 Felly mythen intimadgr slammedestech yn cael trwm chi eit startedo gy conceit gyllideote os Caledde Cymru Gretaeth Ynglass Haethon yn 2017. y bwysig. Tsfodd â'r bywiau a'r bywiau, rwy'n credu i'r meistwyslau o gyrraedd diwrnodd a'r bywiau a'r bywiau a'r bywiau sy'n ddim yn dod o ddisgystaltofaniaeth o gyllidegu i gyfrannu Llywodraeth a Gweithgrifwyr o'r byd ac o gyfrannu Llywodraeth i gyfrannu Llywodraeth i gyfrannu Llywodraeth a'r bywiau i gyfrannu Llywodraeth i gyfrannu Llywodraeth, Let's Get Mad for Wildlife, Scottish Wildlife Trust, One Kind, The Mammal Society, Scotland for Animals, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, PETA UK, Rare Bird Alert and Birders Against Wildlife Crime. I welcome Andrea Goddard to the meeting, along with Clare Bass, Executive Director of Humane Society International UK and Elizabeth Molyneux, a veterinary surgeon for the Wild Animal Welfare Committee. I have the opportunity to make a brief opening statement of up to five minutes, and after that the committee will ask a few questions to help inform our consideration of the petition. I would like to thank you for inviting me to give evidence at today's committee meeting. I'm truly grateful for this opportunity. I would also like to thank Clare and Elizabeth for assisting me today in providing evidence in support of this petition. As from Libby Anderson from One Kind, Marie Todd, MSP and others, I've also been invaluable. In January of this year, Lisa Harvey, my co-petitioner, discovered in a pet shop a female blackbird which had been trapped upon a glue board, which had been placed on the ground by a pest control company, presumably to catch rodents. The blackbird was still alive and had torn off her own leg, tail feathers and most of one wing in her attempt to escape. Lisa was so distressed by what she found that she reported it to the store and posted the story on social media. The story went viral and many who commented said that they couldn't believe that these traps were legal. As an online wildlife campaigner, I picked up on the story and contacted Lisa to ask if she would be interested in setting up a petition to support a ban on these devices from Scotland. And so, with my help, we did just that, and as you can see, the petition gained just under 5,100 signatures in six weeks. Since then, we have been speaking to our local MSPs and other animal welfare organisations to garner support. Consecretly, myself and the Humane Society International have put together an open letter signed by 10 prominent wildlife organisations to the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Rosanna Cunningham, to which we are awaiting her formal response. You should all have a copy of this letter. You should all also have a copy of the SSPCA's written evidence, which very much supports asking for a ban on glue traps. Generally, we are concerned that rodent glue traps are a crude and often ineffective method of wildlife control that inflicts unnecessary suffering. They are indiscriminate and are used and misused excessively and inappropriately. Rodent glue traps are widely sold and available for public purchase across Scotland and for as little as £99 for two traps. Their use is completely unregulated and it has not been possible to establish how many traps are sold and used each year, but given their prevalence in shops and online, it is likely many thousands. Glue traps are designed to trap and immobilise mice and rats but not to kill them. Trapped animals may suffer in many different ways. The glue can clog eyes, nose and ears, the animal may tear and chew fur and limbs off in an attempt to free him or herself. If the person who has set the trap does not return frequently to check it and dispatch the trapped animal, ultimately the animal will die of slow death from starvation, dehydration and or exhaustion. Animals caught on a glue trap are defined as being under the control of man and are thus subject to the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006, which dictates that animals must be dispatched humanely. In practice, members of the public or poorly trained professionals are often unaware of their responsibilities to deal with a trapped animal and are unwilling or unable to dispatch trapped animal humanely. A U Gov poll commissioned by the Humane Society International in 2016 revealed that a significant percentage of the public would dispose live trapped animals in dustbins, inflict in slower and agonising deaths or even drown them. The majority of glue trap manufacturers do not supply appropriate warnings or instructions on their packaging and so often users commit offences under the Animal Welfare Act, inflicting unnecessary suffering but are unaware that they are doing so. Additionally, it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to set glue boards in a place where legally protected species might be caught, and nonetheless many instances of trapped birds, reptiles, amphibians and even pets have been recorded. These instances are doubtless under-recorded as the unwitting perpetrator will not report their own crime and the evidence is easily disposed of. In 2010, the Pest Management Alliance issued a code of best practice for glue boards. These principles are not statutory, however, state that glue boards should only be sold or used by adequately trained and competent professionals. All other options for rodent control must be considered before glue boards are used. Glue boards must be inspected within 12 hours of placing. Detailed records and location plans must be made and copied. Trap rodents must be dispatched humanely. As glue boards are widely available to the public, the very first principle is being totally ignored by shops and manufacturers and these guidelines are not supplied with the majority of glue traps nor are these principles policed in any way. This in effect renders the entire code of practice ineffectual and rather pointless. We believe that the current widespread use and misuse of glue boards in Scotland is causing significant and completely