 Felly, rydw i'n gwybod i chi i gondol ffyrdd pethwys gael y Cymru a'r eistedd pethwys Cymru i 2018. Mae unrhyw o'r anhygoel yn ystafell o'r anhygoel. Mae unrhyw o'r anhygoel yn 17.05 o gwlad oleig, penulties i'r investigatio a'r anhygoel a'r anhygoel yn Alex Millan. Mae clyw o'r cofyddio'r peitwys ac yr anhygoel yn gweithredu i fyf, The petition calls for a review of the penalties available for incidents of wildlife crime and the message by which wildlife crime is investigated. The petitioner considers that, by increasing the minimum punishment to three years in prison, the crime then is characterised as serious or categorised as serious, which in turn would allow investigating authorities to use co-work to video surveillance. That is a matter that has previously been considered by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Angus? Okay. Thanks, convener. Obviously, as a member of the clear committee, I've, over the last few years, been following this extremely closely and I've certainly got a lot of sympathy for the petition. I think that, given there doesn't seem to have been much movement, there hasn't been much apparent movement on the Scottish Government's side with regard to Professor Poustie's recommendation to increase penalties. The petition is quite timely, so I think that we need to know where the Scottish Government is with regard to its proposed consultation and the introduction of primary legislation, because if there's to be primary legislation, then time's running out in this session, so it would be good to get some clarity on that. Okay, so we're agreeing to write to the Scottish Government secrets used in the action called for petition, but I think specifically around your point about timescales as well, since a general, you know, the direction of it wouldn't be sufficient, we would want something more specific. Indeed. Rachel? Angus mentioned the clear committee and perhaps we should flag it up with the committee that we are looking at this in advance of the scrutiny of the Wildlife Crime in Scotland report. Yes, I think that the committee is due to look at the wildlife crime report in January, so the sooner they're made aware of this petition, the better. Okay, any other suggestions? If there are stakeholders here that we can seek the views of here, I'm not quite sure who that would be. Can we ask the clerks to have a look at who might be the best groups, and obviously there would be, maybe, views from those involved closely with us in the clear committee that might have suggestions on that, but I think that that's an important idea. I mean, we know from coverage yesterday in social media that there's been some commentary again on dark cruelty to animals and so on, so I think it's something, and protection of wildlife, this is a theme that has been in this committee in the past around mountain hears and other creatures, so I think it's something that's a lot of interest in. So I think that we're agreeing to write to the Scottish Government to take the views of other stakeholders, but particularly to flag up to the ECCLR committee that this is a petition that has been submitted to us. Is that agreed? Right. Okay. Thank you for that, and we can thank the petitioner again for a petition which is timely again. The next petition for consideration is petition 1706 on introducing a law to allow pets in rented and supported accommodation, and this is by Geraldine Mackenzie. The petition is calling for a law to be introduced, which allows all Scottish residents who live in rented and supported accommodation to let their pets live with them. Our briefing states that there is no legislation in Scotland that specifically bans pets from being kept in rented or supported accommodation. The briefing goes on to explain that it is the type of tenancy agreement that a tenant has that determines whether they can keep pets in their property. The petitioner argues that there are legal precedents that support legislation that bans no pet covenants, citing our journal article providing examples of legislation in other countries prohibiting the use of no pet covenants, and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I think that this is a difficult one because I completely get that pets help with social isolation, and then we have the fact that there is no legislation in Scotland that bans pets from being kept in rented or supported accommodation. However, to support the petitioner, perhaps we could write to the likes of Shelter Scotland and the Scottish Association of Landlords. Is there other rental sector organisations that the clerks could look at and housing associations? Just on that point, perhaps it might be in the interest of the petitioner to have been got in touch with more housing associations. I am just not clear on that point of our responsibility. It may be that we could contact the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations because they will have a view, I expect, and perhaps are giving advice to their own members. I think that this is a general issue for older people that a pet can be a great companion. We know that there is an issue about people who will not accept accommodation because they are not able to take their pet with them, and some people are ending up in the streets because their companion cannot be accommodated with them. That is something that strikes me as an issue that has to be dealt with. We also know, on the other hand, that neglected pets and properties can cause problems for other residents and tenants. I am interested in how housing associations allow that and get that balance right. How easy it is to police tenants who are not looking after their pets properly? How would that side of it be protected? Are there any other views? The only other one would be to ask Peras to seek the views of the Scottish Government and to see where they sit with the petition. There was an interest in it. In the recent past, Claudia Beamish-Ramon's party has raised an issue about inclusion. I am not sure at that point where the Scottish Government responded, but I am sure that it is something that it must be aware of. Representations have already been made by groups such as Shelter Scotland, so it would be interesting to know. A is an issue and B is a required legislation. Those are two different things. He can recognise the social good, but perhaps it is not a required legislation to do it. That might be worthwhile establishing, David. It might not be worth seeking the thoughts of COSLA, because local authorities are ones who have to deal with us all the time, whether it is for or against. We might have to get nervous. Is that agreed then? We have contacted the Scottish Government, COSLA, Shelter Scotland, the Scottish Association of Landlords and the SFHA. That would give us an opportunity to reflect, not just on whether what is asked for in the petition about the idea of people having pets is a good thing, but do you need to legislate for it and what kind of safeguards and protections you need to put in place as well? In that case, I thank the petitioner again. For the petition, we will seek those responses, and we will come back to this petition at a later stage. Of course, the petition at that point will have a further opportunity to respond to the submissions that are made. Can we now suspend briefly to allow witnesses for the next petition to join the table? Call of meeting back to order. We move on to the next item on our agenda, which is consideration of continued petitions. The next petition of consideration is petition 1678 on national strategic framework for countryside range of services in Scotland by Ranger Bob Reid on behalf of the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association. We will take evidence in this petition from Scottish Natural Heritage. I welcome to the meeting Eileen Stewart, head of policy and advice, Alan McPherson, people and places unit manager. I welcome you, thank you for your attendance today. You have an opportunity to provide a brief opening statement of up to no more than five minutes, after which we will move to questions from the committee. Thank you, convener. I would like to make an opening statement if that is okay. What I was proposing to do is to provide a brief overview of Scottish Natural Heritage's role in relation to Rangers and give you some thoughts on the petition and actions that we might take forward to address the concerns raised in the petition. Firstly, I would like to say that SNH is very supportive of Scotland's Rangers. Rangers provide a hugely valuable role in connecting people with nature. Their blend of local knowledge and skills in engaging people means that they are ideally placed to encourage the public to enjoy the outdoors and care about the environment. As well as those traditional roles, they increasingly contribute to a wide range of Scottish Government's outcomes, particularly in supporting health and wellbeing of our communities and encouraging community engagement and social inclusion. We very much welcome the Scraw petition and the spotlight it shined on the role of Rangers. We think that it has highlighted the need for Rangers collectively on ensuring the full value of Ranger services is recognised and support from all parties is maintained in the long term. We agree with the