 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you all to today's meeting of the Public Petitions Committee. As always, I can ask that you switch off any mobile phones or electronic equipment because it interferes with our sound system. I'm afraid that the weather has led to a couple of casualties this morning. We've got delays with Angus MacDonald and Chick Brody, but we are hoping that they will appear sometime during the committee proceedings. Agenda item 1, a decision on taking business in private. The first item of business seeks the committee's agreement to take agenda items 6 and 7 on external research and the committee's work programme in private. Does the committee agree to take these agenda items in private? Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The next item of business is consideration of two new petitions. The committee agreed to invite the petitioner to speak to one of the petitions. The first new petition is PE1531 by Ashley Hasbent Pountain on removing childhood status from private schools. Members have a note by the clerk that the committee is taking evidence this morning via video conferencing from the University of Hanson Islands and Orkney from the petitioner. I remind members that, because of the technical aspects of the video link, a delay will occur between members finishing their questions and the witness hearing from them and responding. Equally, there will be a delay the other way round. Because a video link has been used, it's important that no one tries to speak over anyone else, therefore members should speak only if called to do so and not try to interrupt a colleague or the witness, as that will affect their ability to hear the answers. I welcome the petitioner, who I can see in front of me. I hope that you can hear us from Orkney. I'm David Stewart, the convener of the committee, and if I ask for some of my colleagues to introduce themselves. John Wilson, MSP, Central Scotland. Good morning. Good morning. I'm Ann McTaggart, MSP for Glasgow List. Good morning. I'm David Torrance, MSP for Coddy constituency. I'm Gravona Jackson-Carlo, West of Scotland regional member. Thank you, colleagues. I again welcome Ms Pouton to invite her to speak for around five minutes, and after that I'll kick off for a couple of questions and then invite my colleagues to also ask further questions. You're five minutes. You're very welcome this morning. Thank you for attending the video link. Thank you very much. I'd like to begin by saying how thankful I am for this opportunity to address the committee, so thank you for this invitation. Fundamentally, charitable status and taxpayer subsidy for private schools is inappropriate and unjust. This charitable status means that all taxpayers, including the poorest amongst them, are subsidising the rich and the privileged to privately educate their children. It corrupts and derives the true spirit of charity that is helping the needy and the most vulnerable in society. And when we consider the true spirit of charity, it's very difficult to understand how private schools can come to be classified as charities. The committee will be aware that to qualify for charitable status in Scotland, there are three central considerations. The first of these is that public benefit must be provided, the second that this benefit must not be outweith by this benefit, and the third that access to the benefit must not be unduly restrictive. Now, on all three of these accounts, private schools would appear to fail. In terms of public benefit, only around 4% of pupils in Scotland attend private schools, and this figure becomes even smaller when taken as a percentage of the whole population at less than 1%. To put it in another way, over 99% of the public do not benefit from the education provided by these schools. Even more significant, however, is the staggering detriment of private schools to society. As worn out by the extent of academic research, and allowing for the education of children, according to the social status of their family, private schools are at the very heart of a society divided by inherited wealth and privilege. They entrench and they perpetuate social inequality. I recently graduated from the University of St Andrews, where over 40% of Scottish students have attended a private school. Scotland's most elite private schools charge fees in excess of £30,000 per year. To put this in context, average pay in Scotland is £26,472. A cleaner earns about £8,000 a year, a care worker £12,000, a bus driver £23,000, a nurse £26,000, a teacher £32,000. It is extremely difficult to contend that access to these schools is not unduly restrictive, and it is undeniable that for the majority of the Scottish population, a private school education is far beyond their reach. I'd like to stress, and I would really like to stress, that this fact is altered not in the slightest by the provision of a few bursaries, and it really is a negligible amount when you look at the figures. These are a symptom of, not a solution too, the issue that access is granted by the ability to pay. Shifting the privilege ever so slightly does not get rid of it. I hope that in these opening remarks, I've made clear ahead charitable status and taxpayer subsidy for private schools is, at its most basic, morally wrong and entirely at odds with the true meaning and sentiment of charity. Furthermore, by reference to the charity test of OSER, I hope I've made clear the difficulty I have in accepting the legitimacy of the status quo, given the very limited provision of public benefit that unduly restricts of access to it, and most importantly, the huge disbenefit of private schools to society, given their clear role in perpetuating social inequality. The recently published report of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission stated that child poverty is set to rise and warns that the UK is at risk of becoming a permanently divided society. Twenty percent of children in this country already live in absolute poverty. In an era of increasing and profound inequality of brutal austerity and cuts to public services, I find that I am just one voice among an increasing number that are very uncomfortable with the anomaly that is the charitable status and the taxpayer subsidy of private schools. I'll now do my best to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your submission and keeping within time, it's very impressive. Can I kick off with a couple of questions? Are you satisfied with the current charitable test overseen by Oscar, the Office of Scottish Charities Regulator? There is a conclusion to a word charitable status of private schools, but I'd also suggest that there are two options I see, and one is that, as I've hopefully pointed out in my opening remarks, working even according to the current guidelines, you could conclude that they're not charity. Another option would be to just exclude from consideration all private schools on the basis that the sole criterion for access is the ability to pay, and you could just exclude all schools on that principle. I'm not here nor is the committee to argue a case for Oscar for or against, but what Oscar is saying is that they are merely complying with the rules laid down by the Scottish Government. Let me give you one example. I looked at the website last night in preparation for today, and out of random I clicked on one school, and that was Fetis. They said that they actually did the initial analysis, and Fetis actually failed the charitable test, changed their guidelines and now satisfy the test and are complying with charitable status. So you could argue that, in fact, the regulation is working perfectly adequately in Scotland. How would you respond to that? Yeah, I'm very pleased. They failed in 2013, as you said, and they then increased the proportion of the school role on assistance from 9.6 per cent to 10.6 per cent, and my question for the OICR would be why is 10.6 per cent support okay, but 9.6 per cent wasn't? Why does 10.6 per cent support fees to make fees of over £30,000 a year unduly restrictive? I don't think it makes any difference to the overall unduly restrictive nature of access to these schools, and as I hopefully made clear in my opening remarks, no amount of bursaries changes the fact that these private schools shouldn't be allowed to qualify for charitable status, no amount of bursaries whatsoever changes that. Would it be fair then to characterise your petition as saying, put to one side any sense of the current regulation that we have via Oscar, effective for what you want to do is remove charitable status from private stroke independent schools per se, and that is it. You want no regulation, you want a clear, I feel like, ideological change in the current rules. Would that be a fair summary of how you feel about this? Yes, certainly it's way forward, but as I pointed