 Fy gwybodol, ac rwy'n cyfrwsôl, gan gyfrwswyr Eurthau i ddefnyddio'r 15 yma gan wentlynyddiant mewn cynllunau. Rwy'n cyfrwswyr, gan gynllun i'r Gymraen, felly gyfrydd mwy cells i'r cyfrydd, ac y ffaith i'r cyfrwswyr yn y cuir cyfrwswyr, fel y cyfrwswyr yma yn ysgrif safnig. Ymlaen i gyfrwswyr yma yw Jacksyn Carlaw, ac rwy'n gyfaint o'r ffaith i'r Gwaith leaders Cymaintloedd Feinlydd, ac yma'r Llanffer Cymunedwyr i'r Gwyrraedd David Stewart ac Andrew Targer. I welcome you to my utility interests, and other than that I have no interests to declare. Thank you very much! The second item, my agenda, is to choose a convener. The parlament has agreed that only members of a Scottish Labour Party are eligible for nomination as convener of the committee. This being the case, can I see the nomination for the position of convener? Yn ymgyrch... Rwyf yn cymorth yn fawr, John. Rwyf yw ddowsbydwyd ganwch. Rwyf yn cymorth, David. Rwyf yn cymwyno'n ysbyt y gallwn fally sydd yn lleiwyr yn gyflwyno. Mae'n amlwg i'n mynd i FelÈfyn. Rwyf yw'n ei bod yn ymlaen i'r unig o gynnwys. Rwyf yn cymwyno'n etymau eu cas iddyn nhw, oscar, mae'r yrwyf yn gael ei hwnnw. C above is part of the committee's consideration of a petition PE 1531 by Ashley Husband-Pouton on removing charitable status from private schools. Members have a note by the clerk, Paper 2 Reffers and the submissions and two reports from Oscar. Can I welcome Martin Tyson, Head unrhy screening of it and a head of engagement from oscar to the meeting. Can I invite Mr Thattsin to make a brief statement after which we will move to questions? Thank you for the invitation to attend to elaborate on the evidence we submitted in writing on the 22 of December. As you said, I'm Martin Thattsin and I worked on the registration team oscar for 80 years for the last five as head of registration. I oversee issues of charitable status for oscar and as part of that role I've had the operational responsibility for the review of the charitable status of fee charging schools. My colleague Jude Turbine joined oscar in 2013 as head of engagement and she has responsibility for strategic policy and engagement and stakeholder relations. I understand that members have had the opportunity to see the summary report that we published in December. The idea of that was to give an overview of the work that we've done since 2006 to ensure that the fee charging schools on the Scottish Charity Register comply with Charity Law. In our letter to you we also responded to the committees or tried to respond to the committee's specific concerns that arose from its meeting in October last year. The reviews of the schools have been a really high profile piece of work for oscar. We've tried to be as transparent and as proactive as possible in explaining how we've made our decisions and we're very happy to try and help the committee in its consideration of the petition. Thank you. Thank you Mr Tyson. I'll kick off the questions. In your December report oscar recognised that independent schools have a high risk of failing the new Scottish charity test. Nine of the 50 schools initially failed the test on the basis that the fees they charged unduly restricted access to the educational benefit they provided. Can you tell me Mr Tyson whether the fact that there is a high risk of failing the charity test suggests that independent schools are operating on the margins of what it means to be a charity? I think that looking back at the reasons why we decided to look at the independent schools in the first place, I think the 2005 act brought in the explicitly the requirement that access to the benefit a charity provides should not be unduly restricted for the first time and that during the debate on that part of the bill that was discussed specifically with reference to the independent schools. I think it was fairly clear that there was a need to look at the schools that this is what Parliament had wished us to do. The experience along the way and I suppose I would maybe just mention there that it's been eight years that the charity test has been in operation so it's not that new but over the piece I suppose what we've found through experience is that while the majority of schools passed there has been a reasonable failure rate and therefore I think it's not necessarily operating on the margins but that this is a group where the unduly restriction requirement is particularly relevant. I think in the past we've said these are a higher risk group and I think that's probably the position that we stick with. I was under an impression that businesses can't be charities. A school is in essence a business, a private school which charges fee. How do they actually qualify it to be a charity if that's the main business that they carry out? How does that then become a charity? There's a couple of bits to that. One is that an organisation can't be a charity if it distributes profits to its members and none of the schools do that so that's one of the basics of charity law and that's the same for all the 23 and a half thousand charities on the register. The other bit of that is I suppose what a charity is about which is a body that's set up for a charitable purpose and that provides benefit in furtherance of that purpose. The schools are established for educational purposes that's very clearly a charitable purpose and it's pretty clearly recognised that running a school is a way of providing benefit in furtherance of the advance of education. Obviously there's all sorts of difficult issues beyond that but that's the essence of it. Now coming down to the issue of charging and whether that makes them a business there are many many charities that charge for various things they do. There are things like theatres, concert halls that are charities, sports charities that charge for entrance, medical charities that charge for the benefit that they provide. So charging is one way of charities supporting and sustaining what they do. It's one business model that there are others that run on grants or run on a mixture of grants and donations and charging for things that they do but simply charging for what you do doesn't make no business and doesn't stop you being a charity. David. Good morning and thank you convener. Oscar has a wide discretion under legislation to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a charity meets a charity test. Do you think the degree of discretion afforded to Oscar introduces a level of flexibility and unpredictability to a charity test? The level of discretion there is relatively wide in terms of what a lot of the requirements of the charity test. There are some absolute things that I've mentioned the profit distribution where there's no discretion. I think the way that the bit that we're concentrating on if you like this morning which is the requirement that there should be no undue restriction is actually healthfully quite precise because it signals to us that simply charging as we've discussed isn't a problem in itself or you know having some restrictions on what a charity can do isn't a problem in itself. It's if the restriction is undue so there are some fairly clear signals there and within that we have a you know discretion as to how we interpret those provisions. We look at the case law both here and in other jurisdictions such as England and Wales and obviously we look at the evidence in individual cases and we're required and I think that this is maybe one of the ways in which the parliament tried to make our exercise of our discretion predictable. We are required to publish guidance on how we will implement the charity test and we're required to consult on it so we publish guidance and you know we'll shortly be consulting on new guidance and that sets out how we'll exercise our discretion if you like and I think you know tries to make it predictable and on the other hand one of the principles of public decision making, the decision making in a public body is that it shouldn't fety a discretion unduly so that there's a sort of balancing act there between giving people something that's predictable and principled and locking your decision making in in a way that will subsequently be challenged. Thank you. Mr Tyson again it's probably on, it's a powers up, a show of discretion and you know if a charity feels to meet the test they know that you can use that discretion and the charity must say and if it still wishes to be a charity provide a plan for how it will meet the test if then has the year to implement that plan. There's a process then of ish and discretion not facilitate the ability of independent schools to successfully operate at the extreme margin of what can be considered as a charitable institution in effect giving them an out of jail free card when they fall on the wrong side of the margin or is their commitment to a charitable action a case of do the minimum required unless and that if they can get away with it. The powers that we have when we find that a charity fails the charity test we actually don't have much discretion there we have to do something now we have a choice there as to whether to issue a direction or to take the charity off the