analysis and the Scraw petition that these are challenging financial times and what's needed now is renewed recognition by all parties of the value of what Rangers deliver for the people of Scotland and also visitors to Scotland. I think that we need to find creative solutions to the problems of reduced resources so that we can collectively make a fresh commitment to deliver the Ranger framework. We will continue to work with Scraw and other partners to take forward a series of action to engender this renewed commitment to support Rangers and provide a sustainable future for what we think is highly regarded services across Scotland. We have had recent meetings with Scraw representatives and I can explain some of the discussions we've had under developing a plan of work for the coming year to encourage this wider engagement in support for Ranger services. The petition expresses concern about the declining number of Ranger posts and the reduced recognition of the brand Scottish Rangers. As with other public bodies we work within the budgets that are allocated to us. We are committed to ensuring that our funding for community and private Ranger services is tailored to support our corporate plan which has a particular emphasis on connecting people with nature and also supporting other Government outcomes. I'd also like to emphasise that our continued support is built into our business plan and we've made some notable new commitments this year. Just to give you a flavour of these as part of the year of young people we're developing a junior Ranger scheme in Scotland's urban areas commencing with a pilot scheme in Aberdeen. This will be working with local authorities and partners to get young people involved in nature on their doorstep, learning about the environment and most importantly having fun outdoors. As part of the Aberdeen junior Ranger services we're trialling kit libraries because we understand that there are barriers to young people enjoying the outdoors particularly if they don't have specialist equipment like boots and outdoor waterproofs. We're also in discussion with SCRA about updating the junior Ranger toolkit and looking at ways to support additional resources to relaunch the SCRA junior Ranger programme. We'll be following up with SCRA in the near future how we work together on these commitments and we're hoping to take this forward at a Ranger development partnership meeting which we're aiming to host on an SNH nature reserve in January. So to conclude we understand the concerns of SCRA in relation to the loss of local authority Ranger services posts and the perception that Ranger services do not always receive the recognition they deserve. We'll continue to work with partners to highlight the important role Rangers play in improving health and wellbeing as well as enjoyment of the natural environment. We think the vision, purpose and aims set out in the 2008 framework are still relevant but we will be happy to talk about refreshing this in the new year. Finally, I just wanted to say that we would like to work with SCRA on other partners to explore new funding avenues and creative ways to highlight the valuable work that Rangers do. We very much welcome the committee's reflections on how we can do more in this field and work together with other partners to raise the profile of Ranger services and encourage broader support for them in the future. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Can I maybe begin by asking you I hear what you say about the value of SCRA and the value of the Ranger service. Do you respond to the questions put by the petitioner and his submission dated 23 September, particularly with regard to the withdrawal of grant aid support? The petitioner appears to suggest that it indicates the SNH. That is why what you said does not believe the service offered value for money. I also hear what you say about constrained budgets but you still make choices within your constrained budget so I wonder whether you will be able to reflect more on the value of the service rather than what you said just now. Thank you. It's a very good point and it's obviously something we think through carefully. We have to make choices across all of the work that we do but I think it's also worth noting that Ranger services have never remained fixed. Our funding has always supported where Ranger services are developing or where there are particular challenges and we think they need support but in some cases we've developed and found other sources of funding or found other sustainable ways of maintaining their service so there's always been a dynamic suite of Ranger services, if you like. What we've tried to do as our budgets have been restricted is make sure that we focus on Ranger services where the opportunities for alternative funding are very limited, particularly in remote and rural areas on places like Fula and the West Nile where there are limited opportunities to gain commercial support or visitor income receipts but we recognise that we have to put our money where we get the most value for money and we've also focused very much on supporting Ranger services where they're working with disadvantaged communities social inclusion so we reach out to communities and individuals who might otherwise not have that access to the countryside so it isn't a reflection at all of the support or recognition of Rangers it's just trying to target our money at where it will have most impact So you don't think there's a role for having a recognisable Scottish-wide Ranger service which is what the petitioner wants but effectively funding individual projects rather than an approach to the countryside We've always done both so we've always supported a small number of Ranger services prior to 2009 We contributed to Ranger services across local authorities but obviously with the change in the way the financial support for local authority Ranger services was made through the government settlements we no longer support local authority Ranger services and they have that responsibility and have taken forward that in a range of diverse ways so our funding since that time has focused on community services and where we're supporting private landowners to provide Ranger services so we've never supported the whole suite of Ranger services we've always supported those where we feel there are particular needs if you like I think the other important thing to say is that we've never been I suppose the sole body responsible for Ranger services what we've tried to do is provide the framework and the support so that the brand is a recognisable Ranger service provided by a range of different employers but people can access the countryside and know that they will get a welcome and support there Do you have any role then in monitoring what local authorities have done? If you're saying funding's gone to them they're not necessarily providing that service so you can see the service across all of Scotland but you have a responsibility to have a Scotland-wide service so are you monitoring with local authorities? Are you reporting on what local authorities are doing and do you have a role in advising government that effectively this isn't working? We do have a role in monitoring services and I'll ask my colleague to say a bit more about that we've produced a couple of reports they're available on our website where we've essentially gone out to all the local authorities to check what they're doing ask for support from quite useful information out there so we did that twice we sought information from all local authorities about the range of services the numbers, the types of activities they did to try and get that kind of overview but also part of what we were trying to do is get them to share good practice and to find out some of the new methods and things that were working in different areas because I think inevitably Ranger services there isn't going to be a one-size-fits-all and we recognise local authorities now deliver some of the Ranger service functions in a sort of slightly different way so we have biodiversity officers and access officers so local authorities have chosen to take forth the work of Rangers in some different models I'll pass on to Alan who might say a bit more about that monitoring and reporting if that's okay I'll just add that back in 2008 it was recognised that we needed to do more to get broader recognition of the value of Rangers particularly with even declining budgets at that time and that's where we devised an annual report back from all Ranger services relatively easy to do for the ones that we were directly funding but also asked all the other Ranger services across Scotland to contribute one a year with some basic quantitative information about what they were actually delivering and some examples of where they were being innovative in engaging with new audiences working with different partners that type of thing so that we could actually publish that information and say that that could be used then to build the case, build awareness amongst say elected members amongst senior decision makers and actually build support Rangers are involved in so much work I think it's like danger that they're not noticed and this was how to say they actually are important and they are involved in doing a lot of things and we didn't