 I welcome to the 15th meeting of 2015 of the Public Petitions Committee. Can I remind all those present, including members, that mobile phones and black braids should be turned off completely as it interferes with the sound system even when they are switched to silent? Apologies have been received from Hanzala Malik, and can I welcome Michael McMahon to a committee that replaces John Pentland? I am one on the agenda, Declaration of Interest. In accordance with section 3 of the code of conduct, I invite Michael McMahon to declare an interest relevant to the remit of the committee. Any declaration should be brief but sufficient and detailed to make clear to any listener the nature of the interest. Michael? Thank you very much, David. Other than what is on my Declaration of Interest in the register, I do not believe that there is anything that is required to state. I am a member of the GMB trade union, which is... trade union issues tend to come up in this committee quite a lot, so I think it may be worth mentioning that but other than that, nothing else. Thank you, Michael. The second item on agenda is the election of a convener. Can I put on record my thanks to John Pentland for the work that he did on behalf of the committee? The Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Labour Party are eligible for a nomination as convener of the committee. That being the case, can I seek nominations for the position of convener? Convener, I would like to nominate Michael McMahon. Is everybody in agreement? Can I say congratulations, Michael? And can I suspend for a minute how we've changed places? Thanks very much to David and to members of the committee for allowing me again to become the convener of the Public Petitions Committee. I've held in the past, I know how important this committee is and I'm certainly looking forward to re-engaging with the petition system. I think it's one of the most important aspects of the Scottish Parliament system and it's one that I've certainly valued and appreciated when I was a member of the committee before. I'd like to thank David for holding the fort while we had the transition from the previous convener to myself. The clerks were working closely with them in all the areas that were required to be addressed and David took the committee for a few weeks well. The convenership was in abeyns, so thanks very much David for that. I'd like to add my thanks to John Pentland, the previous convener, for steering the committee over the past while. I'd like to move on to the business of this morning. Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1570 by Alan Lee on parental rights to child contact. Members have a note from the clerk, which refers to the petition and the SPICES briefing. I welcome the petitioner, Alan Lee, to the meeting. I invite Mr Lee to make a short opening statement of about five minutes to explain what his position seeks to achieve and then we'll move to questions. Over to you, Mr Lee. Thank you for inviting me to speak this morning. It's an issue that's quite close to my heart because I have a child, I have two children actually, a son who's six years old and a daughter who's three years old. They're my life, so that's the reason why I'm here before you this morning. I have been refused contact to my children for whatever reason I don't understand but I'm not an alcoholic and I'm not a drug addict. I'm unemployed due to health reasons, but that doesn't make me a bad father. My children have not seen for over a year. There's an on-going legal battle, which I find quite difficult and frustrating, especially with legal aid, which takes extremely long time to process applications in relation to child contact. Children need a routine, consistency, security, love, nurture, guidance, protection, care and many more other things. I also need parents where the legal battle is on-going. The absent parent is not there to provide all that to the child. I would understand if contact were terminated if it was a reasonable excuse, like I said earlier on, if I was a drug addict or an alcoholic. However, that's not the case. Even if I was one of those issues, I think I should have been going through a proper route through the legal channels to stop me from seeing my children. I want to touch on the legal aid process because that's a big issue that's causing the long process of not being able to have contact. On contact being terminated, a non-resident parent has to go through an extremely long process, like I said, to find a solicitor who in turn will write to the resident parent for the contact to be reinstated. The resident parent can, in a way, postpone a lot of this legal side of things by not responding to letters and then, obviously, we have to apply to the legal aid board for assistance. The non-resident parent solicitor will need to write to the legal aid board with a statement from either a neighbour or a family member to support that application. The application takes between four to six weeks. While that has gone on with the legal aid board, letters have been passed back and forth between the non-resident parent and the resident parent. As I said, that takes extremely long time, even before a writ is issued once it's been granted to the legal aid board. A child welfare hearing will be allocated by the sheriff's court. That's frustrating for the non-resident parent to have to sit and wait for this process to happen. In this time, the bond between the child and the non-resident parent will be severely affected, obviously. It's also a waste of public funds in my experience because it's just an on-going process in applying for legal aid. It's not in the child's best interests where this is on-going. Before this morning, there's an article that I read from Professor Richard Warshack. He was a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas. When he wrote about after parents divorced, regular overnight stay with dad are best for most young children. This has been endorsed by 110 mental health experts from 15 countries. I hope that the committee will have the opportunity to read this article because I emailed it over to the clerk quite late in the last week. As well as this interesting article, I'd also like to point out a few articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee will know about those articles. Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to not separate from their parents against their will, except where this is necessary in order to protect their best interests. In my mind, this article will be breached when the minute the resident parent stops contact without the intervention of the court, as who is to say that the resident parent's decision to terminate the contact is in the best interests of the child. Article 18 of the convention states that both parents have common responsibilities for upbringing and development of the child. Again, I believe that this has also been breached, along with article 19, that children should be protected from all forms of physical and mental violence. The resident parent terminates contact. How can a non-resident parent use responsibilities as a parent to bring an assist in the child's development? I will also mentally scar the child not able to have regular contact with a non-resident parent, and this will have a significant and long-term effect on the child. What I am asking for this petition is for the Scottish legal aid board to prioritise the processing of the child contact applications so that legal aid can be granted and for child welfare hearing to be allocated quite quickly on applying to the court. In cases where there is concern, social work can intervene and possibly supervise contact and make assessment of any concerns. We must remember that contact terminated is only in the child's best interests, not because there is a bit better between the two parents, which often I find is what is normally the case. As a member of the children's panel, contact is something that we always discuss. I am not 100 per cent sure whether the children's panel can facilitate on the contact issue. I presume that the committee can have a think about whether that is possible or not. However, in my mind, children's welfare is always paramount when having regular contact with both parents will help their long-term development rather than having the big gaps that are detrimental to their welfare development. I understand that previous petitioners have petitioned on issues to do with enforcing contact and unmarried rights of fathers. However, my petition is based on the contact being terminated and how we can change the process to make it quicker to access legal aid and to have a real child welfare hearing allocated quicker. My contact with my son has been quite lucky. He has recently been reinstated by the share of court. However, there was an order in place, but that still does not mean that the resident parents cannot stop that contact. I am sure that the committee has discussed that before from the previous petitioners. However, the contact with my daughter is an on-going legal battle since April of this year. To this date, the legal aid board is still not granted my application. I do not know what else I can say to the committee except that, as a father, the difficulty is and the frustration of this long process can be killing. As I said, I have not seen my daughter since April of this year. By the time legal process takes its course, I will probably not see her till April next year, which means that that is a year out of her life that I have not yet to get to assist with her upbringing and development. Apart from that, I will continue to fight on whether the committee takes any action on this petition or not. However, I do not want to be forced to the last minute, to the last resort to having to climb the Scottish Parliament building in a Batman suit, if you know what I mean. That is my speech. Thank you very much, Mr Wee. Just to get a bit of clarification. Has your lawyer raised concerns about the length of time that it has taken to process your legal aid application? Yes, there is a regular contact with the slab of the Scottish legal aid board. At the beginning, I think that there was a missing statement from a neighbour, and then we had to obviously submit that statement, and then that came back. The process just takes really long. I just find it quite frustrating. From what you have said, the court process appears... The decisions have been made, one at least in your favour in relation to your son. Obviously, there is an on-going process in terms of your daughter. Has there been anything about the court process that you believe has caused delays unnecessarily, or has added to your frustration around the length of time that it has taken? I do not think that it is the courts that takes a length... I know that the court will take a lot of time to allocate a trial welfare hearing, but without the legal aid being granted, a writ cannot be submitted by my solicitor to the non-resident of the resident parent. That is where the delay is at this moment. I can understand why the information that you have put before us for America indicates that the normal scenario retaining contact is in the best interest, but the law in Scotland is predicated on being the best interest of the child. Do you not accept that there may be times where it is not in the child's best interest? Is that not a reason for maintaining the criteria as to what is in the best interest of the child, not what is in the best interest of whichever parent does not have contact? No, I accept