 Felly, wrth gwrs, rydw i gyfarwyddwyr yn cyrraeddion P1E1615 i'r sylwgr yn ei ddalod yn gyflaesu'r system i Gîmbert, Huntingdon a Scotland. Mae sylwgr yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch ymgyrch, sydd wedi'i llefodol cyflaesu ymgyrch y 27 ymgyrch, ac yn gyffredig i gael y paprach ymgyrch ar y mewn ddodol yn 10 ymgyrch. Maen nhw'n ddigon i ddodol eu bach ar y bach ac yn cydweithio'r bwysigol a'r bwysigol, yn ddelchydd a'r galw, ac yn ddalfenais ddalfenais ac yn ddalfenais a'r gynhyrch, a'i cherddolach i gyd, ac yn sicr fel gófnod, sy'n gweithio'r baith y gyr Zacharyn, ac mae'n gweithio'r gwahanol yn hawddai, sylwf yn gwirloedd, a bwysigol yn gwirrawadau i gyd a'i cydwydau. A oedd i gai fawr i gynnwysigol i gyd-gredigol, mae'n gwybod i'r drefwch gyda fwyrddig, gyda'r gwaith yma o ffocwsau i'r unrhyw gwaith o gynnig o'i cwestiynau cyfwyrdd i'r cyfwyrdd. Da'n bwyllt o gwyfododd Tim Bain, y director of the Scottish Moorland Group, a Dr Colin Shedden, y director of Scotland for the Bridges Association for Shooting and Conservation to the meeting. I thank you for attending today. You have an opportunity to provide a brief opening statement after which we will move to questions from the committee. Thank you very much, convener, and we are most grateful for the opportunity to be here this morning. The petition clearly calls for a state-regulated licensing system for game bird hunting in Scotland. In reality, this was licensed all game bird hunting, which would include rough and walked up shooting, as well as driven shooting, and the shooting of pheasant, partridge, ptarmigan, woodcock and snipe, as well as crouse. This would affect all who shoot game, whether reared and released or wild. This could affect the vast majority of the 49,000 shotgun certificate holders in Scotland, as well as the many thousands of people who come to Scotland to shoot each year from all over the world. Shooting is a substantial rural industry in Scotland that influences the management of about two thirds of the land and supports the equivalent of 8,800 full-time job equivalents. More importantly, the conservation work carried out by shooters from all walks of life is the equivalent to 3,900 full-time workers. The argument has been made that game bird hunting in Scotland is the least regulated in Europe and North America. Game bird hunting is regulated in Scotland, initially by the Game Acts, dating back to 1832, and much more recently by the Wildlife and Country Act 1981, as amended, and the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act 2011. That was the act that introduced vicarious liability, for instance. Those who participate in game bird hunting are also regulated by some of the toughest firearms legislation to be found in Europe. Those who hunt game are already regulated. They will have to have a shotgun certificate. That means that they have already been vetted by the police and, as noted in the Wildlife Crime in Scotland 2015 report, such certificates can be revoked and wildlife crime could be considered relevant in such a revocation, and that is at a civil burden of proof. While shoot licensing may not exist in Scotland nor anywhere else that I know of in Europe, game bird hunters are effectively licensed very much in the way that their petitioners desire. In addition, SNH now has powers to withdraw the general licenses that allow essential management activities to take place. They can be withdrawn from land holdings suspected of being involved with wildlife crime, and that has happened. We therefore have a wide range of both civil and criminal law, including vicarious liability, which amounts to unusually stringent legislation. We are also waiting for the introduction of stiffer penalties for wildlife crime. As of outlined, in contrary to the petitioners claim, game shooting in Scotland is well regulated, and that regulation has been updated on a regular basis. The petitioners also claim that shooting is underpinned by illegality and that persecution is endemic. Shotgun certificate holders are among the most law-abiding sector of society, and any hint of illegal activity can lead to the right to hold a certificate and the ability to shoot being withdrawn. In recent years, there have been an average of about five poisoning incidents in Scotland, five too many, we would agree, but considerably fewer than suggested by the petitioners. The fear of the cost and the bureaucracy surrounding any shoot licensing scheme on top of the current legislation and regulation faced by land managers could act as a real disincentive and may lead to shoots being abandoned and important conservation work deserted. Much of the existing stringent legislation that is in place is recent, and we suggest that this will continue to make a significant contribution to efforts to eradicate wildlife crime without the need for further regulation at this time. Thank you very much for that. You said that the regulation was unusually strident in terms of other countries. I would say that, in terms of a UK context, the legislation affecting those who shoot in Scotland is probably tougher. In fact, it is tougher than the legislation that applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So, in that UK context, Scotland probably leads the way in effective legislation to tackle wildlife crime. Can I ask, in what circumstances and what type of evidence, how general licence has been withdrawn? General licence has been withdrawn recently on two areas in Scotland and has been withdrawn by SNH because of the suspicion of wildlife crime having taken place on these two properties. That withdrawal of the general licence has been challenged and I believe that it is going to a judicial review in January. When there were proposals for the current regulatory scheme being introduced, would your organisation have been in favour of those or did you resist them at that time? We had certain reservations about the restrictions of general licences but we recognised that it was probably a reasonably cost-effective way to challenge or to maybe ensure that wildlife crime is being properly addressed. As I say, there is judicial review coming up in these two sites so I would probably better wait until that has been heard before I could say any more. However, we generally are supportive of any steps that are taken to fight wildlife crime and I am happy to expand on that later. I note that the Scottish land and estates consider that new penalties regime arising for the review of wildlife crime penalties in Scotland is the icing on the legal structure. I am just wondering if you shared that view and if you do, can you expand on why? We generally support the outcome of the Professor Pustie's review because it looked at the issue and it came up with a number of solutions, some imaginative new penalties and also toughening up the tariffs which had got very out of date. I do not think that I think that they had last been renewed in the 1990s. We generally support that as a measure that would deter wildlife crime and it seems entirely sensible. I know that they have not been announced yet but I think that there is a general assumption that they will be adopted as recommended but I cannot be sure of that. Do you think that it goes far enough in that sense? Yes, I think that the icing on the cake is because, as Colin said, there is a pretty tough regime of wildlife crime and this will be an extra disincentive or deterrent by increasing the tariff of penalties. Okay, thank you. I think it's fair to say that the issue of vicarious liability has received a mixed reception since its introduction in the act in 2011 and you yourself, Dr Shedden, have referred in your preamble to the unusually stringent legislation. I'd be keen to know what your views are on the impact of the vicarious liability provisions within the 2011 act and how you think that that's progressing and also in particular get a picture of how that's impacted on land management practices. I'm sure that Tim will like to answer that. Tim also has a short opening statement that maybe we could take at some point. With respect to vicarious liability, the main impact that it's had is probably to ensure that any contract of employment is explicit in the fact that no wildlife crime will be tolerated, no use of poisons will be tolerated. Practically every gamekeeper in Scotland and everyone employed in the land management sector will be under a