 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 17th meeting of the public petitions committee in 2015. I can remind all those present, including members of the committee, that mobile phones and any blackberries or electronic equipment should be completely turned off as they interfere with the sound system and their silenc分. The first item on business is consideration of three new petitions and as previously agreed, the committee will take evidence from the petitioner in each case. The first new petition is PE1573 by Jordan Daley on behalf of TIE time for inclusive education on statutory teaching of LGBTI plus issues. Members have a note from the clerk and the petition and a SPI briefing to help us with our consideration of the petition. I welcome the petitioner Jordan Daley to the meeting. He is accompanied by Liam Stevenson from TIE and John Naples Campbell from Knightswood secondary school Glasgow. I now invite Mr Daley to speak to his petition for no more than five minutes and to explain what his petition seeks after which the committee will then begin to ask questions. Over to you. Thank you. Section 28 was repealed 15 years ago yet many of our schools in Scotland are still not teaching about topics and issues relating to the LGBT community. LGBT fober remains a massive issue within our schools and we believe that this can only be addressed with a widespread commitment to tackle this from a legislative level and write down to the schools and teachers themselves. We in the petition are calling for a statutory inclusion of LGBT issues and topics within Scottish schools. We're aware that that is contentious and we've come here today with several angles that we can actually use to address the issues that we have raised throughout the time that we've been campaigning. Currently, individual institutions can choose not to acknowledge the LGBT community and their contributions to society both within the school environment and within the school's learning programmes. We feel that by refusing to acknowledge or teach LGBT issues what such institutions are essentially doing is candidly ostracising LGBT pupils and telling them that you are not included here. Is the responsibility of our schools and the teaching staff within them to ensure that every pupil has an equal opportunity to achieve a high quality education and feel supported and encouraged whilst doing so? However, currently a large section of our youth are being denied this right. We have statistics whereby Stomall Scotland in 2012 found out that one in four LGBT pupils in Scottish schools right now are attempting suicide as a result of homophobic bullying. Further than that, 54% are deliberately and regularly self-harming. 99% of LGBT pupils in Scotland hear freezes such as that so gay in school and as a result, 49% do not achieve their feeling their best at school. 54% do not feel part of the school communities. As far as we are concerned, this is a national disgrace and it is something that seriously should be tackled. All children deserve to grow up in an environment free from prejudice and discrimination to be loved, valued and cared for regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Whilst the LGBT community has made progress, there are serious issues still holding us back, the education system being one of the largest ones. I am gay myself and when I was in school I struggled with my sexuality. At my lowest point there was no support or pastoral care available for me within my school. I was reminded repeatedly that if anyone was bullied on grounds of religion or race that we had someone to speak to but I had no idea what to do if I was being bullied because of my sexuality. Homophobia was a term that was largely ignored in the school and when I say ignored I really do mean ignored that I did not hear the term at all in my school. It certainly wasn't in my school's bullying policy either and this is despite the use of homophobic language and the delegation of kids who appear to be gay being two of the biggest problems that actually plagued the hallways. In many schools, primarily faith schools, the social education being provided as abysmal and LGBT kids are being excluded. The Scottish Government we feel has to do a lot more when it comes to this issue. We were recently considered top of the league for LGBT rights and whilst a lot of progress has happened in Scotland, the lived experiences of LGBT youth as various new reports that have come out in the past few years show are very different from what seems to be portrayed. The social progress is still not reflected in the school environment. We, I believe, are failing future generations and we really risk the problems carrying over if we don't start tackling it and taking it seriously. One of the important things for us about this petition in the campaign that we've been running is that it is not a gay issue and we really do want to stress that. It's not just about the LGBT kids, it's a humanitarian issue, it's human rights and we feel that all kids would benefit from having this sort of education. I've actually got a personal example and one of my best friends knew that I was struggling and had no idea how to tackle it and she's since recently says that I wish that I had known and I could have helped you from feeling suicidal when you did. Essentially we believe that both the contributions of the LGBT community and the issues affecting LGBT pupils should be recognised and taught within school environments with the ultimate goal of LGBT inclusion in all school curricula and pastoral care resources. Statutory inclusion would allow us to bypass many of the hurdles in a way and it would allow us to begin improving the lives of all LGBT youth, regardless of which school they attend. Not only that, but an LGBT inclusive education is something that, as I've already said, will benefit all youth. Thank you for inviting us to speak with you today and we welcome any of your questions. Thanks very much, Mr Daley. I don't know if you're aware that there have been a number of petitions where organisations have felt that the government should go further in terms of the area that they're interested in, enforcing something into the curriculum. That's been resisted because the Scottish Government takes the view that we shouldn't put things in statute in the curriculum. Short of having statute, what do you think could be done to take the issue forward? I want to point out briefly that religious education is statutory in the school curriculum. Short of statutory education, teacher training is the best route that we can go down to tackle that. Within our campaign, what we have consistently highlighted is that we feel that a realistic aim is to at least have one fully trained teacher on LGBT issues in every school in Scotland. There are training programmes available, such as Stonewall Scotland's train the trainer. We recently met Colin McFarlane, who is the director of Stonewall Scotland. He's given us a rough estimate that it would cost the Scottish Government around about £300,000 to ensure that at least one teacher from every school could attend a training programme. Currently, only 70 schools are signed up to the programme, which works out at around about 16 per cent of teachers in all schools have been trained on how to deal with LGBT phobic bullying, which is not good at all. 88 per cent of secondary school staff say that pupils in the school have experienced direct homophobic bullying, yet only 16 per cent know how to tackle it. You can see where those issues are coming from. I will pass over to John Naples Campbell, because he is a teacher himself, so he will be able to give you a better outline on where we should look to address in terms of the future training. It's very clear that the health and wellbeing outcomes of the new curriculum for excellence are responsible for all teachers in Scotland, yet when it comes to LGBT issues, a lot of teachers don't have the confidence, and it is that word confidence. They don't know how to tackle some of the language that they hear in the classroom. The questions that are raised by young people don't know how to tackle it. I agree with Liam Jordan that it is about training staff. Staff in schools don't have equality training. It's not something that schools do. Someone who has worked in secondary and FE is something that we have to do in FE on a regular basis. That might be a way to bring it into schools that they have to do mandatory equality and diversity training. It's also very clear that the pastoral care, although all schools have pastoral care teams, the PSE programmes are taught by a wide range of staff. These could be normal teaching staff, they could be deputy heads, they could be pastoral care. I know as someone who's got a background in human rights, I'm very passionate about this area. One of my colleagues who might be in technical or mathematics or English might not have the same research or knowledge about human rights and therefore need that training to do that. If we have one member of staff in each school who follows the trainer-trainer programme from Stonewall, we would be able to go into this school and train the staff on how to deal with it, then the health and wellbeing of all students, including LGBTI, would benefit greatly from that. I was going to ask it. I didn't want to assume that you were a teacher but I wanted to check that. I wanted to ask you a question in your personal experience or from speaking to colleagues. Can you give us examples of when teachers have been prevented? Both Mr Dail and yourself have said that teachers don't have the confidence to tackle that. Yes, they don't have the confidence because of a lack of training. Is there actually instances where teachers who wanted to engage, who wanted to discuss these issues have been prevented from doing that? I think that in some cases, section 28 is the largest part within schools. I'm an open gay teacher. I came out on my very first day of teaching and I came out because I felt that I had to be authentic to who I was and to be a role model for young people that I never really had at school. There are a lot of gay teachers who don't know if they can come out at school. They don't know if they feel they should come out. A lot of that is fear. It's a fear not really from the kids but from the public. It's fear from religious groups. It's fear from repercussions from the head teacher. There's not really an open dialogue within schools. The only case that I've heard of people being prevented to speak have been within faith schools. It is the boundary about where they lie. However, all teachers have a responsibility for health and wellbeing. The ease in those are there and teachers must address issues that do arise within the health and wellbeing curriculum. Throughout this campaign, we've been speaking to teachers and we have collected quite a lot of experiences and stories from teachers. I don't know if you know of the Vella leaving academy down in Dunbarton. That school is what we have been saying as a benchmark for what should actually be happening and it's massively in the minority. They have an excellent LGBT committee who consistently campaign within the school and ensure that the pupils who are LGBT are included and welcomed in there. Just to ask for an example, we visited the Vella leaving school. We've been quite a few times. When we spoke to the teacher who runs the LGBT committee, what she was saying was that they have a young boy who is a transgender boy who came between second year and third year, came back over summer and had come out as transgender. The school and the senior management team freaked out thinking how on earth do we deal with this. This has never happened before and we don't know what to do. If any of you are in tune with issues affecting transgender communities, it's a very sensitive topic and you have to be very careful especially how you deal with young transgender children. What we were told was that the teacher of the LGBT committee basically guided them through, and she had been trained from Stonewall, guided them through how to deal with it. Basically what she says was that you do whatever Dean wants us to do. Had it not been for that teacher being in that school, the school would have absolutely no idea how to tackle or address these issues. That's one example that highlights how what we are essentially saying should be prioritised as the teacher training, is how that can actually improve the lives of LGBT youth. Those cases going on all across the country, I mean just two weeks ago we are probably one of the worst cases that we've heard. Again, transgender community, a transgender boy once again in an unnamed high school in Glasgow, was stood on his desk and the teacher pointed out that you have boobs, you have curves, you have a bum, you're not a boy or a girl in front of other pupils. That is a serious issue, and I really don't want to stress that it is happening on mass across Scotland. John will come in and talk about some of the good work that is actually going on that we feel that should be used as a benchmark to try and highlight these issues, but teachers in our experience, and we spoke to teachers and we've heard from them, do not know what to do because they're very scared. One of the most worrying things is that a couple of people we spoke to are actually training to be teachers, and what they've said is the exact same thing. If an LGBT people comes to me and says, I'm transgender, I'm gay, I'm bi, I don't know what to do, can you help me? What we've heard point blank from these teachers is that we would have no idea how to tackle this, and I would have to just go on my own personal life experiences. Mr Steenins, I wanted to come to you. I think that being the part of the campaign, you must have an idea of the capacity that you have to engage with teacher training colleges, local authorities. What sort of resistance have you been encountering there? So far, with the TIE campaign, we've received very little resistance. I do understand that you've received a letter yourselves from a religious group asking you to throw the petition out, etc. The reaction has been very, very positive because I do believe that we do live in a pretty progressive Scotland, and I do believe that parents, and I'm a parent myself, I'm not part of the LGBT community. I've got a four-year-old child, and that's my motivation. I won't know my wee girl's sexuality for eight to ten years, and I want to make sure that she does get a good inclusive education at home, but that she's in the minority of her friends, that's a fact, but I want to make sure that the systems are going to be there and that the protection is going to be there at school to look after her if she is struggling with these things, because having never had any contact with the LGBT community until the back end of last year, it was not something that registered a marrector scale, even as a parent, but when I was introduced to these statistics and I then become friends with people at Jordan and John, and you understand the struggles and the places some of these people have been in, that is certainly something that needs to end in our country, and it's certainly