that. However, in my case anyway, I do not find that the law is actually helping me, because as I said, I am not... I provide the care and everything for my children. I had to overnight contact with my daughter, and that just suddenly stopped without any specific reason. Do you not accept that the court has to put itself in the eyes and the minds of the child as to what is in the best interest of that child, not simply what mother or father may say that the law should remain what is in the best interest of the child? No, as I said, I do accept that, but at the moment, from my perspective, from my children's view, I am not seeing me for what reason. I understand what you are saying, the court has to put... In my case, if it is in the best interest of my children, not to have contact, then I agree with the court, but I do not agree with how things are going at the moment when I do not get to see my children for a reason that my ex-partner believes is in the best interest of my children. On legal aid, there are special urgency provisions, and I appreciate that legal aid can be slow, but equally, is it not appropriate that, given the basis of legal aid is on probable cause, that they actually have to consider whether there is probable cause or whether there might, in fact, be good reason why it shouldn't be supported and that, therefore, there will be some bureaucratic delay as people check the basis of the application. No, I understand that as well. Some applications are processed quite quickly, and I was issued an interdict against me or my daughter for whatever reason that my ex-partner thought was the right route to go through and prevent me from actually going to the nursery to pick my daughter up. That was granted before any application, and that is an urgency to go through. As a father who once contacted my children, legal aid will not see that as an urgency to process applications quite quickly. There is a timescale of four to eight weeks. I understand that, and I am quite happy for that four to eight weeks to happen. Four to eight weeks has ran well past its course now from April till now. Mr Lee, thank you for getting your evidence. I will take a slightly different angle from Mr McCaskill. You have mentioned in your submission the issue of court orders that have been granted for parental rights for the absent parent to gain access. What is your experience of the fact that the person who has the residential rights can ignore the order and withdraw any contact whatsoever despite a court order having been issued to grant access? That is a very interesting question. Thank you very much for that. Again, there is no reasonable excuse for that. There is a court order in place, but my ex-partner still would stop contact at any time at her wish. I have to wait again for a timescale to go back to court to have that contact. As it happened just this year when my ex-partner stopped me from contacting my son in February, and I only recently got contact with him just now a couple of weeks ago. Although there is an order in place, I hate referring to mothers because I do not want to penalise them. The non-resident parent most of the time ignores that order even though the order is in place. There is even one time when I went to the house to pick my son up and she said, well, you are not getting him today. The order is in, so how can I not get him? I say so. I cannot do anything about that even if I phoned the police. There was a civil matter, you need to go back to see a lawyer. Lawyers are not on hand 24-7 waiting for me to come to see them. I have to make an appointment and I could take a couple of weeks and then they need to apply for a legal aid of legal aid that has been ended. That takes time again. I accept Mr McCaskill's argument that the courts should be able to make decisions whether or not in the best interests of the child, but also believe the courts if they grant access orders, they should uphold those access orders and ensure that the residential parent grants access to the other parent their rights that have been agreed through the court system. It might be that we have to, as a committee, look at the wider issue about rather going through the procedures of applying for more legal aid or going through the courts to get that access that maybe there needs to be an issue about enforcing the court orders that have already been granted and we might not find ourselves and you might not find yourself in this situation in the future. I totally agree with that. That would make things extremely helpful. As I said, an order is in place so we expect whoever the court grants this order to that they should be upheld rather than ignored and I find that most cases non-resident parent do ignore this court order and there are a few cases where courts have enforced but there is not enough and non-resident parents just see that as well. Although the order is in place, I can still do it where I fancy. Following up on that, if John Wilson is going to pursue this, I would be interested in your view, Mr Lee, because I accept that there are instances of a lifetime experience where the non-resident parent has been treated very badly. I also have great sympathy for a sheriff though in the scenario that Mr Wilson is taking because it seems to me that if the sheriff says that I have given a contact order you must have temperate if the partner with residency says no, then they are faced with two options. One is to switch the residency which they may have decided is inappropriate from mother to father or father to mother but they might have decided that is already inappropriate or they could jail them. A child, what do you think a sheriff should do with somebody in that situation? Is it switch the order? Is it jail? Or is there a third way that I have to say over 20 years as a lawyer in 16 years in Parliament I've never been able to discover which is why I've got a great deal of sympathy not simply with the parent who I feel very heart sorry for but I've also got great sympathy with a sheriff because I'm always bamboozled as to just what we expect him to do. I don't know what your views are though. That's a quite a difficult one, Mr McCaskill. You're more professional than I am on that. I wouldn't think jailing a parent is going to be solve the solution because as I say, to the child needs both parents. Some other punishment such as maybe community service or time spent at a community local charity shop or something giving up their time rather than sentencing them to a custodial would probably be much more beneficial. It could be very harsh, I think, to jail a parent knowing that there is a young child at hand to be cared for and especially if there is concerns from the non-resident parent who might have neglected the child and that's why the best interest for a child was not served and the contact was terminated. I do feel for sheriffs in that sense however but I'm looking at the whole picture as what's going to be the best interest of the child and not what's best interest for the parents or the sheriff who's going to grant the order to whoever's going to be suitable. I'm interested in the best interest of the child because my experience was always able to say to somebody that he can get a court order and unless you've got a good relationship with your ex-partner then that can become the maximum and there will come a time when the child will say I'm supposed to come to you dad or mum on Saturday or Friday but actually there's a party or I'm playing football or I'm doing this and I said what do you do? Do you either say no you come to me because you could be in a separate town and you don't get to go to the party you don't get to go football so the best thing is normally to have a relationship but at what age do you think the child's rights become paramount in being able to say I want to come this weekend if not necessarily ever at all? That depends on the child themselves how mature they grow I mean I wouldn't force my my children to come to me if they don't want to come to me but it is at times they do want to come and I can't take them because obviously the court order only maybe stays one night a week and I can't say oh you can't stay the extra night there is some sort of although the court order is in place and work together on what's going to be the best interest of the child I mean my contact with my son reinstated two weeks ago on a Sunday between 10 and 2 however one Sunday was going to a party with his mum on a christening and I was quite happy to change that to a Monday after school so I can still see him for a few hours and he's happy, I'm happy, we're all happy I think that's that's an important thing as it says court orders in place it's important to be flexible on what's going to be best interest of the child if the child's not well you can't force a child and say well you're not well today but you still need to come to see dad or come to see mum that's not going to be workable I don't see another question I hardly say that I think John Wilson's comments are quite pertinent I mean I know we would all wish that every sheriff had the wisdom of Solomon when it comes to difficult scenarios that Kenny MacAskill laid out and that is always the difficulty that the court has but I've always been sympathetic to the view that if a court order is made then people should not be able to reject that with impunity either if the court must have some redress if having given an order someone just decides that they're not going to deal with that I think there are a number of issues that I've come up to say this morning about the duration of the bureaucratic process of allocation there's this idea of the imposition of the court order I have colleagues of suggestions as to how we take these issues forward Kenny? I think Mr Lee does make a fair point about bureaucratic delay some of that goes with it and equally I have to say that my experience was all used to have to fill in application forms in the 16 years that's now gone I would hope that that would truncate the position from the previous paper application so I think it would be worth asking the legal aid board what the current timescales are what proposals they have to try and speed it up I mean I do appreciate that the supporting evidence and the statement of the applicant has to go before members of the board to be clarified if it's not dealt with simply and probable cause by the staff at the legal aid board but getting some idea of timescales and how they think it can be further truncated would be helpful so I think that Scottish legal aid boards one of the organisations we should be writing to Do you have any other suggestions as to who we should contact if we want to gather? The association of you can either go directly to the Law Society of Scotland but the family law association tend to be the specialist and it might be asking them because they will have experience on both sides so it might be worth asking the family law association I'm just wondering who would be best to contact about the enforcement of court orders to get a view from the Court Services Scottish Courts Tribunal Service I'm going to answer that I'm going to go to the Lord President now that he is chair of courts and tribunals because the point you make is that a court order should be up-tempered otherwise it brings the court into dispute equally I have to say a lot of my experience in these issues you tended to run into mental health issues which then challenged matters but I think that asking the very top would be appropriate here Any other suggestions