contract that is explicit that there will be no tolerance of wildlife crime. I'm sure that in the coming years we'll have a considerable impact. Those who employ land managers obviously have to protect themselves and the main defence will be to ensure that the contract is in place and that there's on-going training with respect to ensuring that everything is above board. I don't know if you want to respond as well and maybe if you want to add your statement at this point. If I may, could I just make a brief opening statement to cover? This is particularly because much of the evidence behind the petition seemed to revolve around grice moors, although it is for all types of shooting and just to cover one or two of those points. Again, thank you for the opportunity to come here today. I'm talking on behalf of the 2,500 or so people who operate Scotland's 140 grice moors, and they are passionate about the work they do looking after the uplands and the birds and the habitats. The petitioners say that environmental concerns are behind their call for licensing, but there is solid evidence that the mureburn, the predator control and the other work that goes on in Moorlands really is a positive net contribution in the environment, for instance helping waders, which are fast declining elsewhere. Colin has outlined the regulations and there is a long list of other things that keepers have to abide by every minute of the day. They are very heavily regulated in terms of what they do. The petitioners have not put forward any detail of how licensing system could actually add to all that regulation that is there. As I say, the petition rests mainly on grice moors, but we don't recognise the picture that the petitioners are painting about how grice moors are managed. We are very clear that we condemn any form of wildlife crime and we are members of Paws like them and share the same objectives, but the evidence shows that grice shooting is not sustained by criminality as they are ledged. What we would like to mention is the very positive impact that the tighter regulation, particularly in the last five years, has had and the actions of the Paws partnership. There is a lot of partnership working on this issue. We question why the RSPB chose to refer to their own report that goes back over the last 20 years rather than focusing on the last five years, which we think is the most relevant. You mentioned earlier the new Government wildlife crime report, which I think hadn't come out at the last time the committee met. That's been mentioned in the agenda. Broadly speaking, the show is to be a continuing gradual decrease in wildlife crime over the last five years. The raptor figures we think are the lowest for the last three to five years. What that seems to suggest to us is that the current measures are working. Another thing the petitioner said was that the crime is going undetected and this is something that is often mentioned. Earlier this year in his evidence to Parliament, Assistant Chief Constable Graham, he didn't accept that there was a tip of the iceberg issue as is sometimes said, and he actually said, we are not missing the vast majority of what is going on here. We've also helped on the other side of the coin to try and develop voluntary schemes, particularly the Wildlife Estates Scotland initiative, which is supported by Government. There's currently 43 estates that are now accredited, covering 1.1 million acres, and there's another 29 that are under assessment or forming up to be assessed in the next year or so. We also work in other partnerships such as the Heads Up for Harriers with PAWS and SNH, the South of Scotland Golden Eagle project, which is just getting going after many years of gestation, and the East Cairngorms Moorland partnership. All of these have raptor conservation at their core of what they're trying to do. We are doing everything we can to voluntary initiatives to help with raptors in particular. We don't recognise the impression given by the petitioners that gross moors are raptor deserts. I mean, since the last time the committee met, we've seen the Golden Eagle survey published, which has shown a 20% increase in golden eagles since 2003, and many of those are on managed gross moors. We do have, if it is of interest to the committee, we do have a positive four-point plan, which we think could deal with this issue once and for all, hopefully, which we're very happy to discuss with the committee. I think that's all I would say. Thank you very much for that, I guess. It would be good if you could share that four-point plan with us. In fact, it would have been good if we'd had that in advance. Right, okay, I'm not sure how much time is spent. The first point one would be we very much support the continued enforcement of wildlife crime. I mean, this is absolutely essential. There is a tough regime, and that needs to be continued to enforced, and the tougher penalties that we discussed a little bit earlier would help that. So that would ensure that the current momentum is maintained. Secondly, we would ask for support and development of the Wildlife Estates initiative and the other collaborative schemes projects going on, because other sectors such as farming and forestry, they have their own accreditation schemes, which I think are very effective. Wildlife Estates is a rigorous accreditation scheme. It can't be done in five minutes, so it's started slowly, but it is on the rise, and more and more estates are signing up and being accredited. And these sort of formal initiatives actually make working together with people like the RSPB and the Raptor study groups. They make it a lot easier, because there's a formal framework that we can operate together in. And so we would say that it is that sort of co-operation which is the way ahead. Thirdly, one thing is you may be aware of the understanding predation project, which was run by the Scotland's Moorland Forum, and that was all stakeholders across the board came together to look at this whole question of predation and how that can be managed. It was a groundbreaking scheme, and at the moment they're working on the next stage of that, which will be a big sort of live management project with everybody involved. And it'll draw on the sort of proven methods of environmental conflict resolution, and we think that that is a very important way of everybody moving forward together on an understood scientific basis to deal with the issue of predation. And then finally, the fourth point, we would very much like to see greater co-operation between ourselves and the Raptor study groups and the RSPB. I mean, we have tried hard on this. For instance, just this year, with the help of SNH, we developed a new protocol for national bird surveys. Last year it was a golden eagle. This year it's been the Henharrier survey to try and build better working relationships, better trust between the people on the ground and the people doing the surveys, which has got a bit strained over the last few decades. And we're very keen to try and rebuild this relationship because it is only by working positively together that we're going to deal with these issues. That in a nutshell is our four-point plan. Thank you. I think that's very useful. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair. I'll look at the question of accreditation, gentlemen. The Scottish Land and the State submission to us referred to the Wildlife Estate Scotland accreditation programme. I understand that it is administered by the Scottish Land and the States. What external input was there for other organisations or groups into developing the accreditation requirements or assessing applications? It's initiated and supported by Scottish Land and the States, but it had support from the outset from Scottish Natural Heritage. They'd been very much behind it. From the Cairngorms National Park Authority, they were very supportive. On the expert panel, the specialists who help with it, we have RSPB. They've been on it right from the outset. Game and wildlife conservation trust. The accreditation is run by a professional accreditation body who used to be Scottish Food Quality Certification. They now have another name, but it's the same one who do some of the farming schemes. They're a professional accreditation body. The idea of the outset was that it should be as broad a church of support as it could be, and that is still happening. There are discussions with other organisations, other agencies as well, to support it. That's quite well spread and the input into the accreditation programme. We very much hope so. It is a slow burn. It's building up slowly in terms of the number of estates taking part. As the number of estates increases, the bank of data that it produces becomes more and more helpful. As each year goes on, one can see patterns in wildlife species. We've mentioned that the number of golden eagles on accredited estates can now be counted, and that sort of thing is developing. Thank you. Brian Whittle. Good morning, Dr Shedden, Mr Baines. Given the relatively few numbers of raptors, any persecution is significant. I wonder if you accept that those who break the law are almost forcing the hand of the legislators. Given that, there have been discussions around the efficiency of self-regulation, and I wonder if you can explain how that is working in practice, and is there any liaison or engagement with enforcement agencies? I'll answer that very briefly. Yes, raptor populations may be relatively low compared to the numbers of other bird species, but they tend to be top predators, and Scotland has reasonably healthy populations of most raptor species, and as Tim alluded to, the golden eagle has increased 20 per cent since 2003. There have been a couple of good breeding seasons for hen harriers, so we expect, possibly, when the hen harrier survey completes, that might indicate an increase in that population as well. We are talking of over 500 pairs of hen harriers, over 500 pairs of golden eagles. For instance, we're not talking about small numbers, but these are territorial birds, so they're usually well spread out. We do accept that the killing of any bird prey is very damaging for the shooting industry, and that works for an organisation that deals with shooting in conservation, and people say, how can you do that when people allegedly involved in shooting are involved in any form of wildlife crime? It's in our best interest to stamp this out as best we can. That's why we do work with as many other agencies as possible. I mentioned that we're all organisations and members of the partnership for action against wildlife crime, and we do work very effectively, we hope, with them. An example was a sharing best practice event to open to general public, and that was to demonstrate to the general public how to identify wildlife crime if they come across it. I was certainly happy to take part in that process, pointing out to the general public legitimate land management tools such as trapping and snaring, and how those could be abused in certain situations. The public were trained to recognise when abuse was taking place, so we're quite happy to work with the public and other agencies to ensure that, as many people as possible know, what is a legitimate wildlife management activity and what is potentially illegal and should be brought to the attention of the police. We also train the police in those management techniques as well. In the forward to the wildlife crime annual report, the cabinet secretary welcomes the reduction in raptor persecution offences, but did so with caution making reference to the review. She has instructed into missing satellite tag, bird of prey. What are your views on whether a clear trend in raptor persecution can be demonstrated until the findings of this review are known? Well, I think that if you look at, since the government statistics have been produced as the fourth one, we think that there's a definite downward trend in bird of prey crime. I mean, it is quite confusing some of the way the statistics and police and other figures have worked, but I think that underneath there there is a definite trend downwards, and that's what we definitely see that on the ground as well. In respect of the minister's forward and the examination of the satellite tagging, we welcome that because what we need on this is evidence, and so often this is what's lacking in the whole field of wildlife crime and particularly raptor crime is hard evidence as to what has happened. And so we think that that is the right approach, and we particularly note that in the recent cases of satellite tags stopping working, although there was no bird of prey found dead and the police weren't treating them as crimes, we don't know why the RSPB collected this data for five years and never came to speak to the people who owned the land where the satellite tags had last been recorded, because if they had come and spoken to the relevant landowners we might well have been able to find out what had happened. So we do support finding more evidence. Do you have a view as to whether the increase in recorded raptor persecution offences illustrates that there are valid concerns about raptor persecution? We very much recognise the valid concerns. We don't deny it, but we think that the figures show a downward trend. That seems very obvious. I think that the agenda has mentioned the disaggregated police crime data, and I don't want to get into the technicalities of this report, but there is a time lag between the police, how they calculate and the figures, and I think I would refer the committee to page 37, the number of incidents which have gone down by one this last year from 19 to 18, but that is following a general downward trend over the last five years. Angus MacDonald? Thanks, convener. Your earlier comments regarding the RSPB are noted. Some of the decisions taken by the RSPB recently have been a mystery to many of us. You'll be aware that issues relating to gamberd hunting have also recently been considered by the UK Parliament through petitions, one of which called for a ban on driven grouse shooting. As you know, SLE questioned whether the potential environmental, economic, community and cultural impact had been taken into account in that petition. However, the petition that we have before us calls for licensing rather than a ban. Can you outline whether your concerns about licensing would cover the same potential impacts that SLE has identified in its submission? Yes. The call, as I said at the start of my introduction, was for a state-regulated licensing system for gamberd hunting in Scotland. That confuses me because I'm not sure whether it is set at the individual level or at a collective level for a shoot. Is the shooter to be licensed or is it to be the shoot, which would be either the land or the collective group of people who come together formally or informally to shoot, were they to be licensed? Some of the evidence that has been presented before confuses me as to whether it's at the individual level or at a more collective level. I've been trying to make the point that at the individual level, the shooter is already licensed. It's a state-run scheme administered by the police and it has worked at the civil burden of proof, which is exactly what the petitioners want. My argument is that the shotgun certificate is effectively a shoot licence in itself. If we're talking at a more collective level, it's difficult to see how a shoot licence could actually be administered. We don't know, for example, whether it would be based on land or whether it would be based on people coming together formally or informally. It's something that hasn't occurred in Europe before, as far as I'm aware, so it's new territory if it is at that collective basis. That's certainly what concerns me. It would concern me because it would be a bureaucratic and costly form of licensing, which would be another burden on shoots. A majority of shoots are small and informal and it could well lead, as I mentioned earlier, to them being totally disbanded. It could well lead to landowners thinking it's not worth the trouble that the shoot could collapse and the conservation benefits coming from shoot management would also disappear. If I could just add, I think that what seemed to come out of the Westminster debate was this unknown, unquantified impact. Obviously, a ban on driven crushing would have a very serious impact on the uplands in England. I would echo what Colin said, that it would be this loss of confidence and this loss of willingness to go out and do the unpaid conservation work. People would just... It would be another reason for not doing it. I think that it could undermine all sorts of aspects of rural life. Alison Johnstone. Thank you very much, convener. Thank you both for your statements this morning. There are some