 Welcome to the 19th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2015. I remind everyone present, including members, that mobile phones and black bars should be turned off completely at the interfere with the sound system even when they are switched to silent. The first item of business is to seek the committee's agreement to take agenda items three and four on a new petition and the review of the petition process in private. Does the committee agree? Agenda item two is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1582 by Karen Harvie on compulsory pet insurance. I welcome the petitioner, Karen Harvie, to the meeting and I invite Karen to speak to the petition as she has no more than five minutes after which we'll ask questions. Over to you, Karen. Thank you, convener and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about my petition for health insurance for pets becoming a legal requirement. The issue of third-party liability insurance for dogs was suggested a few years ago but was dismissed as it was felt that it would be an unfair tax on responsible dog owners. Taking out pet health insurance usually combines with third-party liability, therefore ensuring that both our pets and ourselves are protected. Every year, the Pet Food Manufacturing Association commissioned a pet population report. In 2014, it was estimated that 46 per cent of households have pets, which includes 9 million dogs and about 7 million cats, yet only 15 per cent of those have insurance. According to Allian's insurance, more people claim on their pet insurance than on their household or car insurance. As with human medicine, veterinary medicine has advanced hugely, and according to Saintsbury's Bank, who provide pet cover, say that vet's fees were escalating at 12 per cent per year, more than six times the rate of inflation. Vet's say that this is the result of the development of new drugs and medical technologies. Some rough figures obtained from an online independent survey in October this year of some ailments and their costs. A dog with cataracts is £1,700. A cat with a broken leg is £2,000. An arthritis treatment for older dogs over five years is around £6,500. To treat cancer could be around £8,000. The most up-to-date figures that I could find of animals being put to sleep due to owners' inability to afford veterinary treatment was a UK survey in 2012. It revealed that in that year alone, 320,000 cats and dogs nationwide, which could be nursed back to health, were victims of premature euthanasia. One vet said that vet's are in business to treat and save lives of animals, not put them to sleep because of cost. Eight out of 10 vets surveyed by Saintsbury's Finance said that they had seen pets endure pain because treatments were too expensive. In total, two and a half million owners have turned down medical help on cost alone. Having insurance when a pet is sick or injured gives veterinary staff more options of treatment in order to allow the owner to make an informed decision about what is the best course of action to take but always bearing in mind that animal is welfare. It is important when choosing pet insurance that the policy is right for your circumstances. Cheapest is not always best, but there are still ways that savings can be made with careful research. More practical help can be obtained from veterinary professionals who are all used to dealing with insurance companies and will be able to advise on suitable policies and help with filling in the forms. I was also able to find unbiased help via the internet to help find the best deals, so that information and help is already out there. During my research on the subject, it became clear that most people that I spoke to were in favour of compulsory pet insurance, but were concerned that insurance companies would take advantage of the need for it and significantly raise the cost of their premiums. Insurance companies are a regulated by two bodies, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority. They not only have a legal obligation to do things properly but, after speaking to the FCA, have a duty to investigate any claim of unfair behaviour. Also during my research, I spoke to various organisations including the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust, the British Veterinary Association and an independent vet. Although the SSPCA was unsure how making insurance compulsory would work, it encouraged new owners to ensure their pets and actually give 40 days free insurance with new adoptions. They have apparently already had discussions with the BVA regarding some sort of affordable insurance scheme for pets. The BVA also produces a leaflet advising of the benefits of having pet insurance. The independent vet suggested that if potential problems with monitoring and policing were addressed, then the idea of compulsory health insurance would certainly solve many welfare problems. The Dogs Trust always recommends that owners take out pet insurance as they consider it to be an important part of responsible pet ownership. I am aware that it would not be sensible to impose an immediate start for all animals to have insurance. It would need to be a gradual process. Therefore, it probably would work better bringing it in for pets born after a certain date, thus limiting the need for exemptions due to previous conditions. There is no NHS for pets, and our pets are very often lifesavers. They are certainly the best companions in the world, giving us unconditional love and loyalty. Do we not owe it to them to give them the same when they need it in return? I find this petition particularly interesting. It is not one I have given much thought to in the past. I am not a pet owner. I am not perfectly up with those ideas. I was not aware of what discussions had taken place around the issue before, but I am aware that the UK Government consulted on potential insurance for third-party injuries caused by predominantly dangerous dogs. Have you looked into that? Can you tell me why the UK Government did not take that forward? What reasons did it give for not pursuing that? As I said in my statement, I think that it was the Labour Party who wanted to bring it in, but it was very quickly dismissed because they felt that the only people who would take out the insurance would be responsible pet owners. That really was not the target that it was meant to hit, so that is why it was dismissed. They felt that it was unfair to the responsible owners. I take it in. The problem is who do we get to ensure that the pets are insured? Who would do that monitoring? I am aware that the Scottish Government is bringing in microchipping for dogs next year. Obviously, the monitoring and the policing of that, probably, or that the insurance could run alongside the same kind of lines. I do know that, in what I have found out, the police will have scanners and local authorities will have scanners. I do not know whether it could be that the insurance details could then be on the same databases as the microchip details. Do you not believe that there will be any additional bureaucracy or costs involved for public authorities? I can see why insurance companies might be interested in getting that because they will be getting payments that they would not otherwise be doing, but the costs on the public purse at a time, especially when budgets are particularly tight, might be prohibitive. Do you consider that to be the case? I do not think so. If it ran along the same lines as the microchip, then, hopefully, that would not be the case. It is an interesting concept, but you have alluded to the fact that the type of person that needs the cover is the one who can least afford the treatment. I think that that is the same group of people who will least afford the insurance as well. I think that there is an element of people's individual human rights in the sense that we are forcing them for another tax almost, and I am opposed to additional burdens on people that we have to force them to do it. Two, policing is not going to be easy either in the sense that if somebody cannot buy the insurance because they simply cannot afford it, that means that we deny them a pet. That, as well, is perhaps unreasonable and unfair. I find it quite difficult to support the motion, on those grounds. Can I ask how much average insurance costs for a pet? Is somebody who has a pet a cat and I pay insurance for it? There is no average cost. It all depends on the type of pet that you have and where you live. As with all insurances, your cost is based on risk. There are lots of things to take into account. To give you an example, I have a golden retriever who is now 12 years old and I have paid for her insurance since the day that I got her. She is six months old and I pay £42 a month in insurance. That might sound a lot, however, as she is now 12 years old, she has quite a number of conditions that we claim the insurance for. We claim around £200 a month for the medications and treatment that she has. She is still a happy springy dog and loves to go her walks and likes her tail. Had we not had that, she would not be here today. That is roughly £500 a year. For families on low incomes who have pets, who are then forced to take out insurance, and I think that you quoted there, it was something like 9 million dogs and 7 million cats alone in the UK. Would that not force families to abandon pets? Would we not see a huge increase if they were forced to take out? Not really, because I am not suggesting that any existing pet owners have to all of a sudden go out and take out insurance. That would be for new additions to the family, say new pets. So maybe after a certain date, pups born, I know that the microchip in this is supposed to be eight weeks, so maybe it could run along the same lines as that. So when a pup is born, they then have to take out insurance, because it really would not be feasible to put in an insurance for all existing dogs at the moment. There would be so many exemptions, it just would not work. It would come in for new additions, new dogs, cats, whatever. That way it would not put an added burden of finances on to the family, it would perhaps just make a family think twice about whether they could afford to have the pet in the first place. So I do not see it adding to more abandoned dogs if it is approached in that manner. I guess then, John. Can we not? Good morning, Mrs Harvey. The briefing that we have received on this petition suggests that pet insurers are not compulsory in any other part of the UK. I am just wondering if you have made any attempts to look at the situation in other jurisdictions or other countries. Yes, I did. I could not find any countries that have compulsory pet insurance. Okay, and there is no indication that it has been looked at anywhere else either. Not from my research that I could not find. Okay, thanks. Thank you, convener. Good morning. My question is, in your inquiries, have you looked at the issue of the household insurance, including pet insurance, in those policies, rather than looking to create a whole new raft of insurance premiums for owners? Have