 Felly, fracwp eu gwneud mewn sailor i ddweud nhw i ddweud i ddim yn vasw fan o'r sgol addig i gael i ddweud eichser oedd teithasau painu, oherwydd ei ddweud i ddim yn ddweud eu ddweud i gael i ddweud. Dw i'n dweud eich tyfnwys ei ddweud ei ddweud i gael i ddweud i ddweud hyn yn rydyn ni, ac ydw i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud yn peili o ddweud i ddweud i ddweudio of interests for members of the Scotland judiciary. As previously agreed, we are taking evidence today from the judicial complaints reviewer. Members have a note by the clerk and have submission from the petitioner and have sent a link to the previous judicial complaints reviewers' annual report. Can I welcome Gillian Thomson, OBE, the judicial complaints reviewer to the meeting? I now invite Ms Thomson to make a short opening statement, no more than five minutes, and the after which we will move to questions. Over to you, Gillian. Good morning and thank you for inviting me. I'm just going to say a very few words just to put today in context as far as I'm concerned. I've been in post since September 2014. I have a background in public service, was a civil servant for 36 years and since then I've gathered to myself a group of board memberships on charities' third sectors and now the judicial complaints reviewer. Just by way of where I'm at at the moment in terms of the work, since that was something that you asked my predecessor, since I took up post I've had 22 requests for review to date. As of today, I have 17 outstanding from that 22. I'm actively looking at three this week, so hopefully we'll get rid of those by Friday. I did inherit a backlog of 14 from my predecessor. I cleared those around the 25th of March 2015, so it just gives you a bit of a feel for how the work is going generally. The waiting time, if you like, for people is around four to five months, but I haven't had any complaints about that, although I appreciate that it's not ideal. I wrote to the committee at their request on 12 January. I'm supportive of a register of interests, always have been, and that remains my position today. In letter to the committee, you wrote that we live in an age in which transparency about interests and activities of those in the public eye is regarded as good practice. There is a perception that anything less is the result to attempt to hide things. That would seem to suggest that anything less than a degree of openness associated with a register of interests would not constitute best practice and would be perceived as an attempt to hide things. Would that be a fair interpretation? Absolutely, yes. That remains my view. Thank you, convener. Good morning. In your opening statement, you said that you were in favour of a register of interests. Can you expand that in a wee bit? Why are you in favour of it? For the reasons that I set out in my letter in January, I think that people who are in public service—I might go further and say people who are paid, if you like, by the public pound—I don't see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against providing information within reason. People in this room, including myself, keep a register of interests. It is not particularly onerous in my experience. We would be talking potentially about there being a register somewhere and someone who would have to keep it and all those points that I made in my letter. However, if one thinks about it on a reasonably regular basis, they need to be updated. I will be updating my register shortly because of taking on some new and some different responsibilities. For me, it is about a mindset. I cannot see arguments against, I have to confess. I find that rather difficult. If you would like me to give a balanced view, I am not sure on this occasion, although I am experienced in giving a balanced view, I am not sure on this occasion that I can do that. I think that, in particular, in the environment about which we are talking about in the context of the petition, people want to be able to feel that they are getting an even-handed response at court. If you like, whoever is sitting there in judgment, there is no bias in all those things. A register would go partway—it is all part and parcel of a wider picture—to reassure people that nobody is hiding anything. Good morning. Do you consider yourself part of the establishment? I suppose that depends on where you are sitting. No, probably not. No, I do not. I do not know whether I am relieved or not. It is just that, as far as I can see, the establishment in so far as it exists has been unanimously against any such—as has the Government, no doubt, the personage of Mr McCaskill, who was the Government at the time that would receive the advice, but he will speak for himself in due course. Our difficulty throughout all of this is, obviously, your predecessor was quite sympathetic from what we have read that you have been to. The former Lord President, whose principal argument it seemed to me to be that, unlike members of this Parliament who have the opportunity to answer back, members of the judiciary would not have that opportunity, if challenged in some way. Ironically, however, he deigned not to come before the committee to answer back in person to any of his assertions on these matters, so we have always had to try and read the runes. I think that, privately, our former convener and deputy convener were able to meet him, but they are no longer here. His argument was that, I think, essentially that, A, there was no need in this era of transparency for light to shine on the judiciary, but that potentially some great malfeasance of justice would occur if it were so to do. Primarily, they had the obstacle to being able to redress any assertions that were made based on the register as it would exist and any claims that might be made of it. Does that resonate with you as sufficient grounds to disbarse such a suggestion? No. My understanding of what he had said before was that, as far as he was concerned, Lord Gell was concerned, judges took an oath to uphold certain values and so on and so forth. Therefore, anything further than that was not required because the public was able to rely upon people in that position knowing what they needed to do and doing it, as it were. Now, my understanding is that, since the judicial complaints review post was put in place in 2011, there is now a recusal process. Judges can recuse themselves. There is a register, or at least a list, as I understand it, of those people who have done it. However, I am not persuaded by that argument, no. People at the moment are able to make a complaint about the conduct of a judge in whatever form. I would have thought that, potentially, there would be some way of challenging or answering back or having a review taken of the list and whoever is making the complaint. I can see that there might be a need to extend the complaints process, perhaps. I do not know, but it is a normal part of public service. People keep a register. For me, it is common sense. Who would you see imposing a sanction in the event of a breach or failure? Would that be back to the Lord President? Who would be the final arbiter of a failure to register or a failure to properly register? Well, it is a bit of crystal ballgasing, is not it? As the judicial complaints review role stands, it does what it says on the tin in terms of the regulations. All that I can do at this current juncture is to examine whether or not the rules have been followed in terms of the complaint. I do not look any further beyond that at all. I think that there would need to be consideration, obviously, as to how the process would work, but the Lord President currently has responsibility for sanctioning judges in the event that something is found against them in terms of their conduct under the rules. I would have thought that that would sit squarely on the shoulders of whoever comes along as the Lord President in the future. Presumably, the register would be financial and pecuniary, because a lot of the recrusals that are made at the moment will be on the knowledge of a witness or a relationship to that. It is a register of interest, is not it? I gave you my little register of interests, including what I am paid and who I support by way of charities, including my membership of the Scottish Daxon Club. The answer to that is yes. Whatever is deemed appropriate for others, such as yourself and our Government ministers and so on, why should it not be deemed appropriate for people who are sitting in judgment of others? John Mawson. At the present moment, we have seen the establishment of a voluntary register of recusal. We just want to try and get that issue over. At the present moment, for a judge or a sheriff to recuse himself, it is done voluntarily. Could you confirm that as a case? As far as I am aware, that is the case, yes. On the public register, we have just seen the establishment of a new first private bank that has been established for 150 years. It claims to have 250 shareholders. It has been reported in some of the press that some of those shareholders are judges and sheriffs. Would you think that it would be appropriate for those judges or sheriffs to register if they were shareholders in a private bank? Why would they not? I am just raising it as a question. It is not something that I have thought about in terms of coming here, but I am looking at it from a point of view that if there is anything at all that could be construed by a person in the street using everyday common sense that something could get in the way or might be perceived to get in the way, that should go on a register. We need to remember that that is not for me to make those kinds of decisions, even should we ever come to that position. The reason why I understand that you have been invited along today, Ms Thomson, is to give us your views, because we respect the role of judicial complaints reviewer and we took evidence from your predecessor in pursuants of this petition. It is to try and, hopefully, indicate to the committee where we can take this petition and the kinds of issues that are being raised. You did say that the ordinary person or to paraphrase you, the ordinary person in the street should get to know whether or not a judge or a sheriff has interests that may impact upon their serving or hearing a case in front of them. How far, in your view, would you want to see that be taken? Because there are issues about financial interests, there are issues about people appearing in front of them who may be members of the same golf club or the same society as them. You made reference to your Dutch Hound Society membership. How far would you want to see that register going in relation to whether there was a register established in terms of sheriffs and judges' register of interests? I think that, as I have already seen on record, at the outset I said that I am supportive of my predecessor's position. I think that a registered judge should have a register and, on it, they should note their interests. Would we ever get to a position where in a court somebody would say, I just want to register—this is the judge speaking—that I know this person or I'm in the same golf club or I don't know this—I don't know. In the context of us having this conversation today, I don't know. It would be necessary to have a bit more thought about the practicalities of all that. All I can say is that, from my own point of view, when I go to a meeting, we have a point at the beginning of the meeting where we are asked, for example, whether there has been any change to the register of interests that we keep in a particular context. I think that it's not for what I'm saying—perhaps just to clarify again—that I am supportive of there being a register of interests. I think that that is what the public wants to see, I would say, if people have thought about it. What that looks like in its absolute finality, I might have been asked for my opinion, but, as we sit here today, I'm not sure that I can go all into all the ins and outs of exactly what that would look like. I appreciate that, Ms Thomson. Thank you very much for your evidence. Following on from that point, there is an argument that the information on a register could be abused by the media, hostile individuals or, indeed, dissatisfied litigants. Do you have any view on that argument? Well, it is an inevitability in my personal experience that, when you put information out into the public, that different interests might cross over. I have had personal experience of that very recently. There was an issue that I had to deal with in relation to what looked like some sort of cross-purposing of some different roles that I hold, but that was just a misunderstanding on the part of the person who was seeking to investigate a bit further. One has to spend a bit of time and my experience on scrambling some of that, but I'm not sure that I would necessarily say that that's a reason for not doing it. Those things need to be managed. Of course, they need to be managed, as I've indicated in my response in January. Somebody would need to hold a register, it would need to be managed. Of course, there's an on-cost in relation to all of that, but as I'm understanding the nature of the petition, it's about seeking some clarity for those people who are going to court in terms of interests that judges may hold that are not known. Fyelodd, can I go back to an earlier point that was raised? You indicated that you agree with your predecessor's view that the powers of the GCR to review the complaints process are actually quite limited. If that is the case and you agree with your predecessor, do you have any plans to review the complaints process? It's not for me to review. I have said to the Scottish Government that I think that we're four years into the role and the role is now held by the second person in the role, and so, the time, as far as I'm concerned, sitting here, it probably would be time to start thinking about the possibility of reviewing whether or not what was originally envisaged under the primary legislation, which was passed in 2008, is what is still required. So, I'm supportive, as always, as an old civil servant in terms of, you know, we have a piece of legislation, there's a policy, there's a concept, we have something that the Parliament agrees to, it's enforced for a while, and then at some point or another, and a three or four-year period seems to me not unreasonable to go back and have a look and see whether or not it's still meeting its requirements. I would say that, I mean, I'm sitting in the role but, you know, a review might say, maybe we don't need one, maybe we don't need the JCR. I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that there's lots of different ways to look at this, and I wouldn't be putting my hand up saying, oh, we absolutely have to have. What I'm interested in is this, bluntly, is this value for money? You know, is the public getting value for money at the moment? I think that generally speaking, well, I'm hopeful that I'm giving value for money, I'm getting more efficient at doing the reviews and so on and so forth, and the speed will come and so on and so forth. However, it is a question as to, it is a very narrow role only looking at whether the rules have been followed, that's it. Not looking at anything else over and above that, the why's, the wherefor's, the how could that possibly, is that reasonable, none of that, I may have thoughts, but that's not my role. So, a review, yes, not for me to do, however. Input, yes, but that's for someone else to carry out, should they decide that there's scope and appetite and it fits in with all the other work that needs to be done. Well, presumably it will be a priority that you will raise with the new Lord President once he or she is appointed. I will, as I have already raised it with Scottish Government, my contacts in Scottish Government, including Mr Wheelhouse, who I met in January. Good morning. I just wondered, you made a comment about it sticking you perhaps four to five months to deal with, and you yourself have suggested that