something I don't want for my daughter. To answer your question, we've had really great responses from other teachers, we've had a lot of folk contacting us online, and it's all been very positive. There seems to be a thirst out there from the vast majority of people we've spoken to, and teachers do want to be doing this because they understand that they're shaping the future generations, and they understand also a lot of them that what we're continually we're churning out damaged adults the way we're going on mental health issues and stuff. Lots of people are scared so badly with their experiences at school and growing up that they don't recover fully. Now, there's something I speak about and it's something I've learned in my experience in being introduced to the LGBT community, and I call it the internal struggle and the external struggle. Now, the internal struggle is when a young person realises that, actually, I don't fancy those kids of the opposite sex, I actually fancy my peers of the same sex, so that the child's got that emotional turmoil to deal with at the first instance, and then after that, they'll then get the external battle to fight whereby they need to try and find where they fit in in their peer group, and a lot of times, those kids, because of the fact that they feel so low, they feel so bad, they end up moving away from a completely different, they moved to a different peer group completely, and someone like Jordan's had good friends that he certainly moved away from his particular peer group. I think that when we, if we can introduce those kinds of things into our schools, it won't be a position for the future generations whereby they don't feel they have to break off friendships with their friends who have played football with, they've gone to the football world with their lives, because there's not going to be a social stigma there whereby this kid's gay, this kid isn't gay, but it will become inconsequential. During my time with my wee girl and introducing her to these issues and introducing the fact that Jordan's gay, I've seen completely the opportunities for homophobic thoughts or homophobic behaviours are completely dissolved, because there's no barriers can be put in my daughter's mind. She's very fortunate. She's also got a friend that stays in our street who's got two mums, so the evidence is there for me. I've seen it with my own kid and I've seen it with all the kids in our area that when they're introduced to these things and they're taught that it's not wrong, it's not evil, it's not bad, then we can make those changes and those changes are changes that's going to benefit the whole of society from top to bottom. There's also another side issue whereby the £300,000 that Stonewall are reckoning would cost to train one teacher from the school, that money will be, because the Scottish Government will reap that back, because there'll be savings in the NHS where we don't have these dammies and adults who have serious mental health issues all due to their experiences, so I think it's not only better for society but it would also be better for your Government as well, because the Government should be representative of the people, and if we can make our Scotland that better, fairer, more progressive Scotland that I think hopefully everyone in this room wants to see, then we will prosper, we will benefit. I'm going to ask another question, there's not an indication for colleagues to ask a question yet, but I'll start to see them now. Given those examples of good practice, you have told us that local authorities are willing to engage and talk about these issues and how to promote them. Again, I come back to my original question, then if these things can happen at the present time with good direction, good support, if £300,000 would train enough staff to go into our schools and be more aware of this subject, again, why do we need to put it in statute to make it happen? There doesn't appear to be anything in statute preventing it from happening, so why are we putting it in statute to make it happen? The reason that we call for this to be statutory was essentially to bypass the obvious hurdles that are actually going to come up if we do a trying to do the teacher training. Stonewall has been running the programme for years now and it's very well promoted and only 70 schools are actually taking it up. What we found out is that so many schools are basically saying we don't have the budget for this, we can do this, we don't have the time for this, and obviously as well you've got a lot of faith schools, which I went to a lot of faith schools who are just point blank refusing to actually teach on these issues. The reason that we put the petition on and call for the statutory inclusion was to bypass those issues. What you need to remember is that this fight has been going on for a very long time. Stonewall Scotland, the LGBT youth Scotland, the quality network have been trying for years and years and years to get this inclusion in the education system. Everyone kind of on the side says statutory would help us, get passed a lot of these problems, it would kind of help us break down a lot of walls, but we are aware that it is very contentious to statutory inclusion and that is why we have come today prepared with other solutions. I think that if it can't be made statutory, then we do have to have a serious commitment to it. Currently, like the teacher training programmes are on offer, however, a lot of schools are using the cop-out of well, our CPD budget doesn't allow us to go, or we don't have enough money to send teachers there. If there has to be some sort of resolution met whereby the Government says, here's £100 to send one teacher, that money is only for this course and if you don't do it, then we'll maybe carry out a review to find out why you don't want your teachers training these issues. If it can't be made statutory, then there has to be some other commitment to highlight those problems, because the way things are just now is just not good enough. There are several options, but I'll pass over to John. We have done amazing work within schools to get it right for every child, but we are failing because we are blanket trying to get it right for every child. My headteacher said to me yesterday that we can give every child a pair of shoes, but we have to give every child a pair of shoes that fit. I don't think that we are doing that. I don't think that, from what Jordan says, schools are under really tight budgets. Sometimes they can't afford to pay £150 to send a teacher out. We have amazing work happening across Scotland. We have a brilliant group here today from a school in Edinburgh who formed their own LGBT group. Falkirk has set one up at Brays academy. There is a faith school down in the southwest of Scotland, St Joseph's College, who is trying to get their LGBT charter mark from LGBT youth. There is great work happening within Glasgow. Work up in the Highlands and Islands as well. They did a whole local authority look at what is happening within their schools, but they are random bursts of work happening. It shouldn't depend on what school your child goes to. It should be happening across the whole of Scotland. This is not a lottery. We need the Government to be able to fund teachers to go on these trainings, even if it is just one teacher from each high school. The schools don't have to worry about budgets, because this is getting it right for every child. Jackson, to be followed by Hans-Alla. Thank you, convener. Good morning. First of all, can I ask what TAI is? TAI is a campaign that we founded around the time that we put the petition in, so it is called time for inclusive education. Whilst the petition has been sitting and we have been waiting to come and speak to you guys, we have been campaigning on the side nationally. We have been going into schools, we have been delivering on assemblies, we have just published a booklet, which I think most of you will probably have received, every MSP in Scotland got one. We, just so I understand. Oh, so TAI, it was co-founded by Liam and I, but John works with us in TAI, and we have Nile, who is in the audience with us. There are a few people that work with us. So it is a relatively small campaign organisation that you have initiated. No, that's fine. Can I ask a question just to help my own understanding? I'm 56, I've got two sons who've now left school and gone to university. A division of homosexuality, I suppose I might as well say, would have been regarded as a capital offence when I was at school and people were simply expelled and cast out of society now. I have friends for whom that led to a very tragic outcome. My own impression had been that the generation now was far more enlightened than mine, or at least the generation that presided over schools when I was at them, and that my son's experience seemed to have been a more positive one than my own had been. I had imagined that there was a natural evolution in terms of the understanding of those issues within Scotland today, and that some of the narrative that you detail in the petition takes me quite by surprise. I mean, I'm not naive enough to suppose that there is never any of this going on, but you actually paint rather a bleak picture. Is this universal? I note you yourself were at a faith-based school. Is there a prevalence of it in faith-based schools, or is that to generalise? You talk about the transgender community, and I know in the school that my son was at that I felt that they had handled that issue very well. In fact, the big surprise to me was that there was absolutely nothing that fell from that, and I was tremendously encouraged that that was so. However, what is your understanding—am I at 56 hopelessly out of touch with how things are, or is it maybe Mr Naples Campbell of a better—because he looks slightly older than you are? I mean, his perspective must go past just your immediate experience. Have things improved or have they not? I think things have changed. We need to remember that we just got marriage at the end of last year. We still have a lot of staff members who are similar age to you, who are teaching. They haven't been retrained since section 28 was re-built in 2002. We have an epidemic within our schools that the term that's so gay is used on a daily basis, and it goes back to that point about it being a lottery. You have wonderful staff. There's a teacher here who has the drive and the passion to set up an LGBT group within her own school. These people aren't in every single high school, and what your son's experience within school is amazing. That's the benchmark we want. That is not happening, though. There are children who, as Jordan have said, who are attempting suicide, who are self-harming, who are leaving school early because they can't attain because they can't be authentic to who they are. Although young people make mistakes and they can learn from them, staff are very unconfident in dealing with certain issues, especially when you've got staff teaching PSE but not giving the proper training about it. I have also witnessed personally, myself, homophobia within the staff room. When I first came out at a school down in the south west of Scotland, it was like I was this monster. There were lots of kind of questions. I'm from Edinburgh, I'm a Edinburgh boy, and getting sent on my first year of teaching to a small village was pretty scary, but I embraced it. I stayed for two years, but on a daily basis I had to hear conversations about Elton John getting married and how he was a poof. That isn't the type of conversation I want to hear in my work environment, and that is just one story that I've heard on numerous others. I wouldn't give up on your petition yet. From what you're suggesting, there is a casual disregard for all the best practice instructions and framework documents that have been put in place. Therefore, in those circumstances, your argument in the petition is that something more directive is required. I know that you've said that you've come with other solutions. I wouldn't encourage you to lose sight of your petition yet, because if what you're saying is so, I'm by myself quite drawn to it because the experience as you detail it is not encouraging at all. In the event that it was a more statutory approach, what would you want that to mean? How would that manifest itself within a school? What is it that you would like to see happen? Be careful, you're not to give me a huge long shopping list, but specifically how would you see that impacting in a school in such a way that the prejudice of others or a casual disregard by prioritising, as I think you've said, some other area if there's an option as to how you spend the money? How would you see it manifest itself? The number one priority for me would be within pastoral care. If we're talking about the curriculum, one of the main gripes that I have is that the LGBT community's history and contributions to society are largely disregarded within school. Education seriously is a vital tool to tackle that. When we've done a couple of assemblies and we've always asked the kids how many you know about the Stonewall riots, how many of you know about Harvey Milt, one or two people who put their hands up, how many know about Martin Luther King, everyone in the room, hands up. If we can educate kids about the struggles of the LGBT community, about the persecution that many of us faced not long ago, primarily within Scotland as well, it was illegal here until 20-odd years ago. If we can teach kids about that, it's going to give them the understanding and the empathy that they actually need whereby they'll—you would never hear a kid in school leave a history lesson about the Ku Klux Klan or about how black Americans were treated in the south or when they hear about the civil rights movement and then leave that lesson and then say a black— Identified two strands—sorry, convener—you've identified two strands of what that is almost coming into the narrative of the curriculum and you started off by talking about pastoral care. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. So can you pursue that first point, the last point of pastoral care? How would you see that? Would that be a designated teacher who is already there or how would that work? Well, this would tie in with what we've said about having one fully trained teacher because at Stonewall's train of programme, which we're actually going to go and do, they do get taught how to deal with these issues. They get taught, for example, if a trans kid comes up to you and says, I'm a girl, but I'm actually a boy, I'm on the wrong body, how do they deal with this? They get taught what to do and where to signpost. That would tie—what we've essentially said in Vola, do this as well, one teacher that all pupils know about who's fully trained in these issues, who is available to speak to the kids, acting like it on the guidance teacher model, and empowered to be some extent as well, I am actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And also as well, simple things as well, like at Maskell, we had anti-racism posters everywhere, with changing school policies, for example, to include directly LGBT phobic bullying would be— Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, thanks a lot to be followed by Agus. Thank you, convener, and good morning. Gawrnes had mentioned a few things that I can relate to as a youngster myself at school, coming from a mixed background and was subject to bullying and harassment and discrimination and all sorts, and I can mention from not being included in games to actually being physically hit by items in the classroom and the teachers totally unable to deal with the issue. So I can relate to that. And because I can relate to that, I'm not particularly convinced that statutory activity would enhance that in any way. What I see would probably be a better way of moving forward in this, is to deal with all these issues at teacher training centres from the very start, rather than have one teacher or one lecturer responsible for a whole school or a whole college. I think, one, it's unpractical, and two, if that member of staff is not available for sometimes even a long period of time, it means that there's nobody available in the school or the college or university. So I think that perhaps a broader training course at source, to me, would be more practical. Also, I think that in terms of statutory movement, as you say, last year we had the vote on the marriage, and most people were supportive because a lot of religious organisations' rights were protected. However, if you were to try and legislate this in schools, particularly faith schools, you almost challenged that. And in challenging that, I'm not sure we would get all the support that is really needed. For this to be successful, you need people to come on board voluntarily, willingly, and win hearts and minds. If you try to go down the statutory route, it may find more hurdles than people willing to actually engage in a fuller way. Believe me, trying to understand the issues, I can understand the issues because I say I've been there myself, I know what it's like, and unless you win hearts and minds, it's a difficult uphill struggle, and to win hearts and minds you've got to do it in a way where people, other people's human rights are all also respected and protected. So therefore that's, I just wanted to share that. There wasn't an actual question there, but if you want to comment on anything that was said, Mr Stienas. Just to pick up on the first point that you made there, as we said, we have investigated different alternative routes to tackling these issues, and one of the things that we've focused on, with the help of John Campbell's input, is the fact that we would like to see, as part of the teachers' university training, that this is all fully included right there. That is one of the other things that we have looked at, and I for one fully agree with your point, and I think that I would like to see that implemented. We have thought about that, and that's a route that we're quite fancy. I did mention earlier that secondary school teachers and primary, they don't have to have compulsory equality training, but you do and have to get it in FE and HE, and that might be something that we have to go down as well, and that would cover all the protected characteristics. I know at Knightswood secondary school, the school that I'm from, because of my qualification and background, I ran a whole staff training day, and the feedback was just excellent, and it was something that staff were needing and wanting, but, as you said, we covered all areas, and it ties in with the hate crimes work that's currently been done within Scotland as well. I guess to be followed by John. Okay, thanks, convener. Good morning, everyone. You've certainly presented a good case this morning, and I have to say that the figures from Jordan came as quite a surprise. I'm astonished to hear, for example, that only 16 per cent of teachers are fully trained LGBT teachers, and that only 70 schools are signed up to the programme that you mentioned. However, I was interested and pleased to hear that there is a good example at Vale of Reven, and they certainly Brace Academy and Falkirk lead the way in many ways, so it's good to hear that one of my schools is heavily involved. However, the programme that you mentioned, can you give us some more detail on that? Can you embellish a wee bit more on what exactly is involved there, and also just picking up on previous points just for the record, you seem to be indicating that your request to make this statutory, if it's not successful, you would be content, but perhaps not entirely happy for proper equality training that would suffice. Is that the case? Would you like me to go through what happens at the train of trainer day for Stonewall? Yeah, yeah, yeah, that would be helpful, yeah. So the trainer-trainer, it's a day's training led by Stonewall Scotland's. Sophie Bridger normally leads it, and she basically goes through all the kind of skill set that a teacher needs, or as someone who works with young people, and able to support and help the young person who's coming to you with any issues that they may be facing. They give you a kind of like case studies of various incidents that could happen and how to go around kind of approaching that, and really builds up your kind of confidence in tackling these. They also give you areas to go and seek help, as well, if you feel that might be slightly at your depth, so they can assign post various organisations that could help, and they leave you with a pack that really kind of you can take into a school and train other staff to help you as well. It's a brilliant training programme, and it's definitely a model in this economic environment that we should be looking at, which is about training trainers, so you train up one person who can then go out and train more people. So, and it's a model that we've used within Knightswood, and it's worked incredibly well. Just briefly, on your point towards the end there, about if the statutory thing got thrown out would we be content? As long as the teacher training and the full equality training was prioritised, we would be happy with it. As long as there is a commitment from government level to prioritise those issues and start taking them seriously, we aren't alone in being surprised at the statistics and at the situation that's actually going on. Most people that we encounter are kind of gobsmacked, and that little booklet that we put out highlights all of these scenarios and all the situations that are going on, and most people seem to think, hey, well, we just got marriage equality. Surely things are better, and they're not. So, we would be happy as long as there was a serious commitment to tackle those issues. One of the things that we believe should be happening is institutional reviews carried out, so that if we do prioritise teacher training and tell the schools to make this a priority for them, we need to follow up on that to ensure that the schools have went through with it and to ensure that maybe the trainers who have come back from Stonewall's training programme or training other staff and that things are improving within schools. It is a long process, but we would be content as long as there was a commitment to prioritise the issue. Okay, thanks. You mentioned the booklet that you've produced. Obviously, you're a small group with limited resources. Have you managed to get that booklet out to the other, how many schools in the country that aren't signed up? This booklet hasn't actually went to any of the schools yet, because we are. I mean, it costs £400 just to get to 100, so this booklet actually got delivered to all MSPs and Holyrood. We've got around 80 odd left that will be given out to schools. We'll try to find out if we can get it to some local authorities as well, but we do have the PDF, so we definitely will be getting more published in schools. Okay, thanks. Now, it was commissioned, convener. I think it was Liam who mentioned the submission that had come in from the Free Church of Scotland. Now, I'd like to highlight that submission. However, before I do, I feel that I should declare an interest in that I'm currently undertaking a financial transaction to purchase a free church property. However, that's no bearing on my position with regard to this petition. And I've no direct contact with the free church. I hasten to add that purchase has been conducted through agents. However, the Free Church does highlight the submission in its submission, the UK's Human Rights Act 1998, which states, in the exercise of any functions that it assumes, that in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. And it goes on to say, we believe that the real object of the petition is to indoctrinate school pupils with one particular perspective on moral and sexual ethics, and one which is contrary to mainstream Christianity. We believe that this is a trojan horse to impose an ideological perspective on all pupils, whether they want it or not. And it's just to get your view on that on the church's stance. Yeah, the UN rights of the child states that children should have an education and it's actually up to them. It's not actually up to their appearance what that education is. And in all my years of teaching LGBT education, I have never come across that. The UN rights of the child is something that we teach within schools and it is something that all young people are aware of at a very early age. And if they do have an issue with it, we do address it within class time as openly as we can, because the word here is about respect. We need to respect people regarding their opinions and their beliefs. And I always go on the UN rights of the child more than anything else. John Swinney to be followed by Kenny. Just on that last point about the free church's position about indoctrination, some of us would argue indoctrination takes place in many different guises, particularly in the educational environment at the present time. So we need to be careful when we talk about indoctrination. My question is really around the issue about the—while this training is taking place, who is actually participating in the training? Is there an indication of particular local authorities that are encouraging schools to actively participate in the training? Is there a particular schools themselves in the areas? Because it would be useful to find out whether or not, based on the findings of the stonewall work and the percentages there, there was some discussion with local authorities, with educational authorities to determine whether or not action should be taken in particular areas. Those percentages are horrendous in terms of bullying, but it would be useful to find out whether or not the survey that was carried out and the questionnaires that were completed were being completed from particular local authority areas that were highlighting issues in those local authority areas in terms of direct discrimination. I am unaware on how stonewall carried out its research. I am aware that it did a sample across Scotland, so I would hope that it would be from a number of regions. I am aware, though, that people who sign up for the training, the trainer, it very much depends on the headteacher. It depends on their CPD. If it is actually in their forward plan for the year, if they have highlighted it, then normally schools will fund it to happen. But also it depends on the money budgets as well at the time, because £100 for a training event is a lot of money. It is a number of different things. It is the person who wants to be trained, but it is also an open conversation with the headteacher or the head of CPD for this school. That is interesting and no doubt, as we go on to investigate this further, we can certainly write to Stonewall and ask him further questions on that. In relation to—it might not be an answer that I can get this morning—are you aware of any individual teachers willing to fund the training for trainers themselves and have been refused by headteachers? However, as I said, that might not be an answer that you may want to give me. I will leave it and we will write to Stonewall and ask that question. I am following on from the issue about homophobic bullying. According to the paperwork that we received as part of the consideration of this petition, SPICE indicated that the Scottish Government in 2009 funded a toolkit for teachers on dealing with homophobic bullying, which was supposed to be distributed to all schools in 2009. Are you aware that that toolkit was distributed and are you aware of whether or not that toolkit is being used? Mr Daley, I am sure that your education might have been some overlap in terms of the time that that toolkit was supposed to be distributed to schools and whether your experience of whether or not that toolkit was being used. I am not aware en masse the situation, but what I will say is that I was on school in 2009 and that will have been around about the time that I had heard how I was on abomination, how God clearly does not like gays because that is why we got aids from some teachers in the school. At the same time as that toolkit has been given out, I can only speak from my personal experience. I was in school at that time and I had absolutely no idea that that even happened. I am sorry that I can only give you one example, but it is only my personal experience and in my school certainly that there was no reference or mention to it at all. As I said, convener, it is really around the issue that we are being told that a toolkit was distributed six years down from that toolkit being distributed. The experience of many of the school students that were interviewed as part of the survey carried out by Stonewall clearly shows that, if that toolkit is out there, it is not being used by the schools and it is certainly not being used by the education authorities to hinder or stop homophobic bullying from taking place irrespective of whether it is in the playground, in the classroom or by teaching staff themselves. I think as well. You can send out a number of toolkits to any school, but staff need to be trained on how to use it. If the toolkit comes to my desk and I am not comfortable dealing with it, I won't use it because I don't want to do it more damage. You can send out a number of toolkits, but you also need to train this teacher to use the toolkit. I have some qualms about statutory, but it seems to me that you raise a significant issue. Perhaps a year or so older than Jackson, but I think that the progress made in education in dealing with bullying, violence and racism has been quite extraordinary and quite remarkable. Clearly, it has not come about by accident but by design. You have already commented, but it seems to me that, presumably, the reason for that and what you are also seeking to make the progress required in the area that you are focusing on and needs to be addressed are, presumably, awareness, resources and guidance. I don't know whether you would agree with that or whether there are other issues as well that are required to be taken on board. No, I completely think that everything that you said is right. We do need training, we need guidance, we need money behind it. We all know how schools work. You give local authorities the money and they give it towards the school. If it's not a