angedigwm yn Notana. Good afternoon everyone Let's take a look at this. The fourth meeting of 2016 of the public petitions committee can ask everyone to switch off any electronic devices, telephone, anger easily etc etc, as they interfere with the sound system. Apologies for being received this morning from David Torrance, so I welcome Jim Eey of the island Selzy, as his substitute this morning. We have one item on our agenda this morning, consideration of continued petitions. The first of which by Dr Lisa Morton on behalf of the Scottish Adult Congenital Heart patients on Scottish Standards for the Care of Adult Congenital Heart patients. Members have all the documentation that we've received in pursuing this. We have been pursuing it for some period of time. It looks as though we're just now waiting on the outcome of the report and the petitioner has been involved in that consultation. I think so. I don't think there's much more we can do with this one, so the member agree that we close this. John, just to comment, the petitioner has indicated that she's now been invited to sit on the Scottish Congenital Cardiac Services board and the working group, tasked with developing the standards. I think that it has been a success for the committee that have taken on board the petition and hopefully wish her the best in influencing the way forward for the services. I think that that is a real outcome for this petition and it certainly has taken the issue forward and I think that's what the petitioner wanted to see happen. We can close that one having achieved something. The next one is PE 1458 by Peter Cherby on a register of interest for members of Scotland's judiciary. We have now written to the new Lord President that his position is not any different from the outgoing Lord President, but we did invite the outgoing Lord President to come and discuss it with us. I wonder if the committee might want to extend the same invitation to the new Lord President to see an exploration of the issue, because I think that there is still a live debate around this. I'm certainly reluctant to close it without having exhausted the discussion around this and examined almost the destruction, but we seriously have to ask questions around it and open to suggestions from colleagues. I think that there is still a debate, because obviously the judicial complaints reviewer was the one who initially indicated a change in tack in that one. Where we can take it and whether it should be us, I'm not sure. Lord Calaway has been, as the new Lord President has been quite clear. It seems to me that it's really whether anybody else wishes to pick up on it, because other than asking the new Lord President the same questions as the old Lord President, given that we've already got it in writing, I don't know where that takes us and it's whether the Justice Committee or the Scottish Government wish to pursue it, and certainly my recollection is about six months since we heard from the minister, but there was no indication of any change in perspective. I think that the only question that arises is whether there still are issues to be debated, and I think that it would be useful to get the new Lord President's views on the record. The question is whether we, as an outgoing committee, extend that invitation or do we put it in our legacy paper so that the next committee can pick up and run with it? The legacy paper on the basis that, given that we are reasonably fulsome letter from Lord Calaway, squeezing him in within the next fortnight, I'm sceptical as to what we could get from him that we haven't had in writing. It's just a couple of issues. I think that the petitioner has suggested that we also consider, as a committee, writing to Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde, who's apparently done some independent academic research on that, so it might be useful as well as writing to the Lord President and asking him to consider it. It would be for the legacy paper as well whether or not it would appear in front of the committee, but I think that it might be useful to invite Professor Alan Paterson or suggest that we invite Professor Alan Paterson to give some independent academic scrutiny of what's been requested in the petition. There are a number of issues. I spent half an hour this morning trying to get the updated register for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service judicial members' register of interest. I'm assured that it's on the site somewhere, but trying to find it this morning for half an hour was impossible to find. The last ones that I've got have actually come from last year, so they don't even have the up-to-date one with Lord Carlaway on it. I know from his register last year when he was on the board when he was Lord Justice Clarke. He didn't register anything in terms of his register of interest. It's just that if we've been told that there are safeguards in place, it would be useful to know how the general public get the information that they're looking for. If it's difficult to get the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service judicial members' registers, then it really raises other questions about where are we going with this and are they effectively trying to make it more difficult for people to find out the interests. The former judicial complaints reviewer, Moya Alley, has recently written to the Scotsman urging a register to be established, as she did when she gave evidence, as the current judicial complaints reviewer said that it would be helpful to have a register of judicial interests. It's something that I would like to think that the future Public Petitions Committee could take forward. For Lord Carlaway and others to come and give evidence and maybe answer some of the questions that may be further down the road. The suggestion is that we put it in our legacy paper, but if we write to the