perhaps that's a little long. So, it's without saying that I will then ask what do you think would be a reasonable time and do you think that you'll be able to meet that in the near future in terms of producing the time that is taking you just now? I know that you'd not end for very long, so I appreciate that. I'm asking you to set yourself almost a challenge. Well, I've already done that. As you may be aware, the contract with the JCR and Scottish Government is for up to three days a month, and I have been working more days than that by agreement with Scottish Government. So, for example, from the middle of December, I've been working four days a month, and because the backlog just refuses to go down, largely because of input and so on. Of course, it's demand-led, so a demand-led service on a restricted number of days is always going to be a bit of a headache for the person who's delivering the service and for the people who are waiting. So, I did put a proposal to Scottish Government in May, I think it was, and they've come back and agreed that, and so I'm doing six days this month, next month and August now. Will I clear the backlog? No, I will get through it. I can, with two days extra over and above the four, so effectively twice as many as the contract says, I should be able to push through enough cases to get to, I would like to say exactly how many, but it depends on the complexity of course, because some are very straightforward and you can see some require me to give a bit more thought, maybe to seek some clarification and so on and so forth, and then everybody is entitled that I spend a bit of time thinking about what I'm going to say. I mean, it's the second in the role. I've been able to pick up the processors that Moai put in place. Do they need reviewing? Yes, they probably do, but I don't have time. So my hope is that by the end of August I will have substantially moved through the backlog. I don't think it's appropriate. I have a background in public service specifically in front-line service, so I think it's a long time for people to wait four to five months, although, of course, I write to them, I keep them up to date about how much longer they can expect to wait and things like that. So I'm not sure today. I don't think I want to put a figure on it other than to say that I'm moving through the cases more quickly now. I think they take about a day, day and a half maybe to do a case, which is reasonably complex. I could do two cases in one day if it was pretty straightforward and there wasn't much paperwork to look at. Do you see what I mean? I would like to get to a position where there was no backlog and I was dealing with things as they came in, but frankly, I think that's unlikely. In addition to the 22 cases that have come into me since 1 September, I've also had seven inquiries and I've put a telephone number on the website, which there wasn't one before, so I get telephone inquiries as well. Then, of course, there's events like today and other things and other meetings and things like that, which I do in days when I'm not working if you follow me. It has to be realistic about these things. If you allow me to follow up, I genuinely appreciate your response. It's very honest and very balanced. However, I don't think that it actually helps you with what you're telling me. It suggests that there's more pressure on what you're trying to achieve at the risk of—I'm not suggesting for a moment that your work would be diluted, but it certainly puts a lot of pressure on you to try and get through the cases for the times that you're doing it. I would perhaps suggest that you may want to explore the possibility of either getting yourself more help or even more days to try and achieve the good goals that perhaps you yourself would like to see set. I wish you good luck with that. Thank you. If there was to be a review, I think that that would need to be part and parcel of the review bearing in mind that I remain in the position of I do it, I do everything. Things like the housekeeping and the website and that sort of thing, which really do need attention, are things that I dream about at night. They're not keeping me awake, but you know what I mean. Yes, I do. Thank you. Ms Thomson, in anela response to Angus MacDonald you said that you didn't think that it was your responsibility to do a review of the rules. Do you believe, then, that the current rules are for purpose? We're talking here about my role as opposed to the rules, because the rules belong to the judicial office of Scotland. Do you believe, then, that the complaints process run by the judicial office of Scotland is fit for purpose? It is fit for the purpose that is currently in place. I might expand on that by saying that I'm in absolutely no doubt that the process that is in place at the judicial office for Scotland has improved, did improve during the time that my predecessor was in post. When she left, she felt that she hadn't added the sort of value that she would have wished to, but picking up where she left off and having had a number of conversations, meetings with the judicial office for Scotland, I'm satisfied that the process has grown organically and improved, and the way in which they deal with the throughput and so forth and the letters that they write and so on has improved. As we would hope, complaints process equals service improvements at the entity that the complaints are looking at. The new rules came into effect on the 1st of April 2015. I think that they are an improvement. A bit of sequencing rules following streamlining, a bit more explanation to people who are trying to find their way through the systems, the guidance leaflet was improved. That is one question. The other question is, I think that the judicial complaints reviewer—I'm interpreting your question now—is the JCR fit for purpose. As it is currently constituted, it does what is required of the JCR. Could it do more? Yes, it could, but that would require somebody to say that we need more, because it is very one-dimensional, as I've said. As you rightly said, the new complaints rules were published on April 1. How far do you think that they went to address the concerns that were highlighted by your predecessor? Well, in small measure, I think that Moe had undertaken—I don't know whether you're aware, so forgive me if I'm telling you something, but she had undertaken a many consultation among the people who had asked for a review and sent that out. When there was a consultation done by the judicial office for Scotland, Moe also did her own consultation, and then she parsed all of that up and sent that to the judicial office. You may have seen that the judicial office in tandem with publishing the rules also published the consultation response, which set out the things that they had taken on and the things that they hadn't. In answer to your question, I think that, in some part, Moe did go a little way to responding to some of the concerns that she had expressed about the rules and the way in which the rules work. Some of that was around the understanding of the person who was coming up against the rules, because it's sometimes difficult for people who are inexperienced to properly understand what the different rules mean. I was also asked for my view, because there was quite a bit of time that went by. I hoped that there were helpful suggestions, but the judicial office took a view in the totality of the responses that they got and made a determination that the Lord President was able to agree. It doesn't really answer your question, I know. In part, I don't know whether you've seen, I don't know whether the committee might be interested in having a look at the response document that was issued by the judicial office for Scotland, if you haven't seen it. It is quite helpful in understanding the changes that were made to the to the rules. Ms Thomson, to clarify, could you remind us how many responses that were made to the review that was carried out, to the judicial office's review that was held under the Lord President? I'm not sure that I know. I have a piece of paper with me, which I can look up and leave, but— What we have in front of us is information to say that there were five responses. Oh, yes. Well, it was a very small handful. Yes, it wasn't like masses of numbers. I know that you can stew your own view on that. Although I should just clarify that, take it back to the judicial office and ask whether or not they've taken into account the responses that my predecessor had in terms of that. However, I seem to remember being told that they had not, so they've taken a response from— That was going to be a follow-up question, Ms Thomson, whether your predecessor's responses had been included in those five. As one? As one. Yes, I believe so. Is there any further questions? Could the committee now decide what action it wishes to take in its petitions? You should be writing to the incoming Lord President, asking him what his view is, given the clear expression. It's not just now of one judicial complaint reviewer, but two, and see whether the new Lord President, whoever he or she may be, may be otherwise minded. I think we've probably come in to wait and see what they say before we consider it further, but asking the new Lord President equally, given the view of Ms Thomson, it does seem to me that it might be worthwhile asking the Scottish Government whether this is an opportune moment to review the office of JCR given her comments, and that would be a matter dealt with by them, not by the Lord President, but it seems to me that there's a possibility of perhaps a new regime at the judiciary with the new Lord President, and equally, after four years and into the second judicial complaints reviewer, is the job what we want it or should it be reviewed? It doesn't have to be a lengthy consideration of review, but is it doing what we want, and if the role is to expand, perhaps depend upon the Lord President, how much further should it go if there's a judicial register? I return to the fact that when this petition first came before us, I was actually deeply sceptical of it, and became more persuaded that it may have merit in response to the reaction that we had to it and to the inquiries that we made. I support what Mr McCaskill said. I wonder whether the attitude of the incoming president to give us his view on offering himself to the committee to allow us to examine that, whether that will be the same as his predecessor, but it might be worth inquiring. First, we need to see what he has to say. The principal reason that I think that his predecessor felt that it wouldn't be appropriate was that he didn't see how in office it would be incumbent upon him to do that. I wonder now that he's not in office whether he would be willing to come before the committee to allow us to understand further the perspective that he took. I was always open to persuasion on this issue. It's been the lack of an argument that seems to sustain itself in a reasonable fashion that has led me to remain sympathetic to the aims of the petition. The clerk to the committee has advised me that it's in fact not competent for this committee to initiate a bill of our own. Of course, it's open to any member of the Parliament to do that and to do that in this session of Parliament or in the next. However, as I think Ms Thompson has said, and which is evidence outside of here, there is a clear public interest in this issue, which has found expression. In the absence of a more substantive argument than the impression that it's not something that we want in inverted commas, I really think that this committee should be reluctant to allow the petition to run into the sand but should do all that we can to sustain it and to pursue its objectives for as long as we feel able to do so. I would support the suggestions made, but I would add just the additional thoughts as well. I suggest that, if we are writing to the Scottish Government to seek the views, could we get clarification on the further evidence that has been provided by the petitioner regarding the legal advice that the Scottish Government saw? I know that there is a and we have copies of the correspondence that the petitioner has received saying that the Scottish Government feel at the present moment that it is not advisable to release the legal advice, but could I ask if we seek clarification about when that legal advice was sought and why it felt that it was necessary to seek that advice? While we might not get legal advice as it is, the Scottish Government has admitted in the correspondence that legal advice was sought and I would like clarification on when it did seek that and the reasons why it sought that legal advice. The member agrees on the action that has been promoted. Consideration of PE1563 by Dorian Goldie on behalf of Avenbridge and Standburn Community Council on sewage sludge spreading. Today, we will take evidence from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in Scottish Water. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I welcome Mark Aitken and Chris Daley from SIPA and Mark Williams and Brian Duff from Scottish Water to the meeting. As both SIPA and Scottish Water have provided detailed written submissions, I will move straight to questions. Petitioners called for sludge spreading on land to be stopped. Can I get your views on that? What are the implications if more sludge has got to go for landfill or for it to be incinerated? SIPA's position on the call for a ban. SIPA would not support the call for a ban. There is a place for sludge application to land, both agricultural land and non-agricultural land. It is a valuable resource and we need to be treating our waste as a resource. It is useful in terms of nutrients and soil structure and so on. It has many benefits. That has to be balanced so that it is clear that there has been an unacceptable impact on communities around the country. We have to balance that and make sure that that resource is used well and it is regulated well. In terms of the alternative uses, in terms of landfill, that is not a sustainable option. We need to be moving away from that idea that if we have a waste that is our resource and that we do not just stick it in a hole in the ground, that is the old way of doing things. Plus, there is an enormous cost to public purse in terms of landfill tax and landfilling that type of waste because of its own problems in terms of odors and leakchates and so on that still have to be managed. Incineration is an option and has a place. A third of Scotland's sludge is incinerated at the moment. It has potential for that to increase in terms of the capacity there or seems to be capacity there. There is obviously an energy cost and a financial cost associated with doing that. Again, it is a loss of resource as well. From a Scottish Water perspective, sludge recycling to land is a sustainable practice that is carried out in accordance with the rules, the guidance, the regulations and the non-statutory controls that we allude to in our submission. As a practice, it is well established around the world and over many decades as a resource for nutrients and solar stabilisation. The key issue for us is to look again at the controls to ensure that we satisfy ourselves that we are meeting the expectations of the environment for communities across Scotland. I think that there are some areas between the Scottish Water and SIPA and within the wider government review where we can identify some practices that we can do differently. We need to set the context that sludge to land is when the minority waste streams in this space as well. There is a much bigger question around how we manage these resources. From a Scottish Water perspective, it remains part of our strategy for sludge management going forward. We send some sludge for recovery via waste-to-energy incineration. Those are primarily through cement manufacture and those sorts of kilns. We do not have a dedicated facility for such an outlet in Scotland, so it would have some fairly big implications for Scottish Water in terms of how