 Felly wander� efo'r niad sydd wedi和dedd Hydw iawn i hi findol hips вд yards. Iselnud y ffeirio amddangol wir f тип fan hyn o gynnwys cyfelfig המ�uhyd digwydd. Rwyf i wnaeth eu hyfraniósof 아�thgorau Rhona Macai mwy iawn agddwyd yn ei bery wneud gyda i ddiogelu youranal pod oysig i hyn, Arferno, wedi eu gwneud ffitprobaeth. amendment 1 eraill iechy 144 abras First of the members would consider, for the first time, three continued petitions that we considered being carried over from session 4. The first of them is petition 1-5-4-8, on national guidance, restraint and seclusion in schools. The petition was lodged by Beth Morrison in February last year. Members will see that we have recent submissions from the Children and Young Peupels Commissioner and the petition. The petitioners' response is positive in the context of the Scottish Government, 챌�feydd i newid gynharu imgraffiaid. Mae'r gynharu i gyd yn gweithio ddysgu gylio'r ddeimlo, a y gallwn i weithio'r ddrifarthgwyd, ac rwy'n gwneud i ffyrdd gweithio'r bhlygau a'i ddamgwadau i ddifarthgwyd a'i ddannod cymdeithasol. Felly os ddim yn gyffredin flank i ddechrau cydydig, ac mae'n gweithio'r dddefnyddio'r ddiforthgwyd wedi bod yn y tydd i gyd yn cael eu gorfod peithio. byddai eich newid sydd gar masterpiece alive will be worth asking for the Scottish Government's comments on the follow up for the meeting that they had in 22 September Exactly. And I think I don't know if you were struck by the sort of strengthen the comments from the children in Young People's Commission particularly on the issue around the further recommendations by the United Nations. And I wonder whether it be worth getting an o bai i'r Gwyl الإngelliant y Llywodraeth yn y gwêl. Rydw chi amser, mae'n gwybod i dda i gael eich oeddoch yn mynd i gael i'r cwyl oeddoch, a'r sgwr, mae'n gweithio'i fod cywir a'i ddysgwilio i ddisfiedeaniaeth cerdd, oedd i chi i ddisfiedeaniaeth cerdd o'r gweld? Rydw i'i ddisfiedeaniaeth cerdd? Rydw i'i ddisfiedeaniaeth cerdd? Felly, nid yw'r eitem o un o'r meddwl yn gyffredinol eich oedau ddefnyddio'r oedau deill, ond rydyn ni'n gwybod i ddau i'r mwyaf o ddrygu'r myfyrdd, ac yn ddau i ddweud o'r myfyrdd o'r prydau o'r ysgolraeth i'r myfyrdd ym yn ysgrifennig, ond rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r myfyrdd o'r ysgolraeth i'r myfyrdd, ond rydyn ni'n gwybod i'r myfyrdd o'r ysgolraeth i'r myfyrdd. I think that there is a strong argument to ask the UK Government for an update on when it expects to report on the outcome of its consultation and also to ask the Scottish Government to provide further information on how it intends to engage with the UK Government on the issue of mandatory reporting in that the consultation is closed. I was struck by the fact that there isn't complete agreement amongst organisations representing young people that this is the right way to go, that there are issues around mandatory reporting that they would have concerns about at the same time. I can understand from the point that the petitioner or survivors of the idea that organisations institutions don't pay attention to what is happening. Is there clearly an issue that we would hope that we would look at that further with the Scottish Government or even within the Parliament at some point? There are issues, people raising issues around mandatory sort of shouting about that. It seems to me that the ones that we would prefer are the ones that are historical, rather than the ones that are immediate. Am I, would I be reading that wrong? You mean survivors? Yeah, yeah. Historically people would have, you know, looking back, like it reported, but when you're involved in it at the moment. Well I suppose what struck me from the petition was the two separate things. There are people who have concerns and not quite sure where to go, so you work as a school teacher, you work with children's organisations, you're a bit concerned, you don't know where to go, you don't worry about it. It puts an obligation on you to actually pass those concerns on. There's a separate issue about the extent to which, within organisations, people who wish to abuse children actively choose to go and work there because that is a place in which historically we've seen abusers have been able to operate. The question is whether the issue of mandatory reporting is about addressing that, I've got a bit of a problem with that, but I don't quite know where to go and concentrate people's minds on their obligations or addressing this question that institutions are places that can be an opportunity for abuse. I think that there are really difficult issues on either side. I was very much struck by the fact that children's organisations were not necessarily of you that mandatory reporting might create a problem for the young person. It's something that we would be interested in in the Scottish Government's views of that. It's slightly more, I think, than just because I'm not quite sure why the Scottish Government wants to await the UK Government's position on it, presumably they could do something right now, but it would be interesting to hear more general views on that. Is the fact that these organisations are UK-wide and I think that they're drawing on all that information and historic knowledge and hence I think that they've got to get the UK Government fine before they can come to decision because there might be something in there, some kernels information that would be helpful and I certainly would support that. So have we agreed then that we will contact the UK Government and the Scottish Government for an update on where they are? We then move on to petition 1596 on in-care survivor service Scotland. The principal petitioner for this petition is Paul Anderson and included with the paper of a letter to the Scottish Government on the development of the in-care survivor support fund. This was discussed in some detail by our predecessor committee and I did look at some of the evidence at that point, it was clearly something at the committee at that time. It also took seriously, but I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions on what action we might wish to take on this petition in light of the Scottish Government's correspondence. I think that before we decide what action today it's worth noting that the petitioners stated to this committee in January that they'd like to see the existing ICSS service continued, but within the proposed model. I'm particularly pleased to note the Scottish Government's position when it states that while survivors have the option of registering with the survivor support fund, there will be nothing to prevent them from continuing to receive services from their local support services if they meet the fund's access criteria. That included OpenSecret, which I've had some contact with through my constituency. However, that said, I think that we do need clarification on the fund's access criteria, which seems to have caused some confusion and difficulty in recent months. There's fun information that we need on this. I'm going to refer here to you to get better knowledge in this, I have to say. You've obviously worked on this a lot more than— I should probably say that from the cross-party group on adult survivors of child sexual abuse and some involvement with survivors of in-care abuse, this is something that we feel quite strongly about and are troubled by. Angus says about people who still access those services. It's important, but I know that there are concerns simply about the model that has been suggested. There is a suggestion, if I get this right, that it's almost like medicalising the problem. You deal with the symptoms and the consequences of abuse as opposed to how you support a person who has been in that situation in whatever way. We're dealing with the trauma of it and I think that some of the people involved in this field are concerned that the trauma aspects of it are not particularly dealt with and that they prefer to deal with a person who then gets the support wrapped around them rather than going through a series of processes of support, which is not quite in the same way. There is a fund there, and I think that the concern might be that that fund is moving against the approach that was taken in the past around survivors. I think that there's a broader question here as well around what's happening with the inquiry, in which I think that people on all sides want an inquiry that's going to support survivors and help survivors, but there's been a bit of turmoil around it to say the very least. We can see it at a UK level but also at a Scottish level. I