get a huge uptake from a number of local authority Ranger services so we published a couple of reports back in 2011 and 12 and again it has some sort of good case examples there but again with limited information we haven't done it since then and again that's how we'll be asking for information on things like Ranger numbers as well as what they do Proportion responded 50% probably less actually and again it was different in the years we did it so I think Have you got any statutory role in informing government because it's a bit of a concern if you're monitoring something you get less than 50% response does the Scottish Government even know what the state of the Ranger service is There isn't a statutory requirement to report no this was something that we committed to in the Ranger framework and something that all parties agreed was a good idea but there's no requirement on local authorities to respond or to provide that information to us so we have limited teeth if you like in requesting them to provide information we've done a lot of work to encourage the Ranger services that we do have contact with and also through SCRA to try and get their support to get that information but I think as the responses to your petition some local authorities have very well established Ranger services and support them with good networks and good infrastructures but in other local authorities it's a rather mixed picture Okay thanks Okay thanks and good morning The information that you have has clearly increased since your submission that we received on the 27th of February but if I could ask you to expand on monitoring of Ranger services and Ranger numbers a bit more in your submission of the 27th of February you confirmed it that you don't monitor Ranger numbers but you're aware of anecdotal evidence that numbers particularly in local authorities are dropping and you stated that the funding of Ranger posts is a matter for each local authority in the context of other funding priorities and you've said earlier that you're monitoring Ranger services but has SNH given any consideration to introducing a system to monitor Ranger numbers and if I could also ask you if you know how many private and community based Ranger services previously funded by SNH have succeeded in finding sustainable alternative resources of funding Ask Alan if that's okay to respond to that The mechanism we had for monitoring Rangers numbers was through this annual submissions, reporting and return which as we discussed previously we got rather limited response to so we have the numbers for the ones we directly support I've only some information on the other ones as well In terms of services that we no longer support if we look back of the last three years there's probably only two services that we previously supported that are no longer operating and it's not simply because of SNH funding there's a whole host of reasons as to why a service decides to do something differently just different local different priorities that sort of thing and again I'm not quite sure they may not be operating there's often over the years there's been a constant turnover in services going off stream as well so it's a difficult to answer that one particularly but we do know that within the services we do support again because our funding only contributes to proportion of their costs they all need to look for other sources of funding and have been looking for new sources over the last few years and some of the novel ones for example the article up in the Northern Isles has been trying to get contributions from some of the cruise ships and some of the ferry operators are bringing quite a lot of customers to the range of service and I think that's very very welcome as well Has that happened? Have the cruise ship companies contributed? Sorry? Has that happened? It has happened, yes, as well a sort of proportion per head of the visitors they're bringing Okay, right, thanks The committee received a number of responses after its first consideration of the petition for example, the National Trust for Scotland stated that it believed the strategy should be supported and it suggests that rangers functions should be supported with added value through co-ordination and sharing ideas so could you give us some more examples of how that is happening on the ground and perhaps expand a bit more on whether the biodiversity officers that you mentioned and local authorities are actually filling the gap or if that's not the case? Yes, I mean as we've mentioned, there are a kind of a range of different models that have developed and some of the submissions have reflected that in Highland Council now the range of services is supported through an independent organisation Highlife Scotland so Highland sorry in Aberdeenshire Council they still have a kind of traditional model of ranger services and a supporting officer and a framework and so on we work with SCRAR through the ranger development partnership and that has been the forum where we've worked with a range of bodies to try and find out what support do ranger services need in terms of professional development in terms of sharing ideas looking at ways of sharing experience of generating income through charging and through the range of things and there have also been forum days and days where we've got all the ranges together to share ideas and work together so there's a range of formal and informal mechanisms for that sharing of expertise and we do see value in that I mean I think we many of us have started our careers as rangers and we do see that there's a value in that career path and that career development function provided but I think it's it's perhaps quite difficult now as these new models are emerging and ranger services are being deployed in different ways and doing a slightly more diverse roles in different places and one of the things which has been new and I think is quite as encouraging is we are also supporting some of the project work that rangers do in Dundee City for instance we're supporting a health partnership where we're not providing funding to services but we're providing support for the range of work they're doing to support health and inclusion and encourage people to get outdoors and enjoy the natural environment and get the health benefits from that so I think increasingly that may be the model that local authorities will go down to recognise that ranger services although they still are very important in getting people outdoors and enjoying nature they're also important in getting people outdoors so they get the full benefits with the health improvement the social inclusion and some of these other wider functions they support and I think that's where in the future trying to get that understanding that they deliver more it's not just that very sort of narrow environmental focus and potentially getting that kind of funding model slightly different because we recognise that they are contributing in a preventative spend way to health outcomes and a range of other things that local authorities are investing in so that's maybe a model in a way that we think that the services will grow in future and that's clearly my interest of SNH's policy at the moment thank you Brian Whittle good morning, I think probably it's a good time to declare that I have a family member who happens to be a ranger although that happens to be down in England so I'm very well aware of the work that they do the valuable work that they do in the community and getting the community to be included and the opportunity to get into the great wild outdoors and some missions we received appear to indicate that many local authorities don't have that sort of three to five year strategy probably in place that would probably help the case if you've any thoughts or views on that it's tricky I think it's something that there is good practice out there and I mentioned Aberdeen City Council and they do have that strategy forward plan and annual reporting so there's definitely examples of good practice and models that other local authorities could use but I think it depends to a certain extent on the focus and the priority in different local authorities we do as much as we can to ensure that that good practice is shared and there are opportunities for other local authorities to use those models but I guess local authorities do things in ways that they think is suitable for their areas and some see their ranger services as being part and parcel of a wider group of staff that deliver these more specialist functions and so they wouldn't necessarily see them needing a stand-alone ranger strategy I think it's quite hard to dictate a one-size-fits-all and that's where we saw the framework being quite important because it's established some broad principles and key things that we thought rangers should do and effectively set that scene and framework across a piece but then could be adapted and tailored to local circumstances and we still think that's an appropriate model and important to have that sort of backstop in that scene setting I'm just following on from some of the questions that the Ciberian started along with it I think that from what I gather here what would concern me is how that map of Scotland looks like in terms of gathering of that information of what's happening within