we need to think differently about sludge. Were that not to be an option for us? Scottish Water is responsible for most of the sewage plants in Scotland. Can you explain the process of how sludge comes to be applied to the land once it is produced as a sewage plant? What charges are paid in this process and to whom? In terms of the operational practices that we would go through, I will pass on to my colleague Brian Duff for going through that one. We are the national wastewater service provider and we have some private finance PFI schemes in place, but they are accountable to Scottish Water in terms of how that was to run. In terms of the end-to-end process for sludge horizons and recycling, I will pass on to Brian just now. The main process that we will go through for, we will tweet the sludge on site. Thereafter, we have a three-stage process. One is identifying suitable farmland, the reason for the farmers doing soil analysis. Once we have accepted the soil can be spread on, we will then have a look at the cropping details of the sludge analysis to make sure that the application rates are suitable for the nutrient levels, taking into consideration metal levels and pH. Once that has been accepted and agreed, we will then go on to the application stage. The application can be two ways, straight out to the field and incorporated, or we would use stockpiles. We would use stockpile in the corner of the field waiting for the next crop to come round and then we will apply when the crops require them. That is the process that we go through. What charges are paid in this process? There are no charges. When we say that Scottish Water is responsible for most of the sewage plants, what other operators are out there? How many are there? How many are percentage-wise? The other operators are the PFI operators. They do approximately 80 per cent of our sludge. That is the larger cities in Scotland. They are all operated PFI, but we still have that duty of care to make sure that it is recycled properly. After that, there are a few smaller businesses out there that do not sell private septic tank empty, so they will deal with their own sludge their own way. Whereas the Scottish Water does the highest percentage. Can you advise the committee what information is available about how much and where sludge is applied to land in Scotland? Certainly in terms of agricultural land, there is the annual register. I think that it is a lot of of sepa. There is a matter of public record in terms of that practice. That identifies down to the individual fields and the tonnages and also the analysis of the chemicals within that material as well. That sits on the public register as the annual sludge register for the regulatory controls in that space. The Scottish Water has a duty to produce that by the end of March in every year for the preceding year. The register would also include the private finance initiative schemes in addition to Scottish Water. We would require the PFI's to supply us with that data. The additional data that would be held is in relation to sludge use on and on agricultural land, which should be separately collected under waste management licensing exemption regulations. You are saying about the register of where the sludge is spread. How many complaints do Scottish Water and sepa get from local communities and how quickly do you respond to them? From a complaints perspective for Scottish Water, we are aware of the recent issues in certain parts of Scotland around the central belt. I could not give you an exact answer just now on numbers of complaints, but I know that there have been certain complaints in association, primarily with stockpiles. I am aware of several complaints that sepa brought to Scottish Water's attention in recent months, but I am not aware of an actual number. I do not have a total number, but to give a flavour of some of the big instance associated with sewage sludge that we have experienced over the past 18 months to two years, one of the bigger of those was in Erskine last year in 2014, around the time of the Commonwealth Games. In terms of the storage of that stockpile, sepa received over 200 complaints in relation to that stockpile. That was an example of an inappropriate storage location close to houses in a state. When the material was spread, there were upwards of 200 complaints again in relation to the sparing activity and the odour generated from that. That gives a flavour of that as being a particularly big incident. I would have thought that you would have come to this committee today with figures with regard to the total amount of complaints that you had received. Rwy'r clyw, David Torrance, I have a constituency interest given that the issue has been on-going and plaguing residents in part of my constituency for a number of years. I think that the fact that the petition originates in my constituency highlights the seriousness of the issue in Falkirk East. However, the redirection of sewage sludge that has already taken place away from Falkirk district by Scottish Water is welcomed by local residents and the on-going sludge review and the implementation of the Regulatory Reform Bill, which we will see shortly, will, I am sure, see improved regulatory controls. Clearly, some operators flout and abuse the current regulations. Clearly, there is an argument in the future for a fit and proper person test to look at whether some of those operators should in fact be operating. Can I ask Scottish Water, as the supplier, what checks do you undertake that sludge is stored and applied in accordance to the regulations? Do you take into account the effect on local communities of storing and spreading sludge? The storing of sludge in the stockpiles, we undertake risk assessments contracted as it provides us with the evidence and we go out and do checks to make sure that it is being done properly. We are also taking into effect the local communities. We have people on the ground who are adding to that number to make sure that we are checking every stockpile that we go out there now. The checks that we do on contractors are the normal procurement checks to make sure that they are fit and proper to carry out the role of the trained staff available and also the equipment and the background in doing that. That is all done at the procurement stage. When you say that you do checks on whether they are fit and proper, there is no form of fit and proper test as yet. We will do a technical evaluation of all our contractors to make sure that they are capable of undertaking the role and making sure that they have adequate trained staff. That is clearly something that perhaps the Government can look at in the future with regard to any new legislation that might be coming forward. What role do you have in inspecting the storage and application of sludge? What steps do both Scottish Water and SEPA take if you do discover a problem? The role that SEPA has under the current regulatory framework is spreading to agricultural land. SEPA's role is about collecting information and assessing the register. Any nuisance that arises from that agricultural spreading falls to local authority under general statutory nuisance provisions, so SEPA does not have any legal powers there. In terms of storage of sludge prior to either agricultural or non-agricultural spreading, for example land restoration projects, former opencast sites and so on, SEPA regulates that under waste management licensing controls. All the law that is required at the moment is a notification to SEPA, so there is no assessment of whether the storage location is appropriate or not and it is not required in the regulations. There is no minimum distance specified from receptors, so in terms of being in the front foot in some of those storage locations and the law being set up to assist us and protect communities at work, it is not in the place that it should be at the moment. In terms of sludge application to non-agricultural land, as in the case of those land restoration projects, SEPA will assess those. The law requires an application to SEPA, which we assess, determine application rates and so on. We inspect those sites. We also respond to complaints when we receive complaints and we can do extra compliance work. For example, in SEPA's region, which ranges from the borders up to Dundee and Angus, we undertook a project initiative last year, where we assessed all storage locations to assess whether they were appropriate and whether they were within the six-month timescale that is required by law. If we found that they were reaching those rules, we had the exemptions removed or the stockpiles moved. That was in collaboration with Scottish Water, that initiative. In terms of the other enforcement options that are available to us, we can remove a waste management exemption, which is the authorisation, the licence, if you like, that allows the sludge storage or the application to take place. That is a minimum period of 21 days for that to take effect. Similarly, we can serve an enforcement notice to require waste stockpiles to be removed. Again, a minimum period of 21 days, clearly if you are a community that is being impacted by order, that 21-day period is too long. Okay, thanks. How many inspections have been undertaken in the last 12 months and how many have resulted in enforcement action? Okay, I do not have those figures in front of me. Again, I would have thought that you should have had those figures with you today. I can give a flavour of the type of enforcement action that we have taken, so we have removed exemptions, we have served enforcement notices to require removal of stockpiles right across Scotland. I do not have those specific numbers. Can you send those to the committee? Yes, it could indeed. Although I am disappointed that you do not have them in front of us today. There is an added complication with regard to the mobile licences that are issued by SIPA. Clearly, those are being abused by a number of operators. That is my opinion, I have to say. Are there any future plans to clamp down on mobile operators? Clearly, they are just continually applying for mobile licences and they are being granted, because there is no way around it. Is there some way to stop that happening? You mentioned before your self-angus, the regulatory reform process that is a partnership between the Scottish Government and SIPA. Part of that process is a new permissioning framework that will really rebalance the way we licence not only organic waste to land, but other waste management activities as well. At the moment, what we could, there are a range of options out there. The acts in place and provides a framework, the detailed proposals and the secondary legislation is to come. But there are a range of options there, so we could, as you talked about earlier, for those contractors that involve a sludge application, we could require them to be licenced. That licence would require a fit and proper person assessment. For example, at the moment, if a sludge contractor has a poor compliance record in one area and an exemption has been removed, SIPA cannot take account of that when assessing an application for a future sludge usage by that same contractor, so the fit and proper person would allow that as part of the application process. We could also require that mobile plant licence could only be used for very specific activities, which I think the legislation originally intended, which was around on-site and in-situ remediation of contaminated land, and not for some of those activities that are more odorous, such as the lime treatment of sewage sludge, which has been a problem in your constituency. We have to ensure that the secondary legislation is as robust as possible, and the sooner it is in place, the better. Good morning, gentlemen. I am a little surprised that you do not have figures with you today, because I thought that was why you are here. However, you made one comment about contractors and how they would move on. The other issue that I find sometimes in the building trade is that contractors change names and they can still be there. Is there any way of policing that at all, or do you have a mechanism of policing that at all? Yes, that could be challenging under the current regulatory framework, so it could be an associated company with the same individuals but a different company name. The detailed proposals are not on the table, but there is scope to have the fit and proper person take account of associated persons, which could in part at least address some of those issues. That is because I would have thought that it was quite easy for people to simply change name and continue the mild practice that they would do. Accountability is actually quite important and, in fact, it is vital. I would really like to see some proposals from you, Chaps, in the very near future. I would like to go on to some of the issues that have been raised by the petition, and that is the health issues and the impact on the environment, particularly on wildlife. I read with interest in the SEPA submission that most of the work that has been done in terms of research relies on research that was done by the European Commission 10 years ago and desktop studies that were done seven years ago. Given that we have what is an increasing green belt growth in terms of housing and the proximity to human habitats in relation to some of the work that used to go on before, is that having an impact on the residents that are in these houses and what they fear may be the contamination that is taking place by the spreading of sludge either on agricultural land or, in particular, non-agricultural land, given that there is less regulation in terms of non-agricultural land? The work that we have reviewed, as you have rightly pointed out, was carried out 10 years ago. I think that there is a need for some follow-up work taking into account the new measures and practices that we have seen in the place. I should say that the work that generally did not find any implications for human health was based on the caveat that those measures were carried out in full accordance with current regulations and guidance that were those particular studies. However, your main point is right that practices in Scotland have been changing. I would certainly recognise the need for looking more carefully about the impact, particularly the effect of older nuisances on communities nearby. Clearly, communities have suffered from that. Is it not also true that, in the past 10 years, the sciences have moved forward and we are identifying more contaminants in the sludge materials that have been used because of the eating habits and other habits of the population where the sludge is emanating from? We are becoming more knowledgeable in terms of what we get figures here. We get 99.999 multiplier in terms of the contaminants, but clearly, when the science gets better and we know what materials are actually going and being passed through the sludge and the impact that that is having on the soil and to make the point once again in the non-agricultural sector, what can we do to make sure that monitoring is taking place at an appropriate level that we are not just spreading more contaminants on the soil or spreading airborne contaminants for the populations surrounding the areas where the sludge has been disposed? From a general Scottish water perspective, the quality of sludge over the past few decades has been improving largely because of earlier European directives on dangerous substances and everything else, so it has meant that we have had more upfront controls on what comes into our waste water treatment works to start with. In terms of contaminants, the sludge is, I would say, cleaner if that is the right phrase than it has been in the past in terms of the metals and the other things that may be within there. Clearly, from an agricultural perspective, that is very well tightly controlled around all that. I would probably suggest that we keep under review the other issues that go on there. In terms of the sludge land review that is going on presently, looking at