register straight away in most cases because our business is to try and get charities that comply with charity law and to behave proportionately in most cases for all charities not just the schools we would tend to issue a direction and try and get the charity back on track if you like. You mentioned the getting three years to change that's something that we reviewed halfway along halfway through the process and I think what one of the the feelings that we had I think probably back there 2011 2012 one of the feelings we had was that that was indeed too long and in the latest round of directions we made those what we tried to do was to make those more be like more workable in a number of technical ways and also to shorten the timescales on the basis that the charity test was you know familiar now to the schools that in some ways having the longer timescale wasn't necessarily helpful and that the priority had to be to get compliant charities in the shortest timescale so I inherently the you know the question you're asking is about charities operating on the margin inherently that the process of issuing directions it's the charities that have got problems meeting the requirements so yes inherently it's the charities that have not passed I suppose that the question is when we're deciding whether they've complied with our directions have they you behaved appropriately and are they meeting the requirements fully and you know that you know I would contend that you know that that's that's is what we've ensured when we've gone back and looked at the charities that have had directions okay then uh Angus we know from the information that we received that out of 50 independent schools surveyed nine failed to meet the tests initially due to restricted access and following direction from yourselves um all nine implemented plans which then enabled them to meet the test now during the committee session in which we took evidence from the petitioner fetus was raised as an example whereby they'd increased the proportion of its school role on fees assistance from 9.6% to 10.6% and I note that the median proportion for all the 50 schools is 10.2% could you expand on on how the nine schools changed their activities to allow them to comply with the charity test um the basically what you have there is nine schools where we found nine particular situations and we said to them we find that you don't pass the charity test you need to take steps to address the issues that we've raised and to ensure that you do pass the charity test now there will be different issues in each of those nine cases you mentioned fetus and you mentioned the the various sort of percentages there now that was one issue that the the percentage of their income that they were spending on means tested bursaries was not as high as we would wish it to be it wasn't necessarily the key one actually the the key problem we had there was that there was a huge ambiguity or an ambiguity that really worried us in their bursary scheme whereby it seemed to us that it didn't actually wasn't actually focused on people who couldn't afford the the the the fees that it was very mixed up with their academic and sporting scholarship program and therefore the the effort if you like that or the the resource that they were putting into bursaries wasn't actually having the effect that we would want it to have in trying to ensure that people who couldn't afford the fees would be able to go to the school so that was with you know rather you know yes the the the the the the if like crude sort of bursary spend was an issue but the the the way they were spending it and the the the transparency was a you know as much or possibly more of an issue that we wanted to see resolved thinking about some of the other skills you would have a different issue the issue that we had for instance with Loretto was that they had a very low cap on the level of bursaries that they would pay it was that you know they would pay up to a maximum of 30% of the of the fee or some you know I think with some exceptions 50% and that meant you know the people who are sort of you know on on lower incomes it didn't really have much effect that they weren't providing for for people on a range of incomes which is one of the principles that we've set out for our decision making so the I suppose the response I make there was you what we're asking the the charities to do there was to take action to resolve nine individual situations and and you know where there's you know variation in in some aspects of of of what's done you need to look at the whole of the decision that we're made we were satisfied that they'd addressed the issues that we'd raised yes okay thank you I'm aware that quite often for example in the east of Scotland somebody keeping private schools will go to outstanding rugby players in the state schools in their 56 years and offer their parents you know a scholarship I can understand why that benefits the school it improves their chances of being successful on the pitch and I can understand why a parent might see opportunities for their youngster how do you balance that with them saying their contribution but it's actually something tangible for them as opposed to perhaps going to the same community where the youngster came from who isn't actually of a significant sporting talent but may have a huge opportunity through his academic or other matters where do you put the criteria between what suits the school and what suits the recipient yeah the the sort of balance between those sort of both on the sporting side and the academic side that the you know the the scholarship side and and you know I think you're right in identifying that the sort of benefits the school like the marketing benefits if you will the balance between that and the means tested bursaries that we feel have an effect in alleviating undie restriction I think that's something that's really sort of changed both in the schools that we failed in and that had directions and in the the other schools that we've reviewed along the way I think what has happened in the number of schools is a move of resource out of academic and sporting scholarships into the means tested bursaries that that's how they've they've financed the uplift in means tested bursaries where where they've done that other people have done it other ways but that's that's what a lot of the schools have done our view is that means tested bursaries or discounts or however you want to operate it are the things that are likely to have most effect in letting the people on on that sort of range of incomes including people on low incomes get access to the the primary benefit the school provides thank us okay thanks again convener um the the scis the Scottish council for independent schools a state in their submission to the committee that independent schools provided 45.5 million pounds in assistance and perhaps convener it's also worth noting for the record that in the submission the scis also highlight that what they believe is a positive economic impact to the Scottish economy of 445.8 million pounds gva per year and around 11,200 jobs in operational benefits alone and they also go on to state that uh member schools generate ejector benefits to state worth 263 million pounds annually now i'm going back to oscar's report states that schools spent a varying amount of their available gross income on means tested bursaries ranging from 4.6 to 42.1 it was the median proportion of available income spent being 6.1 and oscar also give examples of provision of facilities and services to the wider community does the financial subsidy provided to independent schools through tax reliefs match the financial assistance provided by these schools through bursaries and community access and is that relevant to the consideration of the charity test um that's i couldn't say because that's not something that we've uh considered and we don't think it's relevant okay thank you john morsy thank you convener uh the following from mr mcdonald's question the issue for many and particularly for the petitioner is the definition of profit because how does oscar currently define profit because basically you say the the charity's test is whether or not an organisation makes profit now in terms of profit in the terms of mr mcaskill raised the issue about it may be profitable for our independent school or private school to benefit from effectively taking the best of the sports persons whether they be boys or girls and bringing them in in five and six years so they actually then can that independent school can then say we've got a wonderful sporting track record because basically they went into the state sector and hived off the best of the sports people in today's school so the the sport academic achievement as well as the sporting achievements could actually be seen to be beneficial but the issue in terms of the longer term benefit is the figure that i read this morning was 17% of parliamentarians in this building went to independent schools the petitioner has raised the issue about 40% of those students who go to st andrew's university are from private public independent