anyone since our tragic loss we have focused our energies and built a strong anti-knife crime self-funded campaign team who have campaigned endlessly for tougher sentencing the anti-knife crime message to many primary and secondary schools in Fife with the support of Police Scotland to hopefully change the mindset and raise awareness in the consequences and impact of knife crime to our younger generations as the father of a murdered son who never received any form of justice for the loss of our son I took a personal interest due to our own personal devastating circumstances and experience in the subject of Perversa Quittle coleg Steph Kecker who is an anti-knife crime campaign chairman to explore avenues and see what we could do to propose positive improvements within our current system the proposal there should be a limited exception to the rule that a jury verdict of a Quittle in any criminal case be treated as final in any murder case and possibly also in cases involving other serious crimes where the judge, after consultation with the council comes to the view in the light of all the evidence that an a Quittle was perverse he or she should have the power to request that the Court of Appeal reviews the case a perverse a Quittle is one that no reasonable jury could have reached on the evidence before it if the Court of Appeal reviews a case and decides that a retrial is warranted then should the retrial consist of a jury as there may be similar re-accurrences or should the retrial consist of a panel of judges the judge operates on the basis of a reasonable doubt about the jury's verdict the proposed perversa Quittle will provide a new control measure for judges although the judge's word is final on the law and the jury's word is final on the facts this process would only be used by the judge when he or she thinks that the verdict is not just simply wrong but actually perverse and has the power to intervene and forward the case to the High Court of Judiciary the perversa Quittle proposal is perfectly consistent with the proposal that the criminal justice system continues to acknowledge that if the jury system is to have meaning and value then jury decisions must be respected when they seem wrong as well as when they seem right further far from opening a set of floodgates to innumeral challenges the proposal is highly restricted for example perversa Quittle should only apply to the most serious of crimes quite possibly only to where a life has been taken these are a Quittle verdicts that no reasonable jury could have brought on the evidence before it some may doubt what might otherwise seem common sense namely that the more serious the crime the more compelling the reasons to ensure that the outcome is right both procedurally and substantially the overriding objective must be to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent for example where the perpetrator has admitted to the crime and there is overwhelming evidence to support the case however it seems hard to argue against the view that from a public interest point of view that very serious criminals have wrongly escaped conviction may indicate dangers to the public and may shake the public's confidence in the system the jury is an essential part of the legal system which evolved as we know approximately the 15th century and has remained with us to current date the fact that the jury has stood the test of time has given society a feeling of acceptance that this is the best way to decide on the outcome of indictable offences but as previously stated sometimes the jury gets it right and sometimes they get it wrong as well our current system has a responsibility to ensure that the truth, trust and most importantly common sense prevails at the end of the day our current jury selection process is basically like a lottery where the selection criteria only has three requirements for selecting jurors one, the person's name must be on the electoral roll register secondly the person must be aged between 18 and 70 and third, the person must have lived in the UK for five years since their 13th birthday these people are selected under the mention criteria which is totally down to chance there is the realistic possibility that incompetent people people who are unable to deal with the court atmosphere people with learning difficulties who may not be able to absorb legal information throughout the court proceedings also people who may have disabilities for example deafness they may not hear what's being discussed these people may be selected for jury service how can the system guarantee that individuals selected for jury service are adequate to perform the role as a juror again we have a gap that needs filled surely a suitability test would be required to ensure that individuals meet a specific criteria or possibly a pre-trial discussion to be held by a clerk or clerks of the court with the jurors who will be able to provide a general capability assessment of each juror moreover it's scarcely need saying that there is a strong and now well-recognised public interest in ensuring that perpetrators of serious crimes are not wrongfully acquitted at trial the proposal for perverse acquittal would fill a small but important gap in the protection provided by law against wrongful acquittals in fact the proposal does not advocate a simple merits-based procedure for overturning acquittals the proposal is perfectly consistent with the proposal that the criminal justice system continues to acknowledge that if the jury system is to have meaning and value jury decisions must be respected when they seem wrong as well as when they seem right supporting information that you have from SPICE as well the Scottish Parliament information centre SPICE and the crime office have been in contact with them they have came back and gave us information regarding the acquittals by juries we asked if there had been any research conducted to address the issue relating to perverse acquittals they stated that they are not aware of any work which had been done in relation to the issue of perverse acquittals by juries they also note that there is no right of appeal by the prosecution against the decision of a jury surely to maintain fairness and balance in a trial there should be the right of appeal available to both the prosecution and the defence we have also mentioned in previous conversations regarding Barry's law when we initially first submitted the petition in we also requested that the proposal for perverse acquittal is accepted by the committee and by the parliament as a new section of legislation within the criminal bill act we would like to request it to be known as Barry's law which would not only be our late son's legacy but would have meaning to so many people who support anti knife crime within our communities towns and cities again legally it may be known as the criminal justice and victims act but that will be for the lawyers to decide upon the title this is a similar process to as everyone well knows Sarah's law for the disclosure of residences of sexual offenders some others finalising brief points clearly the precise procedure contemplated by the proposal is not the only possible procedure a number of variations are possible for example it might be left to the lord advocate or attorney general to refer allegedly perverse acquittals to the court of appeal rather than the trial judge alternatively it may be that the high court is the right body to hear such referrals suitability test or pre trial discussions for jurors to ensure that a specific criteria or competency has been achieved by all potential jurors which will ensure that we have a watertight system equally clearly it is highly desirable that an acquitted defendant is not left in doubt for any longer than necessary about the validity of the acquittal verdict the time period for the trial judge the lord advocate or attorney general to challenge a verdict on the grounds that it is perverse should be short ideally some indication that this has been considered should be given quickly following the verdict however it would not seem appropriate for any decision to be announced in open court immediately following the jury's verdict and finally to finalise hopefully this opening statement will provide supporting information from our perspective as regards