 Eliot Good morning and welcome to the second meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee for 2024. The first item in the agenda this morning is one for colleagues, which is to take, agree to take business in private that is in relation to items five and six. One being consideration of the evidence we are about to hear this morning from the cabinet secretary and others and then in relation to whistleblowers. The other is in consideration of our work programme. A member is content to take apart those items. items in private we are. That brings us to agenda item 2, which is our inquiry into the A9 dueling project, which follows on from the evidence that we heard last week, the last meeting from the Civil Engineering and Contractors Association, as well as current and former senior leaders at Transport Scotland, one of whom I see has a season ticket for our business and is hastened back to tell us something different. I hope that it's time, not the same. However, in that respect, I'm delighted to welcome the cabinet secretary this morning, Marie McCallan, MSP, for net zero and just transport, net zero and just transition. From Transport Scotland, we've got Lauren Shackman, director of major projects, and Joe Bluit, who is head of sustainable transport projects and former A9 programme manager for the development and statutory processes, and Rob Gobreith, head of project delivery. We've also received this morning apologies from Edward Mountain, MSP, who joins this committee as a reporter from his own committee but has other committee business this morning and is unable to be with us. Welcome to you all. I'm going to invite the cabinet secretary to say a few words just in a moment because I've been looking at the way this inquiry has been going. I think that it would be helpful if we had our questions in two phases. One is, how did we get here? One is, where are we going now? Last meeting, I think that Mr Gobreith will remember, we seem to dot between the two a bit. Our focus is very much on where are we going now. I would want the earlier part to be quite brief and to the point, but just to clarify on the basis of things we've heard and to see if we can tie down in our own minds where we got to before. Members will be invited to come in on a random way as they see fit. I'm not one of those people who's allocated everything in advance, so I'm waiting to be inspired by colleagues with the questions that they will ask. Cabinet secretary, you gave us a very comprehensive advance statement this morning, which I'm very confident you're not going to repeat it in full just now when I invite you to make a few opening remarks, but please do. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you for inviting me along to this inquiry. As you've noted, the committee has already received written submission, and you've also heard my statement to the Parliament, which I delivered just prior to Christmas recess, and that was very much what you were talking about there, that forward look to completion of the A9. You've also taken a considerable amount of written evidence from ministers and from current and former chief executives of Transport Scotland along with a range of stakeholders. Given the extent of first-hand evidence collected around historic events, I anticipate that I will add most value today by doing just as you suggested in respect of looking forward. However, to the extent that I am able, I absolutely want to be able to assist the committee with its retrospective look as well. As I noted in my submission, I have considered all the previous written statements, and I've taken advice from my officials on that period leading up to my appointment last year, but I hope you'll appreciate that my reflections will be just that they are not first-hand experience. Despite that, I'm very pleased to now have published the refreshed delivery plan for the A9, which has been delivered, as I said in December, to foreground certainty of delivery, but to very carefully balance that against the need to minimise disruption, to take account of market capacity and, indeed, to work within the financial constraints that we face. In final comments, I would make, is in respect of the criticality of safety and how important that has been for me. I want to put on the record my heartfelt sympathies to everybody who has either lost a loved one on the A9 or indeed who has been injured in an accident, because that's been pointed out to me to be of great importance. Dwelling, as far as I'm concerned, is the key safety mechanism, but we can't wait for it, and interim safety measures are being pursued as well. I very much welcome this opportunity to restate the Government's commitment to the A9, to look back in so far as I'm able to from my own experience. I very much understand your interest in this and, of course, by the nature of this committee being the public petitions, the public as well, so I will look forward to some questions. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that we are advancing the interests of a petitioner and a petition, and the ambition of that petition is that we have the A9 completed and that consideration is given to a national memorial. Obviously, your statement to Parliament means that there is now a programme identified that will ultimately deliver on the aims of the petition, which is why I think we want to talk about, you know, how that is going to be achieved and whether or not there are risks associated with that in the current marketplace. But looking back, I'm obviously in the committee, we're obviously grateful, probably less grateful than we expected, given that all arrived just before Christmas, to the voluminous response to our requests for information, which we received. It was about a foot thick by the end of the day. Are you aware of all the stuff that we received, cabinet secretary? Have you been briefed, as opposed to having read through all this yourself, can I ask, just in terms of the past experience? So I think, if I remember correctly, convener, there were some upwards of 80 papers sent to the committee. I have read a selection of them and I have read summaries of a selection of them and I've read the written statements from previous ministers. And this is a question that I put to Mr Galbraith last week, who will no doubt be wanting to reassure me in the same superific tones with which he sought to do last time. It's not an issue with which I have been directly involved. As the member for Eastwood, it's not the first thing that is of concern to my constituents. So I don't, as some do, have a particular field of expertise. So I read through the narrative. And it is just this point that I tried to explain to Mr Galbraith. There is a consistency of commitment and policy objective to the delivery of the A9 by a date, both privately and publicly, of 2025. From the moment the project is announced, even though it's accepted, there are challenges associated with that commitment. Until somewhere around 2018, when reading the papers, a vagueness came in and I've never been able to quite understand what the genesis of that was, it's not clear to me whether those involved in the delivery of the project think something isn't going to happen now and we need to think about different ways, funding streams, operational ways to deliver it, none of which is shared with the public. This is all happening internally. Or whether ministers have led this going forward. Graham Barn last week said that he thought it became unachievable because the political will to provide the required funding to do the job was just not there when it was required. So I really want to try and understand, given that it was much, much later before Parliament and the public became aware that we weren't achieving that target, what was it? How did the realisation that the challenges that had been identified might mean that there was going to be a delay became apparent to ministers and who was then trying to drive matters forward in terms of do we need to look at different ways to do it? Was it from the top down of the bottom up? Thank you, convener. I think it's a very fair observation and I'll seek to answer all of your points in that but do come back to me if I miss any of them. I think I would start by saying that there was always an understanding that this was a complex project. In fact, during my statement in Parliament I said that A9 is a complex project, it's a living complex project. I think that that is evident right from the early papers which Alex Neil received, complex as to the statutory processes that have to be gone through, the design, the procurement approach and then of course funding. Now you mentioned 2017-18 as being a point at which in your view 2025 was accepted as not being doable. For the record I would refute that and I would say that it wasn't until late 2022 that it was finally advised to ministers that there was no practical route to completion by 2025. Now I absolutely accept as time goes on there is a diminishing likelihood of completion by 2025, that's absolutely plain because it requires ever more capital upfront and ever more disruption on the route in order to complete it. But in 2017 I think the advice that you are thinking about and referring to was advice that ministers received on moving to a new private finance model and advice that that would take so much time to develop in and of itself that we would be pushing beyond 2025. There was always an understanding that that entirely capital funded approach with increasing levels of disruption remained possible albeit I accept with a diminishing likelihood. If I could identify what you just asked. That's the one I don't quite understand. Was it officials who thought this is financially not going to happen? We need to float the idea of a different funding model and that that may then lead to delays and that was communicated up. Or were ministers saying to officials have we got the funding for this and if not do we need to look to a different funding model? It's not clear from the papers to me which way round this discussion began. Well it's a combination. Ministers rely on advice from officials on the appropriateness of a certain path forward and options available to us. Ministers it's then for cabinet to agree that funding should be brought forward for whatever that is. But if I could identify one key issue that I think pertains very closely to what you are asking that would be the reclassification in 2014 of the not-for-profit distribution model that private financing model. That was an ONS decision in 2014 which meant that I think the financing model that we had previously considered would form part of the funding package was no longer available to us and it wasn't until 2019 when the Scottish Reuters Trust advised that the mutual investment model was a suitable replacement that we had that private financing option open to us. Officials would advise us of that. They did a huge amount of work then to prepare for a MIM but that original private financing approach coming out of the realm of possibility in 2014 I think did have an impact on the timetable and I would sit that alongside a slight delay in statutory processes as the two reasons that I believe the project has been delayed. Alex Neil in his evidence said that he believed that there was more than sufficient capital to deliver the project and he also set out in his evidence a detailed statement about when each of the sections of the A9 was to be dualled. Why wasn't that adhered to because right from the start it was breached? Well again I'm straying slightly into the territory of interpreting what Alex Neil thought. I think that we have to remember that his comments quite understandably are within the four corners of the time that he was involved with that. That was very early in the development of it. I think the advice that he received was yes minister this is how we are taking it forward this is how we propose to do it but it was also quite heavily caveated by there are a great many things to be worked out here and I think actually some of the other minister's comments on this including Nicola Sturgeon's are helpful hopefully to the committee because I think that she's pointing out that Mr Neil was absolutely correct to say that for his purposes at that time funding had been identified but I think what Mr Sturgeon's view of that was was that well that was for a one to two year period during a long project and that's not uncommon for major projects very seldom at the very beginning of such a complex project will you have certainty over delivery and funding right through to the end but that's what it was it was Mr Neil's impression of that one to two year period rather than the whole thing. I hear what you say cabinet secretary but I'm just not convinced because there was complete failure to adhere to the very clear schedule of works and programming because it set out in which year every section would be done and that's completely abandoned. I don't deny that there was delays Mr Ewing I think what I would say is the principal reason for that were the two things that are points out to the convener firstly the ONS reclassification of the not-for-profit distribution model in 2014 and a one to two year delay on statutory processes. I was interested in the emphasis that cabinet secretary you've given to the ONS decision I don't recall there being any ministerial statement about that at the time why not? I couldn't say for certain what the parliamentary choreography was around that Mr Ewing I'm afraid I wasn't there nor frankly am I in a position to say why or why not that wasn't done. I appreciate cabinet secretary that you weren't responsible and you know I was part of the government for outside the collective responsibility I've never sought to shrug away from that but I never had portfolio responsibility but I mean why did it take then five years from the ONS the critical watershed decision of the ONS where apparently there was no statement made to parliament about how significant this was even though you now say this was the absolute critical moment in your view why did it then take till 2019 further to be a plan about private finance because that's five years during which most of the work was supposed to have been done or a very substantial proportion according to Alex Neil's plan. So two sides to that question and I'll try and take them both and actually I might briefly pass to officials just to explain some of the work that was done on developing an alternative private financing model because you're right five years is a long time and I know that you know as I said Scottish Futures Trust were involved, MIM is something that was developed by the Welsh Government and it's been adapted for use in Scotland but I have and I should say that I don't just identify that as the key issue I do also see that there were delays in statutory processes although I'm happy to come on to why I think actually that may have saved us some time in the end by having only one public inquiry albeit I should prefer that they had been quicker but the point that I wanted to make the new point I want to make is that there wasn't a vacuum of work during that time work was progressing the statutory processes work was progressing to the point where we now have 92 percent ministerial decisions in hand for those we brought forward work on the King Craig to Dalraddy route which was completed in 2017 and the additional section of Lincarty to the passive Burnham began in 2019 completed in 2021 and of course all that work was on going in the background to develop a new private finance model but I don't know whether any of the team want to say something about that five-year period and maybe why it takes so long for Robert Gilroy? I can maybe add a little bit to the detail of the work that was going on in that period I'm afraid that that's work that was taken forward with Scottish Future Trust rather than Transport Scotland because it's looking at a replacement for NPD as a private finance style of contract suitable for use across sectors it's not sector specific to roads or accommodation or anything and so that's why SFT would be