schools so how do does oscar measure the profit that is gained and is it only in purely monetary terms that the decision is made in relation to the benefit to the charitable status recognition okay um i think that there's probably two definitions or two kinds of profit that we're talking about there and one's fairly sort of simple to deal with and that's if you like you know financial surplus if we put it in that way um a charity is not you know none of these schools none of the the bodies in the register are companies that pass a dividend onto their shareholders you can't you can't be a charity if you do that just get clarification at mr tyson because i'm arguing uh that the dividend might not be a financial dividend the dividend may be actually personal gain because of the recognition that the independent schools have and the promotion within the independent schools for the pupils leaving those schools to gain access to higher education and better paid jobs long term dividend that could be accrued to individuals and families because of the investment that's taken in the private sector in the early stages to allow their sons of daughters to be gain educational advantage in either of the further or higher education sector i think that in a way is what you're talking about when you talk about the the benefit that education provides we have many kinds of educational charity on the register including colleges and universities now in one sense every one of those will provide benefit to individuals because they're educated they're able to further their careers you know they're able to get sort of your jobs or or wages that they wouldn't if they hadn't uh you know taken advantage of the the educational benefits that those institutions provide i think what you're talking about more as i take it is is the societal prestige of the of independent schools and whether or or not that is legitimate and i think we that is a very difficult thing for us to to take into account in the various submissions we the the issue including the petitioner's submission and our response to it the issue of disbenefit is raised and that is where the the activities of charity result in disbenefit to the public our take on that you know that that was set out in our guidance and and that's on on consideration of the the case law and and long thought is that the disbenefit to be taken into account needs to come from evidence as to what the school itself does i think that the the the kind of issue that you're talking about is very difficult difficult to evidence in terms of the the nuts and bolts the the specific activities that are the evidence of what an individual institution will do that is more of a general societal issue and i think it's a it's a very difficult one to take into account in the kind of judgment that we're called on to make i should have declared that it's that community and my apologies that i'm a chair of a charitable organisation that works in a local community but the issue here in terms of the qualification for charitable status for independent schools rest i would argue on the benefits though the wider societal benefits that you've referred to Mr Tyson in terms of does the current guidance that's issued and operated by Oscar take account of the the wider benefits to society or because at the present moment if we we tag it on to the benefits of those students receiving bursaries then at the present moment there's only roughly 10 percent of the students attending independent skills are actually benefit from receiving bursaries 90 percent of students don't receive bursaries the fees are paid and does that justify charitable status the if you like that the the the decision that we're making and the evidence that we're taking account is narrow on both sides isn't much narrow than that on on both sides we are looking at what the individual school does so it's there for the advance of education it provides an education to people to you know pupils in its on its role whether those are fee paying or not that you know that is advancing education and we don't take into account the wider societal benefits you know people talk about the tax savings the exchequer that's not relevant to us we're not interested in that people talk about the the you know wider benefits like you know extending parental choice that's not something we take into account either our focus is on the activities of the school in furtherance of its purposes sorry convener just need to follow up on that because i know oscars position in terms of the whether or not they measure the financial benefit to an organisation because you register as a charity and whether or not they avoid paying tax or paying other state revenues in terms of the their operation because we've seen that in recent years where a number of organisations have been established but the reality is is why does oscar not measure the disbenefit to the wider society by granting charitable status to organisations because there is a disbenefit to wider society if an organisation receives charitable status which means it then can avoid paying tax they can avoid paying rates so how does that not come into the calculation in terms of charitable status that is issued by oscar to ensure that there is not a movement by the independent schools or other organisations to simply register for charitable status to avoid paying their contribution to the wider society in terms of tax and rates to the and is basically seen as a tax avoidance scheme rather than a benefit scheme to the wider society in general the the charity test sets out a very explicit test for us and it is about does an organisation have charitable purposes does it provide public benefit and within that there's the consideration of a deostriction, disbenefit and private benefit now we don't take into account I think you mentioned there that we sort of measure the benefit in terms of tax relief we don't that's not something that we take into account and we don't take into account things like savings to the exchequer where those aren't in furtherance of charitable purpose so for the schools you know that I think you know that the likes of SKIS or the independent schools council have made various claims that independent schools have saved the exchequer millions of pounds we don't think that's relevant because saving the government money is not a charitable purpose in terms of the the the the disbenefit tax reliefs and you know the the and rates reliefs are a consequence of charitable status and and there's something very sort of um hard to reconcile about saying well we could make you a charity if it weren't for the fact that making a charity would give you tax reliefs if you passed the rest of the test because you know again that that would apply to all charities it's you know that there's there's something very problematic about that I think Judith would you like to to add anything to that? Well maybe just to make a bit of reflection I mean I think it's it's it's an extremely and you know we're talking here about schools but you could have this discussion about other sectors that gain charitable status and we our test sets us out to deal with each charity on an individual basis and look at that you know look at that kind of that's the way our equation works that's what we do and that wider sectorial thing we do we do not work with sectors all at once and make a judgment in sectors all at once and I think that is a wider policy issue that if if people want to have that discussion that's very valid but it's not something that we as a regulator can really work about solving I think. Just on that point as a regulator do you not have the right to make recommendation to government on whether or not the test is currently suitable that it's applied because if you're claiming that it's a test that has currently set out that you're working to then surely there would be an argument there for the regulator to make representation to the Scottish government to say the test is no longer fit for purpose and we need to review the test. So has there been any discussion from the regulator in relation to reviewing the test in place particularly in light of almost 20% and if you take out the two schools that came out they equate the calculation of the 51 schools that were originally being looked at in 2012 that oh as I said almost 20% of those schools failed the test as it currently applies surely there is a situation there to actually go for a wider review of the charitable status and Mr Byn you're right it may be that we have to review the criteria at the present moment because of the wider aspect of other sectors that are using charitable status to gain what would be seen as potentially financial benefit because they're not paying tax or other revenues that would normally be paid to local authorities and next checker. Okay I'll maybe just come back on that one if I may. I think we have made various recommendations to ministers about mostly some technical aspects of the 2005 act as you say that is one of our functions. I think the view that we take is that the charity test is fit for purpose it's operable as you say a