you spoken to any of the major house insurers to see whether or not they would offer that as part of the wider package? No, I did not think about it being included in house insurance. I did speak to pet insurance companies who were not keen to give any opinions on it at all. If you have house insurance with a certain company, perhaps there are suggestions there that if you have pet insurance with the same company, there are discounts to be had. It is just that some household accidents are caused by pets. You see the adverts for the cats running about the mantle pieces and various other things. It is just to see if anybody has done any work with household insurance companies. To go back to the legislation that was proposed in Westminster, you indicated that the legislation was dropped because it was viewed that only responsible owners would take out insurance. Was that the only reason why it was dropped? As far as I know, yes. That is what I discovered. The difficult thing is that only responsible owners would take out pet insurance because they are responsible owners. The difficult thing is that, as you have mentioned, there are 9 million dogs and 7 million cats. We know from experience the dangerous dogs situation where there are less than responsible owners who will not look after the pets and will not either take the pets for treatment. We often hear of the SSPCA that will refer to incidents at canal banks and railway sidans and the rest of it, where dogs are abandoned or cats are put in sacks, those types of situations. Having compulsory pet insurance would resolve that situation and would take away that situation. If that situation will ever be resolved, you will always find, unfortunately, that there are people who will do such things. It is like any law murder is against a law, people still do it, etc. I do not think that it will take that away completely, but I would like to think that it would help. If a family gets a pet from a breeder, the breeder, if it is a registered breeder, usually hands out four weeks free insurance, and then it would be up to the breeder to inform whoever is monitoring the insurance, the new owner, and then the new owner's details would be on it, so there would always be a register of who owned that dog or cat. Do you think that it should be the responsibility of the breeder or the seller of the pet store or whoever to make the new owner aware of the potential liabilities that they may be taking on? You mentioned the situation with your golden retriever and the medical conditions of the golden retriever. We know in certain breeds that there are genetic abnormalities that could potentially lead to medical intervention having to take place. Surely we could try to ask some of the breeders and the pet stores and the sellers of those animals to make the new owner aware of the potential cost of having a pet, rather than saying that this is a time of year where dogs for life, not for Christmas, slogan usually comes out, but surely we should be doing more work and getting those sellers and others to make people aware of the potential financial liability if something was to happen to that pet in the future. Yes, I think that that is a good idea. There are certain conditions related to some breeds that will, if you are taking out pet insurance, you would have to research into the fact that the conditions that your pet was liable to get are covered in the policy. That is quite easily done. I watch your argument why everybody should have pet insurance as a good reason for it. It is the bureaucracy and difficulties. I am assuming that you are not suggesting making a criminal offence not to have pet insurance that would be a civil matter. How, then, do you envisage enforcing it, given that we have difficulties enforcing the TV licence, which is currently a criminal offence that is not paid by a lot of people? We have difficulties with the previous pet licence that Ten Shillings or whatever it was. How would that be funded? How would it enforce it, especially if you are seeking to probably enforce a financial penalty against some people who the reason they have not taken out is that they do not have the financial clear with all? I believe that, as I said before, it may run along the lines of the microchipping. I tried to do a better research into the microchipping law and I could not find an awful lot of information out about it. I do believe that if the possible same database for the microchipping was used for the information of insurance, I think that there is a responsibility also on vet practices to ensure that if an animal came into a veterinary practice that needed treatment and it was not insured, I think that there will be a responsibility on the veterinary staff to report, if you like, to the authority that is looking after the dog. Do you need to at least make aware that the owner of the animal would need insurance? I think that there is 21 days' grace on the microchipping. If we could do something like that to give them a grace to acquire the insurance, I believe that there is a financial penalty on the microchipping as well, that perhaps that could work with the insurance as well, that may help with funding as well, financial penalties. Before I come to you, Jackson, there is just a card to me when the discussion seems to have gone on this morning around cats and dogs. Does this petition aim at cats and dogs? Are we talking about some of the more exotic pets that people get now? I think that we do not microchip some of the things that people get from pet stores now. That is right. Primarily, for this purpose, we would need to start with dogs and cats. Small furries and things like that are perhaps a different, obviously the treatments are not so expensive or advanced or in depth for small furries. People tend not to, as I understand, take their small furries to the vet unless they are really ill and are generally at that stage not a lot they can do anyway. I do not think that that would be workable or feasible, same with exotics. I do not think so. Primarily at this stage, dogs and, hopefully, maybe start with dogs and extend it to cats. I was going to ask the question to define pet for the purposes of the petition. I understand the idea. I have done some very quick calculations. If there are 16 million cats and dogs across the UK and there are, say, 10 per cent of that in Scotland, at the average cost, if your dog was an example, that would be £800 million a year cost over time in Scotland and an £8 billion annual cost over time across the UK. I accept that there could be reductions as a consequence of scale. I only have to say those figures to myself to understand that it is politically unlikely that any Government would seek to impose such a huge financial cost on the public. I do not see it as being likely, I am afraid. What I am interested to know is what efforts does the pet insurance industry actually make to promote pet insurance directly to pet owners? Where do you think that potentially falls short if so few pets are ultimately being insured? That is a good point. I feel that perhaps an advertising campaign as such would be beneficial and a good idea to promote. Pet insurance companies advertise on television commercials and things, but perhaps more in-depth advertising to make pet owners aware of potential costs. There are discounts to be had if you are doing your research. If you take out, if you make sure that you have an all-of-life policy that covers your pet from the day that you get it to the day that it dies, I can, from experience, in the dogs, not just my own dogs but other pets. I have seen that you generally get back what you have paid into the insurance and sometimes you get back more. Just a couple of points that I have picked up from some of the evidence that you have been giving this morning. One of the suggestions that you had made is that some of the veterinary clinics should report the fact that somebody is not getting insurance if this was to burn into legislation. The problem with that is that the very people who I am fearful would not take the insurance because they do not have money will then not take them to the vet either because they will then feel that they are going to get reported for the fact that they do not have insurance. That will put people off going to the vet rather than take the animal or the pet to the vet. They will not do it because of that fear. The other one in terms of the comebacks on this is that I need to reinforce the same point again. I believe that one, we would deny a lot of people from keeping pets. Two, I think that what would happen is that people simply would not take the insurance, which means that they would put themselves in a position where they would be illegally against the law. That has all sorts of implications in terms of where they can take the pets to, whether they can take them to vets, whether they can take them to public places, will they constrain the movement of the pet? All of those things then come to mind. I feel that there are far too many negatives than positives in it. Although the idea is an ideal one, but unfortunately I think that we are up against it in terms of the people who genuinely cannot afford to pay. It is that element that then suggests that perhaps we would be putting pets in harm's way rather than having a better quality of life for them. There is always that risk. Yes, you are right that there is always that risk, but is that risk any greater than people who do not take their pets to the vet anyway because they cannot afford the treatment? I think that it is, unfortunately. You do? Yes. Sorry. We seem to have exhausted the questions. As I said, your petition is quite thought provoking, but there are some practical considerations that have to be taken into account when considering it. It is not really for the committee to adjudicate on its merits at the moment. What we have to do is investigate further just what some of those practicalities are. First of all, we need to ask the Government who would be responsible what their views are on it, but you did highlight a few charities who already are involved in this discussion, and I think that it would be useful to contact them. The British Veterinary Association, the PDSA, I think that there were others that you named. We will collate the information that you gave and write to those organisations, the Scottish PCA, the DOPS trust. Jackson? I am also interested in seeing whether any of the pet insurance providers would be interested in discussing with us how they go about promoting pet insurance, and indeed how much they feel that they currently spend promoting pet insurance to see what relationship there is between that and the uptake. Either an individual company or an association. We might be willing to give us one. One will be typical of another, I would have thought. We might want to check with local government, because, after all, the compliance for dangerous dogs comes through dog warrants at a local government and local authority responsibility, and there is clearly resource and cost implications for them. The other