the wider controls, we are very happy to be involved in that discussion and to see where we need to go next in that. I would also refer to SEPA submission. There is a paragraph that says, hearing a quote in the paragraph, that SEPA does not have regulatory powers to control odour in all circumstances, such as spreading on agricultural land. Who does have the regulatory powers? If SEPA does not have regulatory powers over this area, then who would a concerned citizen go to to get action taken if it is not SEPA? I have heard this before from constituents where they have went to SEPA and I have done it myself in the standard response from SEPAs. Will that not be within our regulatory powers? You need to go and speak to somebody else. Who would you speak to in those circumstances? That would be the local authority, and it is usually the environmental health department. It falls to statutory whether there is not a specific power in law for SEPA the regulator to control the odour, which there is not in the case of agricultural spreading. It falls to general statutory nuisance provisions under the EPA 90, which the local authority is responsible for. Given the review that is currently taking place that has been referred to in the Scottish Government, the Scottish Water and SEPA are involved in, has there been any discussions in the review discussions regarding additional powers for either Scottish Water or SEPA in relation to control? One of the concerns that I have is that when you go to an environmental health department, the environmental health department will pass you to SEPA. When you go to SEPA, SEPA will pass you to the environmental health department. Usually, the standard response for the environmental health department is that we do not have the resources to examine the SEPA. How do we resolve the continuing circle that people get put into in relation to making sure that action is taken when appropriate? While action is appropriate, do you think that 21 days is sufficient for a notice period to be issued for action to be instituted by someone who is found to be in breach of the regulations? I will answer your last point first on the 21-day period. That is a period that is specified in law, so that is a minimum period before the notice can take effect. To answer that question simply, as I said earlier, I do not think that that is quick enough. I think that that is far too long. On the here and now in liaison with local authorities, I am aware of the picture that you paint, and that is certainly not the position that we like to find the public in, whether they are being handed from one authority to the other. We do try to work collaboratively with local authority environmental health departments. We have a good relationship with the Falkirk Council department, for example. Can I just clarify exactly that with the Falkirk Council department? Now that the residents in Avonbridge and Standburn have raised the issues and have basically pulled SEPA into that debate because of the issues that would be faced by the residents? No, I do not think so. I have knowledge of that Falkirk area. I used to be the unit manager in that geographic area, so I know that situation quite well. We have also got examples of joint working with the Ayrshire Councils and Renfrewshire Council in SEPA's west region. That is where we are now. We try to do the best job that we can there in terms of that good communication interaction. Going forward, I think that SEPA would support the proposal that the sludge use and agriculture regulations that you have talked about and the waste management licensing regulations that like to non-agricultural land are all incorporated within a single regulatory framework. I think that would be better for everybody, for the public, for SEPA as a regulator if we were to have responsibility for that. I would fully support that. If I may, just from a Scottish Water perspective, I think that in all our interests to have confidence in this regime, so certainly in the conversations that we have been having with SEPA and the Scottish Government, we have been looking at the extent to which the way in which sludge is managed and recycled under the current regulations, the visibility to SEPA of the activity is part of that process because it needs to be looked at in context with other materials and other activities on land that may have a consequent impact on order and other things that are going on there. So, certainly from a Scottish Water perspective, the statutory controls and having more overarching visibility of that one to give more confidence would be good. But the other thing to probably flag up here, particularly for sludge and agriculture, is the water industry and Scottish Water has been particularly concerned to ensure that we have set out clear codes of practice that go beyond the statutory minimum that are required here. So, we certainly would like to pull that scheme within there, the assurances scheme that is around biosolts that are currently out there, because at the end of the day, the whole thing has to wrestle with the public confidence in the activity, so that is where we are certainly very open to that conversation. I think that that is what the petitioners are trying to do, is get public confidence in the system that currently operates and clearly public confidence is lacking in terms of the issues that have been raised by the petitioner and other communities, as other members have indicated. Can I see clarification from Scottish Water, Mr Williams or Mr Duff, in relation to the reference to PFI operators within under Scottish Water? The reference in the SIPA paper talks about generally Scottish Water and PFI operators or their contractors. Can I get clarification on how many PFI operators operate in the sector and how many contractors? Once they start moving down the difference from PFI operators to contractors, going down the chain surely becomes more difficult to regulate who is doing what and who is monitoring, because the paper talks about the six-monthly monitoring of the sludge that is being produced. Are you confident that the PFI contractors and the other contractors are monitoring as sufficient in relation to the material that is being produced? In terms of the 11 PFI concessions that are around Scotland right now, they have all been very much involved in the barcel insurance schemes and have worked at the same levels of assurance that we expect or are expected of Scottish Water within that. They are all adhering to the common industry practice around there. In terms of the actual practicalities and the management of the sludge recycling there, Brian, you probably know more about the contractual arrangements there. The contractors across Scotland, there are three main contractors that recycle sludge, both for Scottish Water and PFI schemes. The PFI schemes do their own checks on their contractors in their own monitoring. Because of all the issues, Scottish Water are taking a front fruit at that and they are actually doing their own audits on the PFI and the PFI contractors just so that we have a better or better view of how well they are operating. For further clarification, the PFI operators are operating on behalf of Scottish Water, I understand that. Scottish Water has subcontracted that work to PFI contractors. In terms of the PFI concession, they provide the facilities and the operate plan? Just one final point, convener. It goes back to the point that I guess MacDonald made about some information that would have been useful for the committee today. That is to compare the incidents that have been reported in the last year and the historic incidents of our reporting incidents in this area. It would be useful, given the comment that was made earlier about the recent growth in the number of incidents, it would be useful to see if there is some indication to support or debunk my earlier comment that the growth of Greenbelt has meant that more communities are coming into closer contact with the spreading of this waste material within communities. It is just to try and see if we are seeing an increase, substantial increase in the reporting and what the issues around that substantial increase may be. My sons, when they were very young, used to have an expression during the spreading seasons of those things when they would turn on a straight face and look at me and say, it's not very Disney, which I think we can probably all empathise with. But I understand the benefits as you've articulated them. What I'd like to get is some understanding of our relative use. You talk in the paper that you submitted in relation to 2014-15 of six tonnes per hectare being the average in Scotland and with different averages across different uses. In relation to Europe, there seems to be a variable practice. You cite a number of countries where two thirds were used as a fertilizer, but two thirds of what? What it doesn't do is give me any relative understanding of how much across the European Union is produced and then across the land mass of each of those countries how much is then applied as an average. If that were to be calculated as a table, where would Scotland sit? We can certainly prepare that information for you. It is available and we extracted and summarised that from a table. Currently, I'm afraid that I don't have it, but we can certainly supply that to you. Do you have an idea in your own mind as to whether we would be near the top of that table or somewhere else on it? In terms of the percentage of material applied to agricultural land, we would be not quite at the top, perhaps about one-third of the way towards the top. Countries like England, France and Spain would be higher than us. We'd have a higher percentage of sludge and of course the reflecting population would be produced higher quantities of sludge. Does that equal a higher tonnage per hectare? It does. It is far, far higher in, for example, England in France, both in terms of the percentage of the total and in terms of the tonnes applied. I would be grateful if a table of that nature could be produced, because it would give a better impression to me at least of where we sit. Is that an evolving position or is that a consistent position? Toward a perspective, I would echo the view that we are roughly, we're not near the top, we're kind of middling to slightly above average at the European level in terms of the proportion recycled to land. Across Europe, when we've looked at this and looked at the trends and the emergent strach in other European countries, it's very much led by the availability of land back and appropriateness of using land in those areas. So certainly some European countries, the Netherlands and so on, have much less opportunity to recycle to land. So the key thing about the sludge is now cultural regulations and our part in this practice is to ensure that we are typing the sludge to the appropriate soils so that we're not presenting that risk. So it's very much going to be detected by the topography and the landholders across European countries. So it will be a move-in feast over time. New technologies may come on to the market, which will allow us to do something a little bit differently. At the moment, as you've heard, we're using that around about a third of Scotland's sludge goes down to energy recovery because that's an appropriate thing for us to do using the cement manufacturing facilities available. And I think the key thing for us in Scotland is that we retain several options so that we're not stuck with one outlet. No, no. I can sympathise with that. I guess it's just whether there is—I would want to know whether there is an evolving trend elsewhere in Europe that is moving towards new technologies potentially faster than we are and that we are relying upon this in consequence. Our position on the league table may change because others are improving their performance or the use of new technologies. I would just quite like to understand that, because I'm sympathetic to the underlying argument, but I'm maybe less sympathetic if we are relying upon that statistic without necessarily demonstrating that we aren't falling out of step with practice elsewhere. I was just picking up one on Jackson Carlaw's point there, given that we are looking at comparisons in other countries. You mentioned in Scotland that a third is going to incineration or energy recovery. I've actually done some research into the practice in Sweden, where 50 per cent is going to incineration at the moment. The open-air disposal in Sweden has become less popular ever since the slat 250 Swedish kronor per ton sludge tax on open-air spreading. I'd be keen to hear your professional opinions—clearly it's a matter for government—on whether a sludge tax would perhaps help to concentrate mines in Scotland. As a policy principle, the waste hierarchy that we have in Scotland, driven by zero waste Scotland, is very much presuming against not reusing the resource in some way. A sludge tax for applying sludge as a recyclable product would present some fairly significant challenges, because at this point in time, the benefit in straight nutrient terms, et cetera—I can't remember the exact figures—is the best part of £150 to £200 per hectare as a nutrient value for the crop and regimes that are coming on to that land. Tax in that further would probably drive down the sustainability of that practice, as I would suggest. That sort of hadn't thought much further about that one. My initial reaction would be that it would certainly be a big challenge to maintain a recycling outlook for that. If there are any further questions, could I ask the members what action they would like to take in this petition? Mr Convener, I quite like to be in receipt of the additional information that we've sought during the evidence session this morning before we take any further view, if colleagues agree with that. I think that we should also seek the views of the petitioner before we decide any further action, clearly in the public gallery today, so we're going to hear back from them at some point before we make a final decision. John Hockson, I think that we need to get the further evidence that we've been requested today from SEPA in Scottish Water. When we can further consider it, hopefully the petitioner will respond to some of the comments that I've made by Scottish Water and SEPA, but I think that there may be further action at a later date. We might want to consider it as a committee, but at the present moment I'm content to await the further information requested. I should have said that we're also waiting to hear the outcome of the review, and should that review require a full consultation, then the matter is going to continue for some time, I would imagine. However, as soon as the cabinet secretary indicated to me in the chamber that the completion of the review is due at the end of the summer. That's as specific as he was, but clearly we need to await that as well before we take a further decision. Members, I agree to the action points that have been raised. I thank Mr Duff, Mr Williams, Mr Daley and Mr Reckon for attendance. I now suspend for a couple of minutes if we change over. The next item of business is the consideration of PE1319 by William Smith and Scott Robertson on improving youth football in Scotland. As previously agreed, we are taking evidence from Scotland's commissioner for children and young people. Members have a note and a commissioner's report. I welcome Commissioner Tam Bailey to the meeting. He is accompanied today by Gillian Monroe, his information officer, and I invite Mr Bailey to make a short opening statement, no more than five minutes, and then we'll move to questions. I also welcome MSP Chick Brody, who is interested in this petition. I want to set the context for the production of the report, which is led to today's hearing. This is, I believe, the second longest petition that the committee is considering. I was approached late last year by the previous convener, David Stewart, because evidence had been provided to the committee on two occasions and lots of