 Cymru cwrs. I welcome, everyone, to the 12th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2019. We have apologies from the convener, Joanne Lammant, so I shall convene today's meeting in her absence. We also have apologies from David Torrance. With two items on our agenda this morning. Consideration of two new petitions and seven continued petitions. The first new petition before us today is PE1720, natural flood alleviation strategy for Scotland. The petition was lodged by Les Wallace and calls for the development of a natural flood alleviation strategy under the Flood Risk Management Scotland Act 2008. The note prepared by Spice and the Clerx provides an overview of the current position in the context of the 2008 act. It provides a definition of natural flood management as set out in SIPA's natural flood management handbook and refers to the natural flood management network developed in partnership between the Scottish Government, SIPA, and the James Hutton Institute. The petition refers to the role beavers might play in flood risk management, and this is discussed in paragraphs 10 to 14 of the paper by Spice and the Clerx. Paragraphs 15 to 18 of the note outlines Scottish Government action, including its climate change plan, as well as the Government's support for the development of natural flood management approaches such as the Edelston Water project and the EU interreg building with nature project. The note refers to the recent assessment by the committee on climate change, which states that there remain key data and evidence gaps that make it difficult to assess progress for a number of priorities in terms of flooding and flood risk management. The remainder of the note outlines previous parliamentary questions and answers on this matter. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I would like to make a point that, first of all, the petition had received a significant number of signatures, and that is encouraging, particularly with our aims and goals with climate change. I was unaware of the natural flood management techniques that were available, including the hydrological and morphological procedures. It is important and they make a good point that it needs to be a collaborative approach with the traditional styles of engineering that we use to guard against flood risks and use those as defence. I was also interested to note that the usual suspects, SEPA and the James Hutton Institute and the Scottish Government have got 100 natural flood management actions. I think that it is really great that they are looking at this and that we must do this to reach our climate change goals. I also note that it is important that the Committee on Climate Change has mentioned that flood mapping is so important and that there are currently gaps, as you have just mentioned, convener. I would like to know a little bit more, anyway, from the individuals that are involved in the 100 actions. Brian Whittle, do you have any comment? I think that this is a really interesting petition and I think that the extra dynamics in there is the reintroduction of beavers into the ecosystem and the impact that they can possibly have downstream from the dam building that they do and the impact that they could potentially have on farming, because we know there is a little bit of contention around that. I think that, in the first instance, I am very interested in seeing what the Scottish Government seeks to abuse and what action they see as being called for by the petition to see how they reflect on that. Okay, thanks. Perhaps I should declare that the petitioner is one of my constituents. So are we agreed that, in the first instance, we should write to the Scottish Government seeking its views on the action called specifically for its response on the data and the evidence, and, as Brian Whittle has suggested, there are challenges with the gap to farms and areas such as that. In addition to contacting key stakeholders such as SEPA, SNH and the James Hatton Institute, would members agree that it might be an idea to contact the National Farmers Union Scotland and also the Scottish land and estates for their views as well? It is well perhaps fisheries management Scotland, because that is part of the conversation and, in England, there is a lot of work being done on the catchment management approach. The countryfile land would last Sunday talk about river itching. That was a very interesting programme, so I think that this is the approach that we are going to be guided along. Yes, indeed. Okay, if that is agreed then, we will ask the clerks to take that forward. We will move on to petition PE1721, a national tourism strategy for Scotland and the role of the National Trust for Scotland. The petition was lodged by John Hanks on behalf of the Friends of Jealstone. It calls for the Scottish Government to meet with the National Trust for Scotland to discuss the role that the trust can play in the context of the national tourism strategy. It asks that the future of any trust property and their threat of closure be included as part of any discussion. The note prepared by Spice and the Clerks provides a brief summary of the roles and remits of different parties and stakeholders, including the Scottish Government, the tourism industry and the National Trust for Scotland. Members will note that paragraph 9 of the note refers to an updated tourism strategy being developed by the Scottish Tourism Alliance. The strategy steering group set up to deliver that updated strategy does not include the trust. This is an example of a petition being set in the national context, which stems from a local experience. This morning, we are joined by Jackie Bailey and Maurice Corry, who both have an interest in this petition. Perhaps before we go to members of the committee, it may be helpful if Ms Bailey and Mr Corry could provide any comments to that context to assist us with that consideration. Ms Bailey. I thank you to the committee for your time this morning. As you said, I am joined by my colleague Maurice Corry and I hope that the committee understands the truly cross-party approach and support that is given to the petition. I also, through you convener, welcome the members of the Friends of Jailston, who are in the public gallery today. The petition, as you rightly pointed out, is set in the context of our national tourism strategy, which, as members will know, is all about showcasing Scotland as a visitor destination with first choice, high quality, value for money and memorable visitor experiences. That is the vision that is set by the Scottish Government and one that we would all support. Tourism is, of course, growing, particularly from visitors from mainland Europe. Scotland's unique selling point is our heritage, our monuments, our castles and our stunning landscapes that we enjoy day in and day out. However, we know that if we are going to sustain that, we need a range of high-quality visitor experiences, and we need to get much better at linking destinations so that we can contribute to that overall experience being maintained. It might surprise you to know that gardens are hugely important in making that contribution to our tourism offer. There is a UK Select Committee, which is currently looking at the importance of gardens and their contribution to tourism and the natural heritage of the UK. A recent survey carried out by the British Tourist Authority said that 32 per cent of foreign visitors spent time in parks and gardens when on holiday. I was quite surprised at how high that figure was, because it is almost as many as visited some of our famous monuments, castles and attractions at 35 per cent. There is not much difference, and I think that it goes to underline the significance of gardens to our tourism offer. Scotland is blessed with some stunning gardens. We are all familiar with the botanic gardens at Kelvin Grove in Glasgow, the royal botanical gardens in Edinburgh that attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors, but there are many, many more. I am not going to take up the committee's time by naming them all. We would be here all day, but I want to talk about a very local example, which is Gilston Gardens in my constituency. Gilston Gardens and House were gifted to the National Trust for Scotland by Ms Hendry, together with quite a substantial endowment at the time. It is listed in the UK top 100 gardens. I cannot quite remember its position, but, for me, and I suspect for Morris as well, it is number one out of that list of 100. Rather disappointingly and surprisingly, in our view, in 2016, the National Trust for Scotland took the decision to close and dispose of the property and the gardens. It transferred the endowment funds into its general funds. I have to say to the committee that I found that an incredibly shortsighted decision, entirely contrary to the clear direction of travel set by the Scottish Government in their tourism strategy. The Friends of Gilston Gardens are challenging that decision. They are challenging it on a number of fronts. First, the refusal to use that financial endowment that was part of the bequest to renovate the property to reduce the operating deficit. They are challenging it because the National Trust for Scotland's accounting practice does not credit any income to the property from the high percentage of visitors who are actually national trust for Scotland members. That results in appearing to have an operating deficit, but we know that NTS members are using the gardens all the time. They are challenging it as well on the low rating given to the gardens on the NTS's particular measures of value. I also have to add that, in the context of the local economy, it is really important. There is a linkage—a natural linkage, in my view—for NTS members between the gardens and Hill House in Helensburgh, which is also owned by the National Trust. When you look at the local businesses that have grown up as a result of the footfall generated by the gardens, it has a significance in the local economy as well as having a significance for the tourism strategy overall. There are a number of reasons that they are challenging that. As part of those discussions, they have worked with the National Trust to commission a study on future options, and I would invite the committee to maybe ask the National Trust for a copy of that study, because I think that that would be instructive in looking at this. We are very clear that this is not