dog warrants could be brought into it as well as give them a great help. I am sure that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had an overview given their responsibility in that. There is a wide range of organisations that we need to sound out about that and take on board the points that you have made. We will do that and collect those responses back and we will get in touch with you once we have had those responses and see what we do with the petition when we have a fuller picture of the organisations out there. Thank you very much for bringing in a great thought-provoking petition before us this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I also thank you for a minute or two to change witnesses. This morning is PE1575 by Alex Scott, MBE, on accessible rail travel. Members have a note by the clerk, the petition and the spice briefing, and members will wish to note that, sadly, after lodging the petition, Mr Scott passed away. In the circumstances, the petition has been taken forward by the community trade union who worked with Mr Scott on this petition. I welcome Beverly Bambra and Robert Mooney from community to this morning's meeting, and I invite Ms Bambra to speak to the petition, after which we will move to questions. Over to you, Beverly. Thank you very much. The Aller board, the campaign for accessible rail travel in Scotland, firstly let me introduce myself and my colleague. My name is Beverly Bambra and I'm responsible for the education and equality within community trade union. Robert Mooney, my colleague, is a key activist in Scotland within the NLBD and works within the RSBI city buildings. He's also the chair of the NLBD committee for community and a member of our national executive. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for scheduling our petition and ensuring that a lifelong friend and campaigner has his wish to ensure that safer transport remains high on the agenda of the Scottish Government. So why have we come? It would be very remiss of us not to mention Alex Scott, MBA, a very special man to us. Alex Scott was a lifelong trade unionist and campaigner for the rights of disabled people, particularly in Scotland. Alex, who was blind, was an activist, a campaigner and a much respected member within the National League for the Blind and Disabled, which became part of community in 2000. Alex campaigned tirelessly to make sure we never lost the ability to look at not just at the larger high level things that affect our everyday lives, but also the small, sometimes seen as trivial matters to those that might not contemplate the impact of the decisions made at a much higher level. Small but meaningful changes. Alex above all wanted to make meaningful differences to the lives of Scotland's blind community. The All aboard campaign is a perfect example of Alex's practical approach to campaigning. Tragically, this was to be Alex's last campaign, as he passed away, as just mentioned earlier this year, but one that we are proud to present today on his behalf. Alex, I'm sure, will be looking down on both Robert and I and will be willing us onwards to ensure that we as a union continue to make a difference in people's lives and so to the campaign. Rail travelling Scotland is not always accessible in the way that we want it to be for all disabled people. And why is that? Well, it's a multiple factors that make navigating different train lines and routes difficult for people with both physical disabilities and partially and particularly partially sighted. Taking the differing train manufacturers when designing trains, each manufacturer have buttons and handles simply in different positions, both on the main train line, main doors and in facilities such as toilets. So can you imagine not having your sight for a moment and being in a simple position where you simply just can't find that button? Alex once told me a tale of a man wanting to be independent, working and travelling regularly using public transport. A proud man and on this day had travelled on the train alone. He needed to use the onboard facilities and entered the toilet after searching for the button, albeit with a little help from a fellow traveller. But all did not go well. This man felt humiliated at the end of his journey. He could not find the button to exit the toilet facilities and was stuck in the toilet for a considerable amount of time. Alex always said it's about us enabling people. It's the small and meaningful. Buttons on the train are thought to agree with manufacturers to place them in the same position, a place small but meaningful. Platform staff, despite some improvements to the disabled access to train stations, the fact that Scott rail staff members no longer wear hi-vis jackets on platforms can make it difficult for partially sighted people to see them when they need them most. A simple change could make all the difference to a partially sighted person and that's about being small and meaningful. So what are we seeking? Well our campaign, Communities campaign, Alex's campaign above all, is about community beliefs that the Scottish Government must take responsibility for ensuring that Scotland's rail network is accessible to all. Community has been working with colleagues in the STUC disabled workers committee to promote this campaign and successfully passed a motion at the STUC disabled workers conference recently, calling on the committee to lend their support to community and to Alex in the lobbying of the Scottish Government. Specifically, the all-on-board campaign has three key main wishes of the Scottish Government and these are for the Scottish Government to work with Scottish rail and community to standardise all buttons and signs across the rail network on both existing and or future stock. For the Scottish Government to work with Scottish rail to ensure that the simple thing of the hi-vis jackets is something that could be addressed more or less immediately and for the Scottish Government to work with community and other disabled groups in Scotland to promote this work and campaign for better disabled access to Scotland's whole public transport network. Overall, we believe in undertaking this work in partnership with both community and other disabled groups. It will provide for disabled travellers in Scotland a safer, more equal and accessible transport system. I am not so much to declare an interest but just informing people. I have had a discussion around this issue previously. As the convener of the cross-party group on disability, SATA, the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance, had already brought us. We have invited the transport minister to come to our next meeting to discuss it. Some of the issues that you raised had come up as part of that discussion and the reason why we wanted to invite the minister. However, one of the things that you did not mention—I wonder whether that is something that you are aware of or if you have knowledge of it—is that there appears to be a conflict between the drive to have people using bicycles as much as possible. To get on to trains to take them to other destinations, the bikes are taking up space that disabled people would otherwise have had access to. I was just wondering if you were aware of that conflict between the Government's desire to get people using bikes more on transport, clashing with the need to make trains more accessible to people who have got mobility problems and other issues. I have never really thought about that before. I have a visual impairment myself. There are designated places and trains for bikes and there are designated places and trains for people with disabilities. Both myself, my wife, my son and my daughter-in-law have all got quite severe visual impairments. I have never seen that as a major problem to be honest. Stop and turn now. I am not saying that if there are more bikes in the train and people are travelling and taking their bikes in the train, I can see that that probably would cause a real problem in the future. It is a wonderful petition. It merits a lot of serious consideration and we should be writing the Scottish Government to find out exactly what it is prepared to do for us to deal with those issues. It is an excellent petition, I have to say. I wonder whether you have any international comparters. A lot of the countries that I travel on, and certainly in Western Europe, the train service seems a bit better in terms of facilities provided for all people. I wonder whether that was down to procurement, but certainly the rail services in Germany and Spain that I have experienced in recent years did seem to be much more irregular, if I can put it that way. I do not know whether you have any information or reason why that is. I do not have any information or reason as to why that is, other than a personal observation, which is linked to the way in which we procure things and the way in which we probably do not have joined-up partnership thinking when we are looking at procuring things. If you have a multitude or a platform of different manufacturers in order to bring some standardisation for those people who need to use that transport system, to me it would just make logical sense. It became a part of it. It was embedded in every procurement process that goes through, so that when manufacturers are looking at designing their trains they have this one standard to work to. That means that everybody, no matter where they were throughout the United Kingdom, was able to access the transport system. It is just the issue that, while we are talking about those who have visual impairments, disability comes in a whole range of different shapes and sizes. Some of the issues that the conveners made reference to in terms of trying to look at people who use wheelchairs, people who have mobility problems, have there been any discussions with other disability groups, apart from the STUC disability forum, to look at what would be best for the wider community, rather than just putting forward changes in terms of visually impaired individuals and finding out that somebody with mobility problems or a wheelchair user has an issue because where the buttons are placed are out of reach or they are in the wrong place for access for other individuals. Has there been any discussions in the wider disability movement about the best way that those buttons and other fixtures and trains could be best used for everybody to get the benefit from travelling in the trains? I think that the convener has already said that this matter has been raised at the disability cross-party group. I am sure that it would be raised there, but it is a frequent rail traveller myself and having a visual impairment. Part of the problem is that there are not many franchises in Great Britain and there are not many different companies and they all seem to use different types of trains. If you can imagine for a minute having a visual impairment, it is not just that the toilets are the main doors and the carriage is going from one carriage to another. If you are blind or partially blind and you go towards that door, you have got