our proposals and objectives to provide a watertight equal and fair system for everyone thank you thank you mr McLean and before we move into questions could I follow on behalf of the committee just to offer our condolces at the tragic loss of your son questions mr McLean that's convenient mr McLean I see you again obviously as you've alluded to jury research is basically non-existent it's always been viewed as sacrosanct but Lord Bonomy who's been carried out carrying out a review into safeguards in the event of the removal of corroboration has called for such research is that something you would support yes and I don't know if you're aware the former Lord Advocate at a lecture back in February made various comments I think you've touched upon and you might want to add to it she warned that little is known about the challenges conditions such as dyslexia, dysgraphia and dyscalculia are posed for jurors sitting through court trials and subsequently how verdicts are reached I think that ties in with the comments you made about who we select and the criteria is that again absolutely support it I think when you're looking to implement something like this there may be a cost involved but again the cost shouldn't come against such things as there we would absolutely support that 100% yes finally I think we've both looked at the spice research and I did see that there was a law in Canada but it did seem that the appeal in Canada was based on an error in point of law and direction by the judge to the jury not on simply an assumption of perversity the devil and the law is always in the detail have you any idea how we would define perversity to be able to justify an appeal right thank you if I could just set the scene just a little bit I don't understand the convener's point regarding Alan's circumstances to be a bit more brutal and a bit more clearer on Alan's circumstances hell looks quite comfortable when you compare it with what he's been through so that's where we are and what we've recognised in Alan's personal circumstances is there is a gap that we believe needs closed and the level of perversity is when something is or when a judge believes something is unjust now when a defendant sits in court and says nothing but through tapes has admitted a crime a murder crime and walks free from court there's something sadly wrong and if I could quote Lord Justice Alde he put it a criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance it is a search for the truth in accordance with prosecution principles the object being is to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent the guilty in the case of Alan's case walked free he was acquitted so there is an unjustness about that and I believe and Alan believes and our whole campaign team believes that that gap needs to be closed now I wasn't at court at the bar's trial I can understand that your petition here is based on something that's happened but we really can't go back into the detail of what happened previously so if you could maybe just stick to your petition and deal with the perverse acquittal Mr McCarkill has already identified you know stuff from word autonomy and mentioned De Mangalino can I maybe ask a question outwith what may be happening in the future of its regards to what you Mr McLean believe is to what extent make this proposal a new petition be seen by some as potentially undermining the jury system in Scotland after all its regard is an important asset to our judicial system I think there will be a percentage as far as per verse acquittal is a very small percentage let's be truthful most convictions go through the courts go in the correct direction so there is a small gap there as we previously said there will be criticism there will be a small percentage who oppose it but I think in the long run as far as from the government's perspective we need to make sure that we do have a full proof system in place and you know that where the perverse acquittals have came out in their evidence I think that we need to make sure just that one team approach that nobody is going to slip through but we are actually trying to put the proposal in place to make sure that we have a new platform a new safety net therefore judges because it has been proved that somebody can defeat the purpose of the justice system so that safety net needs to be in place there to give our judges that control measure and I think that would also to sort of snowball on to that it would echo the message out into the public to say you know these relevant changes are in place you will not beat the justice system so that may add as an additional deterrent into the public eye which would be a positive move forward Jackson Good morning Good morning I've been listening to all this carefully and I'm undecided in my own mind which is fine but I mean I'm in very little doubt that there will be guilty people who have been found innocent and innocent people who have been found guilty it's one of the principle reasons why many people like myself decided event against the whole concept of capital punishment because we know in hindsight that innocent people were executed for crimes that then transpired they had not committed so it works both ways but essentially if the argument is simply that the prosecution ultimately failed to prove its case would such a system not simply a potentially lead to a lack of rigor from the prosecution over time going forward in the knowledge that they could then seek to lobby the judge for a second chance and is all of that not really ultimately undesirable compared to simply a more rigorous examination of the argument in respect of a prosecution and the pursuit of it in the first place I think there are certain aspects there sir you know a percentage the root cause of this may be to look at the jury system the process of selection no I accept that point in some ways I felt the arguments you were making in which Mr McCaskill touched upon about the whole process of jury selection were almost a petition in themselves but the actual petition we're being asked to consider here is the prospect of an extension of the open charge against an accused no I mean I think the the I've lost my train of thought here I think when there's sufficient evidence here there's clear and substantial amount of evidence but you see that seems rather a subjective criteria I mean do you therefore envisage that a perfectly innocent man who is found innocent but for whom it may be deemed that the evidence suggested otherwise would remain in custody during the process of an appeal and the possibility of a further trial which could ultimately find a innocent again that that's a possibility but surely we're testing that law to the extreme almost what we're doing is we're allowing in some cases monsters to walk around the streets that's what's happening by wrongful acquittals what we want to do is trying to close that gap and yes there is a risk that we do send people back for retrial and they're found innocent again however this would be limited only in the more serious crime which is murder in our view and we believe that opportunity to give in to the judge to allow what he believes is perverse and unjust to refer to an appeal score further review John Good morning Mr McLean and I'm trying to get my head round this issue as well because what potentially could be argued is that trial by jury would be cease in relation to and what definition you have used is most serious crimes so the argument and I'll put it to you is could be presented then why go through a jury trial if it's a serious crime because you might get a perverse acquittal as your definition which undermines in many respects the existing judicial system that we have in Scotland and it's then down to who would make the decision about whether or not that was defined as a serious crime and I know murder is a serious crime but who would that because there are other aspects and some people would argue that there are other serious crimes that take place that may be subject to perverse acquittal. At what stage do you think and do you stop the taking cases to jury trial because effectively all you're doing and potentially doing is actually repeating the same evidence being given in front of a jury or in front of a judge and surely the argument would be well let's just do