colleagues? Mr Lee, we'll contact the organisations that we've discussed here and get responses to see how we take the petition forward I just want to say that Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning Thank you Suspend for a couple of minutes until we change witnesses in the order of Our second petition this morning is PE1571 by John Beattie on food bank funding Again members of a note by the clerk paper 3 on the petition and the spice briefing I welcome the petitioner John Beattie to the meeting He's accompanied today by Kevin McGee from Govan Community Development Trust I'd like to invite Mr Beattie to make a short opening statement of around five minutes to explain the petition and then we'll move to questions around the issues that you raise Over to you Mr Beattie Good morning and thank you very much committee for seeing our petition As I said my name is John Beattie I'm a volunteer in my local area and recently since around back in February we have had quite a developing crisis over food bank shortages in our local food bank in Glasgow South West Now this became a recurring theme Kevin and I volunteered at Govan Community Radio and Food Bank were continually asking us to put out emergency appeals on radio for supplies as they kept running low on stock So that can inspire Kevin and I to start doing food collections in our local area and not only food collections but we also got a lot of statistics and things on food banks to raise the awareness and the issue in our local area as well So from there we decided to start this petition I'm a former student of politics and I studied Scottish politics and I was aware of the Scottish Parliament's petitions process so I thought if we started this petition we could get to this stage So I'm absolutely delighted that we got here for the consideration Now, as we said reason for the petition is because we feel that we're getting to a stage with food banks that the communities are now struggling to actually meet the demand Lots of research have shown that the food bank statistics are absolutely exploding in the last year So we have asked that this petition has asked if we can get some sort of help from the Government to help me to meet this growing demand and I think that's probably sums it up Is that the simple as that? Welcome to many questions Thanks very much Mr Beatty I'll kick off, until recently I was a convener of the Welfare Reform Committee that extensively at the food banks issue we did an inquiry last year on the subject and it's a very harrowing area to hear the stories around the usage and the types of people who are affected by the sanctions regime and other ways in which they're driven to require the use of a food bank But what struck me was the breadth of concern those who are involved in the food bank sector if you like those who are involved in charities and support groups around poverty who are very concerned that food banks would not become institutionalised in this country there's a real danger that the more support they get from the Government the more they become part of the welfare system a concern that was expressed repeatedly throughout our inquiry and examples given like Canada where the food bank system is actually part of the welfare system and there are real concerns that we'd end up copying that model if we increased the amount of involvement of central funding in food banks how would you respond to that? I appreciate that and I kind of anticipated that response here's the question this is kind of bordering on a humanitarian issue now I personally feel that being at the front level on the ground seeing how this is affecting people's lives now as far the concern over Government starting to take direct involvement in food banks what is the alternative then if we don't if we get to a stage where food banks are struggling to actually get food from local community like over 90% of their donations come from local community now other community members are struggling a lot of people are just living on the bread line now what happens when we get to the stage then that these people then the donations from these people start to diminish and then in the ever-grown numbers of food banks we're going to anticipate the next five years we know this coming from Westminster the ideological attacks on welfare et cetera we know that the situation is only going to get worse so all I ask is what is the alternative then if the Government can't even reset up the emergency food fund again at least do something like that David Good morning John Scottish Government already gave £1 million which half of goes to food banks unlike the UK Government who are not funding them at all in the times of austerity do you think it's right that the Government should keep your money when some food banks are really good at collecting and I know the one in my area in Cercody they have trollies in all the supermarkets which are continually filled by shoppers That is a good question but what I would say is they have these organisations where they get donations from supermarkets et cetera but again in our area some of the bigger chains like Sainsbury's donate to our Glasgow south west food bank and even that is that we're still having emergency fuels every two or three weeks and even throughout the independent food banks et cetera can I touch on the point that you said about the million pounds the Scottish Government gave to food banks right now that's very interesting because food banks in our local area and wider so when I got a reply one of my letters I sent to the First Minister and it said that we gave a million pound now I asked people who run food banks and they said it wasn't a million pound so then I spoke to a Scottish Government minister and he said to me yes it was actually £500,000 and then when again when I went back to the food banks it was actually challenged even that or some and they questioned that as well so I just query that that £1 million like you know where did it go because a lot of people were asking me that that run food banks and I know the evidence given to the welfare committee that they want to be community led and community run the evidence that the food bank you help with are involved with the community whether it's local groups like scout groups supporting the food bank or local different organisations within the community just to highlight a point when I was in contact from journalists yesterday who were interested in me coming here today and then they were under the assumption that I was actually a volunteer at the food bank but I'm not and neither is Kevin Weare just community volunteers so I felt a social responsibility to actually do something to help the struggling community members and so on I know our local food bank they have four areas where they operate from and they do things like they get stuff like the football clubs in Glasgow who maybe bring a bag of food donation day and one of the other things that sunny government community radio had done is they worked in partnership with Dan's DJ and they had that a big night just there on September 12 and it was up in the city centre in Glasgow where if you brought a bag of food you could get into this event where we're well-renowned DJs we're playing gigs etc so there's lots of things going on to raise food but at the same time it's just like anything, how sustainable is that when people are struggling themselves the donations are coming from ordinary people and what I'm thinking right is why don't we get something set up get an emergency food fund get that in place because honestly I can tell you I do think they will come a crisis point and then whilst you have the emergency food fund I know we're getting a lot of new powers coming next year for the Scotland Bank 2012 why don't you guys set up a commission or something to have a look at how can we sustain this because like I said we're going to have this for the next five years we don't have control of welfare here in Scotland so surely we have got to look at this as a long term problem because it's going to be a long term problem and I just think let's set up some sort of emergency food fund as a respite and in the long term can I get heads together and think how can we cope with this as a long term strategy Thank you Good morning Mr Beattie A couple of the issues that I'd like to raise and get some answers to you mentioned there's a number of food banks in the south side of Glasgow who are effectively competing with each other to raise donations to provide food to those people who are then referred to them Do you see the possibility of greater co-ordination between the food banks because in the area so that you're actually doing the targeted provision rather than at the present moment if you have a number of different food banks operating then people are then confused about who they're actually donating the food to what food bank is actually receiving it because I know that in my own area there was some confusion about how national organisations were collecting food in the supermarkets but none of that food was actually being supplied to the local food bank and that caused some concern among some of the residents that they felt that while they were making donations for the local inhabitants the food was actually collected was being put elsewhere Again that's a good question because as Kevin and I have went through this process we have learned a lot about different food banks and food bank groups because here's the thing the Trussell Trust they use a kind of ticketing system where you go to a professional like a doctor and they will give you a ticket to go and access a free day emergency supply of food but there are other independent food banks who don't seek such requirements the things that we're encountering is some people may have got a food bank ticket off of someone who went to a Trussell Trust and then they didn't like that experience so now they're going to another independent food bank and we're seeing through different statistics that we're getting from other food banks who sent this information that people are walking from castle milk to Mary Hill to access food because maybe they've used up a free strike system I believe where the Trussell Trust you can only get free tickets within a certain amount of time so people are then having to navigate their way through other little independent food banks and people who set up little groups so I do think that greater co-ordination is needed but Kevin and I had a public meeting in Govan, the Pierce Institute in Govan so we set up a public meeting and we had people from Mary Hill in Glasgow from Milton in Glasgow and they were a good distance away from Govan and all these different groups came to this public meeting and we quickly learned that yes there needs to be greater co-ordination but I think we need a professional head to manage that co-ordination I really do because I think if you get a professional person to manage that I think that you would get greater results because there seems to be a wee issue about who feeds who and what area etc but there does need to be greater co-ordination and I appreciate that but at the same time this is happening people are going hungry in our communities I have some sympathy with the petition that is before us today because one of the main issues for me would be the concern about whether or not communities could sustain to continue to donate food to provide for other members of the community and some of the smaller communities particularly the areas that you have mentioned in terms