written evidence. Some of it is conflicting. In order to provide further information to the committee, I was asked to get the views of children and young people who are affected by or who are involved in youth football. We offered to do two things, and you will see in the report that we produced what we call a child rights impact assessment, and that was really looking at all of the available information that we had that was in the public domain and making some assessment on whether the practices had an impact on children's rights. In fact, Gillian was the main author of that, but we also commissioned academics from Edinburgh University to engage with children and young people, and they did that through involvement of 28 young people in focus groups and individual interviews with 19 young people. It has been a fairly comprehensive exercise. It came across some difficult ethical issues, because young people who are signed to clubs are living their dream, and we have to make sure that they are properly protected if they are going to be making statements or giving us information. We are delighted to be here today. There are a number of findings that I will touch on. I think that there is an issue about 10-year-olds signing what they think are contracts and potentially being held to those right through their formative years. I think that there is an issue about 15-year-olds being held to contracts sometimes against their wishes for the further two years until they are 17. I think that there are issues in respect of the perception that they are not allowed to play for clubs or that their behaviour is restricted by the contracts. I would put that in inverted commas, because there is quite a bit of debate about whether their contracts are not. As far as their children are concerned, they think that they have signed a contract. It impacts on their behaviour, because they do not get to play for schools on some occasions. It is not all, but there are certainly restrictive practices there. The last thing that I will say is a positive thing. The young people love their football. They really, really love it, and they would go to the end of the earth to be able to play football. That is why we have to make sure that they have been treated in a respectful manner and that we do not, in any way, abuse their enthusiasm and their aspirations of trying to attain that dream of becoming a professional footballer. I thank you for what was a very comprehensive report. It was certainly well received in a lot of quarters. From that report, what do you think is the key message in the report for Scottish football clubs and organisations, and what is the key recommendation in the report for the committee? The key finding is that when the system is operating well, that is fine. It is good, but it is when it is not working well that you find that the odds are stacked against children and young people. I alluded to the fact that you can have a 10-year-old who signs a contract. There is a well-meaning system of compensation for the clubs so that they can expect certain payments depending on how they are graded and the quality and the expense of the academy that they are providing or the training that they are providing. However, if the young person chooses to either try to get out of that contract, they are sometimes left as a hostage to the original club because there is a dispute over the payment. That can last for quite a period of time. In theory, you could have them held year on year because the payments have not been made. That is one issue. For 15-year-olds who sign a contract—I will call it a contract—it is at the behest of the club as to whether they are released from that contract at age when they turn 16 and on to their 17th year. That is because the rationale is that there has been investment and time, energy and resources put into the development of that young person. Sometimes it takes a while for that to blossom and maybe 15 is at an age when it might take another period of time and the clubs want to see whether that is the case or not. However, the call on that is just the clubs. The third issue is the business of not being allowed to play for their school. SFA has tried to rectify that and try to make it clear that that is not a condition that can be built on, but it is still at the discretion of the clubs. One of the recommendations is to remove that. We have a number of recommendations. I do not know if you want me to move on to the recommendations right now. The recommendations are that a young person should have the same period of notice as they would in youth football. In other words, if they want to move clubs that they can give 28 days notice, that would be the end of it and they can go elsewhere. I think that the registration bind on 16 and 17-year-olds should be removed so that there should not be any difference in terms of the terms that they are signing as a 15-year-old as before that. I think that where there are disputes, they have to be resolved expeditiously so that a young person is not hold or a child is not being held for a long period of time, not being allowed to either play for another club or move to another club. I think that there is an issue about when the reimbursements are paid. This is a recommendation that is actually buried in the report, but part of the difficulty in the system just now is that the compensation has to be paid up front, if you like, whereas we have got so many youngsters in our system that it would be better, I think, to be more sensible that that compensation kicks in when they sign a professional contract with a professional club. I do think that there is a need for a complaints process to be built into it. It is not there just now. At the end of the day, there might be a need for regulation monitoring, but I have to say that my preference would be that there is self-regulation. We may discuss that later, but rather than opt for what might be quite expensive regulatory framework, if there can be self-regulation, I think that that would always be better than having to have external regulation. That is quite a shopping list of calls there, but thanks for the opportunity to be able to lay that out. Obviously, your report has been in the public domain now for a few weeks and you have just highlighted some of the key recommendations there. Overall, how do you think that your conclusions have been received by football organisations and young people? I think that the purpose of producing the report is to try and shine a light on the issues and stimulate some change, some improvement, because that is what the petition is called, improving youth football in Scotland. I think that the key bodies are the SPFL and the SFA, and we have sent copies to both those bodies. We were not asking for comment, but we have received acknowledgement from the SFA. Those bodies are within their capacity to look at how we can improve the system, and many of the recommendations are targeted at the governing bodies. It has some coverage and I am pleased about that, but it is not about the publicity on it. It is about whether we will change how we deal with our children, and I would certainly say that I think that their rights are being infringed right now because of some of those restrictions, because of restrictions on what they can do, because of restrictions on their behaviour. Indeed, I do not think that sufficient attention is paid to their education during the time that they are expected to be nurtured in the skills and the way that we deal with it. You mentioned that you have sent copies to the hierarchy. Yes, we have sent copies to the SFA and SPFL. As I said, the SFA has sent back an acknowledgement on it. It is something that might come to one of the actions that the committee might be interested in, and particularly interested in what is the response of our governing bodies, namely the SFA and the SPFL. Do you think that the SFA and the SPFL will accept your recommendations? Or do you think that you are going to be facing challenges? Well, they are not responding just now. One of the actions that the committee might consider is to formally write to them because the petition has come through committee processes to seek their views as to whether they will implement the recommendations. You might want to either write to them or call them. I know that there has been a session where previously they have been called, because I certainly would hope that you seek reassurance that they will be capable of self-regulation and that you can make an assessment on that. Before we follow any recommendation about external regulatory frameworks, that would be a matter for the Government, but I think that the committee would want to satisfy itself as to whether what might be the response of the governing bodies. I would suggest that, if you are not satisfied, we should certainly be bringing the attention of the Government. I have already met the minister. He knows that I am giving evidence today, and he knows that that is a stage in the process. I think that it is about time that we saw some end point to the petition. For me, the end point is improvement for the way that we deal with children and young people, who are the talent of the future. Problems that are identified with Scottish football clubs and children's rights Are they associated to all clubs or are there good working practices out there among Scottish football? I said earlier that, when it works well, it works very well. I cannot possibly comment on the practice of all the clubs in Scotland, because I am not familiar with them. What I am familiar with is the different star gradings of the training regimes and the costs—I am not familiar with the gag costs, but I know that some are doing more expensive and bigger compensation than others. One of the problems with that system, while it is well-meaning, is that you have a clutch of clubs that have the lower star ratings. Those are the clubs where there may be a temptation for them to harness and include as many young people as possible in their training regimes in the hope that richer clubs will come and then get the compensation. I do not want to give you an example, because we have some comparisons. You have Germany, with a population of 82 million, who, over the past 10 years, have invested more than €500 million in their academies. Those are state-of-the-art academies, and they produce world champions. Of a population of 82 million people, they have, on the 19th, a total of 4,735 children involved in their academies. Scotland, by comparison, has a population of 5 million people, and we have somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 children and young people involved in our academies. There is something very significant going on there that we, as a very small country, have got so many youngsters and proportionately much greater than a very successful footballing nation, such as Germany. I do not think that we are in a position to suggest the level of investment that Germany puts into it, but I do think that there is something about how they manage to nurture the talents of what would be a relatively much smaller proportion of their footballing prowess or their footballing talent, whereas we seem to take a very wide approach. What we do by doing that is that we build in, I think, false hopes for many of our children who are involved in the academy system. They are desperate to be involved in it. It is their dream being realised, and yet we know that the vast majority of them are not going to have that dream when they are realised, just in terms of the numbers. I think that we need to think this through about what hopes we are falsely, in my opinion, building up in many of our children. How do we bring about this attitude change in Scottish football? You are seeking in the report. This is part of a much wider issue. My business is children's rights, and I think that a better and more informed approach on the rights of children will assist in all of this, but it is not just in the realms of football. I mean, I could go on, it is in a whole number of areas, but I think that by following some of the recommendations here, we would start to swing the pendulum back from all of the power being in the hands of the clubs to at least listening to the views and opinions of children and young people, which is one of the key tenants of children's rights and the UNCRC, a right to have an opinion, to express that opinion and for due weight to be given to it. Right now, there is absolutely no weight given to it, because there is no means of children escaping from some of those contracts. All of the odds, as I say, when it is being challenged are in the hands of the clubs, and that just can't be right. It is so unfair. Mr Bailey, in your report, you also mentioned that you would like to see an independent regular body set up. I think that we said that consideration should be given to that. I think that, in the first instance, the SFA and the SPFL should—I cannot direct the committee what to do—consideration should be given to their response to that. On the premise that we need assurances that unless they actually implement some of those recommendations, we will run the risk of being in breach of children's rights, and at some point there may be a challenge on that because of the way that we have allowed our children to be treated in their pursuit of an aspiration of becoming football players. We can treat them much better and, still, I think, get better results. I think that there is a comparison with the German approach, because one of the laws in Germany—I am quoting from a document here, which I did have earlier. Here it is. This is celebrating 10 years of the academies in Germany, and one of the comments—this is by a labour cousin who is one of the highly regarded Boondis League academies—is that they are there for football, and it says, "'Do not neglect school is the law, not just in labour cousin but in all the club academies, and changing room boards display which team has achieved the best average results in the last six months and the individual ranking of the best schools.'" In other words, they pay as much attention to the academic achievement of the children and young people as they do about the nurturing of their talent. It will be hard-pressed in whatever good practice you identify in Scotland for the same care and attention and diligence that is being given by your clubs to the educational attainment of the children that are on their books. If anything, I think that the clubs, as I characterised, are trying to put it in some instances, have as many young people on their books as possible, so that, in the hope that they can then get some investment from the transfer of that for the compensation on that child and young person. I would be interested to know whether the SPFL pays attention to the educational attainment of the children and young people. If Germany can do it, we should be able to do it in Scotland. Is there any other questions? Mr Brody? First of all, thank you very much for indulging me in attending this session, which is certainly as close to not just my heart but to others involved. I wonder—good morning, Mr Billie. The comments that we just made about schools is quite important. Why would there be any difference? I mean, I have talked to SDS who say that the registration forms are not worth the paper that they are written on, the contracts do not meet legal requirements in terms of payment, so I just want to come back to the school thing. Why should there be any difference, in your opinion, in football and protecting youngsters' rights, particularly those of 15-year-olds, as opposed to modern apprentices in other areas, where they can co-join education and exploitation of their talent? Firstly, it does not matter whether those contracts are not worth the paper that they are written on or not. The perception of the children and young people involved is that they are contracts, and in fact they are delighted to be signing up to a club because it is one step closer to that dream of becoming a football