think that we should be seeking an update from the Scottish Government, but I wonder whether there's a bigger issue here that we can ask the education committee to explore under John Swinney's remit around his whole question of how we support survivors. It can be about this fund and I know that there's been direct representation to the minister before the Parliament dissolved, but also around the inquiry so that people can have confidence in what's been done. I think that what's interesting here is that we're discussing the perception of the survivors on the current system, although it's doing what's supposed to do, and that might be the case, but the perception is that the changes might not deliver what they're looking for. I think that there will be clarification from two areas, one for this petition, but secondly, if it is the case to reassure the survivors that they're going to get the support that they need. I mean, it's all about the perception. The question is whether we hold on to the petition and ask for further information, and we might seek comments from folk who are working with survivors and people who are delivering services about what is the difference, or do we say that this is clearly something in the broader context that the education committee could be looking at. I know that, as a member of the education committee, we have taken an interest thus far, and if it corresponds with the minister, we haven't gone so far as going further than that at this stage. I wonder whether that's really the choice. Do we hold on to it and ask for that information, or do we say that this might be something that the education committee could look at further in the context of the broader question about the inquiry? I think that we seek the update on the Government's position on the survivors' support fund, the roll-out of it, and then consider again before we send it to the education skills committee. I think that we still need to keep that in mind. Perhaps the opportunity for those with an interest in the petition who might want to provide the committee with further information on how it's working out, and whether the concerns have been addressed, and whether the question of the actual approach is the wrong approach. It's a fund that you apply to a service that you can draw from, which I think are two different things. I agree with that. That's agreed. We will be contacting the Scottish Government and we will ask them for an update but not for an opportunity for those with an interest perhaps to respond further. Thank you very much for that, colleagues. Agenda item 2 is a consideration of new petitions. We are turning now to new petitions. We have six to consider. Petition 1613 on taking account of sound sensitivity in regulating antisocial behaviour and environmental health. This petition is by Craig Thomson and calls the Scottish Government to provide for the needs of people who experience sound sensitivity due to disability or medical conditions to be taken into account in legislation and guidance on noise and antisocial behaviour. The petition sets out some background to the petitioner's own experiences. The petition attracted 244 signatures of support and 26 comments. All but one comment supported the petition. Members have also seen the spice briefing, which sets out further background information. I wonder if people have any views or comments on the issue of how we take the petition forward. I think that this is a really difficult one, to be honest. If I'm not wrong, it's great to dominate in autism. The petitioner himself has asked for it. I think that there are some recommendations that the petitioner himself makes around housing and so on. That might be something that we might want to pursue, but clearly that would apply to whether somebody would own their home or is in a social rendi set. Actually, if you were in a social rendi set, there is some flexibility for landlords, but it's more difficult if you're in a position where there is no purchase on your neighbours in that regard. It's clearly an issue. The whole issue of noise nuisance is something that I've had dealings with in the past. Occasionally it can be poor insulation, it can be somebody being thoughtless or disregarding the needs of their neighbours. In this circumstance it may be that it's a lack of awareness on the level of sensitivity, but also in some circumstances where young people themselves are creating noise because of their own condition and can cause disturbance to other people. How do you then deal with that? I think that there are big issues, and there are very interesting issues here, but I just wonder how best we might progress. Where I think the most important thing is to talk to engage the local authorities and the housing associations, so that can be done through local authorities as a sort of first kick-off because they're closest to this issue, and I know from experiences that this has come up in my area. It's an ongoing issue in certain different aspects too, but when you talk about sound insulation and insulation and also pointing where people might go and live, i.e. if it's in social housing, for example, then there are clear areas that might be better than. That comes down to local authorities. I think that we need to really engage the local authorities on that and get some more feedback as to what their policies are and what they're doing. I think that you're right that local authorities are the Scottish Federation of Housing Association. I was very interested in the idea that somebody has these sensitive to noise that part of your rights to adaptations could be to have your house properly. It's a little question about the poor and sound insulation in a lot of our properties anyway, but I think that that would be useful, moved by the Scottish Federation of Housing Association and local authorities. Anyone else? On to that, because it would tie into social services reports on particular cases, which no doubt they may well be within that domain. I think that that is an important issue. I'm also thinking of getting a report back from the autistic society or society as well on their thoughts on this, because they'll obviously have much better figures than we have. I was just going to say that the recent housing standards regulation has helped. Certainly in my experience I've had a constituent who had sent sensitivities and part of it was due to social housing and part of it was due to the council not, ironically, meeting the new housing standard regulations, but once they were met it dealt with a problem. There are solutions out there that are definitely worth pursuing. I think that we should maybe also contact Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society to get their view on the petitioners' petition as well. I'm perhaps a Scottish Government to see you there. There is a dilemma, isn't there? I think that it would be interesting to know from the organisations who represent people with autism the extent to which it is a problem, the extent to which part of it might be the current legislation has not been enforced, because there is some suggestion in the petition that even when you could show the noise with very much above the level that should be nothing happens, there's a question there, but also if it is reasonable to most people how do you deal with those circumstances and can question the mediation as it comes into that as well. I think that if we can contact our right to Scottish Government to the autism organisations, the Federation of Housing Association's local authorities and perhaps those who are people with expertise in environmental health might be able to give us some advice on how they would see that kind of question that that dilemma being addressed. For clarification, convener, when we say local authorities are we writing to COSLA or individual local authorities, okay? It's fine. Okay, if that's agreed, we can then move on. To petition 1616 on parking legislation, this is a new petition by John Shaw. Members will see that it collected 75 signatures and attracted eight comments, which were supportive of the petition. The action called for by the petition is to make it an offence to park in front of a dropped kerb. Members have a spice briefing which provides some context to the issues raised by the petition. This notes that a member's bill by Sandra White MSP was introduced in the last session and aimed to implement the action called for by the petition. There were concerns about whether the Scottish Parliament legislative competence in the bill fell when session 4 was dissolved on 23 