number of the independent schools failed the charity test first time round the act gave us the power to do something about that we did something about it they complied with the directions that we made so I think our view is that the test is operable it works you know it's you know I suppose it as a regulator we work with the the laws that we're given now if there is a sort of wider social and political view that your particular types of of institution shouldn't be charged is that if you like you know they should be there should be specific provision in the test about those that is a is a is a is a matter which is is is for parliament or or for ministers I suppose our view would be that you know we can work with the test that we've got and I suppose just on if I could come back on the wider issue there you talk about all types of organisation not just schools or they're just becoming charities for the benefits um well yes um but I you know I think it's maybe worth thinking through what that means um bodies why why do bodies become charities some will become charities because it's the difference between being able to operate and not being able to operate because certain funders will give up give funding to bodies that a charity is not the charities that won't because being a charity gives funders the reassurance about governance and about accountability that they want it can be about reassuring the public that they're not for profit and that they have what you know what people talk about as the the charity brand so yes you know when we deal with getting on for a thousand applications for for new charities yeah and that will be because those bodies regarded as being an advantage rather than the disadvantage to them I don't know if you're I think um it's it's it's interesting because we're having discussion here about schools but you would have a different opinion across the sector about whether or not people do you know across the the country I mean about about you know whether or not that is a worthy thing but that would be true of another of other different sectors and I think what's interesting is what we are trying to do as a regulator is create an environment that allows charities to kind of flourish and grow and to kind of contribute to Scottish life that is what we're here for I think if there are wider issues on a global policy scale then I think it's difficult for us as a regulator really to be the people to kind of to be dealing with those um we do feel that there's a great contribution to Scottish life through the overall charity sector and we have to be careful about if we if we pick on one sector today are we going to pick on another sector tomorrow another sector next day we have to be slightly careful that we're doing this in a very I'm not seeing you're not but what I mean I think is there's a general question about how do we look at this overall and how do we make sure we have the right test because as we say at the moment we feel it's workable there are technical things that we would be putting we've put forward suggestions to ministers that we'd like to change we're favourable in reviewing you know the act of if because we're coming up for 10 years we'd be very we'd be very pro that but I think that has to be something that takes into you know all different sectors into account when we do do that business given that we are talking about education in terms of this petition what would be the view of oscar uh local authorities were to register all their educational provision as charitable provision based on the educational benefit of the communities they serve um as as as the the person in charge of sort of registration I would be sort of uh looking forward to a slightly busy time I suppose um I we would look at those applications in line with the charity test I think is is is the best that that I can say um you know it that that that's I don't know what those entities would look like um if if a local authority was to choose that you know was to choose to do that what would be the the the kind of organisation that would come forward to us you know there's a huge sort of hypothetical there but yeah I think that the thing I can say is well you know we would look at it on the basis of the the the laws it stands thank you mr mcascow sorry angus do you want a supplementary yeah well just to pick up on on mr rosin's last point uh you know it had crossed my mind that the solution uh would be to uh the solution is not to abolish charitable status for private independent schools but to provide charitable status to all schools including local authority schools but that of course would require uh changing in the change of the current legislation thanks for that okay so with those uh independent schools that do provide specialist education quite often is either taken by central government but are often by local authorities what different criteria is it that you apply to them because they do certainly appear on the face of it to have a niche that is not provided quite often elsewhere I mean it's interesting questioning because some of those schools actually the fees can be very very substantial because the cost of what they provide is is very substantially talking about you know the things like the the secure units where it's it's a one-to-one education uh the you know providing for various kinds of of other special needs and disabilities um where we you know we we did look at I think we looked at Donaldson's and this has been quite some time ago uh and the view that we came to was uh well yes this this charges uh very high fees on the other hand uh the access to what they provide is not unduly restricted because I think almost all of them you know that there's maybe one or two uh students that were self funding when we looked at them but otherwise their fees were being paid by either English northern English or Scottish local authorities on the basis of of an assessment of needs a very very stringent assessment of needs so if you like um if you need what they do uh you can get access to it not because necessarily what the school does but because what the because of largely what the state does so there's no unduly restriction there and that that that was the the approach that we took there thank you uh well there's no further questions going to thank mr Tyson and mr bain for the evidence that they've provided and could I suggest to the committee that perhaps we may wish to seek the petition reviews uh on the evidence heard and consider the petition again in the later part? Mr Wilson? I also suggest based on the evidence we've heard today we write to once again to the Scottish Government to seek their views on whether or not in light of mr Tyson's comment about I think it might be mr bain's comment about the coming up to 10 years of the introduction of this piece of legislation whether or not the Scottish Government have any intention of reviewing the current legislation uh and just to seek clarification on that because I think it may be an appropriate time given that we are coming up to 10 years uh of the legislation that we could review the legislation or ask them if they are going to or in any intention to review the legislation okay I'd just ask whether the basis upon which your assessment doubtless will have legal advice is that done in terms of interpretation on the statute or is there a basis for guidance and direction being given by the Scottish Government? Do you mean do we have advice from Scottish Government? Yes in terms of the interpretation or is it down to a strict interpretation as you see it through your formal legal advisers? We're a non-ministerial department and we're independent and both the our guidance we generate that with independent legal advice on the statute and on the case law and in individual cases that's our decision too. Coming back to John Wilson's comment in regards to writing to the Scottish Government I think it's a good idea fact that's coming up to the 10th anniversary because I do feel that more and more organisations are jumping the bandwagon becoming very fashionable to become registered charities to try and somehow avoid paying various taxes and so on and I think we really need to look at this again as a parliament and I think it would be a good idea to suggest to Parliament to do just that. I agree that we should write again to the Scottish Government but in addition convener given that we are continuing the petition could I ask that we get some more information from SPRICE to the search how much local authorities receive in rates from their own schools at the moment and just again for the record I note in the submission from the SCIS that independent schools constitute just 0.3% of registered charities awarded rates relief in Scotland which kind of puts it into perspective perhaps. Yep I think that's possible yeah we'll get that further information and I think the committee will also agree that we write to the Scottish Government with regards to the 10 year review and then we'll also ask that we may want to seek the petition of use on the evidence heard and consider again the petition and later that agreed. So thank