player. That means that we have to build in extra protections because they make themselves vulnerable at that point of signing. The professional footballers association has produced a really useful document, and I would make that mandatory, that, before signing a contract, young people are made aware of that, because at least it lays out some of the consequences of signing. Drawing a parallel with modern apprenticeships, sure, youngsters are having their talents nurtured and brought on, but we also have to make sure that they are properly protected, especially if we are talking about signing young people at age 10. Parents are very keen on all of this, so one of the findings when we spoke to the focus groups and individual interviews was the critical importance of the support of the family. Families are often putting themselves at a very high level of investment into their child in order for them to make progress in this area. I do not know if that satisfies them. I have a situation on my desk in fact meeting somebody later today whose son is an international player, under 15, who is signed under a contract, an alleged contract, to a major Scottish club. As you have said, there are some clubs that are okay, but the SPFL does not seem to have any control over the clubs, in fact, that is the other way around. In this particular individual lives in Fife, and has to travel often to train with this club in Glasgow. He is not being allowed to leave that club unless a fairly significant sum is paid to whomsoever he might go. How does that sit with the United Nations Human Rights Commission on Children's Rights? I have already said that if we create a transfer market for children and young people, we are treating them as far as I am concerned as commodities, and it is difficult to make decisions in their best interests if there is a price on their head. That is why I suggested earlier that we try to decouple the movement of children among clubs from the payment. One way of doing that is that payment triggers in once the child has signed for a professional football club. I think that it needs a bit of careful thought, because this is all well-intentioned. People are trying to make sure that the smaller clubs are compensated when they put time and effort, and that there is some incentive to do that. However, the impact of it when it does not work out in the case that you have given us an example of is that the child suffers. That just cannot be right. It cannot be good for the development of our football in Scotland to have a young player who may have talent, who has talent to blossom, somehow being stymied and being held back because of a dispute between two of our clubs. That just does not make sense. I am not an expert in the inner workings of football, but I know that that is a contravention of UNCRC. I have one last question. In the past, some of our great footballers have come up through the boys' club situation, and there are very good boys' clubs. What is the fundamental difference in approach? Is it just because of the money aspect? I mean, our boys' club is part of a vast army of people who, on a voluntary basis, provide amazing input and support to children and young people. They are one shining example of people who would do it whether they are paid or not. In fact, they are not paid, but one of the things—this is a much wider question—is about how you actually get some of the resources and relatively big money to filter down in a way that does not provide some perverse incentives to the grassroots of our game. That is a bigger question than I can answer through this particular report. However, if there was to be a review of the payment system, then it would be worth looking at how we resource the lowest level of that in terms of our youth football. Is there any further questions? I could ask some members on what action they would like to take in this petition. Could I then perhaps suggest that we reflect on the evidence that is heard and consider a paper of a future meeting? Members agreed? I thank you, Mr Bailey and Ms Monroe, for your attendance here. We will now just spend for a couple of minutes to change over. The next item of business is consideration of youth petition PE156 by Mary Hempel and Ian Weed on national service delivery model for warfand patients. Members have a note by the clerk, a space briefing, petition and submissions, and we have also received a late submission from ACSMA, which is on your desk. I welcome petitioners Mary Hempel and Ian Weed to the meeting. We are accompanied by John Feegan, the Chairman of the Scottish Association for Children with Heart Disorders. I now invite Ms Hempel to make a short opening speech, no more than five minutes, and we will then move on to questions. Thank you, convener, and to the committee for hearing our petition today, and our request for the implementation of a national service delivery model of care for patients who self-present, self-test or self-manage their warfand levels, where it is deemed safe and effective to do so by a healthcare provider. That should also include a safe and uninterrupted coordinated infrastructure for patients in pediatric care when moving and transition to adult services who self-test their warfand levels. I am an adult congenital heart patient. I link many of our diverse, inspiring and growing population in both pediatrics and adulthood. I am on warfand tooth in my blood. I am a wife, a mother and I am employed and lead a healthy lifestyle after the implantation of two metal heart valves, a neortic root enlargement and a pacemaker. My biggest fear is having a stroke. After my first open heart surgery, I was carried by my husband to attend my anti-quagulation service. My family would advise that the service did not provide home visits. I requested to work with my local care providers to self-test and, if safe and effective to do so, self-manage my anti-quagulation levels. I was refused. The explanation was not person-centred with no one actively listening to my request. It was at the directive of Greater Glasgow Inclyde Health Board because I don't work away from home. A few weeks later, I was also refused an urgent appointment at my anti-quagulation clinic, which, in out-of-hours-gp, requested me to obtain after he prescribed me a course of antibiotics, which would increase my anti-quagulation levels and which, if not checked, could prove fatal. With our nursing staff and local clinic reduced, I found myself placed in a catch-22 situation. Had I not been fully informed and thus able to challenge my decision, the outcome could have been devastating. My concern is for those patients who would not have questioned that decision. I went on to meet a hematologist at Gartnaval hospital, who agreed that my time in therapeutic range would improve with self-testing. I would be patient number 31 to do so. I agreed to speak to my GP to provide my test strips on prescription. That was well supported and I was provided by my machine by our charity as this is not freely available. The next day, I received a call from Gartnaval anti-quagulation nurses to advise that the funding had been stopped for self-testing training. I continued to challenge writing many letters to the then Public Health Minister, Michael Matheson, who advised that this decision was of individual health boards and later, at a parliamentary motion, Mr Matheson commented that working patients in Scotland were much older than the UK average of 65 years. However, I believe that this decision should not be age-appropriate but person-centred. Finally, I met the clinical manager of anti-quagulation services, who provided me with a true person-centred approach and support, as did the nurses at my local anti-quagulation clinic. Last year, I met the chief executive of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board. That was well received and led to a nurses day, where I was supported by John Fagan, the chairman of the Scottish Association of Children with Heart Disorders, and another adult congenital heart patient, who gave an inspiring insight into her long-term condition and quest to self-test. Standard operating procedures were drawn up for young adults moving from the Royal hospital for sick children to adult services whose parents and carers are taught to self-test when they are prescribed warfarin and pediatrics. I am pleased to say that this standard procedure has now been utilised, however it is still in its early stages. That will ensure an uninterrupted care pathway for Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board patients, not only in our congenital heart community but also other young adults with other long-term conditions who require warfarin. If that is achievable for Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board patients, it should be easily available and accessible across Scotland. In September 2014, I began self-testing. My time in therapeutic range has improved and I am able to take control and gain an acceptance of my long-term condition. Self-testing has proved invaluable recently in hospital, endured to multiple open heart surgeries in a short period of time and where access to my veins is now very difficult, I was able to self-test my own levels safely and effectively. However, there are approximately 80,000 warfarin patients in Scotland, situated within 14 regional health boards. That petition is to request a national service delivery model of care for all warfarin patients who self-present, to self-test or self-manage their warfarin levels, where it is deemed safe and effective to do so. We wish for them to be given that person-centred care approach in line with the Scottish Government's local delivery plan, the 2020 vision, which details our vision as that by 2020, everyone is able to live longer healthier lives at home or in a homely setting. We have a healthcare system where we have integrated health and social care, a focus on prevention, anticipation and supported self-management. To achieve that, we require a whole system approach, a culture change, where patients work in partnership with their healthcare providers, where they can gain information, communication, education and support, an active and on-going partnership. The NHS will undoubtedly see positive benefits, while patients' outcomes improve as many patients, parents and carers become more informed, empowered and educated in their own or their child's condition. I refer you to the guidance and evidence notes from sign 129, from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh, who all support self-testing or self-management. We, as patients, wish to embrace the key objective of going yourself, the Scottish Government's self-management strategy, written by patients with long-term conditions for patients with long-term conditions. The strategy was endorsed by the then Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being, now our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. It details that we should learn from people's own experience of living with a long-term condition, working in partnership with the individual, with access to timely and appropriate information and support, to enable them to make well-informed decisions about their life. It concludes that life is for living well and not for enduring. The Scottish Government writes fantastic protocol to encourage and support self-management, yet, for wharfren patients, the delivery at ground floor level is difficult with many challenges and barriers for both patients and healthcare providers. No one should have to fight for care, in particular at a time of ill health and uncertainty. I wish to thank my co-petitioner, Ian Reid, and to John Fagan, the chairman of the Scottish Association with Heart Disorders, for supporting me today. I thank you also to a patient who gave an inspiring insight into her quest to self-test at a greater Glasgow and Clyde health board nurses day and to patients who have written to their health boards and who wish to be provided with that patient-centred care approach and have been refused or challenged. I wish to thank the committee and to those who have endorsed and supported our petition. Thank you very much, Mary, for your presentation. You yourself have said that you do self-testing, but can you advise me why self-testing and self-management has been under discussion for so long? Why has there been so little progress made on us? I think that there is a lack of education. The anti-quagulation nurses are fantastic, but they do not have maybe the support of our health boards. It is not promoted anywhere, and yet there is factual research to show that it does help. People have to have a buy-in because you are taking responsibility for if you are partly of your own care. That is why we are very careful in how we work with the position to say that people need to self-present or say they wish to do that and have the buy-in from patients. I wanted to take control of my condition. It was very difficult for me to accept what had happened in such a short period of time. I was quite determined that I was not going to be a victim. I wanted to get back to work. I wanted to try and lead as much of a normal life as I possibly could. I know that studies have shown that patients who are self-monitored had notably fewer strokes and deaths as a result of clots. To what extent do you think that this is a result of a greater understanding of their condition and the importance of testing and adjusting dosages, for example, following illness, weight change and so on, that has resulted from this being trained in self-management? Initially, self-testing is a huge change for patients. Of course, as a patient, you are apprehensive because we want to ensure that your care is safe and that it is effective whilst improving and sustaining your quality of life. It is a huge culture change in the delivery of anticoagulation care. However, if we can get the help supporting the clinical guidance, it can prove beneficial, worthwhile and both patient and cost-effective. With an ageing population, it will also help to support patients who really need to see their anticoagulation clinic. If you look at the figures of the amount of people that are anticoagulated in the last five to ten years, it has gone up by 10,000 patients from South North Scotland. The figures are approximately 80,000. It was previously 70,000. How can our clinic sustain that? That is what I found. I needed a lot of care because my medication was changing. I was on antibiotics and that can increase your anticoagulation levels. You work with your care providers. I still email them or phone them. They are still there if you need them. Patients are more educated and have an understanding. The paediatric community, our families and carers, are already taught to self-test. It is what they do. It is standard in paediatric care. Do you believe that there perhaps is a case for all patients and carers to be better informed about the condition, even if they are not self-managing? Yes. Presently, yes, I think that there is. It is not for all patients but for those who want to learn, get engaged, understand and be educated. If the support is there, it is easily done. Initially, it was difficult for me to get someone to listen. Once I did and pushed for it, but not everybody would do that. Not everybody knows about it. Not everybody would push to try and make it happen. I understand where you are coming from and I understand the pressures on the health service. I do not understand why they would not want to support something that you are offering in terms of self-help, because surely that would assist them in delivering the service that you need. It does not make sense to me why they would not want to do that. Once again, I think that it is all about departments within the health service, that the costings, the way that they think about the costings is all wrong, that if it does not cost one department, the other department is not interested. That is where sometimes these things fall through. I am very supportive, Chair, that we should encourage the health