priority for the school, they won't then put the money towards that training. I'm just very, very lucky in all three schools that I've worked in down in DNG over at Knox Academy in Haddington and at Night'swood. They have been incredibly supportive. Again, if your school doesn't have any openly gay students, then the head teacher might turn around and say, why do we need to train if we don't have any issues here? But you don't actually know because there might be a young person there who is gay who doesn't want to come out because they're hearing that so gay on a daily basis within the classroom or the playground. I completely agree. I think that it's all elements of what you just said about guidance and monetary issues. I appear to have exhausted the questions from the committee, so I'll ask members if they want to suggest how we take the petition forward. Obviously, I think that we need to go to the Government to find out that there have been a number of issues raised about the tool kits and the work that the Government's done. It would be good to get clarification around that, Hanzala. I would be interested to know in terms of teacher training programmes, what are the universities doing about including this issue as part of the training. If they have that in the syllabus at present and if not, do they intend to put it on the syllabus? That would be an indication of how things are moving and perhaps encourage them to do so if they're not doing so. I think training all teachers is important. I don't think that isolating one teacher in a school is the solution. I think that we have to write to the Government's principle here. I'm not necessarily persuaded by a statutory requirement, but it seems to me that we have to have a strategy. Simply sending out a toolkit in 2009 might very well have been worthy, but it's clearly not been successful. We do know that it has worked on other issues where we've wanted to see a society that will change and we have over generations, both in violence and bullying and racism. I think that it's a matter of recognising resources are tight, but a lot of this is not about huge amounts of money. It's about knowing what you want, getting that information out because you already have it there, so I would be for asking the Scottish Government whether they're going to develop a strategy to address this. Jackson? Specifically on that point, I wonder if we might ask the Scottish Government if they would be prepared to engage with the petitioners and with others who clearly have amassed a certain amount of best practice experience, which might underpin ensuring that the programme that the Government is seeking to launch has a greater reach than it would appear the last heartfelt effort in 2009 potentially did if it met with the response that's been suggested. I'd also be quite interested to know, from our point of view, a bit more about the Vale of Leven best practice model, and I don't know whether we can write directly to them or whether there's some other process by which we could establish that, but I would be interested to know that too. I should certainly write to that education authority if we want to answer on behalf of the school, but we could establish that Jackson and take it for that. I would like to know what COSLA's overall view is, given that it would have a responsibility for all education authorities. I would urge that we write to COSLA, as well as that specific local authority. John. I agree that we should write to COSLA, but I suggest that we write to the local authority education department where the Vale of Leven sits and write to the head teacher at the Vale of Leven, because I'd be interested to see what the overall education policy of the local authority was, as opposed to the decisions that are being made by an individual head teacher, who many head teachers have a level of autonomy in terms of how they deal with issues in their own educational establishment, so it would be useful to see if there was any contradictions between the two. I think that one of the issues for me, and it's how we try to examine that, is that, although head teachers and individual teachers are keen to deliver and participate in that type of training, it's whether or not they're being blocked at head teacher level, or there is a dictat effectively coming from the education department of that local authority that is guiding how the schools react to the requests. On that basis, could I suggest that we write to Stonewall Scotland and ask, given that we're using most of their results in terms of the survey that they carried out, what engagement they've had with the education authorities throughout Scotland in relation to those results and whether or not they have found any movement by the education departments and local authorities to actually try and address the issues raised? Clearly, we have done a lot in terms of racial and other bullying, but what we haven't seen to have done is tackled other aspects. Society has moved on since section 28 and we've seen equal marriage legislation introduced. It would be useful to find out to make sure that some of the local authorities as well as COSLA and other bodies are actually moving ahead at the same pace. On that basis, could I suggest that we write to the EIS to find out if the EIS has identified any particular issues regarding the ability of teachers to engage in the training for trainers or the delivery of pastoral care to students who feel they require that support? I don't disagree with the comments from John Wilson, or any other contributors. However, had the risk of being accused of being parochial, can I also ask that we write to Falkirk Council and the headteacher of Brays academy, given that that was an example that I was given earlier on? It's going to be to that point as well, Angus, because I think that some good examples were given of the school that's attended this morning as well. So if we were to write to that school and the education authority, the school in Falkirk and the education authority and the veil of weaving and the local education authority, that would give us that specific understanding of how things developed in those areas and in those specific schools. That seems to be quite a wide-ranging examination of the issue from colleagues. I thank the petitioners for coming this morning. Obviously, we'll write out to all of these organisations, get that information collated and get back to you when we've had—you want to make a final comment? I just thank all of yous, because we expected to come in here and have this thrown out. We didn't actually expect that it was going to— You have little faith when that at school. Serious, though. Thank you. On behalf of the LGBT community in Scotland and the LGBT across the country, I seriously want to do a lot to improve things. I'll suspend the meeting for a couple minutes to change what this is over. The next petition is PE1574 by Frida Burrell on behalf of the UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters on HPV Vaccine Safety. Members have received briefings, which they have in front of them. I welcome Chuck Brody, MSP, to the meeting, who has indicated an interest in this petition. I welcome the petitioner, Frida Burrell, to our meeting. She was to be accompanied by Steve Hynx from AHEID, but, unfortunately, he hasn't been able to join MSP this morning, because he's in—he's unwell, as far as I understand. Tadda relaps. Sorry to hear that, so we'll pass on our regards to him. I'll hand over to you, MSP. We have five minutes or so to introduce the subject, and then we'll interrogate it a bit further. Thank you. Just on the off chance, I did bring one-page summary of Lucy Hynx, and I've got the copies here if the committee were prepared to have it and read it at their leisure. That's fine, thank you. Well, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to provide additional information relating to my request for a roundtable discussion to be held at Edinburgh between scientists and medical professionals from both sides of the HPV vaccine safety debate. I speak today on behalf of not only the UK Association for HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters, who have had their lives turned upside down after the HPV vaccine administration, but each of the 2,019 people from 55 countries who signed because they are having similar experiences and support open scientific discussion. Our association was organised at the beginning of this year when it became a parent that we needed to co-ordinate everyone's individual efforts as a group. Our association represents families from Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, operating under the banner of HPV vaccine injured daughters. As a group, we were able to receive greater publicity. The increased awareness cost our membership to grow by leaps and bounds. Our initial group of 60 members has expanded to 208 and rising. Despite the fact that Scotland only accounts for 8 per cent of the UK population, 15 per cent of the association's members come from Scotland. We don't know how many others are out there, but for now there appears to be no end in sight. A senior politician within the Irish Government, Pashal Mwne, gave an impassioned plea to Irish Government officials recently regarding the Irish HPV vaccination programme, lack of informed consent and the devastating effects on young girls around the country. He specifically mentions Irish girls being admitted to psychiatric hospitals following HPV vaccinations. Japan has rescinded the Government recommendations for HPV vaccines and initiated studies to determine whether there is a causal relationship between HPV vaccines and adverse outcomes, as well as a 21-year study to determine whether HPV vaccines have an impact on cervical cancer diagnosis rates. In Denmark, the National Association of HPV Adverse Sufferers is hosting an HPV vaccine information symposium to bring families together with medical professionals, health authorities and legal professionals to explore treatment options and potential legal remedies on 31 October. Denmark has just recently made the decision to change from Gardasil to Cerverix as the HPV vaccine of choice. This past week, at the urging of Leeslott Blakes, Danish politician with a Gardasil injured daughter, the Danish Government has set aside £7 million to conduct an independent investigation into the HPV vaccine and its side effects. Our association is in the process of compiling information to submit to the European Medicines Agency for consideration during their safety assessment of HPV vaccines. Of the 88 family reports analysed to date, 68 per cent reported their daughter's experienced health problems serious enough to interfere with her education. 24 per cent reported symptoms so severe that their daughter could no longer participate in educational activities. 70 per cent required help with daily care, and a full 91 per cent reported being told that their daughter's medical conditions were psychological in origin. Interesting to note that national health authorities in Denmark, Norway, Japan, France, Spain and many other countries have led doctors and other vaccine administrators to believe that any new medical conditions experienced after HPV vaccine administration are most likely psychosomatic. Consequently, when the average medical health professional is faced with a patient exhibiting symptoms that they have never seen before, symptoms that do not fit neatly into any current diagnostic criteria, the natural assumption is psychological problems as have been experienced by many UK families. I put forth these facts for your consideration. According to Merit's Gardasil 9 package insert, that is the new vaccine coming in. 3.3 per cent of participants who were given Gardasil, which was used as the control, during the most recent clinical trials, experienced new medical conditions potentially indicative of autoimmune disorders. That works out at 3,300 per 100,000 recipients. According to a press release from Sunofi Pasteur MSD, dated June 17, 2015, 183 million doses of Gardasil have been distributed worldwide. Using Merit's own clinical trial percentage, that means that there could be as many as 6 million and 39,000 girls around the world suffering autoimmune conditions, which could very well influence their health for the rest of their lives. According to the World Cancer Research Foundation, there were 528,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed worldwide in 2012. Is this worth the risk? I am very much aware that HP vaccines are a controversial issue and that this information puts Scotland at a crossroads with a very difficult decision to make. Do we accept what the manufacturer and their list of experts are saying and assume that HPV vaccines are safe and effective? There just happens to be an epidemic of psychosomatic disorders spreading around the world, affecting certain young people who have one thing in common—they were injected with the HPV vaccine. Or do we listen to experts from both sides and try to discover exactly what the situation is and make every effort we can to get the problem solved? Do we sweep all of these families under the proverbial psychological disorder carpet and ignore their misery? Or do we treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve by using every means at our disposal to identify those at risk of serious adverse reactions and develop successful treatment protocols for those who are already suffering? Please demonstrate to the world that Scotland is still a country that does not ignore the suffering of innocents. Show the world that Scotland is not afraid to hold open on its scientific discussions, no matter how controversial the subject might be. I think that I have been involved initially with FEDA and others, and I have clearly done some personal research. I would ask the committee to ask, of course, the appropriate questions, on the basis of the issue that needs to be resolved, and, on that basis, I would ask the committee to interrogate thoroughly, but, hopefully, we will come to a decision to make sure that the appropriate recommendation is there that will give us a further step along that line. Who do you think should call the round table together? Whose responsibility should it be to invite people to sit round that table? I would like to think that this committee, with listening to what I have said and perhaps asking many more questions and getting more evidence, would be influenced enough to say that this is a very serious problem, because it is not just a Scottish problem or an English problem, it is a worldwide problem, and it is happening in the countries where the vaccines are administered. We certainly have many medical professionals and scientists who would be willing to come and debate with scientists and medical professionals from the pharmaceutical companies or from government or whatever. We have witnesses who would be able to say that this is what has happened to our child, this is what happened to our children. The end thing really is that those girls need to be healed. Those girls are still very ill, and we are talking from 2008-2009. Something has got to be done to get someone to look and find out what has