just the gardens and the house that are under threat of closure. There are other properties run by the NTS that are facing similar challenges, and we need to look at all those in the round, because, collectively, they add to the tourism offer that we have. Scottish gardens make a contribution to Scottish tourism—a contribution that I do not think is sufficiently recognised in the tourism strategy, but people are waking up to that. Some NTS gardens are getting investment, others are actually being, dare I say it, neglected and may well be on the list for closure. We cannot have just a concentration of investment in flagship properties and ignore the gardens that form such a part of the natural heritage of Scotland. I would invite the committee if I might be so bold to do so. Why do not you come and visit the gardens? I would love to host the Petitions Committee in Cardiff to visit the gardens, because I am sure that you would enjoy it and fall in love with it, and it would become your number one garden too. Could I suggest that the committee might want to write to the National Trust? Indeed, consider bringing them before this committee, along with the Scottish Government, but get the study from them to see what local people have tried to do to maintain and keep the garden and the property in the future. Perhaps ask the National Trust what other plans they have for properties and gardens in their portfolio, and invite them to perhaps reflect on the petition, their importance to the tourism strategy in Scotland and to stop any closures until they have had an opportunity to discuss what they are doing with the Scottish Government and with the committee of the Parliament. I endorse entirely what Jackie Baillie has just said, and I agree entirely on that point that it is a cross-party matter, and we have worked closely on that from the beginning, along with friends of Jolston. It is very important that this property is quite a unique property in Jolston. It has a lot of connection with the shipbuilding industry and the shipping industry of the River Clyde. It brings a lot of that together. Also, it is a double whammy when people come to the area because they have got Hill House, which has just had a massive amount invested in it, and will continue to do so, obviously. Therefore, this is right on the footpath to it, so I think that it would be crazy for it to be any consideration of closure by the NTS at all. Can I also declare that I was a member of the National Trust for Scotland when this first came up before? I think that my membership was slightly delayed at the moment, but never mind. I am certainly very supportive of it. The fact is that the gardens are very important. I, as a young lad, born and brought up in the area, knew Ms Henry and Ms Baill, who lived there. I know from knowing them quite well that it would be the wish of Ms Henry not to have seen that money go into a central pot. I think that that is very sad that that has happened. I think that that really should be reconsidered by the National Trust for Scotland headquarters, and that should be made purely for investment in the house itself and gardens. I would like to pay tribute to the friends of Gilston, who have done a fantastic job to highlight the issues of Gilston House. It is a place. If you just got to go there and you see that people come in, it is quite incredible who have come along. There is actually an active working kitchen garden, which sells produce to people in the area. I, for one, buy produce from it for the Sunday lunch. That is great. I recommend the parsnips. As Jackie Baill said, it is in the top 100 UK gardens, which is pretty good. I think that that is something that should be borne in mind when you are looking at this. I understand, obviously, throughout the whole of Scotland, National Trust of Scotland and in conversation with the chairman of it, that there are various considerations being looked at. However, I am very, very concerned that there is a heavy hammer approach to Gilston on this. I do not think that they are listening to the details that are really coming forward from the reports that have been made by the friends of Gilston, and I know that a tremendous effort has been put into that. Future options. There are options on the table suggested by friends of Gilston. I do implore that they talk to them, that they do look at that. I know, to be fair to the National Trust, that they have asked and obviously are keen that some form of collaborative, some form of community group to come together to come forward. I, wearing my armed forces of veterans hat, have looked at the possibility of the house being involved with some housing for veterans, and that is a possibility. There are a lot of things there, but I just feel that the heavy hammer approach by the National Trust at the moment is beyond the pale into that. I think that the committee needs to have a real look at this in-depth study, because there is lots of information that has been led by John Hanks and other members of the friends for the options for the house. The other thing that you notice is that when you drive into the gardens, there are a lot of children there. Young people go to it, and it is a great place. They set up a young people's play area, and Jackie Baillie will know that. That is encouraged, and they have lots of open days and various things. I think that Macbeth was staged the other day in the gardens, and a beautiful setting for it, in a walled garden. Anybody you talk to, just wondering around, and I have done it many times, is absolutely, they come from a long way away, not just local areas. I do commend to the committee if you would go down and visit it. We were more than happy to host you there. There is a very good cup of coffee there, and you can buy some very nice parsnips and vegetables, if you like, at the same time and contribute to the well-being of the gardens. It would be a great sadness if it was closed. I think that it would be extremely foolish to close it, because, as I say, it is so close to Hill House that the people there can get a good bang for their buck basically by coming to visit two places. I recommend that it is very much kept going. In particular, it is the gardens that stand out. Thank you for listening to us. Okay, thank you. I am sure that they appreciate the various plugs there for coffee and parsnips, but I wonder if I could ask—I mean, I am not sure if the figure that was transferred from the endowment is public knowledge, but could you give us any indication as to how much was involved? I can certainly let the committee know in writing after, but it was quite a substantial endowment. Because it was not attached directly to the property in the gardens, the national trust was able to remove that and put it into general funds. Obviously, we are very disappointed by that decision, but we recognise that legally, even though morally, they should not have done it legally, they were able to do so. Can I come in now? I can probably add that the figure originally was £800,000, and it is now climbed into the millions because, obviously, through time it has increased. So, it was not in substantial chair. No, fairly substantial, yes. Thanks. If I could turn to committee members, I would ask if they have any place. I do not know if I have read the wrong figure, but I am sure that I saw a figure of £2.5 million. The owner of the state of it, which is worth in the region of £2.5 million legacy. Thanks for your plugs as well. It sounds amazing. I am not sure if you are on commission for the past snips, Maurice. I hear what you are saying. It is clearly valuable to local people and to members. I have a couple of questions if that is okay to direct to those people. I wonder why it is that the friends of Jillston are not keen for community trust to run the gardens. I also wonder whether the report—and it sounds as though, Ms Bailey, you have not seen the report, and that is why you are encouraging us to get a copy of the report from the national trust, because it is very difficult to know what the operating costs are. If that is what is putting the friends off running the trust itself. The other point that I want to make is a general one. It is an important point that the petitioner makes that identifying what role the national trust plays within the national tourism strategy is very important. If they are not involved as part of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, then it is very difficult to work that out. Clearly, as an independent charity, it is in its best interest to increase the number of members, to increase the number of footfall within the property and to safeguard its properties. There are two different things here, perhaps involving those people in the tourism strategy and understanding what it is that is putting the friends off the community trust. I will respond to both those points. First, in terms of the study, it was carried out by ECOS. My understanding is that it was commissioned by the national trust, working alongside the community to shape the terms of the study. I certainly was interviewed for it. My understanding is that study is now complete, but I have not yet been provided with a copy by the national trust, but I would invite, obviously, the committee to request that of them. Hopefully, I might receive one in the post after they have watched this committee meeting. I think that there is an issue at a strategic level. While we are naturally concerned about our local garden, it could be your local garden tomorrow, and we are concerned that the national trust for Scotland, perhaps—and maybe I am being unfair—focuses on the big ticket visitor attractions, and the smaller gardens, which are critically important to our tourism offer, do not take an account of. The local community adores those gardens. You will have heard from Morris and myself just how much so. However, it is a huge responsibility to ask a community group to take on a house that requires repairs currently into at least one, if not two million—I suspect that it is nearer two million—a gardens that are quite extensive. We do not have that strategic level—the opportunity to make linkages with other national trust properties, so, for example, the linkage that we have described with Hill House, which is 10 minutes up the road. It makes sense that one body is looking at all of those collectively rather than fragmenting it into disparate community groups running