March 2016. Relevant powers over on-street parking were, however, devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act 2016, and the Scottish Government's programme for government in 2016-17 makes a commitment to consult on responsible parking legislation. Members have comments or suggestions for action? I'm going to admit that I thought that it wasn't a thing to park in a dropped kerb. I think that it's an offence in other parts of the United Kingdom, and the petitioners suggest that that's the case. I genuinely thought that it was an offence, so I just want you to wear eyes out. It's certainly worth it that local authorities have come in with now introduced decriminalisation of parking offences, whether that's had any impact and the sudden increase in this. I have a feeling that that might be connected. We probably need to ask the Scottish Government whether it's used on this or where it stands, because when local authorities were then allowed to decriminalise, I think that that probably may have to be looked at again in the sense of that particular aspect, which Brian was referring to. I think that we would all probably think that we understand entirely the position of the petitioner as someone who hates parking and is rubbish at it and gets stressed at the thought of it. There is no doubt that there are a lot of selfish parkers out there. You only need to go outside primary schools and start time to see the challenges. If you were trying to get about your business in a wheelchair, there are huge numbers of barriers in your ways. I think that that is a big issue for people. I know that the bill that is in white had tried to address some of that. Also, the fact that our streets are not built with the number of cars to be parked in residential areas is a whole big issue here, but I think that the point that is highlighted by John Shaw is something that we would want to get more information on. We could perhaps write to the Scottish Government and ask how they see their commitment in their legislative programme and take forward relation to the matter of the review of the question. I do not know whether there are organisations that might have a particular interest, but from the point of view of the people who are totally disadvantaged by this, we could contact them as well. I come back to the local authority issue. I think that maybe Cosner might be on the road side because at the end of the day it is a delegated authority. Do not get me wrong, the trunk road is of course a transport Scotland, but in the main we are dealing with municipal roads, so I think that they will probably bring in Cosner into that on the road transport side and get their views because they would be able to... I think that it is the exact same as disabled parking space. Everybody knows at one level how much of an outrage it is that people selfishly park in them, and it cannot be enforced, and people get abused and all the rest of it, but it sometimes becomes just too difficult to deal with. There must be some way where somebody should be able to be able to go about their business without, you know, manage that well, people who are parking at the same time. Just to clarify, you are suggesting that it is not illegal to park in a disability space? In some cases. I think that there actually was legislation through the Parliament in this regard. It is some of it's to do with are the courtesy spaces technically defined as or whether they have a transportation order. I'm now being completely ignorant about the actual term that's used, but it's an order that has to be put in place by local authority, but that has been addressed, but I suppose the point I was making was the attitudes behind it, which actually meant that it had to be legislated onwards, that people would simply would still park in a disabled parking space, even if it was clearly mapped, which is the astonishment of me. I'm learning something new all the time. It's fantastic. Can I say, convener, it is unfortunate that the Sandra White's bill fell with the dissolution of session 4. Otherwise, this petition, hopefully, wouldn't have been necessary. I mean, you see it was lodged on 5 October. So, you know, it is unfortunate that there's been that delay with the bill falling, but hopefully this can help to get a result. It may be that that bill may be pursued further. I'm remembering that's something that even the discussion might highlight to people. I think that there's also a suggestion that we take views from Living Street Scotland, Guide Dog Scotland and Society of Chief Officers of Transportation Scotland, all of whom may have a view on this. I think that, you know, in if there are other organisations who perhaps disability organisations themselves want to highlight their concerns, there's been opportunity for them to feed in as well. That's agreed. Can we move on then to petition 1617 on a proposed health study, the vaccinated versus non-vaccinated? This petition is by Angus Files. This petition calls for a study of the effects or health outcomes for those who have been fully vaccinated according to guidelines compared to those who have not. The petition indicates that this is not something that the Scottish Government has previously considered undertaking. The briefing refers to petitions from session 4, which is also related to vaccination practice and policy. One of those petitions was also from Mr Files. I wonder if members have any views on action to take on this petition. I thought that this would be done as a matter of course. I think that if you're doing mass vaccinations, you would want to keep quite a tight stringent look at that, so I'm surprised that it's not done as a matter of course. It can't be that difficult. I think that it's probably something slightly different. I presume that people who clinically understand the consequence and the choice that it made around vaccinations will keep that under close scrutiny. I think that the suggestion here is that you would compare those who are vaccinated against those who are not vaccinated. I'm not sure how you could do that if the group that was not being vaccinated were not getting the benefits of vaccination. I'm not sure how that would work. I suppose that the issue here is about patient confidentiality. You would know who has been vaccinated and by proxy who has not been vaccinated, I would have thought. I suppose that the question is if public policy is that we believe that it's the interests of the child to be vaccinated rather than having that discussion about why that vaccination is worthwhile. You've made that choice. Now let's compare whether you are right or not, which doesn't feel to me to be—I'm not sure whether ethically the medical profession would support that. There is a point that is made here in the spice brief, which says that the global consensus on vaccination holds that it would be unethical to carry out any such trial, because it would mean depriving people involved in the trial of vaccinations against infectious diseases. I wasn't suggesting that we would do that kind of trial as in withhold, but there will be those who have been vaccinated and there will be those who have decided not to be vaccinated. From that, we have to extrapolate out and see in terms of health how they've developed over that period of time. That comes down to patient confidentiality, whether that information can be accessed. I would certainly be against— I think that the ethical dilemma is if there is a view that this vaccination is in the interest of all of us—that everyone is vaccinated—rather than arguing with somebody who's chosen—or somebody who hasn't, I suppose—to choosing not to be somebody who's not been vaccinated, saying to them, rather than saying to them which I would have thought would have been the position by health professionals, saying, well, this is actually in your interest, you should do this, rather than using them instead as a control group to judge whether they were right or wrong. I think that that's absolutely the ethics involved in that, but certainly in patient confidentiality it would say that we wouldn't have to set any trial up because those conditions never exist. I have a quick interest to see where we do stand ethically in that. Sharon, I'm sure that if you think about it when a young child is vaccinated in the first year, I mean there are records held on that anyway available in national health. Now that's obviously the person the parent chooses to have the child vaccinated and most people do, and then if you look at the mortality rates of the population, information must be