happened, why those girls are so ill and why they have taken such a serious adverse reaction to either Gardasil or Cerverix. For the two sides to get together to sit genuinely and openly and honestly and say that those children need help, let us look at it seriously and try and find a way forward to come to some solution to get them healed and to discuss an open debate. Can I add to that? As we know, when I had the privilege of being on this committee, we had a wider issue in relation to mesh implants, for example. It might behoff, after what Freda said, the Health Committee encouraged the Cabinet Secretary for Health to embrace the notion that we in Scotland can lead in this discussion and to facilitate such a gathering of experts. This committee considered a petition recently from Jamie Ray on behalf of the Throat Cancer Foundation, calling on the Scottish Government to extend the HPV immunisation programme to include boys in Scotland. Your petition deals specifically with girls. However, are you aware of any specific research that has been undertaken to investigate any adverse outcomes in countries in which boys are routinely included in an HPV immunisation programme? In Australia and in America, boys are included. I am not quite sure of the possibility of that happening in New Zealand as well. I am aware that it has been brought forward and discussed here in Scotland as well as down south. There are boys who are also becoming sick and boys who have died following HPV vaccination. I cannot say for the vaccine cost of their death, but they died suddenly shortly afterwards. Boys are being vaccinated overseas and it is causing problems for boys just the same as it is for girls. However, there are not so many boys getting vaccinated overseas as there are girls. However, there is evidence that there is. There is evidence, yes. I know one particular family in America. I think that twins or son and daughter were vaccinated at the same time and both took seriously ill and developed seizures. It is a family that I know personally and could be asked to speak about it if it is so wished, but there are other families as well where boys have been harmed. Good morning. Mrs Burrell and I have met the number of occasions over the years and I applaud her for the focus that she has brought to this issue. I think that it would be fair to say that over that period you have had very considerable opportunity through your perseverance to meet politicians and ministers in the UK Department of Health, here in Scotland and internationally. You have been persistent in the case that you have made and it is not one that has not been brought to the attention of politicians along that path. However, the response of ministers ultimately is that ministers do not take political decisions on those issues but take decisions based on the recommendations of the chief medical officer and the scientists who advise the Government on the value and merit of the various vaccination programmes that are employed. Servaicul cancer has been one of the most common killers of young women under the age of 35 in the UK. Mortality rates, we are told, have declined some 44 per cent coincident with the vaccine that has been introduced. That is the briefing that we have received. From the figures that I have got here, it does look like there has been a significant reduction in the number of women dying of cervical cancer and it does seem to have coincided with the period that the vaccine has been there. I imagine that is informing the advice that Government ministers are considering. You are asking a round-table discussion to be convened between those people who are knowingly opposed to the vaccine and those people who are knowingly for it, whose debate I imagine is already informing ultimately the decision that ministers take. What is the purpose of the round-table discussion that you would like to see convened in the sense that what do you imagine it would contribute to ministers' understanding, which is not already given the very considerable representations that have been made and the concerns that have been expressed, not already been factored into the thinking, which has led them to continue to recommend that the vaccine be offered? Japan in February 2014 held a round-table discussion that, in fact, went over two and a half days. There was a symposium to begin with, and then scientists and doctors from both sides met in the Japanese Parliament and had an open honest debate about it. Our Dr Lee, who I know has sent in a representation on my behalf, was there. Japan at that time was trying to make what was happening to young Japanese girls as being psychosomatic, and that word was used. Dr Lee, who is a pathologist and has been for over 50 years, carried out an analysis of post-mortem results on a young New Zealand girl who died six months after she was last vaccinated. What he discovered in her blood and spleen tissues was the HPV DNA, and he actually said, okay, you're all saying this is psychosomatic. So could you all put up your hands, those who regard these results as being psychosomatic, and not one hand could go up? It was the politicians who were for the vaccine, the politicians who were very concerned about the vaccine in Japan. They discussed it at length, they put the young Japanese girls first, they put forward, there have been scientific papers brought out on what they believe to be a neurological condition that has come from the vaccine. They also have set up this 21-year study, and this is their way of trying to find out the truth. So that's what came from Tokyo. In France, in the May following that, there was a similar open discussion, and they were concentrating a lot on aluminium, because there's a difference between aluminium being eaten as you can through pots and the environment to aluminium being injected into the body. Professor Chris Exley, who has also given me support, is the, I would say, the top expert on aluminium in the United Kingdom. So they discussed that, and they were discussing having vaccines containing no aluminium at that time. Something has to happen. We've now got an Irish politician who is very concerned. He's met Irish families, and he has heard their stories. He has spoken out and said, something has got to be done. The families have got to meet the Irish health minister, that's their request. I think I get the drift. Presumably, however, the fact that these discussions have taken place and other legislatures will be part of the on-going review that the Scottish Government will undertake in relation to the recommendations to ministers. Supposing, because what it seems to me that you would hope the outcome of the round table discussion would be, is that, out of that, a compelling argument would arise for a change in policy in Scotland. If such a round table discussion took place and the outcome were the contrary to that, would you be content with that decision? I wouldn't be happy if there was no progress forward. The reason I say that is because somebody has got to realise that young girls worldwide, Scotland as well, are ill. They have become ill following the vaccine. Prior to vaccination, their medical records were perfect, or almost perfect, normal teenage girls, normal young girls, no serious medical issues, certainly no psychological issues, because that does not come in straight away. There is a progress progression on it. I would be very disappointed if nobody is asking what has happened to these girls, what has happened to their boys overseas, that they are becoming sick. If I could quote from a Professor Yw Hrida Shonfelt, he is the director of the Sabludovitch Centre for Auto Immune Diseases and an international specialist on immunity. He is in Israel. He pointed out that certain individuals have a genetic predisposition to much greater and more serious reaction to immune system stimulation in the form of aluminium salt containing vaccines. He also informed the meeting that he was speaking to that we already have genetic tests that can determine before any vaccine is administered whether an individual's genetic make-up is such that he may be susceptible in the long term to a potentially very serious or to immune reaction. I understand the perseverance with which you have approached the issue, Mr Sparrow. I guess what I am wondering is that you are convinced from the body of evidence to which you have been exposed or have been involved in unearthing that the vaccine is unsafe and that there should be a change of policy in Scotland as to its application. That is what you want to see. The round-table discussion that you see is a means to that end, but it is that end that you actually want to get to. Is that correct? It is really the Scottish Government's attitude to the vaccine that is ultimately the issue at hand. You are being issue is to get these girls properly treated. Yes, I have said that. David is saying that my main issue is to get these girls properly treated. One of the things that I have discovered and many of my colleagues have discovered, girls who are very active, who are into sports, into dance, etc. seem to be the ones. I am not saying 100 per cent, but a good 90 per cent and seem with voice, very active young people get hit very hard. I think you had the father of one of these girls present in Parliament at a round-table discussion that took place, an all-party round-table discussion that took place. That is the secondary thing. It is the attitude of the vaccine and it is also the appropriate treatment of those people who have been adversely affected by it. It is. It is to ask why is this happening to some—it may not be happening to all—but why is this happening to a good portion of the young people in this country? Unfortunately, the medical professionals do not seem to recognise what is happening, what the symptoms are, what is being developed. That is when they go down the road of saying that it is a psychological problem. However, many of those young people get eventually diagnosed with a medical condition. I like POTS, the postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, which is being looked at by EMA at the present time. Those young girls originally maybe got diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. Because of mother's perseverance, they will carry on down the road until they find out about POTS, they go and get a tilt-table test and they get an official diagnosis. What a doctor has maybe said to that young person and to the family that your daughter is all in her head and they have used that expression, they have done the damage that has been done to that young person who believes that a doctor knows more than she does, so is the doctor right? Then they find out that she does have a medical condition. I wonder if I could pick up just one little point, Jackson. I may have picked this up incorrectly. You made a comment that the vaccine has prevented a number of cases of cervical cancer since its introduction. I said that, coincident, since the vaccine was introduced, there has been a fall on the number of people who have cervical cancer. I was not necessarily attributing that to the vaccine. Our young girls were vaccinated at 12, and in Scotland it is age 20, for perhaps screening. I do not think that so many of those young people will have gone forward to be screened to see whether the vaccine has prevented a problem. What is appearing in America, because it started earlier than us in 2006, Gardasil vaccinated girls are now displaying HPV infection or cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer, and that comes through the American VAIR system, similar to our MHRA. Can I add some figures to the percentage you were talking to to put sense to all these figures? According to Cancer Research UK, there are about three deaths per 100,000 due to cervical cancer, and according to Cancer Research UK, there are about eight to nine new cases of cervical cancer a year, and according to Cancer Research UK, the rate of cervical cancer in 1970 was about eight per 100,000, which dropped at the beginning of the programme to just under three per 100,000 before the programme even started. So, if you're talking about 44 per cent of three, you're talking about one per 100,000, and yet if you look at the data from the pharmaceuticals on the serious adverse effects, where they caught 2.5 per cent, which is 2,500 serious adverse effects per 100,000. Those are the figures that you're talking about, the girls that we know are there, but we're just starting to find them now. Like Jackson Carlaw, I'm just trying to get to the point of the petition that you submitted to us in relation to—you've asked for a round-table discussion for the Scottish Government to conven a round-table discussion between those who are in favour of continuing with the vaccination and those who are opposed to it or have reservations about the vaccination. Can I just get clarification? What exactly are you looking for? Are you looking for the proper support to be put in place for those who have suffered an adverse effect to the vaccination, or are you looking for a moratorium or ban on the HPV vaccine programme? I have never asked the best of my knowledge for a ban on the HPV vaccines. I know it's a huge thing to do that. I am asking if it was possible for a moratorium so that an improper investigation could take place to determine why certain young people are having serious adverse reactions. Those serious adverse reactions are lasting for many years. We're not talking about something that's just there for a month and six weeks and then it goes away. That is the opposite to what the MHRA is stating, because they always usually say that those side effects don't last very long. They go away in the matter of weeks, etc. That is not the case. Of the families of the UK association, I know every single one of them. I have spoken to them, I have written to them, I have been on the telephone or Skype or whatever. I know their background, I know exactly what is going on and what has happened to them. The one thing that I always say to them, because MPs are not the first place they would come naturally, is that I always say, please go and discuss what is happening in your house with your Member of Parliament, because that's the only way to raise awareness, etc. There has to be somebody somewhere who has got to say, this is not right, somebody somewhere has got to say, why then are all these young people becoming sick and the thing that links them together is the HPV vaccine. Why is this happening to these young people? They cannot be ignored and swept under the carpet and the number of times I've heard that it's just a coincidence. Well, that word in itself means by chance. So when you get hundreds and thousands around the world, that's not by chance. There's something unusual, there's something not good happening here and that's why I raised this petition having worked on this since 2008, but I felt this was the time because Denmark is looking very seriously at this, they are putting money into investigating and having an independent study and I would urge this committee to make contact with that politician, I have her details and the same with the Irish senator, until you speak