them. We have a great bunch of enthusiastic members, but, to be honest, that is now what happens in 20 years' time. I think that they quite properly are saying that they will help in any way that they can and, believe me, they are very active. However, taking responsibility when the national trust should be doing so is probably an error, given that we need to keep this at a very strategic level. I go back to the figures that actually stunned me. I did not realise that 32 per cent of foreign visitors visited gardens and parks as much as 35 per cent went to visit famous monuments. That is huge. We have a great garden network that we do not exploit as part of our tourism strategy, so we need to fix that. We need to keep not just Gillston, but other gardens like it, because that contributes substantially to our tourism offer in Scotland. I just asked another supplementary question. The £2.5 million legacy, if that was put back into the general funds, as you said, is there no rule that safeguards that? Even if there isn't, why wasn't that used to safeguard the Gillston property? I invite you to put that question to the national trust, because that indeed is the question that we are asking. The building did not get into the state of repair overnight, so investment in the building and repairs has clearly been an issue. The funding by being put into the general fund will, I am sure, be used appropriately, but it can be used on anything. It is no longer just tied to the house and the garden, so that clearly is our very evident disappointment. As Maurice Corry pointed out, the issue is knowing the two ladies at the time, and I didn't know them, but everybody locally tells me that their legacy was about the house and garden. It wasn't generally to contribute to the national trust coffers. Can I come in here? I will just clarify on the point that, when I said £800,000, that was a way back originally. Obviously, it grows as an extrude investment, but the way Ms Henry died prior to the will was made in such a way that the transfer of funds could be made to the national trust headquarters account. However, what was agreed was that, after much negotiation with the Friends of Jealstone, the interest on that capital sum is allocated to Jealstone House for the maintenance of gardens and, obviously, general repair of the roof, which had been redone. There was an element of coming towards the Friends of Jealstone with income, but the capital sum was not, and there's a legal issue around that, but why that is still in place. When it's been looked at, the will, I'm just not aware of the title. There's a particular term used, but it's a legacy, not a will, which means that it can be used across the properties generally in national trust. There's a legal argument here about that, but it managed to win the interest off it, which is something. I think that by using that as an example, they've moved some way to coming towards the Friends of Jealstone's wishes, but not far enough, and that's the point. You could say that the board of the National Trust of Scotland has realised there's an issue here, and to go the way to give the interest, certainly, is obviously a help, but let's go a bit further and have the capital sum allocated purely to Jealstone House, which is what I am convinced is what Elizabeth Henry wanted, because the way that she wanted to bequeath it was clearly for Jealstone and the people of Cardros. I have to say that this sort of rings is similar to something that's happened in my own area over a period of time. Bell Isle has been in the news again. Obviously, the property there has burned down, but having been there as a kid, I'm taking my own children there as well, and the way that has been allowed to deteriorate is sort of rings through what I'm saying here. I have a lot of sympathy for what colleagues are saying, what the petitioners are saying. The other thing that strikes me very much, convener, is around the fact that it seems to me that the money was bequeathed specifically with the thought in mind, and it seems entirely reasonable to assume that the money was bequeathed to maintain the property. It might not be illegal, but it does seem slightly immoral that they would take that money for other projects. I'm certainly my need to look a bit deeper into this petition, convener. Okay, thank you. I would tend to agree that I've got a lot of sympathy for the petition, and it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable ask that's contained in it. Clearly, the petitioners have strong support from Jackie Baillie and Morris Corry, so it's heartening to see that there is such cross-party local support for it. With regard to next actions, do we have any suggestions as to what we should do with this petition? I think that I should write to the Scottish Tourism Alliance to ask if there is a reason that National Trust Scotland is not included in the board or within the strategic tourism plans for Scotland. There may be a valid reason for that, but it would be good to find out. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to understand the outcome, the contribution from the national trust properties, and the contribution of the footfall. I think that it's very important what they do contribute to Scotland. Other than that, of course, we need to eik out some more details from National Trust with regard to some of the points that have been made today. Perhaps get a little bit more information from Gilston Gardens on the evidence that we have heard today. I agree that we need to seek the views of the Scottish Government's view of the petition and to ask the National Trust to respond to the petition and to provide a copy of the study that Jackie Baillie referred to and to comment on the points that have been raised by the two local members. I believe that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has an inquiry on the contribution of gardens to the economy, which I think is live. The committee will alert that committee to the petition that we are discussing this morning. We also need to seek the views of the Scottish Tourism Alliance and Visit Scotland. As Rachael Hamilton has said, friends of Gilston will have a chance to respond to what is being discussed this morning and to anything that comes back from the various bodies that have been mentioned. Are we agreed? Okay, thank you and thank you to Jackie Baillie for coming along and also to Maurice Clawrie. Okay, thanks. We'll suspend briefly for the moment just to take witnesses for the next evidence session and allow them to get to their places. Okay, if we can reconvene the meeting to discuss PE1671 on the sale and use of glue traps. This is part of agenda item 2, which is consideration of continued petitions. As I said, the first continued petition is PE1671 on the sale and use of glue traps, lodged by Andrea Goddard and Lisa Harvey on behalf of Let's Get Mad for One Life. At a previous consideration of the petition in December 2018, we agreed to invite the Pest Management Alliance to give evidence at a future meeting, and representatives from the Pest Management Alliance will give evidence today. I welcome D-word Thomson of the British Pest Control Association, John Hope of the National Pest Technicians Association and Tom Bell of the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland. Thank you for attending this morning. You have an opportunity to provide a brief opening statement of up to no more than five minutes, after which we'll move to questions from the committee. Over to you. Good morning. Thank you. I think that the plan is to have a very brief introduction, if that's okay. The Pest Management Alliance acknowledges the potential for cruelty to be caused to target and non-target species by the use of sticky boards. However, we recognise the need to protect public health if an imminent risk presents itself, and we look forward to informing the process. If I could start with the first question. In your submission in November 2018, you acknowledged proposals put forward by the petitioners with regard to the code of practice and indicated that you would look at a potential redraft of the code with a particular focus on the training aspect. Can you advise the committee that this has been done and, if so, when you expect it to come into effect? Hi. The revision is still on-going. We have looked at making some revisions, particularly around the reasons why or when they could be used. However, we are still in that process of drafting that document, so we haven't got a final document today. Within regards to the training, we are looking at developing a training course. Again, that's in progress at the moment, so a training course that people would be able to take online or a classroom course. However, the RSPH level 2, which is currently the main qualification or the base qualification that we use for pest control, does cover the use of sticky boards. It is being covered, however, we are looking at developing an individual training course. Do you have a timeline for that and also a timeline for the code of practice? The code of practice should be ready soon. I don't know whether John can… Yeah. I think we looked at the code of practice and there are various points about the petition that makes sense. To be fair, we wanted to see if there was any recommendations that came out of this committee today as to how you think it should possibly proceed because what we didn't want to do would be to issue a new code of practice and then end up in a situation where we had to send out another revision quite quickly. It is in progress. I would say that three to four months would be the maximum time that we would need to develop that. Okay. Thank you. Brian Whittle. Thank you. Good morning to the panel. I think that just going back to the code, as I understand that it applies or will only apply to organisations and pest controllers, who are members of the Pest Management Alliance, I just wondered how binding what you think this code will be. Well, the code itself has been around for a very long time, so the Pest Management Alliance comes together whenever there's any significant issues or subjects that we feel strongly about where we want to pull the whole industry together and come together as a group. So we're made up of the different pest control associations and the CIEH and ReHIS and a group called M-PAP. We wrote the code of best practice a very long time ago, so the original version