you again Mr. Tyson and Mr. Deweyme for your evidence. Suspend for a few moments while we change over. The next item of business is consideration of two new petitions and the committee will hear the petitioner in each case. The first petition is PE1539 by Chris Cromer on Flour of Scotland to be officially recognised as Scotland's national anthem. Members have a note by the clerk in the SPICE briefing and petition. I welcome petitioner Chris Cromer to the meeting and we'll invite Mr Cromer to speak for around five minutes to set the context for what he is looking for after that we will move to questions. Thank you very much. First of all I would like to thank the committee for giving me this opportunity to present this petition here today. Ask the majority of Scots what Scotland's national anthem is and they will likely say, Flour of Scotland. Despite the song being sung before the matches of our national football and rugby union teams and when Scotland wins gold at the Commonwealth Games, it has no official recognition as Scotland's national anthem and that is why I am here today in front of the committee. The song written by the late Roy Williamson in the 1960s was first used by the Scottish rugby union team in 1990, the Scottish football team in 1993 and by the Commonwealth Games team in 2010. The song was also sung as part of the opening ceremony at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. I believe that the issue of an official national anthem for Scotland has been ongoing for too long now as in March 2006 former First Minister Jack McConnell said that the issue over Scotland's national anthem may have to be resolved to strengthen Scotland's global brand. Of course the Scottish Parliament could support calls for a different national anthem other than Flour of Scotland such as Scotsway Hay or a Manza Man but these songs would not work at national events and a lyric sheet would have to be passed round to people. Flour of Scotland is known by the vast majority of Scots and is recognised by people across the world. In a BBC article in May 2011 titled Will Scotland Ever Have a National Anthem? One commenter put it perfectly when he wrote, I think Flour of Scotland is a perfect national anthem for Scotland. Every Scott knows it, nine out of ten love it and it does stir up emotions in everyone I know. I think that the song is a top class choice and should be named the official national anthem of Scotland. In 2006 a poll conducted by the Royal Scottish National Orchestra showed that the majority of respondents supported Flour of Scotland becoming Scotland's national anthem after beating four other songs to finish in top spot. It has been said that the song is anti-English and stuck in the past however the lyrics of those days are passed now and in the past they must remain sure that the song is anything but. This is an important time in Scotland's history and I believe that this is the perfect time for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on an official national anthem for Scotland. Flour of Scotland is a song that helps to unite the nation and Scotland football fan Ian Pau summed this up before Scotland's first match after September's referendum when he said, there is nothing like hearing 50,000 people sing this song, the no voting the referendum has nothing to do with it and I read the lyrics as meaning we can rise up and be a better nation, be more successful and victorious. This comment shows that this song is about Scotland and brings people together regardless of their political beliefs or backgrounds. The Scottish Football Association also commented on the national anthem and a spokesman for the association said, the Scotland fans have shown a fondness for Flour of Scotland in football, rugby and other sports and it is the established national anthem. Surely all of this shows that Flour of Scotland should be officially recognised as the national anthem of Scotland. I am not asking for God save the Queen to be replaced as it is the national anthem of the UK. All I am asking is for Scotland to have its most popular unofficial anthem officially recognised, which is backed by Scots across the nation. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr Cromart. Questions? Okay, I'll kick off. I believe that obviously the Flour of Scotland is a good song about a historical event but you know it does make it a good national anthem and the question would be why the Flour of Scotland? I like to believe that you did in your introduction say that it is a theme of being anti-English and it's about things that happened nearly 700 years ago and I would like to think that some 700 years on that you know Scotland is up over looking welcoming country and you know things that happened in the past should be perhaps let in the past. Do you not think that this is perhaps a great opportunity for some of our young musicians composers to perhaps put pen to paper and come up with a new song that could be highlight the good that happens in Scotland? I think the way that it's the passion that's shown before football matches at Hamden and rugby matches at Murrithield shows that regardless of people's you know political opinions that there is support for the song it's a brilliant song that's recognised all over the world. I go to the University of Aberdeen and when I speak to students from different countries across the world they always say that the national anthem of Scotland is flower of Scotland it's well recognised and I think it's a song that all Scots really appreciate and we've seen young Scottish artists like Hayme Mcdonald sing it before Scotland football matches at Hamden and I don't think it's a song that's stuck in the past at all I think it's a song that celebrates Scotland's past but also looks to the future and I think that's really important in national anthems. Any other questions? Angus? Thanks, convener. Good morning Chris. I actually watched the debate on Scotland tonight last night which was quite interesting and they of course came up with a number of other options as well and discussed the merits of each one and you've mentioned a couple of them here today. What consultation have you undertaken with your peers or with a wider community to determine whether flower of Scotland is the preferred option? Yep, well I was a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament for two years for Aberdeen Donside from 2011 until 2013 and I spoke to a lot of young people on the issue and when I say to them what do you think Scotland's national anthem should be they say oh it's flower of Scotland and they're quite shocked when I say it's not and it's the same with when I speak to family and friends as well they're quite surprised that it's not actually our national anthem because it is obviously recognised by our football association and also by the RFU the rugby union as well so I think it's an anthem I think it would be in many ways it'd be quite controversial if we were to change a national anthem because I think people have a lot of passion and a lot of feeling towards flower of Scotland and I don't think a new song may be as successful as flower of Scotland would be because it really is people really regard as their national anthem. Okay, okay, Mr Pagasio. I agree that there's nothing wrong with a national anthem being reflective people don't seem to criticise land of my fathers or a Marseyes despite the fact that they deal with historical events not all national anthems need to be prospective some by very nature inclination they're bound to be reflective. I think you know that there's some fantastic national anthems across the world and the French national anthem and the Welsh national anthem are two of the most popular anthems across the globe and and I think you know the lyrics of flower of Scotland are important as they do mention a historical event but also look to the future and you know some people do say that it's an anti-English song but in many cases it's with the Scotland football team many of the players from Scotland born in Scotland don't sing it but it's the players who were born in England who have Scottish ancestry that sing it more and it's the same with rugby union as well. Some people may say rugby union players would be more unlikely to sing it than football players because maybe of the nature of the sport and you know rugby is maybe a game from the south of Scotland maybe people might see different political ideologies but in many ways the rugby players sing it more passionately than the football players which shows that it is a unanimous song for all of Scotland. Any further questions? No? Mr Cromer can I thank you for your evidence and could I perhaps ask the committee if they may wish to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it would consider undertaking a consultation on whether there should be an official national anthem for Scotland and if so which song the anthem should be and should this also be open to new musicians and composers to bring something new rather than old? I agree, I agree with the sentiments that Chris brings to this committee. I admire your passion and your aspiration it's