tasked with that piece of work and they were responsible for taking forward and it was only in 2019 when ministers endorsed SFT's recommendations that there was a new replacement for the non-profit distributing model available for Transport Scotland to begin considering as a potential vehicle for its contracting approach. Were SFT given a deadline when you were commissioned and did they adhere to that deadline and when did they put forward the recommendations? You would have to direct those questions to SFT I'm afraid it's not something I could pass a comment on. I think we need to get at this because there were five years where all this work was supposed to have gone on and really we've only seen two of the sections. I mean these are welcome of course but there's a complete absence of an explanation cabinet secretary about what went wrong. Can I just ask one final question? Here's Mr Coffrey. I think he's halfway through. He's responding to Mr Eurings. I think we ought to allow him to finish. There was one point I was keen to finish. The bulk of the work in actual fact was actually planned to take place 2019 to 2025 under the original plan so it wouldn't have been in progress by 2019. Most of it would only just have been starting. Well it didn't go ahead then either did it? Has there been any review into the failure to adhere to the plan? Has there been any internal review by the Scottish Government or anybody else for that matter as to why the timetable slipped and why there has been a failure to implement the very clear pledges that were made by the Scottish National Party repeatedly to the electorate at every election? Well in terms of formal reviews that hasn't been done within government but I am very clear and I hope I've set out clearly today what my view and it's shared by my officials is for the two principal causes of delay. This inquiry will add to that work as well. I have to say my focus since becoming the cabinet secretary in 2023 has been on getting this optimum delivery plan sorted, moving to that NEC for contract as amended and progressing interim safety measures in the meantime. But formal review inside government? No. I think we have quite a well-established view of what the two principal causes in our view are for delay. Has there been any review to Transport Scotland? Not done a review of any sort. None whatsoever despite the fact that this was the flagship pledge and it's completely slipped. No review at all, was that right? Time is to shine. Will there be this review all the time? Yeah, I mean the fundamental thing here between looking at the procurement options and considering MIM against design and build is to make sure that we get value for money right across the public purse and also to make sure that there are opportunities for different sorts of contractors across the industry so using capital money or revenue finance is a fine balancing act and it wasn't a particularly quick thing to resolve. So a number of years I wasn't there, I wasn't part of the process at that time but I can assume that a lot of thought was given to can we use revenue financing or should we be using capital financing and what were the budgets like at that particular time? What was the best balance for the public purse? Bear in mind the considerable cost of the jewelling programme. Well I understand all that but with respect Mr Shackman that wasn't what I asked. I asked whether there was any review of any sort into the failure to deliver on our pledges in Government. I mean was there any review or not? With all respect Mr Ewing I think I have answered that question. I said there hasn't been a formal internal review but we review on an ongoing basis the reasons for delay as we think they are as they emerge and I've identified the two key ones that we attribute. I can take Mr Ewing, you might not be happy with the answer but I think we have an answer. I'm good to come to Mr Gold but there was just something arose there that left me slightly confused. Prior to the change of rules in 2014, were the Government relying on a private finance contribution to this project? I mean I understood it was a fully capital funded project at that point. Again I might bring my officials in and they will ensure I'm accurate on this but I think it would be fair to say there was always an expectation that it would be a combination of capital and private financing to the project and indeed the Scottish Public Finance Manual requires the Government to consider private financing for projects and of course the not-for-profit distribution model had been used in a number of major projects that the Government had taken forward so that 2014 date and it being reclassified was quite a turning point I would say. Okay I'm happy to leave it at that and turn to Mara Scoldam. Thank you convener. Just to follow up initially on Mr Ewing's line of questioning, Transport Scotland officials have told the committee that it only became clear in late 2022 that the 25 completion date would be missed but the committee has heard that it was common knowledge amongst experts that the date would be missed several years before that and I'd like to ask the cabinet secretary if she is concerned about the apparent discrepancy between the views of officials and external engineering experts. Thank you for the question. Without pointing to the experts that you're referring to, I'll take the question and the generality. What I would say is that ministers welcome the advice that we rely on from our officials and I have always been very satisfied with the advice and support that I've gotten from Transport Scotland but equally that is always better when it's complemented with views from people in industry or working on on these matters on the ground so from my perspective we take advice and information in the round. I think that I've mentioned before that there was always an understanding that an all-capital increasingly disruptive approach could be taken until late 2022 when that was no longer a possibility but all the while we were doing work to consider a better combination of actions. Industry's view I think some would accept that there was an opportunity to do it very quickly, very disruptively. I think that Graham Barnes when he was in front of the committee did mention how quickly he thought it could be done. I think he talked about you know Inverness potentially being cut off and nobody would want that but you know physically it still could be done and that's what I mean about a diminishing likelihood. So there are different views ministers take them all on board but I wouldn't want to diminish the quality of advice that we get from Transport Scotland which I very much value. Okay thanks for that. I wonder if you consider the road order processes used to authorise major road projects to be fit for purpose? Sorry Mr Golden could I just ask to elaborate on that? Is this the statutory? To move it to stick to what's happened before and I know Mr Torrance was actually keen to raise that particular question. Mr Chowdry have you got a final question for us in relation to how we got here before we switched to where do we go from here now? Yeah I mean just thank you. Good morning Governor Secretary. Just in the question my colleague Maurice asked just now. In what point were Scottish ministers first aware of the potential for the completion being missed? You know the previous question Maurice Golden asked. Yeah absolutely I'll try and clarify this. So late 2022 was the point at which submission came to ministers advising that there was now no possible route through to completion by 2025. That would have been received by Ms Gilruth and Mr Matheson at the time and Ms Gilruth updated Parliament after the Christmas recess in respect of both that the timetable and I think the tomato and tamoy procurement problems that we had faced stood them both at the same time. So late 2022 was the advice that came that said look 2025 is no longer doable albeit I recognise there is a diminishing likelihood of it in the months leading up to that and I think that would have been reflected in advice as well. Okay I just had one more question. I mean if I'm right here. How we got here? Correct here. At the previous session Transport Scotland advised the committee that there were 92 per cent through with the statutory process back in 2011. I mean when the original timetable for the project was set out, estimate time to complete the statutory process was six years. We're now double the time. I just want to know what engagement the ministers took with the Transport Scotland during that time. So I think that you know that identifies a really key point as far as I'm concerned which is as I said at the beginning convener that the statutory process is taking a little longer than had initially been anticipated when planning is certainly in my view one of the reasons for the delay. But I would caveat that by saying again this is a project of great complexity. I think that when Roy Brannan was in front of you he discussed the number of special scientific interest areas, the national park, all of these things that make it a complex project and whilst statutory processes did take too long in my view there are very important parts of democratising infrastructure development and the engagement with the public and actually we've been well I was going to say lucky in the sense that we've only had one public inquiry but I wouldn't put it down to luck I would put it down to the quite robust and deep engagement that was had with communities. Now that may have meant that it took a bit longer but we may also have saved time by having fewer public inquiries I don't know all I'm saying is that I think that deep engagement is the right approach. Okay thank you well let's switch to where do we go from and how do we manage things going forward David Torrance. Thank you very much convener good morning cabinet secretary and to other witnesses. Cabinet secretary can you outline the current governance structure for A9 dualling programme and what is your role in that cabinet secretary? Yes absolutely so I'll maybe speak to my role in my view of officials and then if they've got anything to add they can do so so as the probably worth pointing out that since miss Hyslop and I took over the running of the transport brief there's been a slightly different approach taken to that which has been taken before previously the minister for transport took direct responsibility for the bulk of the of the portfolio responsibility as it stood and the cabinet secretary had an oversight role we have taken a slightly different approach whereby I now have explicit responsibility for parts of that and it's a ever so slightly slimmer junior ministerial role I think this is working well I think it provides better connection between the minister and cabinet and also it helps to leave a little bit of pressure on the junior minister because it's a significant role so her and I work together on this and the explicit responsibilities are that I have responsibility for major infrastructure major projects investment and her for major projects delivery and those two things together means that we will both work on the A9 have done to date and will do going forward in terms of governance structures we will regularly meet with director of major projects and his team to receive updates on our priorities in respect of the A9 and I should say in a range of other major projects rest of me thankful others and I also meet twice weekly with director from transport Scotland for operational updates on on matters but there's a very regular rhythm of advice received and between ministers we miss his lip and I very much share the responsibility and of course I report into cabinet and the deputy first minister has a role in all of this as well owing to her finance responsibilities but I don't know would you be interested to know the internal officials governance yeah so we have a program board for the A9 which meets typically every six weeks or so and there are four directors on that board and including the chief executive officer of transport Scotland and we discuss the the whole program individual projects have their own individual project meetings as you might expect so tomato into my has will have its own particular monthly meeting as it progresses forward and all the other projects as well and the idea is that each of the projects come together report into the program board on a regular basis and we'll continue to review the frequency of the meetings the attendance at that board and how it reports back out to the cab sec and the minister for transport how it addresses engagement across the corridor with stakeholders the members of the public the risk profiles and all the things you expect from a program board of a project of that scale cabinet secretary my colleague touched on it earlier do you consider a road order process used to offer us major road projects to be fit for purpose and if not do you have any plans to update this process I'm just going to apologise to the committee when Mr Golden asked that question before I just wanted to clarify that he meant the statutory processes I know that Mr Barnes had spoken about his view that that had slowed down the process I would say first of all that I understand that view from Mr Barnes perspective his objective is to get projects moving and moving well and I appreciate his perspective again I think I would come back to the point about statutory processes are laborious there is no doubt about it but actually they're a really important part as we all know from representing our constituents and their interests when major infrastructure is happening on their doorstep to ensure that the right processes are gone through that consultation happens thoroughly and that people are really engaged in the development of it and that that pertains to roads just as it does to a whole suite of infrastructure projects not least energy which is something that is being grappled with just now and will increasingly be so as we seek to upgrade the grid so I have been clear that I think the statutory processes took a little longer in the case of the A9 than we had been expecting I think they're a very important part of democratising infrastructure development and I shouldn't I wouldn't like to suggest that there would be any shortcuts around it and I reflect again that you know to date we've only had one public inquiry in what is a majorly complex project which I think is a success in some ways of the deep engagement that was had but I don't know if there are any technical reviews I could comment that I know that there's a review of the statutory process just starting underway we have a representative within our major projects directorate taking part in that review I think it's in its early stages but there is moves to to look at the process and see how it can be refined or improved moving forward. Can you explain why a hybrid approach to A9 duolin has been adopted and how does the total cost compare to a capital funded approach? Okay I'm definitely going to come to Rob on some of the close detail on costs because it's very easy for me to use the wrong figures when I don't have them in front of me I would say why was a hybrid approach adopted well I think I mentioned earlier that I think it was always expected that a combination of funding techniques if I can use that horribly untechnical term would be adopted because that allows the government to best use the resources that it has to achieve its objectives it recognises that capital can be in short supply increasingly that has been so at all of all members who've been in front of who've had cabinet secretaries in front of them on the budget will have heard us talking ad nauseam about the the restraints and the constraints on capital budgets that are increasingly being felt so I think the hybrid allowed us both financially to spread the burden between the capital budget and the revenue budget of the government I think that the size and scale of the A9 also lends itself to a combination because well for example in the plan we've set out we can make progress on a capital basis with the first three