with others on your own wavelength, at your own level and say, well, what do you think what's happening in Ireland, what's happening in Denmark, what's happening in Colombia, many, many countries, then I would urge you to do that, to find out the facts from others, not just from me and the information. I do believe the vaccine has harmed these girls and has harmed boys overseas. I have been involved too long now to not realise that that is what is happening, that there's something not right and somebody has got to recognise that, hopefully. Thank you for your response. You mentioned the MHRA and my colleague Mr Brodie raised the issue about the mesh implant and certainly this committee has some experience of dealing with MHRA in terms of their decision making process and allowing things to go forward, but what I need to ask is, are you aware of any research that has been carried out by the chief medical officer or any other government department regarding the effects of this vaccine on the females that receive that vaccine? Because what I'm picking up from you today is, yes, we know that there are some adverse effects that have taken place, but have we, apart from the reporting mechanisms that are in place at the present moment, aware of any follow-up research that has been carried out to determine the long-term impact? We don't know how long the impact may be on those females who have received the vaccination. Are you aware of any research that has been done and any follow-up research that has been done in the UK? I can see when it was discovered about the contamination in the Gardasil vaccine by Dr Lee and also the work done by Dr Lucia Tomlidjinovic. She is from the University of British Columbia in Canada and she analysed brain samples of three young girls who died following the HPV vaccination. What she discovered was that the antigen 16, which is part of Gardasil, because it was Gardasil that was the vaccine, had crossed the blood brain barrier and they have the scientific evidence of that. That, I do believe, was sent to the joint committee and also to the MHRA and also to the government departments down south. They all dismissed it. We asked for evidence to show, for example, the contamination in the Gardasil vaccine. We asked for specific scientific articles that make the family cuticle company, the Department of Health, anyone who could show that what we were saying was incorrect. To begin with, when the information came out, the Pharmacuticles and the Department of Health always said that there is no virus in the vaccine. When we discovered that there was a contamination, they accepted it. They accepted it. They did not deny it. We said, well, give us the evidence that you know that this is not going to harm any of the girls. We were talking about a serious contamination in the Gardasil vaccine. In the Cervarix vaccine, we now know that Glasgow Smith Klein has had to say that there is the possibility of residual insect residue in the vaccine. We have asked for the evidence that proves that that will not harm any of the girls and that we have never ever got it. We have never ever got any science. We provide science all the time from respected scientists and professionals, but we never ever get any science back. We clearly have a very strong and passionate view on the issue, but what I am surprised about is that the NHS' position on this, I would have thought chief execs of the NHS are looking to save money, and if there was any danger or if there was any vaccination, which was harmful, they would be keen to take it off their list rather than keep it on a list. Perhaps, convener, we could ask the chief execs of the various regions in Scotland to advise us on what action, if any, they have taken to look into this matter to try to determine and substantiate why they are continuing to use the vaccination where the evidence has been provided and or if they have any evidence otherwise to prove that, in fact, it is safe to use because unless we get some professionals giving us some advice on this, it will be very difficult for lay people like ourselves to come to a decision. I think that is important because whilst there may be evidence that you have collected internationally, I still think that we have sufficient professionals in the UK who could actually look into this matter for us. It might be quicker for them to come back to us with their element evidence and, of course, it would be strongly backed by professionals. I think that would be helpful before you go into a round table scenario because it would be important to get the NHS's position on this issue, which would clarify the situation in terms of the evidence that you have managed to collate to date and the NHS's position on one, the evidence that you have collated, and two, what evidence they have, which would perhaps counterbalance that. I think that would be important before we could take it any further. I will come back to check if you have got any final comments. Mr Wilson, as usual, asks a very pertinent question in terms of the analysis. I think that Ms Birtle-Freed has made quite clear that it is not a moratorium on the drugs, but the purpose of getting experts—we can write them all day long—at the end of the day, they may have a view and may not. Certainly, the drug companies involved would have a view. However, the issue is that one death or one serious illness, in this case, is one too many. If you look at the process of prescribing girls and boys who have apparently no major illness or nothing wrong with them, can then be injected, and what check goes on before that actually happens and what are the implications in terms of their medical characteristics. I think that the aspect of creating a forum by which we can at least establish a meaningful look at the processes, the prescriptive method of inoculation injection and, indeed, the consequences of drawing on international information is essential, because I say that one death or one serious illness is one too many. David, I'll go through the final comments on this. Good morning. The European Medicines Agency, which carried out a review on the HPV vaccine, started in July this year, and it will report back to the European Commission, and their decisions will be legally binding by all members of the European state. Is it not better waiting to find out what their findings are on the safety of it? There is a committee that is advising IMA, and the committee, a good proportion of the committee, are very pro-vaccine. They are not an independent group. Being Professor, I think it's Paul Ard, who is connected with the Joint Committee, JCVI. We, as an association, have been getting our families to complete their questionnaires, and we have been sending this information across to IMA. What is disturbing—and I spoke to my MEP about this because he is part of the Health Committee—is that if the review is open, honest and genuine, we should not be hearing from IMA or from the Department of Health at Westminster that the vaccine is safe and effective. If they are looking at individual illnesses that are affecting girls—this came from Denmark, originally, and they brought it to the attention of IMA—they should be taking it from base. They should be saying, zero. We now look at this objectively. We look at what we get from Spain, Europe, Denmark and the United Kingdom, and then we assess what we think if those are serious side effects following vaccination. That is not what we are hearing. We are hearing the opposite. We are hearing, sadly, from the Westminster Minister that the vaccine is safe and effective, but we do not see that there will be any problem. How can you listen to that when you are genuinely trying to help IMA to come to a resolution? Yes, you are quite right. Whatever the answer they come up with, that will be it. It will be in statutes of law. That will be it. However, it is not very fair on those who are trying their best to help IMA when they are hearing this coming back at them. That is wrong. That should be stopped. That should be said. We are going to do this properly. We are doing this professionally. If there is something wrong, let us look at it. Do not come up and say, this vaccine is okay. There are possibly not going to be any serious issues with the two health conditions that are being investigated, but there are more than two that need to be investigated. There are many autoimmune disorders that young girls suddenly develop, other health conditions, etc. That is my greatest worry. What you say is correct. Their answer will be definitive, but is it correct that they should be expressing an opposite view and not starting from the status quo and saying, we are going to look at this objectively and honestly? I am not sure if they are doing that. I would like to think the word. I want to come to the committee to discuss what we do with the petition. I am genuinely concerned that what the petition is asking for would have any merit, I have got to be honest with you. It is very specific in asking for around-table discussion, and I am puzzled as to what that would achieve in relation to the issue. You have raised a lot of very important issues, and I am sure that they are being discussed within the scientific and medical establishments. However, I do not know how they would be resolved by around-table discussion. I have spoken to clinicians and experts in the field of cancer, some argue very strongly, and the majority of them do that screening for breast cancer, prostate cancer or brow cancer is very effective, and there is merit and value in that. Equally, I have spoken to clinicians who say that they do not believe that that actually makes an impact in terms of addressing the treatment of those conditions. If you were to get people from both sides of that argument into a room around a table, you could pretty much establish before you went in what the outcome would be. They would come out saying, well, we think that it is good or we think that it is bad. I am not quite sure how we can take that petition forward on the basis that all that we are asking for is around-table discussion, because I do not know that it would achieve anything. However, I am still at the same time really concerned by the evidence that you produced about the impact on the girls and women, and the fact that there is no consensus around the medical conditions that are being created by the vaccination if there is a causal link. I think that those kind of things have to be investigated, but that is not what the petition asks for. I am really in a bind as to what we do with it. I am asking the committee if they have any considerations on how we can take that forward, Jackson. I certainly think that we could ask the Scottish Government for its attitude to the petition, but given that the issues that it raises are ones that I know will have come before ministers and to which they have responded previously, I think that what might be interesting at the same time would be to explore some of the evidentiary issues that were raised as to what on-going review the Scottish— That is not a test. Well, we have to stay where we are. Do I carry on trying to speak or away? We have to stay where we are, convener, so I will take that as licence to finish by point. I think so. I think that if we stay here until we hear otherwise— Re-assure people in the gallery that this happens from time to time, so don't panic. Yes, to get the Scottish Government's attitude whether there has been any on-going review by the Scottish Government or— I will suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes until there is no notification. I will suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes. I am sure that we can go ahead without further interruption unless the security staff need to come in and evacuate us, but we should not be interrupted by an announcement. I will go back to you, Jackson. Thank you, convener. I am clearly a candidate for North Korean brainwashing. All I can think at the moment is attention please, attention please, a fire has been reported in the building. Please stay where you are. Because those issues have been raised with the Scottish Government before, I think that it would be pointless simply to write to them, asking them what their attitude to the issue is, because I think that we know that they will say that they act on the advice of the chief medical officer and the scientific evidence. I think that it would be better to try and tease out in exploring the issues with the Scottish Government, whether they are aware of or whether any review is being conducted in Scotland into the implications and experience since the vaccine was introduced. Are they aware or have they received any briefing on the more recent experience that we were advised of in Ireland, Denmark, Japan and France? And I suppose finally, to what extent does the Government act on the advice of the MHRA, because it is the case, as Mr Wilson said, that we have had cause to be underwhelmed by that on a previous occasion, and indeed the Cabinet Secretary herself, at the evidence session we had where that was raised, expressed concerns about the weight that had been placed upon the particular study that, until we examined it in some detail, had seemed to carry the day until we discovered that it was not maybe all that it had purported to be. I think that those things would maybe bring out more of the issue, because I suspect a bit like you, convener, that the actual enthusiasm for the round table will be lacking unless there is a very clear outcome that is being sought as a consequence. Thank you, convener. I'm not quite North Korean brainwashing, but that's something Jackson might have to be investigated in Jackson's case. By relation to the spice briefing, there is reference made to the Countess of Mars question posed in the House of Lords and the response from the Lord prior of Brampton, which contains some details of the reporting mechanism that has been taking place, which claims to be UK-wide. If we are writing to the Scottish Government, could I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government and try to get some Scottish figures for the reporting of any adverse effects, because there are some questions that need to be raised about the figures that we have in front of us, but it would be useful to get some Scottish figures. It would also be useful to find out, from our experience of the mesh implant debate in the petition that we have had before us, what advice is currently given to GPs about any reporting mechanism in terms of adverse effects from the vaccine? One of the things that we did highlighted with the mesh implant is that many GPs didn't know how to report or who to report to in relation to adverse effects in terms of the operations and procedures that were carried out. It would also be useful to find out from the Scottish Government if there is any guidance that is currently provided to GPs to help them to identify what may be an adverse effect arising from the HPV vaccine. For me, that indicates that we might see an underreporting of adverse effects and it would be useful to try to get as true a figure as possible of the number of adverse effects that are taking place because of