 Gilywadau gwaith. Gwyrdd hynny'n gwybodaeth hynny o gynnwys gyfwsfrannu gyfer y Comvedeithasol. Mae'r ddweud o fod yn ei ddefnyddio fynd o'r ddigon nifer o yngrifennu... ...fysen i gyfwsfrannu cyfwsfrannu gyfwydau. Na hi, mae gennym yn sicr bod rhywbeth. Rwyf eich gyfwsfrannu Haig yng Nghymru, i gennyn bydwyr eich codiwn eu hunol. Mae wrth i ei gennyn yn ein byddwyr yng Nghymru iser Mosfellol 1517. Ysgoedd i Llaner factoryr, ac olyf McElroy, yng Nghymru unigio'r Gymdeithasgol yng Nghymru yn fwy o ddiech kaum yw ein i'r gyferiadau gyda'r Llywodraeth Cymru, a y oedd yn味adau o'r Ffraidei, mae gymhysgfaith yng Nghymru yn Galloway. John Scott, trwy ganddodd, wedi gweld dechrau ynатаeth y cymhwyng i ddweud i gael gwyfwng ym Wreithiau, yn asgwadau McFarger. Neil Findlay, rwy'n trefwyr, yn dweud i gael gwyfodd eu ddweud, ddim. Fy enw'n gwneud un pwyllwch ddweud i ni. to note that. Members recall that we heard from the petitioners two weeks ago and agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Well-being to give evidence on this important issue. I'm very grateful for the Cabinet Secretary for Making Himself Available so quickly, for the committee this morning. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary, Alan Neill, and Dr Francis Elliott. I could also welcome all our visitors to the gallery today, which is obviously a very important and quite emotional issue. I would still like to welcome all our visitors who have been Rwy'n gwahodd i eifyd ni'n gael ein paedwyr a'r byd iawn ar gwrthodol arogi, rydym eich tynne i'w comforio fel amddangosio ar y heheitiau. Rwy'n gwahodd i eifyd i eich cyfrifoedd y ffrindol, a'r ffordd o'r cael eu cyfrifoedd o'r caercau iengl beynau. Rwy'n gwahodd i eifyd ni'n gael eich cyfrifoedd o'r ffordd o myfyrdd o'r problemau. I also thank the ladies behind me for bringing this to the attention of the committee and indeed the Parliament. I think that the first thing to say is that we should all be very concerned to hear how these implants have affected the lives of some women in Scotland and elsewhere. I've personally met women who have been adversely affected including Mrs Holmes and Mrs McElroy and I was deeply troubled to hear how women affected have suffered and they have my full sympathy and support and we'll certainly do everything we can to improve the situation. No one should have to experience the level of suffering that some of these women have had and I want to set out today the actions that the Scottish Government is taking to address the issues raised. I asked the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Elliot, to investigate and recommend actions to address the issues. We estimate that around 1500 women suffering from stress urinary incontinence and 350 suffering pelvic organ prolapse have synthetic mesh implant surgery each year in Scotland. These conditions result in a reduced quality of life and I understand that traditional surgery techniques have a high failure rate of between 20 and 30 per cent for primary pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Based on the 2012 Yacht report, a study commissioned by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, it is estimated that around 1 to 3 per cent of women experience complications following stress urinary incontinence surgery and for pop surgery the percentage experiencing complications is slightly higher according to the MHRA of between 2 and 6 per cent. That, as I said, contrasts with a failure rate in traditional surgery of between 20 and 30 per cent. That means that a majority of women, based on that estimate, around 1450 annually would appear to benefit from this type of surgery without complications. That is not to diminish the seriousness of the situation for those women suffering complications. However, I should add that the percentage of complications is probably substantially underestimated because of the underreporting and the non-reporting of adverse events. Therefore, I would take those figures as not entirely reliable in terms of their accuracy. I asked Dr Elliot to chair a working group that includes clinicians and patient representatives to consider the issues in more detail. That group has now met twice, and I would like to thank Mrs Holmes and Mrs McElroy for their on-going contribution to the group. That group, to date, has made progress. One, it has produced a new patient information and consent booklet for SUI, and I have some copies here with me today for the committee. This booklet will clearly demonstrate the risks associated with this procedure and the alternatives available before women make a decision on whether they wish to proceed. The information in this booklet will be the absolute minimum information provided to patients by NHS boards. Secondly, there are also two patient guidance booklets being developed that set out the pathway for the management of POP and for women who present with complications. Dr Elliot will be working with NHS colleagues to develop this service as a matter of urgency. I can also confirm that, in the last year, the chief medical officer has written three times to all GPs through medical directors, alerting them to the possibility that women may suffer complications following the insertion of these mesh implants and that all adverse events must be reported to the MHRE, which is a regulatory authority. If I can just explain the regulatory framework to convener, as you have already heard, mesh implants are classified as medical devices and are governed through the EU medical device directive. MHRE is a competent authority for the whole of the UK and it has responsibility for the removal of any device from the market for the whole of the UK. Evidence is required in order, obviously, for it to take such a step. Individual medical devices follow procedures set out in the EU directives by manufacturers to gain a CA mark, which is conformity marking awarded by notified bodies. MHRE oversees the work of these organisations in the UK performing regular orders. The rules for classifying medical devices are applicable across all EU member states. I have spoken to the MHRE chief executive and medical director about mesh implants and agreed that a dossier detailing the experiences of women in Scotland should be given to them to help them to reach a decision on the use of these implants. I was reassured in the discussion with the MHRE that they are taking this issue very seriously and the Scottish Government will continue to assist this agency to provide answers on a way forward. I have another discussion arranged with the chairman later this month. I have also written to the European Commission, which is currently working towards formulating a scientific opinion on the safety of these devices and this work will be available in January 2015. We are aware of the US Food and Drug Administration's proposal to reclassify mesh for POP from a moderate-risk device to a high-risk device. Currently, of course, Europe has a 2B classification, which is moderate to high risk. The Scottish Government will participate in the UK working group. Their remit includes consideration of how data on complications and reporting of adverse events can be improved. That group will meet for the first time next week. Having said all of that, convener, I am convinced that more, however, needs to be done by ourselves here in Scotland. In addition to what I have already outlined, I am announcing today that an independent review will be set up urgently to report on all the issues raised such as complication rates and under-reporting of adverse events. That review will report in 2015, taking account of the European Commission's study on these devices, which, as I said, is due to be published in January 2015. I hope to announce the specific remit and the chair of the review before the summer recess. Finally, in addition, I have asked the acting chief medical officer this week to write to all health boards to request them to immediately suspend these procedures, both the POP and the TVT procedures, until further evidence becomes available from the two reports next year, the EU report and the independent review that I have set up. I believe that that is the right thing to do and that we should base any future decisions on the evidence as presented by those two reports. Thank you, convener. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. I, for one, welcome your independent review and the issues around suspension. You have probably, in your normal sense, predicted—one of my questions was—that you will know that Dumfries and Galloway have suspended the use of mesh devices. My question will be about the wider issues about suspension across Scotland. Perhaps you can comment on the Dumfries and Galloway suspension as far as your awareness of it is. It is technically not a suspension. I simply issued an order from the medical director last year not to use meshes in any of the POP operations in future. As you know in evidence to this committee, the medical director of Dumfries and Galloway had also called for an urgent review in relation to tapes, but at least two other health boards, Highland and Forth Valley, have also put a stop on the use of meshes. By rolling out the suspension across Scotland, we make sure that every health board is taking exactly the same position. I am glad that you have taken the issue seriously. You obviously followed very closely our deliberations two weeks ago. I think that all the committee were shocked, frankly, by the excellent petition that we heard from Elaine Holmes and Olive McElroy. I think that on my time training the committee, I have not seen the emotion in the tears in the Galloway that I have ever experienced in any other petition. We have experienced many very, very good petitions over the last three years. I am sure that you accept the strength, the feeling among women, the fact that one in five mesh implants can go wrong, the horrific physical injuries that that can cause. I would also place a record again my thanks for the Sunday Mail for raising this issue after issue where they have raised awareness. I am sure that you are aware how shocked all the committee members were and that decisive and demanding action was extremely necessary. I would just like to put that on the record. I have made it absolutely clear from day one that I am very much on the side of the women on this issue. Very clearly it is not an uneasy regulatory regime because within Scotland the health boards are the ones who make decisions, which is why I write to request that they suspend, which I am sure they will do, but also the MHRA is actually the statutory regulatory body and they operate under EU directives. But it should also be explained that the MHRA's responsibility is primarily in relation to the products, the devices themselves, and the EU directives are very much dealing with the issue of the devices. Now according to the discussion we had last week with the MHRA, the evidence that they have assembled so far indicates that many of the problems that women have had relate to complications in the procedure and not always in relation to the product. So one of the points I want to be absolutely sure that we include in the remit for the independent review in Scotland is first of all to try to get a better handle, a much better handle on the level of underreporting of adverse events in relation to these procedures. But secondly, where things have gone wrong, why have they gone wrong? The product is at the procedure, the unavoidable complications in some cases. We need to get a far, far better understanding if we are to ensure patient safety in these procedures. The review remit will include looking at the work in Europe and in the US to make sure that in Scotland the best possible policy is adopted once we have conducted that research. I am absolutely determined to do that. We all have constituency, convener, who have been victims. In some cases, the mesh implants actually work, in one case in particular, work for 12 years before a complication is set in. So I am very keen that we look at this over a fairly long period of time because the better understanding we have of it, the better we will be able to get a handle on what needs to be sorted here to make sure no woman has to get through the hell that many of those women are sitting behind me. Before I bring John Wilson in, if Dr Elliott wishes to speak at any time, please catch my eye. John Wilson. I, too, welcome the announcement by the cabinet secretary today to ask for the suspension of the use of the mesh device in the future until we get this issue resolved. Cabinet secretary, given your opening remarks, the part of the difficulty is the accuracy of the information provided to MHRA and also the information collated by GPs and others who are involved in the treatment of the patients who have received these operations, could you give an indication of what you can do to find out where there have been historic situations where there has been gross underreporting of incidents with patients because one of the issues clearly is that we have percentage figures between 1% and 3% and we can bandy these figures around, but these are only 1% to 3% of the reported incidents, not the unreported, and clearly in the spice guide that we received, spice information we received as part of today's discussion, they indicate that no one is obliged to report an incident. Could we, or could I ask the cabinet secretary, as part of the deliberations on this issue, could we get some historic data to actually ensure that what we're dealing with is accurate information, not information that's only been provided if and when a GP or a consultant has decided to provide it? First of all, we'll just see that they are obliged to report an adverse event under the code of conduct and we've issued, as I said in my introductory statement, clear instructions to remind everybody that they are obligated to report every adverse incident to the MHRA. This is not just a Scottish problem in terms of underreporting, it's right across the UK, and I think one of the first things we need to do, the MHRA in ourselves, is make absolutely sure that every adverse event is reported now, obviously, if we're suspending for the next period ahead, then by definition there shouldn't be any adverse events, but in terms of the measurement of historical adverse events, that is why I'm setting up the independent review. Now, I don't want to prejudice how the review will do its work, undertake its work, but a very clear part of the remit will be to try to establish what the real percentage of adverse events are, because very clearly, one of the issues that the ladies have spoken to me have highlighted is the number of women who have come forward to them. Now, that indicates to me that the percentage that the percentage is officially reported by the MHRA are underreporting the number of adverse events and doing so significantly, but I don't have the information to say the real figures 10%, 15%, 20%, I don't have that, but I would like the independent review to try at least and have a stab at trying to get the right order of magnitude of the percentage of adverse events. Clearly, the traditional surgery has a failure rate of between 20% and 30%. I think that there is clear evidence that the failure rate and the complication rate and the adverse event ratio in these procedures is significantly higher than what is officially reported. Can you ask Francis to supplement that to reply? Yes, I think that it's really important that when we set out the terms of reference for the independent review that we're asking the review to identify the barriers to reporting because, as Cabinet Secretary has mentioned, that within the general medical council's duties of a doctor it's quite clearly indicated that professionals are required to report adverse incidents and events to the appropriate bodies. So there must be something that is getting in the way of that happening on a routine basis, and we need to establish that with a greater degree of accuracy than we have been able to do so before. Cabinet Secretary, you also made reference to the fact that part of the problem may be that the procedure itself that was carried out may be complications with that. Rather than just the devices being used as part of that procedure, will your expert group be looking at and breaking down those figures to identify which incidents were caused by the device itself or what complications were caused by the operation? That will be part of the remit to try to get a far better understanding of why things have gone wrong. Is it because of the products or is it because of the procedures or is it because of complications, perhaps, other problems that some of the women may have as a spect as a combination of these factors but which are the more important ones we do not know, and I think it's very important to get a much better understanding of what has gone wrong, because clearly you can't sort it until you know what's going wrong. I think the real purpose of this review is to find out what is causing the problem, what is going wrong, because I don't want any women to go through the hell that these women have been going through. Thank you, convener. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and Dr Elliot. The UK Department of Health has been working on the creation of a register for messian plants. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with the UK Department of Health over the creation of such a register? I'll ask Francis to cover the detail, but one of the things we are doing is establishing a database ourselves in terms of the women who have been going through these procedures, because I think it's very clear that the work of a systematic database has been one of the reasons why we don't have the full understanding we need to have as to why things have gone wrong. We're doing this in consultation with the women's group, and it's part of the work that Francis and our working group are actually progressing. I'll ask Francis to update you on where we're at in terms of the database. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We have been involved in the discussions with both the Department of Health and the Department of Health in the work that they're doing with the UK professional bodies. There's the British Society for Eurogynecologists and the British Society of... I can't remember the top of my head. But there are two professional bodies together with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and we've been involved in the debate about using the databases that these societies have to create a single database on them. The work that Cabinet Secretary has referred to is the work that we're doing to identify a unique device identifier in Scotland. It's part of the work to address the issues that have been raised in relation to cosmetic surgery as well as to mesh implants, breast implants and the hip implant problems that have been identified in the recent past, and to make sure that any device can be tracked irrespective of what variety it is used to implant it so that we have that information for forward tracking of what happens to these implants and these devices. We're involved at high level with our UK counterparts in the discussions, and I will be participating in the meeting on 16 July with the UK group that's been set up to take this work further as well. Thank you. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. Good morning. I also add my support for the action. Having known the Cabinet Secretary for very, very many years the speed of action does not surprise me. Question before you're regarding MHRA. I know we're talking about the database and looking at the process. This is not the first time that this has come up in terms of products or product devices. It's a bit like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. What guarantees can we get from the discussions you've had and you're going to have with MHRA that this kind of situation will not occur again? It's all very well producing products for the marketplace but not having the process or the outcome measurements to go with that seems to me highly surprising. I mean, I know you can't give the guarantee because you don't have control over that the functions that the MHRA have yet but I just wonder what questions have been raised as a consequence of this with the MHRA to make sure that they get their processes and their management in proper perspective. First of all to be fair to the MHRA they operate within a European Union dimension and the medical devices directives are basically the very relevant part of international law European law relevant to the remit of the MHRA so they are in effect the EU's agent in the UK in terms of enforcing EU regulation and I suspect that some of the regulation that needs to be strengthened is at an EU level not just at a UK level and I think that's one of the things that we'll be able to establish from the report that's due in January. I think that by undertaking the work that we are now undertaking as Dr Elliott has already outlined we will be less reliant on after the fact a regulation. What I'm very keen to do is to prevent any further harm coming to any patient no matter what the device is and no matter what the procedure is and that really has to be our objective but I do think the MHRA I was certainly reassured in the discussions I had last week with the medical director and the chief executive that they intend taking a very robust approach to this whole area but I think they feel very much as though they're part of the EU regime I'll ask Francis to give you some examples of some of the specifics that they do Can I just add that there is a review of the medical device regulations being conducted within the European Commission that will not report for some time to come but it's really important that when there is a consultation on the amendments to it that we have an opportunity to explain some of the challenges that we face in terms of the implants that have caused problems in Scotland and we're able to make those points robustly available to them in that consultation. I appreciate that and recognise the work that you're doing in pushing back in pushing, if you like, back up the chain My question is and I understand the European directive is why MHRA because this is not the first situation as far as I can recall why they're not doing the same further chain now you've answered that in terms of the European Commission looking at that Can I just ask one other question in terms of the relationship with MHRA in terms of the briefing that we had it indicates that the MHRA has an overarching role in the process but in Scotland adverse incidents are handled by the health facilities Scotland what's the relationship between the two bodies how often do they meet? First of all MHRA is a regulatory body as I've already explained all adverse incidents reported within the national health service in Scotland are fed through the facilities function for example in the last year NHS Grampian and now other boards are starting to treat every single complaint they receive irrespective of the nature of the complaint or the seriousness of the complaint they're actually now treating every complaint right across everything as an adverse event they regard a complaint as an adverse event now a vast bulk of that will not involve the MHRA at all because there's nothing to do with regulation it's maybe a procedure gone wrong or whatever that's not a regulatory issue so I think we've got to be clear adverse events have a wide definition and that definition is widening there is a percentage that will be in relation to the regulatory remit of MHRA but the number of adverse events far far exceeds anything the MHRA would be involved in the national health service in Scotland one last question to answer your question about regular liaison that takes place between health facilities Scotland and the MHRA as it does between ourselves and the MHRA we've had regular contact about these issues cabinet secretary you've written to all the health boards asking that they suspend the health boards of course going through that process how encouraged are you how do you feel that they will likely implement the CMO's recommendation I think it would be highly unlikely if they receive a letter from the acting chief medical officer with the backing of the cabinet secretary for health and wellbeing that they would find it highly unlikely and highly unacceptable if they didn't agree to the request I'm sure they will thank you Mr Brewer can I have a very quick question for Dr Elliot at the evidence a couple of weeks ago the women who were giving evidence said that it was sometimes very difficult to complain about the mesh implants because when they made complaints to the medicine healthcare products regularly agency they were asked for the unique identifier and the time that occurred and of course many of the women involved didn't know that can you just confirm that that information now would appear on the GP notes of each patient in Scotland the unique identifier database will hold that information which should be in the hospital record and be notified to the GP so as we introduce the new database for that we will make sure that there are processes in place to inform the clinicians that need to have that information do you accept going back in history that that wasn't possible so therefore we were in a catch 22 when it was impossible for patients to complain about the mesh implants because they didn't have the unique identifier yes and that's very unsatisfactory from both the clinical perspective that was actually undertaken and for the women themselves we've on to Anxmedald thank you can I wholeheartedly welcome the independent review in Scotland and the calls for the suspension just picking up on the European review though according to the Sunday mail last weekend the investigation by the European Commission into safety issues has appointed a Dutch psychologist who had a previous consultancy agreement with Ethicon the Johnson & Johnson company who produced mesh implants clearly it's advantageous to have experts on any review or independent panel however looking at the issue would you share the concerns by campaigners that those with previous vested interests in the industry are involved in the European Commission's investigation which is clearly separate from the completely independent Scottish one well at the very very least there's certainly a presentational problem but I've made it clear to officials that the person who leads the independent review in Scotland must have no such connection and not just must be totally independent of any manufacturer or any other vested interest but must be seen to be independent as well because it's very important that this review carries the conference of the ladies behind me and the community of women who have been so badly affected by these procedures going wrong and indeed the wider public so I've made that absolutely clear when it comes to the remit of the independent review before I finalise it I'm going to consult with the patient representatives from the women's group to ensure that they are happy that the remit is satisfactory and robust enough Thanks, cabinet secretary I'm sure that the campaigners appreciate these comments Thank you for that, Anne McTaggart Good morning, cabinet secretary and Dr Elliot and I welcome very much your statement in course of action mentioned earlier this morning Can I just ask for some clarity on where we are now and moving forward to compile some of the information that has been spoke about this morning The expert group the new patient information and the consent booklet that will be available as of today will that be online? I like to hear Francis answer that We're just waiting for the final version and then it will be available both online and a covering letter will go out to all of the health boards in Scotland I'm hoping that we would have it for today but it will be this week My second question would be the alternatives that you had mentioned and that are apparently listed in the consent booklet and the information leaflet Do you have any concerns relating to the women presenting today for treatment about the alternatives waiting lists or the treatment Do you have any concerns that it would be presenting today? Just before Francis answers that because that's obviously a clinical question but in the booklet when you see it it actually goes through all the risks in a great deal of detail and the text of that has been agreed within the working group which includes two representatives from the patient group represented by the women because it's very very important we look at this from a patient perspective and you know I think that's critically important we're giving all the right information and so on if it's not absolutely clear to the patient then it wouldn't have served its purpose so this has very much been involved the women and representatives on the group because we're very very determined that we look at this from a patient point of view and not just from a national health service point of view Francis? I think until we are clear of the reaction to the new booklet and the information we will not be able to identify if it will cause major issues for waiting times I don't think it will our challenge is in our other two pathways that we're developing for the women who already have these implants and have complications or adverse effects from them in terms of being able to get specialist surgery or other treatment for them so that will cause a challenge and that's why I'm involved in discussions with our national planning forum on their strategic planners to look at the ways in which we can introduce these pathways as quickly as possible and make sure that there are not waiting lists building up for these women Will that sort of information then Dr Elliott be discussed within the independent review and the expert group? Will that be reported back? It will all be made available to the independent review Yes, we will share with them the work that we have done to date information booklets, leaflets and the minutes and the documents from our various meetings Naturally what we wouldn't want to see is women not coming forward now because of treatment change or alternatives that are available or maybe not available as readily as what they could be Thank you for that Can I ask John Wilson? Just a follow-up question with Cabinet Secretary and Dr Elliott While the announcement has been made today the Cabinet Secretary is going to ask the acting chief medical officer to write to all the health boards to suspend future operations Could I seek clarification as to what advice will be issued to GPs and others in advising patients why the suspension has taken place? Because one of the issues that we're facing is that while we make a suspension there are women who will have been informed that they are going to go through this procedure who may now be told that they're not going to go through this procedure and it's how we manage that in relation to the individuals involved and equally how do we get the message or how do we get GPs to get the message over to the women who have went through the procedure who have had an adverse reaction or women who are concerned because I think, Cabinet Secretary, you gave an indication that one of the situations you identified was an adverse reaction a number of years after the procedure So is there going to be specific information provided to GPs and others that they can actually advise their patients one on the suspension and the need for the suspension and two, on how women would report and speak to their GPs about an adverse reaction or worries about an adverse reaction Well, in terms of the second part of that question we've already written to every GP in Scotland three times and that includes information about how to handle the situation that you described, John So already every GP in Scotland has had three letters and largely covering that to the second point In terms of the suspension the acting chief medical officer in her letter to Boers will obviously make it absolutely clear what advice should be given by clinicians in terms of handling the suspension and how they should deal with those women who obviously are in some distress because they have the condition that the procedure is meant to rectify either in terms of the secondary incontinence or the prolapse So the acting chief medical officer will include that and make sure that both the board level as well as in the acute sector and in the primary sector appropriate guidance is provided Francis? We also have other mechanisms in terms of meeting with clinical leaders in Scotland and together with the acting chief medical officer we will take those opportunities to inform them of the advice that's being sent out Absolutely correct We need to follow through in terms of process issues in health boards where women are already on waiting lists to be able to allow them the opportunity to have a further discussion with a clinician should they wish to do so Cabinet Secretary one of the joys at this end of the table is that I can see the reaction of some of the gallery and when you made reference to the fact that GPs have been written to three times clearly from the reaction of some members of the gallery is that information is not being imparted to the women who are speaking to their GPs Would it be would you consider seeking the views of the women concerned themselves and finding a mechanism that they can feed into the working group so that they can get some of the real experiences of women the way that women have been dealt with by their GPs and trying to report these incidents so that we can actually reflect on some of the information because I often hear the guidance is given to GPs and to others sometimes that guidance doesn't filter its way down to the patients and we need to make sure that the patients views and the patient experience in these circumstances is reflected in any future policies that are developed by the Scottish Government or the medical profession I made it very clear from the outside that the more evidence we get from the women the better of where things are not working the way they should be I mean obviously when you write through the boards to every GP you expect every GP to read it and then implement what is recommended but if that's not happening then we need evidence and we will then work with the respect of GPs through