southern sections and then the northern and the remaining sections suit well being bundled into MIM baskets in terms of cost I am going to hand over to Rob for some of the detail but I'll be absolutely upfront that capital is in the long run the less expensive way of completing major projects but capital is not as readily available as a combination of capital and revenue just to pick up a bit more detail on cost so we look at cost in two ways when we're making comparison between procurement options so one way that we compare is the cash that will be spent over time so that's what we call an out-turn cost and within that we're looking at what the effects of future inflation would be expected to be and that's a useful thing to look at but it's not and shouldn't be in my view an ultimate decision maker because what you've also got to think about is what is the value in present day cost of the quick decision that you're making when you discount the effects of inflation because that's a decision in terms of current value of money so when we talk about current value of money comparison the difference between a fully MIM option that we were looking at and a capital based design and build option was around about 14 percent the hybrid option the difference is about 10 percent and that's with the hybrid being 10 percent more costly in an equivalent cash value terms in an equivalent present value of money terms now when you compare at out-turn cash figures the figures are quite different because of the effects of inflation but that's driven by the timing of when money is spent when you spend money on a private finance contract you're spending it for a long period of time into the future so it attracts more inflation but that inflation is attaching to lower sums of money than if you have to spend it on capital money outlay in the next few years and it's that comparison that's really critical to understand and that drives the difference in the cost comparator I would just very briefly add to that as well that I should just for the committee's awareness and you may already be aware but I'm hopefully you'll be comforted to know that the MIM model has managed out some of those worst excesses of private sector profiteering that were apparent in historic PFI deals the way it works has been designed to not allow for that cabinet secretary how confident are you that the programme for June 89 will come within the 3.7 billion budget and is there any robustness in these figures that could back it up so that the advice that I have is that the total scheme cost estimate which is a defined way of measuring is that we will be looking at 3.7 billion I just checking my notes here so that compares so when you adjust that for inflation that's the equivalent of 2.45 billion which is well within that original estimate of 3 billion at 2008 prices and I think that goes to what Rob was explaining there about the way that we compare spend so the advice that I have is that comparing apples with apples in terms of that 2008 estimate the 3.7 and nowadays spend should be within the original budget and that gives me some comfort and I I don't want to miss quote Mr Barnes but I think he was asked about how realistic the funding proposals were and I will check because I have his transcript here but I think he endorsed that it wasn't I think he said not unrealistic which I'll take to mean realistic thank you very much I'm tuned in a second for just a couple of questions arising from what I've heard on the 3.7 billion there is within the pile of documents that we received a kind of funding trail and at one point figures as high as 6.25 billion are identified in relation to the project where is the can can you explain why you are confident about 3.7 billion and is that a wholly incomprehensible figure or was the allusion to 6.25 billion and papers we received was did that include other considerations which you know and have they disappeared or do they continue to sit alongside the 3.7 billion I think this is perfectly understandable question which I have asked myself from time to time when I've been reading all of my papers I think and I will hand over to Rob just to make sure I'm absolutely correct but these are different ways of expressing costs so the 3.7 billion is the total scheme cost estimate and as I say we compiled that figure so that it could be directly comparable to that 2008 figure which was also the total scheme cost estimate I think the higher numbers the 4.6 and others is the out turn cost which takes account of inflation and other issues that can bear down on cost but before I put anything on the record which isn't accurate I'm going to hand over to Rob to try and explain that I think we touched on this the last time I was with the committee so the 3.7 billion is April 2023 prices that's essentially a present day price so it doesn't include forward inflation from this date and it does not include costs for operation and maintenance of the constructed costs when you're referring to the 4.6 and the 6.25 that's within papers when we're discussing procurement options for the remaining parts of the programme so one thing to note is it doesn't include costs that have already been spent and because that's not part of the decision making on future spend that's going to be incurred and what we're trying to do within those cost estimates is compare if we take a capital funded solution and deliver that versus if we deliver a mim private finance solution and to get a like for like comparison because there's a 30 year operation and maintenance period for the private finance solution you have to put 30 years of operation and maintenance into the capital funded dnb solution so you can compare on a like for like basis so it includes operation and maintenance costs that aren't part of the total scheme cost estimate and it includes future inflation costs which aren't part of an April 23 pricing cost so the numbers there they represent out turn but they represent out turn for a different scope and also not even for the full amount of the programme it's important that we just have we have that stated i'm going to bring in Mr Ewing now because obviously quite a large part of our evidence about the future of the programme is not so much been about whether people want to do it or not even so much about whether the money might be there to do it but whether in fact there are going to be troops on the ground who can actually deliver it mr Ewing perhaps a come on to that just one moment just a first year i wanted to ask worse that the outline plan cabinet secretary for completion of the dualling project of the a9 by 2035 is the envisaged date is subject to one very important caveat which kind of raises very serious questions to my in my mind about whether actually the plan will be delivered and that is that the use of the mutual investment model contracts is subject to further decision making in late 25 to 25 based on an updated assessment of expected market conditions and that means that a decision could be taken cabinet secretary not to use them what criteria will be applied in 25 as to whether or not mim will be used and if mim isn't used what's the contingency plan so thank you the question i'll take the last part first if market conditions in 2025 that prevail at the time are not suitable and mean that we can't go forward with the mim we do have contingency that the 2035 date could still be met via capital funding provided that capital was available and i mean i don't know what will prevail in 2035 but what i do know is that if i'm in post i will be determinedly pushing for capital to be available should mim not prevail but my preference is that mim will be available now it is absolutely right that a government creates staging posts for consideration of prevailing market conditions at the time that is how we discharge our duty of prudent public spending it would be it would not be correct for me to make that decision now the the bank of england has raised interest rates 14 times in the last two years they are at an all-time high now is would be a particularly bad time to enter into borrowing at the cost that it currently is so we've very deliberately created that opportunity in 2025 to allow us to assess the market conditions which are fingers crossed predicted to improve we're in a particularly sticky spot just now but i do have to very robustly defend the the government taking that chance to assess the conditions at the time and then make the decision i'm not sure that they're on all-time higher they're certainly a relative high but thank you you're quite right i'm not so old that i can't remember being considerably higher than that i probably am not old enough to remember just standing back for a moment i mean the capital budget available to the scottish government each year is of the order of between four to five thousand million pounds now i think it's reasonable to assume that that will continue to be the case so by 2035 that's 10 years mass suggests that there's a total of 40 to 50 thousand million pounds available the capital budget and the highlands is wanting 3.7 which is less than 10 percent of that total so i mean why is the scottish government not making a clear cast iron commitment that if mim proves to be too expensive for the reasons cabinet secretary that you've set out that there will be a clear guarantee that a sum equivalent to less than one tenth of the total capital will be available for the highlands particularly since and this is just a matter of fact there's been hardly any spend on roads projects in the highlands since devolution and all the money's gone elsewhere we've had a couple of roundabouts and a couple of dual a couple of small sections of dual carriageway surely the government recognise it's the highlands turn and if the government can't make a commitment that if mim is too expensive that traditional capital spend will be used does that not suggest that the highlands don't even merit a tenth of the total capital spend between now and 2035 a proposition that will simply not go down very well at all in my constituency or the highlands as a whole i think mr ewing's advocacy on this these points is is very effective and it is absolutely heard loud and clear i suppose in my perspective i can't make decisions based on regional competition i have to make decisions on the basis of what's right what presents value for money what's best for the people of scotland and i should say that i consider that the dualling of the a9 is one of the the most important pursuits in respect of what's right for the people of scotland and that's why i've been determinadly trying to work on this optimum delivery plan now in terms of certainty cabinet has agreed to my plan they have understood the point about 2025 and mim decision making and a review that 2035 remains possible should capital be made available in the case that mim isn't suitable they have collectively agreed to manage the financial pressures that that will create and that delivers a degree of certainty which we haven't had to date in terms of capital mr ewing's absolutely right to point out the capital budget for the for the government i think when roi brannan was here he pointed out that we have about 40 percent of capital spend the vast majority of which is is within transport but if i just give you this year's draft settlement as an example of that firstly it is being eroded but that doesn't speak to where we've come from that's just me speaking about where we're going and i always have to balance objectives so right this year i'm planning to invest over a billion pounds in roads which is up 26.2 that includes a year's worth of progression against the a9 optimum delivery plan it includes critical work on the 883 rest and be thankful 47 million to protect the integrity of the amate woodside viaduct and others so i appreciate these these major projects are not directly applicable to your inquiry but they do demonstrate how every year there are priorities to balance but i would end that by saying that a9 dualling is a key priority moving on to a different point raised by Graham Barnett in some detail in his evidence you will see is this that you know unlike in the past over the next 10 years there's an enormous amount of civil engineering work that is planned to be undertaken in scotland but in the highlands in particular we're looking at 40 billion pounds on grid upgrades we're looking at a billion pounds in scottish water network rail 3.5 to electrify the rail network there's substantial civil engineering work in haventus in invergordon in renewables aspects and then there's pump storage contracts which sse and others plan um the reason i raised that is that Graham Barnett pointed out that that means that there will be a big choice of work for civil engineers and arguably some of the other works that i've mentioned may be more profitable than roads contracts where the profit margins typically have at best been three percent although that's never been achieved in the last several years according to the seeker so um you know what is the government view about this and is there a real risk that even if we assume cabinet secretary that the money is available that there won't actually be the companies and the people and the expertise to carry out because they'll be too busy doing other more profitable work which uh we all hope will be able to be done as well um yes absolutely i i noted mr barn's comments on all of this and i think all of us would welcome what he set out in respect of that very busy pipeline of work when in scotland in the next 10 to 20 years i absolutely welcome it and the government does as well i think it it um it speaks firstly to why the the upgrade of the a9 is so important because as well as those safety points that i made at the start it is that key economic route connecting scotland is it's an arterial route it's the spine of scotland and it will be absolutely critical to facilitating those economic opportunities that you've spoken to i think firstly that the the delivery plan that we've set out now provides a degree of certainty on the direction of travel i know that uh from my engagement with industry on this and in other matters having the government a clear articulation of the government's direction of travel is one of the most useful things in terms of creating certainty in the market um we have also i think the move to the nc4 contract um as amended will be something which is welcomed by industry i think mr barn's welcomed it and i hope that its use will do as mr ewing says and make matters attractive and hopefully um speedy and i would finally say that um we already have very close engagement with industry and that will absolutely continue as mr ewing is quite right the market becomes busier and busier i'm going to just ask one final question um inverness is 168 miles from glasgo where transport scotland's big office is located there's no transport scotland in inverness or the highlands almost all of the capital money will be spent on the a9 and the a96 over the next 10 years um why is there not a transport scotland office based in inverness uh and will there be one and will staff be relocated there and is the absence of such a presence not a kind of a bit of a sign that um there is still not that absolute commitment to delivery of this project because your staff have to travel up the road stay in a hotel or drive up and up the road and back and you know i've met some of the staff i think the question there is just i'm conscious of our time as well so i think there's two points i would say first of all i think that transport scotland and ministerial presence in area in inverness but indeed anywhere where we have major developments is really important and i always encourage that and we have a a suite of engagement plans from start of the new year as we complete the delivery programme i don't currently have any plans to relocate transport scotland's office from glasgo to inverness we will have transport scotland officials who live in inverness in surrounding areas but you know i'm not planning to relocate offices i do think that presence of ministers and staff in the areas