away with jury trial and just let's have judges sitting in the most serious of cases that would be the ideal world sir it may appear to be an ideal world but what I'm saying to you is that currently it would undermine the fabric of our judicial system at the present moment the expectation that an individual who is found who is charged and is taken to court currently has the right to have that case heard in front of a jury and as I said my view at the present moment is there's a fine line to say whether or not a serious crime should actually be heard in front of a jury or should just be heard by a judge and it's that issue and it goes back to I think a couple of members have made reference to who would then make what you're saying it's a judge or the Lord Advocate on this list at general I think you indicated would have the right to make application for perverse acquittal if an individual was to walk and is it walk free or walk away from a court with a lesser charge than murder and it's trying to get at just a clarification Mr McLean because not everybody who has taken forward for murder actually ends up being found guilty of murder they may be found guilty of a lesser charge and would you say that potentially would then lead to a perverse acquittal or a perverse decision by a jury in relation to the decisions that are made by a jury trial I think only where a decision is made that they've been acquitted and there's clear substantial overwhelming evidence there that they have committed a crime by understanding in terms of the difference between a murder trial and the sentence that may be passed down compared to that of some other lesser charge a lesser term of imprisonment or potentially a fine being imposed and at that stage would there be the possibility in your mind that there could be further action in terms of not perverse acquittal but perverse decision being reached by a jury I think some of the bits that you touched on are quite fragile in terms of the law because there is a strong argument I remember reading something I don't know maybe 15-20 years ago regarding some financial institutions taken to court and there was a debate about the complex nature of the trial that no reasonable jury could understand the intricacies of that trial and there may well be a strong case for serious crimes to be without a jury by a panel of judges as you perhaps were alluding to but if in my mind if a decision is unjust and by virtue is perverse an appeals court made up of a panel of judges makes that final decision on whether or not that case goes for retrial or doesn't and in the case of a retrial it would be a new jury Kenneth It's on the issue because clearly they have sacrosanct in the common law system you see different situations for example in South Africa with Oscar Pistorius but the situation certainly in Scotland in the south of the border other than Lockerby that sat with judges as opposed to a jury has been that it should go to a jury of your peers there have been changes down in England and Wales basically to deal with cases where there may be threats or intimidation towards the jurors and I have to say I've always been very sympathetic to some major frauds but the situation in England and Wales is more those cases where the jury may be tampered with or intimidated not on any other criteria the people who have been most opposed to any change in Scotland have actually been the crown and I just wondered on your views about why and how you would want to go further than perhaps including myself or sympathetic to in England and Wales that sometimes we have to probably protect the jury I know the jury's been a process for many hundreds of years and some of the questions when we've been debating this at our anti-nifey and crampee meetings is at time for do we need a change within our current justice system I think what you're saying is absolutely right but we need to give the public interest within the jury system to make it fair and equal but I think when you've actually experienced something and you're putting a proposal forward to the government and the main objective of this is to hopefully close that small gap and prevent this devastation happening to another family and that's the main objective of this is to close that small gap I could come on also on I don't think that the general public think it's good enough for a murder case to be or to be a wrongful acquittal and someone to say well that's just how it is, that's the law I don't think the general public believe that's the right thing I think the right thing is that we've identified what we believe is a gap in the law and we're looking at ways and perhaps close that to make it a better law we're in the 21st century and I think some of those laws need to be brought into the 21st century and where we have got monsters in my view walking around the street because of wrongful acquittals there's something not right and I think I believe that we need to put that right and this is perhaps a small step in vehicle to try and secure that No further questions Could I then ask the committee what action that we put here to you? You should be writing to the Government I think Mr McLean and Mr Keager in very tragic circumstances have raised an issue that actually has also been raised fortunately or otherwise by Lord Bonomy which is that we need some research into jurors I don't think anybody and certainly not Mr McLean or Mr Keager are suggesting that we should perhaps have the American situation of people coming out of a jury room and then almost signing a TV contract but we do need to know more about how and why decisions are made so my first suggestion is that we should go to the Government to say what are they going to do about Lord Bonomy's comments if they're going to take it forward then clearly additional letters that we would write to other legal parties in the law society are probably unnecessary so first and foremost I think it's... are we going to see Lord Bonomy's desire and indeed I think it's shared by Mr McLean and Mr Keager delivered on and get some research into jurors which would then allow us to work out what we need to do Is there any other points on Zanna? Just a comment I have to be honest and say that Mr McLean I'm not totally convinced one way or the other with your presentation today whilst I appreciate the passion that you have and you want to see a better system and as far as that goes I would agree with you I think there are potential jurors who have various difficulties and perhaps are not fit for jury duty one of them that comes to my mind immediately is language difficulties we have over 150 new communities in Scotland today and many of them don't have as clear English skill that one would hope a juror would have just one example and I agree that there needs to be some sort of investigation and a study into that system so I'm quite happy for us to approach the Government to see what action if any we can take and I would suggest that we continue this put your proposal and see how we can develop that because I don't have the answer but I'm sure like Kenny McCaskill who's a lawyer himself and many others I'm sure they'll be able to give us some good advice and guidance in the future to take this to the next stage John I agree with Kenny McCaskill's point about writing to the Scottish Government to get their views on the Bonomy recommendations that their proposals have been put forward but could I suggest we also write to the Scottish Human Rights Commission to get some views because it would be useful to get early views from the Scottish Human Rights Commission as to the issues raised in this petition because I think and I think it was trying to express earlier it does have a number of implications if we move forward and we need to be clear about the implications that any changes in the current legislation and the way that we deal with trial and jury trial has to be resolved but as I said at the present moment I suggest we write to the Human Rights Commission just to get a view or give them early heads up that we require a view from them on this issue John I'm just conscious that some of the actions that we are now writing about follow up with the scope of the co-opretition which is on the desirability of the perverse direction and the potential extension of trials