their boards to make sure that those problems are addressed I've got a quick point because I'm very conscious of time a campaigner recently emailed me to say that they were devised that it's not the role of the MHRA to carry out initial investigations when adverse incidents occur and MHRA say they have no independent test facility and that manufacturers are best placed to investigate so my question is to the cabinet secretary who is guarding the guards here again I think that's one of the reasons why we need much more of a robust regime from Europe on all of this because clearly that's not a satisfactory situation it's one we are aware of and I think all of it's the committee ourselves as a government and indeed the women themselves should submit evidence to the EU commission and their review of devices that Francis referred to and that's one of the points we should all make very briefly you mentioned cabinet secretary that the FDA has raised the risk level for high risk what contact have we had with the FDA or access to information that promoted that change of guidance the only information that we have is that which is out in the public domain we haven't had specific contact with the FDA principally because the MHRA's classification is already moderate to high risk so that should be the flag for clinicians to understand that there is a potential risk with these devices and to take that into account I understand that Dr Elliot but I would have thought that the FDA is pretty close to source of manufacture must have some level of contact with the manufacturer in looking at the processes so I'm just surprised that we're relying I'm not surprised because this is a great decision that's been taken but I would have thought that having substantive information as to why the FDA made their decision would support the strongly the decision that the cabinet secretary knew of rightly taken yes we can easily seek that information thank you just before we go to summation can I ask if Neil Findlay can make a very brief comment I'm sorry I'm pushing for Tyvers to Findlay as you say I warmly welcome the announcement but given the letter from Dumfries and Galloway NHS saying that they suspended last year I don't think you had any option but I wanted to play a tribute to the magnificent campaign group behind you who have made this happen they forced this issue and I think that they should be very proud today my question is though why when we met last year with some of the women did you advise both myself and them that A you did not have the powers to suspend and B that you wouldn't suspend because you feared litigation indeed at that meeting Dr Elliott said she wouldn't personally have the device fitted because of concerns to the figures that you gave today that delay means that 1850 more women risk being injured so the question therefore is were you given bad advice last year or what happened that you couldn't take that decision at that time first of all I'll say it would be a great tragedy if people tried to turn this issue into a party political issue I think we should all engage in this and unite to try to get a solution to the problem rather than engage in party political point scoring I have acted with total faith in all of this issue right through very clearly it's an issue that required serious consideration I've already outlined the regulatory regime the regulation of the products is the responsibility on a statutory basis of the MHRA operating within the European Union medical devices directives and in terms of suspension it's actually the health boards who have the power to suspend I am the chief medical officer is writing to request all the boards to suspend because of the evidence we now have particularly in relation to adverse events and the underreporting of them and I think I've explained why that decision is the right decision can make it very brief the advice that I got from the MHRA yesterday is that NHS Scotland could issue advice for their institutions and clinicians not to use a particular device so therefore they would obviously take very much what the cabinet secretary for health says this is not a party political issue the question is why when we knew what was going on last year and when your advisers said that they wouldn't have the device fitted did we wait a year until we made what is a very welcome announcement but it is a year on a convener obviously when you're sitting in my chair you have to weigh up a number of things as I pointed out the evidence available to me was of a fairly low rate at that time of adverse events and that was the advice I got I'm now satisfied that the underreporting is much higher than was originally thought in terms of the information and others I'm also very convinced that in taking this decision you have to balance the interests of the women at risk and those who have already had complications against those who have had successful operations because even if you take the percentage who have had complications a fairly high percentage of women as far as we know have had what they regard as successful operations and of course we haven't heard from those who haven't had complications and it may well be that some of the women who still want this procedure are not very happy for the time being they can get it so there is a balance to be had and that's where I've now come to the point of view very clearly because of the scale of the underreporting of adverse incidents that this is the right thing to do until we get the evidence from the independent review and from the European report due in January Thank you for that, I'm afraid we're out of time if it's ended by 20 minutes I think legitimately because it's such an important petition We're now, Cabinet Secretary, at the point of summation which allows you to well know if there's no further questions or points for the committee in the next steps My own view is clearly this is a very, very important petition that clearly we need to continue we need to obviously wait for a petition that we requested two weeks ago to come back in there's been some additional points have come up I think last you did mention yourself the important role of Europe my own view is that when the committee visits Brussels in October we should seek a meeting with the European Commissioner for Health who's Tony O'Borg from Malta who's responsible for health across the EU because clearly there's issues around the CE mark that you yourself have raised also we've had some requests from a lawyer from America Adam Slater who wishes to provide evidence to us he's given us written evidence which we're still working on and there may be possibilities if the committee agreed to do a video conference on that so I suppose there's really three things there's one, I think the committee does need to wait till it's got further information before we make a final decision two, I want the committee's view on whether we make the European Commissioner when we're already agreed to be over whether we're going over at the same time and thirdly do we take part in video conferencing with the American lawyer who's an expert in this area so there's a number of points here I think John Wilson you wish to come in The situation in relation to this issue is quite clearly the Cabinet Secretary announced today that there's going to be an expert group going to look into this it's expected to report in January in relation to taking evidence by video conference from a lawyer in the United States clearly there are a number of legal firms in Scotland involved in pursuing legal action against the NHS boards and others in relation to this case could I suggest that we defer future consideration of this petition until such times as one we get the written evidence that we've called for two weeks ago till we get the report of the expert group in January so that we can actually then have more detailed consideration of the reports and consider further taking this forward My own view is that that's a sensible step forward but again let's hear from other members I generally agree there's not one person in the room today doesn't understand or appreciate the decisions that have been taken I would however still include the VC with Adam Slater the amount of information that we can gather can never be too much on this particular subject I think that we've got a general agreement it's just a point of detail that we need to clarify let's just go round the table at David Torrance I'll put the table along with the convener I agree I agree Angus MacDonald I'm happy to defer consideration however I would be keen to hear from the American lawyer if there is some pertinent information there Thank you for that Jackson Carlaw Apologies for missing the earlier part I agree with that proposal I think if we can take evidence from Mr Slater then that's evidence that may well be of value publicly and to any committee that is at any group which is looking at the matter by review Would you like to do that before the Yes, I would be quite happy to have the video conference evidence but to otherwise defer consideration as to what next steps we would take beyond the gathering of that evidence John Donaldson, just come back I think we are all quite a clear majority of you to take that evidence from the lawyer The final bit that we haven't got confirmation just to get the committee views we had already planned and agreed to go to Brussels on October subject obviously the community's group approval to get the committee's view and if assuming we are going the committee's approval that we do seek a meeting with the commissioner who's obviously based in Brussels that's Johnny O'Borg I was fortunate to visit the EU and meet with commissioners a number of years ago and I know that commissioners are very keen to hear on the work that's being carried out by this Parliament despite the fact that other places might decide that they shouldn't hear the views of this place but clearly the opportunity to speak with the commissioner on this issue and possibly other issues of concern would be a great advantage to this committee and also to the people of Scotland to get our views over to the commissioners about what's happening in Scotland itself Just to be completely accurate the cleric's quite rightly making it clear that we haven't actually confirmed the date this would obviously be subject to the convener's group agreement and the organisational issues but perhaps I should reface to say in principle if we can get a time that's suitable to the parliamentary committees and the clerics and ourselves if the committee are all agreeable I would certainly be enthusiastic to meet the commissioner if that's agreeable well could I thank first of all the cabinet secretary and Dr Elliot for coming along to the committee who's shown a great interest on this issue and finally to thank all our gallery guests who've come along specifically for this issue I think you've all shown a lot of courage if you do clearly want to stay on for further petitions you'll be very welcome but I do understand if that's not what you wish to do but thank you all again for coming along today and I'll suspend for two minutes to allow our witnesses to leave also Liz if we can restart our committee so we had some crowd control issues there and two is consideration of new petitions and the next site of business consideration of four new petitions and has previously agreed the committee to evidence on three of those the first new petition is P.E.1521 by George Icton and Jane O'Donnell on no more page 3 in the Scottish Sun and Scottish Parliament members are not by the clerics despite briefing the petition and the submission from the petitioners I could also welcome Jackie Baillie and I'd ask Jackie Baillie after we've had questions both the petitioners thank you very much for coming along and I'm sorry to have delayed both of you today I'm sure you were watching our earlier contribution I'm sure you understand how we had to overrun can I ask Jane O'Donnell to make a short presentation of around five minutes I'll start off with a couple of questions then ask my colleague to take it turns to ask questions Jane O'Donnell Thank you convener my intention for my opening five minute introduction is just to provide some general information on the no more page 3 campaign before highlighting the work to date within the Scottish Parliament and then outlining our reasons for bringing both parts of our petition to you this morning while many have felt uneasy about the prominence and the presence of page 3 in our society for decades the official no more page 3 campaign began in earnest in 2012 with Lucy Ann Holmes who opened the Sun newspaper the day after Jessica Ennis won her magnificent gold medal in the London 2012 Olympics to find that even on this day the most prominent portrayal of a woman in the newspaper was that of a topless woman a page 3 girl as they're called Lucy Ann Holmes wrote to the editor of the Sun newspaper at the time Don Macmonaghan and asked him politely to drop this outdated and highly sexualised portrayal of women in his newspaper the Sun so far have refused to do this however since that time the campaign has grown in strength striking a chord with men and women across the country there's a petition hosted at the website change.org which now has over 195,000 signatures and here in Scotland there are bespoke no more page 3 campaign groups in both Edinburgh and Glasgow it's important to emphasise now the campaign is not asking to ban the Sun newspaper the petition calls on David Dinsmore and his Scottish counterpart Gordon Smart to voluntarily remove page 3 from the newspaper they've been suggested that the Sun does acknowledge it's time to end page 3 our most recent example is the interesting one we have a version of the Sun newspaper being delivered free to households across the UK and this version of the Sun newspaper does not have a page 3 girl perhaps it's now the acknowledgement that it's no longer time to have soft pornography in a newspaper in November 2013 there was a member's debate led by Jackie Baillie who sits first today debating the no more page 3 campaign I sat in the public gallery with the debates and I was struck by sincere support across the political spectrum by representatives of all political parties speaking to support to remove page 3 from the Sun newspaper the debate in November acknowledged the links between portrayals of women which are demeaning and highly sexualised and the real issues that we face trying to achieve equality for girls and women in our society sexual violence, murder of girls and women by their family and partners and strangers the inability to achieve equal pay across our industries and the many issues of poor self-esteem which are affecting the life choices and the potential of young women in our society part 1 of our petition we call on the Scottish Parliament to urge the editorial team of the Sun and the Scottish Sun to voluntarily remove page 3 permanently why are we asking you for this it is sexist and it's misogynist it's yet another relic from the sexist culture of the 1970s page 3 shows a young woman just wearing her pants she's there to be viewed as a sexual object she is objectified, she is subservient she invites men to stay at her for as long as they like and she'll never complain surrounded by stories of men achieving their goals in business, in politics sporting goals page 3 reminds women they can be viewed as no more than a series of body parts it's difficult to imagine how a newspaper can respectively and responsibly report on violence and harassment against women and girls while still using the page 3 feature page 3 normalises this view of women it's just a joke quote it's just a bit of fun I would refer committee members to the everyday sexism campaign a remarkable on-campaign which evidences just what women and girls experience every single day in our society as a result of this view we've also noted in our supporting evidence to the committee evidence in the united nations which links readily available sexualised views of women with violence our point is also widely available and accessible to children and young people the sun and the Scottish sun portray themselves as a family newspaper we're not a prudish campaign we accept there's a normal view of nudity it's got a place in everyday family life however in other areas of the media we have different views and portrayals of nudity and we have ways to manage that in films, in TV and bespoke publications for films we have useful age appropriate certification for TV we have a recognised watershed and pornographic publications are still widely available but they're kept on the top shelf of shops away from children's eyes the sun is everywhere it's got a wide circulation copies of the sun can be found in the workplace in homes, in cafes and bars and on public transport we need mature and responsible views of sexuality and nudity as our children grow up in society not this commercial detriment to the sun newspaper if you remove the page 3 feature I think I've said before already the circulation is wide in Scotland are we suggesting that people only buy the sun newspaper for page 3, I doubt that very much those of us that still buy newspapers buy it because we like