in which we're working are vital and i will continue to encourage that mr golder thanks convener cabinet secretary transport scotland would be more than welcome in dundee if you are looking at other locations um apology apologies cabinet secretary you said that a nine is a key priority but clearly meeting climate change targets is also a key priority as as well and my assessment would be that the 2030 net zero target is under severe pressure for scotland to meet and indeed transport sector in terms of emissions reductions is going to be a key priority as well and i just wonder if the cabinet secretary has identified any conflict between the project completion and meeting our climate targets particularly in the context of 2030 i think it's a really good point and something which i considered very closely and i suppose that's one of the things about transport and net zero being in the same portfolio that you've got the same budget to try and balance between these issues i think my view with the a nine is that it is a long-standing commitment it has a safety imperative it has the opportunity for economic regeneration but actually it's more than that it's economic prosperity and i will always with my climate and environment responsibilities seek to find the finest possible balance between those competing interests and i think that we will need roads in a net zero scotland yes i hope that they will be driven by low emissions electric hydrogen vehicles but we will need roads they will need to be safe and they will help to ensure the economic prosperity of the country thanks cabinet secretary just the final question you mentioned economic regeneration and we've quite rightly focused on the actual road but i wonder if the relevant road infrastructure will be fit for purpose in terms of you mentioned electric charging points indeed service stations and whether they might actually link to third sector local community groups rather than multinationals i wonder if you can just maybe explain the kind of wider vision for the road yes absolutely so it's certainly my intention that there will be ample opportunity for recharging along the route and this sits very closely alongside the work that i'm doing in another part of the portfolio on the rollout of EV chargers and our ambitions to go from around the 2400 mark although that might not be the right figure up to 6000 there is a lot of interest in the availability of service stations and other rest opportunities along the A9 and i absolutely understand that i know myself when i'm driving it you would welcome the opportunity to stop safely and i think there are also issues for women vulnerability issues for being able to do so the provision of service stations etc is not something which is directly the responsibility of transport scotland you know they are funded to deliver their statutory obligations and the delivery of service stations is not one of them however it would this is raised with missus lop and i a lot and it would certainly be my intention to do what we could to encourage the development of these along the route because i do acknowledge their importance and just a brief follow-up on that i mean i think what i would like to see is showcasing scotland pershar and the highlands and and for me that would be not going into a service station that could be located anywhere in scotland indeed anyway in the world and i think there's some fantastic examples of communities getting involved community cafes by the roadside in a in a service station environment so is there any way that you can make that happen if you share that vision probably not single-handedly but i can certainly note that alongside the considerable points that are made to Fiona and i about the need for rest opportunities and i'll do my best to advocate for it thank you thank you and just finally cabinet secretary i noted that in the 2007 11 parliament i had been convener of a hybrid committee set up to take forward the queens ferry crossing project it identified the route the difficulties that they were going to be in various villages along planning the process as was pointed out that was an act of parliament which drove that requirement for parliamentary scrutiny but it did seem that the cross-party nature of a parliamentary committee looking at agreeing the project which government ministers were then invited to deliver overcame some of the difficulties that there were about you know progressing particularly difficult issues now we are where we are in the different processes that are in place but we have the and i think we all recognise from the paperwork we've read and everything else that the passive burnham to tea the whole issue around and killed us a particularly difficult one to grapple with you've talked about there only being one public inquiry so far are you building into the kind of thinking in relation to the project that there could yet be difficult areas that have to be resolved which could lead to a challenge in terms of timing thank you convener just on your first point i have been considering myself the best way to make sure that there's strong parliamentary engagement on the next steps i had looked at what you convened um sorry did you convene yes you did in respect of the queens ferry crossing as you say came from an act of parliament but i would quite like to see or i will certainly come back to the committee with some views on how we ensure parliamentary engagement it might not be this committee although certainly you know i would envisage it would probably be net zero or a like but certainly i will i will come back when we have more certainty on that but i definitely want to see parliament more fulsomely engaged in the next steps in respect of the passive burnham to the tea crossing statutory processes i'll maybe ask officials about timing the problem is that the timing of these matters are out with our hands as i'm sure you appreciate if an inquiry is is decided to go ahead then the length of that is really not something that we can that we can control although i i hope again that because we have had the co-development process because of the the the proposed route does take into account a number of the the suggestions from the community that should lessen the likelihood of objections i can't eliminate it nor should i and nor can i control the timing if should that go ahead thank you mr gabery yeah just to comment on the the way the programme has been structured so the passive burnham to dinkel project which is the only project that still requires to to gain ministerial decision other projects required to complete other elements of statutory processes but based on progress so far we're confident on those and we've looked at the sequencing of work and the programme that we've outlined means that there's actually considerable float several years of float around about the timing of when we would construct passive burnham to dinkel so if it takes longer to complete its statutory processes than we currently anticipate it can be built in parla with other work because it's be sufficiently removed at that time because of prior projects haven't been completed so it doesn't present a safety risk and we have plenty of time to still complete it within the 2035 deadline and thank you minister for the comments on scrutiny particularly i think harking back to the exchange with mr ewing in relation to the capital projects that are potentially going to be vital for development in the north of scotland this is really a national infrastructure project which is of importance to the country and to all parties combined mr chowd you just as a very final question you'd like to put yes sure thank you just a small question to cabinet secretary given the time is taken and missing the the dates etc are you concerned that the the current plan or the current project is going to stick by the time they're giving or do you have any concerns i think so a lot has changed in recent times we have an updated business case we have 92 percent of ministerial decisions for statutory processes in hand we have a new n e c four contract in use which was developed in concert with industry and we are utilizing a new or proposing to utilize or have the option to utilize a new funding model available to us and we now have a plan which has very carefully considered the best sequencing and is on about rolling construction to to 2035 so there is reason for confidence now i have to caveat that by saying this is a complex project it's a living complex project having certainty in an uncertain world is not always easy but so what i will guarantee however is that issues if they arise they will arise because that is the nature of major projects i can guarantee that we will work as quickly as we possibly can to resolve them against our delivery timetable thank you very much and before i conclude is there anything further cabinet secretary your your colleagues feel we've not touched on that you had come along expecting to reveal to us today it was very open minded it's convenient about what we might cover so i won't add anything just thank you in which case can i thank you for your engagement and the engagement of your colleagues this morning thank you very much and we'll now suspend briefly okay and welcome back to this second meeting of 2024 and our second evidence session this morning which starts our proceedings under agenda item three which is the consideration of continued petitions is in relation to petition number 1979 to establish an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies the petition calls on the parliament to establish to urge the scottish government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns and allegations about child protection child abuse safeguarding and children's rights have been mishandled by public bodies including local authorities in the general teaching council gaps in the scottish child abuse inquiry which we've discussed and established an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children services in scotland to handle these inquiries in the future this petition has been lodged by neil mclean and christine scott allison dickie and bill cook and three of whom are with us this morning we last considered this petition at our meeting on the 4th of october and at that stage we decided we would like to hold a round table discussion on the issues raised and to welcome the petitioners if they were available to join us unfortunately christine scott is unable to be with us today but i do welcome brendan barnett who joins in christine's place neil mclellan is a former teacher who's written on the topic of safeguarding gaps good morning to you mr mclellan allison dickie is a teacher and a former edinburgh councillor as vice-consenor of the council's education children and families committee she raised concerns of whistleblowers who came to her for support and bill cook is also a former edinburgh councillor and the petition submission to the committee describes him as the political lead on the introduction of edinburgh's new whistleblower system in 2014 so before we begin the kind of discussion involving the issues raised by the petition i understand that as participants you've prepared brief statements and you would like to share these with the committee today so is each of you going to be saying something briefly and do have you agreed any order or will i just or you've agreed an order okay so mr cook is going to kick off thank you i guess it's within the three minutes each we thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak today my three fellow petitioners are all education professionals they share decades of experience teaching children to have contributed to the development of education policy three of us have been elected to public office and brendan is substituting today as a senior criminal justice social worker we all share serious concerns about the alleged failure of public institutions to properly investigate allegations related to safeguarding and bringing our concerns today we don't want to take a toll away at all from the amazing work of individuals right across scotland each day help protect our children and educate our children neither do we want to detract from the good work being done to improve safeguarding what we're concerned about is when things go wrong and when it does what recourse is there to the ordinary citizen committee members will be aware that support and submissions include distressing and deeply worrying disclosures one parent refers to illegality and malamistration another parent refers to a culture of coercive control yet another refers to significant negligence and incompetence another parent laments we have nowhere to go there are also worrying mis apprehensions evident in the institutional responses to the petition some appear not to even recognise our acknowledged failings we'd be happy to expand on that in the discussion the root of victim or whistleblowers plight is the power and balance that exists between themselves the individuals institution or public body they find themselves at odds with or exploited by this is a systemic imbalance arrayed against the lone victim or whistleblower a huge obstacles a public body's lack of openness and transparency accompanied by essentially a limited legal and financial resources to defend against allegations allegations i'll conclude now with the children's commissioners response to our petition the commissioner observed that international human rights law states that children are entitled to higher standards of protection and that there is a clear positive obligation on the state to ensure that child protection safeguarding whistleblower and investigations are sufficiently thorough independent and robust this is a standard to which our country should aspire thank you thank you allison dickie good morning i was edin bris and vice convener of education and children families for about five years over that time and beyond many whistleblowers came to me in desperation not all related to child protection some are supported for a long time other simply shared allegations i raised in appropriate ways some answers and findings reassured others gave rise to more questions and common concerns emerged it's difficult to communicate these sensitive matters in a public setting but it's important to help members understand why action is needed what follows is a high level summary of past and present allegations serious and organized child abuse in edinburgh and beyond supported by public funds and named professionals covering up a pattern of behaviour amongst male teachers which related to physical abuse social workers withholding information from records and placing children at significant risk of physical sexual and emotional abuse questionable nda's and timing of civil settlements for abuse victims children wearing layers of clothing to meet social workers and not all perpetrators of abuse and care held accountable public body interference and investigations and pretend to pervert in the course of justice years and foster care without permanency assessment inaccurate reports cover-ups about mishandled child protection in schools misuse of public money by a deceased officer and serial abuser mismanagement of sex offenders back into the community safeguarding gaps in swith system and access to children's records viewing neuro divergent families through an inappropriate child protection lens resulting in the unlawful removal of children who are thus made even more vulnerable and allegations of abuse and care follow. I worked with others across parties to raise concerns but it was the bravery of the shone bell whistleblower that led to the tannin inquiry and whistleblowing review and the opportunity to more widely raise in air some of these allegations however narrow terms of reference terms and references restricted the much needed investigation and whistleblowers believed it to be a whitewash I resigned from my party in brief in January 22 mainly because I needed to speak and vote more freely I was concerned at the lack of robust scrutiny on child protection matters and the over reliance on officer information fantastic