very positive but I'm sure you're right I mean end of the day it's a very important issue for Scotland and we should give other people an opportunity as well so I'm impressed with your sentiments I think it's only appropriate and correct that we actually send it to the Scottish Government for a full and proper consultation before making a decision. Can I also suggest we write to the Scottish Rugby Union and the Scottish Football Association on the issue because clearly both associations have decided to use Flowery Scotland as the anthem for international matches but could also suggest we write to the Scottish National Orchestra because Mr Cromer made reference to the survey that was carried out in 2006 by the Royal Scottish National Orchestra and to find out whether or not they have done any subsequent work since 2006 on that issue because it would be interesting just to get how they carried out that piece of research and got the findings that they have presented to say that the majority supported Flowery Scotland being the national anthem so just to write to those organisations to seek their views on the issue as well. Does the committee agree then to the additional points raised and again Mr Cromer can I thank you for giving the evidence? Yes thank you thank you I'll suspend for a couple of minutes for a change over again the second petition today is sorry excuse me the second new petition today is a petition by Evan Mundell on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Caroline Smith on human rights for dairy farmers and the petition is PE1542 members have a note by the clerk in a spice briefing and the petition and I welcome the petitioner Evan Mundell and Ben Mundell to the meeting. I also welcome Jamie McGrigor MSP to the meeting who has a constituency interest in the petition and will now invite Mrs Mundell to speak to her petition probably around five minutes to set the context of what she's looking for and then we'll move to questions. Thank you good morning convener and members of the public petitions committee my husband and I much appreciate your invitation to speak to you today regarding our petition and answer any questions you may have as you will be aware we were very disappointed when in reply to our initial petition which was PE1263 government made a number of inaccurate statements we were also particularly disappointed that the others who had written to the ppc who had also been severely affected were not acknowledged by the ppc when the minister appeared before the committee this saga has both ruled and ruined our lives for over 15 years during which time ourselves and others have on a regular basis sought justice for those affected it has been a form of mental cruelty and financial abuse as we have said before all these dairy farmers wanted to do was use their own property milk quota to run their own business just the same as the other 99% of dairy farmers in the UK were allowed to do my husband and others were denied the freedom to run their own business as they saw fit dairy farming by its nature consists of long working hours seven days a week 365 days a year often the farmer works alone and even on a family farm can feel very isolated the fact that his home is also tied to the farm makes any decisions regarding the farm even more critical these were all family farms not large corporations they were not in a position and should not have been expected to forfeit their property in order to support the community the Scottish government appears to have expected them to do that they were struggling to support themselves and their families this was a situation where the weakest were being exploited and bullied into not fighting for their legitimate rights it is devastating for any farmer to be forced out of the farm or have the prospect of being forced out through no fault of their own they still feel ashamed guilty very often it is generations of toilet steak their family and social life totally disrupted it was particularly difficult post 1996 and throughout the years of the bse crisis when all cattle over 30 months had to be destroyed although some compensation was paid it fell well short of the cost of producing these animals that obviously exacerbated the problem for anyone having to give up or reduce production at that time that was why it was so critical that these dairy farmers had access to the uk market for their selling their quota or leasing it which at the time had a considerable value they needed the full value not to squander on holidays or fancy yachts but to pay overdrafts maintain their farms and put money towards diversification if i can just quote from a book on human rights law it is in principle hard to explain a situation in which an individual's rights can be restricted in order to promote the general wealth of the community since one of the central aims of human rights is to ensure that individuals and minorities are protected as a society pursues its collective interests and if i can just give you some of the facts consultations government consultations were not done correctly and in accordance with government criteria the ring fence was introduced when quotas were introduced in 1984 not 1994 there was no guaranteed market for farmers milk certainly post 1994 when the milk marketing boards were forced by government to disband the rights of the individual were never mentioned in any consultation neither by government nor anyone working on their behalf farmers were never advised of their rights nor of the fact that they had any rights there was nowhere for any day farmer to go to a certain rights nowhere to go for help or to properly challenge what was being forced upon them sometimes the only buyer stopped uplifting a farmer's milk obviously that had a catastrophic effect on his ability to earn a living what was the farmer supposed to do no income but still all outgoings when the milk price dropped below the cost of reduction what were they to do when they took ill had an accident what were they to do government did nothing to minimize the diva devastating impact being felt by some and there were several other less restrictive alternatives only in one year out of the last 30 did the southern isles produce its full quota so that meant there was a lot of dormant quota which was of no benefit to farmers the creamery or the community only three farmers in arns supplied the iron creamery not 30 or 35 as the minister stated at the meeting the single farm payment was available to all farmers in the ec not just to farmers within the ring fence and government itself was confiscating quota from these island areas alex salmon the previous first minister told the leveson inquiry all politicians like all citizens are entitled to correct factual errors well we think we're entitled to have government acknowledged that what we have said is factually correct it is also extremely difficult to understand and forecast contradictory government policy as we've said government were confiscating quota from the ring fence area yet producers were not allowed to visit out even when it would have come back at the end of that year government acknowledged that producers in island needed the full value of their quota to allow them to diversify yet producers in conserve example who had no market for the milk were deemed not to need the value of their quota hardly a day passes in the Scottish parliament that we don't hear the words fairness equality and justice but in this case we and others few we have not been treated fairly we have not had equality of opportunity for example as we said to diversify like the other 99% of dairy farmers in the UK and we certainly feel there has been no justice so far on the 11th of September again the previous first minister alex salmon said human rights are guaranteed in Scotland in this situation that has certainly not been the case with the result that severe sacrifices have had to be made some dairy farmers have been forced to give up their farms some have been forced into impoverished retirement some have had to be separated from their families to seek work and others have struggled to keep their farms and can I just make one final point despite what I've quoted from alex salmon this is not a party political issue there will be farmers affected from all political parties and none thank you my husband and I will be happy to answer any questions or do our best to answer any questions thank you thank you mrs mandel any questions angus thanks convener i've actually got a great deal of sympathy for the predicament faced by the petitioners and and other farmers and I recognize the heartfelt plea from mr mrs mandel today I was born and brought up on a dairy farm just outside Stornwy so I know at first hand the challenges that are being experienced by dairy farmers in rural Scotland and especially on the islands indeed I'll spare you a full history lesson but we pulled out of the the dairy side of it in the mid 70s through the milk to beef scheme simply because of the the challenges at that time and it certainly doesn't seem to have got any better and there may be an argument to look at another milk to beef