unnecessary suffering both to target and non-target species. There is absolutely no logic in allowing the sale of these items to the untrained public for DIY control. We would not dream of allowing the sale and use of such products to catch, for example, fferal cats and the suffering these products inflict on mice and rats is equally unacceptable. The professional pest control industry may argue that glue traps should be regulated for use in certain situations in which other control methods cannot be used or have already failed. In considering this point of view, we refer the committee to the regulations in place in New Zealand, which tightly restricts the use of rodent glue traps to professional pest controllers in only very limited situations. These crude, indiscriminate and horrific devices do not belong in any progressive forward thinking country. We urge this committee to recommend legislative action to prohibit public sale and indiscriminate use of glue traps in Scotland. We suggest consultation with a range of expert groups, which we can recommend to implement primary legislation or, potentially, amendment of section 11 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to prohibit glue boards as a method of taking wild animals. Such a ban would enjoy broad public support and would show that Scotland takes the welfare of all animals, pest or otherwise, seriously. Thank you very much for that. I may be opening up for help as I consider the petition. It is your view that there should be no public sale of these traps at all. Are there any circumstances in which professionals should be allowed to use them? We sympathise with pest control companies in so far as they have to provide the service to people who have a pest problem, but there are lots of alternative methods that they can use to dispatch those animals. We can suggest other alternative methods such as that they can get some electrocution boxes where the rats or mice go in and they get electrocuted inside. It is a much more humane way of controlling those animals. Is there any use to your preferences that there should not be any use? Well, ultimately, we would not like to see any use of them at all because they are completely horrendous and inhumane. I am not sure if you want to come in there. There are other examples in other countries. For example, New Zealand stopped public sale of them in 2010 and gave the industry five years to sort itself out and stop using them. They are now in a position, as of 2015, where you need ministerial approval to get a licence to use the glue trap. New Zealand is really tight on pest species because of their native birds and nobody has applied for that licence in the last two years. It shows what the industry can do even in a country where rats and mice are very dangerous towards native birds and wildlife. Australia and Victoria have put in legislation that makes it so tight that pest controllers can, in theory, apply for licences for glue traps, but they do not very often do that because they have just found other methods of doing it. We appreciate that a licensing system might be quite a difficult thing to implement. Thank you very much, Rona Mackay. In your submission, you said that previous petitions to the UK Government failed in their attempt to obtain a ban of those products for sale or use. Can you tell me what happened to those previous petitions and whether they actually got any response from the UK Government and what your thoughts are on why they were unsuccessful? I cannot remember the exact details. When I first looked at putting this petition together, I did do some research and found that the SSPCA, I believe, petitioned the Government a few years ago. I am not sure what details were of that and what happened, but since they are still legal to buy, they clearly weren't successful. No, that's true. If I might add to that, from Humane Society International, we did lobby down in Westminster for exactly the things that Andrew is asking for here. This was just immediately before Brexit, and we were getting a lot of interest from MPs down there. There was an EDM and written questions tabled and answered. At the time, the Government said that it had no plans to ban glue traps down there, but it would look into the possibility of replicating some of the systems that Liz mentioned in Australia and New Zealand. Brexit happened, so it went a little bit further down the list. This is really relating to the convener's question. Do you have any idea if there are a number of professional companies that use these, say, in Scotland or throughout the UK? What percentage would use the glue traps? We don't know total numbers. I wouldn't even like to put a guess to it a lot. However, there are a substantial number of companies who proudly proclaim that they don't use glue traps on accounts of the welfare issues associated with them. The industry— Is an awareness that they are controversial? Yes, absolutely. Increasingly, the traditional pest control industry is trying to move towards a more ethical, enlightened approach, which does not immediately resort to killing everything straight away. Glue traps that many companies see as a particularly egregious and unnecessary method and will refuse to use them. I want to ask you again about the guidelines. You have mentioned it during your opening speech and you have mentioned the statutory and non-statutory guidelines that are in place. Can you just reiterate, are you saying that there are no guidelines that could be put in place or are currently in place that would adequately support the use of these traps? The pest management lines have got a code of best practice that the industry would adhere to, you would like to think. It's the public that don't ever get to see the codes of practice. That's the worry. The principles within the codes of practice aren't at all communicated to the users of these products. That's the main concern that we've got here. It's about the disconnect between the public and the guidelines. In terms of professional