was around 2010 because we realised the importance of making sure that these products were used safely and only when needed and to give guidance and assurance that that was taking place within the professional pest management. All of our members of the different associations sign up to the pest management codes of best practice. We currently only have three, so it's very important that all of our members do adhere to them. We issue them when people become members and then obviously we have an audit process where we audit our members. Generally, all of our members will adhere to any codes of best practice that the organisation sign up to. We don't watch all of our members all the time, but we can say that professional pest controllers will follow the codes of best practice, set down by the organisations and set down by PMA. What training and oversight do you propose putting in place to ensure compliance? Sorry, was that with the code of best practice? All members—I can only speak for our organisation when they join, but they all go through a process of taking through all of the code of best practice and then we have online training that they can do, which is specifically in the code of best practice. Within the pest management industry we have CPD, so we have a CPD scheme. It is only on pest control, so it is not a broad subject CPD. It is all on pest control, and there will be CPD courses and webinars on all of the codes of best practice that we have as an organisation. John is very similar. It would be fair to say that the vast majority—in fact, I would say virtually all—of members of both associations do adhere to that code of best practice when it comes to glue boards. As Dee says, the COP has been around now for a number of years and it is well entrenched within the pest control industry. If I were to give you a figure on the amount of complaints because we do have a robust system with dealing with complaints with anything that comes to us with regard to our members, I have dealt with one complaint in the last 12 months regarding that, which I upheld. We went through a process of dealing with that individual member and just retraining and re-advising them and we revisit. It is a very robust process that we have in place, as I am sure the British Pest Control Association does. It is well entrenched. What is not so well entrenched, though, is the availability of the boards to amateur users. In that situation, the boards that are provided by pest control suppliers will have the code of best practice printed on the back of them. The various pest control companies that buy those products, their staff will have gone through training to use those products, as Dee said, RSPH2, although we are looking at a new training programme specifically around glue boards. When it comes to amateur use boards, no such controls exist. You would only have to go on to Amazon or eBay or any of those various platforms to be able to just buy boards and use them however you like. For us, that has always been a big concern, but professional users, like I say, are well entrenched and we do use them properly. I was going to go on to that for the pest controls who are not members or even for those amateur. People are trying to do pest control, but you cannot ensure adherence. Would you then advocate that the use of glue boards should only be for those who are professional pest controllers and potentially members of your organisation? 100 per cent. I totally agree. I would like to pick up on that point. The cabinet has intended to introduce restrictions on the sale and use of glue traps. Is there any—at the point of sale—what happens when someone goes—you mentioned Amazon online sales. How does somebody who is aware of the code of practice and is a specially trained practitioner, can they purchase glue traps or can anybody purchase glue traps? Is there anything in place to stop those who are not trained to purchase glue traps? I would say that, certainly from the professional pest control provider market, there will be—they will have certain customers who have accounts with them that are from pest control companies. With regard to being able to buy glue traps just as a member of the general public online or even on a market stall, there are no restrictions in place at all for that to happen. Do you believe that there should be something in place? With regard to the amateur market, certainly. Have you, as an alliance, looked at controlling that? I think that, to be fair, that is quite difficult for us to control. We deal with the pest control suppliers on a regular basis and there are discussions around only providing glue balls to professional users. It is fair to say that they have all come on board, which is why I say that the code of practice is printed on the back of their boards. The boards that you will buy from a market stall, for example, you will not have that code of best practice and people do not know how to use them. The petition is right in saying that these boards do have the potential to cause suffering. I have been in this industry nearly 30 years now. I would argue that the people that work within this industry do not have any agenda around causing suffering. In fact, the answer is absolutely the opposite. It is true. We are in a world now where there are restrictions on many products and there are difficulties around controlling rodents these days. I am going off your question, but at the point that I am trying to make is the need to keep them for public health use, but there are difficulties around rodent control now with regard to intolerance to serial bates and behaviour resistance with going to bait boxes and the like. We need to keep the armoury that we have, providing that we use it properly, which is why we, as the PMA, recognised that we needed to have controls over the measures and why we brought the code of practice in in the first place. Just to respond to that, it is devaluing that irresponsible use is devaluing what, as an alliance, you are trying to set out with your code of practice. I find it quite horrific that those people who do not know how to use the traps are being able to use them. I want to ask you about the code of practice. You did say that you wanted to wait and see what happened here today as to the committee how we would guide you. I am not an expert, so I do not think that I will be able to guide you, but I wondered who you will consult to shape the code of practice. Who will you bring on board to allow you to make this more robust, if that is what you are after? We have already consulted, so we have been in consultation with different organisations, so Deaf Earth, Natural England, and we are also speaking to representatives from Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland, because we cover all those within our membership base. It is always very difficult when you are trying to rewrite something that has been in place for many years, because it has worked effectively. Sometimes you can get to the point where you make it too big, and it does not become a code of best practice any more. It becomes a guidance document, so it is quite a lengthy process. We are trying to make sure that we do not make it too wordy, so that people do not follow it. What we will probably end up doing is having two documents. For me, a code of best practice is just that. It is what you must do, and you shall do this, and you shall not do that, whereas a guidance is more about how. What we try to do with all of our codes of best practice, as I say with the Pest Management Alliance, is that there are only three subjects that we feel strongly about that we need to have a code of best practice. It is to keep it nice and short. I think that what we will end up is having additional guidance for people to understand. At the point of sale, is the code of best practice given with the product? I know that you cannot track that online, but is that something? Obviously, there are instructions, but is there a code of best practice that is available to those people who are irresponsibly using it and are not trained? Responsible sellers, manufacturers of those products, will have the code of best practice printed and will supply, but there are lots of sellers that will not. There will be no controls at all. That is one of the biggest issues with the amateur market. Anybody in this room could go and buy them and have them delivered by tomorrow from China, America or anywhere because there are no controls at all, but there is no regulation within pest management at all. The pest management industry has always been self-regulating, so the campaign for responsible redenticide use is voluntary, a voluntary sale and use which was done for redenticides to keep the AVK active. That is self-stewardship. Aluminium-phosphide is also stewardship by voluntary means and by working with an organisation called ramps. The PMA is kind of like our stewardship, which is a very stringent code of best practice, but it is all voluntary. If products can be gained for amateurs, then you are always going to have this issue of trying to control point of sale, which I think would be very difficult. Mr Hope, you spoke about having one complaint in the last year. I just wondered if there ever have been any practitioners that have been struck off because of irresponsible use. I have been in position about 12 months, so I cannot answer for what goes before, but to the best of my knowledge, no. Certainly not in the last 12 months, but I think to be fair, to strike people off and to remove them from an association can be counterproductive. It is far better to work with people and retrain and educate them rather than to send them down a road to oblivion, where they will continue to practice, but they will continue to practice without any potential repercussions, because, as Dee says, we are not a regulated industry, but what we are good at is self-regulation. Under what circumstances do you believe that glue traps should be used and do you think that that is specific enough in the code of conduct, so there is a clear message? I think that I understand where you are going with this and I understand what the petition is saying. That code of best practice does demonstrate or does dictate that glue boards should only be used as a last resort when all other control measures have failed or if there is an imminent risk to public health. I can give you various examples of that. The obvious one