to feel for where the buttons are. For people in a wheelchair that they are at a height where they can be reached and if they can see them, that is fine. It is not even that they are uniformed or in completely different parts of the cubicle within the toilet or in completely different parts of the door, so you have got to physically feel ruin the door until you come across the proper button. In toilets, it is not the first time that I have known that a blind person has got a hold of the emergency button and actually stopped to train. It can be quite embarrassing. Quite often, blind people get locked in the toilet and cannot find their way back out, as Beverly has already said. Not that long ago, there was about six or seven blind people travelling when they were going to London. One of the colleagues had went to the toilet and the train stopped. A wee while after that, the ticker inspector came up and said, did your wee pal tell you that he has just stopped the train but he had not? It happens frequently and it is looking for a bit of a dignitary. It is very undignified. It is not just blind people who stop trains because they do not know what button to press in the trains. Westminster ministers have been known to do that as well. Clearly, there is an issue here but, as I said, I would like to see working in conjunction with other disability groups that we get the right fit. However, the difficult part is that some of the rolling stock that is in Scotland at the present moment is over 30 years old. It is how we retrofit that to make a standardised button system in the trains, whether that be for getting access to the train or using the toilet facilities. It is really just trying to work out how best we could do that. Certainly, in terms of future rolling sets, we could make sure that something is put in place that we could have a standardised model. However, given that some of the rolling stock is 30 years old, retrofit that would be very difficult indeed. I think that to go back to your question as well as whether there has been any overall discussions. I think that it is worth noting that England has similar issues around accessibility to its train stations and things. There has been extensive discussion about staffing levels at train stations and bus stations to enable both partially sighted blind people and people with physical or mental health issues to be able to access the transport system. It does not just stop at where the buttons on the trains are. It is a complete look at how we staff those train stations to make things accessible to everybody. Can I ask one question in relation to the idea that the Hive has Vests has not been worn, because according to me that was the case. I was travelling by train last week and I recall some staff in some of the English stations that I was in were wearing a Hive has Vests, but you are right that Scotland did not. Is there an explanation for that? Have you been given an explanation for that, Robert? I am sorry, but I raised that initially because I had a problem. One of the problems is that I have a pass for the trains that gets me free transport, but when I go to Ords of Barrier, I need to wait for someone to let me through. Before I could see someone because they had a Hive has Vests and I would head for them, but just up until recently it was changed, it was like a dark blue. I could not see it, so I could not see anybody to go to Ords, but I was standing there for quite a while waiting for somebody to let me through, but last week the train was back to the Hive has Vests. That is in the two main stations in Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queens Street. I do not know about any other ones like Edinburgh or things like that, but it changed back to Glasgow. I think that there is a genuine interest in this issue. There is an on-going discussion, but there is no reason why, as a committee, we should be getting ourselves involved in that discussion and trying to find out where we can take it. We certainly need to be speaking to Transport Scotland to find out their views on it, but the companies that run the trains themselves will have a view, so a bellio in Scotland, clearly, but also the manufacturers. I think that we need to identify a couple of the manufacturers and write to them for their views. Those bodies who have an interest in it from the disability angle and certainly it would be useful to get satas to take on it. I am happy for any other colleagues to suggest on that. It does strike me that, since very little product is manufactured exclusively for the United Kingdom market, the manufacturers of either buses or trains will be producing these units across the whole of the European Union and possibly more internationally than that. I think that it would be interesting to find out whether our colleagues in the European Parliament have in fact explored that issue. On the face of it, it seems to me that, if we are looking in the manufacturing process for the standardisation of something that would facilitate those who are partially sighted, that commonality would have to be at source and across the whole of the market for the product, not just here in Scotland, which I think, frankly, may prove to be an impractical thing to try and achieve in isolation. Thank you for bringing that forward, Jackson. The deputy convener had mentioned that issue when we were listening to the information that you were giving us. We certainly need to contact the European authorities to find out what the standardisation requirements are in relation to that. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues? We will write out to those organisations and collect that information and, obviously, keep you advised of the responses that we receive and take the petition forward as best we can to pursue the interests of the groups that you represent, but thank you very much for bringing the petition to us this morning. This morning is PE1578 by Martin Keatings on a four-circle rail link. I welcome the petitioner Martin Keatings to the meeting, and he is accompanied today by Lewis Acres, who is a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament. I invite Mr Keatings to speak to the petition after which we will move to questions. What are you, Mr Keatings? First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me to appear today. As you already know, the subject of the petition is a fourth rail link. Now, for me, I am a borderer, so the issue of rail provision is something that is somewhat, shall we say, ingrained in me. It is a sore subject, particularly in my hometown of Hoik, where I was born and raised. However, in Fife, it does give me a bit of a unique perspective and an insight into what happens when the demand outstrips availability of public infrastructure. The damage done by the beaching cuts were systemic and long-lasting. Looking at the bottom line in terms of profitability, the UK Government negated to anticipate the collateral damage that would be caused as a result of removing viable rail infrastructure. Subsequently, the rail left, the mills could not get their goods out, and the end result of that was mass unemployment in the borders and basically a town dying. That is an extreme example of what happens when demand outstrips available infrastructure, but, although that is not at the same level as Fife, it is a perfect example of what will happen, albeit over a more protracted period, if we fail to have transportation keep pace with population growth. The fourth rail link matters. It is a project that will not only benefit Fife and Clackmannanshire but, indeed, any area north of Fife in terms of rail connectivity. It will decrease transit times and expand commuter access to Scotland's major cities. It will take around 10 per cent of freight off our roads and on to rails, which can only be good for the environment and, certainly, good for congestion. Let's call a spade a spade. We have the A909, which runs parallel to the West Fife villages. It is the main road through Dunfermline, and it is all by all rights a bit of a joke. Pot holes, traffic lights and traffic jams. The road itself and the road system is an immediate turn-off for any visitors, commuters and, indeed, for local business as well as an investment in the local area. My father is a daily commuter on that road. He refers to it as many names, but none of them are repeatable in polite company. The A985, which is the other main road that runs parallel with the West Fife villages, is the interjoining road between Concardin and Rossife. It is now considered the importance of this road, which is the main link road, the trunk road, between the motorway and the fourth bridges and Concardin and Upper Fourth Crossing. If we can reduce the commuter traffic through transfer to rail and, by all indications, we can reduce the freight by up to 10 per cent, if we can do the same with commuters going back and forward to Stirling, Alwa, Edinburgh, Glasgow, it will help tremendously. Based on the fact that we are in the process of building a brand-spanking new bridge, because the existing one cannot handle the capacity that is being pushed through it each day, the end result of that is that we are going to end up reducing the amount of damage to the new bridge, to the old bridge, to the road infrastructure that is in place at the moment as well. It is good for the environment, it is good for business in the local area, it is good for local commuters and it is good for the local public, but at the same time it is also good for anybody north, it is good for anybody in Clackmannan to get to Edinburgh, it is good for anybody in Dumfermline to go the opposite direction to Stirling and Glasgow, it is going to speed up transit times and it is just generally common sense. David Whittle, who is keen to come in on this one. Good morning. Can I put on record, convener, that I attend meetings of the Leavesmouth Rail campaign? Good morning, gentlemen. Does this have the backing of Fife Council and Sestrans? Fife Council and Sestrans, we have been talking back and forward with local MSPs and also with local councillors, but Fife Council has done a stag study on this, a stag report that was dated 2010, since then there has been no update or other work done in terms of stag reports. There has actually, I believe, just been a stag report released on the Leavenmouth Railway and I believe that there is one pending for the St Andrews side of things, but in terms of the actual fourth rail link or the fourth circle, as it is known in the stag report, there has been no update since 2010. Listen, I am fully supportive. I know where you are coming from for rail links in Fife, but it is the most expensive form of infrastructure to put in. Can I ask, do you think that it is feasible that Fife Council will put two projects forward to Transport Scotland for a Leavenmouth rail link and for a recycling one? Well, it is funny that you should mention that, because I was at a meeting for the Common Whale about two or three days ago, and in that meeting the Whales had the Leavenmouth rail guys talking. At the moment, I