scheme in the future but that doesn't help you guys at the moment we're actually hearing today on the news before I came into Parliament I noticed that the plight of farmers in Islay and Gia dairy farmers has been highlighted in the fact that the announcement by first milk that payments are going to be delayed have exacerbated the situation to a degree where people just aren't going to be able to survive so and ring fencing clearly has had a major impact on you and it's certainly unfortunate that you know your earlier pleas weren't picked up on financially I mean you know we hear that dairy farmers are already it's already costing them more to produce the milk than they're getting presumably it's been even worse when you've had the situation of ring fencing yes well that will have been the case more or less since 1996 after the milk marketing source were taken away and there was no the the farmers really had no power in the market at all and from 1996 onwards the price went down and that was when a lot of people were forced out and particularly in our area where there were sometimes eight and twelve a year going out but they had no option because they weren't allowed to and they weren't allowed to sell their quota outside the ring fence they weren't allowed to lease it out I mean in Britain itself in the year 2000 I think there were something like 6000 dairy farmers leased out of their quota at least they were able to get in some money these people in our area were not allowed to do that and we're not able to do that and as you say the situation has just got worse it's you've been left with the ones who were at the top were now coming nearer the bottom so for various reasons as you can understand people are at different times in their life different times of perhaps buildings you know they have so much money invested in land stock buildings and machinery and they may have put up new sheds at the time and of course they were first affected when the price went down you know some have survived but it's only about 25% of the ones who were when the when the ring fence started so you know a lot have been forced out of our area yeah absolutely thanks convener obviously I'll have more to say at the summing up stage okay then Jim may I make a short statement yeah convener thank you for allowing me to do this and I might tell you that I have spoken on this petition before on the 18th of May 2010 and the 8th of February 2011 and the 8th of March 2011 which is all on the record and I thank you for allowing me to make a short statement in support of my constituents mr mrs mundell having also spoken to the committee previously and I share the concerns of mr mrs mundell and other affected dairy farmers in kintar who have met that due to the ring fence they were placed in an unfair position when they were not allowed to sell their milk quota and that their human rights were not adequately considered when this ring fence was imposed nor was the impact on their business now the plight of these dairy the plight that these dairy farmers found themselves in contrasts with virtually all other dairy farmers in the UK who were able to sell their milk quota and Scottish ministers recognised the value of this quota for example when they removed the ring fence from dairy farmers on isla to allow them to diversify were islas no distance at all from kintar mr and mrs mundell and other dairy farmers in the locality live in an area only suited to livestock farming so their options for diversification were severely limited and impossible without accessing the value of their milk quota mr mrs mundell and other dairy farmers believe that in being denied the right to sell their own property they were treated unfairly and disproportionately and that it appears that the government believed that they should be prepared to sacrifice their property rights and bankrupt themselves to support the wider community now it's not wartime it's peacetime we're talking about here my constituents believe that ministers have failed to respond to the concerns that they have been raising for a number of years now and that ministers have simply not recognised that their individual human rights were not properly considered and i share the hope that committee members will agree to take forward their petition in the hope that they might receive answers to the very genuine and heartfelt questions and concerns that they have and have been raising for a very long time thank you very much okay thank you jimmy mr mundell before we move into the summing up is there any specific action that you would like the committee to take we think that we would like first of all government to acknowledge that those statements that we have made are correct are factually correct that some of those you know that they correct the inaccurate statements that were made to the petitions committee the the previous time we also i mean we are ordinary members of the public so we're not sure just exactly what all is open to the petitions committee but we wondered if perhaps they you know they could seek an opinion from a senior advocate is that a possibility or is that not a possibility perhaps the human rights commission you know could they give you any advice on what would be and also also that in i think it was in 2004 government brought out a consultation document on entitlement trading it was single farm payment entitlement trading now in that document it was very very clear in that consultation document it was very very clear that they were being very careful on the issue of human rights the free market and competition law and we wonder why that wasn't mirrored in the consultations on milk quota it is our belief that government did not initially consider human rights in respect of the ring fencing i think they possibly did it a later date but decided that it was too late for or they didn't want to do anything about about it a later date but that doesn't alter the fact that these people were all put at these the severe disadvantage because the quota at that time was worth a considerable amount of money and people had invested knowing that they had the value or thinking they knew they had the value of that quota the same as everybody else in the uk and then of course they were not allowed to access that value okay thank you for that angus have you got something to say well just uh was regard to the action that the committee should take i'm happy to suggest that uh we write to the cabinet secretary for rural affairs and the environment was referenced to the the review of ring fencing provisions that the previous committee was told would be undertaken in 2012 however in addition convener i think in addition to writing to the cabinet secretary i would suggest that you you may wish to consider writing direct to the convener of the rural affairs committee to make him aware of the well for one of a better word drastic situation perhaps the committee could consider looking at this issue in the wider context of the plight of the dairy industry at the moment which is a major issue as part of their work program but that's just a suggestion that it's up to the committee clearly to decide whether that would be part of the work program but uh if you if you would agree with that i think it would help the situation okay add that we also write to the human rights commission as well clearly mrs mundial feels that our human rights have been infringed and i think we need we do need an opinion now um whether we do it through the agriculture system or whether we do it through the committee i don't know but what i do know is that when people feel that you know their their rights have been trampled upon and i'm using the word guardively i think we need to ensure that people don't feel that and there's there's factual evidence to the fact that whether that's correct or not i think that's important but i also agree with members that you know we need to protect our agriculture industry and you know our dairy industry i think it's very valuable and jami makes a very good case and the fact that jami's been representing the interest of the industry for such a long time i think shows and demonstrates the importance so i i i i i i do believe that you know we we need to look at peoples human rights as well and regardless of whether it's too late or too early is not the point the point is the human rights need to be upheld and i think we need to we need to look into that issue i've been advised that we have already written to the human rights commission but that's not to say that we can't do that again and i've also been advised that that the committee will not be able to seek legal advice in relation to any individual cases but that is not the role here but what we can do is invite the minister back into answer questions and put the points you raised to him and so can we agree with what angus mcdonald said with regards to writing to the the rule of the rule sorry cabinet secretary for rule affairs with regards to the the review and also the the other the other issues that you raised there the convener of the rule affairs committee okay just to get it on their radar right okay