the HPV vaccine. That sounds very sensible. I think that there are a few areas that we want to investigate. On your point, which is absolutely 100 per cent correct, many of the families who we find now, I always say to them, have you reported to the yellow card system? That is the system that goes direct to the MHRA and they then can divide it into Ireland, Scotland and England and Wales. Very few have reported adverse reactions to the MHRA. There is not enough education being given at the point of contact that the school nurse perhaps may not say. If you feel unwell, make sure that mum gets in touch and gives them the information. They expect them to see a lot in the consent form that is sent out at the time of consent, which is very little. It says that the side effects are mild. What the child or the mother does not get at that time is the patient information leaflet, which gives them more serious adverse reactions, such as Gillan Barr syndrome. That is identified on the Gardasil. The convener mentioned about the round table and earlier in discussion it was said about the science. This is the round table that I would like the science because you people can then ask for the science to prove that what we are saying is not correct. The science that we have, such as the contamination, the insect DNA, possibly in serverics vaccine, where is the science from Glasgow Smith Klein that will show that there is no harm to the child? DNA, no matter how many schools it is, is going into the body. That is why we asked for a round table so that the questions could be asked openly and they could be asked for that science. They will ignore us but they would not ignore you and that is the reason. However, on the yellow card, yes, you are so right that there is underreporting at a huge rate. I have heard that we have agreed that we are going to write to ask for the Scottish Government's views on holding the round table on those terms. We will be asking that question of the Government. Once we have got the responses back from the Government and others that we have agreed to contact, we will obviously be in touch with you and we will take the petition forward from that point. Thank you very much for coming to give us evidence this morning. I will suspend for a couple of minutes to change witnesses. The final new petition today is PE1577 by Rachel Wallace on adult cerebral palsy services. Members will have notes from the clerk on the petition and the spice briefing. I would also like to welcome Murdo Fraser MSP to the meeting who has indicated an interest in our petition. It remains for me to welcome the petitioner, Rachel Wallace, to the meeting. She is accompanied today by Stephanie Fraser from Bowbath Scotland and I invite Ms Wallace to make some introductory comments and then we will open it up to discussion. I have cerebral palsy. As you can see, I am a full-time wheelchair user and I am on numerous pain and tone-reducing medications for my condition. Cerebral palsy is recognised in childhood and treated by a multi-discipline team who are there to minimise any suffering and treat any medical problems which arise. The moment I became an adult, all this support stopped. However, it did not stop having cerebral palsy. There is no co-ordinated clinical pathway, such as there is with other neurological conditions. Cerebral palsy is not treated as a lifelong condition by the NHS. Medical professionals treat it as a static condition. However, my body would disagree otherwise. All the benefits of childhood input are wasted. There is not a professional who specialises in cerebral palsy who I can go to. Instead, I am relying on the goodwill of health professionals who try on top of their own workload to help me. That is if you can find anyone. I pay a paediatric physiotherapist to help me with my stretch exercise as there is no specialist adult physiotherapist. I developed severe pain in my back and leg nine months ago. My first appointment with the local NHS physiotherapist is next week. In the past, when I have seen a physio regarding an injury, they give me exercises designed for non-disabled people and try to adapt them. You cannot separate my cerebral palsy from a localised injury, but unless that physio is trained in cerebral palsy, they do not understand this and can do more harm than good. I am fortunate that I can voice my pain and I am able to navigate a peace-mail system. There are many who cannot. That is why I have raised the petition that cerebral palsy is not a local health board issue, it is a national issue. I cannot even call it a postcode lottery as there are no NHS services across Scotland. There is a need for a national clinical pathway and a trained adult physiotherapist and other AAHPs in cerebral palsy to provide on-going therapy services. Thank you very much. Murdo, do you want to make some comments for the outset? Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I have been trying to assist my constituent, Rachel Wallace, on the issue for several months at least since she first came to me. Rachel makes her own case extremely well and very eloquently, if I may say so. The key point in the presentation is that, while there is provision for children with cerebral palsy, unfortunately, when children get to the age of 18 and become adults, that provision all disappears in the NHS. Rachel's point is that we need a clear clinical pathway to be established for adults with this condition. We have been in correspondence with the Scottish Government over this. We have had several unsuccessful attempts to have a meeting with the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health through correspondence. We have raised the issue in correspondence and have had what I would characterise as brush-off responses with the usual civil service language, but not really getting to the nub of the issue. The reason I have encouraged Rachel to take the issue to this particular committee is to try and get the committee's backing to take this issue to the Scottish Government and perhaps get it taken more seriously than it has been up to date. Can I just kick off by asking for a clarification? In the documentation that we have in support of the petition, there is a figure of 15,000 adults with cerebral palsy. Does that include all the spectrums of cerebral palsy? Yes, it does. It is a best guess. There is no formal record in Scotland or in the UK of how many people are living with cerebral palsy, but we know that about 1 in 500 births will result in a diagnosis. That includes all the spectrums. I suspected that that might be the case, which is why I put on record that I have a daughter who has cerebral palsy. She is well known to my colleagues on the committee. She is one of our colleagues. I understand exactly what the petition is directed at because my daughter received support all the way through school. Sometimes we had to fight hard to get it, but she received physiotherapy support and NHS support, but it stopped when she became an adult. I understand exactly if she now requires to have any support or assistance because of the condition that she has. She is starting from scratch. She is starting as an adult and trying to argue about that situation rather than as someone with cerebral palsy. I do completely understand why that happens. We have this petition in front of us, but I will open up to the colleagues who might want to ask additional questions. Is the approach of the Department of Health in England different or is this deficiency one that is equal across the whole of the United Kingdom? Not that I flagged that up as a tribute to it, but are there different approaches or are we following the same path? No, sadly not. There is not a difference in England. Recently, the Westminster Government conducted an inquiry into children's services. Bob Ascotland made a representation about why he is stopping with children's services. I am afraid, sadly, that there are not any services that we can look at. I also run a website called Living Positivity for Cerebral Palsy. It is a support group for adults with cerebral palsy. I have many members throughout the UK and their responses are the same. I am afraid. Obviously, Bob Ascotland has been very effective in the job that it does. It is well known in the Parliament and I have visited the premises. It is singularly impressive. Presumably, Stephanie Fraser, you will have raised the—I understand that its focus, Bob Ascotland, is with children. Presumably, you will have raised the issues with ministers about cerebral palsy in adults. Murdo Fraser referred to the civil service speak that he has had back, but do you have a sense beyond that as to why nothing more appears yet to have been forthcoming by way of adult care? I think that it is only recently. Bob Ascotland started an adult service in 2012 and we got private funding for a two-year project. That two-year project was evaluated by the University of Glasgow. Until then, we were not really in a position to understand what the solution could be. It is all very well identified as a problem, but we wanted to be able to say, here is a possible solution. We are not the only game in town. Bob Ascotland is actually a very small organisation. There are representatives here today from Capability Scotland, for example, and there are other providers, private providers such as Scottish neurophysio or whatever. It is over the last three years that we have all been able to come together and work together to identify what the problems are and together approach government. You may be aware that there is a review of neurological services going on at the moment that the minister has asked for. The problem for cerebral palsy is that it does not fit with the neurological umbrella very easily. It is not the same as epilepsy or Parkinson's or MND or any of those other conditions. One of the things that we are having to fight for, if you like, is the understanding and acceptance that it is not a static condition. It has been traditionally seen as a static childhood condition. All services are concentrated in paediatric services. It is that understanding that is the key to unlocking a pathway for adults. I have had problems over the past few months where I am losing mobility because I do not have the same physio input as I did when I was a child. I go to my doctor and he goes not sure what to do with you. I cannot put you into a hospital because you are not ill and I am not even sure whether you would get the rehabilitation support that you need. It is treated in the community but there is no specialist physio or specialist support. I can go to. As with MS, there is an MS consultant and an MS nurse who will give advice on the condition. It is very, very piecemeal. I have had to go through paediatric services and ask my paediatrician who is the best neurologist to go to. I was referred to an acquired brain injury specialist who is very good but that is not her main workload. She will advise on medication and stuff like that but her remits elsewhere. On your point, because CP does not fit, it has become challenging for ministers to understand where to put us. Rachel mentioned specialist nursing. There is a review of neurological services going on and there is also a review of specialist nursing funding. Jamie Hepburn suggested that perhaps we might like to be involved in that in some way. I am going to quote from some correspondence that we received. I received correspondence from the chief nursing officer saying that the review had been put towards the health boards so that us as Bobas Scotland or anybody interested in adult services for CP should liaise with the individual health boards and that it was incumbent on them to liaise with third sector organisations and things. I wrote back saying but I am not entirely clear where we would liaise because when you are looking at services at an individual health board level there is no clear pathway for us to liaise with. As a child you would go to the paediatricians and the consultant paediatricians as an adult talking about CP services. Where would I go was my question. The letter I got back and I am quoting from it. The Scottish Government is saying that people living with conditions such as cerebral palsy have access to the best possible care and support. Being told that you have a condition for which there may be no cure can be devastating and individuals respond to this in different ways. I am afraid that that sentence to me clearly demonstrates that they do not understand the condition of cerebral palsy. You are born with it. To receive a letter that is cut and pasted with that kind of sentence in it from the chief nursing officer directorate to me actually illustrates the problem that we have. I am aware with Duchenne's disease that we have a growing community of young men who are now surviving well into adulthood whose problem seems in some ways similar in that they have previously had respite in children's hospices where any of the experience lay because it was usually with children that the condition was experienced. They are now in their thirties and forties, some of them still in children's hospices for respite because the wider health service had no broader experience of a larger community surviving into adulthood. Is there a similar parallel here that we have a community now who can expect a much longer life span with cerebral palsy than may once have been the case and that the health service just has not necessarily understood that and addressed the issue specifically of adult care? People with cerebral palsy are expected in most cases to live a normal life span. No, it has improved but what I would say is more significant is the move from residential care for people with complex needs to more personalised care, which has helped this increased lifespan thing. It is a great thing but the thing that we are up against is people like Rachel just being told to put up with things because it is part of CP. To give you an example of that, if somebody is finding difficulty walking, they might go to social services and say, I've got CP, I'm finding difficulty walking, what could you do? Instead of the realisation that actually you might be able to help this person walk again, they've been given a wheelchair. That's where we are. I wasn't expected to actually still be walking when I was in my teens and I was walking until my early 20s and then I had a hip replacement but I want to maintain my mobility. My mobility is really important to me otherwise if I'm wheelchair bound, my health will deteriorate. I will get a chest infection or something quite serious and it will develop into an acute problem and you will find that along the spectrum of cerebral palsy. There is something called secondary ageing and there has been a University of Glasgow research on secondary ageing where mobility is affected and there are more muscle contractures that have to be sorted out if it is acute by surgery. Usually that is the route that is taken by orthopedic surgeons and stuff like that because by the time you see the orthopedic surgeon it is past the point of rehabilitation and you need that surgery. Sometimes that decision is not the right decision either. It could have been sorted out