would be somewhere like a hospital operating theatre, where a mouse or a rat gets in and you do not want to wait, or the customer or the pest controller does not want to wait two weeks for anti-coagulant bates to start working. In that situation, I would advocate their use. What I can say is that I have been in this job for about 30 years. I have probably used glue boards about 10 times, so they are not commonplace, but we can be in a situation where they were removed from our armory as a last resort. That is all they ever are used for. I could stay with the code of practice for a wee bit longer. We understand that it was revised in 2017. How many times has it been revised since 2010, and what motivated the 2017 revision? I think that there have been three revisions in total. As with most codes of best practice that are done through the PMA, we have a revision process. We will look at all our codes of best practice on an annual basis. It is just a natural progression. I do not think that there was any particular reason that prompted the revision, apart from just the normal process. The petitioner's submission of September 2018 provided a range of suggestions for improvements to the code. You have acknowledged those comments, but can you indicate which or any of the suggestions might feature in the revised code? If you have contacted the petitioners directly to seek their views? No, we have not contacted the petitioners directly. We will take on board the various aspects of it, but as D says, what we do not want to do is to make it too overly cumbersome. Various emotional statements or potentially emotional statements around the need for suffering are something that our members are fully aware of. I will come back to the amateur use market area of it, where there are no controls in place at all. Would it be possible for you to provide a copy of the draft of the redraft of the code of practice so that the petitioners can look at it and that we can look at it as a committee? I think that it would be helpful if we could have sight of it at an early stage. No, absolutely. We will continue to work on redrafing it. I think that it is pretty comprehensive, as it is from my personal point of view, but we will take on board the petitioner's point of view. As soon as we have carried out a redraft, we will more than happily send you a copy of it before it goes to submission to the general pest control population. The timeline for that is… If we say three to four months, would that be a reasonable day? I think that we would all agree that, in general, pest control should be left to professional pest control management. To me, the idea that to practice pest control, you do not have to be a member of the pest control alliance and that it is not obligatory to be a member. Therefore, the problem for me is that, if you have no intention of following that code of practice, you will not become a member of the pest control alliance. To me, there is a big hole in that. If we are actually really going to try and close a loophole here, we would have to ask the Scottish Government if they are prepared to legislate in any way here. Otherwise, those who are non-compliant with the code of practice can continue doing what they are doing with no recourse. I totally understand where the petitioner is coming from here and I would support it. However, how do we enforce that? I know the way that I can see that is some kind of legislation that requires membership of our body. I do not know where we go with that. That is something that can be considered. In the first instance, we need to reflect on the evidence that we have taken this morning and discuss further actions at a future meeting. However, clearly, we are keen to see the finalised code. Ideally, if that is done within three months, all will be well and good. I suggest that we perhaps reserve the option to invite the PMA back to present the finalised version to the committee, possibly in November, December, if it is provided by October. However, we would clearly need a copy of the code in advance and ideally a copy of the redrafted code before that. Are members agreeable that we will discuss it further at a future meeting? Are you agreed to that? Okay. Thanks very much for giving evidence this morning. It is very much appreciated and we may or may not see you back here at some point in the not too distant future. Thank you. I will suspend briefly to allow members. I reconvene the meeting. I welcome again Jackie Baillie and Maurice Corry, who have stayed for the petition on a permanent solution for the A83, which is PE1540. It is lodged by Douglas Filland and is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a permanent solution for the A83 at the rest and be thankful, ensuring that the vital lifeline route is not closed because of landslides. Following our last consideration of the petition on 6 December 2018, we have received a written submission from the Scottish Government. The submission confirms that it has conducted a programme of engagement and consultation, including work on the A83 as part of its review of the national transport strategy, which is expected to be published by the end of 2019. The submission also confirmed that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity intended to meet with Argyll and Bute Council in early 2019 to discuss the emerging vision, outcome and policies of the strategy and what they mean for Argyll. With regard to tree planting measures that have been put in place to help to reduce the risk of landslides at the rest and be thankful, the submission explains that work on this would begin in early 2019. Do members have any comments or would you like to hear from the local members first? Who would like to go first? I know quite a lot about this. I was a council elected in 2012 at Argyll and Bute Council, and I sat on the road committee as a vice convener of it. This option was very much top of our list, so it has been going on for a very, very long time. Just to put you in a picture of this, yesterday, as late as yesterday, I had some photographs taken on the area of the rest and be thankful. As of last night, there is no planting taking place at all. In fact, the area they refer to about going for private sale of the forestry, the sale board for sale board is still up at the bottom of the Glen, so there is no move on that. I know there are some issues with the Forestry Commission in relation to harvesting the trees at the bottom of the Glen, which is the beginning of the rest of me, thankful, because there are real concerns about hydrologines. It is like we identified in 2012 because you start taking those off the hill. Just to give you a bit of a background, originally a way back in farming times, and those people were farmers amongst us were probably no better than me, but there was an allocation of hillside given to the local farmers, and those cattle and those sheep would go on to the sides of rest and be thankful, and the sheer way they work by going around and contouring, they stamp in the soil, and that forms a barrier to any slides. Well, they don't have sheep and cattle on the hill anymore, and that's not encouraged. So there is a fundamental natural problem, and then furthermore that once the forestry people harvest their trees, they completely change the hydrology, so the water situation gets worse. So that's why there's a dilemma, and there's no use of government hiding behind various studies and reviews and yet another review and digging holes, and I'll come to that in a minute. It is not the solution to it, unless you pilot the cattle and make up for those lost years on the hill, you're not going to solve it. It has got to be a dramatically different situation, and so what we as council at that time looked at was certainly a couple of major options. One was to cover the road with the Swiss type of avalanche guards, like a tunnel, an open tunnel to open the side down, and the worry there was that by doing that the sheer drop on the road on the left as you go up is quite severe, that maybe the rock might give way, so that was rather ruled out. The other one was to put the blue option, which it was, was to go on the south side of Glen Crow, which was through the forestry ground. They had granted permission from Ardgarten up to the top of the connection, where you go down, you turn left, and you go down to Loch Galhedd and on up to Inverary. That was £40 million. Well, currently I gather the spend on what they're doing is not far off £60 million already spent, and Jacob's are there, and we still have single file traffic, we still have delays of up to 15 minutes. That's non-summertime traffic, so you can understand how people are getting frustrated. There are continual lands of issues, Chair, and this is a geological problem. It is a fact of life, and when I went up, only three days ago, I couldn't believe the holes. It's like a massive tooth filling on the side of the hill, and the other side you've got the sheer drop, and what's holding it together is the road. Well, I leave it to your imagination. It is quite a serious issue, and I do not think that the Government have got it. That's my point, and Transport Scotland, and we as a council, and myself as a councillor, and now as a member of the Part Scottish Parliament, the same with Jackie Baillie, my colleague, we've been pushing and Jackie sits on the task force. Nothing seems to be... I'm not blaming her, but I'm just saying the Scottish Government, and there's nothing seems... I'm glad you clarified that. No, no, no, absolutely right. No, no, no, it's not that. I mean, it is, and I know from the task force from other people on it as well, it's frustrating, and I think you'll agree with me on that, Jackie. As I say, so what is it doing? What's the effect of all this? The cause of the fact? The effect is confidence in economic development in Nagarl and the Isles, quite blank. We have a population reduction of 10 per cent, that's about 9,000 over the next 10 years. People are making active decisions not to invest in Nagarl and the Isles. There are also tourists who are finding other routes to go and not the other road, and once they find another route, they'll go somewhere else, and it's becoming... It is a vital link to the Isles and to the West Coast. It has got fish traffic, it's got people from the quarries, it's got all sorts of forestry logging, all that that comes down there, and yet we still cannot get