professor that he suggested, John, that response would come back and it would then be available to the future committee so that the consideration could take that into account. If they so wish to consider what will probably be on-going and have happened in the United States of America where judicial declarations perhaps go to an extreme that you would not wish to go to in terms of the replacement for Justice Scaliath. It's interesting to watch that and compare, isn't it? Right, okay, so it looks as though we've got some agreement around how to take that forward. Our next petition, PE1522, by Simon Brogan on improving bulk storage safety. There's so much more we can do with this, I don't think. We've got the responses back from all the interested parties and that looks as though it's a moving along. That's a situation that exists and will stay that way. Okay, we'll just close that petition then. PE1540 by Douglas Fyland on a permanent solution for the A83. I think we need to keep that open. There's no way we can close this. The solution is not being found and I noticed it. I went up to Inverary to look at this issue and did a site visit before I came on to the committee but I think there's been at least two landslides in the intervening period. It's clearly not resolved and it's having a huge impact on the local community up there so there's no way we can close that petition without that solution having been found yet. The convener was not just landslides but on one occasion we were there to close the road for a boulder that had to effectively demolish to make safe the side of the hill. I would like to draw attention to some of the submissions that we've had from members of the public on the issue. One in particular that I was concerned about is the issue has been raised where someone claims they were actually held at traffic lights underneath the hill where there was landslip state in place and it would be useful to find out from Transport Scotland what safety measures are being put in place because the petitioner, the member of public has indicated some alarming concern was raised by other road users that they were actually being held under an area that was known to be subject to landslips and if they are being held in traffic there then it would be interesting to see. The other comment I would make is that somebody's description of the current web of knitting stretching along the hillside, I just thought that the web of knitting, imagine the people out there knitting the webs to stop the boulders coming down but I think it is an issue that needs to go forward and form part of our legacy as well because there has to be a permanent solution to this issue. I will keep this one open, get it in the legacy paper and ask the next committee to keep an eye on that one. That brings us to our next petition, which is PE1570 by Alan Lee on parental rights to child contact and PE1589 by Stuart Currie on an independent review of child contact and financial provision post separation. I think that there is ongoing work in relation to this and I doubt very much if those issues will not be part of that consideration. The petitioners have flagged them up, the ministers know that those issues are there and I think that they are part of the discussion. Oh yeah, there is a draft letter on those petitions that members have in their paper work. If you are happy to note that that correspondence has gone as well, so it all contributes to the discussion and makes sure that the issues are raised with the review. We can close that one, I have those two, sorry on that basis. The next petition is PE1583 by Lisa Willis on primary school playground supervision. I think that there was a lot of sympathy for the issue that came up here. I think that we were all aware at the time that the burden that this would place on local authorities, what it would mean in terms of janitorial staff or teaching staff. I think that it is right that it has been flagged up and I think that local authorities are aware that they have to take account of these things but I just do not know that we can insist on the outcome that the petitioner was looking for although I hope that local authorities would see the importance of the issue that was raised and make sure that people's concerns over the safety of children and playgrounds prior to the school starting or as much as a part of the school day is the safety throughout the day. I think that the responses that we got are that local authorities are aware of that. It is just asking for the specifics of this petition to be delivered, I just think, beyond the possibilities that local authorities could deliver at the present time. The unions are not keen on it although they are certainly aware of the problem but they do not know what it would mean in terms of terms and conditions, renegotiations and what have you. I just think that it makes it far too complex an issue to resolve simplistically. I think that we will just have to draw a line under this one, is that it? I think that the petitioner has raised an interesting point in relation to the situation where children are dropped off earlier in school transport and where does the responsibility for the child start taking place? Is it when they board school bus and then get into the playground depending on when the bus arrives at the school? I agree that we should just go ahead and close this petition but I think that it is incumbent on us to say to the petitioner to continue negotiations with the local authority because clearly there is not a consistent policy throughout Scotland, some local authorities and some schools clearly have policies in place that take account of children arriving at the playground early and there is supervision in place but other schools do not seem to have that. Once again it seems to be down to the local headteachers discretion as to what they do so I would