use, where they're working under a professional registered basis, you feel they are looking at the guidelines but then do you think the guidelines are adequate in professional use? It's difficult to know which companies are adhering to them or not. If you endeared to the guidelines, you would very rarely use glue traps. The guidelines start off saying everything else should have been considered and detailed records of everything else should be made. This is when New Zealand Australia has ended up a bit. Is there still some circumstances where it might be what you think you want to use? If you put in the full consideration of the pest management lines as code, you actually wouldn't be using them very often at all. At the other extreme, you google these. You go online and you can buy these. There's virtually nothing on the packet. There's nothing to even suggest you're going to have to kill an animal at the end of the day. There's a big disparity between the guidelines and general sale. Our briefing states that glue traps are most commonly used by professional contractors, but you make it clear that those devices are still available for sale in the public. Although I note in your letter to the cabinet secretary that you have identified that a number of retailers have stopped selling the product, what level of regulation and monitoring is applied to the sale of glue traps? As far as we are aware, none. They are widely available in corner shops, DIY stores and chemists. Strangely, they are often sold. There is no control at all. Anyone can walk into any shop and buy a glue trap for 99p. Our campaign resulted in about 220 stores, including some large wholesale stores such as Booker's, making the decision to voluntarily withdraw glue traps from sale on the basis of the animal welfare concerns that we presented, but that is entirely voluntary. At the moment, there is no regulation governing their sale or use. If there was regulation on monitoring, whose responsibility do you think that lies with? I have to say that I couldn't answer that in Scotland. We have talked to the animal plant health authority, which regulates other traps. For example, for breakback traps, there is an exemption for humane-ness checking for what they affectionately term small ground vermin. That is another issue that we have, but the animal plant health authority could, in theory, be the responsible authority agency for considering the circumstances in which the use of glue traps, as Liz said, could be justified. I think that it would be a very small number of cases, but I don't know for up here. I'm not sure where in Scotland what the equivalent would be. When licences are applied for any kind of control of deer and things like that, it's through SNH, isn't it? I'm assuming that that would be the governing body in this instance. Andrea Goddard mentioned in her opening remarks a situation in which a blackbird was caught in a glue trap at a pet shop, which subsequently went viral. I'm sure that I saw that myself. We know that it's illegal under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to use glue boards to trap birds. However, in 2014, the Scottish Government's position was that it had no plans to ban their use for catching rodents, but it had planned to review aspects of policy in relation to animal traps. I haven't noticed anything on the radar since 2014, but are you aware of any consultations, discussions or outcomes from any Scottish Government reviews in this area? No. There's been no sign of anything. Not that I can recall, no. I'm sorry. Okay. Right, that's what we can discuss that later. Can I ask if you've had conversations with the pest control industry themselves about this? Yes. Wait. Sorry, go on. I'm just wondering what they respond to. I mean it's not—I don't know if I speak for the old committee. I hadn't been aware of this. It sounds absolutely horrendous that you could go in and buy something and it's unregulated. My instinct is, why would you have it at all? I'm just wondering whether, in your conversation with industry, they have explained why they think it might be necessary? With regard to the petition, there were about three or four pest control companies that got back to me and said that they would quite happily sign the petition. They would never like you saying, Clare, that some pest controllers are very sympathetic and they wouldn't use glue traps because of the humane implications. We do have quite a few pest control companies on board with this, but we did ask the agency—what was it called?—the pest control agency. We asked them to sign the open letter and they got back and said that they wouldn't because of the potential bureaucratic implications. That's understandable. In the sense that if they were still allowed, if it wasn't a complete ban— If they had it, yeah. The question is whether it really was more simple to ban them completely rather than try to regulate something that would be very challenging to regulate. Yeah, there's three options. There's an outright ban that would be a lot easy to implement or there would be a ban with exemption clauses within it. Like in New Zealand, the pest control companies can apply for a licence on a case-by-case basis to use glue traps. Or like in Australia, in the state of Victoria, they've banned glue traps just for public use. There are quite a lot of loopholes where pest control companies can use them or people—there's no regulation with regards to what is classed as a pest control company and there's quite a few loopholes there, so that wouldn't be preferable for us. The volume of uses of glue traps, do you have any idea of the turnover or the market capacity in Scotland? It's really difficult to get a grasp on those numbers. Like I said in the opening statement, likely thousands are used in Scotland. I mean, we tried to get those numbers and really struggled. The only indicator we had was actually when one of the large wholesalers that we campaigned to, who voluntarily withdrew them from sale, told us that they had been shifting—it was 