of Glasgow the community involvement and the community giving is good but as you have indicated that as time goes on the ability for people to actually make those types of donations will reduce and then what happens is that the reliance on those donations falls off and as you said in your submission the food bank ends up getting fewer and fewer donations and that means less they can give out to those who approach them but it's really trying to get that issue out there and making sure that what we actually do is a comprehensive review of what is being done within the movement to ensure that the people who require urgent food parcels are actually provided with that but the other option and I'm just going to throw this out to you because I know that you mentioned some of the organisations that can make referrals to the food banks and I know of my local food bank GPs DWP CABs and others can make a referral what would you say if the Government were to come up with an idea is rather giving money for food banks to buy food that the Government gave vouchers to the people concerned and I'm not advocating that I'm just saying what would be your reaction if the Government said right we'll give you food vouchers See that's difficult isn't it because you know having studied social policy you get this kind of notion in society that people are deserving, land deserving and maybe people will view people using food vouchers as a stigma would arise from that I have no doubt I'll give you one example that Kevin and I came across was a vulnerable elderly person who very sadly due to circumstances their children had passed away from drugs and alcohol now this person is left to bring up their grandkids now their grand children had asked their grandparent if they could when they're going to the food bank if they could go a certain route because they didn't want their friends to see their grandparent going into the food bank and accessing food now I can only imagine that that would be worse in local community areas where everybody knows everybody and you're at a till and you're ready to pay for food and you have got these vouchers which basically say I am claiming food We've seen in America don't they America done this trial and there's a big stigma over people using food vouchers in America it's a difficult one it really is a difficult one I think that that would mean a lot of thinking because the danger is that there would be stigma with our eyes from that and it's how we would then deal with that Sorry, convener just one final question and one of the issues that has been raised is the administration costs of the food banks and whether or not the money, whether it be Government money or the nations financial donations from local organisations businesses and individuals the food banks should that money be used to purchase food or should it be used and paying for administration costs and rental costs for premises that the food banks are actually operating from Again, a great point because this is something that we have had many discussions about you know, we find it difficult you know to think about that in depth do you think that people are getting a wage because then you are creating jobs out of food poverty again that to me raises a lot more kind of ethical issues again A lot of the food banks that are being run are being run by volunteers I mean it's there's only a certain amount of food banks that are actually paying for premises and they've got high overheads running costs for example, Malton Food Tut has been run for somebody's house they're running basically a food bank for their house so there's no overheads there these are the types of things that are springing up these are the types of things that we've noticed through a few public meetings we've had people independent food banks who are basically track running it for their own house because it's people who just want to do something because they can see the effect that it's having on their community I think yesterday the Child Action Poverty Group Trusall Trust and Oxfam they released a massive report over the UK and it said emergency use only it was titled so that was just published yesterday we've got a copy and we had a quick glance through and they were saying there's 30,000 volunteers so there's a huge number of people that actually do this voluntary and I think we have also we came across this article in the Public Health Journal by Flora Douglas of University of Aberdeen and her colleagues and you know like she was saying in this as well that basically the food bank she was encountering was like there was one manager and the rest of them were volunteers so it's no like there was like 10-15 people getting away due to all this money it was like one person who was basically co-ordinating imagine a professional standpoint on how it should be organised and run Thank you Just to follow up a point that John Wilson made we already have a system which allows for the use of food vouchers Scottish welfare fund which was set up by the Scottish Government with a £3 million fund it covers a whole host of things and it covers people who are in emergency situations but one aspect of that is if someone needs food quickly they can be given a voucher to go to the local supermarket the issue of stigma arises there and we heard some really horrific stories of the way that checkout operators treated people who had arrived at the supermarket with these vouchers and it's government funded so you're looking for government funding not to do something like that but the other issue is the number of the three strikes issue and I've heard it called that the three visits to a food bank but the reason for that again an argument that was put while the welfare reform committee was looking at this issue was that if someone is repeatedly going back to a food bank there may be an underlying issue being sent there by a health professional or by a GP by social services or what have you then that underlying issue could be getting missed and therefore having a system whereby people can keep a record of those who are visiting a food bank how frequently they are visiting that food bank can actually in the longer term help to paint a picture which can allow that person to be supported and helped in a way that they weren't so you take on board the idea that some of the ways that these food banks operate have come about through practice and knowledge of the situation and they're looking to try and assist people in the wider context not just to hand out food when that person arrives at their door yes absolutely one of the things I would say I mean we know it's not just one simple factor you know like if you imagine somebody's using a food bank let's say they use it three times within three months and if you have a benefit sanction that is for 12 weeks and you go to a trust or trust food bank and you get a free day supply what are you going to do for the rest of the time a lot of the stuff was put in place previously the rise in food banks over the past year is best astronomical so it's like haven't actually coped with what's happening just now we need new measures and new things put in place a BBC report that it showed about the welfare fund right then is there sufficient knowledge of people that know how to access that and how to go about that because why then has there been a 398% increase in food bank usage in Scotland and that's for the BBC reported this if you go and look at the BBC article 16 for January they've shown absolute massive increases in food bank usage so is this welfare fund is this the right is it working properly that's the question I would then put back on that the Scottish Welfare Fund wasn't set up to address the issue of food bank usage but the question was raised and the reason why I was making the point was about there is an aspect of the Scottish Welfare Fund which allows for food vouchers to be used so that system is already in place that was the point the Scottish Welfare Fund delivers white goods furniture provides all sorts of emergency assistance it's not about food banks it's just because you had said about the issue of it gives food vouchers and I just got the impression it's permitted within the guidelines for local authorities to use food vouchers as a way of assisting people through the Scottish Welfare Fund that's the point and I interpreted as you were saying to me that welfare fund gives people food vouchers so why should we give more money to food banks and I was just saying well if that's giving food vouchers to people then why is there such a can only be called a drastic increase in the food bank usage if people knew that that welfare fund they could get vouchers for food there Jackson Can I ask a practical question in relation to the detail of the petition because you recommend one of two things either the use of underspend at £145 million or the Scottish Government presumably in due course using the powers of the Parliament to raise tax to raise £256 million how would you see a big distinction if you bring such a concentrated amount of public money into the equation how would you see that being administered what constitutes a definable food bank that would be able to make a claim is that how you would see the process operating or what do you imagine the structure would be that would underpin that because obviously once public money was being directed in that way there would be a very considerable concern to ensure that it was being used appropriately and in a way that the public would feel was meeting the need and not something beyond the need Absolutely now great point right because if you think about the initial food fund now I am led to believe that that has run out of money here is a long term problem and again I stress that this is still going to be a long term problem because we are going to see this up until at least 2020 until we get a next general election with the Government we have got in Westminster now as for how it's administered maybe then we have to look at maybe we need to set something up a special group that would deal with this food poverty issue and I think what would be of benefit for the Scottish Parliament would that every so often it gets reviewed because if this emergency food fund that was set up last year has now run out of money and it hasn't been topped up then the problem is just going to come back again so what I think we need to do is review it see how it's operating see what the criteria is where people are applying for food banks are applying for funding in emergency situations as well and review it every so often to see how it's working and to see obviously where improvements and things can be made and I think as well that we see a lot of discussions about we want lower powers from Westminster et cetera et cetera now if you could do that if you could set up some sort of group at that then review every so often then surely you could then take that if the research and evidence that you would have from your reviews to Westminster and say your policy on this does not work in Scotland so therefore that would create an argument that can we have this power devolved because your policy does not work in Scotland yes but obviously I know the trust run a lot of food banks but there is not a legally defined definition of a food bank any organisation can set one up how would you seek to ensure that applications or public money that was being directed or applied for once a significant sum of money as you envisage was available for people to apply to that fund for how would you seek to