there to indicate on that side. Presumably, it informs the medical procession review of the benefits of vaccination or whether, indeed, you no longer need the vaccination because there's no longer a threat of disease. I think that there are some people who may actively choose. There must be some people in the community who simply miss out, but there's a different reason, so I'm not sure they should be a group against which you confirm the benefits of vaccination. I mean, if you look at the flu vaccination, I mean that's in very common with the control group because over 65, for example, have the choice, but more and more people seem to be doing that, so I think some of the evidence is already there in the domain, but it's, as you say, it's a long-term thing, and the manufacturers and their trials, of course, do that in a smaller scale. That's an ethics question. Would it be worse than seeking the views of the Scottish Government petition? They may be able to highlight exactly what that challenge is. I would have thought that at the point where there is a decision around the benefits of vaccination, a lot of that has been tested, and they take the view that not only is it an individual interest, but there's a collective interest in vaccination in order to protect all of us, and I suppose even just to get them to confirm that would be useful. I think that it's also what that policy is on getting that information out into the public domain to recommend. Is that agreed, then? Yeah, I'm right. Thanks very much. If we can now move on to petition 1611 on mental health services in Scotland. There's a new petition by Angela Hamilton. Members will see that the petition collected 270 signatures online and 144 signatures offline. The petition also attracted 26 comments, which were supportive of its aims. Members have a copy of the petition, which is calling for action on three issues regarding waiting time targets and funding to primary care and third sector services. Angela Hamilton has been going to the meeting today, but is unfortunately unwell. She has, however, provided a written submission that expands a little on the information that is in the petition and provides some examples of experiences that people have had of accessing mental health services. It also sets out information about local mental health associations that she's aware of and has been invited to observe in her own area. We shall make sure that her submission is put into the public domain, as it is very informative. We had actively chosen to take evidence that it is clearly an issue that is of concern to Angela Hamilton, but it probably resonates quite strongly with issues that we have picked up more genuinely around the whole question of mental health services. It would have been really good if Angela had been able to be here today. I am sure that we wish her a speedy recovery, and I thank her for submitting the petition in the first place. I wonder if people have any suggestions about how we take this forward. I think that it's fair to say that Parliament is taking the issue of mental health a lot more regularly and seriously in this term than perhaps has in the past. I think that we would agree that we would want to reduce weighty health weighting times as much as we possibly could. In terms of just our ability to reduce that term to a figure, I am not sure how practical that is. We met at all that in itself. I think that there are benefits of targets even if they expose the problems and deliver the target, but she flags up that there is consistent achievement on targets. I think that there is a question about the role of both public and national health services, but she also speaks quite powerfully about the importance of third sector organisations. It goes back again to an early petition in the way in which third sector organisations can support people in a different way. I think that the petitioners have done a little bit of work in this particular area myself, and I think that the third sector and voluntary sector certainly seem to lead the way and can probably teach us quite a lot in this environment. As I said, if we are not making the 18 week as much as we would like, I would be reducing that. I don't know what that has impact on in this current term. I think that we need to understand a clarification on the Scottish Government's action plan to target current targets. One of the things for information to note is that the Health and Sports Committee will need a short inquiry on mental health services in November 2016, looking at waiting time targets and the implementation of the previous mental health strategy. It may be that the option that we have is to close the petition on the understanding that we are referring it to the Health and Sports Committee. Oh, sorry, we are referring it to them because they are doing this inquiry. I think that the information that Angela Hamilton has provided in the way in which she has described that is very useful, and we would hope that the Health and Sports Committee would be able to take that information and feed it into the inquiry. It is clearly said across the Parliament that there is a concern about this question, but it is then about delivering it on a policy. We can all agree on a policy, but if you do not then look at what stops it has been delivered, what the challenges are, I think that there is an issue with that. I do not know whether people have a view on that approach. I would definitely like that approach. I agree with that. It is part of the bigger inquiry. I would agree, convener, especially given that the two short inquiries are imminent. I think that they are going to start next month, so sooner it is referred the better. Again, we want to thank Angela Hamilton for her petition. I think that we do recognise the significance of what has been highlighted, and we know that in the Health and Sports Committee they too understand that, so we would refer it to them as part of your inquiry. Is that agreed? I agree with that. Okay, thank you very much. If we can then move on to petition 1618 on combating motorcycle theft, and a slight change to the running order on our agenda, the next petition that we will consider is by Carl Grundy on behalf of Riders Club Edinburgh. Carl is unable to attend the meeting today. Members will see that the petition collected 1,196 signatures and attracted 110 comments, which were supportive of its aims. Members have a copy of the petition that is calling for action on combating motorcycle theft and related offences. I think that we could seek views on the petition from the Scottish Government and Police Scotland, and it may be that perhaps one or two of us could meet with the petitioner in order to understand the issues raised in the petition. I think that that would be useful. I would suggest that we could do that informally, given our meeting schedule. I wonder if members have a view on those suggestions. Definitely, I think that it's worth meeting. I would support that. Okay, so we can set that up, and with those members who are able to attend that, that would be useful. And again, to speak to the Scottish Government and Police Scotland about the issues that are highlighted. Is that agreed? Okay, thank you very much. Can we just take a short break before the next item? I will suspend the meeting. Resume the meeting and welcome me back. I welcome Mark Ruskell to the meeting who is here for this item. We are now turning to petition 1615 on a state-regulated system for game bird hunting in Scotland. Our final petition for today was lodged by Logan Steele on behalf of Scottish Raptor study group, and as Clart's note indicates, it received over 7,000 signatures and just over 600 comments in support of what it seeks to achieve. Members will be aware that we have recently received written submissions from RSPB Scotland, Scottish Land and Estates and the Scottish countryside Alliance. I welcome Logan Steele to the committee, along with Duncan Orr Ewing, head of species and land management, RSPB Scotland, and Andrea Hudspeth, who is treasurer and raptor surveyor for the Tayside Raptor study group. Welcome and thank you for attending today. I think that you have the opportunity now to make a brief opening statement, after which we will move two questions from the committee. Okay, good morning. We are first of all delighted to have received 7,600 signatures from across the UK, and I think that it demonstrates the public feeling on this issue. Scottish Raptor study group members are volunteers with day jobs from lawyers, conservation workers to council workers. Duncan, Andrea