out, even working according to current guidelines, it's very questionable to give them charitable status, but for the sake of clarity and just on principle, I think the best way would be to just exclude them from consideration through thoughts. That's very clear. I bring in first of all Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, good morning. Could I ask which private schools you visited before presenting your petition? I'm not visited any private schools. So you've never visited a private school, so this is really is not, this is just an opinion in abstract rather than one with any direct experience of the benefit any private school might provide. No, it's one based on extensive academic research and the experience of a brilliant state school education and the experience of extreme inequality, educational inequality, having attended St Andrew's University and seen the result of the privilege and education system. Interestingly, St Andrew's University qualifies for charitable status but charges fees to international students. As do colleges, universities, all universities, they're all colleges of physicians and surgeons. There are lots of academic institutions that charge fees who have charitable status. Are you proposing that the charitable status be removed from them as well? No, because in the case of universities and colleges, the ability to pay is not the only criterion for access. You also have to have attained certain grades, write a personal statement, this sort of thing, whereas private schools provide general compulsory education, otherwise provided by the state, and the only criterion for access is the ability to pay. So there's a big difference between universities and colleges having charitable status and normal schools which provides general compulsory education. That of course is your assertion that the only criteria for entry into an independent school is your ability to pay, but of course you've not visited any private schools and you haven't actually asked any private schools yourself whether or not your assertion is vindicated. You say that it is a subsidy, of course it's an indirect subsidy in the sense that money does not get paid to the exchequer. How much does it cost to educate a child in the state sector? So if the 33,000 students who are currently in the independent sector are required to go to the state sector, the state sector would have to find 33,000 times the 5,000 plus pounds that you suggested the individual education of a student costs. Is it not therefore the case that by not sending 33,000 students to the state sector you could argue that in fact those people who have their children educated independently are subsidising the state sector by not placing that additional burden on them? And where would the Scottish Government find the money for the 33,000 students if these independent schools were not there? I think that there are a few points to be made in response to what I inevitably anticipated would come up as a point, that private schools save the state money. The first point to be made is that this is fundamentally not a point about finances. I'll address the finances in a second, but this is fundamentally a point of fairness. Sorry, no, no. Excuse me. The question was not, it wasn't to ask you about fairness, it was to ask you to answer my question, which was about the finance. I think that the longer... Excuse me, could I just remind members particularly, let's just come in, that because we're doing it by video conferencing it's important that we don't interrupt rather than the witness or fellow members, so carry on. We do need to answer the question. It's just a technical point, Mr Cameron. Carry on. Yes, I've got a couple of points to make here. As I've said, the first point is that I'd really like to stress that this is a moral issue as opposed to a financial one, but the financial issue can be addressed as well. Firstly, if private schools were no longer to have charitable status, they would save to save even more money if you want to maintain that that's what they do. Secondly, the longer term and the wider consequences of charitable of private schools in society, that is their role in social inequality and perpetuating a divided society, the cost of that to the taxpayer and to the government in terms of health inequalities, housing inequalities, employment inequalities is arguably, if not demonstrably, much greater than whatever money the private sector saves in terms of per pupil spend. And lastly, saving the state money is not one of the recognised charitable purposes, so if you've ended up having, as your only argument in defence of charitable status, the fact that private schools save the state money, which is disputable, it's not a charitable purpose. That's a point to be had with regard to whether or not private schools should exist or not, but as for their charitable status, saving the state money is not a charitable purpose. Yes, but there is a requirement to deal with consequences as well rather than just the high principles that you think are demonstrably although I would say only arguably potentially evident. Lots of community groups benefit from the independent sector because they are allowed, as a result of the charitable status, to have considerable access to the use of the schools facilities out of school hours. How many of the thousands of community groups who benefit in this way have you spoken to about the potential loss of their access to those facilities? I've not spoken to anyone, but I do not doubt for a second that private schools without charitable status would still have enough money to provide these services if they were wished. I also would point out that the provision of community services, like bursaries, cannot be allowed to mitigate what is the overwhelmingly negative role of these schools in society. As I pointed out at the very beginning, public benefit is provided to an extent, but you also have to take into account the disbenefit of societies of private schools. You can say that they provide benefits, they give a few bursaries, they provide community services, but the disbenefit still outweiths the negligible benefit that is provided. The polemic is entertaining, but it would be helpful if you just contained yourself to answering the questions rather than giving us your general political philosophy. The final question is that you haven't visited the schools, you are not clear whether community groups who might lose access would, what their opinion of that would be. You are not clear how the Scottish Government would fund it. Would another route be instead of withdrawing charitable status from the independent education sector to extend charitable status or to adjust the tax arrangements so that all the schools in the state sector benefited equally from the tax status that is made available to the Royal College of Physicians, Surgeons, Colleges, Universities and the independent education sector? Would it not actually be the right move to allow the state sector schools who currently do not enjoy the benefit to have the benefit extended to them as well? Yes, I completely agree that state schools should have charitable status, but I would stow them a visit from private schools. Can I ask other colleagues who wish to come in and start with Chick Brody? Good morning, and I apologise for being late. What it did do for me in travelling from here this morning was to afford me the opportunity to listen to the director in charge of independent schools. I would like to come to that in a minute. I wonder whether you can clarify whether or not one of the conditions that an organisation, a charity organisation, must show whether any condition on obtaining a benefit, including any charge or fee, is unduly restrictive. Do you think that that is the case clearly from your view? Can you give an example of where you think that restriction applies? Yes, I am not sure if you missed my opening the market. A bigger part now, sorry about that. Yes, that is okay, that is fine then. I will just repeat myself a little bit then. But Scotland's most elite private schools charge fees in excess of over £30,000 a year. For example, Fetiz College is £10,060 times three for three terms, and to put this in context, the average wage in Scotland, the average pay in Scotland is £26,472, a cleaner terms on average £8,000 a year, a carer worker £12,000, a bus driver £23,000, a nurse £26,000. So looking at this, it is undeniable that for the vast majority of the Scottish population, the privilege of a private school education is far out with the reach. For me it is impossible to argue that access to these schools is not unduly restrictive given the staggering 10,000 to 10,000 fees that they demand. Thank you for that. That gives me an answer to my first question. My second question is slightly bemused having come in. I know