so I would add to the list of people we are writing to those recommended to us by the clerks, the Crown Office, Procurator Fiscal Service faculty of Agathars, Judges of the High Court of Judiciary etc. On the actual principle underpinning the petition which is to consider the need for trial judges to have the power to refer jury verdicts to High Court of Judiciary over and above the actual examination issues about the competencies of juries which I think almost I don't see within the context of the petition itself although they've been touched on in the dialogue that we've had Mythe then agreed to the action points that's been raised Right, thank you Mr McLean and Mr Keiger for your attendance and we'll now adjourn for a minute for a change over. Thank you I think it must be The third and final petition today is P.E.1 Travel 5 by Siobhan Garry on the Electric Shock and Vibration Chorus for Animals Members have a note by the clerk in a spice briefing and they may I welcome petitioner Siobhan who's accompanied by Claire Stain's a dog trainer and behaviouralist and I now invite you Siobhan to speak to your petition for no more than five minutes explain what your petition seeks and then we'll move to questions Good morning thanks everybody for having us today Our petition is asking the Scottish Government to ban the use of shock collars in animals namely dogs we believe that electric shock collars don't have the governance they should have there's very poor legislation for them they cause psychological distress severe anxiety emotional harm and in displaced aggression and there is an alternative with positive reinforcement and appropriate training that doesn't deliver via cruel methods Electric shock collars are already banned in Wales they were banned there a couple of years ago they're also banned in Denmark, Norway Sweden, Austria Germany, Switzerland, Slovenia and many Australian states with petitions in several other countries for a ban under way the ban is also supported by the Scottish SPCA Scottish Kennel Club Guide Dogs for the Blind Dogs Trust the RSPCA Advocates for Animals PETA the Association of Animal Behaviourists and the majority of dog breeding clubs there are several dangers with electric shock collars some of which are that the remote collars of the shock collars can fall into the hands of children who find amusement and shocking pets for no reason because they're too young to know better there's also the danger of the collars being misused by cruel people who take pleasure in hurting animals the collars have been known to cause burns on pets and severe disfigurement and shock collars can be misused by putting them on other animals the smaller the animal the more pain the collars will cause and in small animals which the collars are not suitable they can cause death due to the lack of governance and legislation there are several things that can go horribly wrong one example is that a Labrador retrievers owners bought an electric shock collar from a leading pet shop and carefully read all the instructions the product was designed to work outdoors as it was one of the shock collars that was designed to act like an invisible electric fence the owner left the dog in the backyard for a few hours but was alarmed when he returned home to find him in pain on carefully removing the collar the owner was horrified to find horrific burns on the dog's neck the device had shot the dog non-stop for several hours and the dog had to have emergency vet treatment under a general anesthetic and suturing for the holes in his neck Wales is the first constituent country in the UK to ban shock collars agreeing with the RSPCA that their use is a form of animal cruelty they enforce that in law by a fine of up to £20,000 or six months in prison and the law sadly is very poorly enforced but they are improving on that we believe that there are more humane ways to stop dog barking which is an issue for a lot of pet owners there are kinder ways to do it using positive reinforcement alternatives include collars that spray citronella that dogs detest the smell of and collars that emit a high pitched noise which is unpleasant for them to hear excess barking is one reason why many people abandon their dog there may be other reasons for the dog's behaviour the majority of the time the behaviour can be remedied with the assistance of training and humane training aids which is where Claire comes in these are aids such as ones designed to keep the dog stimulated and occupied while the owners are out and to discourage barking there is also an argument that electric shock collars are effective by some in breaking up dog bites this is not recommended as it will actually fuel aggression in a dog this is because the dog who is already flooded with adrenaline and in fight mode will believe it is the other dog inflicting the pain on them and will retaliate harder as a result I have an email here from Mike Flynn the superintendent of the SSPCA that states the Scottish SPCA strongly opposed the use of shock collars and if an animal physically suffers through the use of such a device then action should be taken at the minute our animal welfare governance is run and moderated by a charity and today our aim is to ask the Scottish Government to implement in law something more supportive that will benefit animal welfare Thank you for your presentation Ms Carracky my way of questions could I perhaps ask you what information do you have on how widely these electric collars are used in Scotland there's approximately 50,000 shock collars used at the minute 25% inflict pain or suffering of some sort there's evidence to support that compared to less than 5% of animals that through positive reinforcement are affected are affected in some negative ways 25% of animals that use shock collars out of that 50,000 which is a substantial amount have some kind of physical or psychological effect from them I have here on a study done on 133 dogs that 3.3% of the owners were using remote control activated e-collars Just for a record Siobhan could you perhaps advise us where you get that bigger from Yeah, there was a study done in 2007 it was actually a Scottish Government study hmm That study Mine's is done from the British Fetch School Research 2006 That was nearly 8 years ago you don't have any more Up to date figures Of figure, it's very difficult because the shock collars themselves the electronic collars themselves are non-regulated so it's very difficult to see the exact numbers also they're sold in so many different places across online etc that it's difficult to get an exact number of how many there are I will say from a professional point of view I'm seeing an increase in the use of them for various different reasons and I don't know why the thing that I would like to do is try and put a cap on that so that they don't become more popular as it stands just now it's still relatively small numbers in the grand scale of things but what we do want to do is just get the message out to dog owners that these are inhumane they are painful their very design is to be aversive and there is an alternative so why would you use something that's designed to be aversive when it's not necessary there's an estimated according to Kara Hilton MSP's research there's an estimated 500,000 dog owners across the UK using shock collars they deliver an electric shock lasting up to 30 seconds and her evidence states that three out of four Scots are against electric collars any other questions Jackson yes thank you I don't have dogs, never had dogs so it's not something I'm familiar with I think we've dealt with the 50,000 and it's an estimated figure but fine as long as I understand that is it an age restricted product to purchase so anyway how does it actually operate I have one if you'd like to see I attempted to ask if I was wearing it what I would feel but I might not want to just quite volunteer for that I might quite enjoy that you might never know you might just be introduced to something this is a collar that goes on the dog obviously it sits on the dog's neck just like any other collar the owner or the handler has a remote control system I find it worrying because these things are actually waterproof I was always told that electricity and water don't mix but there we have it it must be okay if you're