the editorial content we like the journalistic approach we like the approach of the publication and that'll be the same for the many sun readers in this country in Ireland page 3 was removed from the sun last year the editor citing cultural differences and had a negligible effect on the circulation figures the second part of our petition is we respectfully request that the Scottish Parliament takes note of our evidence and in recognition of the Equalities Framework and the Dignity at Work policy you have here at the Scottish Parliament that you agree to remove the sun and the Scottish Sun from the Parliament building on a temporary basis until the editorial team agreed to permanently remove page 3 as a feature of the newspaper thank you for your time thank you so much for making your statements such a clear and helpful way and also Mr Acton, if you want to come in any stage just please catch my eye I have a couple of questions from my colleagues your campaign has obviously had widespread support I think both from the Scottish Government and indeed Police Scotland and across the political divide as you've said what positive actions can we do to help your petition succeed? I think first of all we'll be looking for MSPs right across the political spectrum to sign the petition to support the No More Page 3 campaign we do think that the Scottish Parliament has an influential voice in our society now perhaps more so than ever as we as a country consider what Scotland means going forward for the future so there is a lot of influence that the Parliament can have to add your voice to support us to ask page 3 to be removed voluntarily from the sun and the Scottish Sun I suppose I'd highlight the ability for Parliament to hold the executive to account as well recently there's been a clear what you could view as an endorsement by Glasgow 2014 in the Scottish Sun relevant to the Sun Plus which just for your awareness I'm sure we might get on to the issue of availability online the website the Sun Plus website that is the electronic version of the Sun posts a back catalogue of objectification of women where women can be spun 360 degrees for the viewing pleasure of presumably men and presumably adults but there was a clear Glasgow 2014 logo endorsing a Team Scotland t-shirt for joining the Sun Plus in that newspaper two weeks ago so it's again the issue there of holding relevant executives to account I've written as you'll seen in the evidence to the Cabinet Secretary in question asking for reassurance that this was clearly involved no public money and no public decision so I think there's there the influence of really have had support from the Scottish Government but we'd also like to see that followed through in actions as well and again we're not asking for a ban and I think other people have asked for economic sanctions including the Sun themselves for countries that have human rights abuses against women and children in regard to the bring back our girls campaign so I don't believe that that's inappropriate to ask of the Parliament as well and my final question for us my cause come in as you'll both be aware that the private council approved the royal charter on press regulation do you feel that concerns about portrayal of women in the press can be dealt with under this new regulation I think there's a difficulty expressed at the moment in terms of how we transpose article 10 of the European declaration on human rights at the moment my understanding is from the UK constitution is we transpose it unedited therefore unlike Norway where they say you have complete freedom of expression and they also have a constitution where it's freely written as well not get into the constitution argument at all but article 100 of the Norway constitution says there are clear limits on freedom of expression and they are X, Y and Z at the moment within the UK constitution in all arrangement we don't have that and therefore I don't believe that self-regulation by the press is appropriate and I've written as well in terms of I don't believe page 3 is really an appropriate defence of press freedom press freedom is meant to protect those journalists who risk their lives to expose serious detriments to human rights not so a young lady can be objectified from a narrow cohort of society on page 3 daily of each newspaper I do not believe page 3 is an appropriate defence of press freedom thank you for that and I'll bring in my colleagues check brody let me be very clear I agree generally in terms of you not totally with everything you've asked for I'm very much in favour of gender equality I've suffered something some years ago by promoting women as managers because they're a lot better managers than men actually in the commercial environment so I understand perhaps some of the issue so I want to take my questioning in a manner in which it's portrayed which will be fairly robust by recognising that I certainly and I'm sure shared by many of my gender revere the opposite sex for what they do and what they are what other organisations have you challenged in terms of portrayal of women as you claim are portrayed in the sun I think I'll start this process so we absolutely accept that there's a wider issue with regard to view the sun because it's so famous it's part of the culture it is a brand the page 3 girl brand and the campaign has been the working since 2012 although I said hope for the start it's been a concern for a number of years I think there are different views of women in our society which can be difficult but there's a wide range of views of women not only taking into account the different ways we all look and that all being acceptable but all the things we achieve and all the things we do page 3 just removes that in its entirety as the perfect example of a brand of women that reduces women as I said to a sum of their body parts there is no what do you say to the women that take part in that who won't take part in that I think there's clearly a job there glamour modelling and there's other publications they tend to be kept on the top shelf there are other versions of media Internet song on the top shelf no but we have other ways to protect children children are trained that we don't train our children or look after our children enough to explain this and we've had conversations amongst ourselves both here are parents trying to explain the page 3 phenomenon to a child I have a 12 year old daughter she just doesn't understand why there's a naked woman in a newspaper she cannot understand why that would be there I was born in the 1970s I'm with the generation it's always been there it's always been part of my life and it's been so many different examples of during my life where I've been in different situations where this brand this feature has played a role and has reduced me to feeling less than I was able to realise less than my potential it is the number one objectification of women it is readily available to everybody in our society because of its circulation on the basis that you may or may not know that we did a very thorough enquiry into child sexual exploitation which covered boys as well as girls are you seriously conflating the fact that 300,000 women that are sexually assaulted and 60,000 women are raped each year in the context of page 3 of the sum? I don't think it's necessarily us because what we're saying is there's a footnote there that says breaking the cycle, the international trade union movement would recognise that and also the UN commission on women would recognise it as a very broad spectrum and a continuum of issues here now you did ask and I'll probably try to go back to the issue of who else have we tackled I'm currently in the end stage of the process of appeal to the BBC trust over the lack of equality and the use of BBC assets that promote sexism via the sun in my view in relation to CBBs so I've challenged also Tesco those words are from the Usdor Labour union of shop workers who do see a relationship now I've asked the assistant chief constable as well of Police Scotland who quite clearly sees a relationship and has identified that there are academic studies which he's willing to police by so I think we are here talking about the issue of prevention an equally safe strategy that's going to be forthcoming from the Scottish government and I believe Scottish local government looks at the issue of prevention and preventing the next generation suffering the same issues I must admit I tried to explain to my 4 year old son this morning where daddy was going because I wasn't going to work and I had my shorts on and I had my t-shirt on which thankfully I've reversed otherwise you were going to be objectifying me I don't have anything else on me this morning I found it easier to explain gravity to a 4 year old who has been to the Glasgow Science Centre at weekend than I did as to why there is a lady in a newspaper he said daddy isn't there meant to be news there in words than there is in explaining that I simply couldn't do it I could explain gravity, I could explain particle physics easier than I can why there's basically an acid woman in the newspaper on the basis that you can explain gravity can you explain civil liberty to me civil liberty in terms of the human rights act i.e. freedom of expression yes so it's the right presumably that everyone has individual rights to express themselves freely and democratically so the more that's on excuse me, sorry if you've asked me a question can I answer it sir thank you if there is detrimental harm to the individual I believe the human rights act and the convention of human rights that we've enshrined in Europe allows the opportunity to make legislation to protect those individuals where's the evidence of detrimental harm to people I mean I know you've conflated it with with these numbers but there are many other organisations that could apply I mean I'm not saying I supported it by the way or any of the other organisations but I still ask where in terms of civil liberties which the editor of the sun is entitled to enjoy as much as those who choose not to read it where's the evidence that page 3 does the detrimental harm that you say does I'll start a response to that the sun is a newspaper it's there to provide news stories and to reflect current affairs that's what the purpose of the sun newspaper is so in relation to freedom of expression the editor of the sun and the Scottish sun according to this argument say well we've got the right to show a naked woman in the newspaper only if she agrees only if she agreed I mean we know that many young women do choose to go into this profession we also know from the number page 3 campaign site and I would refer you to it if you get a chance to look at some of the survivor testimony of girls and women who have been part of that have had a very negative experience of that however it is a newspaper it's there to explain news and current affairs if people want to express a certain view of nudity or pornography etc there are other mechanisms for them to do that which doesn't affect the people who don't wish to see it you have as I said age appropriate certifications in cinema we have different views of sexuality different views of nudity and we have ways to make sure that that's dealt with responsibly and that it's appropriate for those who see it we have the same with the television there's many you know concerns or complaints about the television but generally broadcasters tend to adhere to the 9pm watershed so as parents you know that after 9 o'clock if your child picks up something you didn't want them to see well then there's a responsibility you have towards that and as an individual I can also choose to use these different mechanisms to what I feel is acceptable to me I cannot and I cannot influence or control this at all and neither can any of the other women or the girls in our society who are affected by this and we talk about being a newspaper and I think the campaign says it's very well do you expect on the 6 o'clock news that George Allagiah is going to introduce Syria and say but stop for a moment here's 22-year-old Casey from Warwick that is a nonsensical argument no it's it's the argument it's the argument because there's no role for a naked woman in a newspaper well I've said again we accept there's a role for nudity we accept there's a form of different sorts of nudity and that'll be dealt with in different forms of media but not within the pages of a daily newspaper what other areas of censorship do you approve of? on a personal basis I'm asking you the question what other areas of censorship do you approve of? I don't see this as a form of censorship I think I'll make that very clear we're not banning anything we're not making anybody do anything here we're asking David Dinsmore and Gordon Smart to voluntarily acknowledge that this is a view of women that belongs in the 1970s with Savile with all the other awful things that have come out recently in our society and we're saying no more of this and we want them to say you're right and actually as media representatives we have a way to pursue very positive views of women let's use page 3 to support women who are active and sporty because that's so difficult to achieve with our young people Sarah-Michael Angelo and Picasso on that very interesting point I can ask Anne McTaggart if she would like to make a question Thanks, convener and thank you very much for your your questions and your answers so far I fully support and have signed up to the No More Page 3 for all the reasons that you have given Mr Donnell you're exactly right the newspaper is there to deliver news and it is readily available and I am just so so surprised that our Scottish Parliament given that you had been here this time last year or you've been here before where Jackie Baillie MSP had had taken forward a debate and at that point was asked for the Presiding Officer for to look at the Scottish Parliament's Equalities framework I'm quite unsure as to why that's not been done before now there was a great deal of support on that debate I just think it's a no-brainer I'm not really quite sure why the Sun newspaper don't see the same so I'll fully back your campaign just like in terms of returning to the issue of censorship I suppose the issue here is as well for the Scottish Parliament and as well for the BBC is I as a member of the public and I was sadly probably to avert my eyes from my England team losing at football to Italy was reading back over Equalities frameworks and also the 1881 Libel Act which I think is the only act currently enforced that actually specifies what a newspaper should be in the UK so there's a common law interpretation but actually it's a very short definition and it says that a newspaper should impart intelligence now I learnt pretty quickly what the biological differences and ontological differences are between a man and a woman I don't believe that boobs are still news that would be my reflection but quite clearly all we've done in this petition is reflect upon what the stated Equalities framework is under the Equalities Act of the Parliament and applied it and asked the question of the chief executive as to why you stock it and the answer was it's popular so therefore I expect you also stock Playboy and other magazines on the basis of popularity I doubt it because you simply do it via your Dignity at Work policy because it says pinups page 3 is a pinup therefore it's a very straightforward question of we have applied the Equalities framework to the papers that you sell and we would hope as our Democratic representatives you would see that through now I don't believe that's inappropriate I also think as well I'm quite happy to go with the assistant chief constable of Police Scotland where he says it is a continuity and a spectrum of objectification where it starts you are aware of an issue you then become habitual and other things happen at the end of it we appear to have accepted that in our drugs policy and other forms of public policy I would say it happens here I'm sorry I'll just send the other member wishes to get Jackson Carlaw I'm sort of sympathetic to the arguments that you're making I'm just not quite sure of the formal process arising out of the petition that you would like firstly it is the case that there was a member's debate on the subject and spokespeople for all parties within the Parliament spoke in favour of the petition's aims so in a sense the Scottish Parliament has already expressed in a debate within the chamber the very point that you are asking the petition to do so I suppose my first question I'll bundle them together would be to say I'm not quite sure how you would like us to further represent that view, Parliament has already done it so I'm not sure whether you're looking for a formal government motion on business with a vote at the end of it or what but I don't think there's a mechanism beyond that for Parliament to express a view because Parliament is a collection of the members of the Parliament who would have to first contribute to that expression but my first point would be I think we've done it secondly I just that you were gilding the lily for me a bit when you said that the sun is there to explain news and current affairs and I'm not quite