that I was dizzy, but I was compounded by the economic juggling of Jackson Carlaw. Of course, if we are talking about moving public school students to state schools, and the cost, there is a saving in the state schools. Can you explain for my benefit, very slow this morning, how we can get to a situation where we have schools such as Fittis and Glasgow Academy, no doubt, have a tax liability fall from the likes of £209,000 to £41,000, which is a taxpayer-funded subsidy of £167,000. Can you just take me through the mechanics of that? I thought that I didn't quite follow your question. In your background information, you named several of them, but let me take one. It is tax liability fall from £209,000 to £41,000, which is a taxpayer-funded subsidy of £167,000. What are the mechanics behind that? Due to private schools receiving 83 per cent compulsory discount on non-domestic rates, due to their charitable status, it is not the only tax benefit that they get. We also don't pay corporation tax on profits to receive gifts on cash donations and other examples. Thank you. One last question. In listening to the general responsible for running of independent state schools or listening to the policy, he was unable to tell his question this morning about how many bursars there are in independent schools. Unable to, I suspect, because he wasn't very sure of his numbers, how the income levels are of those that attend, including bursars. Is that information available of the number of pupils on support available? Yes. Why was he not able to tell the question? If he had the information at hand, I can give you some examples here. Currently, six pupils at fethys are on 100 per cent support at 0.8 per cent of the school roll and six pupils at St. Columbus School at 1.6 per cent of the school roll. That is generally the case. The number of pupils on 100 per cent support tends to be absolutely negligible. Furthermore, it appears to be the case that the bursaries that are awarded are made less than a spirit of charity than after repeated coercion from the OSCR. Private schools often fail the test and then are deemed to pass it again after they've upped their provision slightly. That's what happened to fethys. I'm not sure if you were present for that part of the conversation or not. Fethys failed the charity test last year. Fethys increased the proportion of the school rolls on assistance from 9.6 per cent to 10.6 per cent at which point they were deemed to pass the charity test. My question then was, why does 10.6 per cent assisting mitigate fees of £30,000? Is that not a very arbitrary and ultimately unjustifiable decision to come to that this level of support should mitigate unduly restrictive fees? I certainly don't accept it. Mr Billan. Thank you. I have one other question. Given that, clearly, you know what the numbers are, is there any information regarding the income distribution of the households from which the students to private schools are from their households? Is there any information that indicates the distribution of the income in these households? Not that I'm aware of at the moment, but given that a fee is an extra, you're going to have to have disposable income of at least £30,000 a year, so you're definitely talking about the richest and the most privileged in society. I think that's quite safe to say. You've got taxpayer-funded subsidies, most of the major private schools. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr Brody, for bringing in other colleagues. John Wilson. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Given the petition that is before us is about the charitable status of the fee-paying schools, do you think that Oscar has correctly applied the rules, as established in 2005, to those fee-paying schools? Clearly, you have highlighted and the convener made reference to FETIS being able to change whatever it is, memorandum and articles or whatever criteria Oscar were looking at to allow them to get charitable status. Do you think that that was correct of Oscar to do that at that time? I don't know. Before starting this petition, I wrote to the Oscar twice, and it was only due to the unsatisfactory nature of their response on both occasions that I then decided to petition the Parliament, because, obviously, I need to direct my concerns to the body to whom the Oscar is accountable. I have to make a declaration. I've not got a vested interest in an independent school sector, and neither my child didn't have anything—any dealings with an independent school. Mr Carlaw's assertion that you have to visit an independent school to understand what an independent school does almost implies that you need to be in a war zone to understand what war means for many people. The reality is that many people—I think that the question I would like to ask you— do you think that your petition is one step in trying to eradicate the independent school sector in Scotland? Yes, I hope for it to continue like that. Professor Brian Boyd has also given me some remarks to quote today, and that was the conclusion of his remarks as well. He said, the first step towards that goal that is making it illegal to charge money for education akin to countries like Finland should be the removal of charitable status, triggering a debate on the contribution education to the achievement of a more equal society. That was Professor Brian Boyd, Professor of Education at the University of Strathclyde. To the issue that was raised by the convener in relation to fetus and re-applying or being able to adjust their application to Oscar to receive charitable status or continue to receive charitable status, do you think that the value of the number of bursary students attending fetus outweath the value of any benefits of having charitable status? The question was in a rephrase. The indication that you gave is that fetus adopted the rules to allow them to receive charitable status. I am assuming that part of that would have been due to the number of bursary students that fetus accepts. Do you think the value of adjusting the number of bursary students is sufficient to justify the value of having charitable status? Yes, I think for these schools that the bursaries that they provide are actually negligible in terms of the total income at their disposal and in terms of the actual school role. As I said, I'll restate the figures. Six pupils at fetus are currently on 100% support at 0.8% of the school role and for that they get a status which legitimises them from the point of view of the government and from the point of view of the public or rather the Oscar speaking on behalf of the public and I don't think they should be given this legitimacy and this freedom of conscience. They should be forced to accept what they are and that is that they perpetuate and entrench social inequality in society. They educate children according to the social status of their family. Can I now invite other colleagues, particularly those who haven't yet asked a question? I've got a little bit leeway in time so I'm happy to keep this debate going a bit longer. Could you bring in Angus MacDonald? Yes, thanks, convener. I've certainly followed this issue since it came to my attention about 15 years ago where it was discussed at length within my own party and then subsequently I believe it was highlighted in 2005 in Parliament. I should declare that I am a product of a private school although perhaps not maybe the best example of the best advert but nevertheless I did attend a boarding school. You mentioned Finland as an example of a country where charging for private education is illegal. Have you looked at Sweden where private education does seem to be spreading quite significantly, which is clearly just next door to Sweden? Have you looked at that example? I have not looked at that example, no. When I referred to Finland that was actually quoting Professor Brian Boyd, I'm aware of it to some extent myself but his papers are a lot more in-depth and detailed than anything I can tell you on international comparisons and things like that. As I say, I followed this issue for some time and when it was discussed within my party I was quite vociferous against removing charitable status. However, I have to say that having read your submission, you present a very strong argument for the issue, particularly when you consider the difference between, I think that you used Westerhales as an example, which has a high area of deprivation. I think that the papers mentioned 40 per cent require school meals. Given the argument that you are putting forward, it's a strong one. I would thank you for bringing it to the committee's attention. Thank you very much. Thank you. I can move on now to Anthony Taggart. Thank you, convener, and thank you, Ashley. That was a most certainly robust presentation that you gave and thank you for that. Just really to