a Labrador however what you're going to do is if the dog is doing something wrong so for example your dog is rushing at the door and you don't want your dog to rush at the door anymore you would send first of all a warning signal which is just a small beep can you hear that yeah and then after that you switch on to the shock and you can send the dog an electric shock direct to his neck is that shock in itself something that can be varied by the operator or is it a predetermined strength some of the shock colours you get on the market are just a box standard shock so you have no control this is one of the more expensive and elaborate ones so I can make it as uncomfortable or painful as I like it to be and obviously I'm familiar when walking about sometimes that there are boundary fences for cattle and other animals which if they touch is this the same thing effectively but in a colour that's an animal's wearing or is it completely different in its strengthened application? The problem with these colours is that there is no restriction on them whatsoever so there was a study done where a lot of them were actually discovered to be quite faulty right so there's a question mark about the manufacturers when you talked about children obviously children would only have the module unit where an irresponsible parent had allowed them to have it effectively I note that we did have a debate on this in the Scottish Parliament and I have here a quote from the minister Eileen McLeod who said that the position of the Scottish government is that a ban on electronic training aids cannot be justified at this time but that improved guidance for owners and trainers is the appropriate way forward I mean she did say she was open to further discussions from my understanding obviously you would challenge her assertion there but what do you think underpins her assertion that a ban cannot be justified at the present time I think it's underpinned by the fact that so many animal welfare organisations are in favour of a ban no but she's obviously not persuaded by that so why do you think she doesn't feel a ban is justified obviously you can't answer questions on how somebody else feels but the DEFRA report itself which was done in 2011 actually states in its conclusions that it felt that it did have behavioural evidence that the use of e-colours negatively impacted on the welfare of dogs during training even when the training was conducted by professional trainers relatively benign training programmes advised by e-colour advocates that's the DEFRA report they also asked if the Scottish Government would reconsider its position and follow Wales's leads and ban the use just one final question how long have these products been available I've been a professional dog trainer for 12 years I think they've really been available for that length of time but they have been growing and trained for six to five years and the bans finally convener that you talked about that have been introduced across a number of other countries that you mentioned are these recent or long standing they're all relatively in the last sort of four to three years right so there has been an emerging trend against this in a number of other okay thank you there's lots of new research as well I mean scientists at the University of Bristol in Lincoln concluded that use of electric shock collars this is 2014 research can lead to a negative impact on welfare at least in a proportionate number of animals trained using this technique could I just draw this away from welfare just for one second obviously I am a professional dog trainer and behavioural consultant the problem being is how dogs learn and dogs learn through association and unfortunately often the shock is used to a direct behaviour but the dog doesn't pick up on that is the actual behaviour that it is being shocked for what a dog then does is absorb the environment and take into consideration what is in the environment at that time this is where we see a lot of cases of redirected aggression so for example a dog is shocked for going running at the front door barking okay so that's a nuisance behaviour nobody wants their dog running at the front door barking the dog is shocked every time it goes near the door now we have a dog that could potentially be frightened to be outside and I have actually seen it happen with my own eyes I have worked with dogs on that level now when a dog is frightened to go outside when an animal is fearful an animal is dangerous and this is where we quite often see redirected aggression cos it's rooted in fear so my appeal would be to get rid of these collars or at least put some form of legislation in that is going to control who can use them and also dog trainers who are advocating their use because they are not understanding the fundamentals of the behavioural science of how dogs learn Siobhan, when your petition calls for the ban of electric collars and vibration collars and when I can understand the case against electric shocks is that much clearer obviously we wouldn't want more self but for example a phone vibrate so would there be any possible exception such as a use of vibration collars for deaf dogs I can only give you my personal opinion on that and I think Claire has a quote from the there is no data to support whether it's okay or whether it's not I have asked on the Deaf Dogs Network UK who are the dog trainers who specialise in deaf dogs and helping owners with dogs who have hearing difficulties their statement was that it's unnecessary so therefore they wouldn't use it because in dogs we don't get the luxury to decide what is aversive some dogs are touch sensitive so that vibration could actually be seen as an aversion so although within itself encapsulating possibly not damaging for every single dog the Deaf Dog Network UK do work on the fact that they don't need them so therefore they wouldn't use them there are alternatives is the short answer but when you speak about alternatives obviously you're speaking about those collars that release on the doors and things like that no hear you saying earlier that some of these are quite frightening for a dog yeah absolutely for me the alternatives is to actually just teach the dog train the dog now I actually pulled this off the Scottish Government website this is where you're talking about punishing children now I'm not making the comparison from children to dogs however how each species learns on the planet is exactly the same and what you're saying here is discipline should not be about installing imbedients or inflicting physical punishment discipline is about showing how to behave that's what I do professionally as a dog trainer I don't punish a dog for misbehaving I teach a dog how I want it to behave it's two different things if I want to let a deaf dog off the lead I have to teach that deaf dog an automatic recall check in every four or five seconds and that can be done using positive reinforcement but we do know that some dog owners find it really difficult to control their dog I mean is there any other alternative apart from taking it to a professional trainer to get the guidance is there any is there any other way where somebody could perhaps find a solution to help a non-ruly dog or should we not have unruly dogs I think significantly most welfare organisations most dog shelters most pounds don't use short collars they don't use any other method except a behaviourist a training method and a human touch but yet we're allowing these items to go into public hands who have no training who have no idea how to use them so all of our main organisations all of our welfare contacts that we've had and we do have are very much against using nobody uses them nobody professionally uses them but yet we're allowing the public to use them what you were saying about unruly dogs there is actually absolutely no need to have unruly dogs us as human beings are creating unruly dogs for me the solution to that problem is through education proper education on how we interact with these animals on a daily basis and that is available from lots and lots of different sources for example I'm a steering committee member and the founder member for the pet professional guild in the British Isles I represent Scotland in this and we have a massive website that has educational parts on