sure that and I thought you did Mr Reichton sort of suggest there was a slightly less defined interpretation of what a newspaper ultimately is I mean on that basis it wouldn't give us TV listings about big brother it wouldn't tell us about a whole lot of other things I could probably well do without knowing about too but I suppose the sun from time to time like all other newspapers has managed to break an important and sometimes an exclusive news story which may be of very considerable interest and importance to Scotland and within the Scottish Parliament now at one point in your evidence and talked about the publication being banned on the premises of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to it just no longer being stocked or sold on the premises and I suppose I would have some concerns if that were the case because then I suppose it might even be one could argue by extension that members would not be allowed to refer to it because it was a publication that was prescribed so I have two concerns one have we not already given expression as you would like in the petition and what more would you like us to do and secondly just do you understand the slight concern I have about the prescription of the publication within parliamentary premises when it might be something to which there is a legitimacy to refer I'll pick up your second point first perhaps that was semantics on my part where the petition calls specifically that the Sunday's paper the Scottish Sunday's paper not stocked or sold within the Scottish Parliament and that specifically referring to your equality framework here and your dignity at work policy I think if there were individuals who wished to access that material that content for whatever reason because you need to refer to it then we would say that content is all available online so you don't need to have a copy of the sun in the building and I would also suggest that there may be some of your colleagues and the staff who work here that may be felt uncomfortable if there was copies of the sun newspaper being used in a public area but for the purpose of this petition we are calling for the Scottish Parliament to no longer stock ourselves with the sun newspaper in relation to your first point it was a great debate in November and it was the first time I had come to the public gallery and watched a debate and I was absolutely taken with the whole process of feeling right across the political parties it was a really great debate and I enjoyed it very much however I think moving on from the debate I don't think as a campaign we've seen all we want to see in relation to endorsement from the Scottish Parliament it was a positive debate everyone signed up to it and said yes you're absolutely right we had MSPs who made the link between violence to women and sexualised views of women and they said surely if we need to think about banning this publication that was a quote by an MSP at the debate what we're looking for is that the Scottish Parliament and perhaps this petitions committee would write to the sun and the Scottish sun to say you've heard our evidence and that you would lend your support to our campaign and ask them to voluntarily remove the page 3 feature from the newspaper and that you find in favour of the second part of our petition that the Scottish sun would not be stocked or sold on the Scottish Parliament premises until that's the case any further questions from the colleagues if not could ask Jackie Baillie if she would make a statement I just make an observation at the beginning that I find it very interesting that we as a Parliament don't allow somebody to wear a t-shirt bearing a no more page 3 slogan yet we allow boobs to be on newspapers freely available in the Parliament where we have hundreds of children visiting on a weekly basis and where we pride ourselves on the very strong and positive images we have of women particularly as representatives in the Parliament so I just make the observation that perhaps we've got our priorities just slightly wrong however that said I'm very supportive of the petition as you've heard it seeks to do two things one is about not stocking or selling the sun on the Parliament on a temporary basis to do the right thing which is to remove page 3 I do genuinely believe page 3 is out of date I'm sure my colleagues share my concerns when they're sitting on the train and somebody opens it up in the morning and you're sitting there you've probably not had breakfast you're half asleep and you see a naked woman in front of you as if that is you know how women are and how women should be portrayed it does belong to a kind of deeply sexist culture that I thought we had left far behind Parliament as an institution prides itself on having a robust equality framework we pride ourselves on having great dignity at work policies for all our employees and rightly so but can I just observe again that that is only as robust as its implementation and if you apply those policies to the sun newspaper in the Parliament then we don't measure up and that's something that the Parliament should be concerned about but it's not just the Parliament it's also government of successive political persuasions have all said that we have to have equality at the heart of everything we do we talk in terms of income inequality we talk about health inequality we talk of course about gender inequality yet here is an opportunity to do something to encourage that gender inequality that we aspire to and can I say as gently as I can to borrow a phrase from the First Minister to Chick Brody when we had the debate in November the minister now the cabinet secretary rightly noted the link between sexualized images of women and the likelihood that sexual predators and criminals were more likely to inflict violence on women because we see them simply as a collection of body parts because that's how the sun portrays them there is a clear link there is a continuum and I see you shaking your head but you know if police Scotland now even recognise themselves as a continuum of objectification of women and violence as a consequence of that then surely Chick Brody can be persuaded like cries but the Scottish Parliament recognised it in their debate cross-party the Scottish Government your own government agree to and I hope that this committee will do likewise councils across Scotland are actually now beginning to remove the sun from their public libraries because they recognise that the objectification of women is something that is out of date and out of touch can I say following the debate I did indeed write to the editor of the Scottish Sun one Gordon Smart he did eventually reply he clearly is a busy man I don't think we'll be meeting anytime soon he did in fact say something that was quite interesting that this was an editorial decision for David Dinsmore the editor of the sun Gordon I think the Scottish Government had agreed to write I'm not sure whether they've actually done so but I think it would be a very powerful thing one if the Scottish Parliament applied its equality framework and its dignity at work policy and two if the Scottish Parliament too led the charge to ensure that there is no more page 3 in the Scottish Sun by equally as the committee writing to the sun editor John Wilson I mean it, I'm not sure if it's fair on Ms Bailey to answer this question or maybe Ms O'Donnell may take the opportunity to answer it we're calling for a ban a temporary ban until removed page 3 from the Sun newspaper in the Scottish Parliament would you go as far as to say we should also withdraw the press credentials of Sun journalists in this building as part of this action against the sun I'm just seeing this for clarification because the thing is that at the same time as you're talking about banning a newspaper we continue to have press credentials issued for Sun journalists who act on behalf of that publication in this building and report on issues and matters that take place in this building and would the logic of your argument about banning the sun in the building or being available in the building also extend to the potential to withdraw press credentials I could direct that question to the petitioners because Jackie Baillie is obviously not a witness agenda donal I hope I've made this clear I think the Sun newspaper has a role to play in our society it is a publication it provides news articles etc it provides news information about the work of the Scottish Parliament to its readership that's very important that's something we all firmly believe in to use your argument you could also find that information online and report from the information provided online by the Parliament that's true my understanding is I'm not a journalist and I'm not here to speak for them is they would say they like to speak to the MSPs to the clerks to the officers that support them so they get the truth of the matter that they possibly can I would love to see the Sun newspaper to continue to do well in Scotland without the page 3 feature no one in this campaign is calling for an end to the sun we don't want to see it lose its circulation figures we want to see it continue to do well but just to remove that feature two things we're asking you to apply the equalities out to public bodies so therefore there would be an implication therefore that you may be transposing the general duty or the protected characteristics I've also got an issue that whilst my mum supports the campaign here she'd be a very unhappy ante if you made my cousin in some way shape or form redundant who is the Home Affairs Editor for the Scottish Sun which I believe would perform a public duty in terms of reporting news out with the Parliament but we're applying your equalities framework to the newspapers that you stock and that's what I asked the chief executive when I spoke to him the campaign has intimated in her evidence so I think we are trying to keep this as we were asked by Clarks when we presented the petition to you as focused as possible so we did wish a wider petition but we were asked to be as focused as possible a very brief question from Mr Brewer I'm conscious I don't want to open this up to a larger philosophical debate just because of time but Mr Brewer first of all was probably not for the first time didn't listen to what I said in my opening paration but having said that we're talking about fairness and equality and there are I mean I'm not saying I support the Sun doing this I can't pretend I read it a lot and it tends to be the sports pages but we are talking about fairness and equality and civil liberties now, if there was a compulsion for young ladies to appear on page 3 I would understand it's not just the newspaper clearly they're promoting it but there are those who glamour models etc and by the way this is not just restricted to the Sun, yes it's a very popular paper but if you want to look at some of the women's magazines in terms of big hunks and all them in there the commentary with some of it is ridiculous so my issue is I'm not saying I support the page 3 issue but what I do really ask is that we are fair we are equal and we understand our obligations to civil liberties Thank you Mr Brewer I'm very conscious we could have had much longer debate today and I'm not trying to debate, I'm just very conscious that we're running very late on this issue we're now at the summation point which you'll probably know from the previous petition is where we've ended the questions and it's up to the committee to come to conclusions but I'd ask you to stay where you are can I ask then committee members for their views, obviously there's issues about asking the Scottish Sun about the petition beside an officer who's responsible for the conduct within the Parliament and the Quality and Human Rights Commission, John Wilson I have to put it in record that I've been a supporter of the No More Pages 3 since the 80s and I'm glad that other newspapers used to carry page 3 like The Daily Record, The Daily Mail and others, sorry they didn't mirror it, not The Daily Mail my mistake in terms of offending Daily Mail readers but in terms of the campaign then as I said they're fully supportive of the campaign and I just had to ask that question because once you start looking at temporary bans of whatever then you have to take it to the logical extension and what that may mean but convener, could I suggest we also write to the Sun newspaper and ask them in particular about removing page 3 because I find the page 3 feature prohibits me from reading the Sun, particularly the editorial which is always on page 2 which it constantly stamps to be opposite page 3 so I don't know what the Sun's trying to say about their editorials but in relation to the distribution the national free copy of the Sun that took place recently and Mr Donald made reference to the fact that it did not contain a page 3 feature in that free newspaper and asked them the reasons why they felt it necessary to distribute a free newspaper and felt it relevant not to include a page 3 feature in that publication the other point that I would like to make convener is could I suggest we write to the NUJ because I'm sure the NUJ will have a view on this particular issue and it would be interesting to get the NUJ's point of view in relation to what extensively is a publication which involves NUJ membership Can I just focus on one thing at time on the back of Mr Wilson's suggestion the first one can we just concentrate on is the committee agreeable to write to the Scottish Sun in terms of the petitioner's request plus the issue that John Wilson raised about the free copy Yes, that's the Sun Nation so it's the Scottish Sun and then the Sun Nation that's two different aspects of that Jackson Carlaw Could I ask that we also write the chief executive of the Parliament asking for a schedule of the numbers of copies of this paper which actually are stocked displayed or sold within the Parliament campus I'd like to know where is it actually I'm aware myself that there are a couple at the coffee bar for sale and there is usually one on display in the members lounge and possibly restaurant and there's a paper of a copy of the people at the spice which is not open to the public so I think it would be helpful to understand to the chief executive how many copies of the paper does Parliament actually purchase and where are they within the Parliamentary campus I hope they're not all on the offices of any right political party Can I also suggest that we write the leaders of each of the political groups within the Parliament asking them to establish the views of their group in relation to the aims of the petition as advertised because clearly if it enjoyed cross-party support across groups perhaps from members express in a way that might not wish to sign the motion per se but that would be useful to understand as well On the point about where it's stocked on that that's an easy answer to if we write to the secretary the corporate body and we can ask to do that very easily I mean first of all on that point our members agreeable we do that and secondly we had a point from Mr John Wilson that asked about writing to NUJ Yes, can we read the national union generalist? Yes Our members agreeable with that course of action and just to confirm, this wasn't quite clear what members' views were at all A, our committee agreeable on the approach done in terms of the petition's request and write to the Sun nationally about the free copy issue that's two separate issues, is that agreeable? Thank you Angus MacDonald Following on from that in the briefing that we received from the clerks it was noted that in February 2013 Rupert Murdoch in response to a tweet about page 3 being old fashioned suggested he was considering whether to sit with a halfway house was glamorous fashionistas I like to think I'm one of those by the way I was just wondering if we were in our remit to perhaps contact direct Rupert Murdoch to advise us if he's moved on from his original suggestion that he was considering removing page 3 We've got another question from Angus MacDonald for our committee's views on that Members wish to write to Rupert Murdoch I just have a general concern it's clearly a totally different dimension and I as I said earlier he wouldn't advocate reading I just get very concerned but it's like it's of a different dimension but say no to Tesco particularising that when if there's a larger problem then we should have a proper inquiry and ask the appropriate bodies So I could just sort of nag at the committee just to focus on the individual request because otherwise we'll be here for some time We've got a request to write to Rupert Murdoch and what is the committee's view John Wilson I've been minded to write to Rupert Murdoch if not the Rupert Murdoch individually but the corporation itself David Torrance Yes or no The corporation itself Jackson Carlaw I think I'm minded to wait until we have received responses to the other inquiries that we have had I just wonder whether that course of action might open us up to a slightly more lurid and sensationalist treatment of the petition than we would otherwise wish Not just again with the principles, just the timing John Wilson is sure about timing are you happy to wait or do you push the