suggest that we ask the petitioner to keep discussing the issues with the headteacher and it may be that some voluntary action by parents in the school playground in conjunction with the headteacher might satisfy the petitioner. Our next petition is PE1585 by Isabel Lenox on behalf of Flag Up Scotland Jamaica on the Scottish Jamaica relations. This was a really interesting petition and it certainly enlightened me about the links between Scotland and Jamaica and it is good to know that people are aware of that and trying to promote it but I do understand where the Government is coming from on tight budgets and what would be required to extend the capacity of external relations. It is probably just too much to ask at the present time but I think that we could write to the Government and in accepting that position ask them to bear in mind when things turn round and start going the other direction that this should have a high priority in terms of external relations because I think that building on the links that the petition raised with us would be very beneficial. Members agree? Very limited costs just by putting people in touch with each other that don't require full-time secretariat in Kingston or whatever. I'm sure that the organisation that's brought this petitioner are working on those types of things but whether we could set up the same formal relationships as we do with Malawi and what have you I think that might be beyond the capacity of the Government at the time and I think we can accept that but that's not to say we wouldn't be desirable in the longer term when there is a bit more capacity there for building external relations. Members agree? Yes. For next petition PE 1586 by James A. Mackey on behalf of Innes Community Council on statutory control measures for invasive non-native species. Members have any views on what we can do with this? Convener, I'm reluctant to close this one because I think the response from SEPA for me raises a number of questions. One of the questions that I want to ask SEPA is where are we in terms of the research in the trials for potential biocontrol organisms for non-native invasive species because certainly I've heard talk about some biocontrol taking place but we don't know where that is at the present moment. It would be useful to find out where SEPA are in terms of that research. The other issue convener is in terms of the letter that we received from SEPA was the amount of money that's being made available to tackle invasive non-native species and the money on an annual basis seems to be going down but the problem seems to be increasing and it's whether or not there is enough resources there because clearly what we've heard from the minister and from SEPA and others is that there's a voluntary control mechanism that's being put in place which doesn't seem to be working and I know that the minister refers to two statutory control orders that were put in place. It would be useful to find out how successful those were because I just picked up an issue a couple of weeks ago in the area that I live where someone claimed that they had a licence to go on and clear Japanese knotweed and I would doubt very much if the individual or the organisation that he claimed to be working for did have a licence. There are concerns about who has the right to go on and carry out removal work for non-native species particularly Japanese knotweed, giant hogweed and Himalayan balsam so it would be just to try and get clarification because in the past as I think I've mentioned at this committee tried to find out over a weekend who would be responsible for contacting and reporting the removal of the legal removal of Japanese knotweed and only to find there is no helpline in a Saturday SNH, there's no helpline in SEPA at the weekend and the police claim it's not their responsibility to monitor it so for many people it would be useful to know who the best organisation to get in touch with and clearly SEPA seems to say it's SNH. SNH say well we're not really sure because the enforcement is sometimes SEPA's responsibility. It would just be useful to get clear guidance that the members of the public could follow and understand in relation to how they tackle either the legal removal or the growth of non-native species in their own communities. I'm sure that we've all got issues in our constituencies with, for example, giant hogweed Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam, so a particular problem in my constituency and Roddy Dendron. I would agree with the comments made by our colleague John Wilson, particularly with regard to the funding for the Water Framework Directive, which seems rather low given that this is a national problem and it needs everyone working together to address it. I'm just wondering if we could suggest in our legacy paper that perhaps the committee could invite SEPA to come along to give evidence on this because clearly in the past I've certainly called on SEPA to up their game on a number of issues and this may well be another one that needs to be addressed so perhaps it should be considered that SEPA should come and give evidence here with regard to this issue. That's a good suggestion. We could write to SEPA as John suggested and get that back in so that it becomes part of the consideration of the petition and put in the legacy paper that invitation. I think that's a reasonable course of action. Members appear to agree. The next petition is PE1587 by Arthur McFarland on the Scottish Civic Forum. I would appear no one agrees with it. He raises an appropriate point. The Government's not keen on it. There are other fora available and I don't think that there's any way we can do. I think it was of its time, wasn't it? If it was a need for it, I would come back again but I think it was of its time so there doesn't seem to be any agreement around the petition so I think all we