all local authorities I mean who's gathering that information how's that being reported on and how is that then brought to that knowledge brought to perhaps the Scottish Government so we have that understanding of where the gaps are in the offer We touched on that earlier and we have had on a couple occasions tried to gather that information and pulled together as much as we could obviously we have comprehensive information on ranger services we support but partial information on what local authorities have been doing and that information has been published and shared with the Scottish Government so it's been very open and transparent but there isn't a statutory reporting mechanism it has been something that's been done on a voluntary basis we've invited and encouraged responses but that has been partially successful I would say and we would like to continue that but I think it's hard for us to be sure if we'll get great attraction and anything the committee could do I mean we see COSLA and potentially having a role in this but to date they haven't been able to enable that greater support I don't know if there's anything you want to add Alan I mean again over the years we have continued to push the advantages of trying to provide us with information and what we can do with it we found it quite frustrating in some ways that we haven't been provided with the information and had the support of partners to do that because we can see the advantages of doing it so again if there's anything the committee can help to encourage a stronger response then that would be helpful but again given that I think you got response from 14 out of 32 local authorities to your own request for information that's probably indicative of what the sort of same situation we find as well You would report then the lack of information then that's part of any report and you would report that the local authorities who did not respond We did, we made it quite clear the number that responded and the fact that there was a relatively low response from local authorities so that's been a pattern and we've been quite open about that Rachel Hamilton A number of written submissions have commented on concerns about the additional value that rangers provide and bearing in mind that we're already discussing that a few local authorities no longer offer the service of the rangers or they offer a diminished service do you believe that the role that the rangers play in supporting education, exercise raising awareness of biodiversity and the general enjoyment of the countryside is being compromised whether it's being compromised is I suppose a matter of opinion but I think there's potential mist if you like we see ranger services having absolutely crucial part to play in that whole picture of encouraging people outdoors and I think in the current circumstances we're more and more realising how important that connection with nature and that experience of learning in an outdoor environment spending time outdoors is so important for people's health but also in our children's learning and development there have been some very interesting and novel approaches being used I think you might have seen in the press in Shetland the GPs are now prescribing time outdoors and walks nature walks as part of their mental health response so at the moment there's lots of recognition but I think at the moment there's not a joining up of support and funding if you like to provide the response and the sort of preventative spend potential that could be delivered through rangers particularly but other types of outdoor provision but rangers are ideally placed because they have that unique experience of skills working with people the education potential they have is huge and that's one of the key roles they play so there's certainly a big opportunity for local authorities to use them in a more holistic way I would say There seems to be a disjointed approach and Alex Macpherson said that if the committee can help at all with the lack of information that the local authorities have been giving however is it not something that SNH should be working towards is to actually prioritising the value of the rangers you've talked highly about the value of rangers there seems to be some sort of disjointed approach here I'm not sure if it's a disjointed approach there's a varied approach certainly and a diverse approach we have seen our role in many ways providing the background information the support we certainly have a role in the work that rangers do and the benefits that rangers can provide and we've continued to do that and through the work we're doing with rolling out of the young rangers schemes and the support for rangers in certain areas that is a key part of our role to raise awareness and support the kind of good messages they do but I think it's clear we can't do it all ourselves and we do rely on a number of other partners also there are other government agencies involved the national parks have a core role here Loch Lomond and Trossachs and the Cairngorm national parks have different models again but the local authorities are the largest the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park is now the largest single provider of ranger services they have a very big team of rangers and they also have a very large number of volunteers working with tactical work and encouraging people outdoors so it's not something SNH can do alone I think we can provide the materials we can provide some of the messages and the awareness raising but the delivery then has to be rolled out by these range of different groups and individuals To move back to a submission that SNH gave back in February there was it states that your previous chairman Ian Ross met with SCR on 3 August 2016 to discuss various topics I just wondered if your current chairman, the meeting that was promised with the current chairman had happened and what were the outcomes SCR met our chief executive in March not long after that discussion there hasn't been a meeting with the chair to date but there was a very constructive meeting with SCR and our chief executive in March and that was followed up by a meeting a few months later from our staff who were taking forward the work so at that meeting there were a range of ideas and thoughts which we are developing there was an agreement to have a meeting of the ranger development partnership in January so we're framing that up and there was a range of discussion around some of the work that we touched on about the junior ranger scheme also looking at ways that we can jointly promote the work that rangers do so there's an on-going dialogue and that has continued when SCR were here originally in January they talked about an on-going working relationship with our staff and are talking about a range of these things so in the submission that Mike Cantley the chair was you were planning to have a meeting with SCR, why didn't that happen I think it was felt it would be more useful and I'm not sure precisely but I think it was felt more useful the chief executive was more informed about the work that we were doing and would be in a better place to be a catalyst and ensure that there was a follow-up so I don't think we felt it was necessary it was an either or It was part of your written submission and that's what you stated so I don't know why there was a U-turn on that but anyway thank you Angus? Can I just pick up on that would it not be helpful to inform Mike Cantley to have a meeting with SCR as soon as possible I'm sure we can organise that yes I suppose that the core of this is what is the role of SNH when you've been quite clear about all the other organisations who could be doing things you've said the ranger service is a good thing you've even talked about benefits in terms of health and wellbeing and social inclusion but you used a phrase maybe that could be a model if it's a good model who's going to drive it if it's not going to be SNH I think it's something that we'll follow up with the ranger development partnership in January I think it's important that anything we do has the support of SCR and has the support of other key players like COSLA because we can set the scene we can come up with possible different funding models we can come up with ways that we think the ranger service can expand and evolve but it will need to be delivered by others Can I ask why it needs to be delivered by others why could it not be SNH or could it be another Government body can there not be a Scottish-wide organisation with funding that values the service and then delivers it because part of the problem is the sense from the petitioner that SNH has stepped away from this it's not funding it it's saying it's a good thing but it's not either reporting that there's a problem it's not driving it you've said a lot of very important things I think about the service but I've not taken ownership of the service and if not you then who because what looks at the moment is happening is good things are happening in different places but it's at the mercy of events there's nothing strategic about it I think that the point where things took a different direction was in relation to decisions about the funding model because initially we've touched on SNH supported and contributed to the funding of pretty much all the range of