believe, based on their figures, the cost to viability ratio was something like 1.1 or 1.2, so basically they were getting 1.2 pounds for every pound that was invested in such infrastructure. With the addition of the fourth rail link, which effectively gives the Fife circle direct connectivity to Clackmann and then on to Glasgow, it raises the profitability and viability of the Leavenmouth rail link to somewhere in the region of 2.2. It is almost doubling the cost-to-profit ratio and the viability of that line as a result of building the fourth rail link. Not to mention the fact that, obviously, the projections are 2010, but the projections back then were that 2.2 million was what it would cost to run it. It would come in at about 2.06 in terms of net revenue, but at the same time as well, the intrinsic benefits to Fife in the surrounding area would be closer to 2.4 million, so what you've got is basically 2 million a year to come back with 4 million in benefits. This is one of the issues that I've always found with rail. The technical look at the bottom line is this particular line profitability without looking at the intrinsic benefits to the local area and to everything else around about it, and that's exactly where it went wrong with the beaching cuts, and this is exactly the same in Fife. This link gives other projects a chance in the future. It gives other projects more viability in terms of being able to be set up properly, and at the same time as well, it also gives you an opportunity to give a very much needed commuter service and reduce the strain on the existing capacity. Can I go back to Fife Council? How much dialogue have you had with Fife Council? As you know, the new bids for infrastructure such as that will be in 2019, and Fife Council won't be able to go with a wish list. It's only going to have a number one, two, three priority for the infrastructure in the area. I'll be brutally honest with you at the moment, trying to have a proper dialogue with Fife councils like trying to get blood out of a stone. We've had a few brick walls in the past couple of months. I have spoken to the local MSP. Her name escapes me for the moment. We have been having a dialogue with Fife Council, but it's been limited in terms of its capacity. The issue that we have is that when we contact Clackmannan, because this affects Clackmannan, just as much as it does Fife, Clackmannan says, well, you need to speak to Fife, and then Fife says, well, you need to speak to Clackmannan and get the two of them to work. That's why this petition is forward to this Parliament. It needs, shall we say, direction from a national level. It needs the Parliament to bring both sides together, to hammer it out, talk about it, have a committee meeting, get everybody together in one room, and basically sit down and discuss exactly what needs to be done. The communication that we have had, however, from Fife Council, from local MSPs, from local candidates in the area, has all been positive, like your supportive of rail in the area. It's been a positive dialogue, but it's not going very far, if you know what I mean. Lam Lewis Acres, MSYP for Dunfermline. I carried out a survey in my local area with my electorate, which is in Dunfermline, which is part of West Fife, which will be massively affected by the petition. 22 per cent of people disagreed that it would benefit tourism, so that's an astonishing 78 per cent of the people that I surveyed said that it would benefit tourism. 78 per cent of people said that it would take travel off the roads. 89 per cent of people said that it would help them gain jobs, and 100 per cent of people surveyed support this campaign. Two of the MSYPs in Fife, including myself, were both elected on to the back of improving transport, especially railway links in Fife. It's an issue that's pertinent to young people as well as older people and has the full backing of the Scottish Parliamentarians over in Fife. It would make a massive difference with the support of the Scottish Parliament and having the Scottish Parliament support in our campaign as well. Can I just go back to Fife? If Fife Council do not take us forward with Sestrans and take it to Transport Scotland, it is never going to get on the agenda for infrastructure investment. I'm aware of that. It's a battle on many fronts. It's a new campaign. We're only six months out of the gate. We've been talking about it for quite a few years, but it's a new campaign. We are, at the moment, chasing as many routes as possible, but we want it known from the one that this is something that is going to benefit nationally, a lot of people nationally. It's not just Fife and Clackmannot, it's anybody north of Fife that takes a train. We want it on record with this Parliament that this is what we are doing. We are chasing it up with Fife Council. The next step in terms of Fife Council, and this is the discussions that we've had, is to get the existing STAG report updated and then move it through their procedures in terms of getting it on the books there. Obviously, this is something that affects Clackmannot as well. We also need to raise issues with them as well. It is early days at this point, yes, so we'll admit that. It's just a case of getting everybody in the same room. In terms of Clackmannot as well, I will be contacting the MSYPs in Clackmannot sure to see if they can get a dialogue with their local MSPs, councillors and MPs about this topic and raise support locally in Clackmannot sure within the Scottish Youth Parliament. There will be a dialogue between the young people and their local elected representatives as well. It won't just be young people and Fife that will be talking to our councillors and our MSPs. There will be a dialogue between Clackmannot sure MSYPs and, hopefully, Stirling MSYPs as well, as it affects them, as it is an issue that would be apparent to them as well. I've got two points. I'm just saying any views or clarification that you have on recite and freight. I remember years ago at the time of the discussions into the construction of the Stirling Allowing Extension proposals being made by many real groups that you can extend. I just wondered where recite stood in the grand scheme of this, given that that does seem to be an extension, a logical extension of the Clackmannot sure link. Equally, I have to say, a lot of the freight traffic that was predicated on was based on coal traffic for Longannock that was currently coming over the fourth bridge that would be taken off and freed up capacity on the fourth bridge, but, given the demise of Longannock, what is the capacity for freight, given the difficulties that we've had at recite? It's actually a bit of a double whammy. Yes, Longannock, unfortunately, is leaving as it's going to be shut down, and yes, it's unfortunate that those people are going to lose their job, but it does open a wealth of opportunities for the area in terms of freight, and going back to the leaving-mouth extension. Leaving-mouth extension runs directly past and the rails are still there, runs directly past Diagio, for instance, which is one of the biggest breweries in Scotland. At the moment, in terms of the freight capacity on that line, trains have to actually travel to Dumferlin and then reverse back down the line to go to Recife. There is already an extension running to Recife. If there was a sport put in which just what plan A calls for called the Crombie Point, that would allow commuter trains to run directly on to the Edinburgh south lane towards Edinburgh, but at the same time, it would also give interconnectivity for the freight trains to be able to continue straight down into Recife. The Stag report of 2010 was very clear on that point that the beachhead and the port of Recife are vastly underused as a direct result of transport capacity in Fife. It could not make it any clearer in terms of the actual Stag report. There is another opportunity straight off the bat. We have freight provision there. If we have the proper link in place, if we have the Crombie Point in place, the line will require some upgrades in terms of passing loops for freight trains, then straight away, you have the port of Recife being used a lot more than it could be. I know for a fact that I have had conversations with Bruno Steinhoff, one of his representatives of the Steinhoff group that owns your furniture retailers, harvies and all that sort of stuff. He spoke very highly of being able to bring items in at the port of Recife, or at least that is the indications that they give. Even Babcock Industries, for instance, is based out of the port of Recife as well. It is all freight opportunity. At the moment, we have two docks sitting empty because of the ferry crossing. They could be used for cargo. There is plenty of space there to do expansion. There is enough space there for us to put industrial complexes. There is enough space there for people to be able to transport goods in and out of that port straight north. It is not just that we might have lost long on it and a lot of the freight was based on that, but at the end of the day it opens up a wealth of opportunity in terms of being able to put other types of freight on that line. It opens up the opportunity to have a landing dock at Recife, which is something that I believe would be sorely needed. It is all jobs, it is all investment, but the problem is that no company worth the salt is going to look at Fife and think, you know, this transport infrastructure is up to do in the job. Until we can have the infrastructure, it is a kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. Until we can have the infrastructure, then the companies are not going to base their decision to come to Fife on that, and we are going to end up losing it. A perfect example is the new link that is being built down south, HS2, HS1. That is a high-speed rail. It makes no mistakes. We are in direct competition with our neighbours down south. If a company looks at the UK as a whole and says, you know, what the infrastructure down south is better than it is here, then that is what is going to happen. We are going to lose factories, we are going to lose trade and investment for freight because our infrastructure is simply not up to it. Back to your original question, the freight, yes, it is based on that, yes, it is based on long-on it, but the wealth of opportunities that would open up is overwhelming. You are talking about a lot of companies that ship from down south would rather bring their goods straight into the south, right into the back of a wagon, right into the back of a wagon and way north on the drain. Good morning. I am a great supporter of building and infrastructure in Scotland, and I genuinely believe that transport, local transport, is crucial to ensure the securing of industry and jobs. So what would be very interesting for me would be what support you can actually get from five council, I think that is important, but also if you could try and demonstrate which industries would welcome the opportunity to engage with a rail network. There are a lot of firms out there. It would be nice if you