it and teaching and guiding dog owners on how to be using positive reinforcement correctly the dogs trust also do a massive drive on going out into the communities and teaching the community how to be doing it correctly I work with this day in and day out it's really simple to do it's actually easier to do than to apply punishment so there is no need for unruly dogs ok we're going to get some things that are genetically not correct that should then be assessed by a professional and then we're on control and management so there should be no need for dog bites dog attacks, dogs running away livestock chasing there is absolutely no need for them whatsoever so therefore we shouldn't be punishing the dog when the dog gets it wrong when we can control that situation from the first day again takes us back to why the callers should be banned any further questions could the committee then suggest what action we should take on petition I would certainly like to write to the Scottish Government convener and I think it would be useful given that there has been a debate and where the minister has expressed a view if she could elaborate on the thinking that underpinned the view that she expressed in order that we can better understand the Government's position and beyond that obviously since the ban has been implemented in Wales I think it would be useful to have some understanding of the rationale that the Government came to there and what they think the outcome and experience of that has been and how if these products are available online they feel that having implemented a ban in Wales they are able to regulate that since I would have thought it must be very difficult to prevent the purchase of the item any other points Mike Mathew as a local councillor for many years I have always come across issues with dog and dog handling and how dogs are treated and the unfortunate thing about dogs is that many of the owners and you quite rightly pointed out don't actually have the scale of the training to handle the animal and therefore if something goes wrong it's always the animal that's blamed and I think this is quite an important issue and I think Carlos is quite right in terms of making sure that the Scottish Government actually looks at this quite meaningfully there's no point in punishing an animal just because the owner is not able to control the animal Could I maybe also suggest that we write to pet behavioural councillor and the electronic corner manufacturer association the Scottish society for the prevention of cruelty to animals the dogstross the kennel club and the national farmers union of Scotland and they will have the complete picture Angus Can I just introduce a note of caution writing to the national farmers union of Scotland I would hate this committee to give the impression that this is a major issue within the farming community but I haven't heard any evidence to suggest that either in the papers or in the evidence session today and certainly coming from a farming background myself I've never ever seen electric shocks being used with regard to training sheep dogs for example so I would just I mean it's up to NFUS to highlight that in their response but it's just to bring that to the attention of the committee Can I just say to that point there because people in the sheep dog training community are skilled dog trainers is probably why you're not seeing them Sorry Claire, but we're just winding up Sony Jackson The national farmers union of Scotland is opposed to a ban along with the Scottish countryside alliance and the Scottish rural property and business association so I think in addition to the farmers union those other two organisations I'd like to know why it is that they're opposed to a ban at least I think that's right We'll take on board the voice and we'll write to them Could I thank both Siobhan and Claire for your attendance and we'll now adjourn for a hand over We're now moving on to agenda item number two which is consideration of continued petition so the next item of business is consideration of seven continued petitions the first is PE1376 by Mcdonald on banning the presence of free mentinol in all manufacturer's products in our diet Members have a note by the clerk and can I now invite contributions from the members Kenny I think we should simply close the petition I think we've done all we can there's clearly no desire by the government to change and indeed some basis upon which they're doing so in terms of academic and other research and I can't see where we can take it any further Members agree with that proposal Angus To concur with Kenny McCaskill a number of academics including Professor Mike Lean of the University of Glasgow and also the health study the FSA and the European Food Safety Authority all consider this to be a safe item for human consumption so I don't see how the committee can take this forward any further however if the petitioner Mr Mcdonald does find evidence to contrary then he's of course free to bring this back to committee at a future point in time so in the meantime then does the committee agree to close the petition thank you the next petition is PE137 by Shona Brash on behalf of the Coastal Regeneration Alliance on the proposed energy park at Caginsey members have been opened by the clerk and the submissions and I welcome Ian Gray MSP to the meeting who has a consensus interest in the petition and may I invite contributions from members Ian thank you very much and thank you for the committees for bearing and allowing me to address this petition once again the core of the petition is of course the request to abandon the proposal for the development of an energy park on this site and it is the case that that proposal which came from Scottish Enterprise has now been withdrawn and so I can well understand if the committee feel that there's the opportunity here to close the petition but I've discussed this with the petitioners and I come today to make a plea for the petition to be continued at least in the meantime the petition does come in two parts the first is about the proposal previous proposal for an energy park but the second part says and ensure that any future proposals are subject to full public consultation and do not extend beyond the existing footprint of the future power station indeed colleagues may remember that in the initial evidence which the Coastal Regeneration Alliance gave they presented to committee members a master plan for the area which reflects the aspirations of the local community quite a sophisticated plan which had been worked out through a great deal of work the CRA have done locally with the community to try and draw out what local people would like to see on this site it is the case that the Kikensi site remains a strategic site and so the tension between possible future developments and the aspirations of local people remains and so the petitioners are concerned that this aspect of the petition is not lost and that someway is fine to examine how they can have some confidence that future proposals will not be handled in the way that the energy park proposal was which caused so much concern locally finally I would say that there are some general principles here about the way in which the current planning and economic development processes can on occasion sideline local communities particularly where a large strategic site such as this one is in question and so I would like to suggest to the committee that they do continue the petition and perhaps even consider referring that to an appropriate committee the infrastructure committee perhaps or another as they think appropriate to look at how this and indeed other proposals can be brought forward alongside and with the support of local community rather than without their collaboration and participation thank you thank you any further questions John our question is just a comment while I respect the views presented the difficult way is is that what we have before us as a petition has been dealt with Scottish Enterprise East Lodian Council as well as the Scottish power have indicated that at the present time they are not prepared to go forward with the original proposals so and the other issue is that I know has been suggested that we would refer it to the infrastructure committee or to an appropriate committee but