and I are fairly typical of the 270 members that we have across Scotland. We are passionate about raptors and their conservation. Annually we monitor around 6,000 sites outside the survey year, and we are guided by government licences and a scientific approach and accreditation by SNH. I'm subject to a code of practice and annual returns, all the data that we collect is supplied back to Scottish natural heritage. We are patient, reasonable people, guided by sound science informed by debate. Persecution black spots across Scotland are in Angus, Invernesha, Donside and parts of southern uplands, and Scotland has an international reputation for expert raptor workers. We are not against game bird shooting, just the illegal elements of it, and we have no wish to ban it. We understand the importance of game bird shooting as part of the rural economy. We work with crofters, farmers, stalkers, shepherds, landowners and gamekeepers. However, our patience with the criminal end of the game shooting industry is at an end. Over years, we have seen provocation, obfuscation and leadership failing with the land owning and game representatives interests. The Government's own review conducted by SNH last year admitted that there is a serious problem with more than management and grouse shooting. Just a quick explanation, there are two forms of grouse shooting, walk-up and driven. Walk-up is where guests will walk up a hillside with guns and shoot at grouse flushed on their feet. That is low intensity and does not feature too much in the criminal activity on driven grouse smores. Driven grouse smores is a business that depends upon huge numbers of birds at the end of the breeding season to be shot by guests. The problem that driven grouse shooting industry has is that they cannot rely on these big bags of grouse to shoot unless they undertake illegal raptor persecution, because raptors themselves would eat that surplus. The driven grouse shooting industry needs to continue with the killing, otherwise our business model is flawed. The Scottish Government should be welcome for taking many steps in the last few years to try and reduce the key among which was vicarousal liability and the tightening up of general licences and two poison amnestys. Berserpray has been protected since 1954. We would say that the killing is cultural and an entrenched part of sporting estates and goes back to Victorian times. It is seen as an extractive business, rather than a sustainable one, and we need to move to a model more to harmony with the environment. Since the early 90s, there has been a series of initiatives, including partnership working, Paul Scotland, Raptor working group, Langham Moore demonstration project, police review, thematic review of wildlife crime, Moreland forum, the continue but the killing continues. It is difficult to bring a prosecution due to geography, the burden of proof, the wall of silence when a crime is found, crimes occur in remote places, easy to conceal, difficult to detect, corroboration under Scott's law require two witnesses, and we also have, as we all well know, limited police resources. There is an overwhelming body of science from the RSPB and the Government's own statutory conservation body SNH, and there is also compelling evidence and intelligence on where those crimes are occurring, add to which is our member's experience on the ground, where, in many cases, in ideal habitat, certain key species are absent. Tactics that our members are finding but not necessarily illegal are gas bangers, gas guns, inflatable scarecrows, ice, guns discharged over birds, burning of nests in heather banks and torching of golden eagle iris. Those things are not illegal, but they certainly do not help the or encourage birds of prey to breed. In parts of Scotland's situation is getting worse because of the intensification of management, such as the killing of deer, mountain hares, draining, burning on deep peatlands, creating hill tracks without planning permission and the burning out of scrub in Juniper. The golden eagle is Scotland's tiger, and it has been grubbed out in Grousemores, which damages Scotland's image of the world and affects green tourism and the wild rural environment. Our patience has run out. We need a step change. In a civilised country, we would not tolerate a business sector that conducts its affairs outside the law. We maintain that no other land use or industry is allowed to behave in this way. We have established that, in other countries, where game bird hunting is better regulated, we have found that intensive game bird hunting systems are not permitted and there is far better compliance of wildlife and environmental protection laws. That is why we are calling for the licensing of game bird shooting to be introduced. My final comment is that, perversely, a licensing approach might save the grouse shooting industry from themselves, which has patently failed to do over the decades. If I can just start by saying that you say that self-reagulation by the game bird shooting sector in Scotland has patently failed, do you think that it has failed because there is no commitment to it or because you seem to suggest earlier on that it does not work in terms of their point of view of what they actually need to do in terms of making the business sustainable? How do you square your very clear view that things are not illegal but are causing damage? How do you square that with your view that is presented from the other side that the problem is not as severe as you suggest? Part of the reason why the actions taken have failed is primarily down to the very difficult task of actually proving a criminal case. We know, for example, that killings are taking place in wild remote moors. It is difficult to find. We need two witnesses to find two independent witnesses to corroborate a crime. Those crimes are taking place in very quiet remote areas. There is no lack of appetite from the Government, the police, SNH and the other public bodies to try and crack down on that. It is just largely down to the inability to prove the offences. We will hear or we have heard from certain land-owned interests that this is only a small problem. There is a huge body of science produced by RSBB and SNH that there is huge swath of Scotland with certain key raptors absent, which is largely down to or entirely down to the land use that is put to. Your view is that the business is aware of that, but it really does not want to confront it? Well, as I said previously, it does not want to confront it. Driven Grouse shooting depends on large numbers of surplus birds at the end of the breeding season. Without that large surplus to be shot by guests, the business will not be viable. That is why they are so reluctant to stop the killing. If they do stop the killing and buy by the law, they will not have the surplus to shoot and the businesses will be devoid of revenue and income to run the business. Does that mean that you agree with the view that—perhaps I am describing unfairly—the view of those who are involved in the business that they have in order to sustain those jobs and to sustain the work that they have to do? I mean, they would deny, presumably, that there is any criminal activity, but you are saying that it is inevitable, but does that therefore mean that you cannot have that kind of grouse shooting then? I will pass my colleague Duncan, or you who would like to add. I was just going to add that the Scottish Land and Estates and Scottish Country alliance responses to the petitioner indicative of the problem. I mean, they are very much aware of the scale of the problem. I mean, I am involved with the partnership against wildlife crime. All of this information has been presented to them over quite a number of years, but still they deny the scale of the impact which we see regularly on the ground. This is a systematic and endemic problem. They are clearly out of touch with what is happening on the ground and what we see. In advance of the meeting, I asked the clerk to the committee to circulate the RSPB Scotland 20-year illegal killing of bird of prey in Scotland report, which summarises the number of incidents that have been recorded over the years and the scale of the impact on populations of birds of prey in Scotland. That is an overwhelming case in which the Government, SNH and successive environment ministers have accepted the scale of the problem, but clearly we are not proposing that game bird hunting is banned. Simply better regulated to try and get rid of the illegal element within the midst of this sector. Hunting jobs