could do a bit of flag work to support your petition for the future because I would like to see this go forward and build on what you have laid the foundation on. So do not just assume that it is a hard challenge and you have mentioned on a number of times repeatedly that there is freight available. Let's try and prove it. Let's try and get some companies who would indicate that they would be interested at the very least. It's actually funny that you should mention that there is a appendices A, B, D, C and E. I think that it is attached to the STAG report. Unfortunately, I have not got it with me, but it was actually consultation with businesses in Fife, and it lists their responses. Most of them are positive, not just in terms of moving their workforce but in terms of moving their goods as well. However, I agree, as I have already said, that the campaign is new. It is straight out of the gate, and that legwork will be done. We will be contacting not just companies in Fife but ones that have possibly put an interest in possibly coming to Fife. I think that that would help your case a great deal. However, I think that you would need to lean on the council as well. I think that that is going to be an important element of all of this. I thank you for your petition. In all your discussions that you have had with various MSPs and local authorities, has there been any discussion regarding the use of the fourth circle line once Lungannock closes? One of the reasons why that line was reinstated was to allow Colfraith to get to Lungannock. It passes through towns on the route there, but clearly, from Allawa into Lungannock, there were no planned stations built as part of that proposal. Has there been any indication that Fife Council is prepared to review the STAG report? Cestrans is prepared to review the whole situation regarding that line, because there was a lot of public expenditure put into creating that line or recreating that line to allow Colfraith to go from Allawa primarily into Lungannock. Has there been any indication that the opportunity that will be created if and when Lungannock closes to create a real benefit to communities along that line after 2016? That is the thing. The STAG report, again, I am going back to it, and I understand that it is a 2010 STAG report. It does need updating, but the STAG report talks primarily is option A, because there were four different options. One was if we were to make modifications to the existing line, the second one was to use the line as is, and that was an option B, obviously. There weren't two struck on that. Option C was partial line usage and supplementary buses. Option D was basically just buses. In terms of everything from environmental impact to cost analysis, it comes back and says yes, it is going to cost more. I think that the figure was about £56 million in total to get the line up and running and make changes to it as well. It is the old scenario. If you are going to do it, you may as well do it right. The STAG report contains every single part of what would need to be done on that line in order to make it viable. The beauty is that, because long-anit was operating it as a coal line and because it was re-established for that reason and because a lot of work was done to it and it has been maintained to keep coal trains running, the modifications to it will be less than what they actually were back when the STAG report was generated. It calls for £56 million, but I think that £8.7 million of that is for contingencies. You are talking about an overall bill of about £48 million or thereabouts to re-establish it. However, the railway line already runs through each of the individual video villages that we are talking about. All that you are talking about is the establishment of platforms. There would need to be remedial work done to the line to upgrade it from a 35-mph to a 60-mph track, passing loops for freight trains and, of course, the preferred option A, which makes the most sense, is to build the SPAR for southbound trains to Edinburgh. However, it is using an existing rail. It is not changing any direction, it is not changing any of the actual foundations that it sits on, nothing like that. It is a simple case of signalling passing points and the SPAR to be built. It is using an existing resource and then expanding on that resource to make it economically viable for passenger services and for freight put services. The two of them together make it more than a viable option. The interest in the local area is overwhelming. It is as simple as that. From the west-fife villages, it does not matter where you are going, unless it is done firmly, you are talking about two or three buses or two buses in a train just to get to Edinburgh. In fact, we were joking about it in the elevator coming up. I had to take three buses to get here. Why? Because we do not have a rail link in my village, which this would deliver. In the local area, I cannot stress enough that it is using existing infrastructure to improve that infrastructure. With the SPAR, it simply takes existing infrastructure and makes it better, more economical and more viable for the local area. Any other project that is subsequent to that makes them more viable. It is all detailed in the STAG report. The entire option just needs to be updated. The conversations that I am going to have with Fife Council are about getting the STAG report updated. I believe that leaving myth, I have just had theirs updated for the second time. I am aware of the rail movements on that line, because there are some 24 rail movements a day just related to Llongannock. That transports 2,300 tonnes of coal, and every movement is actually taking place there. The capacity to put rail passenger facilities on that line would be greatly enhanced if Llongannock closes. For me, the reality is that there is not much thinking about the opportunity to put passenger stations there to allow that line to be fully utilised. I also know that the level of freight that comes out of the site clearly would not amount to the same level of movement as the coal at the present time. Clearly, there are opportunities there, and we will see how we can take it forward. That is the thing as well. The passenger services are not new services. All you would need to do is extend the Glasgow Stirling service. That would be an extension to existing services and maybe run one or two extra trains. Even in terms of expenditure and rolling stock, that is greatly reduced by the fact that the new extension has been built to ALLA. The service that runs there already is the service that would be used and simply extended out on to Dubferlin or Southbound Edinburgh. As we say, we are not just looking at the short-term view. There is a lot of money to spend on the rail link, but that is not just about the short-term view, but about the long-term games that we are going to get from it. People in the West 5 villages, if you want to go to university, say in Stirling, Edinburgh, Glasgow, you are talking about two hours, three hours on the bus. That means that people can travel directly to university from the West 5 villages, so it is opening up people's horizons, which is something that I do not think that anybody on the panel could oppose. It is opening up people's horizons in terms of employability, opening up a market of Stirling, Clack Manager, Glasgow for Employment. As I said earlier, only 78 per cent of people agreed that it would broaden their horizons. As we know, rural poverty is such a big issue in the Scottish Parliament. I am on the transport environment and rules affairs committee. One of the big things that we highlighted is that a problem with bad public transport is rural poverty. That is a real solution to real problems that people have. Quite often, in the Scottish Parliament, decisions are taken that people might change their lives, but they do not. That is something that is tangible that people can touch, which transforms people in the West 5 villages' lives, who are just now pretty much isolated in terms of employment, education and even just something as simple as having a social life. I would certainly agree with Lewis on that. You do not realise the strain. I have a very unique set of circumstances. My mother has secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. I can assure you that getting on a train is much easier than getting on a coach. The low-liner buses again, the rattle, the squeak and the take forever to get where you are going. Certainly having that access would be essential. I would also point out that a lot of the smaller villages, Kearney Hills, are slightly larger than most of the other villages, but you have Coorish, Valleyfield and the one with the Doctor Surgery. I will get slapped by the local constituents for that one, for not remembering the name of their village. The local area gets cut off snow—perfect example. In 2008, massive snow hit the West 5 villages were completely cut off. You could not get to the Doctor Surgery, you could not get to the local pharmacy, you could not get anywhere. The train does not have a problem with that. The train does a little bit of rail clearing in a way that it goes. That would give priority access for those people to still be able to get out of their villages during the winter. That happens quite regularly, I would say. The response time, because they are classified as small villages, is nowhere near what you would get in major metropolitan areas. Kearney Hill, for instance, took five council two weeks to send a grit around my street, where I lived. I was in one of the bigger villages. For the smaller villages, it was even worse than that. It takes its toll, it really does. That is access to universities, schools and workplaces. That is access for business people to come up here and talk about trading investment in the local area. That is movement of every person, every bit of free everything in the local area. It is real tangible value. I do not know whether there are any more questions that we need to ask. I am interested in—it is not for me to argue the pros and cons of your case. I think that we have to test the petition and find out what level of support there is for it and what issues the petition's committee would have to take into consideration. I am interested in the discussion that took place around expanding recite as a freight terminal. I myself and John Moleson are currently involved in a campaign against the imposition of a freight terminal in the new area. If recite wants one, I can tell them where they could find one. The reality of that situation is that it was all part of the national planning framework. There has been work done by the Transport Committee here who looked at these issues. That did not seem to me to be something that was very high in terms of the priority. I do not think that the feasibility and the business case for that had particularly been made. We have to examine exactly what the capacity would be for freight transport to be expanded in that area, but that is not really for this committee to establish. What we need to do is find out what the views