services across Scotland including all the local authority services so at that point all of the range of services had an agreed programme of work that was part of the funding package and that was monitored and reported on or effectively that the funding wouldn't be committed but that worked we felt that was effective but the decision was made by Government that it was more appropriate to be funded to be routed through the settlements that local authorities had so it was no longer ring-fenced for range of services it was to be defined by local authorities the best ways to support their range of services along with all of the other functions that they deliver so at that point our ability to influence and direct the work of rangers across Scotland obviously diminished so from then on what we have been able to do is support and fund as far as possible a range of private and particularly community led services and we'll continue to do that but your views as a poorer service now because of that decision well I think you'd have to take different views from different organisations is that what was there when you funded it and people you monitored it and people were accountable to you was a better service than we have now and need local authorities because it's not ring-fenced are not necessary providing the equivalent service that was before it's certainly different it's harder for us to gather the information on what's happening and it's harder for us to effectively ensure that there's a common provision and a consistent provision across all the local authorities but one of the things that possibly it has enabled is local authorities to provide different ways of providing that activity and combining it you're absolutely right from your perspective you've now got a service that you have no longer got a sense fully of it being a Scottish-wide service that you've got any control over or any way of actually guiding can I ask you just for information who's actually involved in the range of development partnership not sure if I have the list in front of me it's the membership has sort of evolved over time but it's some of the most significant ranger employers scrawl obviously chair the partnership but it has the two national parks do you provide us with a list that we probably use? we can do that yes and some of the councils are involved in there as well and COSLA, again COSLA have actually I don't think I've ever attended the meetings which is a bit disappointing my last question is have you flagged up to the Scottish Government they now have a sub-optimal service in comparison with what you delivered before we've updated them on the current provision and had discussions with them about how ranger services are evolving so yes not in a formal way but we are in discussion with them about ranger services on a specifically said see that decision you made about the rear funding ranger services was not really a good idea we probably haven't said it in quite those terms now I have got the list here of the ranger development partnership members if you want them convener they're very short the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association SNH National Trust for Scotland Cairngorms National Park Authority Loch Lomond and the Trossocks National Park Authority Historic Environment Scotland local authority ranger service representative and a regional park ranger service representative it may be worthwhile exploring whether there are minutes of their meetings and whether they discuss concerns about the quality of the service now are there any final questions from anyone nope thank you very much for that I think that has been very useful in illuminating some of the issues around the petition itself I wonder if members have a view on how best we take this forward Brian I think that what's obvious lack of an overall picture of what's actually happening within the service across Scotland I think there seems to be a lack of responsibility of who's actually taking the responsibility and who's driving this I think the fact that local authorities are not responding to this probably tells a story in itself I think for me first and foremost there are two things we need to look at we need to look at what the overall picture is within Scotland who's responsible for delivering the service I think that everybody would agree it's the kind of thing that access to the outdoors is something that we would want all of our children let alone adults to have so I would like to know why they're not responding to this I'd like to write to the Scottish Government to understand who is responsible for reporting on the service I mean I wonder we should get an update I think it's the meeting of the ranger development partnership in January, we should be asked for an update after that I actually think it would be interesting to get the cabinet secretary in to talk about this because if the agencies involved are having issues but nobody has ownership of it there's a decision at government level which may be having consequences that nobody would want and I think SNH have made clear that they value the service maybe we should be looking at to what extent the Scottish Government is aware and what's their response to these concerns Rachel? Certainly think that it would be useful either to write or take evidence from the ranger development partnership members about what actually of this is because there's a good representation there within that group and I agree with you about COSLA but then it's unusual because it says that the SNH submission was actually the statement was prepared with close involvement and number of key stakeholders including COSLA and SCRAS so I don't know where we are on this Can we maybe take the opportunity to reflect further on how we take this forward but I think there's been a number of suggestions that we want to let it go it looks as if there are consequences to financial decisions which are now being played out in our communities which certainly from the evidence we've heard this morning people wouldn't want and I think anybody else would want but it's a sense of whose responsibility is to then kind of change direction I think so I think there's quite a lot there for the clerks to look on and we can reflect on further in terms of who we actually have in front of us in terms of witnesses at a future meeting and I thank our witnesses today very much I think that has been a very useful session and I appreciate the time you've given us and I'll suspend the meeting briefly to allow you to leave the table OK, if I can call the meeting back to order what I would propose to do is a slight change in the order of the agenda I want to go on now to petition 1651 on prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal I want to welcome Jackie Baillie MSP who has an interest in this petition and it will allow her to participate and then we can go back to the two items that we have moved from but we will deal with them subsequent to this one so this petition for consideration is petition 1651 on prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal by Marion Brown on behalf of Recovery and Renewal Members may wish to note that a number of new written submissions on this petition have recently been received and we were brought to her attention by the clerks to ensure they comply with the Parliament's policy on submitting written evidence Our last consideration of this petition we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what engagement it has had with Public Health England on its review of the evidence for dependence on and withdrawal from prescribed medicines The Government explained that it wrote to Public Health England to ask them to consider extending the review to Scotland but that its response stated that while it was happy to share the outcomes it had no plans to extend the scope to include Scotland The Government's response also states that it is currently exploring the possibility of taking forward a Scottish focus review which would run in parallel to the Public Health England review The committee will also recall that it agreed to write to the British Medical Association to ask what its current position was in relation to the roll-out of a national 24-hour helpline recognising that it had been over two years since it had made this policy call The response indicates that the BMA continues to support this call but the establishment of a helpline quote should be clearly understood as a supplement to on-going care from prescribers, not a replacement The committee also wrote to the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association Scottish GP Committee to establish to what extent GPs in Scotland recognise the issues raised in the petition and the guidance and training available to support people safely to withdraw from drugs such as benzodiazepines and antidepressants The responses have been received and are included in our meeting papers In our most recent submission the petitioners draw our attention to the UK Parliament's all-party parliamentary group for prescribed drug dependence which has published a report based on an analysis of personal accounts of prescribed drug dependence and withdrawal submitted to petitions in Scotland and Wales The petitioner wishes to draw particular attention to the patient