would continue, but what we are saying is that we do need a less intensified game bird hunting model to deliver a wider range of public goods. That is reinforced by the recent Scottish Natural Heritage Scientific Advisory Committee moorland management review. We think that by moving to this less intensified model you will actually diversify the opportunities for rural development, which are at the moment largely dominated by hunting interests. If we were to accept that self-regulation has failed and there are clearly indications, as you have highlighted in your preamble, that that is the case in various parts of Scotland, why do you consider that a licensing system would be the solution? I will just briefly summarize this. We are not proposing a banning of game bird hunting, simply better regulation to improve standards and protect the public interest. Game bird hunting in the UK is known to be among the most intensive and least regulated in Europe and North America. We have an SNH review that is under way of hunting licensing systems across Europe, which will be published shortly. In Scotland, we have other state-regulated systems for natural resources management, such as water, for example, SEPA-regulate water, abstraction, empowerment and so forth. We also have systems of regulation for both deer and wild fisheries, so we would argue why should game bird hunting be any different. What we are proposing is that a licensing system would work alongside existing package of sanctions that are available, such as vicarious liability and penalties for convictions. A licence would be issued by Scottish Government to allow hunting to take place. That could be to an individual or to a geographic hunting area. That would be self-financed, so SNH, if it administered this system, would charge for a hunting licence, which would cover the administration similar to the SEPA system for consents for water. We would suggest that it is supported by a code of sustainable game bird hunting practice, which sets out the standards that should be adhered to. Similarly, in the deer world, we have a code of sustainable deer management practice, which could provide a model. We are assuming that the licence will be a civil and administrative process supported by additional criminal sanctions for non-compliance. For example, hunting without a licence, we suggest that this is delivered on a civil burden of proof, similar to the removal of the open general licence, which SNH administered already. Therefore, the burden of evidence is on balance of probabilities. Currently, the criminal burden of proof is very difficult, given where those crimes occur and the difficulty in gaining sufficient evidence to stand up in court. You mentioned vicarious liability in your answer. You will be aware that last week, committees of the UK Parliament took evidence on the petitions relating to grous shooting. In the course of the evidence, comments were made on the vicarious liability measures in the 2011 act. Jeff Nott of the RSPBE observed that, although not our silver bullet, those measures have started to have a greater deterrent effect. With that in mind, it is not an argument that the 2011 legislation needs more time to bed in and its impacts to be evaluated before licensing or, indeed, any other measure should be considered for introduction. I know that there was a comment earlier that your patience has run out, but, at the same time, should we not wait and see if the 2011 legislation works? Vicarious liability was introduced under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act in 2011 and it makes landowners responsible for the actions of their employees in relation to the illegal killing of birds of prey. It relies on a criminal burden of proof. Since it came in, only two landowners have been successfully convicted under this legislation, both of whom are relatively small players in the game bird sport or hunting world. The area of most concern, in terms of crimes against birds of prey, is land managed for driven grouse shooting. It is very intensive, high input and high output in terms of game bag and high intensity management systems, which are not being touched at the present time by vicarious liability. I am afraid that, if vicarious liability is to work, it has got to touch those very intensive game bird hunting systems, otherwise it is not going to act as a deterrent. Over my 40 years' experience with raptor working and dealing with persecution, there is always an initiative on the way. Let's wait for this to happen, let's wait for this to change, let's give it three or four more years, let's see what this working party could do, let's rejig the rules and regulations, and, if I got a pound for every time, we had an initiative that came along to solve the problem, I'll be a rich man. One of the things that we would note to start with is that, by definition, the few numbers of raptors that are going to be out there, any loss is always going to be significant. Your petition observes that good wildlife laws are now in place in Scotland to protect birds of prey, and it goes on to say that enforcement of wildlife protection laws has historically been inadequately resourced, as compounded by the remote locations involved. Would increasing resources for enforcement potentially be a solution rather than a licensing system? We have, over time, had additional training for brocliate ffiscals, and we have had specific wildlife crime officers appointed, and they were, and still are, quite active in their own areas. However, if they even doubled their treble debuts on the ground, because the crime takes place in wild remote areas, as I said before, with the requirement of two witnesses to corroborate the crime, I don't think that it would overcome things. I could just add to that. In 2008, there was a thematic review of the penalties and enforcement of wildlife crime by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, which made a number of recommendations for improving enforcement, a number of which have been implemented. However, the whole area of combating wildlife crime and enforcement of wildlife crime by the police is under resourced. If you are going to do that effectively, you need something like the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which you might be familiar with, which has very extensive powers to stop and search and to tackle wildlife crime out on the ground. I was struck by your suggestion that the laws are routinely flouted. Are there other trends in the information about wildlife crime that demonstrate this to be the case? Yes, it does. Apart from the counting of dead bodies, what we are finding is that, as each subsequent population survey has been completed, the Golden Eagle was last year, we did the Henharrier this year and the Peregrine survey, which involves the whole of Scotland being surveyed for Peregrine falcons, Henharrier and Golden Eagle. Each subsequent survey, and I understand that the Golden Eagle survey has yet to be published, is indicating a continual absence of raptors from key areas. On top of that, we are also getting more and more feedback from satellite tagging of Henharrier and Golden Eagles, and you might be aware that there has been a number of incidents just this year of Harriers and Golden Eagles disappearing, which were sat tagged over areas that were primarily used for driven grounds. I want to make a point, convener. There is widespread public concern out there about the impacts particularly of driven grass more shooting. The petition that Angus MacDonald referred to has been considered at Westminster attracted 125,000 signatures. Many of those petitioners were signatures coming from rural constituencies in Scotland. We also know that there is a separate petition that the committee will hear in the weeks to come concerning the persecution of mountain hares by driven grass more estates. I think that there is a lot of environmental concerns to unpack around this issue. I have a question in my mind about whether a licensing regime would actually be effective and how it could be implemented. However, I think that the best course of action in my mind would be for this to be referred to the Environment, Climate Change and Reform Committee, where I know that there has been a lot of interest and discussion among members around a broader inquiry that looks at the future of our uplands and some of the tensions that exist between different forms of land use. I personally feel that a petition like that and possibly subsequent petitions that are coming to the committee to be referred to the