sorry it was Angus MacDonald Do you want to push now or do you want to wait Don't be content to wait but we should still keep it as an option So let's put that in the backburner Is there any other suggestions for ways forward Amit Taggart I'm not sure if we've got to this but the cabinet secretary who had been involved Can we ask has she done what she says that she was going to do To which is right to Are members capable to write to the cabinet secretary? She may well have that reply but could we have that information There are a number of suggestions which the current people are right for Ms Denny We're writing to the Scottish Sun in terms of the views of the petition writing to the UK Sun in terms of the free issue writing to NUJ, writing to the political parties writing to the corporate body to determine the numbers of the Scottish Sun that are stocked and we're holding fire on the Rupert Murdoch issue until we get the other replies Very quickly Angus MacDonald The Ireland The Newspaper in Ireland Could we have some research as to what impact that's had to the newspaper The Sun Newspaper in Ireland had stopped page 3 we had heard from evidence today Oh yeah, I think Gina Donnell referred to that Right Sorry we're past the question stage Sorry we're just out of the summation Could we have some evidence of how that Okay, thank you If the petitioner has any further information to help us that would be great for you, Steve John Just for clarification, Kevin I was suggesting that we write as a committee at some stage to news in a national not to Rupert Murdoch Right I think the committee did pick that up Well thank you very much for all the variety of suggestions I thank the petitioners as you can see we are pursuing this in a number of fronts I thank you both for coming along and for your very articulate input to the committee deliberations I also thank Jackie Baillie for her very articulate contributions to the committee as always and I'll suspend for two minutes to allow our witnesses to leave and our new witnesses to join us Thank you very much If I can restart a committee we're on our second new petition It's PE1518 by George Chalmers on meaningful public consultation within the Scottish planning system Members are not by the clerks I'd ask if you could make a short presentation no more than five minutes and I'll start off by asking some questions and then my committee members will follow I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to air my views on the town and country hierarchy of development Scotland regulations 2009 and to voice my opinion that in the particular case of the major development's criterion it's being treated as if it were no more in a voluntary code of practice and as such can be as ignored with impunity as in when it suits a developer I am not in any way an expert in the planning system or planning regulations in Scotland My interest in the planning system was triggered in 2010 by curiosity curiosity as to why a developer would submit two applications for one development adjacent to my property and our local authorities initial reluctance to engage in dialogue on this issue After much googling on the planning regulations it became clear that this practice was being used solely to prevent developments from being classed as major within the regulations and thus avoided but not limited to pre-application, meaningful consultation with communities When this right to meaningful consultation is easily ignored then this regulation is not fit for purpose Given the basis of this petition could not an independent opinion given unbiased perspective to this issue could PSA fill the role As one example to support my voluntary code of practice opinion the design statement submitted along with these two applications stated due to the time constraints imposed by the land owner it was not possible to pursue a major applications planning procedure in this instance The significant time implications created by the major applications process would have pushed the determination beyond the period afforded to the developer by the land owner and may have extended into the period within which the current local plan is superseded by the weight of material consideration imposed by the merging local plan For reasons described above it was necessary to split the development into two applications accepting the above situation and the consequential actions it was never intended that in not pursuing the major applications procedure public consultation would not be carried out End of quote Contained within the same document and I quote forming part of the cartilage of Waterton Farm per Cable and lying to the north of the village of Whiteford the site is approximately 2.6 hectares in area A clear unambiguous statement used to justify a major development not being classed as a major development and the crux of my petition this was all accepted by the local planning authority and disappointingly by our councillors and the local area committee I feel to understand how a regulation can never be deemed fit for purpose when one day a planning authority classed this development as major and then by the simple manipulation of paperwork the very same planning authority no longer considered it to be fitting that criterion subsequently no public council consultation was ever carried out and emerging local plan was not adopted until June 2012 some 19 months after these applications were submitted the general public deserves better when the example quoted above winter appeal the reporter appointed by the Scottish ministers commented in the appeal decision notice that and I quote the layouts make clear that the project before me and this three dwellings project can in many ways be regarded as part of a single scheme end of quote should not the local planning authority or our local area councillors be considered competent to make these decisions if not who is does the Scottish minister have this power under act and I quote but the Scottish ministers may as respect a particular local development direct that the development is to be dealt with as if indeed of being a local development it were a major development end of quote when how and by who is this power invoked briefing note before the committee gives one interpretation of one aspect of the regulation both based on the second sentence from circular five 2009 paragraph 10 given that this paragraph has only two sentences and having taken no account of the first sentence in the paragraph in my opinion a sentence very pertinent to the second sentence it could be argued that this interpretation of briefing note requires scrutiny the base in opinion on one sentence which could be argued has been taken out of context from a vast array of documentation is open to question more helpful to the committee may have been an interpretation of the complete paragraph it would be interesting to know who's interpretation of circular five 2009 makes it clear in conclusion oh yeah in conclusion you've preempted my wind up case it has become increasingly difficult some would say now impossible for a general public to have their voice or opinion listen to within the current system particularly when it comes to local planning issues what the public deserve are robust regulations unfortunately as shown in my petition the town and country hierarchy of development Scotland regulations 2009 at and I quote the heart of the modernised planning system is not it is far too easily bypassed thank you very much I have a couple of questions from my colleagues and make some very interesting points in your submission in terms of Scotland wide view what evidence if any do you have that developers are bypassing planning regulations in the way you're describing a local level examples I gave in my petition shows that Alison McGinnis contacted all the local authorities under her jurisdiction and it seems I would say every local authority had evidence that this scheme had been used so I have one case in Murray that actually put in 10 applications for one development all right thank you very much and the final questions what actions do you want from the Scottish Government well I think clarification really if there are get-outs then it should be clearly defined in the regulations to say that major development is two hectares are over then to say well it will depend on this, this, this and this then that should be included in the regulations the public deserve robust regulations and this certainly isn't thank you very much for your answers and I'll throw them to my colleagues any colleagues wish to ask any questions check Brody and then John Wilson you look at the comments in terms of Dundee Council do you have any indication of how many applications and we know of situations where somebody applies for 50 houses and then comes back and asks for another 10 houses or another 5 houses to be built any indication Mr Chalmers as to how many of these changed applications apply to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Minister replied that they were not aware that there was a significant number of applicants but obviously they had no idea really how many people had tried it from what I can see it tends to be smaller developers I've seen major developers probably go through the proper procedure but smaller developers and individuals can quite easily bypass a system of applications Are you saying they put in the first application to be sure that they'll get that as opposed to putting in the larger application which they may know that they won't The larger application if it's deemed to be a major development then there's going to be a proper consultation process with the general public but if they did just in the case of our local issue was it just to pretend on the same day two applications but then one application the council told them that it was a major development some days later I just went back with two applications and they said that's fine just by the manipulation of paper work Mr Tewlerson In the case of Murray it's even worse again the biggest problem I found was how the councils administered their websites for planning up until now our team was very easy to follow just eat the application and how it was being developed through the process but they've changed their system to be in line with like a Murray which I found not user friendly at all you can never get into the start of the application try and trace through every step totally impossible for the public Tewlerson Thank you very good morning Mr Tewlerson quite an interesting issue you've brought before us today one question I'd like to ask you to start off with you used the Aberdeenshire council example to start this basically that was where you became interested in terms of major versus other developments you just indicated there that seven days prior to making the two the larger the development was it trying to find the figures here 15 houses and one for three houses 18 homes do you know who advised the developer to actually split the application or was there advice given there was a the local council sent a letter to the developer saying that a pre-application consultation was required because the site was over two hectares a few days later there was a meeting between the local council plan house and the developer's agent where the developer's agent said then basically saw the system we'll just pretend two applications that wasn't his exact words basically he just said I'll go away and pretend two applications and that'll get around that problem I hope the advice was more technical the only reason we found it it was a handwritten note that applied for a freedom of information because it's very hard to find the paperwork between developers and the planning system so if we applied for freedom of information we got handwritten notes showing basically how the process had worked the reason for asking that question is one of the issues that we are often faced with as elected members is we rely on particular planning officials of local authorities to advise councillors and make recommendations to councillors about potential developments and we expect the professional integrity of planning officers to be such that they take on board any regulations that may apply to developments and what you've indicated is there is a potential there to say that planning officials have colluded with developers to say we can avoid making this a major development by splitting the application up and the official reporter the Scottish Government's reporter based on the information provided indicated that as far as looking at the two applications then clearly this would have been deemed as a major application and would have been subject to all the public consultation regime that is required for planning applications do you think that there was a deliberate attempt in this situation to actually avoid going through the public consultation process? I think the evidence shows that the planners in Aberdeenshire council had been in touch with Government officials we know from freedom of information that there had been verbal discussions and then emails to basically tear I get the impression if the Government officials had told the local authorities no you can't do this then they wouldn't have done it the letters I got from Aberdeenshire council showed that they were depending on Government officials approving what they'd done and based on the Government's own reporter the reporter intimated that it would have been classified as a major development however the reporter makes a recommendation back to the local authority who then will make the final deliberation on whether or not that development goes ahead clearly the point that I think you've raised in terms of this petition is the lack of transparency in terms of the consultation process and the information available and particularly developers and in some cases planners could be accused of bypassing the public consultation commitments under the planning regulations 2009 I think we'd give Aberdeenshire council confidence was instruction well communication hard with Government officials at the letters that we've received from the council would indicate that they were comfortable with what they were doing because they were being told by Government officials it was AOK also in your opening remarks made reference to the community councils not being fully consulted my understanding is community councils are statutory consultees on planning applications do you think this was a way of bypassing the community council as a statutory consultee in terms of this planning process I understand they haven't been to the community council a few times that the developer had main arrangements to present the plans to the community council because of weather conditions they were unable to do that and there was never any further communication between the developer and the community council or the community having in their design statement said because they hadn't followed the major procedure route they were still going to do the community council consultation and the presentation to the local community or in the development which none of that ever happened thank you very much indeed Mr Chalmers it's not a question Mr Chalmers if what you're saying is correct and for no reason to doubt what you're saying across Scotland effectively planners are flying under the radar they're avoiding triggering off a much more major procedure well I think the planners cover themselves by contacting the government officials that's the car they are playing every time we can we spoke to them it's as well as I've said this is okay thank you for that do any of my other colleagues wish to come in at this point if not could I just go straight to summation which I should have picked up from previous we've finished questions clearly it's important to get the views of the Scottish Government and Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and Heads Planning Scotland would members be agreeable or do members have turned at the views or additional John Wilson and Kate Scotland and when we're writing to the Scottish Government and Heads Planning Scotland ask them to if they have carried out any investigations or research into the availability of information online from local authorities in relation to planning applications and the information associated with those planning applications because I think Mr Chalmers made a quite important point that for many of the public they're now heavily rely on online information and if it's either difficult to get access to that online information or all the information that is not online then how do the public then feed into the planning process and make objections or support planning applications as such Chip Rowdy I just wonder, I mean I agree with John Wilson but I just wonder whether or not we should also write to the Heads of Planning not necessarily in all the local authorities but in selected local authorities that seems to be Karla despairing at the suggestion it would be interesting to see whether there is a consistency of approach Views? Are members agreeable then and we continue with the petition Mr Karla We write to Alison McInneson who appear to have been raising issues of concern regarding to this to see what conclusions