are of the local community, the business community, transport authorities and what have you in relation to the viability of the business case for this link. I am open to suggestions from colleagues as to what we make. Thank you, convener. Can we write to the local authorities who are involved in this and to see their position in how much support they are going to give to us, because it is vitally important that they are not going to support it as one of their priorities. It is never going to reach Transport Scotland. It is never going to reach the Scottish Government for a Stage for Funding, so that will be great to see what their position is on it. I also suggest that we write to Network Rail and ScotRail. One of the arguments that often came out from transport ministers was the issue of putting passenger transport in that area because of the rail movement from Alaw to Longannock, which was designed for freight, for cold freight and not for passengers. Clearly, there is an opportunity and it would be useful to find out from Network Rail and ScotRail what opportunities are opened up by Longannock closing and that line being freed up to put in the stations that has been suggested by the petition. I have a one-line response, which is that we will implement whatever we are directed to by the Scottish Government. They are all of the franchisees, so I do not think that there is contact in the name. I am just thinking of it, but I think that it would be a matter of the stage if… We are just asking for who we should contact as anyone else. I have had direct experience of local representatives not pushing cases on Cestran agendas and are therefore keen to hear what Cestran's view is and whether they have been approached by Fife Council or whether it has been on the agenda so far. Is that actually published in conjunction with Cestran? I will investigate that. Are there any other suggestions from the committee of who we need to speak to to establish what the merits of this petition are? I will make a start by contacting those organisations. We will obviously let you know what the responses we get at and we will see where we take the petition from there, but we will keep you advised on the information and the discussions that we have as we take it forward. I thank you very much for bringing it to us this morning. I will suspend again for a couple of minutes to change witnesses. PE1581 by Duncan Wright on behalf of Safe Scotland School Libraries on Saving Scotland's School Libraries. I welcome the petitioner, Duncan Wright, to the meeting. He is a company today by Yvonne Manning from the Chartered Institute of Library and the Information of Professionals in Scotland. I invite Mr Wright to introduce the subject to us and then we will ask questions. Good morning, everybody. I would like to make three main points. A lot of what we have discussed has been covered in the petition. First of all, a little bit of a background on why we are calling on a national strategy for school libraries in Scotland. We firmly believe that school libraries are unique in their ability to support teaching and learning and they should be the central resource of every school, open every day and staffed by a professionally trained librarian. We believe that all learners should have equal access to a qualified school librarian. Currently, there is no national strategy and unfortunately young people in Scotland are subject to a postcode lottery in regard to the level of school library service that they receive. There is educational inequality taking place currently. If I could just highlight some of the areas of Scotland and the situation of school libraries there. Schools in Glasgow share one school librarian between every two schools. Wrenfrewshire has only seven librarians across 11 schools. South Ayrshire library assistants have replaced professionally qualified librarians and Fife, a school librarian who has retired, has been replaced with a library assistant. That is a hidden cut, I think. At Dumfries academy, the librarian retired was not replaced and instead responsibility for the library was given to the head of English. I believe that there is no librarian currently in Lockerby academy. More recently, in the last financial year, East Wrenfrewshire council has proposed moving to a model where one librarian is shared between two schools. Falkirk council has proposed a 50 per cent reduction in the number of school librarians and closing the centralised school library service. The most recent one was Argyll and Bute. Argyll and Bute have proposed a deletion of all 10 school librarian posts. The spice briefing comments that the number of school library staff fell in 2012 and comments that it has remained relatively stable since then. However, I do not think that the data does not tell us how many of the staff are professionally qualified librarians nor does that data tell us how many of the staff are shared between schools. The positive impact that a school library can have is, I hope, already highlighted in our initial petition. The report impact of school libraries and learning highlighted a considerable body of international evidence showing the impact that school libraries can impact on, including, maybe most importantly, positive attitudes towards learning and higher exam scores. It is important to highlight that, in order to have that impact, the report also highlighted that schools need a qualified full-time librarian who is proactive and has managerial status. In addition to the research that we have already submitted, I would also like to draw your attention to something called the JCSP demonstration library project. That was something that was set up across an island. In 2001, the Irish Minister for Education and Science provided funding for this project as part of the early literacy initiative. 11 schools identified as serving social, economically disadvantaged communities were given funding for a fully resourced school library. Managed by a professionally qualified full-time librarian. Over a three-year period, a major evaluation of the project was carried out and the main findings included. Significantly improved reading scores among the students at these schools, continually increased boot borrowing by students, evidence of better attendance, improved levels of concentration, increased interest and motivation among students, and the official report that it published in 2005, called Room for Reading, said that the findings demonstrate over and over again that well-stocked, well-managed school libraries with access to books through structured library programmes that are directed towards their learning needs and interests of even the most reluctant and hesitant readers can have impacts that are very significant. To give you a little bit of idea of what our vision of a national strategy might be or where we see this may be beginning. A national strategy for public libraries in Scotland has recently been published. We completely welcome this and, as school librarians, we do obviously work closely with our colleagues in the public library sector. We see this as an ideal time to launch a framework for a national strategy for school libraries in Scotland. There are four main points that we feel maybe could be taken forward as initial steps. As I mentioned earlier, there are no definitive figures showing the number or proportion of schools that have a school library and a professionally qualified full-time school library. We would recommend that the education department ensures that this information becomes part of the annual data submission that schools are asked to submit. We would also recommend that the education minister considers examining the role that school librarians and school libraries play in supporting people's literacy levels, enjoyment of reading, information literacy skills, access to knowledge, as well as their self-esteem, confidence, sense of safety and well-being in the school community to greater depth. We would also ask that the education minister publicly welcomes the demonstrable contribution that school libraries make to educational attainment and discusses with Her Majesty's inspectorate embedding the school library into the inspection framework. Finally, we recommend that the education minister as a member of staff acting as lead for libraries to support the work of head teachers and school librarians in delivering positive outcomes for pupils. School libraries are not just about the shelves of books, the computers and the issue in return of books. A good school library with a full-time professionally qualified library is a relationship, a culture and a good school librarian can put the right book into the right child's hand at the right time. Thank you very much, Mr Wright. I will open it up to the committee members to discuss. I think that you made a very powerful argument and a very persuasive one, but there will be some issues there that still have to be examined. Kenny? I am persuaded by the merits of school libraries. I just wondered, given that we are facing times of financial pressures, whether you thought that there was any merit in dovetailing the national strategy with the school strategy, certainly in respect of new builds of schools, because I am reminded that I once visited a new school being built in the north-east of Scotland, where the library was meant to be available for the public, not simply the school, but a bit like school sports facilities. If the school is closed, why should the sports facilities not remain open if they are built in a manner that allows that? Is that something that you think should be looked at, that libraries could or should be, certainly in some smaller communities, be not simply for the school but also for the community? There are many examples of where the school and public libraries are shared in community schools. They are successful, and I think that it depends on the staff. That is what we are arguing here in terms of the professionalism and the professional librarians within that facility. It makes sense. It is the same children and young people in different contexts. School librarians and public librarians work in a sometimes quite a profound different way in terms of delivering the best service for our children and young people. There is an example, especially in Aberdeenshire, where there are community library facilities. The community library is within the school, but there is obviously a different use. It is open to the public from all ages but also for our young people within the education service. It is well planned, and new builds are a really good example where it is well planned and not just stuck on the edge of an existing facility. There is consideration to the professionalism of the staff, and I think that it really does work, and it does make sense. I think that this being the book week, it is important that you are here at the right time and you have people in the right frame of thinking. You have made some very good suggestions. As an ex-councillor for Glasgow City Council, one of the things that I realised was that some of our libraries