parts of your statement that I agree with wholeheartedly. Perhaps your four-point plan might be something that would work very nicely alongside a licence and regime. I think that there are other parts. Your views on moor burn perhaps aren't shared by everyone. There are concerns about deterioration of soil, degradation of peatland and so on. I'd like to focus specifically on this issue of licensing. You've said yourself that two thirds of land is being impacted by these activities. I think that there is growing public interest in this agenda. I'm certainly aware of it through my own mailbag, as I'm sure colleagues are. Specifically on the issue of raptor persecution, the 2015 national golden eagle survey informs that where golden eagle range occupancy is only 39 per cent in east of Scotland, where the dominant land use is driven grouse shooting. There's a good food supply there compared to 95 per cent in the northwest islands. What do you think the difference is there? That is what we've seen. I had a look at the summary report of the survey. The east of Scotland has had that level of occupancy for decades now. The level of breeding success in east of Scotland is the highest anywhere. It seems to be a definite, the highest levels of occupancy in the west of Scotland, the western isles, and it gradually decreases to the east. One interesting thing that comes out of that report is that the area south-central highlands, which has had the highest increase in occupancy, I think it was 70 per cent. That is an area running down the spine of the highlands, which includes a lot of driven grouse moor areas as well. It's a complicated picture, but grouse moor managers are passionate about golden eagles. They really do want them. There are things happening in the eastern highlands that the reason for low occupancy could be many other than just the fact that there is grouse shooting there. Perhaps, but it does seem perhaps a relationship that we need to investigate seriously. I would suggest that, if the issue does, and I hope it does, go to the environment committee in the Parliament, perhaps one that they could look at further. A recently published scientific report commissioned by SNH pointed out that there has been no decline in levels of illegal killing of red kites in the north of Scotland. Does that not fly in the face, perhaps, of your assertions that raptor persecution is in decline? I think that report looked at it all over Scotland, and I think the red kites in other parts of Scotland were doing very well, but they could do better in the north of Scotland. We can only echo if there is raptor persecution, it needs to be condemned and it needs to be stopped. I think we were quite clear about that when that report came out. You've suggested that we're more regulated than other parts of the UK, but it appears. SNH is undertaking a review at the moment of European neighbours that were the least regulated and most intensive game bird shooting system in Europe. In a recent article in The Shooting Times, the British Association for Shooting Conservation suggested that a licensing system where a right to shoot is dependent on legal and sustainable management is a threat to the socio-economic and environmental benefits of game bird shooting in Scotland. Do you agree? Yes. As I pointed out earlier, I've argued that there is a lot of licensing in place already in Scotland. Introducing another tier may replicate what we already have in place if it's at the individual level. For an individual to have to apply for his shotgun certificate to give him the tool to allow him to go and shoot and then apply for a separate licence and then get permission of the landowner, I feel would just be going a bit too far. There are other impositions that are coming through. Just now all owners of land will be faced with the prospect of sporting rates being introduced from next year onwards. The licensing system relating to air weapons is coming into effect in 1 January. Shooters who shoot in Scotland are being faced with a number of financial impositions. We see shoot licensing as being another one and it could lead to the end, as I said, of some of the smaller and formal shoots that are the mainstay of shooting for ordinary people. Thank you very much, convener. Clearly, this activity has an impact on the entire ecosystem. I do think that there should be a system in place where we understand how many animals have been shot, how many hares have been culled, for example, so on and so forth. I do think that any well-designed legislation would take account of the concerns that you have about duplication. If you maintain that regulation of shooting as a threat, isn't that an acknowledgement that the current shooting management system is, in fact, undermined by unsustainable and illegal practice? Surely estates that are being well run have simply got nothing to hide? I would argue, yes, that estates that are well run have got nothing to hide, but estates that are well run may have difficulty in accommodating increased bureaucratic levels. The voluntary approach is working well and the wildlife estate Scotland initiative is a good example of that voluntary approach. The voluntary approach is one that shooting has been built on over the last 150 years in this country. Things have improved enormously. There has been legislation when it is required, but, as I said, Scotland is well regulated just now with respect to shooting. The voluntary approach also takes it much further forward. There is a code of good shooting practice. There are lots of codes of practice for all sorts of different aspects. We promote those codes of practice, we write most of them, and we expect all of our members to provide by the codes of practice as well as the law. Thank you very much. I think that we have come to the end of our questions, although it may have raised more questions in everybody's minds than it was. Is there any final point that you want to make before we think about how might we deal with the petition? No? No. I wonder if committee members now have any views on what action we take on the petition. Angus? I think that, given that we have spent longer than we normally would, by asking for the alternative view to the petitioner's view, I think that we should refer the petition to the ECCNR committee for consideration as part of its scrutiny of the wildlife crime annual report and other upcoming work that the committee may well have after the Christmas recess. I know that the committee has been following the progress of the petition at this committee up till now. I think that it has been useful to have today's session, but it really highlights the range of issues that we would be focused for. I do not feel to me that it is necessary for all of this committee to pursue that, but I do not know what other members think about Angus's proposal. I think that we have gone round this from every angle. I think that we have made sure that we have a very balanced view from both sides. I cannot see how much further we can take this work past that one, and I would agree with Angus. Yes, I agree with that. I think that we should pass on to the ECCNR committee and move forward from here. I think that we have exhausted it as far as we can go. I welcome the information today from Dr Shedden and Mr Bones. I think that it gives us a good balanced approach to where we are, and certainly what is in place and what needs to be put in place in relation to some of the issues that the petitions have made, but I think that it really is a matter now of the ECCNR committee to consider. We have really exhausted it and the two gentlemen gave. It was very useful to see the balance on that, and I commend them for that. I think that we are in agreement that we should refer the petition to the ECCNR committee for its consideration as part of its scrutiny of the wildlife crime annual report, which means that it will not come back to this committee, but the issues that have clearly been highlighted today in earlier sessions will be at the discretion of that committee to be explored further. I thank our witnesses for attending today or to suspend for a couple of seconds till we go. To order again, and can we move to agenda item 2 consideration of new petitions? The first of these is petition 1622 to make failure to recycle a criminal offence. Petition 1622 by Stephen Duff calls for failure to recycle to make a criminal offence. The