ensure that that money being appropriately directed well surely one of the requirements and criteria would be that you have to register as a charity because then you have all sorts of commitments and protocols you have to follow then and you would envisage what I'm still not just clear who would be administering all this that's why I suggested that maybe the Scottish Parliament could set up a group where they would specifically deal with this issue because it is going to be a long-term issue there's no doubt about that there's not going to be any reversal on welfare reforms coming from Westminster so one can only assume from that that the situation is going to continue the way it is if not worse okay colleagues have suggestions how we take forward the petitioner's request sure can I just come in the petitioner was set up to get us here to discuss and raise the issue I'm delighted that we are here discussing this issue and I can see that people do have concerns now I think the least that we could hope for is the emergency fund to be topped up again at least so that people could apply for that now can I bespoke to various food banks in relation to the emergency food fund they gave us some suggestions and I took some down and this is some of the things that they had asked me to put forward here they said and everyone of them said this as well too we welcome a reopening of the food fund which would guarantee a fair and transparent decision making process we welcome an emergency food fund which did not have current food bank providers sitting on the decision making board now I don't know if there was an issue previously with this but that was something that was coming back we welcome a decision making process which considered the impact on existing services and any future decisions that they make and we welcome an application process which involves decision makers visiting applicants to see first hand how the organisation works so I don't know if that would touch on what the gentleman here said you know like open people that would apply for it would then commit themselves to be open for a visit to see exactly how they're operated and ran Scottish Government to respond to the points that have been made but I'm open to other suggestions Jackson I respect the point Mr Beattie's just made but it's not actually the petition that's before us the petition before us is quite specific and it's actually the petition that the committee has to take forward and ask them to comment on the points that Mr Beattie has made Surely we don't have to be so rigid here surely there could be some degree of flexibility that's why we're here to discuss it If you want us to decide Mr Beattie what we can do to take the petition forward that's the question I'm asking the members and I'm suggesting that we write to the Scottish Government to respond to your comments and questions about the emergency food fund so that's one of my suggestions if colleagues have yet additional In conjunction with the rest of the petition they can read it No, not specifically just on that but in all the aspects of the petition getting the Scottish Government's response to all the points that Mr Beattie's made and the content of the petition would be a good starting point we may wish to contact those who are already in the field David Can I ask if you could contact the Trussell Trust again to see if the views have changed What are your other suggestions, John? I think it's right to contact the organisations that have been named so far but I think it might be useful if we could possibly contact a number of the independent food bank operators because it's quite useful to get the views of the Trussell Trust they don't represent the food bank movement and it's out there and I think some of the issues that have been read by the petitioners today clearly highlight some of the difficulties that smaller or what you term independent food banks might be facing in their own communities but we could also suggest that we write to either COSLA or a selection of local authorities to ask what support they are providing to food banks in their own areas because it would be useful, as I said that I raised earlier about the administration issues but also I know that some food banks are being charged rental costs from industrial units or other premises currently being provided by local authorities so it would be useful to find out where the local authorities stood in this process, not just the Government and others. Thanks, convener. I think that we should also write to fair share I'm just picking up on Mr Beatty's point earlier on it was regarding wondering where the £1 million from the Government had gone according to our briefing, half of that money has gone to fair share which, as we know, redistributes food from supermarkets to communities and charities so it would be good to get their take on the current situation and the proposal from the petitioner. Any other suggestions? We'll contact all of those organisations Mr Beatty and obviously they'll see transcripts of our discussion if they want to know where the questions are arising from we'll collate that information and we'll get back to you with the information that we can pull together but thanks very much for bringing your petition to us this morning and for articulating the concerns that you've obviously heard from within the food bank movement. No, thank you very much for hearing us, we really appreciate it. Thanks very much. Have a nice day. I'll suspend again for a couple of minutes to allow the witnesses to change over. Our third and final new petition this morning is PE1572 by Parvin hack on occupational disclosure in trials and sentencing. Members again have a note from the clerk that's paper 4 the petition and the spice briefing so I welcome the petitioner Parvin hack to the meeting this morning she's a company today by Nadim Ahmed I now invite Ms hack to make a short opening statement of around five minutes to explain what her petition seeks to achieve after which I'll open up to the committee to ask questions so over to you Ms hack. Thank you very much. My name is Parvin hack and I'm currently employed by the NHS as a senior physiotherapist in Clydebank and I've come along today with my nephew Nadim Ahmed who is basically the main reason behind the petition in the first place. The contents of the petition before you is to stop using a person's occupation basically being revealed in court when you're going through a trial especially when they hold a position of trust it's basically if that person is accused of a crime which doesn't involve their occupation my feelings are that that occupation basically shouldn't be revealed in front of the court because if it is revealed in court then those people are basically given a harsher sentence I've done some research into this and it's basically revealed that MPs, police officers and lawyers do receive harsher sentences when they're convicted in court but however when they appeal those sentences are dramatically reduced and the reason they get the harsh sentence in the first place is because of their occupation no matter what the crime is especially when the crime is a domestic nothing to do with their occupation whatsoever but the time it gets to appeal court they've basically lost their job so they don't have that standing anymore and then the sentence is reduced drastically reduced the background to my petition was basically my nephew who was accused of a domestic crime out with his police duty nothing to do with the police at all but even in court the reason he got the harsh sentence was because of his occupation lost his occupation went to appeals court and basically the sentence was reduced dramatically no longer I've lodged a petition before you in the hope that the laws can be introduced in the Scottish Parliament which prevent occupations of accused individuals being revealed not only in the courtroom but right at the start when the cases are lodged with the Crown Office in the hope that this will allow each individual to receive a fair trial in accordance with the Human Rights Act OK I'll open up to the committee to ask any questions on this particular petition that they might have that's other Kenny I think there's a difference between trial and sentencing would you not accept that at one stage you're not convicted or anything but once you're convicted surely your occupation is a material factor for the court why would it be? because the court has to take into account who you are, where you are, your age, your income your occupation that's surely a material factor if you're rich or poor it depends upon the category the nature of the job surely would you not accept that there are some jobs where there's an area of trust because for example if you're stopped for drink driving and you are a nurse then notification will be made if you're a doctor notification can be made if you're occupations where it's felt there's an area of trust do you not think there are some occupations that there's a trust implication that authorities that govern them are entitled to know there's an area of trust but do you not think there's an area of trust in most occupations if I say I'm a shopkeeper I'm selling you something is there not an area of trust in that that I'm selling you an item at the value there's an area of trust in my opinion it's an area of trust in everything but is that saying that somebody who is unemployed so that person is there's no area of trust with that person because they're unemployed they've not got an occupation you're right everything in terms of trust has an aspect to it but if you're a postman and you fail to deliver the mail then I think there's a serious charge there if you're a postman who misbehaves at a football game it might be viewed as irrelevant but the fact that you failed in your duties so a lot of this is about context but can I also raise there is a fundamental jurisprudential view applies here we don't have I think we try to view sentencing as opposed to the trial it's not about vengeance but it is about some element of atonement we don't put people in the stocks but the reason we allow papers in to report courts is that people are entitled to know that Mr or Miss X who lives at such and such in address who works at such and such has committed an offence it's to allow the community to know do you not think that the community is entitled to know who has committed an offence in their society basically in your opinion do you feel that the papers always tell the truth almost certainly not but that's a separate issue about how you would keep them out but do you not believe that this is something part of the reason of the courts is about public shaming I don't necessarily want to wish to wear a horsehair wig but the reason you have a majesty of the court this judge sits up there is to be able to say that you have committed a crime I, whoever he or she may be as a sentencer is imposing some retribution collectively do you not think that the public are entitled to know who that individual is which is why we allow local newspapers because it actually dissuades people because sometimes it's not the £150 fine it's the fact that all your neighbours and friends have seen that you misbehaved on Friday night that's fine in itself but my petition is not about that my petition is that people who have a position of trust occupation like MPs, lawyers, policemen they are actually given harsher sentences if you compare convictions and crimes you will see that people who are in that position of trust basically