100,000 traps in a four-month period through their wholesale. That was UK-wide. That gives you a very rough indication that that was bookers, so they're a sizable company. Manufactured in the UK, have you spoken to the manufacturers? There's one company, STV Pest Control, who we have dealt with extensively and who have modified their packaging and withdrawn them from advertised sale to the public, so they're trying to only sell them to pest control professionals now. They're the only UK manufacturer that we're aware of, but a lot are coming in—a lot, say, made in China—and have got really badly translated instructions and pictures of guinea pigs on the front. It's really quite a bad confused marketplace. If that's all the questions, we might want to think then about how we want to take this petition forward. First of all, I would want to thank the petitions for highlighting. That is not something that I had been aware of. It does seem pretty—it's an area that we really would want people to be looking at, certainly if there are other alternatives. I don't know whether people suggest what we might do, Brian. Can I ask my first instance, just from my own information, where the competence of the Scottish Government lies within this, do they have the ability to ban? We might want to ask them if they think they have. That might be a way of dealing with it. I suspect they must do it. I mean, I don't know what it would come under, but if it comes under animal welfare, they have some responsibility for that. There's a separate question about whether they're allowed in commercial terms to ban something, I don't know, but then— I think that the only reason I'm asking is whether or not we would then write to the Scottish Government. If that's not the case, we would bring right to the UK Government. I think that if we can identify that, we can—I might suggest in the first instance that we write to the Scottish Government. I mean, I'm really picking up on the point that Angus made about whether there has been any follow-on from the commitments that have already been made, what their area of responsibility is and what their view is. Michelle? I mean, obviously, Jim Hume asked the question, which is in our notes, quite a long time ago, basically, and the response was that we have no plans at this time to ban them, which does suggest that they feel that they have the right to do so. I think that if they thought they had no authority to do it, they would, at that point, have said— We don't have any— We don't have the competence to do this. I suppose that the slight issue for me is that I do feel quite strongly having read all this and listened to what's being said, that actually the public ban would be something that would be quite reasonable to look at. I wonder whether we should be stating that up front if everybody was in that mind, and that we should ask for consideration of what that would include if we were writing to the Government rather than just saying. Could you tell us if you've done it? It would be reasonable to say that, given the evidence that we've heard, we believe that a compelling case has been made for a ban, and that, in terms of effectiveness and also just simply in terms of cruelty, it's not something that we want them to respond to and could they outline for us what they would want to do, so they're slightly more than just saying, do you have a view on this? I'm perspective, because if we write and ask, have you done anything, they write back and say no, then we write back and say it's telling. If we're talking about the kind of numbers that have been stated here today, that's an awful lot of usage while we're thinking about it. In terms of the industry or the professionals, are there specific groups that we should be—perhaps we could ask the clerks who those groups would be that we would write to? If we're writing to the Scottish Government looking for a ban, can you just clarify what kind of ban we're—just a public ban, because one of the things that's quite struck was what was happening in New Zealand, and they allowed the professional bodies five years to phase the whole thing out? I don't think we've got to the point where I think we're saying the case against these traps is compelling. What is their response to that case and what are they within their ability to do and what are they willing to commit to? We can then look further at—I think we've not got to the point where I think we would say, how would that ban express itself just on the basis—with respect, we haven't heard the alternative argument of why somebody, when some circumstances might think they might be necessary, although I think there's been some reference to it. My sense is that we should write to them, we should write to the professionals. It's interesting that at least a number of these organisations have said, well, they wouldn't use them, so it may be that this is actually more of an issue for individual members. The public think they've got a problem and they're trying to sort it themselves, and some of that then might be just simply a bit of awareness. Obviously, they won't be supportive, but they might have some knowledge of what happened to previous petitions and things like that, and just to get their view, just to add weight to it. What has been helpful is the open letter, because in other circumstances, we would have written to them on those organised aspects. We have that, and that's a strong argument. I think that we should reflect on that in a letter to the Scottish Government, and it would be worth speaking to SSPC. We're very interested in what is their awareness of where the responsibility would lie, and perhaps we could also find out a bit more about what New Zealand in Australia actually did in terms of legislation, that might inform our thinking as well. I think that there's quite a lot there, just in terms of responding to the evidence and to try and see where we push the Scottish Government and what they actually want to move forward on a commitment that they've already made. The