just to remind the member the community empowerment bill is going through Parliament at the present moment and it is hoped the community empowerment bill will actually incorporate the issues that have been raised by Mr Gray in relation to giving communities more of a say and more in the decision making process in terms of any major projects that go forward so convener I would be minded at the present moment to close this petition and with that caveat on mind but then basically right to Scottish Power, Scottish Enterprise and East Lodian Council that we would expect in line with the current bill going through Parliament that any future discussions on the site should be taken in in relation to the community's concern so that they are fully informed and consulted on any developments that take place rather than keeping this petition open because I think at the present moment the petition has achieved what it set out to achieve but it is just one and if the petitioners fail at a later date they are not being listened to then they can certainly resubmit a petition at a future date covering those issues Jackson I have to say on the representation of a colleague I do not think that there would be anything inconsistent in writing to the organisation seeking those assurances as Mr Wilson suggests but keeping the petition open until such time as we have received an appropriate response because I do accept that the second half of the original petition dealt with those issues and she would be losing anything at this stage by responding to that request making those representations and then seeing whether or not a satisfactory response is received which I think could then answer and meet the petitioners' original request and stand on the record in the light of any future proposed developments Any more? I was not quite sure how where to take this next but I think Jackson Carlos has made a very valid point I think that to ask the petition in terms of what destination they want to take this to would be helpful for at least for me to make the decision I also agree that there is no need to close something there is no need to have any hastiness I am quite happy for the response from the petitioner in the first instance Angus, thanks I was minded to close the petition given that the petitioner's main concern has been addressed however given Jackson Carlos' comments I am happy to go along with his suggestions Any other? John I am minded to support the proposal by Mr Carlos but the problem is that while we may receive assurances from Scottish Power, East Lothian Council and Scottish Enterprise that is not to say that another developer could come along at some stage and put forward proposals and completely ignore the desires of this petition that should be fully consulted and it is really a speedy response from the three bodies concerned saying that they would commit to giving full consultation but the difficulty I have is if someone else was to come along and try and develop on that site they might not be held by the same accountability that we are trying to get from Scottish Power, East Lothian Council or Scottish Enterprise it does raise the wider issue that has been raised by Mr Gray in terms of the current planning legislation that was passed in 2006 by a previous Scottish Executive I think the same person I think the same principle would apply regardless of who the application would be for development I think probably from our point of view the biggest issue that I found in this petition was the concern with lack of consultation and as a matter of fact I really want to go further on that I think we need as a committee to put in record that for the future particularly with the development of this magnitude that adequate and comprehensive consultation you know takes place for the communities and to ensure that this happens it might even be necessary to tighten up the requirements that must be met for such consultation and to look at sanctions that can be applied for non-compliance with those requirements we will keep the petition open we will write to the people that need to be written to and then we will bring it back to the committee Members agree? Thank you very much Mr Gray for attending The next petition is PE150 by Douglas Feiland on permanent solutions for the A83 Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions and I welcome Mike Russell MSP to the meeting in this petition Can I now invite contributions from members Mr Russell Thank you convener and thank you for allowing me to attend to say word or two about the progress of this petition At the outset I should say that I think the petitioners are looking for the petition to remain open and the reason for that is the terms of the petition itself which is for the Scottish Government to ensure that a permanent solution for the A83 of the rest will be thankful in showing the vital lifeline route is not closed because of landslides that are varied in their quality The one from the leader of Garland Bute Council Dick Walsh surprises me there has been a great deal of work done to ensure that the message goes out that Garland Bute is open for business and for Council Walsh the leader of the council in the second paragraph to bemoan the stigma attached to the rest and be thankful is counterproductive and unhelpful and I'm surprised that he's fallen into that trap the letter is also factually inaccurate in terms of the military road The response from the middle girl Chamber of Commerce is much more interesting and positive and it comes up with some positive things to say about possibilities as a person who coined the phrase the Donald Clark option I think Donald Clark's contribution to this has been very important but it's not the only solution and there are other solutions for that permanent progress that he's looked for but the most interesting contribution is that it comes from Graham Edmond in Transport Scotland The last meeting the last meeting of the task force on the 14th of January and there was a commitment from Derek Mackay the transport minister that there should be continuity of access and that's a very important phrase I think it was raised here when the petition was heard what that actually means is that you can get in and out of our guile on this road without being impeded by the difficulties that have taken place The minister asked Transport Scotland to bring forward proposals on that matter they were to come to an earlier meeting of committee than the group than the standard one in June I'm sorry to see that June is now the date set but nonetheless this letter does confirm very clearly that the consultants Jacobs who did the original work are to revisit the options available with the objective of delivering continuity of access but as the group has not yet met the task force has not yet met to consider those and we don't know what those are and how they would fit in with the petition and the petitioners themselves would want to see that this remained open and perhaps that they had a chance to come back to this committee and indeed once we know what those are perhaps the committee would want to talk to the minister about them because it is extremely important that that continuity of access comes into place Nobody is criticising the work that's been done I think that the work on the military road has been a tremendous step forward there's a great deal of work continuing on the netting and the mitigation activities but the real prize in this is continuity of access and until we know what that will be and how it will be guaranteed then I do think the matter remains open Any other questions? What action then does the committee Kenny? David, Michael Russell, I think could be premature without knowing from the task force so I think it's incumbent and perhaps perhaps right to them has to be kept informed I think suggestions seem to be in June and then perhaps we need to have some clarity there so I think it could be premature at this juncture to see what is happening and perhaps follow it from there so I think rather than taking a long term course it's probably a short to medium term course to work out what the task force are proposing and then review where we can go there after Committee agreed in that approach Jackson? I am agreed with that this sort of subject matter is not unfamiliar