say that it's not really any questions but an observation. Looking at what you've said today, can you set alarm bells ringing? I do have some schools within my area that I will be looking at with what you've said in mind. However, I would be interested to hear or to continue with the petition. I know that we're not at that stage yet, but I know that there's other information that I would love to be hearing to make some more decisions on it. Thank you very much for your presentation. I can now bring some other questioners. I'll bring in David Chance first, because he hasn't ended up cheating. Good morning, Ashley. You're talking about charitable status for private schools here, but local authorities across Scotland, and I come from one where I was a local councillor, moved their sports and leisure into charitable status, moved their arts and libraries into charitable status, and are now considering moving some of their schools into charitable status. So if the local authorities are being able to do that, how can you compare the two then to stop basically independent schools not becoming charitable status? What is your point that state schools can be awarded charitable status? Yes. It is a sector issue. The comparison is important, but it is a sector issue. As I said in response to an earlier question, I would completely welcome all state schools having charitable status, but that doesn't, in any way, lessen my belief that private schools should not have it. So, yes, I guess I'd call for a complete reverse. I'll take it away from private schools and give it to state schools. Cassie, thank you, Mr Jones. I could bring in Chick Brody again. Sorry. Again, Ashley, just in the current set of affairs, the charities pay no co-operation tax on profits from trading, and, effectively, those schools, as I see them, are a business selling education. They pay no co-operation tax—just let me develop this—they pay no co-operation tax on profits, which might include income from the sale of assets. They understand duty, and they have tax relief, so that's continued, I believe, on the land and building transaction tax. Isn't that a great incentive—and I'm not suggesting that they all rush out and do it today—for public schools to sell and lease back their buildings, where they could pay no tax on the profitability of selling their buildings, which must be huge given the age of them. They pay no tax or little tax on the transaction of leasing. That's standard business practice, in some cases. So, they are businesses, aren't they? Yes, they are. I completely agree with you. I think that it's almost misleading to even refer to them as schools, because what they are is their profit-making institution to sell general compulsory education. Thank you, Mr Brody. I'm just wondering if Mr Carly, you should come back in again. I've got a little bit of time. I'm not sure how productive that would be. There was one point that I did want to ask, because I think that it's slightly misleading to suggest that all bursaries are at 100 per cent. There are many independent schools, I understand, where the level of bursary that is offered to a pupil is a variable between 100 per cent and another figure. However, I think that, so far as we followed the petition up, Mr Brody's question was perfectly legitimate at the start, which is to try to establish the extent to which bursaries are available. However, I think that simply to focus on the number of 100 per cent bursaries is perhaps not a reasonable or a fair interpretation of the extent to which bursaries are granted. I do want to return because I think that you rather glossed over it, because your definition of access to the schools and the benefit that they gave was entirely in relation to the pupils who are studying there, whereas many of those schools have quite significantly as a result of the charitable status test that has been introduced and which some of them have had to adjust their policies to comply with, made their wider school facilities available to the community at large. It wasn't something they did before, it was something they did as a result of the charitable status being extended. There are many community groups now who are able to use school facilities at weekends and in the evening, some of which are excellent facilities, who would otherwise be denied doing so. I just worry that I understand the higher principle you have in this, but I wonder if you understand the wider consequences, potentially, that would accrue from some of the suggestions that you are making. It is provided by private schools, but it is more than outweighed by the disbenefit of private schools to society. I am not going to shake on that principle, it is far too important. Secondly, I don't doubt for a second that if private schools want, if they were to lose their charitable status, I don't doubt for a second that they could still provide these services if they wished to. The services became provided because they were complying with the charitable status provisions. I think that I am content to leave the questioning there. Thank you, Mr Carlaw. Do any other members have any urgent points? If not, I am conscious that your time for videoconferencing is coming to an end, but if there is no further questions, we are now going to the summation where we have stopped asking new questions and you have stopped asking asked questions, and that is for the committee to consider the next steps. Clearly, I am sure that the committee would agree that we need to ask the Scottish Government their views, since the Scottish Government is responsible for laying down the rules, if you like. However, it did occur to me that since Oscar, who are effectively the organisation that carries out the administration and the assessment of the rules, it might be useful, and the committee might find it useful if we get Oscar to come in in a future meeting and talk to us and give some evidence about it. Can I first of all ask what the committee's views are? The A, we ask the Scottish Government the views and the petition. Secondly, we obviously ask Oscar the office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, perhaps to get them to come in and talk about the day-to-day reality. How would the committee feel if we asked them to come in at a future meeting? I also think that it is useful that we invite the views of COSLA because, obviously, it is very important that the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, but it is a point that John Wilson often raises. It might also be useful that we ask a couple of the independent stroke private schools for their views to give us a bit of flavour of that, and, clearly, we can ask the cleric to give us a cross-section. I would have been to approach the Scottish Council for Independent Schools who, I am sure, would be able to provide a lot of the more detailed information that the committee might think valuable and talk to the wider charitable advantage to the community. Can I bring in John Wilson and then check Brody? Thank you, convener. I agree that we should write to the organisations that have so far mentioned, but I suggest that we also write to the EIS to ask, given that this is an education issue, to find out what the EIS's views may be on the continued use of independent schools. When we are writing to Oscar, I would also like to forewarn them, if that is the best phrase to use, about a particular question. That question would be on what grounds were FETIs allowed to amend the registration with Oscar to allow them to continue to receive charitable status? I think that it is important to find out the situation that Oscar decided not to grant charitable status, then subsequently reviewed that decision. It would also be useful to find out how many other independent schools amended the registration with Oscar to allow them to continue to receive charitable status, because I am sure that FETIs was thrown up as an issue in relation to not being able to register for charitable status than other independent schools. That might be a question to the Scottish Council of Independent Schools. Further to Mr Carlaw's assertion that the amendment to charitable status was mainly due to access to facilities—you mentioned it, Mr Carlaw—you stated it—there was to do with access to facilities at weekends for community organisations. If we ask the Scottish Council of Independent Schools, how many hours in the year do independent schools allow access to facilities for communities that surround those facilities? Is there any charges made against community use for those facilities? I am conscious that we are going to lose our petition in a second, because the window for video conferencing closes. I agree with the point that Jackson made. I am also asking for information. I would like to see a much more numerical information about busses and income distribution of