other organisation that's been suggested is the National Pests Technicians Association. We can ask them for their view as well. Anything else? Maria, I don't know if you want to say anything. I'm very pleased with the outcome, if that's what you're going to do. I met with Andrea, who's a constituent of mine in the summer, and I too found that there was a compelling case. I have met with the Government once and started preliminary inquiries much along the same lines as you have. I haven't had a response yet, but I'm keen to progress this, and I'm very pleased to have the support of the Parliament Petition Committee to do that. In that case, there are a number of things there that we can pursue. I thank the petitioners very much for coming along, and I think that the both written evidence and the evidence given today has been extremely helpful to the committee's considerations. I can thank you. I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes. The second new petition for consideration today, which is petition 1670, by James Cassidy on reform of the Scottish electoral system to make it democratic and accountable. The petition calls for a review of the current system, which allows candidates for a constituency seat to also stand on the regional list. The note by the clerk and the spice briefing provide background and context with reference to the Scotland Act 1998, the Burstnut Commission and the National Assembly for Wales, and notes the Scottish Government's response to petition 1666, which states its commitment to consulting on electoral reforms this year. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I think that it would be worth saying that maybe everybody in here should declare an interest, and that might be part of the problem. I can understand from the petitioner's point of view that there is an issue where politicians will have a personal experience and a direct view. From one party's point of view, it would be interesting that, from very early on, we said that we couldn't stand in both. There were exceptions in certain circumstances, and we thought that we pushed at one time for it to be something that was simply the role for all of the parties. Once it became clear that it wasn't the role for all the parties, then there came changes. It is interesting that the National Assembly for Wales, the Labour Party there, did it for a while. It was a role for everybody, and they think that they have moved away from that. I can see the strong argument that they have been rejected by the electorate that why they should be able to come in on the list. On the other side, there are effectively two elections running at the same time, although they are intertwined. The whole premise of the Scottish Parliament is that we do not get this huge majority one way or the other in that it tends to require the Parliament to work more in partnerships. I would be interested to see what the thoughts are in terms of, if we changed that electorate, what would happen to that particular system. I think that there are two different things. First of all, I think that the acceptance that there was a proportional representation system changes the nature of what happens at elections, but, even within that, what proportional representation system do you use and there will be different anomalies in different systems. Specifically, even within that system, we can see that there has been a different iteration of it in Wales and in Scotland. Even within Scotland there has been a different approach taken by different parties. Some of that, frankly, has been about where people have been electorally. In the early days, from our perspective, Labour Party, for example, where the one seats were in the constituency section said, less of an interest in the list, smaller parties at that time would have more of an interest in the list. You can see that over time it has changed. The Government is having a consultation to find out about electoral reforms and what Scottish people would like to see. We presumably would need to ask how that is going and when it is expected to report. It just says, plan for this year. That is on-going, so I do not think that we can do anything other than ask them how that is going and the electoral commission to find out what is going on with that. I have some empathy with the petitioner's position in terms of saying, well, you know, if the electorate has rejected somebody, I think perhaps what he is slightly missing is that in a constituency, particularly if you have a sitting MSP who does a good job, then often the electorate will want to retain that person. They may also like another candidate and another candidate that is party and they may get a big rash of party votes, if you like, on the basis that they know that person is at the list and therefore would get in as well, so sometimes it is not necessarily about rejection, sometimes it is about that balance because not everybody votes blindly for a party. Some people actually do vote different ways when it comes to the list and the constituency, where perhaps have a bit more empathy is where there is a sitting MSP who is not elected first past the post in their constituency and then comes in on the list, and then there could be an argument for it being undemocratic, but I think it is a really difficult system and democracy is not perfect whichever way you cut it and however you arrange it somebody will say that is not democratic. I was looking through the papers and it says that the commission believes that preventing dual candidacy would be undemocratic, that was their view at the time, and it says that the commission has put the interests of the constituent at the centre of our concerns and I do think that people have spent a lot of time looking at this and I know parties, I know our party is looking at it again as well because it does pose a problem, but I think that we do actually have to be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where the best candidates may not get into Parliament because at the end of the day