to the petitions committee though it has I think in one form or another Parliament indeed the problem has been here much longer than that of course I would like to suggest we do exactly what has been proposed but actually flag up now that we might want to take an evidence session with those involved to try and see whether or not as a committee we can't bring some additional public push behind what is being discussed when we get to the point where a permanent access is being proposed because that is moving it along to a point where after that something has to be done rather than talked about so I'd just like to flag up but I think we might want to take evidence on that later in the year It might be useful when we write to the Scottish Government to ask exactly when exactly in June the task force is going to meet because if it is early June then it would be useful if the committee could deal with that before the summer recess to allow us to then consider how we take forward and look for it as indicated in an early evidence session in September because clearly no matter what time of year it is access routes to this part of Scotland are always in jeopardy during the summer it's important because of the tourism during the winter it's because of the commerce and the economic factor so it would be useful to get some assurances that we could get early sight of the recommendations being presented to the task force so that we can then seek an early session with the minister and transport Scotland officials to discuss how access solution is going to be put in place at the earliest date possible Is there a possibility of us actually visiting the location because I'm interested why it's taking so long infrastructure is very important for our economy and I'm quite open to the idea of actually doing a formal visit Can I visit to Enverure? Why not? We need to resolve this Mr Russell Mr Malick and the other members will be very welcome to the rest and be thankful, interestingly it straddles two constituencies the part where the rocks seem to fall most often is in Jackie Baillie's constituency the people who are inconvenienced all live in my constituency but if you're willing to visit and I think you would get the impression it's important to say that this is on a stretch of road so it's not just one place it's important to see the road from our garden at the bottom of the hill right over as far as the head of lock find where there have been incidents in the past but the major problem lies at the very top I was might have appeared to be flippant in suggesting that we have a committee meeting in Enverure we put it in the minds of the committee members that we have the evidence session from the minister and Transport Scotland at a committee meeting in Enverure Can you also be able to visit the Tinker's heart by constituents are petitioning many times on these issues obviously No, convener I think a visit might be helpful because I believe that our infrastructure is very important and it's vital if it's taking this length of time perhaps a visit might just help it along in the right direction You're very welcome I think probably in winding up this one it could be then suggest that we agree that we'll wait to see what the task force review is going to say we will then if it's at all possible between now and the end of June do a site visit to the the petition I mean, I'm just thinking of the time and the arrangements that may have to be made but we will endeavour to to make that possible Okay then Thank you very much, Mr Russell, for attending I think this would be helpful The next petition is PE1553 by Couser Andrew Wood on the Rendering Industry Regulations Sorry about this one I'll go back one Sorry, the next petition is PE1544 by Olivia Robertson on increasing the maximum sentence for convictions under the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2006 Members have a note by the clerk and submissions Can I invite any members any contribution from members The issue was raised I know there's some suggestion that perhaps we can see when it's going to be reviewed I think the difficulty with reviewing finds is that it depends on a whole variety of factors it depends on the rate of inflation it depends on the cost of living it depends on the issue so it just seems to me that the issue is being canvassed and aired we have taken it forward there's no desire by government or indeed great pressure by other agencies to push to increase it at the present moment will fines have to increase at some stage yes, when will that be I don't know and I don't necessarily think we can second-guess that Any other comments? I'm inclined to agree with that I think that the Scottish Government have made its position clear at the present time they do say that penalties for offences might be periodically reviewed but I don't know that there would be any material benefit in terms of real clarity coming from us asking when that might subsequently be I think that the position of the Government is clear and at this stage given that some of the maximum fines I think probably I would support closing the petition Members agreed to close the petition Thank you The next petition is PE1553 by Councillor Andrew S. Wood on the rendering industry regulations Members have a note by the clerk and submissions can I invite contribution from members Angus? I think the petition seems to have done its job it's helped to concentrate minds and I'm glad that this committee has played its part in that it looks to me like a dundas chemical company are on board with regard to the discussions between SIPA and DEFRA so this is actually a reasonably quick result from the petition given it's not so long ago since we were in Dumfries and Galloway and it's good to see this moving forward at a pace so I'd be content to close the petition but clearly monitor it monitor progress in the background Agreed and I've just concurred I think probably this is a good result on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee actually highlighting the problem and being able to get it resolved this quickly so we agree to close the petition Thank you The next petition is PE1557 by David Slater on behalf of Carpaths and Riverviews on No Scotty Government funding for White Sands flood scheme Members have no submissions Can I invite contribution from members? Things are not proceeding as perhaps it initially caused concern although I think we recognise that there's an issue there it does seem to me that on this basis we should be closing the petition although I think all parties could perhaps be encouraged and certainly the council to engage with the local community to ensure that as matters progress as funds perhaps come available we can perhaps get a consensus down there Members agree with that Approaching? I'm just going to suggest that in closing the petition we write to the council because I was rather surprised at the tone of the response from the council in relation to the petitioners that were generated in the local community just to remind the council that they should, as Mr McCaskill was indicated, endeavour to work closely with the petitioner and those who signed the original petition in the phrase to look at suitable arrangements for consultation and a way forward for the community Members agree with Action? Put forward then Thank you very much The final continued petition is PE158 by John Tom on behalf of the RNBCC Crefish Committee Kennedy Cajmen on American Signal Crefish Members have a note by the clerk and it's submissions Can I invite contribution from members? I guess No, no, on you go Okay, convener It comes up quite a bit when we're discussing other matters in the Rural Affairs Committee and it's clearly causing a significant concern, as we heard at the Public Petitions Committee meeting down in Dumfriesen I think it might be a good idea to get Scottish Natural Heritage in and also SEPA to give oral evidence to the committee to see exactly where they stand on it given their current stance and the issue of the American Signal Crefish is causing more and more difficulties in the fact that they're expanding the area where they are so I think the sooner we hear from SNH and SEPA the better Any more contributions? No, I think so Okay, agree with that Thank you That then concludes our meeting Thank you