as many of those officers are and the findings of a restricted inquiry to conclude while some of these allegations are within the past 10 years and may be regarded as historic the symptoms and many of the personnel are not all unresolved allegations impact the level of confidence we can have about ensuring the highest standards of protection for our children thank you thank you very much and are we going to mr mclellan or to mr barnett next mr barnett thank you it is a sad reflection that after so many child protection scandals where local authorities and other agencies have failed to protect children such as rochedale council and edinburgh academy concerns continues to be raised about the fitness of certain local authorities and police services to fulfill their safeguarding duties just as concerning is the failure of regulatory bodies such as the triple sc and the gts to properly monitor professional standards and investigate malpractice within local authorities these are just some of the reasons for today's petition more specifically and with regard to local authorities a number of us have witnessed a major Scottish local authority prioritised the protection of its reputation and the targeting of whistleblowers over the protection of children it is our view that the tanner inquiry into the culture of this authority was constrained by the narrowness of its terms of reference from the outset concerns were expressed regarding the perceived independence of key players and the inquiry in general it is of note that the inquiry's recommendations have still not been fully implemented since the tanner inquiry concerns have continued to be raised about this authority's failure to protect children whistleblowers have raised ongoing concerns about the following the insecure storage of and untraceable access to confidential information regarding vulnerable children the erratic risk management planning for the release of sex offenders into the community the failure of criminal justice social work managers to ensure social workers complete key duties in relation to risk management and child protection and ensure that all relevant information is gathered and shared with partner agencies the failure to hold managers in the children and families department to account in relation to who protected and or supported perpetrators some of these individuals have been allowed to leave their posts without being held to account for their actions and their roles in possible cover-ups these these concerns are compounded by other scotland wide failings for example the fact that parents have no established referral pathway when raising concerns that is they are not covered by the public interest disclosure act the failure of regulatory bodies to investigate serious concerns raised by parents and whistleblowers the lack of transparency and accountability in regulatory bodies such as the SSC the opaque nature of the relationships between local authorities and regulatory bodies to conclude there's an illusion of protection for whistleblowers under the public interest disclosure act and by qualified and debatable support from organisations such as save call the reality for whistleblowers is that they are targeted victimised and harassed by their employers this has a severe impact on their physical mental and financial well-being their isolation is compounded and children put at risk by the fact that there is no independent body whistleblowers can turn to for advice or support many of the whistleblowers supporting this petition have found uncomfortable parallels with post office scandal whistleblowers have concerns whistleblowers concerns have been ignored by senior local management local authority managers the tanner inquiry elected representatives regulatory bodies scottish government departments and their own trade unions thank you thank you and mr mclanon thank you and thank you to the quarks for facilitating online practice if i can start with some backgrounds in LA 2021 i wrote an article on the difficulties facing those losing issues in education on topics such as the curriculum and national bodies with the consequence of this article people contacted me with their own concerns the common theme emerged for children especially the most vulnerable being polluted and not safeguarded and when issues were raised the mishandling occurred these cases are also my professional experience and my knowledge as a former council educational officer highlighted the policy gap in safeguarding children I alluded to the gcps to my concerns and the children's commissioner and the scottish government later highlighted the gap to the gcps to date this gap remains the gap is quite simple that local authorities can and do mishandling protection and safeguarding reports and the gcps will not look at reports unless the employer refers them to the gcps and engaged in further research 15-minute technical sdoi questions showed over a three-year period as felt of out 196 referrals made to them regarding teacher conduct these referrals were never investigated at all by the gcps further research shows that the sellers got our response and still do get our response from the gcps no matter the severity of the referral or the evidence accompanying the referral is frivolous but it is not specified to the employer who is most often the local authority the gcps told government officials in responses to parliamentary questions they would look to change the word frivolous in the next policy review the term is still used despite a recent policy review additionally it should be noted that the gcps do and have changed ffoil responses on the ffoil log and have done so without informing the public of the changes or specifics about the initial ffoil request of the gcps refused to tell a member of the Scottish Parliament will he ready the number of the 196 cases that were child protection and safeguarding related that was in the parliament in 2012 further research again by ffoil reveals that 47 of the 196 referrals that were safeguarding and child protection related gcps claimed they were aware of these that's how police were aware of these and when the police were not aware of these the gcps alerted the police to that the ffoil log question asked how many the police were alerted to and the answer is that one was passed to the police by gcps I have heard and we've seen the obstacles that professionals, parents and the public have in losing evidence concerns in good faith. This includes senior officials and a Scottish local authority threatening a university to claim they would consider withdrawing public funds because of ffoil questions relating to child protection policies. This exemplifies how serious issues can be dealt with by the public bodies. Those asking scrutiny questions face intimidation and corruption using public funds. Employees face the careers, the reputations and crust by managerial and the financial power of the large organisations and parents in the public are gaslit, dismissed and are also intimidated. The policy gap evidence undoubtedly has implications with respect of protecting children. This coupled with inherent challenges that the committee has already recognised with the board space has sent a real and ongoing risk to the protection of children in Scotland. I'm happy to expand on these points in the round table discussion and I thank the committee for the opportunity to share further information. Thank you Mr McLean. Your sound improved sort of two thirds of the way through but I think we I certainly concentrating hard was able to hear the early part of that as well. Your four statements thank you very much for those they've taken up quite a bit of the time that we have available this morning I should say and they have also detailed in the content which is now obviously in the record for us to study some of the areas I think we might have wished to explore. So coming back and I think you started Alison Dickain and I think I heard some from Neil MacLennan as well really without going into the details that may lead to the identification of individuals and you went through a whole series of examples of concerns where you have identified mishandling of child safeguarding issues. Are there any that you could just illustrate a little bit more comprehensively without necessarily betraying any confidences? So no it's very difficult to do so in a public setting. We originally thought this was going to be private and raise some concerns about that. So what we tried to do was to give you a top level idea of the range and the scope of allegations that are still unresolved for whistleblowers and for people at the heart of those cases. That was the purpose of it to show you the seriousness of these unresolved matters because I don't think that's come through to yet. We can explore some of the processes if you like in terms of you know it feels often that who is actually investigating you know we eventually got to an inquiry with you know it's Scotland wide these concerns but if you take Edinburgh as an example we eventually got to an inquiry where all these concerns might have been you know really in-depth investigated to help resolve but the terms and references were restricted and that didn't happen so it's whistleblowers and you know people at the heart of some of these cases feel as if they're punted from left right and centre and nothing ever happens and their cases aren't resolved and someone will say it's somebody else's responsibility it's this other responsibility and it's really hard to not go into the details of a case I don't want to go anywhere into detail on that but there is a bit of a cases all around the place never getting properly investigated and thoroughly investigated independently investigated okay thank you but mr cook excuse me again we are constrained you know so but much of this particular case I have in mind is in the public domain in any case a young person made an allegation some years ago 2006 right that person was ignored right there was no further investigation at that point some years later that that person was contacted because another person had been subject to abuse and it was in police inquiry at that point ultimately the individual the predator was imprisoned in 2006 in 2017 there was a serious case review and that identified that that particular individual could have been identified 20 years earlier that the case review said that there should be a further investigation because other things came out during the course of that review chief executive at the time instructed a further investigation that investigation didn't take place and this is 2017 in 2020 there was another another whistleblowing disclosure and then the situation was revisited at that point they found that some of the allegations that had been identified some of the issues that had been identified three four years earlier were still present so it's just in the way of illustrating that these things take a long while right and there's a particular example no action was taken even no problems had been identified and that's fairly recent that goes to illustrating the point that I think you were making Alison Dickie about a lack of direction yeah David Torrance thank you convener good morning to all petitioners and why would the petitioners like to see an inquiry set up before the conclusion of the Scottish child abuse inquiry I think there's a perhaps a misapprehension right we we're suggesting that it should be a whistleblowing system put in place we believe that there's gaps in the present inquiry in terms of what that's looking at and we can discuss that further but in terms of the unresolved issues what we're simply saying is that we believe that should be investigations and inquiries into these matters we're not calling for a public inquiry to be set up we just feel that there's seven things out there that need to be investigated thoroughly anybody else like to expand on it I think we've just come in there to say so you can get a sense of there is not just issues in Edinburgh there's issues across Scotland and these are unresolved issues and the point we've tried to make from the outset is that to be have confidence in current child protection you can't have all those issues sitting out there unresolved they need to have a thorough investigation so it is in terms of an inquiry and investigation it's a distinct investigation of any of those unresolved cases to and we're not judging that we are just literally saying those should be investigated so that we can you can say lessons learned but you can't learn lessons unless you actually know what the actual you know conclusion of our case is so that would be we have never from never from outset suggested that that should be adding to Sky and to Scottish child abuse inquiry because we would not want to lengthen anything for you know children in care in any way what we've seen is to address the gaps distinctly and you know we've talked we've talked already about issues that are getting raised in education you know issues that are raised in children's regulated activities there are gaps and these gaps need to be addressed and especially you know we're just about to implement children's rights and it's clear that they should have the highest level of protection and it shouldn't be a defensive culture that's what's been felt so out there's a new campaign i think started today or yesterday and it's called what's you know what if you're right but that doesn't feel like that's the culture across scotland and so it's to to really just build on that we're asking for robust you know more robust scrutiny so the investigation and the national whistleblowing officer for children's you know for children's education children's services mr mclennan if you if you would like to contribute at any time if you just raise a hand the clerks can see and they'll let me know that you're trying to commend is there anything you'd like to say at this point then please do carry on that's fine thank you for me yeah just to blend the two questions can be the one question again this is in the public domain um christian graham mhp raised um very serious content very um passionately about um issues that have happened in scotland's borders council um which were obviously investigated by andrew webster um qt now um that is a single case however we're seeing replications of those cases in other areas um i mean some of the areas are very funeral but the first local authorities have a challenge for them investing in very serious matters so there's a potential conflict of issue interest they may be to pass the issues they may be expertise and um and skill issues and investigation so it's sort of what they've recognised and put forward an independent national whistleblowing officer and that's why we believe there should be one across the education and children services area as well um the regards to Scottish children abuse inquiry to uh mr policy question um again the there's a specific focus on that which wouldn't capture the range of other allocations that are undissolved now that there are cases um and as you said before the vast majority of people are very very well in education the time before it goes wrong it can go terribly wrong so there are cases within education children services you see that nsp raised concerns about um very serious allegations involving youth football um in the past which clearly may not be covered by the Scottish children abuse inquiry as it currently stands religious bodies may not necessarily be covered so that gap needs to be closed but as as allison rightly said before we start putting together any changes systemic changes to how we protect our children we need to thoroughly and properly investigate the unresolved allegations so we fully understand where things have gone wrong so that we can then put it right in the future and i think that's very important that the unresolved allegations historic and private require that robust independence through me and the current system perhaps doesn't allow that independence through me jurors are already currently there statuary duties and national trial protection guidance what concerns the