the households that pupils attend. I can be clear that I am content with the suggestions that have been identified. I particularly ask for us to seek oral evidence from Oscar, and some of the points that John Wilson raised could be put to them. Are members, Jackson Carlaw? Very quickly to the point that John Wilson made. They were not secret. They were the matter of public record. All of those matters were widely reported in the press where any school has failed to meet the charitable test, why that was and the subsequent reassessment by Oscar has always been the matter of public record. It is not that any of that has been hidden from public view. They published the report and media widely have covered the instances where any school has failed to comply. I think that the committee has a very comprehensive list of organisations that we are going to consult, but just to confirm that the committee is happy that we have Oscar in front of us at a future meeting. Is that our committee content with the raised points that I have raised? I thank our petitioner, who is going to disappear in a second, judging by the notes on the screen. I thank you very much for your evidence. I think that you gave a very articulate view of your thoughts behind the petition. As you can see, we are taking the petition very seriously. The clerks will keep you up to date with the developments, and I hope that the weather improves in Orkney, as it will hopefully hear as well. I thank you very much for giving up your time and I really enjoyed your evidence. Thank you very much for your time and your consideration. As we can conclude the video conferencing, I will go straight on to the next item of business, which is the second new petition, PE1527, by Margaret Mackenzie on bank deposit protection. Members are not by the clerk and the petition. Committee members will be aware that the petition was set up on the basis that there would be a yes vote in the referendum, and without dragging the committee into the views whether there should be a yes vote or a no vote, which I suspect would take us some time. Since that wasn't factually what happened, my suggestion is that we merely close the petition. I obviously thank the petitioner for her work putting forward this petition. Can we move on to agenda item 3, consideration of current petitions? The first item that we have is PE1408, by Andrea McArthur, on the update in her preknitches anemia oblique vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment. Members are not by the clerk and the submissions. I could invite contributions from members. I think that members will appreciate that this has been a very, very good petition. I think that we had a plenary session on it some time ago. There are some suggestions for action that I would certainly endorse, which is writing to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the outcome of the diagnostic seeing group's consideration. The issue is raised by BCSH guidelines following a November meeting. Luke asked the Scottish Government to seek its views on the petitioner's concern about patients who might benefit from more frequent injections, and, finally, its views on the suggestion that the guideline is being included in the British national formulary. Can I ask members' views of whether that is acceptable for action? I think that the letter of 6 October, which I am sure has been drawn to the attention of the Government or not, is just highlighting the concerns that Andrea McArthur still has. It was definitely. I think that we will make the shoe that is very clear, Mr Buddy. Thank you for that. John Wilson, before we move. Given that I have a particular interest in this, I will declare that an interest as a very close family member has pernicious anemia and depends on regular injections to cope with the condition. On 4 August, in the letter from the Scottish Government, we have also received the dissemination of those guidelines and their current form to GPs. It could be unhelpful as they are not presented in a suitable format for use in the practice setting. When we are writing to the Scottish Government, can I ask that we ask the Scottish Government when the guidance will be issued in a suitable format for GPs? As GPs are very much in the front line of dealing with patients who have pernicious anemia, I am still here of cases where patients who are trying to get more regular injections to deal with pernicious anemia are being refused by the GPs and by practice nurses because they continue to indicate that they have some form of guidance, which, of course, the minister has told us in the past that there is no guidance in terms of the treatment of pernicious anemia, but it would be useful to find out when the guidance or the information will be available in a useful format for GPs. Is there any further contributions? Obviously, I am sure that members will wish to endorse John Wilson's comments as well. Is that agreeable? Thank you very much for that. If we move to the next petition, it is PE1446 by Dr Elisa Morton on Scottish Standards for the Care of Adult Congenital Heart patients. Members have a note by the clerk. Can I invite contributions from members? Obviously, there is a recommendation that we consider whether we now wish to seek a formal update from the Scottish Government, which seemed to me to be a sensible course of action. Are members agreeable? Of course. The next petition is PE1453 by Caroline Wilson on behalf of The Evening Times and Kidney Research UK Scotland on an opt-out system of organisation in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk. Again, I am sure that members would wish to thank Caroline Wilson and The Evening Times on all the work that they have done and the committees have done. I think that a lot of work on that is a first-class petition. I do note that I am at TargetScot. A member's bill on the issue has been lodged. On the basis that the Scottish Government has made its position very clear and that we have a member's bill, the committee may now close the petition in the sense that we have gone probably as far as we can. Obviously, as always, I am open to any other contributions from members. Chip Brody? Can I say this? I say this with the best intention. When we went through this and discussed it with the Welsh organisation, we talked to the Government that it was my hope that, because I have sympathy for the petition, it was my hope that, once we had all that information, we could perhaps ensure that the required change was made. I am not sure—I say this with the best of intentions—that the member's bill is not going to create a dissension, certainly taking the Government's position, and might, in fact, impact, have not damaged the output from the petition that we basically all shared. I just wish that we would wait until we have more information. I am bringing in Amitaka. Obviously, the position that we are currently at is to decide what the committee itself can do, because clearly, we do not have a particular locus of what individual members do. Although the member happens to be here, that is secondary to Amitaka's role on the committee. Thanks, convener, and yes, I declare an interest. The consultation period has now closed, and, given that I am able to share with the committee, there were 556—and from that 556 responses, about 80 per cent of them were for a change in the law. Convener, I would be quite concerned if we were closing it. I hear what you are saying about that. The committee has done all that it can do. I think that there is still more to be done. There is still more happening out there. I am aware that the petitioner herself had attended the Kidney Foundation forum at the weekend. I just think that there is still more to be done within the committee itself. I cannot necessarily speak for all members, but clearly, during the course of the debate, I think that all members appreciated the great work that the petitioner has done in the evening times on that. I think that there is a lot of sympathy and goodwill here. My point merely on the management of that is, what else does this committee do? If there is another practical next step, I would be the first of the barricades to demand it. Is that really a practical managerial advice that I would like Jackson Carlaw? Yes, convener. I am very much in sympathy with the view that you promote. The practical next step is, in fact, the member's bill, which Amitaka is taking forward. I have my own views on where I think the balance of evidence presently lies. Given that there is a member's bill being taken forward, it is difficult to know what this committee itself would now seek to do to advance the petition further. On that basis, I am content that the future progress of it is through the member's bill rather than through the committee. Angus MacDonald? Yes, convener. I would agree with Jackson Carlaw