can do is close it. Angus? I think it's worth noting that the Scottish Government isn't closing the door. That was the point that I was making. If there's a need for it in the future, it could happen again but it's of its time. It might not be the time for it on any requirement for it at the moment but it's certainly an option that remains available on the table should such a forum be needed. The next petition is PE1588 by Daisy Harris on scanning op-ets found on Scottish roads. Members have any views on this one? No real support for it and on that basis I don't see where we can go. It's not going to go anywhere is it? I get the impression that it's the type of financial decision that a local authority, if it was faced with having to make cuts at the moment, this would be the type of service that we'd be getting cut rather than introduced. As I said, I understand where the petitioner was coming from but I just don't think there's any real interest in taking the issue forward and there's no point in pretending otherwise, so will we close the petition on our basis? Angus? I would agree, convener. However, again, it's perhaps worth noting that routine scanning of dead pets found on roads is already best practice, so you know it's sort of already scattered. There is some work in the area actually but I think the mandatory scanning and what the petitioner was calling for just didn't have the support to take it further, so no much more we can do about that. Our next petition, PE1590, by Nick Powell, on behalf of the British acupuncture council on licences for acupuncturists. Again, I don't see where we can take it. I think it's again the financial burden on local authorities that becomes the biggest consideration in all of this. Probably not where the petitioner wanted to take it, but he can't ignore what the cost implications of it would be, even if there was a desire to to make a change. It just doesn't appear to have any support because of the burden that we place on local authorities, so we're not going to get any agreement on this one either, so we'll close it. The 13th petition this morning, our last one, is PE1591 by Katrina MacDonald on behalf of SOS NHS on major redesign of healthcare services in Skylacalsh and South West Ross. I have to say that, based on the amount of information that the campaigners brought to us, I don't think that the responses that we got in any way addressed the entirety of the concerns that were raised. I think that there's a bit of work that still has to be done around this petition. There's a lot of concern about a decision having been made when the consultation appears to have been so unsatisfactory. I'm not saying that we have to, as a committee this morning, agree what we have to do to raise this, but I really don't think that we can close it. I think that there's still life in this one. We could put it in the legacy paper to ask the next committee to continue looking into this, because lessons have to be learned, even if we can't get an overturning of the decision. I think that there has to be some understanding of why there were so many concerns about how the consultation arrived at the decision that it did and left so many people in the community affected so dissatisfied with it. I just don't think that it's possible to say, well, that's the end of that, we didn't get the questions answered. Those questions, a lot of them still remain unanswered, but I think that there's not much we can do with it in a fortnight, but that's not to say that the Petitions Committee in the next session couldn't look at this again and look to see if there's more work that could be done around it, even passing it to the health committee, if that's ultimately what they want to do, so that there could be some consideration of how this consultation—a lot of the controversies around decisions made by health boards aren't so much about the actual decision itself but about how the consultation arrives at that decision. We heard that with one of the other petitions that we have, the health boards in front of us, and they consulted and then just completely ignored 80 per cent of the public who had consulted and took the side of the minority. That kind of thing leaves people wondering what is the point of consulting in the first place, and I just think that there's a bigger picture here that's not really being addressed in the responses that we've got, but I don't know if members agree with that. Community, I agree that we should put this in our legacy paper, but as a piece of work prior to the next committee being established, I think that the petitioner has raised a number of questions in relation to the responses received, and I think that it might be useful to actually send on a copy of the response from the petitioner to the various organisations that she's cited and ask them for responses to the issues that the petitioner has raised in light of the responses that we've received from other organisations. Clearly, as you've indicated at the start of your comments on the petition, some of the issues that were originally raised by the petitioner were not addressed by the organisations that responded, so it might be worthwhile to give them another opportunity to respond, based on the petitioner's reply, but also to remind them what the original petitioner was asking for in relation to the issues that were raised. That would form the basis for future consideration by the next committee. In that case, we'll keep that one open on those terms, pursue it in the way that it's been suggested and get it into the legacy paper for future consideration. That concludes the public part of our meeting this morning, but members want to hold back just to get a wee bit more information about our event yesterday. I can brief them, but Femti needs to leave. We're free to do so now. I'll close the meeting at that point. Thanks very much.