petition collected 10 signatures in support. Members have a copy of the petition text in background from the spice briefing that provides information on the progress in managing household waste in Scotland and how that measures against Scottish Government's targets. The briefing also provides some information on recycling arrangements elsewhere in the UK and Europe. I wonder if members have any views on action to take on this petition. That would be enforceable. I think that there is an issue, but enforceable. Although I was quite intrigued, I must absolutely confess that when I first looked at this petition and read the background, I saw that different countries have moved not just to create incentives but to create disincentives not to comply. I find that quite interesting. It is very, very complex. It would be very difficult to enforce. It is really up to local authorities to bring home the fact that recycling in their own area is up to target. I do not think that it is realistic to say that we should introduce legislation for this. You wonder what supports local authorities. Local authorities and we have to meet targets. The targets are quite significant. If we establish a target, we have to have a means of reaching that target. I do not know what the answer is, but it feels to me that it was asking for that. For instance, I live in a flat and we cannot recycle, so I do not know how it would mean an enormous change from the local authorities to provide that service. I am not saying that they should not, but I do not think that is the way to do it. I am excited to see your thoughts on what kind of legislation can be brought into play and what that means in enforcement terms for the local authority. As I said, it is not something that I am particularly knowledgeable about by the interest to think where that legislation would take us. One of the things we might ask the Scottish Government to guess is how they propose to get an astonishing target. 70 per cent of recycling compost and preparing for the use of waste from households is 70 per cent by 2025. The petitioner says that with the recent rate of increases in recycling it will take 42 years to achieve the Scottish Government's position. I will not be here to see it, but there you are. I will be recycled by that point. Avgan, now you will be pickled. You will be pickled and put down in the foye. In my house I have got five recycled bins. I think I have pretty much recycled everything. Sometimes I find my kids in me and other things are ridiculous. We do our own recycling because we do not have bins provided. I do not know it is a massive undertaking to sort all that out. There is also an issue about deprivation and affluent. The more affluent areas are better at recycling than the more deprived areas. It is a huge issue. Some of the whole thing around littering and not using your bins properly can relate to antisocial behaviour as well. I would be right to say that we are not convinced that criminalising not recycling is the way to go but it does raise quite interesting questions. It might be worth asking the Scottish Government to seek its views on the action called for in the petition in the context of their own targets around recycling and the use of waste. I think that would be worth it. I think that would be worth it. We have just gone through a massive change in our Garm butte council and we have gone the route of much better information to all the communities and towns and it is beginning to work well and we have quite a high record of recycling. One of the issues is we looked at our own household waste and I now put out one ordinary type of green bin and it is a standard waste and it is now only a quarter of what it was at the beginning of the year. That is right. Everything, there is so much more you can recycle and the problem is that people are not being told by the individual councils exactly what they can recycle. That is the problem. It may not be legislation. It is actually empowering the local authorities and this is what we have done. We have empowered ourselves to go out there and persuade and if necessary bring in bylaw, regulation at that level. Local authorities really down the local authorities to do it because they have got the teams to go around. We are not quite into photographing bins but that does happen in some areas and then people are warned but it is an education process and I think this is really taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut whereas actually education and communication can be done and there are more things coming out each during the course of the year. Certainly in my area at Cancel area we have had a big effort on this. Have you ever done anything like this Ben? I am supposed to put it out each once a week. That would be really helpful. Angus? Can we now just to concur with Maurice Corry I think it is the responsibility of the local authorities but I am aware that there is a pot of money sitting at Zero Waste Scotland that can be tapped into by local authorities to improve the education of the residents that it was regarding to recycling so there is money there for it except the local authorities to tap into. I think it is not entirely a negative story I mean I think people recycle more than they have done in the past. I expect my children's generation are much more aware than the previous generations so there is something there. I wonder as well as writing to the Scottish Government we might write to COSLA that they feel that they need some legislative support and I do note from the evidence that we were given that the idea of giving people incentives I suppose is that it does not work on this report anyway but there may be issues that we could usefully flag up to see what the response would get. Is that agreed? Thank you very much and we can thank the petitioner for those issues. The next petition is petition 1624 on the definition of adultery. The next new petition we will consider today is petition 1624 by Acre Jones on the definition of adultery. Members have a copy of the petition and a briefing note. The briefing explains that the issues raised in the petition were considered in the Marriage and Civil Partnership Scotland Bill which became the 2014 act. The petitioner brought a petition in substantial similar terms in the last session of Parliament after that bill was passed. The previous petition was closed on 31 March 2015 on the basis that there was no intention to legislate further in this area in session 4. The petitioner contends that the current definition of adultery breaches equalities in human rights law. As the issues were considered by the Parliament fairly recently, I would suggest that we write out to the Scottish Government in the first instance seeking its current view on the issue raised by the petitioner and whether there is an intention to consult on the issue in the current Parliament. I am happy to hear members' views. Angus? That is the best course of action. We had clarification in the last session that there was no intention to legislate further. You know there is every possibility that that could change. I agree. I have some sympathy with this petition and I think that there is definitely some merit in pursuing it on the issue of equality. I agree around that. Times have moved on and I think that we are with civil marriages and civil partnerships and marriages between same-sex couples. I think that we just have to move forward and yes, I agree that it is going to be a government issue. Is that agreed? In that case, if we agree to write to the Scottish Government seeking its view in the petition and whether it intends to legislate on the issue in the current session of the Scottish Parliament. Can I just make a point? I have been named in the petitioner's comments. Yes, we have written to it but that was as far as it got. We did not express one way or the other to that point. I received an email from the petitioner which I acknowledged receipt of said petition and all of us on my name appears with Maurice as people have sought support of. I would just like to make that note to the slightly misleading. It is a distinction between seeking support and receiving support which I think most people would be aware of. With that, can we move on then to agenda item 3 consideration of continued petitions? We will deal firstly with petition 1, 2, 3 on school bus safety and can I welcome Stuart Stevenson MSP who has