are given sentences custodial sentences even though it might be a first offence whereas you sit in a court people who come up unemployed with a similar crime are let off with a suspended sentence my petition is not to stop the newspapers getting this and spreading it out to friends and family my petition is so that it's for fairness equality, human rights so that everybody is treated the same so if joe blogs has done something and PC blogs has done something basically if the crime is the same out with occupation then their sentencing should be the same they've been named and shamed job blogs has lost nothing, he's not got a job PC blogs has lost his job is that not enough instead of sending them down the route of custodial sentencing as well because as far as my research is revealed to me any police officer, any MP, any lawyer who so far has stood in front of court has never come away with a deferred sentence has never come away with community service so that the crime is always custodial mostly custodial Good morning I'm not a lawyer so I don't bring that kind of perspective to it I read this and I was quite intrigued but it prompted in me a question about whether it might not create a fresh inequality because some people's occupations are such that that will be known whether or not it is disclosed in the evidence that's presented to the court so that you would then be creating an inequality in the sense that a number of people being presented in the trial whose occupation would be something that came to be understood or was understood or became known during the course of the proceedings and then somebody else potentially whose occupation isn't one that filters into the public domain would not so I then came away thinking how fair would that be because some people I mean I don't suppose you could suspend the trial or then have it held somewhere else I mean it struck me as it would just be an obstacle to the element of justice and I did come back somewhat to Mr MacAskill's view that yes I take the point you make about sentencing but the appeals process in some sense does seek to redress any inequality in sentencing that then exists but I wasn't sure that your idea of the perceived inequality you've identified wouldn't potentially create a new inequality in its own way What I'm basically saying is it doesn't matter whether the whole court knows the occupation of this person, whoever's sitting, witnesses basically it's between the lawyers, the prosecutor fiscal and the judge should not hold that occupation against that person fine they know the occupation but that should have nothing to do with the sentencing you shouldn't say in their sentencing because you are a lawyer, I'm giving you this sentencing because you're a policeman that should, whether they know the occupation is revealed and I have no issue with the newspapers revealing the occupation, but at the time of the case and in the eyes of the person proceeding over the case, i.e. the sheriff judge or whoever, they should not hold that in their mind that I am going to give a big harsher sentence because this person has such and such occupation that is what I'm trying to say so I'm not wanting to hide occupations they can be rude but basically judges or whoever is giving out the lot, they should be taught to hold, to put that to one side and look at the case in the case alone especially when it has nothing to do with that occupation Good morning the issue for me is that when you've reduced the example of a person, I'm sure in the five postal code districts in Glasgow where you find the majority of the population of Berlin are interested in finding out that they are less likely to be jailed than somebody else and the reality is as we know in Berlin is basically filled with people from the five most deprived communities in Glasgow the issue for me is about the issue of trust in society there are certain groups that we actually put faith in you've mentioned three of them MPs, lawyers and police officers now, if we lose trust in those individuals then how do we deal with those individuals you said that whether it's a situation and I've got a couple of and I think you mentioned a domestic issue the other issues that I could use is if somebody was found to be driving or embezzlement if they were a police officer or a lawyer or an MP how would we want to deal with those individuals and how would we want to highlight those issues in society because we expect MPs and MSPs to actually pass the legislation that we expect society to abide by we expect lawyers to work through that legislation to represent people in court and pass judgment on individuals and we expect police officers to carry out the law that is passed so those three groups in particular are individuals who are trusted or entrusted by society to carry out certain duties on behalf of the rest of society so in reality how do you think we should actually treat those people in the law? Should we be more lenient with them or should, as what you are arguing at the present moment happens the court system treats them more harshly than other groups within society so how do we punish those individuals that we hold in high esteem to actually carry out and work in a society and basically confer upon others in society the rules and legislation and laws that are actually passed by the society? In my understanding if somebody holds a position of trust and they do something wrong or accused of doing something wrong or caught doing drink driving or whatever at the end of the day these people are still human like everybody else so they do make mistakes even though they hold a position of trust you would think because that the courts would be lenient on them which they are not and I wouldn't expect them to be lenient on them I would expect anybody accused of doing something caught drink driving the same as anybody else caught drink driving the sentencing should be the same that's what I am at arguing I don't think they should be lenient on it before this happened to us I always assumed in my head that because these people do hold a position of trust the courts will be lenient on them but they are not they go the other way but why? because they are punishing them but is it not punishing them enough especially when you mention Barolini fine Barolini is full of all these criminals with these five post codes but they are not in there for their first offence they are in there for their 10s their 12s their 15s first second third offence they get sentences that's fine suspended sentence they are in there for we don't know how many convictions they have had that's a problem Barolini is not full of so these people of trust who do a first offence should be treated like anybody else who does a first offence if they did a repeat offence I would understand right be lenient fine enough but first offence anybody can make a mistake implying that if a police officer a lawyer or an MP can find themselves being imprisoned is that the evidence that you have found and what supports that evidence well I've done research basically I've not come across MPs I must say but there's lawyers who read the news stories Google it you'll be able to see police officers custodial sentences police officers when they are arrested no matter what fine enough if the offence is on duty but when you're off duty in my eyes like the only person in my eyes who is in their occupation 24-7 is basically a doctor when you become a doctor your title changes to doctor when you're on a flight and somebody's having a heart attack they call out for a doctor or somebody who can do first aid if there's two people fighting on an airplane don't call out for a police officer don't call for somebody to come member of justice to come and help you've based your evidence on a google search no newspapers the learner gentlemen there highlighted newspapers need to know the stories so read the newspapers I have read newspapers what you're saying is that your evidence in terms of google searches and newspapers not just newspapers I have researched a high court the sheriff court cases that have been going on it's not just google and newspapers but if a case appears before the high court then it's such a serious nature that a custodial sentence may be the only action that can be taken because it is such a serious offence but not the sheriff court it's trying to get down to the evidence that you're based on because I know that I've got anecdotal evidence that says that some people that are held in trust are not prosecuted and are basically taken before their various associations we had a case two weeks ago where a doctor decided to withdraw himself from the register because he was found not to have been carrying out operations there was no action taken against that doctor because the medical profession couldn't take action against him because he removed himself from the register so there are areas you can argue in different parts of society there are areas who and people who find their way around the law the court process in terms of being charged or facing punishment via the courts so it's trying to and certainly I'll be one of the questions that I'll be asking that the committee investigates further is looking at the number of cases from the various professions that you've indicated that are actually finding themselves on a first offence as your assertion minor first offence Jackson, you want to come back on? I'm sorry to come back to this convener but I thought maybe I had my recollection had been flawed and I've just looked again at the submission you raised and I'd like to quote two pieces of it I'm putting this petition forward as I think that new laws should be introduced which prevent people's occupation from being disclosed in a court of law especially if the accusations have nothing to do with the occupation is in order that evidential law can be changed and when a case is taken to court a person's occupation should not be revealed unless that occupation has been used as part of the crime so I think my earlier point was it wasn't just or maybe you are now defining the petition more narrowly than that submission suggests because that submission does suggest that you were arguing that it should not be the case that the court should be made known of the occupation and I was making the point that that could create an inequality because certain people's occupations might be known I'm now wondering are you narrowing the definition of the petition simply to say that at the point when sentencing is taken into account you don't believe that at that stage the occupation should bear relevance on the sentence that's awarded No I'm saying that it shouldn't be revealed but what you said to me is what if people find out well if people find out the find out but what I'm saying to Fiscal of the case should not be repeatedly mentioning in the course of the case that this person is such and such of an occupation that's what I'm saying whether they know his occupation is another thing but what I'm saying is not to reveal it to everybody whether everybody who's sitting in the court knows what that person is beside the point basically they shouldn't make a big thing of the fact that this person holds this position my point was really rather that created a fresh inequality because those people weighing up the evidence who knew in one case what the occupation of somebody was and an entirely similar case where they didn't might be affected by that knowledge and that would create an inequality in the outcome but then that's what