petitioners have about them mr coup saying your name so that the official record know who it is that's actually contributing i did have some somewhere to give me one second yeah the problem with the national guidelines is that they're non-statutory and that issue was actually identified that phenomenon of people not adhering to the guidelines was actually identified in the government's own child protection improvement plan there's a direct reference to the issue with and reliance on on guidelines right that it's a recognized thing that sometimes the guidelines might not be followed and that's the problem it's it's we can commend the guidelines excellent there's a lot of good work in the guidelines are awful a good stuff but what happens when the guidelines aren't actually implemented and the preference has been made to the tanner inquiry the tanner inquiry identified that stated something to the effect that within Edinburgh it wasn't a safe culture for whistle blowing and the problems that exist and that's despite the fact that there's national guidelines so there's plenty of evidence out there that sometimes guidelines guidelines are guidelines that might not be implemented mr clennan thank you just a couple of points that i'll answer first of all absolutely that case that um the other guidelines so they're not statutory requirements and that presents a challenge um serious concerns have been raised about the guidelines there's lots of good in the guidelines however um i always think a policy should be something that a practitioner can list it can be very easily used but it has been described variously as contradictory and confusing um there's a range of issues with them and for example it has been highlighted to Scottish Government that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service appear more regularly in the national transportation guidelines than the general teaching council appears on it which appears an odd an all measures one example but there are lots of areas of concern with them the children's commissioners who are the national body the national expert body for safeguarding of children and children's rights have raised a range of issues with the government about the child protection guidelines and to my knowledge that not all of that has been progressed in the policy reviews what i think is linking back to Alice's point is really important here we should go back to look at the child protection guidelines and rethink her and readamend them but to go back to Alice's point until we've conducted a further independent inquiry into unresolved historic and present allegations there's little point of going and moving guidelines without that detailed knowledge of what's gone wrong in the cases that have gone before the Andrew Webster casey inquining out there clearly revealed breakdowns throughout the process of our a child protection issue being raised and there are multiple other examples of that across the country so until they can be teaballed there's little point in time to maneuver things to try and cover cracks it needs that that belt embraces review in my opinion oh sorry mr Barnett okay thank you just in respective guidelines obviously i'm coming up from a criminal justice perspective there are national guidelines mapper guidelines and local authority guidelines with regards to the risk management of high risk sex and violent offenders so local authorities have guidance for their social workers and there are national guidelines through the multi agency public protection arrangements i was to chair case conferences very similar to this in the setup here and i would have a social worker before me and i would be saying can you tell me we've got a serious sex offender who's due for release what are the plans what his risks how are we going to cover those risks you know do we need to make any arrangements where are the victims where we're going to house him etc etc and what i what was really disturbing was the way that the national guidelines and local guidelines regarding risk management which was just about due diligence and having an investigatory approach to information was not followed i'll just draw a parallel i was watching the Grenfell disaster inquiry and what struck me was the number of times agencies said well we always assumed the other agency had shown due diligence therefore we didn't have to because we trusted the other agency and what i found doing my job was regularly social workers would be going well we trust the prisons assessment we trust children and families assessment and they haven't done their own and each agency would be saying the same about the other and there was this kind of failure to follow national guidelines and local guidelines and then when i took this to local authority and then to the triple sc the triple sc refused to investigate and it's just astounding the the risky behaviour that's going on so i just wish to make the point about national guidelines you asked about the national protection guidance which obviously is just not long been updated as well my experience has been and i've always believed that child protection is is actually a constant improvement journey and that's exactly what the scottish government has recognised and is promoting out there that's not been the experience the experience continues to be its defence of everything's in place you know everything's all fine going back to your original point in terms of some of those issues and i'm trying not to get into cases as i say but some of some of the issues are sharing information you know agencies sharing information between them and some of in one particular case that i can think of i don't think key information was shared you know in that that would have absolutely helped that situation and i know that's been addressed a wee bit something in forward improvements um you've got that lack of scrutiny so in the busy life of members members in the busy life of councillors um you know unless you're actually listening to your whistleblowers i could have said i don't want to listen to you you come at a different perspective when you're actually scrutinising officers reports because you're more informed another one is i've sat in multi agency groups and public protection and and it feels that there's not much discussion you know when you come to those forums and there's probably been lots of discussion before that but i would have liked to see more questions and scrutinate those in those environments the other one is that it's too historic you know we're not resourcing historic would you rather wouldn't you rather be focused in the current and to me that misses an absolute point that the past is connected to current child protection another one is the information's too limited to identify any criminality and some of it to me is quite stark you know and then directed back again to either the public body or the social work which is the source of the allegation and of course the whistleblowers not wanting to go there and of course we had the safe call system but i've got the inquiries you know highlighted the flaws within that so you can see there's a lot of different things that ja and lead to people shouting all sorts of corners all over scotland please listen to us and let's all together work better to you know more robust scrutiny i want to just move along because i'm conscious of our time mr golden thanks convener you've mentioned you're not adhering to guidelines and i'm particularly interested in local authority perspective um do you think this is a result of resource constraints or a culture um or both and also do you have an assessment of how local authorities are adhering to guidance across scotland is there examples of best practice worst practice or is it a similar picture or do you even have that information i can't speak scotland wide in my post in a major local authority in scotland i would have access to reports from all of the scotland offenders moving to my city for instance so i would have i would ask for that information and you would find the same erratic compilation of information um and so my job was to say what the gaps in the information please can you go on find it um i think the um the thing about time is i think i think i'll have to say this i think with regards risk management of information with relation to information the probation service in england has a much better system um for instance the um the tragedy of the two teenage killers in in warrington this week all that information regarding them all the assessments the psychological assessments will be sent to the probation service and they will have a full file of that of that information that isn't so in 20 years time when the somebody's making a risk assessment as to how and when that those individuals might be released they will have a huge amount of information that doesn't happen in scotland um they will get a court report um and in 20 years time somebody maybe in my position will be saying well where's all that other information it was huge in scotland i've often had to refer to press reports to get the details of offences because the procurator fiscal's office does not send files of information out it's too costly what we will get is the odd we will then have to go seeking reports and asking the police for information but it's not a system it's not a comprehensive system so um there's some excellent work uh within every authority i'm sure but also there's some dreadful work and uh so thanks thank you allison i just may add just to have a very briefly add to that um so without a doubt resources are an issue it's an issue and um you know social works and children services is an issue in education and of course that's an issue we also know cultures an issue because the tannin inquiry in particular pulled that out but also we're asking dig deeper too because there you know let's not be naive about what's out there and the children just needed the deepest of investigations and i think in that nutshell i gave you you can see why i can't say everything's okay that's fine mr ewing i notice you were kind of following that particular exchange with interest would you like to uh i did think that the comments mr barnett made were were apposite and the we perhaps could learn from from the english experience there the example quoted um i just wanted to ask about the establishment of an independent national whistleblowing officer and firstly i mean how would this help address these concerns um would this be a new public body or could the functions be made more explicit perhaps as part of the uh a young person and children's commissioner you know mr cook um i think the last point there that that might be a way forward i certainly think that i think the thing about whistleblowing and public inquiries if you can address that point what we see is public inquiries taking place 10 years 20 years 30 years after the events right what we need is for some intervention it can change things at the time and give support and perhaps we the champion of the whistleblower or the person that's being victimised um i don't i hope that that answers the point that makes sense actually yes and i mean i'm attracted by the idea that to be part of the children's commissioner's functions and made more explicit perhaps even if on a statutory basis because that would avoid having to create a new public body but could ask i mean if there if this happens let's assume this happens and and that might help things be done more quickly rather than you know the ember academy case where we're we're looking at events that happened decades ago i believe um you know what happens if the the the children's commissioner whistleblower officer says well this should happen this should happen and then you go to the local authorities or whoever it is says well we don't agree you know what happens then who where does it go from there does it go to ministers go to press given that these may be sensitive matters how would a dispute between the whistleblowing officer and the relevant public authority be handled or resolved that's an excellent point i'm not sure i'll have the answer to that i think i think there's a role for the professional regulatory bodies there so i think you know our problem my problem has been i have raised issues about i've raised it with my employers you know i didn't want to create draw draw my employers into disrepute i've wanted to say we've got a problem here it's a risk to the public and what i was actually told can you imagine if i told you not to answer not to ask so many questions which is what my manager told me and i'm my job is risk management don't ask so many questions so i then raised that with the SSC and they would not i'm saying the problems that they're not not following the risk management guidelines it's a professional issue you need to address this and SSC would not address this so it's not it's not only an issue with the local authority it's about the professional standards of the individuals within those authorities and i think mr mcleanor would like to come in as well mr mcleanor two very sound points mr yw and i think to pick up on both of them we're talking about checks and balances here obviously and the purposes local authorities mark in their own homework and the very serious issue of child protection is a major risk obviously we see within the police service for example you know they would have another force investigate it although of course even that has been questioned no please investigate and please even those different forces so it's going to be independent NHS have clearly grappled with this and put in an independent national whistleblowing officer which avoids the issue where local authorities have outlined the concerns about local authorities GCCS clearly stated to the parliament that they weren't in the front line of child protection they've got a specific role of legislation on regulation and on registration which is separate so the i n w o i think gives that sort of umbrella assurance and stops some of the cracks in the system now i hear very much the attraction of going down adding responsibilities to the children's commissioner and that was something that the parliament may wish to discuss a couple of points of raise with that with regards to your second point firstly the commissioners have a very specific locus and that may detract from the locus they've got that perhaps the i n w o needs to be separate and the second point of raise i think really hits on the point you made there one of the challenges the children's commissioner has just now is in legislation it states on one part of legislation they can instruct a public body they can make a recommendation or they can report to a public body to do something the very next piece of legislation then says the public body can simply write back to the children's commissioner and say why they're not doing it so they're ultimately given teeth and the teeth are taken away so when we do hopefully come to setting up an i n w o or independent national whistleblower which are very much so cross-party people see that it's been needed at NHS and therefore we are highlighted gaps in education children's services the legislation we framed in such a way that that is put in place that that that that is the ability to progress things rather than be hamstrung by the legislation because that particular part of the children's commissioner legislation really hamstrings them there are examples where the commissioner has written to public bodies and they have simply ignored because the legislation allows them to ignore the recommendations of the body to have oversight of safeguarding of children in scotland's we're into our last five or six minutes i am very concerned about the issue of public bodies marking their own homework and when any complaint whether it's a staff complaint a complaint about management is dealt with there is a tendency to suckle the wagons and nothing very much ever happens so i think that that that concern is is real and and i think the answers have been very helpful but can i just kind of postulate that one solution might be to resolve the question of what happens