a long standing interest in the issues that we are now going to be discussing. The next petition we will consider is petition 1, 2, 3 by Ron Beattie on school bus safety. At our last consideration of the petition we agreed to write to Transport Scotland we sought clarification from it on its response to a pilot programme on school bus signage conducted by Glasgow City Council. Transport Scotland has provided a response indicating that it considers that a one-size-foot-sol approach to the issue is not merited and the case has not been made for a national roll-out. Members will see from the clerk's note that Transport Scotland has undertaken a range of other measures including contacting the UK Government to enhance awareness of the school bus sign in the highway code and driving test. As members know we received the very sad news that Mr Beattie passed away since we last considered the petition and I'm sure members will wish to join me in expressing our condolences to Mr Beattie's family and in recognising Mr Beattie's efforts in raising the issue with the Scottish Parliament over many years. It's worth noting that Transport Scotland's submission dated 21 September commended Mr Beattie for his achievements in influencing Scottish policy on this issue and I'm sure other members will agree with me that even in reading the evidence that he provided there's a very powerful message about the need for action but I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions on how we now take the petition forward. I don't know if you want to see perhaps Stuart White might worthwhile if you read your comments. Thank you very much indeed, convener and I'm sure that Ron Beattie's family will very much appreciate the kind remarks that you've made and indeed the comments that Transport Scotland made before he died which of course being prospective or possibly even higher like more highly valued. The general comment that Ron Beattie following an accident involving his granddaughter first petitioned the Scottish Parliament on the whole issues school bus safety in 2004 he is I think beyond doubt the most persistent but effective petitioners and it would be a good model for others who wish to pursue in a proper manner how to deal with difficult issues which this one is. Turning to the subject that is before us today the response from Transport Scotland is perfectly proper they do in particular in relation to in-scan school bus signs which is one of the two topics of the petition identify that in their tests only 11% of people identify these signs in hazard perception tests conditions 8% or so in darkness I think that does broadly leave open the question is whether more can be done but I think noting that the highway code has been amended at rule 209 and that the test is being amended to try and raise awareness of this I think we can count that a very substantial and real achievement but perhaps not the closing of the issue in the long term I think the other point the committee may care to consider is of course the other point that is in the petition and that is to make over taking a stationary school bus a criminal offence I'm not sure that's within the gift of the Scottish Parliament I may say I believe it is not and I suggest that perhaps the only further thing that the committee might consider doing I'm not urging I'm merely informing is of course to ask the rural committee who have responsibility for transport in this Parliament whether there are issues from this petition including stationary school buses and defences associated with that whether they might care to consider this further I suspect for this committee that this petition having gone on from 2009 and notched up a fair number of achievements and changes you may be running out of options could be I understand that the question of overtaking so on is reserved I think that's a broader issue just about mindset amongst drivers certainly my time as a school teacher we lost young people being classically knocked down coming round the front of the bus I think that there is an issue about mindset which I don't know if you can legislate for but I think that even the fact that these issues have been discussed and raised over a period of time I'm sure I will have some impact and public perceptions I wonder if people have views it does feel to me that we would want to close the petition under rule 15.7 on the basis that Transport Scotland has identified alternative measures to address the issues raised by the petition I wonder if people have views specifically on Stuart Steven's suggestion that we maybe just flag up to the relevant committee these broader questions that he's identified Brian? I think that the interesting one here is that the overtaking of a stationary bus makes the assumption that we can identify the bus as being a school bus in the first instance and having school children aboard the bus at the time so it's almost like a dual issue I do think that being able to properly identify the bus as a school bus is key but the overtaking of a stationary bus being a criminal offence I think would be problematic but as you say it's the mindset of drivers probably more akin to highway coding I mean a city like Glasgow very few buses will be school buses there will be buses with school children on them and the examples I would give from one teaching career would have been youngsters who would have been on the regular buses so that is in a sense all of this doesn't really address that question which is just about at certain times of the day at 9 in the morning 4 o'clock half past three in the afternoon drivers should be very alive to the fact that people coming on off buses will include large numbers of young people but that doesn't feel to me that something even to transport Scotland could address it does feel to me that we should be doing something but unhelpfully I can't think of what I'm minded to say it should go on to the rural committee but I'm just to clarify would it be going there just on the issue of overtaking school buses is there any other reason it would be going there what we would do in general safety we're closing the petition we recognise the issues here around transport and the relevant committee is responsible for transport and then we just write to them saying almost capturing this debate and saying we would welcome that they may look at this further I would support that definitely I think Ron has made some fantastic achievements just reading through the background to it and I think it would be a good idea to move it on to the committee now I don't think we can take it any further but certainly move on to the relevant committee Can I ask a question Do we have any statistics reference municipal and rural accidents Do we have any statistics showing us what the occurrences in rural sorry rural and municipal I think there are some figures in the report but I think just to clarify if we close the petition what we would be writing to the relevant committee and saying these are issues that we've considered we can't direct them then what they might do with that in their own work programme maybe something that they would wish to look at and I think that if they wanted to examine that further they probably will be sure that Stevens will know better than I what figures there are but whether it captures both youngsters travelling on school transport and those travelling on regular buses I'm not sure I think what Stuart Stevens has said is that the rural nature of it is important that that is something the rural committee can look at but I do know sorry coming back to my own we've started to put wardens on buses at the school time and that has helped it's not so much that there's a rural issue but the rural affairs committee also is responsible for transport oh sorry, yes a big one can we agree then to close the petition but we will take the actions that have been discussed and I thank Stuart Stevens for his attendance and I do think we would want again to acknowledge the work of Mr Butain's family in this regard where if that is a legacy it's one certainly to be proud of thank you very much, good dinner okay if we can now move on then to petition 1408 the updating of punishes anemia vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment this petition is petition 1408 by Andrea MacArthur on updating punishes anemia vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment the committee is a cop