the message through to the government that they've got to do something absolutely dramatic. As I say, no planting of trees, delays and files on traffic situation, that leaves frustration and possible accidents, and as I say, once new routes are discovered, people move forward. Obviously, business has lost, economic development is less attractive and the population reduces. Now, quite clearly, there are options available to them, and that is basically to put the road up the south side of Glen Crow, which I said earlier was a blue option. The other one is to go straight up the middle of Glen Crow and tunnel through the shoulder, which is another option, to the top of the Glen, and then it comes out at what's called the Devil's Bridge at the other side under the Lachyn, because the old hill climb road is not usable anymore. It has now been ruled out by Health and Safety, and I've talked to the Royal Scottish Automotive Club, and they've agreed that that is not in this Parliament an issue anymore. So, there's no worry about tradition, we can have nice thoughts about it, but we can use that, and I know it's the relief road at the moment. But that's not adequate. I mean, it's back in the art times. I mean, it's ridiculous. So, my plea to the committee is look, this needs a radical rethink. We need a radical solution. We need, if necessary, UK government help on this. The option of a tunnel is not cheap, but it's been done on the pharaohs. If we go out and look at the pharaoh islands, they've joined all the islands up through the Danish government, have done that beautifully, all we want is on that. A very simple tunnel at the top, and a road up the middle. And I'm sure the landowner would come to some agreement on the sale of the land. So, I would ask you to look at that and really call for other options in just another review by the cabinet secretary. Okay, Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much, convener. The double act continues for this petition at least. Can I say that this is actually at the edge of my constituency? The impact on my constituency is significant. The impact on my Russell's constituency, because his constituents need to travel this route, is even greater still, and I'm sure he would echo many of the comments made. I attended the last A83 task force meeting. It was in the last few weeks in Arica, and we received an update on progress in stabilising the hillside at the rest and be thankful. It is frustrating, particularly for local people. I'm not going to rehearse the options that Morris did, because I think that that detail is probably not for the committee itself. However, what he has illustrated is that there's a wide number of options that would provide a permanent solution, and that's what local people want. They want a permanent solution, so that every two minutes the hillside is not collapsing and blocking up the road. The diversion takes you all through some beautiful parts of Scotland, but can take up to 40 minutes. The length of time that that takes is fundamentally damaging to the economy of that local area. Local people are very anxious. We know that it's got a severe impact. We know that it impacts on people socially, economically, on people getting to hospital, on ambulances getting through. It is such an important part, an infrastructure part of life in Argyll and Bute. I do know that work is on doing. I know that the Scottish Transport Project's review is now under way, and Government officials actually had a consultation event just prior to the task force meeting, and that was very helpful. I think that there were left in no doubt about the priority that the A83 has, and indeed the A82 as well. They have been working with the Scottish Government, with Argyll and Bute Council, to make sure that it's a priority within the Scottish Transport Project's review. We need that investment to find a permanent solution. We are at a critical stage, and while things appear to be moving ahead, I would ask the Petitions Committee not to close the petition, but to seek an update from the Scottish Government on what is happening, both with the task force and the interim measures that it is taking, but also with the Scottish Transport Project's review, because that will be the critical vehicle that provides the investment for the permanent solution. Thank you, convener. Committee members, do you have any views? Can I ask a daffladi question? In a lot of these situations, it seems to me that we are responsible for de-stabilising land by clearing it for all sorts of reasons. My question is, do we know what the natural vegetation would be if we'd left it alone in the first place? Nature is very good at looking after itself. It's always been a forestry area. In other words, they've always had trees on it and they've taken it off it. Going back on the side of the hill now, on the south side, which is where the problem is, is that's where a lot of cattle and sheep were originally when the farmers used it. Now you're coming to a situation where they're harvesting it but there's no animals, and that's a problem they've got. They've lost the naturalness of it. Had it been left alone and had farming policy being static, I think we wouldn't have had a problem, but modern things move on. Obviously, it wasn't the incentive to put the cattle on the hill. We should say then that the solution here is proper planting to stabilise the hill site and leave it alone. I don't know. When you see some of the rocks that are poised to come down and have come down, it just takes a deluge of rain to bring the whole lot down and that's one of the problems you've got and you can't control that. I don't know if the hills, it's going to take what they've said already, it's 15, 20 years before they get into any effect. That's 20,000 population gone. I just think it's a really frustrating situation. It's really shabby. So many stakeholders involved, so little progress. I'm not sure. I need to ask the clerks, was this petition first lodged in 2014? How ridiculous. You're losing investment, you're losing tourism, you're losing economic growth, particularly in a rural area of where we're talking. I just think that it's absolutely disgraceful. I think that there's so many things here that are unknown. Maurice, you mentioned the situation with the hill site. Transport Scotland continues to work with landowners to conclude the private sale. You say that there's still a sign up. Jackie, you're on the task force. Doesn't seem to be much movement there. What is it that the Scottish Government can do to call on urgent action for this to be bumped up in the list of priorities with strategic transport projects? In fairness to the Scottish Government, I think that they recognise the need to find a permanent solution. There have been early discussions with Argyll and Bute Council and consultants have been brought in to recognise that, when the Scottish Transport project review concludes, we want to be able to start straight away. I'm not technical. I'm not going to comment on what the most appropriate solution is. I'll confine myself to simply expressing the frustration of local constituents requiring a solution. I will leave that to the experts to find out what that solution is, but work is under way to ensure that it is taken as a priority the minute the transport review is concluded. Is there a mechanism in place to be able to do that? Everybody wants infrastructure projects. Everybody wants their issues prioritised on their roads. How do you make that a priority? What is the criteria? You would need to invite that information from the Scottish Government, but my understanding is that they have consultants working alongside Argyll and Bute Council, so that it can be practically one of the first projects off the stocks, but you would need to confirm that with the Scottish Government. Can I add—sorry, it may be possible to write to the council itself and ask them what's the good idea? I would suggest that you do that, because you might get a different story. I'd be really interested to understand where this sits within the development of the STPR2, because that will not report for another couple of years. It would be interesting to ask the Scottish Government where it sits within the STPR2 report of whether it can sit outside of that and something to be done at a sooner date, because it will be another two years before that is written. I think that it would have to sit outside the STPR2, but as Jackie Baillie has rightly highlighted, we've got the Scottish Transport Project's review under way, and when another hat, my eclair committee took evidence a few weeks ago on that, and they are thinking out the box. They're talking—well, they're looking at tunnels instead of ferries in some parts of Scotland, and they're looking at a 40-year plan, so I would hope that this issue is a priority and dealt with first and foremost. I can clearly share the frustration of the petitioners. It has been going on for some time. I remember that, before the election in the previous session, the committee had a site visit to the rest and be thankful. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it. I was taking evidence in sky on land reform on the same day, so I was a bit disappointed that I couldn't get to the rest and be thankful, but it has been an issue for some time, and it needs to be drawn to a conclusion. Given the frustration from everybody, would members be minded to invite the cabinet secretary to give oral evidence here just to try to increase the pressure? I'm always lovely to welcome the cabinet secretary, as you know, but I think that that would be a very good—at least get some feel from the Scottish Government of where they feel they are with us. I think that that would be quite a good thing. I asked us to get evidence from the Argyll and Bute Council. I'll just quickly ask Jackie, who is in the task force? The council is represented in the task force local stakeholders attend community councils, so everybody that is affected by that, including the Scottish Government and the operator on behalf of the Scottish Government transports everybody. Obviously, we have the option of contacting the Scottish Government now and asking for an update on the SDPR in relation to the A83. Also, it is their opinion of how the A83 task force is working and progress on that. Also, the hillside planting that was expected to commence in early 2019, but Maurice Corry is advising us that there is no sign of anything happening there yet, and it's good to get the photos as well. It would be helpful if we get an update and then have the evidence session with the cabinet secretary. Obviously, we'll get the update over recess and try and diary the cabinet secretary in for an early meeting in perhaps in September. Are we agreed to that? Of course, action. Thank you to Jackie Baillie and Maurice Corry for sending his scout out yesterday. We'll move on now to petition 1634 by Jessica Mason on equality in council tax payment options. It calls on the Scottish Government to clarify and improve current Scottish council tax legislation in order to make council tax payment over 12 months a mandatory option for council tax payers as it is in England and Wales. We'll ask to consider this petition in April 2018 when we invited local authorities identified by the petitioner as not offering a 12-month payment option to explain whether they would consider reviewing their approach. The clerk's note summarises the responses received from the local authorities who all confirmed that, while not mandatory, they do offer a 12-month payment option on request from the council tax payer. Do members have any comments on this petition or suggestions for action? I have a huge sympathy with this and I have not been involved in this petition before. I completely get that the local authorities are able to permit an individual to pay over 12 months and the default tends to be 10 months as it is in my own council. My sympathy lies with the petitioner because it's great for cash flow and it's great to take it off your mind and a one-off payment is a big amount. If you do forget, which I have in the past, you do. I know that it's terrible, but it's much easier to manage those monthly instalments. In my opinion, the council should be giving a communication that says that if somebody wants to pay over 12 months, they should. I don't think that there's anything where we can go any further with the mandatory option, but I think that each local authority has a responsibility to help people with cash flow and ensure that if they want to pay over 12 months, they should be able to. I'm absolutely in agreement with that. I also have fallen full off of that as well. It seems to me quite harsh environment when that happens, but surely it's a council's responsibility to try to help all the constituents of that council. I agree with Rachel Hamilton that it should be an option that's readily available and readily communicated as well. I'm not sure how much further we can go in terms of mandatory. We already know that the Scottish Government has no plans to amend the regulation, but that's not to say that I think that the petitioner has done a very good service, a very good job in delivering it and bringing it to our attention, but I'm not sure what else we can currently do. I agree with both members that local authorities could perhaps up their game with regard to informing tenants and residents that there is a 12-month option if they want, but that's clearly maybe not the case in every local authority, making them aware, not the fact that the option is available. I don't think that we have any other option. I think that we've reached the end of the line with this, and we have no other option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Government has no plans to amend the relevant regulations and that local authorities have confirmed that they offer a 12-month payment option on request. I thank the petitioner, Jessica Mason, for bringing this issue to the Parliament's attention. She may well be disappointed that we're closing the petition, but I hope that she has taken some comfort from the responses from local authorities that a 12-month payment option is available on request. Of course, the option is always open to the petitioner to come back at a later date after 12 months should she feel that it's still an issue and it hasn't been addressed to her satisfaction, but hopefully her own local authority will now allow her to pay on a 12-month basis. Are we agreed to close the petition? If we can move on to petition 1653 on active travel infrastructure, lodged by McKella Jackson on behalf of Gorebridge Community Trust. At our last consideration of this petition on 22 November 2018, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update of the trunk road walking and cycling initiative following the publication of the active travel task force report in June 2018. The Scottish Government's response states that the report contains 18 recommendations and that a delivery plan is due to be published by the end of June 2019. We also sought an update on the review of the national transport strategy with regards to active travel matters. The Scottish Government highlighted that one of the draft strategy's themes is to improve our health and wellbeing, which recognises a need for Scotland's transport system to enable a healthy, fit and safe nation and to allow people to make active travel choices to improve their wellbeing. The Scottish Government will consult on the draft national transport strategy in July 2019, with the final strategy expected to be published by the end of 2019. Members will be aware that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity made a statement in the chamber earlier this week, setting out plans for a up to £51 million that will be made available for walking and cycling infrastructure in 2019-20. I will open it up to members at the moment. I have huge sympathy for the petition that I lodged an amendment in the Transport Bill that suggested that, because we are doing these low-emission zones in major cities, any money raised over and above administration should go on an active travel policy, rather than swallowed up by the general budget. Disappointingly, that amendment was rejected, but it speaks to exactly what the petitioner is trying to achieve here. I think that we will also have to note that there has been a budget put in place by the Scottish Government specifically on active travel. The other thing that I would suggest is that it currently states that, certainly within the development of major trunk roads that active travel should be part of any development. That is not the case at the moment. I have to say that it is not necessarily adhered to all the time, but what we do with this particular petition now, given that the Government's increased focus on active travel, I am not sure where this petition particularly goes now. Rachael Hamilton. Again, I think that it is a fantastic petition, and I thank Michaela for bringing it forward. I have to note that the petitioner was asked to provide written submission, and to date a response has not been received. Again, that leaves us hanging because we cannot make a decision as to what her reaction has been to the Government announcement on funding and to the national transport strategy. It is a situation where, perhaps, we can only read Michaela Jackson's mind that she is content with the progress that the Scottish Government has been making, and therefore we cannot take it any further as it stands. Okay, thank you. The petitioner has been invited to submit a view, but it has not so far, although the £51 million announcement was just made this week, I believe. It looks like we would have to close the petition under standing order rule 15.7 on the basis that there are plans in place to address active travel regarding infrastructure projects in Scotland and opportunities to engage in the review of the national transport strategy, which has a focus on active travel. However, I would like to think that this petition has had some bearing on the Government's announcement that £51 million will be made available for walking and cycling infrastructure in 2019-20. I am sure that it was on the Government's radar, but I would highlight the fact that the petitioner has the option to contribute to the consultation on the draft national transport strategy, which shall be announced or open in July. Perhaps, if the clerks are contacting the petitioner, we can highlight that to her. I agree to close the petition. We now move on to the petition PE1691 on a review of the title conditions, Bracket Scotland Act 2003. The petition was lodged by Christopher Hampton on behalf of the steering group of Bowman's view and calls for a review of the title condition Scotland Act 2003, which prohibits a change of factor in the estate unless agreement is obtained by a two thirds majority of owners in the estate, particularly in terms of the impact of that requirement on residents of sheltered accommodation. We last considered this petition in November 2018 when we considered submissions from the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Commission. Members will recall that those submissions did not directly support the action called for in the petition. The Law Society did not have a view on what an appropriate majority should be to implement a change of property factor, suggesting that this was a matter for the Parliament to determine. The Scottish Law Commission indicated that it had no plans to carry out a review of the legislation as it pertained to the petition, and the Scottish Government was clear that it had no plans to consult on changing the law on this issue. We invited the petitioner to respond to those submissions. Unfortunately, we did not receive a response from the petitioner until the beginning of this week. Members have a copy of the email that the petitioner sent to the clerks, and in that email he expresses dissatisfaction with the current position. He refers to the existing legislation as, I quote, well-intended, but unfortunately patronising and naive. He states that, in the specific context and experience of the steering group of Bowman's view, the petitioners have sadly experienced incomprehension and willful obstruction from certain authorities. Members will note that the petitioner says that Neil Findlay MSP has been made fully aware of the situation and intends to raise the matter at parliamentary level. So do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Given that the petitioner has stated that he is going to, presumably, be local MSP, it may well be the case that it has taken out of our hands, and there is probably a strong option to close the petition under rule 15.7. I have to agree with that. I recognise that the petitioner has now submitted to us, but we have been regularly