earlier with physiotherapy or input from neurological services as well. The fact that we do not have a lot of questions is not indicative of a lack of interest. It is such a cut and drive petition that we need to take this is very obvious. I am happy to take suggestions from the committee but I think that it is pretty clear that the course of action that we need to pursue here is quite right but Richard Wallace has given us a very clear picture of exactly how she stands just now. I do not really use the word ludicrous but I am quite surprised that someone has given treatment to an age of adult older than it stopped whereas the symptoms still remain. Richard Wallace is quite right in saying that her symptoms are going to get worse and not going to get any better. Therefore, I am with the petitioner all the way in saying that we really need to ask the Scottish Government to look at this and to ensure that we find a resource to in fact take this on board and deal with it appropriately from the cradle to the grave. I think that it is quite right that we do that. I do not think that we have any other options. I think that the fact that convener that we have been advised that the Scottish Parliament has not specifically addressed this issue in the past, that no other committee has addressed it, I know that there have been members' debates, one led of course by your daughter on the subject, but I do think that there is an opportunity for this committee therefore to actually give some focus to the issue particularly and to take matters forward. Obviously, in the first instance, by writing to ministers, but I can see the value and potential evidence session following on from that. I think that we should, for the purpose of getting as much evidence as possible, contact capability Scotland in Bobath so that you can tell us exactly what we need to hear. I am very curious about the response that you got from the chief nurse and officer director. If you could lize with our clerks and provide that response, I would like to question where that response came from because it just sits very well with me that they responded in that way. The minister has been made aware that this letter was not particularly acceptable. I think that this committee would like to make the numbers clear of that as well. If you could coordinate that with our clerks, I think that it would be useful to pursue that specific point that you made, but I agree with the colleagues. It is a question that I am looking for. A point that has been made in the submission that a meeting had been requested with the minister for health sport and that no meeting has been held yet could either Mr Fraser or Ms Wallace give an indication when that request was made? I think that it is important that we find out why we could ask the minister why he has failed to arrange a meeting to date to discuss the issues raised in the petition. We will be able to give you the date. However, when was the Bobath conference? We had a conference on Wednesday, which was the 7th of October. I approached the minister and he was one of the keynote speakers. He took my details and said that I would get back to you. I have not heard anything since, but what I did to change my headburn was that I would not be giving up on the issue. I really want to work with the Scottish Government to put something in place. However, that was a very brief discussion. I do not think that he was expecting to be cornered, as he was by me. I do not think that the committee will be given up in this petition, because, as the convener has indicated, it is an issue that is very dear to his heart. Given what we have heard this morning, I think that the committee, to a person, will be keen to investigate this further and ensure that we get the services that individuals with cerebral palsy deserve and require. I think that the issue is about the physiotherapy appointment having to wait nine months to see a physiotherapist. When somebody is in a wheelchair and they are complaining about a back injury, that should trigger a faster response than having to wait nine months for a referral to a physiotherapist. The point is also about a specialist physiotherapist who can tackle and deal with the issues that are concerned, rather than do more damage, as he indicated, than good. I am happy, convener, with your indulgence, to respond to Mr Wilson's point about dates for meetings. I wrote originally on 15 December 2014 to the Scottish Government requesting a meeting with Rachael. I got a reply from Mr Hepburn, the Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health, on 29 January. I am not making any direct reference to my request for a meeting, but I am giving some more general points. I subsequently wrote again on 6 February, with a more specific request, or rather reiterating my specific request, for a meeting. I received a reply dated, I think, if I can decipher the Minister's handwriting. I think that it is 4 March 2015. Again, I am not specifically addressing the request for a meeting, but I took that as a brush-off, shall we say, on two occasions. I agree to write to the minister asking why he has not met Mr Fraser and Ms Wallace to discuss the issues raised by an initial correspondence from Mr Fraser, because to wait 10 months, as Mr Fraser has indicated, to only receive what effectively Mr Fraser's own words were a brush-off from the minister in relation to requests for a meeting, I think that if we put the weight of the committee behind that request, then hopefully we could get the minister to see reason and have a meeting as soon as possible, with Ms Wallace and Mr Fraser to discuss the issues raised, not only the issues raised in the petition but other issues relating to services for individuals suffering from cerebral palsy. We approach it at the most construction possible and do not make it sound like a savage admonition of the minister. What we want to do is to progress the issue. I am sure that that is Mr Wilson's intention. I find that a strange response from Mr Jackson telling his previous interventions in this committee, but I take it on board. Thanks very much for coming before us this morning. Thanks for the evidence, obviously. You can see that we have given you a very firm commitment on how supportive we are in taking this forward, and we will continue to do that constructively and aggressively as we can. Thanks very much. I will suspend for a couple of minutes while witnesses leave. We are going on to agenda 8.2, but before we go on to the specific petitions, I just want to go back to our first petition this morning. The deputy convener has subsequently thought of another suggestion to take that issue forward and wants to get the agreement of the committee to do that. David, you want to? Thank you, convener, and I apologise for not thinking of it earlier, but can we write to the YMCA and the Scout Association? They have hundreds of thousands of members amongst them across the UK. They are very good policies in place for LGBT and training policies. Let's see what they are doing, that the schools are not doing, to be very inclusive of the membership at the hub. Our next item of business is consideration of five continued petitions. The first continued petitions is PE1540 by Douglas Filland on a permanent solution for the A83. Members have a note by the clerk and the submission from Transport Scotland, which sets out the response to the questions that we had asked for more information, including future mitigation works that are planned and proposed and more details on the economic impacts of road closures. Transport Scotland is indicated that it expects to write again to the committee in the new year. Over to members, David. Can we keep the petition open, convener? Why do we get that date in the new year from Transport Scotland? That we asked Transport Scotland to give us a date when, in new year, new year is a long time. Expedition PE1545 by Anne Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust on residential care provision for severely learning disabled. The last time we consider this petition, we agree to seek further information and issues, including improving data on people with profound and multiple learning disabilities and the adequacy of guidance issued on social workers on assessing need. Petitioners' submission notes the differences in service presided by people under 18 and those over 18, and she suggests that one option could be to expand the services provided for under 18s at Donaldson's College. Asking whether that is realistic, given that the solution has been raised, it may be impractical for a variety of reasons, but I think that it would be remiss of us not to venture down one possible route to see whether it is feasible. Members agree? I suggest that we refer them to the submission by Muir Maxwell, the Epilepsy Trust, because I think that there are a couple of issues that they have raised in their submission that I think I would want to seek further guidance from the Scottish Government or further indication of their views on it. It is really issues about the independent care needs assessments being conducted by local authorities and whether or not the Scottish Government has considered an appeals process to that current situation. A number of individuals have raised concerns about care needs assessments being carried out by local authorities and the right of appeal against those decisions and whether or not the local authorities are making the best judgments in relation to care needs assessments at a local level. Those services that are being asked for in the petition are decided by local authorities and local authorities will then determine whether or not they will fund placements and other establishments such as Donaldson's. It would be useful to find out if the Scottish Government is considering a review or have reviewed the current procedures in place. Members do not seem to be opposed to that idea. I will take it forward on that basis. Our next petition, PE1555, by Siobhan Garrahy, on electric shock and vibration callers for animals. The Scottish Government's response indicates that it intends to carry out a consultation on the regulation of the use of e-callers in Scotland. I invite contributions. I am quite happy to close the petition. As we are getting a guarantee from the Government, it will go to consultation on use. I have to say that I am more minded to say, let's wait and see what the consultation arrives at and then we will decide whether it is addressed the issues that the petition raises. John, then Jackson. I am the same mind as yourself. I would like to get details from the Scottish Government about the consultation time period and when they expect to carry that consultation out and when they would expect the consultation to be concluded and any reports coming from that consultation being produced. To say that they are going to carry out consultation does not give specific answers in terms of the timetable. If we close the petition, we petitioner at a later date can come back with resubmit the petition, but I would rather get some details from the Scottish Government at the present moment about the time scales and the procedure that they will carry out in terms of consultation. I am sure that everyone welcomes the consultation, but that is not the end of the matter, Jackson. No, I endorse all of that. The petition was actually for there to be a ban on them, not to hold a consultation. I would like to see something more about the scale and breadth of the consultation before we decide what we might do further. We did not actually have a consensus there. I am happy to go along with the figure there. We will keep it open on that basis and take it forward. Members may be hoping that you would write to the Scottish Government asking them for a timescale of when exactly this consultation is taking place and how long it is going to run for. I think that is what we agreed on. That is the point of what I am with them. The next petition, PE1556, by John Mayhew, on behalf of the Scottish Campaign for National Parts and Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland on a national park strategy for Scotland. The Government's response sets out its view on the petition and answers questions that we had asked. Those include assessment of future sustainability of existing national park authorities, governance models and the creation of a national park strategy group. Colleagues, do you have the chance to look at us, Angus? Yes, thank you, convener. Certainly, reading the letter from the minister, it is encouraging. There is clearly an ongoing dialogue with the Scottish ministers and SCNP and APRS, although the minister does highlight the issue of costs as has been a possibly temporary barrier. There is no doubt that this is unfinished business, as the SCNP report suggests. However, as there seems to be a lack of consensus among the stakeholders on the petition's aims, I think that there needs to be a greater meeting of minds to ensure the protection and enhancing of Scotland's well landscapes has progressed. I would suggest that we close the petition in the hope that the petitioner's good work will continue, and we would certainly encourage him to work with the stakeholders identified in the unfinished business report. Clearly, the Government has not closed the door on the issue either, so there is more work to be done, but the door is still open. The final continued petition is PE1561 by Karen Gray on behalf of rabbits require rights Scotland on pet rabbit welfare. The submissions from animal welfare groups concur on there being a general issue about rabbit welfare, and the Scottish Government's response addresses each of the points identified in the petition and also notes that the welfare of pet rabbits will be considered as part of its wider review of pet welfare legislation. In the same position as the previous one, let's wait and see what the outcome of that is. It's the timescale once again, convener, on how quickly the Government is intending to do it, because that will indicate when they are going to bring forward either improved legislation or give us a clear steer in relation to how they intend to move forward in animal welfare legislation. I welcome the position of the Government. The petitioner having raised it, us having written to the Government, the Government having and indeed the other animal welfare agencies having indicated that there does seem to be an issue, I think some clarity from the Government would be welcome. Timescale, will it include this and will it engage at least to some extent with the petitioner? I think, convener, as on the previous occasion, although people looking casually at our deliberations might wonder whether rabbit welfare was, and I see there is a submission indeed from a bestforbunny.com website, it did actually, when we took evidence on it, the detail of the issue underpinning the welfare of animals was actually very much more robustly made and I think that until we see the scope of that consultation, we should keep the issue alive. It seems to be agreed by everyone, so I'll close the meeting at that point because I just ask allys to hang back for a minute until we go through a couple of issues.