and Chick Brody that there seems a little purpose for the petition to be kept open, given that there is a member's bill in progress. I would agree with the comments that the committee has already made. First of all, I am delighted that Amitaka is taking forward the member's bill. That may not have happened had it not had the petition and this committee had this debate. Clearly, if we took a scenario where we closed the petition, clearly if anything happened to the member's bill, for example, it did not go forward, there is nothing stopping within the time period this petition being reintroduced. I am sure that the committee would want to look at it again. I think that there is tremendous goodwill among the committee for the principle behind it. My point is merely looking at what next practical step we can do and that we are not wanting to duplicate the parliamentary work, which is rightly the member's bill. Amitaka, do you want to come back? I am aware that we have done loads of work on the petition most certainly. However, there is still on-going work that I think that the committee still should be involved in and should still keep the petition open. The British Heart Foundation in Scotland has commissioned a poll by Epsys Moray to the introduction of the soft ops opt-out system. That poll is due to come back within the next few weeks and I think that it would be important for the committee to have a look at the figures that come back from that and the outcome of that poll itself. On that point, of course, there are no more questions. The motivation behind Anne McTaggart's bill, the problem is that I agree with Jackson and I think that the thing is that if the bill falls, what do we do after that? If there is a degree of sympathy for the petition, we would talk about whether it is still going on. I think that the member's bill is on the head and it would be a difficult recovery situation. We should wait until the member's bill and we should close it and let the member's bill go ahead. I am obviously sympathetic to any member of the committee who has a very strong personal wish to see a petition continued. It is something that I have expressed before and sometimes colleagues have supported me in that request. Although I do not think that we are being invited to take any additional formal practical action, if it would assist a member of the committee that we keep the petition open, notwithstanding the fact that I think that the argument is more in line with closing it, I would be happy for it to remain open until a subsequent meeting when we could look at it again in the light of anything that might have arisen, if that helps Anne McTaggart. I think that that is a mark for Anne McTaggart. A bit of members feel that we should defer this and for a future occasion and by that time we will probably have an update on where the bill is. I am certainly comfortable with that, but I would like to bring in the colleagues. I am happy to do that. It is just a question that in the course of the debate on the bill there will be various—most of the points will be brought forward, but I would rather kill the stone dead than if you keep it open. John Wilson? Like our members, you have outlined, convener, the procedure that we can close this petition at the present time. However, if Anne McTaggart's private members' bill was not progressed, then certainly the petitioner has the right to come back to this committee with and reopen the petition, so I am quite content that we close it at the present moment and with the proviso that the petitioner has made aware that they can come back at a later date if things do not go well with the members' bill. Sorry, I think that Jackson Carlaw is suggesting that we keep this open pro tem and consider it a future date. John, can we not only problem that I have is that what future date do we consider it? Given the time that it may take to put the members' bill through the Parliament and for an outcome to be reached for that in the timespade, and that means that this petition stays on the committee's books until such times as that outcome has been reached. I do not think that I would support that, but I thought that Anne McTaggart was suggesting that there might be some further information that becomes available in the immediate future, which we would be able to judge whether it did encourage us or prompt us to ask any further question ourselves. I think that perhaps, if it did not at that stage, I would not be suggesting that the petition simply stay open for the duration of any members' bill and only because one of our colleagues feels very strongly that we should and I am happy to facilitate that for a period of two or three months. Yes, so we are talking about perhaps, you know, that we have a deadline for the early spring that we have signed. If there is no further action, we can close at that date. John Wilson? Can I seek clarification? If we keep this petition open, the members' bill is likely to be referred to the health committee as I understand it. So we would have a petition still alive with this committee, potentially, and a members' bill going to another committee at what stage can we then reconsider that petition? I do think that we need to, because when we refer a petition on to a committee, then it becomes the property of that committee. So it is really trying to be clear that if it is the health committee that members' bill will be referred to, then it becomes the property of the health committee to deal with as they see fit. It no longer lies in the jurisdiction of this committee. John Wilson is probably sensible when we are making this. Why, then, as a compromise, do we refer this immediately to health committee on the basis that the committee is going to look at and the targets bill? That, while all the evidence and work that we have done will be considered by our colleagues, who are going to consider the members' bill? Angus MacDill? Well, just to say, that sounds like a fair compromise to me. Thank you. Are the members content? I hope that it will go on and on. Chiprody? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I thank Mr Wilson, also known as Henry Kissinger, who is very good at these compromises. Thank you very much for that. Again, I want to thank Caroline Wilson in evening times and Amit Taggart for the work that she has done on the members' bill. For a commitment to an expedition, it is P.E.1458 by Peter Turbie on the register of interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk on submissions. Members will know that we had, this has been a long hard work saga for the committee. I thank all members, incidentally, for the very thoughtful contributions that all members put forward in the plenary session that we had. Mr Turbie has written to us, suggesting that we keep a careful note of the annual report by the judicial complaints reviewer for 2014. He also invited us to invite in turn Kenny MacAskill to appear before the committee to talk particularly about the judicial oaths issue. There is also an argument that we write to the Lord President seeking an update on changes to the rules of complaints about the judiciary. I think that there are a few issues for members to look at, but I could ask members' views on whether those suggestions would be acceptable to members of the committee. Chip Rowdy? Yes, convener. This is a saga that will not go away. A couple of things. One is the JCR that was left. As far as I am aware, there is no announced replacement. In addition to the PIN— Yes, sorry, I just interrupt, but I understand that the Government has now appointed a new judicial complaints reviewer. However, it is important that we receive the report from the JCR unexpergated, so that we can take a definitive view of somebody who is close to the problem. We should also ensure that the Lord President is encouraged to let us know as soon as possible what changes have been made to rules on the complaints that enable, of course, to have had the report from the JCR. Can I ask members specifically whether they agree with Mr Cherby's suggestion that we invite Ken MacAskill to appear before us? Mr Rowdy? Yes. Mr Wilson? Yes. I am Sagar Dutans. I am Sagar Dutans. I am Sagar Dutans. The other specific point that makes sense is to get the annual report from the JCR, and we can have that in a written format since the previous JCR has left. Also, our committee agreeable that we write to Lord President seeing an update on changes to the rules of complaints about the judiciary. There was, as I think I raised and other members raised, in fairness there was a change to the recrusals that is where a judge decides not to take part in a case because of some conflict. There now is a register of that since April this year, which I think I identified in my speech at the time I spoke, I think there was 14. So there now is a website that you