of the Scottish Government's latest response and a submission from the petitioner members will recall that since the petition was lodged the British Committee for Standards and Hematology published guidelines on the diagnosis of B12 and folic deficiency in June 2014 the committee received advice from the diagnosis steering group that these guidelines were not suitable for the Scottish practice setting as such the Scottish Government commissioned the Scottish Hematology Society to prepare a summary document based on the guidelines provided to GPs in Scotland the session for public petitions committee considered the draft guidelines for the first time at its meeting on 1 December 2015 the committee sought further information of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Hematology Society on the draft document to verify a number of the petitioner's concerns with it the Scottish Hematology Society has since withdrawn from the process citing its limited resources as the main reason for doing so the latest submission from the Scottish Government advises that no further work will be done on the draft summary document and there are no plans to publish it as such Scottish clinicians will be expected to refer to the British Committee for Standards and Hematology's guidelines the petitioner has expressed disappointment with this news in her latest submission and I wonder if members have any suggestions for action and why don't we write to the Minister for Public Health asking why we're expected to go to the PCSH for guidelines and I think previously the civil justice is not suitable for use in Scottish practice it did strike me as odd seeing that these guidelines weren't suitable and then when the Scottish Hematology Society withdrew, they then see why they are suitable so I wonder if we agreed then that we write to the Minister for Public Health I'm just trying to okay, is that agreed? okay thank you very much if we can then move on to petition 1463 in effect of thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment you will be aware that this is an issue of interest to Elaine Smith MSP but she's unable to be with us today this petition is by Lorraine Cleaver on effect of thyroid and adrenal testing diagnosis and treatment members will recall our meeting on 29 September 2016 that we agreed to request a briefing from Spice and to consider our approach to the petition at a future meeting a copy of the Spice briefing has been provided to members and we've also had the chance to consider our approach to the petition within the context of our work programme and I wonder if members have suggestions for action the hugely important issue and I think the suggestion that we prepare a report on it and I would really like to see a debate in the chamber on this I mean I appreciate it's been fairly long standing but I think it's we need to try and move it on somehow I think there's no doubt what server that we've accumulated are the positions committee rather than we as a collective group here but over a period of time have accumulated a whole range of information which would be really useful to draw together in one place and again I think seeking a debate in the chamber we would then secure the response of a Government minister which would then allow people to share MSPs or groups beyond a parent might be able to pursue these issues and highlight them is that agreed? Angus? I was just going to agree with you convener as you say we've collated a massive amount of evidence on this and it will be good to have a report collating all that information and clearly a debate in the chamber will help to keep this major issue on the radar particularly on the Government's radar because I for one don't understand why T3 is not available through GPs and we need to get to the bottom of this once and for all Okay, are we agreeing? Okay Thank you very much We're now moving on to petition 1581 Save Scotland's school libraries Submitted by Duncan Wright on behalf of Save Scotland's school libraries We previously considered this petition at our meeting on 29 September when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government in the Scottish Library and Information Council The responses are included in our briefing pack and the note by the clerk provides a summary of these responses The Scottish Government does not appear to object specifically to the development of a national strategy for school libraries but does not consider that ministers are necessary to ensure that the Scottish Government does not consider that ministers are a necessary best place to lead on this and I wonder if members have suggestions for next steps Matt Morris I think that we should write to COSLA on the Association of Directors of Education Scotland in light of the Scottish Government's response because there are big issues running throughout all the councils 32 local authorities in Scotland just now, certainly in their budget setting and this has come up time and time again and I think that we need to get a central view on that I think that we need to go to COSLA on this one I am kind of intrigued to understand why ministers think that they are not best placed to deal with this since it is an education matter It was interesting that the Government recognised the issues but did not see their responsibility to be equally Scottish libraries body recognisers in each strategy but did not really identify in my view what should be the next step so it felt like everybody agreed that it was an issue but I am working on the assumption that there are not people who willfully want to refuse to have school libraries and school librarians and it would be interesting to know why people make the decisions they are making what are the pressures on them and what are the core things that you would expect from school education and the role of libraries within that so we could write to COSLA Association of Directors of Education Scotland may have a view as well I think one of the issues behind this is the fact that there is so much now referral to internet collecting information that the kids go home and are encouraged that and this is one of the dilemmas that councils are facing is the reduction in the use of the libraries in schools for example but yet you go to some towns where the municipal library is actually well used so is there a real dichotomy at the moment I think ideally a combination of both books and the internet working together would be good that's why I think we should go to COSLA and get a real steer on this with the director of education I wonder whether in many schools they will have libraries which also have facilities with computers and so on and it's a question of what level of professional do you require when I was teaching we were still teaching in the Dewey decimal system so I don't know whether that still happens in schools we will go most things now but I have no doubt whatsoever that librarians in their profession will have moved on along with technology that should be quite interesting do we think there's a role for the education skills committee in looking at this question I think that as you alluded to convener that I think everybody recognises an issue but nobody seems to be able to take on the responsibility and I would really be interested to see who it is making the decision and who ultimately responsibility falls to so I think it would be the education and skills committee would be so we can refer it to them we can write to COSLA and ADES is there anything else and then we can obviously alright now we have a choice if we refer it to being advised we refer it to education committee it will not come back to us so it's a question whether do we want to let it go at this point no certainly not we'll do the writing and then we can reflect to that at a later stage okay thank you very much for that if we can now move on to petition 1600 on speed awareness courses petition 1600 on speed awareness courses was submitted by John Chapman at our previous consideration of this petition on 29 September we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate to seek his views on the petition and any concerns that his office may have about the effectiveness of speed awareness courses we've received the Lord Advocate's response which is included with our papers and where he indicates that he would be happy to consider a detailed proposal and looks forward to the department for transport