Eclare committee would provide us a really strong anchor to consider the wider environmental impacts of upland land management, of which this is only a part of. I am struck by the extent to which you appear to have no faith in the commitments that are being made in terms of the fact that people keep saying that there is going to be action and so on. I want to clarify with you that you refer to a current Scottish national heritage review of Gamebird licensing systems in Europe, but say that the review will apparently make no recommendations for further action. You might be able to say a little more about why you take that review, but you also have petition calls for the implementation of the recommendations of the review of wildlife crime penalties in Scotland. If the review that is referred to was one that reports in November 2015, I will not show that the Scottish Government responded to that in February. In that response, the Government accepted the recommendation, including the introduction of tough new penalties. I wonder what your understanding of that is, because again, I mean to go back to the point that Mark Ruskell makes, you suggest a licensing scheme, but that seems to be driven by frustration that whatever is being suggested never actually gets or never really makes the difference that you want to see. I think that my colleagues have sort of touched on this point already, is the burden of proof. We can increase the penalties for wildlife crime, but that still puts the burden on us, on people on the ground, actually looking for wildlife crime. Also, wildlife crime is being corroborated, as we have said, by two independent witnesses. I have only really come into this arena in the last six years, so for me, what I have seen on the ground is unbelievable. I have been astonished by what I have seen and what I have seen people get away with. The problem is that if you are out there on your own, you are monitoring raptors, there is no one to corroborate what you have seen. I can report and my reports can improve intelligence for the police. It can go on record, but it does not actually lead to convictions. It is very hard to bring a case before the courts for a conviction to be successful. It is a very long-winded and very expensive process. We accept that this is a step forward and we welcome the recommendations of that report, and we do think that it will help, but we think that that needs to be part of this whole suite of a regulated system for driven grass shooting. As you have said not said, vicarious liability is not a silver bullet. None of those things on their own are going to be a silver bullet. We need to have a whole suite of regulations and standards by which the whole industry has to adhere to if we are to see any real benefits. With regard to the SNH report and more widely Scottish Government efforts to tackle wildlife crime, since the inception of the Scottish Parliament, it has been very welcome the attention that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government have given to wildlife crime and some of the measures that have been introduced are now amongst the best in Europe. However, in most of the rest of Europe, they have regulated systems of game bird hunting, which sit alongside the penalties and the criminal sanctions. It is very disappointing that the SNH report is not going to make recommendations, and we would hope that the committee would encourage some recommendations to come out of that SNH licensing review to inform next steps here. Can I just go back to the point? What makes you believe that there will be no recommendations from that report? Is that what you've been told? I understand that it is a review without recommendations, but you may know differently. That might be a worthwhile question to ask, so it's not something that I do know, but it would seem very clear about that. I'm not sure of an instance where you have a review that doesn't then draw you to conclusions, which would then suggest certain actions, but that's something that we can obviously... Is there any other questions? I've got a comment on the frustrating thing. If there's a continuation of the floutation of those laws and a continuing loss of raptors, I think it's almost inevitable to drive towards legislation that a fear would be difficult to prosecute. I find it extraordinarily frustrating, because we would know that that kind of legislation is so difficult to... Because of the remoteness of the area, it's so difficult to prosecute. If those laws continue to be flouted, it will drive inevitably towards something that's probably very difficult to prosecute. I understand that those who are of criminal intent relying on the fact that it's it's unenforceable. It's not that the... I suppose that's why the legislation frame what matters, because it would appear there's some evidence that there are those who simply are not going to be persuaded. Clearly there will be a lot of people who have been persuaded, but there are others who are not persuaded of the importance of this. I don't know if you've got any last comment that you want to make before we draw some conclusions. Can I make one comment, please? The raptor group members find it hugely embarrassing that, in a country like Scotland, we've got a sector of the business sustained by criminality, and there's no other walk of society, no other business in Scotland who carries on their activity blatantly breaking the law. And furthermore, their business is underpinned by illegality, which I just find absolutely abhorrent, and that rides over and above any concerns regarding birds of prey. But as a sheer principle of living in a civilized society, I find it absolutely amazing. Were you once a son of a father? I was just going to add. The core of this problem really is the high intensity of game bird hunting systems that are allowed in Scotland. Driven grouse shooting, those high intensity pheasant releases, releasing—I mean, there are over 50 million pheasants that are released in the UK every year. In most other countries, those kinds of systems of hunting, which aren't really in touch with the natural environment, are not sustainable, are not allowed, and that is because they have regulated hunting systems which govern what is and isn't allowed and sets the standards and codes for behaviour. That is the missing part of the equation here. We have that in relation to deer management, we have the Deer Scotland Act 1996, we have SEPA governing other natural parts of natural resource management in terms of water, we have the Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries Act, which governs how fisheries are managed in Scotland, yet game bird hunting has no form of regulation. I would really like to draw your attention to that. Some of the arguments that the industry will come up against it will put forward is how vital their businesses are to rural economies in Scotland. I would just counter that to say that nature-based tourism actually contributes £1.4 billion to the Scottish economy and supports 39,000 jobs. If we keep depleting our natural resources or if we allow for our natural resources, our protected species to keep being persecuted in this way, that can only surely damage our nature tourism industry. If we no longer have species of interest for people to come to our country to see, we are going to lose out in that way. That is a personal issue for me as that is part of my business. I can see myself and other people in my industry finding it harder and harder to find the wildlife to show to visitors. In a country that has a valuable reputation for its nature, we cannot allow there to be people out there persecuting it and depleting it. Just to bring that issue into sharp focus, I was on the Hebrides in June this year with my wife on a birdwatching, walking holiday. On the matter, we met some American tourists who I quickly got into conversation about. They were very well versed with the raptor persecution in Scotland. They were appalled that it goes on for reasons that we have already discussed. I said to them, would you come back to Scotland? They said, well, one thing for sure, we are not going to Cairngorms national park. I said, why not? They said, because of the criminal goings on with raptor persecution over there, so they will not be visiting the Cairngorms national park because of the issues with raptor persecution. So I said, are you not coming back to Scotland? Oh no, we are coming back next year. We are going to Orkney and Shetland. There is no bird of prey persecution up there. That is a little wee anecdote that