if the whistleblower says well you should do this or this is my recommendation and then it's ignored i mean there could there be depending upon the nature of the issue if it's a criminal matter a reference for example to your children's panel and if it were not a criminal matter and therefore out with the remit of the children's panel could there be a procedure to refer a matter to the Scottish Government children's minister and that albeit not a perhaps a perfect remedy or disposal would at least provide a route and i'm just thinking out loud here so i've got no expertise in this area at all but would either of those or other possibilities be something that you might want to consider and come back to us on given the time constraints yes i think the helpful thing there if you if you would like to reflect in that and maybe the earlier answer because we'd be very happy to receive any further submission given that there was a certain uncertainty beforehand but i'm very keen because mr chowdry would like to come in as well so i just want to give him that opportunity mr chowdry thank you very much uh good morning panel uh just want to ask i want to stay with the same point as my colleague mr ewing has been asking just a clarification how would you think the national whistleblowing officer would bridge the gap in current safeguarding provision it's just i know quite a lot of answers has been given but how do you think uh could bridge the gap mr cook one of the advantages in having a system like that is it raises the standard reference was made to people the circles the wagons circling earlier on i think to have an independent body adds another element to how authorities or institutions might operate um the fact that they might be subject to independent scrutiny and if a whistleblowing system officer had the investigative powers and the links that have been alluded to that might change behaviours and i think that's that's part of this mr barna i would think the office would also act as a focal point for um for people who have raised concerns about unsafe practice um all of us have that i think everyone all the whistleblowers that i've ever met have all been isolated and we've all roamed around and we've all i've gone down this pathway to try and address the issues and there's no actual guidance for anyone or support keep making reference to other issues but in the same way as the post office post office workers formed their own group and through that they were able to move forward whistleblowers can't do that they're all very isolated they don't know who who else is a whistleblower so i think by establishing an office it would then enable to give guidance and support and procedure as to how to investigate serious issues just to go back to mr ewing's question as well so it's that it's that gap it's that marking your own homework it's that independence but going back to mr ewing as well and that children and young people you know the children's commissioner and and the way ahead in terms of how many out how many people out there unresolved there's there's lots of different issues that's a huge resource issue so i think if you know the children's commissioner ideal but you know we'd need much much more resourcing to be able to take something like that forward and the legislation to actually direct you know public bodies to to act in support and the final point would be even if we're even if we're putting it back to the scotish government people could say that's the government marking their own homework too so it's thinking about all those things and finding a very independent route that just targets those gaps and make sure it's with mop up all of these unresolved concerns thank you we've packed quite a lot of information into this last hour which i'll want to have some time to reflect on when we see it some of the issues that have cropped up have maybe also prompted thoughts on your own mind of additional information you might like to contribute to us be very happy to receive that in advance of our next consideration of the petition it's fairly packed agenda again this morning i'm sure we could probably have packed more information into any further and extended discussion but can i thank all four of you very much for taking the time to join us here in parliament this morning we'll obviously be keeping the petition open and we'll have an opportunity to reflect on the evidence we've heard and decide on next steps and we look forward to hearing from you further as appropriate thank you all very much and i suspend briefly before we move to the next item thank you and we're back and the next of our continued petitions is petition number 1930 to ensure customers are always given information on the cheapest possible fare in the new scot rail contract this has been lodged by george ecton and calls on the parliament to urge the Scottish government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare as a matter of course and recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering in the same last considered this quite some time ago the 17th of may 2023 at that point we agreed to write to the Scottish government and to scot rail the response from scot rail notes that while it has no current plans to upgrade the retail infrastructure support the use of bank cards for tap or tap on tap on or tap off rail journeys which is how you get around the london underground in various places it is actively pursuing a pilot scheme for a mobile phone app to achieve a similar outcome which is actually the modern way of getting around the london underground i think as long as you've got a signal transport scotland responded to tell us that it anticipated the national smart ticketing advisory board to be operational by the end of 2023 and i understand from the clerks that the board commenced operation in November the Scottish government have also confirmed it has no plans to remove paper rail tickets noting that paper tickets now include a qr code that can be scanned to validate the ticket the response also makes reference to much anticipated fair fairs review which has been expected by the end of 23 but is not as yet to be published members may be aware that the minister for transport indicated on the 18th of january that the review would likely be published at the beginning of this month we've also received two submissions from the petitioner sharing his disappointment at the lack of either detail or urgency in addressing the issues raised by the petition mr ecton also wanted to draw our attention to the recent research which found that train station ticket machines can charge more than double the price of booking the ticket online it's worth noting that this research did not include stations located in scotland which will come as a relief to me certainly do you members are any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed mr torrance thank you convener i wonder if a committee would consider and keep the petition open and write to a minister for transport once a fair affairs review has been published to seek details on any recommendations related to us of the petition i think that's the very obvious course now given that the that statement is imminent are members content we are petition number 1945 to ban the extraction and use of peat for horticulture and all growing media by 2023 this was lodged by lizabeth oughtway and calls on the parliament to urge the Scottish government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat imports exports and sales in order to protect peatlands both in scotland and worldwide we last considered this on the third of may last year the Scottish government has since published its analysis of responses to its consultation on ending the sale of peat in scotland an extract of the analysis is available in today's papers and it concludes that among individual hobby gardeners there is broad support for introducing a ban on the sale of peat in scotland among organisations however support was more limited and several negative impacts were anticipated the most common year suggested for introducing a ban on the sale of peat for retail horticultural was 2023 with organisations preferring a later date of 28 to 2030 on the use of peat for cultural purposes the Scottish government's written response to the committee states that it is mindful of the needs of crofters and islanders and is working to determine the impact on those groups as a result of ending the sale of peat the submission states that outcomes from the consultation stakeholder engagement and impact assessments will form robust evidence that will guide scotland ministers as to the scope of any sales ban do colleagues of any suggestions or comments mr thorns thank you convener i wonder if the committee would consider writing to the scotland for an update on where its delivery plan and timetable for phasing out a sale of horticultural peat will be published and whether the government intends to look beyond the sale of peat and consider banning the extraction of peat with an exemption for crofters and traditional and cultural use thank you any other suggestions to add to that are we content to proceed on that basis mr you yes just to emphasise the latter bit that you know we interfere with crofters traditional extraction of peat at our peril yes all types of crofters humble or otherwise well there would be civil unrest if the crofters were denied the right to extract peat in their own land that would be unthinkable i think to many of us okay thank you we are agreed on that course of action that brings us to position number 1946 to call on the scotland Government to pay all charges for homeless temporary accommodation and this has been lodged by shone antoni clerkin it calls on the parliament to urge the scotland Government to use general taxation to pay all charges for homeless temporary accommodation including writing off the 33.3 million debt owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities we last considered this petition on the third of may last and in its recent response to the committee the scotland Government outlined its plan work on two relevant recommendations from the temporary accommodation task and finish groups report recommendation 14 in the report calls for a benchmarking process for temporary accommodation and greater transparency on charges and the scotland Government has stated that it will engage with COSLA as necessary on this recommendation and then recommendation 15 calls for a review of the guidance to local authorities and setting charges for temporary accommodation by clearly defining the terms reasonable charge and affordable the housing affordability working group has been developing a shared understanding of housing affordability with a critical review of the main working definitions and the different uses in policy and practice which could potentially help to clarify the relevant guidance now the petitioner points out that there was a 27 percent increase in households living in temporary accommodation between march 2020 and march 23 and he notes that edinburgh glasgo and our guile and butte local authorities have declared housing emergencies and calls on the committee to pressurize the scotland Government to act do members have any comments or suggestions for action mr torrance thank you convener i wonder if a committee would consider writing to COSLA to seek its views on the action called for in the petition and to ask for information about his work on recommendation 14 from the temporary accommodation task and finish group report in particular committee could ask what engagement COSLA had with the scotland Government so far in relation to its work okay i wonder if we might also write the scotland Government to ask how it intends to address the concerns about the existing households where they've got a debt arising from temporary accommodating charges which have already been accrued in particular at the committee i think would be interested to know how on-going household debt from temporary accommodation aligns with the government's priority to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation by 2026 you content with both those colleagues content with both those proposals one but mr chowdry should we ask the councils as well that because i think the councils are under pressure as well with the when we did a round table with the local communities and found that the i'm just wondering if we're writing to COSLA whether we're not potentially accommodating that through COSLA yes thank you petition number 2006 to review and simplify the legislation in relation to dismissal of property factors and i'm delighted to see that we've been joined by our parliamentary colleague sara boyack in relation to this petition and we'll hear from you in just a moment miss boyack the petition is lodged by ewan miller and it calls on the scotland Parliament to urge the scotland Government to amend the property factors scotland act to cover dismissal of property factors or bring forward other regulations that would achieve the same aim this could include giving the first tier tribe you know powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors we last considered this position on the third of may where we agreed to write to the scotland Government and other relevant stakeholders at the time and we received responses from the minister for victims and community safety the property managers association scotland and the charity under one roof which were set out in the papers which colleagues received ahead of today's small meeting those responses note the instruments that are already available to homeowners to challenge property factors via the first tier tribunal that i referred to a moment ago and the courts process more widely responding then in June the minister also committed to providing an update on progress towards the publication of the voluntary code of practice for land owning maintenance companies by early this year we've also received submissions from the petitioner and Sheila Young highlighting their own experiences of the difficulties and challenges involved in trying to remove their property factors and I suspect many of us as MSPs have received constituents who've contacted us with individual and specific issues as well and can express in concern the gravity of the situation facing homeowners across the country is perhaps not being fully understood before I ask members to comment I'd like to hear if Sarah Boyack would like to assist the committee in its consideration yes I would thank you very much convener for the opportunity to address the committee this morning issues with factors is an area I am increasingly getting casework from constituents on and the casework covers a range of issues relating to property factors the main issue is that factors are seen as unaccountable so high in rising costs high quotes for repairs with insufficient information to assess value for money poor communication lack of engagement and interest and engagement residents historic debts passed to current owners but very difficult the challenge costs are standards of work suggest improvements or remove them constituents feel powerless against factors that have been appointed by the developer there's a lack of a clear tendering process for the initial appointment which the petitioner references by virtue of the fact that the factor was appointed by the developer and there's a lack of transparent information about services and costs before commitment to buy new build so people buy a property without knowing exactly what they are committing to financially and reliance on title deeds is problematic because they're not clear revoting rights processes and procedures so constituents have reported to me poor communication responding to queries unwillingness to engage to improve services or processes errors and invoices and staff unclear about what they should be doing and there's a big worry over future costs for example repair of unadopted roads rising costs but people's income reducing and no help available if somebody's income falls and using the codes of practice to challenge factors is seen as incredibly cumbersome and it works