can go on, and that is an improvement. To be fair, I am glad that the Lord President has taken this on board. I think that this has helped. I am not suggesting this fully satisfies the petitioner, but I am moving the right direction as always welcome. Mr Wilson? I agree that we have moved in terms of the direction of travel relating to the petition. While I accept your comment about the register of recrusals now being available on the website, I would seek clarification from the Lord President as to whether or not those are voluntary recrusals, because there may be still judges sitting in cases where there may have an interest, and it is just for clarification to find out whether or not. I know that there is a recent case where a judge recused themselves because they were a member of an organisation that was about to hear a case, but because we still do not have a register of interest for judges, is it still very much up to the individual judge to decide whether or not they feel it is relevant that they recuse themselves from a case? Obviously, it has been a matter for the Lord President to give you a definitive answer, but my understanding from the discussions that I had with him along with Mr Brodie and my reading of the website was the 14 at the time recusals. Those were all recusals because there was a conflict. Mostly, it was about personal issues. For example, a judge would know that I am a witness, and as far as I can see, there were no financial issues at all. I am not sure what involuntary recrusals there are in all those cases that the judge said there was a conflict. I do not want to appear in this case, but that is maybe a matter that we need to get some comments from the Lord President. I was going to suggest that we invite him here, but I think that we have been there before. Jackson Carlaw? Yes, thank you, convener. I again say that I think that the recommendations that have been made are appropriate. I just say it with reference to the debate that subsequently the Law Society of Scotland were very keen to reassure me that any indirect briefing I may have had or received which suggested they regarded the value of this committee as being any less than any other committee of the Parliament certainly did not represent their views. I was happy to accept that reassurance, given that the impression might have been created in the debate, that the Lord President had somehow felt that this committee was one that he would prefer not to appear before because it was not covering weighty matters that required his direct attention. I am happy to be reassured that that is not the Law Society's view. I am very pleased, Mr Carlaw, that you have raised this, and that the Law Society has put that comment to you. I am glad that it is on the record. Is there any further comments? Our members are satisfied with their course of action that, A, we are inviting Mr MacAskill to appear before us. Secondly, we are going to get in written format the annual report from JCR of which we can discuss when it comes before us. We are going to write to the Lord President and see an update on changes to the rules and complaints about judiciary. In particular, we want to identify Mr Wilson's point, which is about is there this creature about involuntary recusal, in other words, where it is not something that the judge himself wishes to raise, but she has been approached not to take the case. Is that a fair summary, Mr Wilson? I just come back to the JCR's report, and I am not suggesting that anything would be done that was wrong. Given the strength of view that the incumbent had regarding the register of interests, it is very important that we understand that we see if you like the naked report, because I think that that is quite important. We get a true valuation to see if anything has moved on. Angus MacDonald, on from that, with regard to the judicial complaints reviewer's report, do we have a timescale of when it is due? According to the petitioner's letter, it is due soon. My assumption is that it is almost upon us, because obviously the previous judicial complaints reviewer has completed her term of office, so I would assume that the work in 2014 that she has been part of will be available very soon, but we will ask the clerks to chase that one up. John Wilson? When the clerks are chasing it up, could we get clarification when the report produced by the judicial complaints reviewer was submitted to the Lord President? My understanding is that that report may be on the desk of the Lord President at the present moment. Given that the judicial complaints reviewer gave up post during the summer, it would be interesting to find out when the report will be released. I agree with that course of action. If I move to the next petition, PE1480, by Amanda Cappell, on behalf of the Frank Cappell Alzheimer's awareness campaign, on dementia awareness. Members have a note by the clerk. I can invite contributions from members, but with the caveat that it might be sensible to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update, because we want to be informed of developments and perhaps keep the petition open in the meantime to monitor progress. John Wilson? For writing to the Scottish Government, can I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask them whether or not they are intending to take up the same position as the UK Government have taken in relation to effectively what some have described as a bounty for GPs to identify dementia patients? Perhaps it is worth clarifying. I had a question to Michael Matheson about free personal care for under 65-year-olds who have dementia. On memory, there was around 7,000 in that category. He certainly said that he was going to look at that issue. I do not know if members are more up to date than I am on this one, but it might be worth clarifying from the cabinet secretary what the position is, because that would be a huge help to under 65-year-olds who have dementia. Chip Dory? Sorry, last week, I don't know what I was wearing. In the course of that, there was a wilter of commentary about the NHS in England and the NHS England vis-a-vis that in Wales. This is not a light-hearted matter, but it shows that there was a cartoon in Daily Mail where a nurse was showing in three young children, five-year-olds and six-year-olds, saying that there are another three candidates for dementia approval, because there is £55 per head. I think that there is an element that suggests that we should look at the care for those aged under 65, but I think that you are right that we need to get the Government's update on that. As John rightly said, in relation to what is happening elsewhere. I will go on to the next petition. It is PE1495 by Rob Wilson in the use of gagging clauses and agreements with NHS Staff in Scotland. Members will note by the clerk that I can write contributions from members. Obviously, there are a number of options here. We can defer consideration until March next year and request that the committee is copied into the Scottish Government's report to the Public Audit Committee. The next petition is PE1505 by Jackie Watt on awareness of strep B in pregnancy and infants. There is a suggestion that we write to the Scottish Government and NHS Health Scotland, seeking confirmation that a full review is planned this year, and the petitioner's suggestion will be taken account of at that time. I raise my concern about the submission that was made by the petitioner in relation to the consultation about what was described as minor changes to the guidance. It is really just to make NHS Scotland aware that seven days' notice or six days' notice of engagement to put forward amendments to a document is insufficient. As a committee, we would be seeking meaningful dialogue and consultation with the petitioner regarding changes to any guidance that is issued. As I said, the petitioner has raised it quite clearly that, even though she met the timetable in terms of having submissions in by 30 June, she fails that none of her suggestions were taken up, but it is just raising the issue about the consultation period, and we would expect it to be much longer. The next petition is PE15015 by Mick Napier on asylum in Scotland to Glasgow University rector Edward Snowden. Members have a note by the clerk. Mr Bowie suggests me to close it on the basis that the petition is premised on the majority vote for independence. Is that agreeable? Thank you for that. The next petition is PE15018 by George Tamers on meaningful public consultation within the Scottish planning system. Members have a note by the clerk and invite contributions from members. There is clearly a fairly lengthy option or a series of options for the petition in terms of follow-up to the Scottish Government. I would suggest that we go ahead on the series of those options, as outlined in the clerk's report. There was