journey maps featured in his report For ease of reference, we have been printed out to review the meeting today and we have them on our desks I think that it will be worth my commenting on the very substantial number of submissions from individuals I have read them all in detail and found them very interesting and thought-provoking and we would want to thank people who have taken the time to respond It should also be noted that within those submissions there are also responses from GPs and people from the medical profession as well as people who have identified concerns with their own experience of prescribed drug dependence I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action on what clearly is an issue that has generated a degree of interest more broadly than ourselves I wonder whether it will be worth asking Jackie who I think one of the petitioners is a constituent you may want to help and form our thinking in your contribution Thank you very much, convener and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of this petition You are of course quite right, Marion Brown who brought this petition to Parliament is my constituent and I'm working with another who's experienced very severe withdrawal from anti-depressant medication who's been involved in the petition as well I wonder whether I could make just a couple of brief observations because I think it is important that whatever we do whether it's the committee or the government that we take an evidence-based approach Now it was the case that the target on anti-depressant prescribing was moved away from I think in 2010 and since then numbers of anti-depressant medication have gone up the prescribing bill consequently has gone up and despite those ever increasing numbers we've not looked at the other end of the pipeline if you like where we're not considering the impact on people who are coming off and are having severe withdrawal symptoms Now there is evidence that suggests that the guidance that GPs are using is out of date that some GPs aren't aware of the range of symptoms of withdrawal and therefore don't acknowledge it and indeed many GPs as you refer to yourself convener who are aware of the problems this is causing and want to do something about it I can say having explored this for years with my constituent that there are no specialist services out there certainly not in Greater Glasgow and Clyde which happens to be Scotland's largest health board we have been on a journey where there is little acknowledgement of the scale of her individual problems never mind the scale of the problem overall Like you I have considered some of the evidence presented to the committee by hundreds of people with experience of antidepressants they can't all be wrong in what they're describing and therefore I would ask the committee to continue their very positive engagement with this petition and implore you not to wait for Public Health England to do the review but actually to urge the Government to do the review in Scotland we shouldn't be tied to delays that maybe happen elsewhere health is devolved, we should be seizing the initiative here and if I could be very cheeky and test the convener's patience just a little I always think it's great when the petitions committee bid for debates in Parliament and perhaps this is a candidate that could be considered Your standard that's not cheeky at all I wonder if members have any thank you for that Jackie and I wonder if members have comments on how we take this petition forward Brian? I think that all the committee would be very sympathetic to this particular petition I think that it strikes me that it sits within a wider issue around described antidepressants drugs a lot of the evidence is quite anecdotal as we are but that worries me in itself and I think that as Jackie Bailey has alluded to I would really like to push the Scottish Government to have its own review of this as we know Scotland's relationship with this it's entirely devolved and it's different so I would definitely want to try and capture its own and get some really cold-hearted evidence and a focus on what is undoubtedly a big issue I think that the salient point today is the fact that the Scottish Government has stated that it's exploring the possibility of taking forward a Scottish focus review which would run in parallel with the one in England I mean we obviously note the attempt to link in with the permanent health England review and their refusal to to allow that which in a way is unfortunate but I think we do of course need to have a Scottish specific review I'd also I'm interested in the information from the BMA I'd be keen to pursue with the Scottish Government the BMA's continued call for a 24-hour helpline for prescribed drug dependencies it's well over two years since the BMA said in a letter that it was sent to the Scottish Government that they wanted that and while the BMA recognises that the Scottish Government's view that resources cannot be made available for a dedicated helpline I don't think we should give up on that and I certainly admire the BMA's tenacity on this it certainly seems to be part of the solution and would certainly help a number of the people who we've heard from in submissions I mean I think the point about the helpline made by the BMA that wasn't a substitute for the role of the prescribers not to have had to been said but that was part of the rebuttal by the Scottish Government and I think the idea that GPs were suggesting this would substitute for patient care as nonsense but that kind of expertise my sense of which some of which is happening informally through forums on social media in any event it would be better if that were something that people could have some confidence in going to us there are support groups which are important getting the appropriate advice does still feel to me that there's a strong argument for it Richard? I think Jackie Baillie has opened up another point about the different end of the spectrum of the increased prescribing and I think that as well as the impact of the overall impact on the patients themselves looking at the prescribing element as well is really important and I hope that that would be part of the Scottish Government review and I agree that we should run that in parallel with the PHE Okay, I mean certainly when I hear what Brian says about anecdote but I think that's a point when anecdote and testimony does become evidence where there's a pattern and if there's a pattern it may not be the causal link but we have to look and see from the evidence is the lack of trust in the degree of suspicion so one of the questions we might want to ask the Scottish Government if it were doing a review how are they going to give people confidence that it's independent because that's kind of a recurring theme of will they would say that they've got invested interest not that I'm accepting that view but that's certainly something the degree of lack of confidence and trust of people's experience in any review so are we agreeing that we return to the Scottish Government specifically on the question of the helpline reflecting the degree of interest in the petition itself and the way in which people have responded and asking for more detail and urging them that there should be a Scottish focus review but that this issue about the independence of that review would be important Brian? Just as I thought, as I said your issue perhaps than just what the petitioners bring and I wonder whether or not in terms of the increasing prescription of those drugs would it be the intention for us to recommend we look at the reasons behind that pertaining to the potential other or lack of other treatments available? Well this committee knows doesn't it that the issue around prescription at least it's something we've explored with the Minister for Mental Health or the previous Minister for Mental Health potentially that GPs are prescribing because they simply don't have the time to actually spend with somebody and in fact there is stuff in the evidence isn't there about the frustration around the 10 minute appointments how can you possibly have a proper conversation with somebody in your surgery when you've only got 10 minutes and the fear would be that that very much longer around supporting somebody then becomes a jump to prescription I don't think I'm not saying that's what's happened but I think that we would hope that any review would look at that Okay So I think we are agreeing again that we want to take this forward we want to talk about the helpline with the Scottish Government we want to press someone on the issue of Scottish focus review timescale who wouldn't be involved the issues that would be involved in that and this issue around independence I think we recognise that even just reflecting on the evidence we've been given this is an issue for it's generated a degree of interest which the Scottish Government itself must be aware of and we would also be alive to the issue I think that Jackie Bell has raised that this may be something we want to explore through debate in Parliament when we have a bit more to say on it so if that's agreed we would again want to thank petitioners for all the information providers including this infograph which I think is very useful and can I thank Jackie Bell for her