service to continue to support the idea that you have presented, because I think that they make sense. They are not only sensible in the sense that the patient's wellbeing is secured, but it also means that we get value for money from the health service itself. It is a win-win. You are ticking all the right boxes, but I do not understand what the issues are. I would very much want to find out why they are not wanting to support us. David Cymru. Thank you, convener, and good morning, that still is. Only 1 per cent of Waffern users in Scotland self-assess, self-monitor, which is roughly about £800 up to £80,000. You said earlier on that that was about promotion and education, but is it because health boards do not want to promote it? They are the obstacle that so few people are actually self-moniting? Initially, my first letters went out to Michael Matheson because there had been a round table event, and that led to Nanette Millen having a parliamentary debate on it. My initial issue was with the comments that had been made. They were very negative, and I had sent emails to Mr Matheson and letters, and he came back and said that it was a responsibility of individual health boards, but ultimately individual health boards' accountability are for the Scottish Government, so we needed someone there not even to change things at that minute. I would not expect anything to be changed on the basis of one person, but to listen. One of the main issues that we have and we have in any health or social care environment is the transition from child to adult. I was an ordinary patient that could see that there were gaps there by speaking to people, and if we were able to achieve that for greater Glasgow and Clyde health board just by speaking to other people, by engaging with other people, we could achieve a lot if people would listen whenever we come forward. I had been through a lot. I would never ever do anything to make my health worse or promote it for anyone else to make their health worse. I could come in on that, please. Mary and I attended a meeting with Robert Caldwood and subsequently with Myra Campbell, and it was about setting up a standard operating procedure for the care that is offered at the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Glasgow and then transitioning into adult care. What came out of that was an operating procedure that they use currently, but that somewhere in the system, when the children move on from pediatric care into adult care, they can be lost. Greater Glasgow and Clyde say that no one is lost in their area, however, when the children move on elsewhere in Scotland, when they are assessed, or not assessed as it may be, but they do not find themselves in self-monitoring anymore. They find themselves that they have to attend anti-gradulation clinics, and we are saying that is wrong. That is wrong because it is a waste of money. That is for a start. Also, the patient that is already used to self-monitoring, and now they have to go back to clinics. I add that when it comes to self-monitoring, I know that in cases of diabetes there is also self-monitoring. Of course, you have said that patients' quality of life in terms of their fitness is greatly enhanced because they are self-monitoring. I think that that in itself is extremely valuable. If you are talking about enhancing the quality of life of people, it is important, but I am puzzled by why the health board does not benefit. The only thing that I can think of is that there is also an issue somewhere that I do not quite understand because if you are enhancing the quality of life of people, that in itself is value. I put a value to that, so I would agree with you very much. I think that the virtual evidence runs in parallel to the Scottish Government strategy and what they are trying to achieve in self-management. They can ensure that that strategy is achieved, and it is achieved on a fax-based basis. There is fax there to say that it does work for people. It is just trying to join all those things together. Good morning. I commend your determination to get the self-management monitoring system in place for yourself. The discussions that you had with Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board, do you know how many patients in a similar situation to yourself are actually being able to self-monitor and manage in Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board? When I went to see about it, I went to see a Dr Mike Leitch, a hematologist. He looked at my therapeutic range, and he said that I would be patient number 31 to self-test. Compared to other countries, for example, in the EU or if you are in comparison to England and Scotland, the promotion is just not there. You have to push for the promotion. Can you ask when you were given that figure that you would be patient 31? Yes, that was probably about a year ago. I am trying to extrapolate from that that there are 80,000 worker and patients in Scotland. If you were patient 31 a year ago, in terms of being able to self-monit and manage in Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board, which we know has a high incidence of heart issues and not as bad as some of its neighbouring health boards, but the issue that you said as part of your introduction in response to a question was that when people move out Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board treatment, particularly young people, go back to their own health boards, they are effectively being refused or denied the opportunity to self-monit and monitor their condition. I know the reason why you have brought the petition forward is to try to get a national standard in place, but what do you think the reluctance is by other health boards in terms of introducing the self-management monitoring regime for patients? I think that the machines that we use are not freely available, so you have to purchase them and the charities purchase them for the children from the Royal hospital for sick children. The test strips, you have to go and speak to your GP and get the buy-in from the GP, you have to go and speak to your anticoagulation clinic and make sure that it is safe, which is right to make sure that it is safe and effective for you to do so. It does not come easy. There are quite a lot of obstacles before you can make the decision. I personally would not have realised the obstacles until I went to myself, if anyone had said to me. I met a few patients through the system where I was trying to fight and they too had the same obstacles. It does not come easy to patients when they ask to self-test. When we met Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board chief executive, it was very well received. They did listen. There was a nurses day and they were educating their nurses. That is good for Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board, but there are 14 health boards and we need to make sure that my main concern is that this is, if it is safe and effective for people, it is safe and effective and easily accessible for everyone. When you are unwell, you should not have to go and fight and write letters and to try and help people because your main concern is that you know what happened to you if you do not want it to happen to anyone else. We have got some figures in front of us in terms of the cost of the machines, average cost is about £400. The test trips are about £2.95, I think, the price of a test trip. On average, how often do you think a patient would be testing themselves? On average, if I am stable, I probably test myself once every two to three weeks. However, if my medication changes, that varies. Everybody probably individually is different. I think that initially there would be a high outlay, but long term the cost, what has been found in some of these research and studies is that the cost dramatically reduces. You are saying at the present moment that it is the charge of organisations that are providing the machines for children, so they are picking up the cost of that. Does the health board or the NHS pick up the cost for any of the testing that is done, like the strips? So you get your GP, we will prescribe that. GPs are not getting better at it, but there are occasions that we have seen… Yes, there are occasions where we have had patients come to us and say that their GP will not take the cost of the strips. I know of one patient who changed their GP because she could not talk them round. The GPs are at a blocking point. The GP can be at a blocking point, yes. Thank you very much indeed. Good morning. You have got quite a galaxy of people and organisations who supported your petition this morning. With my colleague Danette Milne and also Richard Lyle, Jackie Baillie, Richard Simpson and Margaret McCullough, a fairly broad cross-range of cross-party support in the Parliament, too. It is not individuals that need to be persuaded. It would appear to be the Scottish Government that needs to be persuaded of the essential request within your petition. My understanding is their view is that there is no need for what you are asking for, because they say that there is already a responsible to have local protocols in place with all of the individual health boards. What I quite like to understand is that that does not tell me very much. Do you know what the protocols are that the health boards are meant to have? Who is responsible for establishing or reviewing them when they were last reviewed and whether they are consistent? Although, from what I may have picked up already, they are not consistent. When it says local protocols, is that each health board's decision to come up with a protocol? Do you know if each health board has and when they last considered it? As far as I am aware, there is not standard protocol. It is up to each individual health board. We are also aware that the guidance notes for the National Institute of Clinical Excellence being one was updated in September 2014. The guidance notes that the Scottish Government referred to were asked to be updated by Greater Glasgow and Clyde health boards. The actual evidence notes that we have are not updated. They are not clear. I will come back to that in a moment. After the round table discussion that took place in 2013 and the various questions that were advanced by colleagues, there were a number of recommendations that came out as a result of that. In general, what progress has there been on those? None that I am aware of. I probably started looking for self-testing around that time. That is when I started reading a lot about it. Your petition here today is actually born out of a certain sense of frustration that we have gone through quite an extended parliamentary process already, a round table discussion, a member's debate, a series of parliamentary questions. As far as you are concerned, we are really not that much further on in terms of there being access on an equal basis across the country. That is what you are seeking. For one to a better description, a boot up the backside of health boards to come up with a national standard would resolve the issue just as much as you are having a national service delivery. What do you really want to be achieved? Achievable and accessible across Scotland. If patients come and ask the question, then someone knows where to find the answer. Not only to find the answer but to communicate the answer. I never got that communication. When I went back and said, why not? The Scottish Government promotes patient-centred care, person-centred care. It is important that they say why not. You understand why not. If they had said for your own benefit—I waited until Mariana was stable before I asked—I was quite aware that I wanted everything to be settled before I asked to self-test and self-managed my own condition. Individual health boards—you are saying great at Glasgow and Clyde—have taken a decision to allow us to go ahead. Is it the health board or is it the consultant that the individual sees that it is not allowing people to self-monitour, self-test? I am just looking at the figures that you gave us in terms of patient 31. You will get a badge with that on it. Is that because the consultant that you saw decided that you could self-monitour test? Or is it a health board policy that every patient who presents and asked to go on to this regime is afforded that opportunity to do that? Clinicians are reluctant. They require to provide support in education. In my opinion, I do not think that they are supported by their health board. However, as patients, we need to come out and say that we need to give our stories and help people to understand the challenges that we face. I think that maybe if somebody eventually did meet with the clinical manager of anticoagulation services, what a difference that was when you get somebody who wants to listen, who wants to understand and listens to what you have been through and why you want to do it, and if it is safe for you and going through your background, it made such a difference. That difference could have been made in day 1. It is just that in terms of no issue and guidance, the Scottish Government could issue guidance to health boards, health boards then issue guidance to the consultants or clinicians, and then the clinicians make a clinical decision as they often do, whether or not that person is suitable to self-managed self-monitour. It is just trying to get into perspective what that guidance might look for in relation to the expectations from health boards, but in particular clinicians and their practice with patients. Mr Reid, would you like to say anything? I think that Mary has said just a bit everything, I think. Are there any further questions? If there are any further questions, could I ask the committee what action we would like to take in this petition? I would very much like to write to the Scottish Government. I am struck by the similarities between the petition and one that the committee previously considered on the availability of insulin pumps across Scotland, where a similar attitude of government really required the minister to intervene to have the various health boards report on the progress that they were making in achieving their own protocols had to be put in place before anything happened. I would very much like to know from the Scottish Government what their position is in all of this. On the back of that, I may wish to recommend that we take evidence from the minister on the issue, because it seems to me all a bit woolly at the moment as to why there is no proper emphasis being put on coming up with a consistent position and applying that across Scotland. David? Can we also write to all the health boards and ask them what they are doing to promote self-wondering for orphaned patients? I am keen to try and target neighbouring health boards around greater Glasgow and Clyde who may have young patients who are being transferred into their care from the services of the receiving greater Glasgow and Clyde to find out what the issues may be. I am thinking about Lanarkshire health board in particular and maybe Ayrshire health NHS in relation to how they perceive the difficulties of transferring patients who have been on self-monitoring management regimes, moving it back into adult services who are then being denied those services when they go into their own health board. The idea is that we also write to the sick children hospitals in Scotland to find out what measures are in place for when they have children and leave their area of influence. Do they then pass on the case work to ensure that that service continues or do they just simply abandon them? Just to find out if there is any uniformity in terms of the follow-up for the treatment that people have volunteered to monitor themselves. I think that it is important. I just wanted to follow up on David Torrance's suggestion. I think that it would be interesting if we were writing to each health board to invite them to clarify to us what their protocol is, because that may very well illustrate the variability of the level of expectation and service that might subsequently be something