you do want a good Parliament, so we need a democratic system that is flexible enough that you end up with good people in here to actually make decisions for the country. Okay, anyone else? Lancas? Well, just to see what's regard to our party, certainly in 2011 the majority of the candidates stood on constituency and the list, but in the recent 2016 election it was basically up to each individual to decide whether they wanted to be on the list or not, and the majority who were confident of retaining their seats or winning a seat didn't stand on the list, so the party gave them the option to decide themselves. I wouldn't have been able to stand on both, but I wouldn't have considered it frankly necessary or thought of things, but it was interesting, I can remember, in the first Parliament being elected and both of the key people that I fought the seat against came in on the list. At one level you think that that's a bit, it seems in some ways unfair because technically they'd been rejected by the electorate. On the other hand, there were people who also had a great deal to contribute and their party endorsed them to stand on the list. The best example, of course, is our own First Minister who twice was beaten and then finally won a constituency seat. Did she make a contribution while she was on the list when she'd technically been rejected by the constituency? From her own party's perspective she clearly did do so. I think that at one level I feel as if the petitioner has highlighted that there is something that the parties have been wrestling with. There is no doubt that there is an issue here and there is a sense that it doesn't seem if you've gone out and said, I'm going to get rid of that woman, I don't want her anymore, and she pops back and you can see that, but it is because there are two systems working together and it's also something that has been looked at in some detail internally within parties and externally, but it's almost beyond anybody in this room that will have an interest in it, and so a personal interest makes it much more difficult to be objective. From the point of view of how we take it forward, it would be worthwhile to write to the Scottish Government and to the Electoral Commission to ask—they've seen the review—what does that look like? Do we have a timescale and how would it be conducted? Is it going to be conducted internally by the Scottish Government, or are they looking at externalising that and maybe consulting more broadly with people like the petitioner who feels that there has been, that there's a deficit there? Is it actually appropriate for us really to be dealing with this petition because it feels for me that it is a matter for the Electoral Commission in terms of what's being asked? It is extremely difficult for us and I feel that the Electoral Commission should be dealing with the parties and coming to a conclusion to ask us, as elected members, to decide whether or not we think it's fair. The way we're elected is quite difficult. I understand what you're saying, but I think that we're just acting on behalf of the petitioner. We don't actually have to make a decision to pass an opinion ourselves, we're just getting information, I think, for the petitioner. I think that we're reflecting that there is an issue there, clearly, because we've all done our part, and everyone else has wrestled with it. The Scottish Parliament now has responsibility for its own electoral system, and therefore it will be getting decided. We made a decision around 16 to 18-year-olds and so on for local government. The reality is that, even though there may be a personal interest in it, there is also constitutional obligation on it. I think that if we write to the Scottish Government and the Electoral Commission, really trying to establish the point of view of the Electoral Commission, is there an issue here? From the Scottish Government, if they have any review, what does that look like? How will they conduct it? How will they draw on the views, the very strong hell views that this petition reflects? It's not just an individual's view, I think. It would be quite interesting whether there are similar systems in other parts of the world, whether they have had the same issue. That might be something that the Electoral Commission might help us with in terms of how those systems work, and the reality is that any electoral system, there are downsides. Okay, so I think that recognising that there are quite substantial issues there, and I ask the Scottish Government really to try and put a bit of detail into their own commitment to review and to ask the Electoral Commission to reflect on the issues that have been highlighted in detail in the petition itself. That's agreed. If we can move on then to the second agenda item, which is the consideration of continued petitions. The first continued petition for our consideration today is petition 1408, on updating of pernicious anemia of vitamin B12 deficiency, understanding and treatment. We will ask consider this petition on 25 May and, at that meeting, agree to reflect on the evidence that we heard from the Minister for Public Health and Sport and Scottish Government officials and consider a note with a clerk of future meeting. The clerk's note provides a summary of that evidence session and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I'm struggling to think of where else we could get evidence from, quite frankly. I think that we've taken a lot of evidence on this particular one. I certainly don't think that any more evidence sessions are required, that's what we now do with that, and it's the issue, I think. I suppose that I don't know whether people do think that there is anyone else who could take evidence from, and because you've been involved with this maybe longer than anybody else, do you? I can't see where else we could go for evidence on this issue, to be honest. I think that we're fairly well briefed on it. I suppose that what I thought when I was reading through the extent to which the conversation now is a