attendance Thank you If we can now move back to the agenda we want to deal go back to the next continued petition for consideration which is petition 1533 on the abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people by Geoff Adamson on behalf of Scotland against the care tax Members will recall at our last consideration of the petition we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on its assessment of Scotland against the care tax proposals and how to extend free personal care to people aged 65 and under The Scottish Government submission explains that a finance subgroup has been set up to consider this in more detail the financial aspects of this policy and that the petitioner presented Scotland against the care tax proposals to the finance subgroup in July The petitioner however indicates in his written submission received last month that despite delivering this presentation he has quoted none the wiser on how the Scottish Government stands on the implementation of the free personal care policy The petitioner also goes on to express serious concerns about how the extension of free personal care will be delivered as outlined in our papers I should declare something of her interest as an area that I have explored around the potential for a private member's bill which in itself is something of a challenge We know there was also a demonstration on Tuesday where people came to the Parliament to raise their concerns about the current circumstance of people being supported in their communities very struck by the importance of the support that people receive in order for them to have equal opportunity in terms of education and work so it's not an add-on to me it's like a human rights issues about people's capacity to engage with society I think personally I was a bit troubled that while the finance subcommittee did take a presentation that the group who gave the presentation don't have any sense of what the implications are what there has been a response to that I also think that there is a question about the way in which this petition was taken alongside the Frank's law petition and I'm wondering whether there's maybe a sense of which because the two were taken together and happily some of that was resolved that maybe this aspect of which feels much more complex to me there's not been given the attention it merits but I'd be interested in the views of other committee members Brian I do think that there's an issue around the clarification I'm kind of with the petition on this one I'm not quite sure where the Government sits with this I think it may be helpful to get the cabinet secretary here perhaps she could shed light on the direction of travel that the Government are wanting to take that might be helpful that would be useful because we know that the previous cabinet secretary did make progress and we should acknowledge that around Frank's law but this other very substantial issue would be useful to know what the thinking is Angus I agree it would be helpful to get the cabinet secretary in a number of the issues Rachel I was just going to say that I wanted to make one point that I found some of the evidence that said that local authorities had reduced the services to a critical need was quite disturbing but I also wanted to ask convener whether when the Scottish Government published their implementation advice shortly I mean will we bring in the cabinet secretary following that or when is that advice likely to be published I think what would be we want the cabinet secretary to come in at the point that is most productive so if her office indicates that the merits of having her in front of the committee once that bit of work is done that to me makes sense and we want it to be within a reasonable time scale to have her in when she will say well it will all be revealed in some report at a later stage so I think we can negotiate that with her department anyone else no in that case can we agree that we are going to invite the cabinet secretary for health and sport to provide evidence to the committee on the issues raised by the petitioner at a future meeting and of course if the petitioner wants to provide a further submission ahead of that session that would obviously be welcome and indeed there is nothing to stop others making such a submission as well and I want to thank the petitioner again for keeping the committee informed on these issues if we can now move to an expedition for consideration which is petition 1545 a residential care provision for the severely learning disabled by Anne Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust our last consideration of this petition in June we noted the work that the Scottish Government had commissioned to address the data visibility of people with learning disabilities in Scotland which includes projects by the Scottish Learning Disabilities Observatory the petitioner however has raised concerns that this work does not explore the links between people with profound learning disabilities and epilepsy despite 60% of people with profound learning disabilities having this condition the petitioner also suggests that the financial consequences of inadequate care for the profound learning disabled should be a focus of the observatory's work we therefore wrote to the observatory to ask whether any work was progressing in this area, in these areas the response states that Scotland already has expertise on epilepsy at Engra University and therefore there are no plans to try to replicate this the response also explains that his work was commissioned to undertake secondary analysis of Scotland's existing routinely collected health and administration data to inform policy and practice and that it was unaware of any existing data sets in Scotland that include a marker for profound learning disabilities in her most recent written submission the petitioner expresses disappointment that her petition has been under consideration by the committee for four years in that time quote nothing constructive and supportive has resulted and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action I must say I share the petitioner's frustration because it was suggested that the observatory would be the response and the observatory clearly has come back and said no so I think that there is a frustration there that I think we would share around almost a there's a conversation which is missing the point that the petitioner is arguing for one thing the Scottish Government is responding with something that's not really relating to the questions that are being raised Brian? What are they going to write to the Scottish Government and with a more direct question or we're going to ask the Cabinet Secretary to come in and directly explain one of the two I should probably note that in this track and field with the learning disabilities in this situation Angus? I think we've been going round the houses for four years on this one and that's long enough and I think another letter to the Scottish Government might just prolong the petitioner's anger and immense disappointment about the committee's frustration so I think that since we've agreed in the previous petition to have the Cabinet Secretary in to give evidence I think that we should do the same for this petition Does that make sense to me? I feel as if it's a dialogue which is whether willfully or otherwise is missing the point and being able to direct the questions to the Cabinet Secretary would clear that up and also afford the opportunity for the petitioner to be quite direct about the questions that she would want to see posed to the Cabinet Secretary, is that agreed? We're recognising the frustration of the petitioner but we do think that there is an issue here that needs to be explored further so we will invite the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport to provide evidence to the committee on the issues raised in the future meeting Thank you very much For that, if we can now move to petition 1667 by W Hunter Watson on the review of mental health and incapacity legislation The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct a wide review of Scottish mental health and incapacity legislation and when doing so to take due account of recent developments in international human rights law The committee has previously considered written evidence of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland the Scottish Human Rights Commission and from the Minister for Mental Health Following its most recent consideration at the meeting on 22 March the committee has received an update from the minister on various strands of work currently being undertaken and the timeframes and also a response from the petitioner along with updated submissions from the petitioner supporting his call for action Members will have noted that the petition recently met with the Minister for Mental Health on issues raised here and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Morhine? Yeah I've always listened this is a big piece of work that's consistently going through Parliament at the moment I think mental health is a very strong topic quite rightly so again if I was going to take this forward I would suggest that we bring the minister to take some more evidence from the minister to understand again where the Scottish Government are