I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't why would they hold that occupation so if there's two similar cases one they don't know, one they don't know but in their mind they hold that as an aggravating factor okay I understand that convener I think what we need to do is determine how we can take the petition forward as that's what the committee wants to do the Scottish Government has now found the money for a sentencing council that the Parliament supported and passed a few years back it does seem to me that this is a jurisprudential point of view there are difficulties about what you can do other than those who are notified automatically because of their status you cannot stop because all the court produces a document that says name and address it doesn't say unless, as Jackson Carlaw says the knowledge is known but it certainly raises issues about sentencing so it does seem to me that finding out whether the sentencing council is about to be established and certainly my understanding is that it's in the process of being set up with both legal and non-lay members may be the best port of call Members agree with that We'll take that forward as Kenny MacAskill has suggested and we'll get the information to you in terms of that response and then we'll consider the petition again that future point but thanks very much this morning for bringing your petition to us and for enabling the discussion to take place Thank you very much for having us on the committee for five minutes to give people a break I'll reopen the meeting by moving to agenda item 4 which is consideration of eight continued petitions The first continued petition is PE1105 by Marjorie McCance on St Margaret of Scotland Hospice Again, members have a note from the clause paper 5 which refers to this and the submissions that have been received I'd like to welcome Gill Patterson to the committee this morning and stick to interest in this petition I know he's had an involvement with it for some considerable time I'll open it up to the committee but it might be worth asking Gill to make a few points before we... I certainly would be very grateful for that, convener I think I would like to start at the end and make my appeal to the committee to keep this petition open and I note that you've got a letter from the Government I want to highlight the fact that the Government has happened to be a member of the same party of Government and that's an entirely different thing I've got to look after just like everybody here look after the interests of my constituents I don't believe it would be an interest of my constituents if this petition was closed at this particular time Just for anyone who doesn't know this is the oldest hospice in Scotland It's just a celebrated 65th anniversary Sister Rita and the nun also a lady that runs this establishment has just received an honour from the Queen There will be a freedom of Western Bartonshire to Sister Rita also I think that before any consideration is made I think that we should think about that and in reflecting it we should actually owe them just to go with the extra mile I know that the committee through a long time a long period have been very patient and very supportive but I think that this would be a wrong time to close the petition I know that you've also got a letter from the health board now I've had a meeting with the health board along with the former provost My feeling about the whole situation if you look at the contents of the letter there's clearly a willingness in the health board's part to get this off the table actually and the discussions that we have we had with them and the fact that the health board itself it's acknowledged by the hospice and myself that the health board have moved and we're certainly very grateful for that and as I said that the meeting and the letter suggest that we've got a linked partner here and of course the hospice is very willing so where do we go from here and I think quite clearly we need a person of some stature to oversee this there is a problem in the number of chartered accountants who have done business either with the health board or the hospice but if we had someone of a of public stature then I believe they could oversee it but they would still need a chartered accountant to do the evaluation and should something someone be found then I think it would make an enormous a difference to that I don't think that the health board I don't think that the health board will be difficult at all if something has been missed and I think that's what we've thought if something's been missed I think that actually in a way the health board will be relieved and offer no opposition at all and it's simply because that the hospice itself has acknowledged that the health board has made forward but to really conclude this satisfactorily I think it's got to be evaluated in the first place there was a promise that it would be evaluated there would be a look at it exactly what the position was vis-à-vis other hospices that has never been completed until that actually happens then I think the prospect that this will never be sorted so it takes an evaluation to see exactly where we are and then from that a determination could be made and for these reasons I think that the committee should keep this petition open committee members will have been keeping an eye on this as it's moved forward so I'll open up to you to suggest how we do it, Jackson I'm slightly uncomfortable I have to say at the cabinet secretary almost trying to direct the committee as to the decision it should take today I find that a slightly uncomfortable I don't know if it's a precedent but it's not a regular thing it's difficult to remember given that this was back to 2007 what a contentiously hot issue this has been over many years chief executive of the health board of coming on MSPs of coming on who have been associated with it over the period and the reason it has stayed open all this while is that notwithstanding what seemed to be a common sense route through the various parties concerned had found it extraordinarily difficult and there was a definite lack of trust at one stage in the process in the way the health board was approaching the issue and from what Mr Paterson says that seems to be alleviated I think my view would be that if the petition isn't closing now it's very close to coming to the point where the committee should seek to close it but since it was this on-going lack of conviction that goodwill would prevail that I would like to see the arbiter appointed and the auditor appointed to know that we had taken it to that stage and then I would be very comfortable I think for the petition to be closed I don't think we would need to necessarily await the outcome but I think that would be a reasonable step for us to say we have achieved the objective that arose out of all the difficulties that had presented themselves at the various stages through which this petition has rumbled along time Angus, do you want to go on? I certainly note the suggestion from the Scottish Government that we should close the petition which is an unusual response I have to say we don't get many of these coming from the Government however it is encouraging to note that the health board has moved on the issue and whilst acknowledging the suggestion from the Cabinet Secretary I think that there is merit in keeping the petition open to allow the committee to monitor progress in the short term so I'm happy to keep the petition open John, thank you I think that I'm one of the members that's actually been with this petition all the way through since 2007 I was a substitute member in November 2007 when this was initially presented I think that the comments have been made by my colleagues the last paragraph of the letter do warrant some comment particularly the one that has been mentioned by Mr Carlaw and Mr MacDonald in relation to the Cabinet Secretary now suggesting that we should close the petition if that's a hint to not close it then I think that's but the serious point in the last paragraph convener is the issue about the Government being in the words are unsuccessful in progressing the expert accountancy review now I would like to know from the Government why they have been unsuccessful in actually proceeding with that I know there were some issues about who should be appointed to carry out that review but I think that we have come to a stage and hopefully come to a stage where all sides can agree as Gil Paterson indicated to carry out this review then we could move forward substantially and I would like to find out how or why the Scottish Government feel they have been unsuccessful in getting this resolved and this is a response that we received in July we have moved on both sides in terms of the health board and the hospice have moved on but this review has to be carried out to the satisfaction of everyone concerned so that we can then hopefully move on and eventually close this petition but close it in a way that the petitioner feels that the issue has been dealt with in a way that has been accommodating to the initial intent of the petition so I would like to think that we could actually write back to the Government to look at holding the review but setting a timetable for that review to be carried out so that they were not sitting here in effectively nine years time or eight years time still considering this petition because the review hasn't been carried out I think that we could get that carried out quickly but I would like to think that the Government could give us a timescale in which this could be concluded and we can move forward OK, the consensus appears to be and pun intended that we don't want to put this to bed yet so we will write to the Government in the terms that John Wilson has suggested and ask for an explanation as to why this has not been resolved and if nothing else, a timescale for when it's iconic be expected to be resolved but we'll keep it open in the meantime that might disappoint the Cabinet Secretary but we'll make her aware that the committee was surprised at her suggestion OK, we'll take it forward in that way Thanks Thank you very much OK Our next petition is PE1319 by William Smith and Scott Robertson on improving youth football in Scotland Again, Paper 6 refers to this that was provided by the clerks and submissions have also been given I would invite contributions from members on this Kenny? It's not gone away it was raised last time whether we'd wish to convene a roundtable discussion I don't know and timescale wise might be difficult but I think certainly writing to the parties involved namely the commissioner of the SFA and the SPFL just to get an update I think things seem to be bubbling under given that it got raised and ran in the papers and therefore I think to close the petition whether we'd wish to take any direct hands-on, I'm sceptical but just perhaps putting pressure on the parties involved would do no harm Sensible Members agree? OK, that's agreed The next petition is PE1531 by Ashley Husbyn Powton on removing charitable status from private schools Paper 7 and submissions have been provided by the clerks in reference to this Again, contributions from members Jackson? We have considered this at some length I think the Government's position is very clear and on that basis I would recommend we close the petition I do so acknowledging that it's for political parties who have views on these matters to progress these issues as they see fit but I think that from the committee's point of view we've got to a point where there's nothing further