asking him to submit and respond to previous evidence sessions. He is now going to Neil Findlay's local MSP to try and progress. We have a little more that we can do here, and I would agree with you that it is probably time to close the petition. Can I also ask and clarify with the clerks that is this a legal case? No. It just makes reference to a legal case and legal representation in the correspondence, so I was just checking. Yeah, it's not a live legal case. I think that Neil Findlay MSP could work very effectively on this specific case, which Mr Hampton has brought forward, perhaps more so than this committee can. Yeah, I'm sure he could. Well, therefore, reluctantly, I think that we should close the petition, but if his own MSP doesn't get any further, he can then bring back the petition. He could, yeah. He's got that option to bring it back in 12 months to time if we're minded to close it today. We agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that there's no support for the action called for in the petition. The next petition for consideration is PE1709 on install CCTV and provide full-time social work support in all additional support needs schools, and this was lodged by Claire Muney. A following our meeting on 22 November 2018, a range of written submissions have been received, including a response from the petitioner. The Scottish Government's submission outlines a number of safeguards that are in place to protect young people. The petitioner feels, however, that despite such safeguards, children attending additional support needs schools can and, in a very common, fall through the cracks. In response to the aims of the petition, both Unison and NASUWT Scotland do not support the installation of CCTV cameras in schools. Unison is of the view that it could foster a culture of blame punishment, and concerns were also raised around possible infringements of human rights relating to privacy, as well as GDPR implications. As an alternative, a number of submissions suggest further investment is required in staffing and training as a means of ensuring the protection of children in additional support needs schools. In view of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association, in their view, they've stated that CCTV cameras cannot be a replacement for the range of educational staff, but as an added technological advancement in addition to staff in making schools a place of safety for both pupils and staff. The Scottish Government's submission confirms that the use of CCTV and the delivery of social work is a statutory matter for local authorities. From the written submissions received, their support for having a social work presence within additional support needs schools. However, the importance of multi-agency working in a school setting was stressed, for example by NASUWT Scotland. At our last consideration of this petition, we agreed to investigate international comparisons on whether CCTV has been used in similar settings in other countries, and a SPICE briefing has been provided and is included in our papers. The briefing highlights that there are few documented examples of CCTV being used specifically in schools supporting children with complex additional support needs, and the closest examples that could be found were in the USA, Australia and India. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action on this petition? First of all, I want to thank the clerks for seeking the international examples. My issue is that there is no outcome that has been established yet, and there are so many voices that disagree on the use of CCTV. I am not sure if I am getting the right conclusion here, but my own conclusion is that there has been a reduction in the number of teaching staff and that teaching staff cannot be a replacement for those educational staff. It seems that a lot of the evidence suggests that investment in staff is a way forward rather than CCTV. The example in Australia is that, with the use of CCTV, it could simply displace incidents to locations not covered by surveillance technologies. It is really quite inconclusive because there is little international evidence and the unison and NASUWT are not really minded to support the installation of CCTV. Unfortunately, I have not been able to come to my own conclusion. Brian Whittle? As an interesting aside, I noted that unison thought that there might be a role for body cameras, which, to me, would seem a better response because we have comparison, because the police use body cameras, so we have a comparison. I do not know whether that is a direction of travel that the petitioner or the petition would allow us to go in, but I would probably like to ask COSLA on that, because I think that it is a more practical solution to what we mean by protection of vulnerable children and protection of those who are working with them. I understand completely where the petitioner is coming from in terms of protection of both those parties, but he would be weird as that in French on human rights, but I am of a mind to have a look at that option if the petitioner allows us to do that. We can check with the petitioner to check if she is content for us to go down that route and suggest that to COSLA in any letter that we send. It is certainly worth exploring that option as maybe a better option than the overall CCTV and taking the point of Rachel Hamilton that there could be a displacement of incidents if a CCTV network was in place. Are we agreed to write to COSLA with that suggestion and see what comes back? Obviously, seek the petitioner's permission that we go down that route. If we can move on to the final petition for consideration today, which is PE1711, on first aid training for all primary school children in Scotland, lodged by Stuart Callasin on behalf of St Andrew's First Aid. At our last consideration of this petition, we took evidence from primary school pupils, a college student, a primary teacher and representatives from St Andrew's First Aid. During this meeting, we heard about the inconsistent approach to the delivery of first aid training in schools across Scotland, as well as the importance of training young people in first aid as early as possible and ideally by their class teacher. We also heard that, compared to other European countries, Scotland performs poorly in terms of bystander interventions, first aid training and the number of current first aiders. The Scottish Government's written submission states that, in respect of first aid training support for teaching staff in schools, COSLA has confirmed that schools already have their own arrangements in place for handling incidents by ensuring that sufficient numbers of school staff are trained in line with local requirements. The petitioner is of the view that this position is not sustainable or justifiable at a time when council finances are under such extreme pressure and suggests that the action called for in the petition could improve public health in Scotland at little cost. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Yes, convener. I really like this petition, I have to say. I think that the petitioner has many nails on the head here. One of the things that the Scottish Government response did not seem to grasp is not just in terms of the ability for more people to intervene in times of emergency, but also the fact that, in learning this kind of process, it empowers young people. I think that that cannot be underestimated. I certainly would like to continue to push this particular petition to see where it goes. I would quite like to write to COSLA and the teaching unions to see what they think of the petition. I think that it also alluded to earlier in one of the other petitions to look to see whether there is anything that we can compare to from internationally perhaps. If we are quite far down the lead table in those sort of interventions, it would be interesting to see whether those that are higher up also have interventions at school. That would be my recommendation. I think that it is a brilliant petition that was demonstrated when the pupils came in and taught us CPR. Of course, I beat Brian Whittle and David Torrance's hands down, so do not go near them when you need CPR. It can run in parallel with the out-of-hospital cardiac strategy. I believe that it is a value-for-money initiative. The petitioner says that it is £1.36 per pupil, but we have a disparity because it is patchy across Scotland. Every local authority has the ability to be flexible and make it part of their wellbeing strategy through curriculum if they require. The cabinet secretary has already said that. Within some of the evidence, it suggests that local authorities are wary about it because of cost and because of the burden on staff and retaining staff and covering staff who are trained. The petitioner recommends that two teachers are trained per school. Let us look at the cost. It is not that much. What is holding us back? Does every local authority respond to that? Does every local authority put this as one of their key priorities to teach first aid in school? That is where that is going to gain some ground, is to realise the potential within schools and to get the backing of the Scottish Government from the cabinet secretary to send the message that it should really be part of the school curriculum. Please look at it as part of your curriculum for excellence. Without local authority buy-in, this is not going to go any further. I could not agree more with the comments by both my colleagues. With regard to further action, are we agreed that we want to write to COSLA and teaching unions to seek its views on the action called for in the petition and also to ask SPICE to investigate international comparisons with regard to provision of first aid training in primary schools? If we are of a mind. We could also invite the cabinet secretary for education to come in and give us his opinion on it. As I said, I believe that this can run in parallel with the out-of-hospital cardiac strategy as part of that to deliver really good outcomes, improve those outcomes even further. I do no harm to ask the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary to attend a meeting at some point in the not-too-distant future in order to allow us to show our consensus with regard to support for the petition. At that point, I would like to close the meeting and thank everyone for their contributions this morning. Thank you very much.