with the issue of the human rights element as well please thank you is it possible to make a couple of other points one is that the value of the quota now is virtually nothing because so many people have gone out of milk production well forced out yes because of the low milk prices um but it was what the value was at that stage you know that those people lost out because they should have had the value at that stage and am i correct in understanding that if the human rights was a act was breached that that would also be the scotland act being breached since human rights is part of the scotland act perhaps mr mcaskill would know more about that api would you like to take up that challenge mr mcaskill something to do with the generalities rather than the specifics and i think there comes into difficulties i mean that's where private advice has to be taken i mean obviously every act in the Scottish parliament and ministers are bound by by the human rights act and therefore there can be challenges but i don't think i'm certainly not qualified or i don't think we as a committee are qualified which is why i agree with angus that it should be a you know it should be both to the the government and in particular and also to the the committee because of the the issue whether shrc wish to become involved by all means but i would i would think they might very well seek to divert it to to council's opinion so i may i also suggest that it wouldn't only be article one protocol one it would be possibly article eight i think mr mcaskill you know more than that i i think it would possibly be article eight as well i think government appeared to have accepted that article one protocol one was involved but i would suggest that article eight was also involved because of a devastating effect on those farmers and their families i'm sure the points that you've made machine mando will be taken in it's now in a record thank you john motion just for clarification normally the committee has two options one is or three options one is to write to various organisations seeking further information two is to refer a petition on to another committee of this parliament or three to close the petition i know that angus mcdonald suggested that we contact the convener the rural affairs could i suggest we in the first instance we write to the scottish government and we write to the commissioner for scottish human rights to seek clarification on the issues raised by the petitioners take that evidence before we then pass it on to the another committee of this parliament particularly rural affairs committee because we do then get and end up being i would argue getting into technical difficulties if we start asking conveners of committee's opinion on a petition that we're still considering because in theory we're supposed to pass petitions on rather than just know get two committees running at the same time considering an issue convener thanks um i certainly take on board mr wilson's points that the reason that i had suggested that we write to the convener of rural affairs now is because of the serious dire straits that the dairy industry is in at the moment and this is this issue is just part of it but if you know and it was the time issue you know i'm keen i'm keen to get this addressed at all levels so i'm happy to to wait until we get a further response from the government but the the the main reason i suggested it was given the the current state of affairs in the dairy industry needs to be addressed in the short term okay now but what we'll do we'll write to the minister in the first instance and i think you know perhaps i could probably uh you know have a a chat with the convener for rural affairs off record and take it from there so we agreed then we'll have agreed action that's now going to be taken master machine man dog and i thank you again for for providing us evidence and it's much appreciated thank you very much indeed convener and members of the public petitions committee thank you very much the next item of business is consideration of five current petitions the first petition is pe 1408 by andrea macarthur on the updating of pernicious anemia and vitamin b12 deficiency understanding and treatment members have been opened by the clerk and the submissions i invite members for any contributions um convener i'd like to keep this petition open until the scottish government um publicize their revised guidelines john mhawson thank you convener could i agree with david on so that we keep this petition open but can i take it forward slightly in terms of the guidance being issued i i know that we haven't asked for the petitioner to be consulted on the guidance before it's issued and in circumstances in the past as a committee we have asked the scottish government to include the petitioners in the process of consultation prior to the guidance being issued because what i wouldn't want to see happening is guidance being issued then the petitioner coming back saying the guidance isn't fit for purpose it's not taken on board some of the issues that have been raised so it would be useful to ask the scottish government if they could include consultation with the petitioner and should i should declare i've got a particular interest on this issue because a very close family member suffers from pernicious anemia and is subject to a regime that i know that a number of patients aren't allowed to participate in and it is about trying to make sure that we have the delivery of medical services that are suitable for the patients rather than what may be seen on paper as good practice but at the end of the day we're there to serve patients not to serve good practice so it would be useful if as i said earlier if the petitioner could be engaged in some way and the process had drawn up the guidelines can we agree then to the to the action in points raised then could also say that that that we write to the scottish government requesting that the committee be notified when a timetable for the development of the scottish guidelines is agreed okay thank you the next petition is pe 1446 by dr lysam worton on behalf of the scottish adult congenital heart patients on scottish standards for the care of adult congenital heart patients members have a note by the clerk and the submissions including a late submission from the petitioner table that today's meeting i invite contributions from members can we then agree colleagues that we write to the committee we wish to consider postponing future consideration of this petition for 12 months at which point the committee will consider a further update from the scottish government as to the progress toward developing scottish guidelines for the care of adults with chd okay conveyor can i agree with that but could i also draw to the scottish government's attention the comments made by the petitioner because there is a worrying comment being made there where she feels that the level of treatment provided in scotland may be less than being provided in other parts of the uk so it's just to try and ensure that when the scottish government are considering future action that they do look at the regimes that have been put in place and other jurisdictions and ensure that we get if not equal treatment better treatment for patients in scotland committee members agree to it mr bolson there is there yeah thank you the next petition is pe 1480 by amanda cobble on behalf of frank cobbles alzheimer's awareness campaign on alzheimer's indimension awareness members have the note by the clerk and the submissions i invite members for any contribution there's no contributions can i ask the committee that we may wish to write to the scottish government seeking a further update on the work being undertaken in relation to access to free personal care for people under 65 with complex needs but also seeking clarification of the scottish government position and what this petition calls for agreed the next petition is pe 1505 by jackie wato and awareness of strip b in pregnancy and infants members have a note by the clerk and the submissions i invite members for any contribution there's no contribution can i can we agree that we write to the scottish government seeking responses to the questions asked by the petitioner okay and the final the final current petition today is pe 1518 by george m charmers on meaningful public consultation within the scottish planning system members have a note from the clerk and the submissions and there is a recent submission by the petitioners i invite members to make any a contribution as there are no as there are no questions can i ask the committee that they may consider that the scottish government has responded to the petition stated that it does not intend to take additional actions on the points made by the petitioner and given its reasons that on this basis the committee may wish to close the petition committee agreed thank you very much agenda number item number six is is for noting and it's the visit to Brussels members agreed to note the paper as agreed at the previous meeting the committee will now be going to private session to consider the final item on the agenda