much more detailed clinical debate, it's not really about the level of awareness in the medical profession, but there's a dispute about what's the right approach. I wonder whether, in some ways, the petitioner has managed to highlight something quite important that is now being looked at. I know that she means unhappy with the kind of what's happened, but I wonder whether realistically, is there anything else that we could be doing? Earlier, when I read it, you had to go through it several times from my perspective, knew into it, and it seems that the conflict exists within the profession around how the guidelines should look and whether they should be rewritten. I think that the information appears to be there. It's just how it's understood, translated to each other, and it does seem to be an internal debate for them in terms of making sure that GPs and clinicians all understand what's available. I don't know whether the clerk can ignite me on that, but I had the feeling at the end of the notes that what the petitioner had done had highlighted the lack of understanding of the guidelines. Actually, in going through some of this work, people had actually taken the time to look at it and think about it, which I guess is what you are referring to. The petitioner has established a group. What the petitioner is asking for is that she wants to speak to the group now. Dr Alasdair Hart has said that her work is at a very early stage, so meeting at this stage would not be premature. I wonder whether, if there were an assurance that she would be able to contribute to her thinking and her work, would that be something that would be of use? I can see that, from your point of view, it's not too early at this stage. A commitment that the group would take evidence from patients and sufferers, people who had something to contribute, of which the petitioner would obviously be a leading person. I was going to ask that we wrote to the Government, and we should point out that the petitioner doesn't feel that any of her requests have been met. She talks about parietal cells not even being acknowledged, et cetera. We should point out on behalf of the petitioner that she feels that way, but also perhaps that we're not sure how much more evidence can be taken. We could ask the Government to keep the petitioner updated on any developments and keep her in the loop, as far as the on-going in the group work is. I'm closing it right now, but recognising really to the Largest Centre of Work has done seeking assurance that, or asking the group, would they be blazed with her, would they meet with her at a reasonable point, and would the Government keep her and groups of people that she represents inform Angus? For the record, picking up on your point, I was going to Dr Alasdair Hart on the request for the on-going liaison with the petitioner and his response that the SLWG activity is still at a very early stage and it's still to be fully scoped. I would have thought that that was an ideal time to speak to the petitioner at an early stage rather than later on. It might be an idea to suggest that to them that an early meeting would be better than a later meeting. That might satisfy the sense that the petitioner has that there's still this lack of miscommunication of what her concerns are. I think that we feel that we're coming towards a point where there's not much more that the Petitions Committee can do, but we recognise the importance of the issues that have been highlighted that perhaps through the Scottish Government asking that the petitioner is kept informed and maybe suggesting to the group that they would want to have a discussion with the petitioner and the point that Angus makes is a strong one that at the very early stages might be useful and valuable. Is that agreed then? Okay, in that case. If we can move on to petition, the next petition is petition 1517 by Elaine Holmes and Olive McElroy on polypropylene mesh medical devices. We last considered this petition on 28 September when we heard evidence from the petitioners and Dr Wail Agar. The Clats note provides a summary of that evidence session. I also circled with a note that there are a number of submissions from mesh survivors, and I think that we should record a thanks to those who have taken the time to make those submissions. A lot of them are highly personal and difficult to draft. Members will recall that we agreed to write to Cabinet Secretary to set out our concerns about the availability of the updated patient information leaflet and the presence of outdated information on Scottish Government and NHS Scotland websites. The Cabinet Secretary provided a response on Tuesday of this week confirming that the chief medical officer wrote to all health boards in May to request that the literature that is available in hospital and primary care premises is up to date. She also advises that NHS Inform has been reviewing and updating its website, providing a link to the current version of the stress urinary in continent's patients information leaflet. That link has been added to the Scottish Government's website. The Cabinet Secretary adds that the Scottish Government is working with Healthcare Improvement Scotland to establish a mesh oversight group. That group will work with health boards to ensure that the recommendations of the independent review are fully implemented and will give further consideration to the patient information that is available. We have previously agreed to publish a report in the petition and have secured time for a debate, although we await confirmation of the timing of that debate. We should also note that, to the deputy convener and I, I hope to meet with Professor Alison Britton to discuss the issues and concerns that have been raised in evidence with the committee about the review itself and Professor Britton's review of the review. I wonder if members have any thoughts or suggestions for further action on the petition. I think that there has been so much evidence taken in this particular petition, very much waited in the