a very helpful letter from the Scottish Government that attached a consultation exercise that took place in a survey that was commissioned by the Scottish Government to look at the planning issues within local authorities and how they advertised and placed planning applications on the local government websites. Having read the results of the survey that was carried out, I would like to, if it is possible, to ask the Scottish Government what action, if any, was taken to discuss the outcomes of the survey that was carried out and whether or not there were any suggested changes to local authorities. If we look at the scoring matrix in relation to the survey that was carried out, then, quite clearly, there are almost a majority of local authorities that scored below 50 per cent in terms of the survey that was carried out. It would be useful just to find out what exactly is happening in the Scottish Government to ensure that we are convinced that the appropriate consultation is taking place with communities by local authorities in relation to planning applications being submitted. I would particularly flag up to members asking the Scottish Government about the alleged practice of phasing applications to avoid the obligations for major development. That was the major thrust of the points that were made by the petitioner. I agree both the points that were laid out in the Clarex report in addition to John Wilson's contribution. The final competition is PE1519 by John F. Robbins, on behalf of the Saver Seals Fund on Saving Scotland Seals. Members have a note by the Clarex submissions. Given the response that was received and recognising that the work is on-going, the committee will wish to refer the petition to the Rural Affairs Climate Change and Environment Committee to consider in the context of its work. If I can move to agenda item 4, the Inquiry into Tackling Child sexual exploitation in Scotland, in Jackson Carlaw. The petition occurs to be an oversight in my part, and I think that this is what John Wilson was alluding to earlier. I had fully intended, before we took evidence this morning, to say that I had myself been a product of and a user of the independent education sector, was briefly a governor before being elected here and on one occasion undertook a short commercial consultancy for an independent school. I had all that to say and then completely forgotten. I think that John Wilson was trying to prompt me at one point, and it was only later that I realised that that's what he'd been trying to do. We're very happy to add that to official record, Mr Carlaw. Agenda item 4, as I said, is tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland. Before I concerned the letter, I would like to acknowledge the recent evidence session that the Justice Committee has had with the Solicitor General and Police Scotland on the use of the protection of children and prevention of sexual offences in Scotland in that 2005. Members will know that there's something that was raised, particularly Barbara Nardo's, and it was felt that we really needed to look in more detail about this particular issue. There was a number of issues here. I understand that there has been followed up by the Justice Committee in relation to numbers of prosecutions. In terms of the committee's follow-up at its inquiry at the meeting of the 17th of June, the committee agreed to wait site of the national action plan, which was expected to be published over the summer. The letter from the minister, however, provides an update, but advises that the plan will not be available until November. Members have the minister's letter, and I now invite contributions from members. I think that I said in the debate that we had. Do we know this at our peril? I'm not sure whether I'm angry or disappointed that we just before recess started talking about what we're going to do about this. There was a very full and comprehensive inquiry that embraced goodness knows how many witnesses. If it's lying on somebody's office shelf, I'd like to understand why, and why we're also reinventing the wheel. I think that there should be a request from the committee. It's a fairly robust question as to why this was not given the attention or why it isn't given the attention that it deserves. We are reacting, I suspect, to what happened in Rotherham now, when, in fact, we are on our own doorstep of issues that we have to address. I thank the committee, witnesses, clerks and our advisers for all the work that we carried out. It was a very important inquiry. Subsequent events, not just in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland, have perhaps come to reinforce the fact that our recommendations were very appropriate indeed. I'm keen that all the work that we've done doesn't get forgotten about. Obviously, in November, we will have the minister's views, and we will obviously want to debate this again. John Wilson? Can I say that the support of Chick Brody, the situation or the landscape is moving on almost on a daily basis in terms of child sexual exploitation. Rotherham's case is only one of many that we are now becoming aware of. We did seek assurances when we carried out our own inquiry as to ensure that procedures and practices were in place in Scotland to ensure that we wouldn't have a repeat of the situation that's happening south of the border in Scotland. I'm not entirely convinced of the practices in place and some of the allegations that are being made now clearly indicate that there may have been some issues around child sexual exploitation in Scotland. I remind you that the minister's letter says that I hope to be in a position to provide you with a copy in November of the plan. The difficult thing is that I would want to seek assurances that that national action plan will be available in November, not I will hope to be able to provide you with a copy of the plan in November. The time has moved on, there has been slippage in terms of the reporting back to the committee, and I would seek assurances that we could actually have our national action plan in front of the committee before we Christmas period. I would ask if we could write to the Scottish Government seeking clarification that the national action plan will be with us before the end of this year. I agree with my colleagues, Chip Roddie and John Wilson about this. I think that it's important that we put a very strongly worded letter to the minister saying that we really would like to see this work completed before Christmas so that we can discuss this as a committee before Christmas. I know that we have to go through all the properties of process. We could draw up an action plan by Friday by taking recommendations from our sexual exploitation inquiry. Why aren't we doing that? Why are we wasting more public money on having another inquiry and an inquiry and an inquiry? Frankly, it's not good enough and the letter should be as strong as it could possibly be made. I think that your comments are well made, but they are well made towards the Scottish Government minister. The committee has done the work and we now want to see some action. I would agree with the points that Chip Roddie has made. Our committee agreeable that a suitably worded letter will go ASAP. I again thank the committee for all the work that they have done and their commitment to this issue. Agenda item 5 is Scotland's national action plan on human rights. I have revered a snap. The next item of business is consideration of Scotland's national action plan on human rights. Members have a note by the clerk. Members will recall that at the business planning discussion, Professor Alan Miller, chair of the Scottish human rights commission, spoke about SNAP and the interface between the Scottish human rights commission and SNAP process and the Parliament. The committee agreed to consider whether it would wish to have any formal involvement in this. It seems to me that there are probably two main ways forward. One is having noted involvement in the justice committee in this. The Public Petitions Committee may consider that it does not wish to seek a formal role at the time, but before the in advance of the justice committee's debate in December, may we wish to invite Professor Miller to provide either a no role or written briefing? The other option, of course, is that we appoint our own rapporteur in this case, in which case it would be interested to see if a member is our motion to volunteer for that role. I see that as the two main ways forward. I am just interested to hear what the committee's views are on this. Can I suggest that we ask Professor Miller to provide us with a written briefing on the work, so that we can consider that in due course? As agreed at item 1, the committee will now go into private session for the item 6 and 7 to day's agenda and allow a few moments for the public gallery to clear.