are actually in the wrong locations now. People have moved on, housing schemes have developed elsewhere and access to a lot of the libraries is not as user friendly as it ought to be. One of the things that I had felt that a lot of our schools would actually play a very important role in not only providing library facilities to local residents but, more importantly, to the students at those schools. Kenym Cascals actually did right in the sense that we really need to look at that more closely because I think that supports financial issues in terms of buildings and locations of buildings, more importantly the locations of those buildings. Of course, if we can use the word dovetail, the service would be ideal. I totally agree that the libraries play an immense role in the education attainment for youngsters. I have been to many countries overseas and one of the things that I have noticed quite markedly is the lack of libraries and the impact that that has on those citizens then. I think that we need to be looking at that, but I think that I know that primarily libraries are normally the responsibility and the jurisdiction of local authorities, but I think that they need help. I think that they do not have all the resources to be able to deliver what we are asking them to do. It is a very tall order. I think that the Scottish Government needs to intervene to support them in that bid, and I think that we need to be looking at these things more strategically. I totally agree and I think that we should take this forward to try and achieve that goal. A strategic overview is exactly what is required. I do not think that local authorities understand the issues. I agree that that does work, but it is important to remember that it is not a one-size-all. It has to be specifically done for each individual school, because public libraries offer a wonderful service to a completely different set of people. You might have a big bug session with some 18-month-old babies, and it is very difficult to have a class of teenagers at the same time, so you have to remember that there has to be that awareness of each other's services, but there is scope in a new Aberdeenshire where it can probably always work well. I do not want to suggest for a moment that the local authorities do not understand and appreciate the difficulty and the challenge that they do. As an ex-councillor, councils are very aware of the challenges that they face. It just means that they cannot face them all by themselves. In terms of managing a library, the library is not just another classroom that is attached to a school. I am talking about a proper library facility in areas that we can all access. I am building on that dovetail. As Duncan said, we work closely and in partnership with the public library colleagues. One of the challenges that public libraries face is to engage with the teenager—the school librarian—that they know those young people. That is their community. I think that a national strategy for school libraries would help to increase the dovetailing and to see where there are gaps and where the strengths are for each sector, so that greater partnership working can take place for the benefit of our young people. I note from the information that we have in front of us that you have received quite a lot of high profile support for your petition from people like Christopher Brookmeyer, Val McDermid, Dean Rankine. I was particularly struck by a comment that came along with the petition that came from a head of English who said that in her school, when it closed down, she knew about the impact of the library being closed in her school. She said, but I know what a difference the restoration of our library has made. Can you give us some idea of what the impact was? I know that, even in your introductory statement, you said that you know that the benefits will—I think that there is an assumption that there are benefits, but can you quantify what those benefits are? Can you show statistically the improvement in attainment or what have you from between schools that do not have librarians, libraries against schools that do? I do not think that there has been any maybe statistical research that we have back up. The report, which has been quoted in numerously time with the Dorothy Williams impact on learning, took various different pieces of information that were available. It looked at the—and made a case for that, but I am not sure if there is anything statistically. I am a school librarian, and I know what would happen if I was not in the school. I know how classes would suffer. There would be no author events issued. There would be nobody teaching information literacy. There would be a much less of anonies on reading for pleasure being promoted within the school. There would be no safe haven for pupils who find a playground, a scary place, and that is almost unquantifiable. Somewhere in school where pupils can go, where it is safe and where it is somewhere that they can get away from what happens in the playground. We also, as school librarians, have an enormous knowledge of the curriculum, so we are able to offer additional support to our teaching colleagues who have been quite open with how much pressure they are under at the moment. As soon as you take away another member of the support staff, particularly the school librarian, who is able to offer support to teachers, that is another issue. No, I take that point. The quality is as much as the quantity in terms of the provision of libraries and librarians. That is a point that we all made. Good morning. It is just one thought that has occurred to me as I have been listening to you speak. Is the reduction in service in relation to librarians a consequence simply of cost reduction as a result of the council tax freeze or whatever else is strait in the circumstances within local authorities? Or are you articulating a concern that there is a broader growth of a lack of understanding of the value that librarians actually bring to the educational service? I am just trying to understand where you think the balance of the issue rests in here. It is an interesting thing that, as a librarian, you do not really need to know in detail what I do if you are getting the service. However, when local authorities backs against the wall, especially if you are within education services, where they have a much smaller percentage of people that they can target to save the money because of the protection of teachers, it is really important that people understand what we do. At that moment in time, people are just thinking about the pounds that they need to save. Your question is about the situation in which our school librarians and our school library services are being removed or degraded as a result of the budget savings that local authorities need to make. However, because there is no national strategy, the local authorities are making decisions in a way that they do not fully understand the implications and they will not know what they miss until they are not there. That makes it very frustrating for us and hence the reason for us to put the petition forward. Local authorities are decision makers who are having to make those decisions because of the budget savings and really understand the implications of what they are doing and not see us as easy targets and discretionary services. It is both. The lack of understanding and a national strategy, the absence of that, which is accelerating the lack of understanding, is in the face of pressures making the library and service too easy an opportunity or an option within the difficult decisions that have to be made. That is where you are coming from. That has been a well-argued case. I will open up to colleagues to suggest how we take it forward and who we need to speak to to progress the petition. We clearly need a national strategy. It has been missing for a long time as I have already indicated as a local authority councillor. I felt that libraries were vulnerable and I remember once there was a strike and somebody said, well, we wanted to worry about that strike, which is a very negative attitude. Therefore, a national strategy is important. I think we need to try to the Scottish Government with a view to asking them how they feel about this issue. Is there any merit in a national strategy to be put together? Causal is another organisation that we need to consider and consult with because they represent a lot of the local authorities. They may have an opinion on this as well to share if they feel that there is merit in having a joint strategy in which the Scottish Government can engage with the local authorities to try and put something together that would be effective. We must have a national minimum standard of libraries in our cities and villages. That can only happen if the Scottish Government gets involved. I think that the absence of a national strategy is valid. It occurs to me that this might be an issue that we might draw to the attention of the Scottish Youth Parliament, because it seems to me that, given the direct relationship that it has with young people, it would be a very positive thing for them to become involved in supporting and campaigning on and lobbying councillors and politicians more generally about. It is an important issue. Notwithstanding the work that we do, I think that it is something that the merits of which would be best communicated to them as well. I have a brief conversation with one of the MSYPs. I could pass his name later if he wanted to, but we have had a brief discussion with him already. I think that Jackson's point is the way that, as a committee, we could bring it to our attention and get it involved. I suggest that we also write to the EIS to get the views on it, because, quite clearly, what is referred to today is the impact on reducing school library services as an impact on the educational attainment levels and on teaching staff directly. I could also suggest that we write to Unison Scotland, because I believe that Unison Scotland represents a number of the school librarians. They might be able to give us up to date information on the impact of potential cuts in services in the library service and how many school libraries are being staffed by unqualified librarians. While their role is still valuable, it might not be as valuable as a qualified professional librarian. If we write to Unison Scotland, they might be able to give us some of those details. There is a school library association. Are you part of supporting the petition already? Yes, they are fully behind the petition, absolutely. As I said, we will take it forward, because I think that you made a very strong and persuasive argument this morning, and we will pursue it as strenuously as we can. We will keep you updated on the responses that we get and we will enter into a dialogue with you about taking it forward. Thank you very much for coming this morning and for bringing the petition to the attention of the committee. Since we took a decision earlier that we are now going to private session to discuss items 3 and 4, I will close the meeting to the public.