they have reached or any other conversations they may have had arising from that inquiry I think that's a very good point As you can see Mr Chalmers we're taking this petition on we're writing to whole series of organisations we'll obviously keep you informed with developments and we'll obviously discuss this at a future meeting once we've got all the material before us so thanks again for coming along we appreciate your evidence if I could suspend just for one minute because we're very much behind time and so to allow our witnesses to spot ground Thank you We're now on PE1519 by John F. Robbins on behalf of Saver Seals Fund and Saving Scotland Seals Members are not by the clerk the spice briefing, the petition and submission from the petitioner Can I welcome Mr Robbins? Thank you for coming along and again sorry for Dylenew Invite me to which I'll cook off with a couple of questions and then ask my colleagues to ask further questions Mr Robbins I think that to understand the situation regarding shooting seals in Scotland we've got to look back at the history of it and it goes back to the 1970 conservation of Seals Act Under that act anyone who applied for a variation to their firearms licence as long as they used the correct calibre of rifle could shoot any seal at any time Apart from anglers Anglers couldn't shoot seals during the close seasons Now I think another briefing paper that you have in front of you you'll see that the close seasons are three months in the summer for the commons and three in the winter for the grey seals Now the reason angling bodies couldn't shoot the seals during that period was that they didn't have equipment to protect salmon netsman had nets to protect from damage the old scottish office then accepted that fish farms came under the same clause and they had nets their cage nets to protect so they could shoot seals 365 days a year without a licence but the angling bodies had to get a licence if they wanted to shoot during the close seasons the only licence issued was the one for people who wanted to shoot in the close season and I remember having questions asked at Westminster about the number of seals shot in a year and the answer came back that it was 60 that was correct and that 60 seals had been shot under licence by angling bodies the real figure and it had to be a guestimate which I produced in the mid 1980s and that guestimate was that perhaps 6000 seals a year were shot in Scotland that was an average of 10 per salmon farm 10 per netting station at the fish farm conference in Inverness I was there as a representative of a fish food sales company and the chaps from the fish farms were quite happy to talk to me and I was with the industry and one farm was quite happy to say we shot 60 seals last year at one farm unit we did a documentary for channel 4 about the shooting that went on at the netting stations and a chat from Hopeman quite openly said I shot 89 seals at one net in one season so that was the scale of it a figure of 5 to 6000 a year been shot wasn't challenged and I feel it was conservative then we had the new act that came in the conservation of seals at 1970 sorry that it was replaced by the Marine Scotland act and what worried me with the new act is that it was said that it gave seals added protection in that everyone had to have a license to shoot seals now you apply for your license one or two have been refused but once you have that license you can shoot seals 365 days a year up to the limit that's set on your license that means now that angling bodies have an extra six months a year in which they can shoot seals without them through the plaver of applying for a license before they had to get a license for the close season many of them didn't bother so it gave seals protection during the close seasons that the anglers didn't shoot them while they were breeding they would shoot them other times a year that protection has been removed now Marine Scotland has come out with more spin than Malcolm Tucker on this one it was added protection and it's the opposite of the case that piece of protection has been removed I put a submission in when the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act was coming in and one of the things we pushed on that was that fish are sentient fish feel pain fish feel stress fish do react to add their stimulus all that act came into place fish farmers like any other farmer inherited their duty to protect their stock from predators now that doesn't simply mean you've got to stop the fox getting in and taking a chunk out your chicken you've got to stop the seals not simply getting to the nets inviting the fish you've got to stop them getting close enough to stress the fish to cause them five minutes up we've got time for questions hopefully we can pick up the questions thanks for your submission I understand it correctly that 1,000 seals are shot under license each year and I think it's cruel and unnecessary but what assessment have you made on the effect of your proposals on salmon farming for example it's up to 1,005 can be shot this year we're talking about an industry where a history of a history of not having to tell anyone how many seals are shot the farms are in very remote areas no one the police is the shooting would take it on their word that they're only shooting X number of seals and strangely enough they increase the request of how many seals they want to shoot and Marine Scotland have reduced the number they're allowed to shoot and I don't see how that balances the other thing is under the new act you've got to protect your fish you cannot do that by shooting seals you need to get someone who could shoot day and night to stop the seals getting near your salmon the only way to do it external barrier nets to stop the seals getting close you've predicted by my next question as you were talking about installing the high tension predator exclusion nets it's very hard to be explicit about the costs for that what would that cost? I can be very accurate we asked the American Government to ban the import of salmon farmed on farms where they're allowed to shoot marine predators they're not allowed to do it in the States and they have a great law in the States if you're producing something unfairly compared to our domestic producers we can stop the imports and the Canadian branch of Marine Harvest brought in the exclusion nets 120,000 Canadian dollars to do one farm a lot of money but not a great deal when you think of the size of the industry thank you very much I'll bring my colleagues in, Chip Brewery can I first declare an interest in that having worked with thank you worked with a company who are about to introduce an on-show fish farm and also a company who are looking to they've actually developed a submersible for tidal power which manages to avoid killing seals or any other sort of marine life so clearly there's an interest in that I just wonder in terms of the technology I think we see more and more on-show fish farms actually can you explain the acoustic deterrent device and how successful that is has been there are various options of acoustics some better than others some are still been trialled I went to one fish farm and the chap who the manager said we've got two acoustic devices and when we see seals in the area I'm on, scares them away we don't have to do any shooting here I think it was two years since the last shot a seal on that farm I went on to the farm and I heard a generator on one of the barges and I said to the farm manager who actually lived on a floating house on the farm I said I hear you've got the acoustics on any seals about he said no we don't get seals here we've run that 24-7 for the last three years now what that means is seals have been moved away from their natural habitat this farm was within a quarter of a mile of a traditional seal of a Korean haul outside yet planning they got the permission to put it there same way as they get permission to put them at the mouth of salmon rivers in the estuaries I think if the industry started today that would never be allowed but the acoustic devices worked on some farms they're working again how do we police it there's nobody there to see exactly what's going on thank you are there questions from other colleagues Angus MacDonald good morning Mr Robins your petition covers quite a number of issues and my colleague Chick Brody has already mentioned the high strength, high tension predator exclusion net which I've seen at first hand have been introduced by Marine Harvest I saw them on some of their farms up in Lochaber so it's already been introduced by major salmon farming companies although there have been some initial difficulties with them I believe and with regard to the onshore tank farms that Mr Brody mentioned the industry certainly seems to be heading in that direction as well as moving salmon farms further offshore out into the deeper water so there are developments within the industry which are going to address the issues that you're concerned with we've got to be careful when we talk about the antipredator net some of the farms they're getting bigger cages and they're putting stronger tension nets around the cages and when the seals come up it means the seals can't push the net in far enough to grab a salmon but it still means they can get close enough to panic just a salmon it's got to be an antipredator barrier perhaps 50 metres away from the inner cage so the seal can't get close to it the onshore is probably the best way forward you don't have lice problems you don't have predator problems and the pollution instead of aligning the seabed you bag up and sell it as fertilizer that is the way forward Otterferry started it on Argyll and the sector of the SSPCA was in charge of that the problem was he made a big mistake and started dabbling a genetic salmon killed his business his son now onshore farms Halibut and he's making a damn good business out of it because it's a higher value and he can't compete with salmon bringing them onshore because at the moment it's still cheaper to do it in the sea because we don't regulate it properly the Scottish Marine Scotland could say if you want a marine fin fish farm you've got to put predator exclusion nets in but we don't it just doesn't happen that's a fair comment with regard to the netting stations that you mentioned I think I caught that piece on channel 4 that you mentioned the documentary clearly there are issues with netting stations which I believe the government is looking at I'd looked at during the aquaculture bill and it's still looking at it now but could you develop a bit more on your argument with regard to netting stations would you consider for example that the government should buy out all the netting stations and put an end to it altogether I think that is the best way forward if a salmon netsman gets a salmon in his net and he binds it in the head 200 pounds for it if that salmon gets into the estuary up the river it's worth 2,000 pounds to the Scottish economy because it'll be caught two or three times perhaps before it gets to the head of the river and anglers come in and the tourist industry they spend money and that is the estimated value 70 quid if you bang it in the head of the net 2,000 once it gets up the river it would make a lot of sense again netting stations and say that they're trialling a new acoustic device and it's working it'd be nice to see follow that through and see if it does work but I don't have a lot of faith in in less than external body properly auditing what's going on I don't have a lot of faith in the industry at all I'm not accusing any specific company just the whole industry's too remote too secretive and it needs monitored OK Just out of completeness Mr Evans what happens to the seals that are shot the ideal situation is that they should be brought ashore and autopsyed as far as I'm aware only one has been in the last three years now this might be something to do with a Scottish Government meeting that was held in Vernest I think four years ago now I tried for a long time on to the Scottish Seals Forum the Scottish Seals Forum of those who are interested in whether or not seals should be shot or not shot is three to one weighted in favour of organisations that are actively shooting or support the shooting of seals three to one weighted I tried four times four times and were refused access to that forum and as I say the information there at the meeting in Vernest was a chat from Australia had been brought over and he spoke for five minutes he was a key speaker and he thanked the Scottish Government he'd never flown that class of flight before from Australia and he really enjoyed the trip and he was enjoying being back in Scotland and seeing his old colleagues and the best bit of advice he gave the people sitting round there this was part of the Moray Seals Management Plan the best bit of advice he gave was if you're going to shoot seals do it in the morning on the motorists about right we're brought from Australia to tell them this and that has been the attitude if you're going to do it quietly right thank you for that unless there's another question from my colleagues we're going to summation out where we've finished questions we're looking at the next steps I mean it seems to me there's two main things we can do is we can either continue this and ask the relevant bodies or we could ask that this is referred to the real fairs climate change environment committee and I think I've recently looked at the aquaculture and fisheries act Scotland 2013 so it's really a matter for for members I think I've got at least one member on that I think I mean my view is probably worth referring to the committee but again I'll take advice from members the committee I do members feel should we refer this on to a committee that did recently look at this subject area thanks MacDonald well I'd be keen convener to seek the views of the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland first the committee has recently as you see scrutinised the aquaculture and fisheries bill so the issue is still I think we're suggesting we do a bit more homework first before we do that so we can suggest then we just ask the Scottish Government and Marine Scotland in the special committee and seals for their views John Wilson I suggest convener we also write to the Scottish the association I'm trying to think I know there's a national body that covers George Salmond's producer's organisation I think it is isn't it if we write to that organisation as well to seek the views on the petition I think that's it our members all agree with and can I thank Mr Robbins for the evidence and the very technical advice you were giving us obviously we are continuing this so we'll keep you up to date with developments and discuss it again at a future meeting I've read the SPICE briefing paper you've had there are two or three major errors in it could you perhaps send us a note and we'll have a I will do that I'll quickly move on I'll suspend for one minute but thank you Mr Robbins for coming in I'll just quickly move on because I'm conscious that members have other meetings and I think John members have other things to deal with if we look at the First New Petition is PE1520 by Mary Lang on unrestricted freedom to building plots of up to one acre SPICE briefings and the petition and as advised previously despite efforts over the last couple of months the clerks have been able to make any contact with the petitioner in such circumstances I would suggest that since there's been no contact since the end of March that the petition be closed thank you for that could I quickly go on to agenda item 3 which is inquiry into tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland we obviously have had the Scottish Government's response to I think a very successful inquiry a very lengthy and in-depth inquiry since the last meeting members may wish to make some responses about that I would just add two points really which has come via Bernardo's is that I think there's two very specific things that we need to look at one is in looked after children remember that we had recommendation 13 which is powers of residential care workers I think it is important we ask the Scottish Government if the national action plan could address the issue of clarification powers of residential care workers though there was a response in the Government's note back to us it wasn't very explicit at all I think we need to tie down on this issue and the second one was in post-sales of scrutiny which was recommended in 25 which is protection of children under the prevention of sexual offenses Scotland Act 2005 again I think we need to ask the Scottish Government to carry out specific work in this area particularly aligned grooming in fact echoed what the Lord Advocates evidence to this committee was I know we asked justice to look at post-sales of scrutiny their work plan doesn't allow this but in the end of the day this is a job of the Scottish Government so if we put this back to them they will have to look at the mechanism for that so my specific views are that we should take forward these two points and the wider point is in terms of action in overall terms I understand of course we might want to wish until the national action