that we would discuss with the minister. David Torrance will be able to tell us how many people monitor themselves within their area, so could we ask for each figures as well? There have been a number of action points that have been raised by members. Do we agree? Agreed. Do we agree? Okay, thank you. Can I thank Mary, Ian and John for your attendance? Thank you. We will now suspend for a couple of minutes. Thank you. Agenda item 5 is consideration of continued petitions, and the next item of business is consideration of five continued petitions. The first petition is PE1537 by Shona Brash on behalf of the coastal regeneration alliance on the proposed energy park at Kakenzie. Can I welcome Iain Gray, who has a constituent's interest in this petition, and the members have a note and submissions. Members will be full aware of the background to this petition, but I think that by way of background for the public, this petition called for the development plans for Kakenzie to be halted and sought assurances in relation to any future developments. At our last consideration, we noted the announcement that the Scottish Enterprise had dropped its plans, and I am aware that that has been welcomed by the local community. Assurances have been given with regard to future plans, although I know that the petitioner does not feel that they go far enough. The community empowerment bill was recently agreed by the Parliament, and my own view now is that the issue of what might or what might not happen in the future is not one for the committee at this time. If new proposals do come forward, it may be that our colleagues in the economy, energy and tourist committee would wish to consider them in due course. In relation to the petition before the day, however, I invite members' views. I am happy to close the petition on the grounds that the proposals are now being dropped for a Kakenzie area. I am glad that you noted that the petitioner does feel that there are still concerns, although the community welcomed the dropping of the energy part proposal, which led to the original petition. There is still concern in the community about what will happen with the site and the degree to which the community's aspirations will be met. However, it is fair to say that all those that the committee wrote to following previous consideration have pointed out that a forum has been agreed, a forum that should be established, to provide a proper mechanism for dialogue and discussion, and that would involve all those with an interest, including the coastal regeneration alliance who are the organisation or are the organisation behind the petition. I think that that progress has been helped and is at least in part due to the work of the committee in pursuing the petition. I thank the committee for that. Although concerns remain, at the very least, I can understand why the committee feels that it should close the petition. I am sure that local residents are relieved that plans have been dropped for the energy park, however it may be heading in my direction to my constituency. Given that assurances have been given with regard to consultation on future proposals, I do not see how the committee can take this any further, so I would agree that it should be closed. I remind all the agencies, particularly the Scottish Enterprise. The community empowerment bill was approved by this Parliament last week when it becomes legislation. I hope that the Scottish Enterprise will take on board the intent of that legislation and work with the communities involved to ensure that the best delivery of a service and what the community is requesting in terms of their campaign is taking on board when they go forward. There is an issue of concern that I have with the letter from the Scottish Enterprise, which, although it is accepting at the present moment that it is not going to go ahead, seems to have some view on how it should proceed in the future. I hope that that view will not clash with the community's intentions for that area. As the committee therefore agreed to close the petition on the basis that it proposes for the development of the energy park at Kikkenzie, I have been dropped. The next petition is PE1542 by Evelyn Mundell on behalf of Ben Mundell and Malcolm and Carline Smith on human rights for dairy farmers. Members have a note by the clerk. The letter from the Rural Affairs, Climate Change Environment Committee and an email from Mrs Mundell. Colleagues, the petition, as we all remember, is calling on the Scottish Government to accept that individual dairy rights and human rights have been breached by ring fence and rules that apply to milk quotas. Ring fence was introduced in 1984 and abolished earlier this year. Mrs Mundell was the petition in exactly the same terms in 2009. I know her sympathy for the Mundell's position. For that reason, the committee has considered the issues raised and sought views. I have heard from both David Stewart and Jimmy McGregor. That is why we wrote to the Scottish Human Rights Commission again in February. However, the commission told us that, as you had not changed whilst writing previously in 2010, the position is still that in a case of dispute such as we have here, it is for the courts to consider and rule on whether Scottish ministers have breached human rights. That committee is not a court of law and we cannot provide such a ruling. At our last meeting, we agreed to seek the rural affairs committee's views on the issues raised in the petition to ask whether it would be willing to consider them in the context of any future work. That committee has now responded to us. Its letter states very clearly that, as a ring-fencing decision taken was a democratic one, it will not be looking into it. It repeats that the only body that could provide the ruling that Mrs Mundell seeks would be a court. In those circumstances, it is my view that, as a committee, we are now going as far as we can with this petition. We need to be careful that we do not create unrealistic expectations in the reality. As far as I can see, there is nothing more that the Public Petitions Committee can do. I would be grateful to hear from other members' views, but I am very much minded to close this petition. This has clearly been an on-going issue for some time. As I have stated previously, I certainly understand the frustration of the petitioners. As a member of the Racky Committee and having listened to the views of other members on that committee and taking on board the letter from Racky to the PPC Committee, I recommend the closure of the petition. I feel that I am in agreement with you, convener, that this committee has no option but to close it. It is regrettable that no further action can be taken at this level. However, it has been reiterated that only a court can rule on whether or not human rights have been breached, and the petitioners have been advised of that on numerous occasions. So, while having sympathy with the predicament that the petitioners find themselves in, I do not see that there is any more that this committee can do to help. Clearly, the advice that only a court can rule is a salient point. I am a little disappointed. I feel that the petitioners have been failed in their support from the Government because they have come to this petition time and time again, and they have stressed that they do not have the means by which they can challenge the Government on this issue. I feel that somehow we have let them down because it is a fact of life that, unless they had large sums of monies, they were not going to be able to defend themselves, so they were up against the wall from day one. The fact that we have not found a solution for them is disappointing. I still feel that they have been let down. I still feel that somehow, somewhere, there would have been a mechanism where a citizen of this country's rights would have been protected better. We have clearly failed them. I feel quite sad that we may take this decision today. I would have felt more comfortable if there was a solution found where their rights could have been protected and they could have had a fair hearing in another place to pursue their human rights. I am sorry to say that, convener, but I feel that we just have not been able to reach out and support them in the way that I would have liked to have seen them supported. I have some sympathy with the position that Hanzala Malik details when Dave Stewart and Jamie McGregor at our last consideration of the petition suggested the possibility of an inquiry. I thought that that was worth pursuing. I think that the letter that we have received from the Rural Affairs Committee is not an encouraging one in that regard. I think that the point that Angus ultimately makes is that we cannot adjudicate on a legal matter. It means that, although our inquiry may well, if we were to initiate it, shed light on something, it in itself could not bring about the resolution of the issue, which is beyond our competence. I am concerned that, in those circumstances, the balance of whether we should do that is not proven. I am a little bit like Hanzala Malik, not satisfied that Mr and Mrs Mundell's position has been resolved in any way by the committee, but I am not sure that the committee can. Any other questions? I ask members what action they would like to take on this petition. Members agree to close the petition. The petition is now closed on the basis that the petition to rank fence was democratically made, and the petitioner's claims and allegations can only be determined in court. Everybody agreed? We will now move to the next petition. The next petition is P.E.1, trebol 5, by Siobhan Garraki, on the electric shock vibration callers for animals. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? It might be premature to do anything. I am at a loss to see that there is a suggestion here about getting further information, but it does not seem to me anything that we would necessarily wish to make and inquire into, unless the Iraqi committee or something like that had a view. It does seem to me that we are reaching the end of a road as to where we go with it. This issue is being raised. Nobody is running to make any decision one way or other. It seems to me we either just leave it and see where things go or you close it almost because I cannot see any ongoing inquiry by us who would be of any substance. My personal view is that shock callers are cruel and certainly cannot be justified. Having said that, I am not opposed to the vibration device that has been used as appropriate circumstances. Would it be possible if the committee before closing that we would perhaps defer our doing a second study has been cited by both those in favour of a ban that he calls on those against, so an option for the committee could be to seek the views of the authors of the study at the University of Lincoln on what the petition calls for? I am struck by the penultimate paragraph of the cabinet secretary's letter to us. I think that to close the petition now might be a bit premature. The previous ban therefore was that there was insufficient objective evidence in support of a ban. However, after considering the points made in the debate in January, I share the strong concerns expressed regarding the potential for misuse of these devices. I have asked for further information on the use of electronic collars in Scotland and other countries and the basis for the ban in Wales. Officials are currently in the process of gathering this information and have had discussions with animal welfare organisations, electronic collars, manufacturers, associations and animal behaviours. Given that the cabinet secretary has decided to take an interest in the matter, we might be advised at least to wait until he is able to update us on what he thinks the outcome of that consideration has been. I was going to make the same suggestion, because clearly the response that we got from the Welsh Assembly said that they have had the ban in place and are currently about to review the ban, and it might be worthwhile waiting until we get a date from them when they expect the review to be completed so that we can then further look at it. If we look at the written response that we have had today, we have had a number of responses that are opposed to continued use of those collars, one in favour, interestingly, from the manufacturers of the electronic collars, and even the NFU Scotland are splitting the issue. They do not want to come down on either side of the issue at the present moment. I think that, by holding off on the suggestion that Kenny MacAskill has made and others about looking at what the Scottish Government intends to do on that issue, I will also ask the Welsh Assembly when it expects to have the review completed, which might help to inform us to either take forward this petition at a later date. Members agree that we have waited for the Scottish Government in response to the further information and from the Welsh Assembly who are doing the review and see what the outcome from that is. Could we also, as I advised earlier, go back to the University of Lincoln to ask what the petition calls for? The next petition is Pt 1.556 by John Mayhew on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for National Parts and Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland on a national park strategy for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerke and submissions. Can I invite contribution from members? Thanks, convener. I think that it is disappointing that we have not had word from the Scottish Government yet to the letter sent on 29 April. However, it may be a case that no news is good news and it is considering the points studiously. That said, it is disappointing that I have not responded to date. Any other questions? Jackson, sorry. I will have a glass of orangis or something. Obviously, it breeds optimism. In the very first instance, I mean, there is a suggestion that we hear from or we contact some other organisations. I think that in the first instance what I really want to hear is the Scottish Government's response to our original letter. It may well be that that leads to further information being sought, but I do not necessarily want to initiate that before we have had that response. I think that we should write saying that we were slightly disappointed that we were not able to have that response before the summer recess and that, therefore, it is going to be some time before we can return to the issue. Had they replied to me, that would have been our benefit and the petitioner's advantage. Members agree that we read to the Scottish Government? I agree. The final continue petition today is PE1562 by Al MacLean on perversa quito. Members have been open to clerk and submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? I think that the petition should be closed. As we all think and recognise, there is a great deal of sympathy for Mr MacLean, but as we see from the Sheriff's Association to change the position that we are at, it would be a fundamental change in the law of Scotland. I cannot see any merit in writing about asking about the number of times sheriffs have sent it back. I have to say that in 20 years' practice, I have never aware of it happening. I have to say that in seven and a half years, as justice secretary, I was never aware of it happening. I think that the likelihood that you will find is that it is hardly ever being done. I think that it comes back to the point that, made by the Sheriff's Association, you would be asking one person, the sheriff or judge, to replace the verdict of PE15. I think that it is something that we just have to leave until such time as the Government, Parliament, members' bills wish to change it, or that the bottom of the report moves things further. However, I think that we have gone as far as we can and with no desire for legislative change, anything else would simply run into the side. Any other questions? The members agree with Ms McCaskill's proposal to close the petition. As there is no further business, I now form a close meeting.