taking this I think that it may be that the minister the cabinet secretary and the minister for mental health who is of course a new minister might want the opportunity to be able to rather than have it in correspondence but to have an evidence session on what the position is it feels like we may have a session we may have to put in an extra session as a committee but specifically on that to try and coordinate the cabinet secretary and the minister for mental health just coming and doing a session on the relevant petitions that might be worthwhile I do feel that by taking evidence from the minister it would afford us the potential to really jump forward with that petition rather than writing correspondence Are we agreeing then that we do think that this would be a very useful opportunity to take evidence from the minister for mental health and we can obviously negotiate with their departments about how best that can be done and how best we can have maximum effect for the cabinet secretary and the minister for mental health being here and pursuing these issues in the petition with him, is that agreed? Okay Thank you very much for that If we can now move to petition 1673 by James Mackay on the operation and running of child protection services in Scotland Members will recall that this petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to our Scottish Government to create an independent QC-led inquiry into the operation and running of child protection services in Scotland The papers note that we last considered this petition on 10 May The committee had agreed that there may be some issues around early intervention that may be worth exploring and also whether we are inappropriately bringing children into care because there is not enough support or because there is a mindset that says that that is the solution We have submissions from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and Social Work Scotland and a response to those from the petitioner The report of the child protection improvement programme stated that there was a commitment to reconvene the child protection system review group in April 2018 I think it would be useful to ask the Minister for Child Care in early years whether what had come out of that group, if indeed it has been reconvened Can you do that? Anything else? We have asked maybe the care review, consideration of the care review maybe somewhere we could share a little bit more light on it We certainly could see all of you thinking about identifying areas of consideration to the care review and the education committee took evidence from Fiona Duncan who is heading up the care review It was impressive not just because of our presentation but the evidence given by care experience young people with her and I'm very aware that that review is a very thoughtful and substantial piece of work which is very much dealing with young people who are in the system The petition of course deals with whether people are coming in appropriately into the system and I'm not sure that we can maybe ask that of them I was also very struck by the substantial evidence given by the Scottish Children's Reporters and Admin and Social Work Scotland I thought there was a lot of food for thought in those It would be for the petition of themselves to decide what made a reassurance I felt that there wasn't some kind of that when a young person who is in the hearing system and into the care system is done with a great deal of thought I wonder whether there are suggestions about how we might take this forward We can certainly ask questions of the Scottish Government We can maybe flag up to the care review that is an issue that has been the petitioner has highlighted and maybe get some sense from them whether that is something that they are looking at I suspect that the remit would be something that we could maybe check Anything else, Angus? That's entire, can we not? No, so we would be looking for an update from the Minister for childcare in the early years on child protection issues I think and looking at the child protection improvement programme report Is that agreed? In that case can we again thank the petitioner and the committee and the responses that we have received from all those that we highlighted We raised this petition with If we can now move on to petition 1687 Regulation of Fireworks displays in Scotland The last petition of consideration in public today is petition 1687 on Regulation of Fireworks displays in Scotland by Jane Erskine The clerks notes summarise the submissions from the Scottish and UK Government along with the petitioner's response to those submissions The UK Government Minister's submission addresses the issues of the need for appropriate guidance, education and public awareness raising to promote response for use of fireworks He considers that it is a matter for the Scottish Government to work with local agencies to identify what measures are best to apply in the context of this petition The Scottish Government acknowledges the issues raised in the petition in the context of animals and livestock in rural areas that, as an animal owner in a rural area she is liable under the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 for any harm to the animals in her care and considers that this may be an unintended consequence of the act The Scottish Government's submission outlines activity that it and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland have been taking forward since last year, principally in the context of incidents where the Fire and Rescue Service have been subject to attack but also highlighting how this might impact on the provision of emergency support In recent correspondence with the clerks the Scottish Government has also stated that the Minister for Community Safety has written to all community safety partnerships across Scotland and also to the UK Minister for Small Business Consumers and Corporate Responsibility to request an update on any actions following the Westminster hall debate in January this year The petitioner acknowledges the Scottish Government's submission to highlight the impact that this has on animals and animal owners in rural areas She indicates that she would like to see the UK and Scottish Government adopt a preventative and proactive approach to the restriction of fireworks displays in rural areas I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action Rachael Hamilton I'm missing something here in this petition but it is up to the local authorities to enforce the licensing I just wanted to I just wanted to know if the local authorities had been engaged in this whole process because at the end of the day the Scottish Government did say that it is up to the local authorities I just wanted to know where we were with regards to the Scottish Government's responsibility over this if it lies with local authorities ultimately OK I think we can contact COSLA perhaps in the first instance and I guess that the petition is really talking about the legislative context in which everybody is operating if you accept it, you can have fireworks displays it's then about managing them and managing it safely That's quite an interesting argument which says if her animals are in fear and alarm, to what extent is she responsible for that relative to the care of the animals you wonder whether I wouldn't have thought that there would be a court in the land would blame her if her animals are distressed, a consequence of fireworks displays that the law allows but it's an interesting insight into which I hadn't really thought about before The keen experience, the rurality of the displays because obviously there's going to be more animals in the rural areas and the countryside so whether the local authorities take into account that when they give a public licence to a fireworks display I'm actually not entirely sure It is an issue that's been raised with me by people who have pets that during the period quite intense period around November the 5th that animals are in fear and alarm in urban areas as well but that's not really the focus of the petition here so I think we can certainly write because we should write to the Scottish Government for an update on its recent action it might be worth writing to Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service because they must have a view on whether it's creating extra work for them I know certainly in one area historically there was problems about the fire service being attacked when they come in to deal with unlicensed fireworks displays which may be a different thing altogether so that they may have a view on how that has all managed safely and for their views on specific action called for in the petition and in particular comments in the petition's most recent submission it might be worthwhile contacting them Is that agreed? Anything else? No? I suppose we're coming up to that period now so it will be interesting to see whether those concerns about the whole implications of the celebration of the fireworks continues to have the impact that's been flagged up by the petitioner but again thank the petitioner for providing us with an update on their views If we can now close the public session of the meeting and we're moving into private and we'll have a quick break before we deal with the last item of the agenda