report on its three-year evaluation of speed awareness courses to members of any suggestions for action shouldn't we really defer until the department for transport has reported on the three-year speed awareness course seems to be I agree with that I think that's the point absolutely we could also write to the Scottish Government seeking an update from its strategic partnership board following its meeting on 28 September I think however we recognise the significance of the petition and its importance so I think that if we do those two things which is getting an update but also holding on to the petition until the department for transport is reported on its three-year speed awareness course evaluation we could seek an indication from them about the timescale for publication of that report that's agreed thank you very much for that 1604 inquest for all deaths by suicide in Scotland the next petition we will consider is petition 1604 by Catherine Matheson an inquest for all deaths by suicide we've received a range of responses from NHS boards the Scottish Government and Scottish Association for Mental Health we'd want to acknowledge the seriousness with which people have responded and very substantial papers associated with this petition provide the submission to address points raised in the responses received this petition raises a number of issues about the process employed by health authorities to review the circumstances leading to a patient on a community treatment order committing suicide the overarching issue is whether the Scottish Government is minded to extend the scope of the review under section 37 of the mental health care and treatment Scotland Act 2015 following the mental health commission's recommendation the Scottish Government has already agreed to extend the scope of the review to include the suicide of patients on suspension of detention the minister for public health did not commit in her submission whether she is minded to extend the scope of the review further to include patients who were released from hospital or receiving care in the community under a compulsory treatment order that is called for by the petition this is something the committee may wish to explore further with the minister members will say that a number of stakeholders do not agree with the petition suggestion that should be in question for all deaths by suicide however there was some agreement that there may be merit in reviewing or reforming particular aspects of the NHS review process that the petitioner has highlighted this includes appointing independent chairs to conduct the reviews and sharing experience of how families can be successfully included in the review process I wonder if members have suggestions for action or comments I think we were struck before both by the power of the evidence from the petitioner and the dignity with which that was done and I am struck by the seriousness with which those issues have been raised and it is just a question of how we need to take this forward Excuse me, can I just say at this point that I have had a message from Catherine Matheson to offer her sincere gratitude to the committee for taking forward this issue for her family and for all other families who have lost someone to suicide Thank you very much for that I think we should write to the minister for mental health to ask why if she is going to expand the scope and why that was not included I think that is vital to do that and write to healthcare improvement Scotland to ask their views and the guidance provided to NHS boards and a number of other points I think just as much information from them as we can on what has already been provided but just to clarify a lot of the points mental welfare commission as well I think that is important Write to them to ask for I think that is important The view on that Absolutely no, I think we go for that I think that even in reading the papers and this is something that I have had the experience of in the past I understand that when the NHS professionals are dealing with these questions they do not want to be in a position where they feel that they are not able to explore what happened and address that and improve their action up but they almost feel that because the families will be there they will become defensive I think that from the families point of view it is only about what do we learn for the future rather than being properly open and accountable for what has actually happened I think that there is a tension that comes through in the responses which says we cannot have the families present because it will make people defensive and I think if you were the family you would think what have you got to be defensive about I think that it is a very delicate area Not just in not just in suicide I think that across a number of areas within the NHS but I think that from the families perspective I think that all they are looking for is closure and as you said the evidence that was given was very powerful very moving and I think it does lead to some of the conclusions that the panel or the committee have already made here that this should be taken continue to be taken forward I think that families are looking for closure they are also looking for reassurance that things will change and it won't happen things will improve for families in that situation because it is very brave of this petitioner to be fighting this given the tragic circumstances I think they also want justice I mean I think they want to feel I don't want to put words into people's mouths but in my experience of dealing in particular cases like this they are very assured that things won't happen again for others but they also want to know what happened and why it happened and that if people are culpable and have been neglectful that is also addressed which in other circumstances would happen Can I just raise a point it's quite interesting the different NHS boards we would quote four here Ayrshire and Arran Highlands 4th Valley the risk all have a slightly different approach to the committee's structure and I think there's something in that that we may well need to be looked at because you know best practice now I'm not saying they're doing anything wrong it's just maybe there's something there could be tightened up on Is that something we could flag up to minister and to health improve at Scotland? So just to kind of summarise where we are I think we're agreeing to write to minister for mental health asking whether the Scottish Government will expand in terms of section 37 of the mental health care and treatment act in the way called for by the petitioner How the findings from the review into arrangements for investigating the deaths of patients will feed into national policy including the Scottish Government's new 10-year mental health policy due to be published this year and the timetable for bringing forward the regulations in relation to section 22 of the health to back on a continuing care Scotland act 2016 regarding the procedure to follow on the duty of Canada I think that you know this question of the fact that the petitioner's son was still under the care of the hospital although not resident in hospitals actually you know it's not the broader question of suicide very specifically that and in writing to health care improvement Scotland really asking I suppose this question about guidance to NHS boards and how they feel about if different boards are slightly different uniformity and how they deal with it and the petitioner's suggestions on improving guidance on requiring review panels to be led by independent persons there was certainly one response which talked about the importance of the way in which that then gave confidence if the chair was independent what it's using how health authorities can share ways in which families have been successfully engaged with in the review process including directly in review meetings because again I think that was a tension me highlighted whether it considers there would be value in the action called for by the petitioner to expand the remit of the review under section 37 of the mental health care and treatment act and we've already agreed I think to Morris Corry's suggestion on writing to the mental welfare commission okay so that I think is a fairly substantial number of issues emerged from that no okay thank you very much for that and that concludes the business of the meeting and I'll now close the meeting