against individual owners and it's a huge amount of organization that owners have to do to reach out to their neighbours and the first tier tribunal is also incredibly daunting for owners and it may be up against the factors and the legal team so i've asked written and oral questions on what steps the government will make to ensure the system will work for property owners and the last year the competition and markets authority and their working paper published in November referenced the imbalance of power between factors and homeowners so i think the issues being raised with me by constituents come down to the power of factors and the power of homeowners and in an earlier consideration of the petition Mr Ewing made points and defensive factors in their role and i do want to be clear that i think that having a factor in place is always better than not having a factor in place where a factor isn't in place can lead to buildings failing falling into a state of repair and basic health and safety not being followed that's not in anyone's interest but there has to be more transparency from the appointment to the capacity to change a factor a constituent of mine has calculated how much their factor earns they pay 45 pounds a quarter in factor management fees and in their development there are over 250 properties so in one development not that far from this parliament one factor is receiving over 11 000 pounds a quarter and nearly 50 000 pounds a year for managing the property and that doesn't include the cost of the works that need to be done that owners pay for so to conclude convener i think parliament is a duty to ensure our constituents are protected through legislation i think the scottish government have been slow to act and i would encourage the committee to use this petition to think of ways to ensure that there's a fair power balance between factors and homeowners and thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee that's all i thank you very much miss boyack and i have to say you touch on issues which is a constituency msp have been raised by constituents of mine i i suppose i would say that there are there are good factors and less good factors there's good practice and there's bad practice and obviously constituents tend to contact us when they have been faced with an issue but i think the issues that you raised there and touch upon are ones which are becoming increasingly part of of my kind of casework profile colleagues having heard that and reflected we're still waiting for the scottish government's publication are any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed mr thorns i wonder if the committee would consider writing to a minister for victims and community safety highlighting the petitioner submissions and seeking an update on the work to finalise the publisher the voluntary code of practice for land owning maintenance companies i'm content that we do that if any other thoughts as to things we might consider yeah i mean i think once we receive the response it might be worthwhile hearing from the minister on this because actually the proposal is for a voluntary code of practice which clearly isn't mandatory for those factors and i just wonder again without seeing the submission but it might be worthwhile hearing just certainly from the minister and perhaps other stakeholders on this point yes mr choudry you agree yeah agree i think us Mr Uing you obviously had concerns last time round but not in relation to i think the petition but just in case of unforeseen consequences of actions that might be taken well i was i was pleased to hear Sir Aboyax say that it's it's it's it's generally speaking beneficial to have a factor rather than to have none because if you have no factor, cyfleÈ, ify, ond mae weithio'r rhaglen o'r bydd, fel ei ddisad â'i cyfleÈ, y gallai cyfleÈ ac yn piwedebiati, wedi gweld bryd yn y cynhyrch. Mae'n gweld iddo yn cael y cyfleÈ, mae'n meddwl, yn gyweithio, ac mae'n meddwl i'relloff ac mae'n meddwl i'ch ei ddefnyddio, ac mae'r cyfleÈ yn ei gilydd ar yndyr â'i cyfleÈ ac mae'n meddwl i sicrhau bwysig. CRSc didn't pick it up, because it's 20 years in experience. If anyone overcharges extortionate fees, and I think Mr Zyrra Baillac, was kind of suggesting the example that she gave that illustrated that, then, I think that there are existing legal remedies to challenge, on the level of fees where they are grossly exorbitant in relation to the provision of services required. If services are worth, say a thousand pounds, you cannot charge a million pounds for it. of course, and there is, I believe, a remedy there. So I'm just not convinced, convener, that we're necessarily going to progress by means of legislation, but I do support Mr Torrance's recommendation that we see if there's anything further that the minister can recommend and the voluntary code of practice and see how that's getting on. Shall we write and take that as our first step and then reserve the possibility to pursue it? Because I think, I mean, Miss Boyack was suggesting, and I'm not sure I disagree that, depending on what this code of practice said, there might need to be a little bit more direction to try and make things happen, rather than to find we've embraced something which is then just widely ignored, which is the key thing. We agree? We are. Thank you very much. Next, and I think the last of our on-going petitions is petition number 2008, provide funding for a separate mental health A&E for children lodged by Christie Solman calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to create a separate A&E for children and young people presenting with mental health issues. Following the previous consideration of this petition, the committee put the points raised by the petitioners, the Scottish Government. The submission outlines a number of work streams, including work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service to improve unscheduled care pathways. The response notes that attendance at a children's hospital instead of general A&E may be advised where this is advisable and appropriate and available. In response to the petitioners' concerns about the efficacy of phone assessments, the submission states that a patient-centred approach is adopted when considering the suitability of digital technology and that this is included in the national guidance for clinicians. The minister's response recognises that the CAMHS target of all boards achieving a 90 per cent standard by March 2023 was not achieved and points to on-going work with health boards to develop CAMHS out of our service provision. The petitioners responded to the minister, raising questions about the impact of significant staff cuts on the planned work with Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service. She has asked how many psychiatric teams there are as her experience involved waiting for several hours as the team was not based in the hospital. The petitioner shares that many families have reached out to her to say that their child could not get help through the mental health hubs because they were under 12. She asked for clarity in what services are available for children under the age of 12. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Chowdry. To the Scottish Government to seek... Sorry, I've lost it here. So the minister may be for social care, mental wellbeing and sport. That's right here and to ask what was the age people losing the services if there is any. My question was how many people have attempted to accept support through the mental health hubs and how many were under 12 years of old? We might like to know just the number of psychiatric teams in Scotland and it would be useful to have that broken down by health board and whether the Scottish Government recognises that increased training will be required with partner agencies such as Police Scotland and the Scottish Ambulance Service just to ensure that we improve the unscheduled care pathways. If that is the case, what resources and funding will need to be put in place? Are we content with those suggestions? Anything else? Nope, that's fine. Thank you very much. We'll keep the petition open and we will investigate further and return to it when we have those responses from the minister. That brings us to agenda item 4, which is the consideration of new petitions. As always, to those who might be tuning into here at their petition being considered for the first time, can I say that we in advance of that first consideration go to the Scottish Parliament's independent research service spice and to the Scottish Government for an initial consideration? We do that because where we not to, those would be the first two things that we would recommend doing and that would just simply add delay to our consideration. Petition number 2060, which is to review existing legislation and legal remedies against trespassers, has been lodged by DATI Broad. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. The spice briefing outlines the circumstances in which the public have the right to roam. Noting that exceptions to that include domestic houses and gardens. The briefing also notes that many people incorrectly—I was quite surprised by the briefing, I have to say—believe that the law of trespass does not exist in Scotland. Police Scotland have highlighted difficulties, though when applying the law in practice, notably the police have no jurisdiction to trespass to land as it is a civil matter and they cannot insist on the removal of trespassers. Police Scotland's comments in trespass state that the best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which a briefed may then turn into a criminal matter. The Scottish Government's response to the petition also outlined information about the current law in trespassing, and in response to the petition's ask regarding responsibility for injuries on the land, the Scottish Government stated that the duty of care is the same regardless of whether or not an individual has permission to be on the occupier's land, but factors such as the foreseeability of unauthorised entry and any steps taken to prevent unauthorised entry into warn of dangers may be of relevance in determining whether or not reasonable care has been taken in the particular circumstances. The response also notes that the evidential burden to prove trespass would depend on whether the individual was pursuing a criminal or civil law case. For my own part, having read the briefing, I thought that it said little that you could actually risk doing, particularly in the current climate, where it seems to me that your interests are secondary to those of the people who want to trespass on your property. That was basically all read to me, although we pretend the reality is that that is how it will be if you seek to do anything. It is also very difficult because it does not define what force was, so if you were to escort somebody off, I imagine that force would now include even laying hands upon however gently that was done. I found the briefing quite dispiriting. I do not know to colleagues of any suggestions of what we might do. Mr Torrance? I wonder if a committee would consider in keeping the petition open and right to the Scottish Government to ask whether it intends to carry out work related to issues raised in the petition and whether it will undertake work to raise awareness about public rights to access, different types of land and the law of trespass in Scotland. I would like to ask the Scottish Government whether the current law of trespass in Scotland is worth the paper that is written on. I am not serious because I was not quite sure what your remedy was under it. We will keep that petition open. I can say to our petitioner that the briefing seems to recognise some of the issues that you have raised. Petition number 2062, to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. This has been lodged by Bill Alexander. It clearly has a topical flair to it, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. The SPICE briefing states that there is no one test used to diagnose prostate cancer. The most common tests include a prostate-specific antigen, a PSA, which is a blood test, a physical examination of the prostate and a biopsy. The briefing points out that PSA blood tests can sometimes miss cancer in some patients and can just as easily falsely diagnose others. A heightened PSA is not the same thing as prostate cancer. However, advancements in MRI technology and biopsy techniques could facilitate the development of a national screening programme. The Scottish Government response notes that the UK National Screening Committee considered whether to recommend population screening in November 2020 and frankly concluded that this could not happen based on the available evidence. It will review this recommendation however in the next 12 months. The response highlights that a large prostate screening study called TRANSFORM—I think that that is a large prostate screening study rather than a study of large prostate—as I am assuming it is that way round—which will look at potential innovative screening methods with hundreds of thousands of men due to be recruited for the study. I comment on all this as somebody who has had a heightened PSA, an MRI, AI and blood and biopsy myself for these very matters at hand. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Given the evidence before the committee, I wonder if the committee would consider and close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the evidence currently available, the UK National Screening Committee concluded that it would not recommend a prostate screening programme but, considering that it will review us in 12 months time, I wonder if a petitioner would consider, if he was not happy with the review, to bring the petition back. What does that mean? The UK National Screening Committee are going to... So we are writing to them to find out what they are doing, are we? No, I was considering and closing it because they are going to review their decision in 12 months time, aren't they? Well, I think that 12 months time was... When was that received? Do we know? Sorry? November. Yeah, okay. So, in fact, we've got to... We could potentially have to wait until November this year before we... Mr Ewing? I mean, I certainly concede, Mr Tonsi's argument, because the reply we've got is quite complete in the sense that, as I read the response from the Scottish Government, it says, well, there are no real ways in which a definitive test can be issued at the moment. That's the challenge. It's not that there's not a desire, perhaps, to have a test if a test worked, but a test doesn't work. But just my reading of it is that the UKNSC are due to review the recommendation in the next 12 months. That sounds to me as if the review is to start in 12 months and it might take quite a lot longer. I mean, I wonder if it would be any harm in the meantime in perhaps signifying our general concern and interest because it's such a widespread cancer by possibly writing, not closing it at this stage. It may be that we would close it after further response, but to write to the UK National Screening Committee to consider the findings of the transformed study, how frequently it's decision to not recommend population screening will be reviewed, how it decides the frequency with which to review recommendations, and just to sort of stress the urgency here, because there are so many men that will be affected by this in their lifetime, eight out of 10, I think I've read somewhere, which is an incredibly high portion. I'm discreeting tests available for so many conditions and diseases that have been one of the tremendous advances in society over the past 20 years that have saved lives in so many cases. So the lack of a valid method in prostrate does seem to be something that is a massive real urgency, so would you be content first? I will go with Mr Ewing's recommendations. Very grateful. Are we content to pursue it on that basis where we are? Thank you. That takes us to the end this morning of our public business and, therefore, I look forward to welcoming those who follow our proceedings back at our next meeting. Thank you.