plan prepared by the minister to a working group over the summer is addressed before we look at the wider issues but apart from these two individual points I would ask then that we pursue the two individual points now and the wider issue we wait. John Wilson? You may or if I could throw in a third point most definitely to your two points that you've suggested and the third point is to ask the Scottish Government to carry a research into the funding of local organisations providing services to those children vulnerable children who have been subject to sexual abuse my understanding is that some local authorities are cutting back in terms of the funding of certain services there's a project in Falkirk that's had funding cut by Falkirk council and it would be useful to get the Scottish Government to map out what services were available what services are currently available and whether or not they know of services that may face potential cuts at a local level. One is having read the paper from the minister I'm very concerned that this particular issue which is probably one issue that has really affected me personally since coming into the Parliament is subsumed into child protection committees and associated with a long raft of much needed child protection issues and I think that's something that we need to ensure it doesn't happen or at least that the committees understand that this is a particular issue a whole raft of child protection issues and it doesn't get subsumed totally into the things that we're doing and the second thing is that we've had some time scales on when all these things these responses are going to happen. Can I ask? Would you like us to specifically raise the point that you've raised at this stage rather than wait to... Let's wait to see the national action plan. Okay, thank you. I'm just to pick up on John Wilson's point I think it's only fair to clarify that Falkirk council is considering cutting funding however it's postponed a decision until it takes in further information but I've certainly voiced my concern about it in the local press. Thank you. Any other member wish to contribute? So in summary then, there was a couple of points that I was requesting we do immediately there was one question from John Wilson and one from I think you're prepared to wait until... I think we should have a rigorous view of the national action plan when it comes out. Time scales as well to Mr so I think there was four specific points we need to do now and the committee agreeable and throw in the substantive points that wait until the national action plan has been prepared before we discuss this in detail. That would be agreeable. Okay, thank you very much for that. Could I just move on then to agenda item four? It's P.E.1408 Pack Andrew McArthur on the updating of Prenuces anemia oblique vitamin B12 deficiency understanding and treatment. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. There's obviously a number of ways forward to suggest that we ask the Scottish Government to clarify exactly what action is taking place following the publication of the BCSH guidelines and to what timescale. Thank you for that. John Wilson. Sorry to just add into this when we are writing to the Scottish Government could I seek the way asked the Scottish Government as well as clinicians how this information will be disseminated to GPs because for many patients it's the treatment by a GP or a practice nurse that raises questions about the B12 deficiency and how the GP practice or practice nurse actually provides treatment for vitamin B12 deficiency. For a point members agreeable. Next petition is PE1480 by Amanda Cappell on behalf of the Frank Cappell examiner's awareness campaign on examiner's and dementia awareness. Members have a note by the clerk and I'm sure all members will wish to pass condolences on to Amanda Cappell following the death of Frank Cappell. First inviting contributions from members can I suggest that as the Scottish Government has indicated that we'll look into the provision of personal care for under 65 years with complex needs and time skill of the work. Thank you for that. The next one is a third petition is PE1492 by Alan Kennedy on co-location of GP practices and community pharmacies. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. Can I invite contributions from members? No, this is fine. The Government has now indicated their position on this. I have indicated to the Cabinet Secretary that we need to ensure there will be no conflict of interest going forward in terms of co-location of community pharmacies and GP practices but that will be a matter for the review. Thank you for that. Just before we go to the submission, I think Dr Richard Simpson, you've got an interest in this petition. Yes, I have. Can I say first of all that I welcome the fact that the Government has undertaken a fresh consultation? Members will remember that we thought we'd solved this problem in the last Parliament and we clearly hadn't as considerable anxiety amongst remote and rural practices about the development of pharmacy. So we are faced with this dichotomy as the committee appreciates between wanting to provide good full pharmacy services to communities on the one hand on the other hand not to disrupt or in any way reduce the GMS services that are being offered by general practitioners. The new regulations which have been tabled now and will be considered by the Health and Sport Committee next week at its meeting and I don't propose to move to annul them because I think they are a considerable advance in what we've had before but there are some questions which I've just raised for the committee's information as much as anything and perhaps invite them to consider holding the petition open a little longer to see what the response is next week from the minister. First of all, there is this new concept of protecting rural and remote practices by designating them as areas where there should not be a pharmacy and that is new and that is very welcome and really a very clear definition as to what that is going to be and they will be reviewed every three years and frankly and I have to declare an interest here as a fellow of the College of General Practitioners and member of the BMA that frankly three year review when you're running a business which is what GPs are doing in my view is not adequate you need certainty over a longer period of time so I'm slightly concerned about the three year matter as well as the vagueness and the definition. We don't know precisely we say that the practices are going to be protected or designated as protected but we don't know what it is. I have some concerns about the consultation process that's now to be agreed between the applicant and the board that does not appear to be any role for either the GP or the community in agreeing the consultation process and nor is there any external agency looking at this as there is with the rest of the health service to the Scottish Health Services Council so I think there's something lacking there in terms of ensuring that this consultation actually does follow a process we've no idea what that process is it's not defined within the regulations there is no requirement on the practice and health board jointly to agree specifically on any changes to services which might occur following the loss of dispensing but others will know that Moport is the worst example we've had where the GP's resigned entirely and it's costing us as taxpayers and costing the government and health board a huge amount of money to provide locums because they can't get GP's but the circumstances in Lucas where there's been a reduced service in Mevin in my constituency also where the GMS service previously was a full day service and now a half day service and patients have to travel in from Mevin to Perth none of that came out in the process of licensing and we've now got three further practices in my idea Abba Ffail, Collin and Drimann Drimann where the GP's are both resigned as of the 31st of July Collin where there are particular problems which I won't go into but look like there's going to be a diminished number of GP's present and Abba Ffail where the appeal has just been upheld despite the fact that the initial consideration by the local pharmacy board or the appropriate board the pharmacy was regarded as not being potentially not being sustainable which is one of the criteria under the new regulations and then there's the matter of whether there should be any redress to practices affected by future licences this has not been a practice in the past and I would not argue for GP's to be in a position to sell goodwill there have been and there never should be this is a their dispensing rights are given to them by the GP, by the board they are required to dispense by the board they should not have the right to sell that goodwill but nevertheless they make an investment if I can give you an example again the Drimann practice invested some two years ago some three and a half four thousand pounds in software to improve the safety of their dispensing losing their licence losing their requirement to dispense they've got no recompense for this, none and it seems to me that there should be at least an assessment of the effect on the practice of the loss of dispensing both in terms of the software and in terms of the premises are there arrangements for redundancy of the dispensing staff are there 2P arrangements that again doesn't come up under the regulations and then finally in terms of going forward there isn't anything in the new regulations which promotes the joint establishment of GP pharmacists which are GP's and pharmacists co-located and indeed under the present situation I understand pharmacists locally can object to that co-location as giving someone an unfair advantage and therefore it may not occur so I think there are I'm sorry to go on at length I know you've got a busy agenda but it does seem to me when we're having yet a further shot at this we need to get it right and I just wonder if the committee would consider keeping it open until at least the minister's answer the questions which they now have notice of as a result of your courtesy allowing me to actually speak to the committee Thanks for that you'll know probably that I've had some regional interest in this in both Bimbecula and Caithness so I've no first hand how difficult on issues so I'm grateful for Mr Kennedy bringing this petition forward at Chip Brody Yes, if I may I mean the point earlier and with Dr Simpson's vast experience in medical practice how do we ensure I wasn't sure whether you were in favour of GP's having a financial interest in the co-located pharmacy or not I have a major concern that people should do their co-activities and there should be no bias as a consequence to select particular prescriptions or any financial beneficial occurrence as far as the GP's concerned How is that going to be overcome? Sorry, just to remind members that Dr Simpson's not a witness here and I'm very elect to open this up philosophically again There is a dilemma there but I think if you go back 15 or 20 years it was a serious dilemma because there was no control of a GP prescribing whereas there now are at least agreements between health boards and GP's on their prescribing budgets they are now much more tightly supervised and if practices are actually prescribing in a way that is inappropriate for example by prescribing branded products where they could prescribe generic products which are much cheaper and possibly have less of a profit margin on it for the dispenser then that is something which the health board should be able to control but it may be there needs to be something specific in the regulations which on the one hand encouraging this co-location where appropriate in order to introduce full pharmacy services and areas which might not benefit from that on the other hand there may need to be a memorandum of understanding with the general practitioners to ensure that that co-location does not lead to any sort of abuse I'd like to move that we support Dr Simpson's suggestion that we maintain and keep the petition open and the expectation and hope that a copy of the official record will find its way to ministers in order that they can facilitate appropriate, fulsome responses to them next week and we can then look at it again in the light of that Thank you for that Can I ask other members' views whether that is an option and obviously there is a possibility that we refer it to health and sport committee which is the lead committee for the regulations John Wilson I am minded to refer this on to the health and sport committee as they are currently examining the regulations that would be more appropriate if that committee does not meet the requirements that we have Mr Simpson eloquently gave these questions that he will no doubt be asking next week to the minister of cabinet secretary on this issue Difficult is that I don't want this committee to be a back-up committee for inquiry or work that has been done by another committee I think we need to give respect to that committee the health and sport committee and the sales that comes back to this committee so that we can examine it further I think that by referring it on to the health and sport committee and I am sure that Mr Simpson will make a very good job of raising all these questions and getting the answers that he requires at the health and sport committee Thank you for that, so we've got two proposals glad just to go round the members who haven't spoken so far Chip Road, you could get your views on which one you support as either continuing it or referring it on to health and sport I think I think that Dr Simpson has made it clear that there are questions still to be that go unanswered I would rather that we had dealt with them before then moving them on I think that there is a strong argument convener to refer it to the health and sport committee Right Okay, well thanks to the colleagues for that I think that my majority we've agreed we're going to refer it to the health and sport committee to the committee for the regulations and could I thank Dr Simpson for coming along today and for your expertise and we greatly appreciate your comments thank you for that I'll quickly move on to the next petitions PE1505 by Jackie Watt on awareness to strep being pregnancy and infants members have a note by the clerk and submissions could I point out particularly that the UK group has an additional paper and I think she was particularly her view if members haven't the chance to read it she's particularly keen that we actually write rather than defer consideration but again it's up to members to look at the next steps I think having a quick glance through all the papers I think my view would be we should write to the Scottish Government NHS Health Scotland to request that the petitioner and other stakeholders are consulted as part of the revision for the ready-steady baby leaflet to include information in GBS John Irrani Grebel thank you for that the fifth petition is PE1503 by Mike Burns on behalf of the average speed cameras on review of A9 speed camera proposals members have a note by the clerk and submissions members will remember that Mike Burns gave evidence to us on this particular issue I think it's quite clear the Scottish Government view I know as a regular in A9 that the cameras are already constructed they're under trial they will be operational in October they're also part of the increase in HDV speeds from 40 to 50 that's part of the trialling and members will know I've taken members will know that I've taken a strong view on the increase in speed limit to 50 which is not part of a petition but just so we've got a balanced view on this so I think Mike Burns is obviously done a very good piece of work with the individual petition but I don't personally see what more we can do with the Scottish Government because the Scottish Government made the view absolutely clear having said that if we were looking to close Mr Burns does have two or three extra points which he was wondering if we would take up which is in his paper one is that the Scottish Government undertake an economic impact study on speed cameras that was commissioned so that's not news to the Scottish Government it's just enacting it that the A9 safety group I become more a public forum and that there's a publishing of driver surveys which are already taking place so my view would be I cannot see any other choice back to close unfortunately but I do think it's important we do chase up these points with the Scottish Government the first one is already enacted as far as I'm aware the A9 safety group being a public forum is obviously a matter for the Scottish Government Transport Scotland but out of courtesy to the constituent I think we could ask the minister who the views on that sorry going on but this is obviously quite an important issue in the hands and Iles can I ask members their views on this members agree with all that we close but chase up the points that's outstanding thank you very much for that so could I formally close the meeting for members if they could stay behind just for a couple minutes of some administrative things we need to chase up, there's nobody in the gallery