none of us would ordinarily say, and I am sure that it is happening in lots of little wee places all over Scotland where people are consciously making a decision to spend their pound in, as Amdia says, the green eco-tourism environment and not where criminal persecution is going on with raptors, such as one of our famed national parks. Thanks very much for that. I wonder if members have any comments on how we take this forward. I think that it is very interesting what the team was saying there about the current deer management programmes and wild fishery management programmes. I know a little bit about the deer management one and it has certainly been very successful. I see no reason why the Scottish Government should review this issue in relation to that. In other words, the success of wild fisheries and deer management and apply the same principles. In my experience, deer management has not been successful to date. There is a lot left, a lot to be desired in that respect. I am keen to seek more information from the Scottish Government's views on the petition, particularly with regard to the findings of the review of game bird licensing and legislation in other European countries, because I am keen to find out exactly what is happening elsewhere. At the same time, I take on board Mark Ruskell's suggestion that we should refer the petition to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, because it is about to undertake scrutiny of the wildlife crime annual report, but not knowing exactly when the annual report is coming out means that we could maybe have some time in this committee to get information from the Scottish Government. I am struck by the force of what you say. It is a huge charge that you are laying at the doors of those who are alleged to be involved in criminal activity, and it does not feel to me that that kind of charge is something that, through the Public Petitions Committee, feels that it could be explored in more detail by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I would like to see it being referred on that basis, because it would then afford people the opportunity to say that, in return, what has been alleged is so serious, that this is our response to it, and it would give people to be able to do that in depth. I think that people would probably agree on that, but I do think that it would be worthwhile to seek in the Scottish Government's view, specifically on the question of where they have got to with publication of the findings of the review of game bird licensing, as you have said, and to get an update from them on that, which at least we can then feed in as well, because part of what comes across is not just a passion about your belief about what is going on and how bad that is, but the way in which, through the process, there are delays built-in and commitments that do not then really match up with the scale of the challenge that you represent. I wonder if the committee agrees that we should refer the petition to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, and urging them to reflect the evidence that we have had so far, just about how frustrated and concerned we are, which I think will then prompt a response from the other side of the article, which they could then take forward, but that we do ask the Scottish Government just for an update on where they are? I am going to turn on that. I am going to let it go, to be honest. Having heard evidence from this side of the argument, I would really like to hear—I would like to see the other side of the argument sitting there as well, so that we could—I think that the reality is that we all know in here that there is no doubt that raptors are being persecuted in some way, in some circumstances. The news tells us that, and recently that has happened. Ultimately, it is going to come down to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. I feel incomplete, if you like. In fact, we have not got the other side here to question query. I do not know what everybody else thinks about that. As opposed to the commitment that we might be looking for from them, we can only ask, we cannot insist of other committees what they do and what they do not do, but in referring the petition to them, we underline the scale or the significance of the challenges that have been made or the charges that have been made and the importance of those being responded to. To suggest that it is affecting our tourism trade or that people perceive that there is a very significant industry in Scotland underpinned by criminality, that is a very, very serious thing to have said. It is not so much where that question has been asked, but in the fact that it should be asked, my own view is that, probably with the expertise inside the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, that would be put in context. In terms of the scale of the issue, I mentioned earlier that the RSPB 20-year review has just been circulated. To give you one point, a confirmed bird of prey persecution offences was detected on over 200 identified landholdings between 1994 and 2014, covering 10 per cent of Scotland's land area, which kind of gives you a flavour of the extent of the problem, and that involves 779 confirmed victims. That is the one that we find. God knows how many there are that go undetected. Is that 200 separate landholdings? Yes. It is endemic. In terms of what this committee can do, if we were told on to it, we would be looking at your proposition that a licensing scheme should be explored. That is what we would be doing. The broader question of the scale of the problem, if it is referring to the petition, would then be put in that context by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, and I wonder whether that would—I do not think that the end stop is asking for an information and update. I understand Brian's reluctance to let it go, because it would be interesting to see what the case of the defence is. I wonder whether, in our consideration, because we would have to be looking at the licensing as an option, we would still not be in a place where we could look at the broader question of what the other options might be. I am concerned that, if we do extend the period that this committee is looking at it, we could find ourselves in a situation where the wildlife crime annual report is issued and the petition is still sitting here rather than sitting with the ECCLR committee. I think that we should refer it. They are better placed in us, I know that about it. It may be that this is always something open to members, that they can attend other committees and commit representation at an individual level round. The impact of this evidence has been on you. You want to share that with the committee in the same way that Mark Ruskell has been able to come here today. Perhaps with that we can have agreement that we should look to the Scottish Government to get an update. However, we have already had the views of the various organisations, as we have said, but also to refer the petition to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee for consideration as part of its anticipated scrutiny of the wildlife crime annual report. It may be that the clerks could laze with the clerk, so that we are not referring it on to something that is not going to happen and get a reassurance from it that this is something that is definitely going to be doing. I would also like to be aware of when it was going to be heard. If we refer it without that being checked out, we would then lose it. Perhaps what we can do is to defer the decision on referring it to our next meeting and, by then, we will have all the information about when the time scale on timetable for the committee is doing that. We are not in a position to direct another committee, but equally, we would not want to lose it and then discover that it is not going to be able to do in with it. If that was agreed, we can defer the decision specifically on referring the petition to tonight's meeting. Is that acceptable? The clerks will, of course, laze with the committee in that regard. I think that, again, for individual members to make contact with the committee to say that, when they are considering this, they would wish to be informed. I am sure that that is something that is possible. If that is agreed, I thank our witnesses for coming along today. I thank you very much for your time. I can also thank Mark Ruskell for being here. The clerking team will be back in touch with you about where we are, with everything that has gone on. I thank everyone for their attendance today and close the meeting.