we can do to take it forward Members agree? I'm not saying that it's agreed I'm just asking if members are agreed I think that we must recognise that the petitioner has actually made a lengthy submission in response to the details we've received so far and there are a number of questions within that submission that I thought might be useful to try and pursue with Oscar and others because clearly some doubt about in terms of the mind of the petitioner there is some doubt about why charitable status should be afforded to the independent school sector and on the basis of that criteria that Oscar used and as I said there are a number of additional questions that the petitioner has asked but if the committee was so minded I would want to try and get answers on behalf of the petitioner just so that we're all clear about how the Oscar makes its decisions in relation to what would be charitable status attainment by various organisations in Scotland today but as I said it's just a fairly lengthy submission but I have to say I hear what John Wilson's saying I tend to disagree I thought Oscar were quite clear about what this was more down to Government direction, the statutory basis we are coming into the period in which we are winding down and we're looking at an election it does seem to me that there's a fundamental issue which the petitioner has raised regarding charitable status rather than trying to resolve it within the current constraints it seems to me it's more for politicians since it won't be me as I'm stepping down but to consider this as we run into an election in 2016 going to Oscar at the present moment we'll just come back to a rehash of the evidence we had which will be to point to the Government to say this is what we've done and why and if you want to change it then you'll need to legislate I'm happy to close the petition down because I think the committee's taking it as far as it can with evidence in the way we went about it I tend to agree with Mr Carlaw Mr MacAskill it's maybe now time to hand over to the political parties to bring this matter forward after the next election however can I just put on record my thanks to the petitioner who has put forward a strong case from day one and her determination on this has to be admired but yeah I think I would be in favour of closing the petition at this time but would have you to become a political issue in the future I think we didn't necessarily want to go to the vote I think it's quite clear that the majority on the committee want to close the petition John have you got anything you want to I'm just hopeful that as Angus MacDonald and others have said that the political parties will take this issue on board and I look forward to their manifesto commitments in the coming months in relation to the independent school sector and the use of charitable status by organisations in Scotland and the role of Oscar Do you want to push it to a vote or are you happy with it? We'll close that petition then at that point next petition is PE1548 by Beth Morrison on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools paper 8 refers to this paper 8 contribution from members Jackson We did hear some very powerful evidence on this petition and I'm struck by the petitioner's submission which is slightly disturbing in as much as she clearly believes that the way in which the responses we have received have addressed matters has actually been not to focus on the actual subject of her petition but elsewhere and for those reasons I do think that there's considerably more that we need to do and I support the recommendation of Clarkson in terms of writing to the Scottish Government raising a number of issues explaining the needs of children with complex and severe learning well as detailed I think there's considerably more information we need to get and we need to focus in on what we actually heard which was a matter that gave us some cause for concern and which from the petitioner's submission unabashed as we speak and that I think we thought was completely unacceptable I have to say, when I read this petition I'm just coming up to speed with it I was dealing recently with a case and I was horrified at the extent to which this young girl had been treated and I just think the response that we got didn't match the reality that my constituency experience was I just think that the responses have completely missed out on what this petition is aiming at so there's a good bit of work I think still to be done in trying to get responses to this John. I would also like to impress upon the Government when we write to them that they should be consulting with the petitioner and other stakeholders in this area because clearly the petitioner in conversation submissions that they have made have highlighted a number of other cases that have been brought to their attention and if this and as you are saying convener if this is a widespread practice that is going unchecked or unregistered then we need to make sure that the Government are actually bringing forward proposals that address the issues that have been identified by parents and others in relation to the dealing with the issues raised in the petition so I would urge the Government as well to consult with the petitioner and other stakeholders to ensure that they are addressing and hearing first hand the issues that are being raised by those parents There are three suggestions put forward as a recommendation and members wish to go with those three is there anything they want to add to it I'm quite happy to go with the convener I think we covered what's required I think we all agreed that we should follow the recommended action in terms of that and pursue this matter further The next petition is PE1551 by Scott Pattinson on mandatory reporting of child abuse in paper 9 from the clerk and the submissions referred to us colleagues wish to comment I think we do need Government to clarify on this and I can see the arguments in favour equally I can see the consequences of being good with regard to organisations and indeed the pressure that might put upon those who are victims and being reluctant to share so I think there needs to be a greater scope and discussion and therefore perhaps inquiring from the Government as to what they're seeking to do and how they're proposing to break it forward because as I say I don't think we're at a situation of asking government to legislate immediately it's taking soundings from all involved because it's not a simple or straightforward issue and equally I think I suggested here writing to the chair of the inquiry highlighting the petition I know that the inquiry is likely to run for a considerable period of time so I'm not averse to that but equally I think the Government has to give some indication of whether they're going to pull stakeholders together because there's for and against here I think members are pretty much agreed with that of course of action Thanks Kenny for that suggestion Next petition PE1558 by John Tom on behalf of RNBCC Crayfish Committee Kennedy Catchment on American Signal Crayfish Paper 10 from the Clarkson's submissions relate to this Members have any comments we can do so now Jackson keen to get in on this one I read with interest a submission from SIPA which of course is all beautifully presented lots of colourful pictures and details and when I got to the end of it I wasn't sure that I remembered addressing any of the points I'd raised so I went back and ran off the official record of the evidence session that we had with SIPA and particularly my own exchanges on pages 11 to 17 of that and I found that in fact no not really had the points I'd raised being addressed in this very lavish production from SIPA in relation to research the claim was that there was a lot of current research under way what I have is a table which details research going back over 15 years but doesn't necessarily identify anything that's happening currently and secondly and I know we keep hearing from Dr Eddsman but the point that is continually made and not addressed is the difference between the commercial fishing and the fishing on a not-for-profit basis with all the proceeds then being diverted back into research and I've still not heard any specific response to that I understand that if it's for commercial gain I can understand the link between that and its travel into other locks and lakes but where it's not for commercial gain but for not-for-profit research basis I'm less persuaded but I also note at the very back of the SIPA report case studies with synthetic pyrethroids and other biocides that I don't know that the actual examples from the United States, France, Norway, Sweden actually do vindicate the evidence that we've received because many of these examples appear to have had some effect at the time no-cris fish has been found in the following summer no-cris were caught in traps the following year all treatments killed all the crayfish and cage tests the treatment killed crayfish and test cages but there are no results yet but what surprised me is that these dates were 2008, 2009 2010 but it appeared that that was the most recent date on which we then had any evidence as to what the long-term effect had had and I would have thought if a great deal of money was being spent on current research then we might have been interested to spend some of it at least trying to find out what the long-term effects of these things had been so I come out of all of this thinking that I'm being fobbed off is really what I think and I'm inclined to say that I really want to drill down further with some very specific questions again relating to the points that were put to SIPA and SNH at that meeting and also I think since we're not getting it directly examples of alternative methods that were trialled to ask what have been the long-term consequences and whether any monies have been invested in research to establish what those were That seems a very comprehensive critique of the responses Jackson I think from my point of view you all seem very valid questions I think we should be asking them do members agree that we pursue that in the manner that Jackson would like? Okay, thanks very much for paying such close attention to that Jackson, I think that's helpful Next protection, PE1560 by John Burstyn on local authority planning appeals procedure again, paper 11 from the clerks and the submissions around that are available to members to comment on Come at the end of the road sometimes you just have to accept that's the case I do note that there is going to now be a review of planning so we could possibly bring it to the attention of the panel and just write to them and close it, but write to them with this petition and suggest that they bear it in mind when they're making the deliberation The final continue petition today is PE1564 by James Treasurer on behalf of Friends of the Great Glen Loch Ness and the Great Glen Paper 12 from the clerks and the submissions around that It seems to be the local authority on the case that it's not as was being portrayed I think while the petitioners have made their point I think some of it seems to have been taken on board by the council that the areas that were being suggested that were my threatened are not actually likely to be the areas where the turbines are located so I'm simply for closing it with the council Members agreed With that I think we can close this morning's meeting Thanks very much for having us with our contributions I'll close the meeting to the public because I think we have to have a short discussion