one direction here. I think that I know that I speak for everybody on the committee, but I do get the sense of feeling that we are all driving in the one direction here very strongly. The fact that we have secured a debate in the chamber, I am not sure, personally, that I need to hear any more evidence on this particular topic. I think that I have formed a very clear view on the direction of travel that we are going in. Rona, you and the deputy convener are meeting Professor Britton. Can I ask when? Is that soon? Has it arranged? Has it diaries? It was the professor who did contact us and said that it would be useful for us to meet. That has been helpful, because we are wrestling with the idea and there is no doubt that the petitioners are wrestling with the idea and what the purpose of the review is. The review is clearly not to address the substance of the report, which the patients have been unhappy with. It has been about process and what the government can learn from that. I suppose that my concern in some ways would be that that review might misrepresent to the petitioners what the outcome of that might be. I do not think that it is going to revisit the findings or recommendations. No, it could be a diversion from the core issue of what has happened to the women and undoubtedly tragic effects that the mesh has had on them. I think that the draft report coming forward will crystallise something for us. Either way, it has to move on and it has to continue. It has been interesting to note that there has been a debate in the House of Commons in Westminster Hall. It strikes me that it is an issue that now public awareness is catching up with the individual experience of these women. It does feel as if there is something bigger that is going to develop out of this rather than individual clinical decisions. I think that we would recognise the work of the petitioners themselves in bringing the highlight in this. One of the big issues for me is how process has allowed the risk to evolve to the stage that it is at the moment and how it has taken so long for process to, in fact, it has taken the petitioners to bring this to the attention before it has been picked up. In terms of the initial reporting of this, that is one of the things that I am really interested in, and it is how that process has managed to allow this to happen. Also the fact that, when Alex Neil was Cabinet Secretary, he did step in and said that there should be a moratorium, but it still continued. I think that it is difficult to see, given the evidence, in what way that moratorium would not have been sustained. We are not clinicians, so we do not really know what the other options might be, but it does feel as if there is an issue that we have come back to time again, which clearly is a matter of the petition that they were not believed. The connection between the procedure and its subsequent suffering were not believed to be connected to each other. I ask that, when we look at the report ahead of the debate, that we agree to meet in private to do that, I think that that will help our consideration. Is there anything else that we can usually do at this time, apart from recognising when we have got to in terms of the issues that have been highlighted, recognising when we have a debate that we will produce a report and that there are issues still for government in terms of what their authority is, because for them, there are issues that can be followed through in the question of the moratorium, is not it? Absolutely. There is obviously a worry that this operation is still being carried out. We heard evidence in some places where it has literally ceased by informant giving patients effective informed choice, but I am still concerned that there are women potentially out there having this done who are not well informed about what is going on. I think that it is worse to remember that the women who have been conducting this campaign are too late for them. They are not doing it for themselves, they are doing it for women in the future and men, I believe, as well. It is important that we keep it up there. I think that we would be failing if we were not making sure that the debate is being heard out there as well, so that people can make informed choice. Going back to the moratorium issue, when Dr Agar was here giving evidence, he explained that the decision to halt mesh procedures ultimately rested with the NHS boards and he was unaware of whether the boards provided any feedback to the cabinet secretary or the Scottish Government about their views on the moratorium. If that is a case that they did not provide any feedback, I would find that astonishing. We do not need to get to the bottom of that, because if a moratorium is not worth the paper that it is written on, what is the point of it? We invite to health boards to ask about how much activity is occurring in mesh operations at the moment. I think that that might be something that we want to reflect in terms of the report, what other information we want to add into the report. Is that something that we might do? Maybe we could go back and establish what evidence we already had in that regard, because I think that there was some evidence that established that there was not an absolute moratorium. I suggest that, as we have agreed that we would consider a draft report in private, we would be looking to gather any other evidence that would inform that report. I do not mean in terms of oral evidence, but it is simply an up-to-date report from health boards if they are understanding the use of those procedures. Of course, the deputy convener and I can report back on our meeting with Professor Britten, if that is agreed. If we can then move on to the next continued petition, which is petition 1545 on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled, we will ask to consider this petition on 11 May 2017. Members will recall at this meeting that the committee agreed to seek an update from the Scottish Government on the preliminary results of phase one of a project to improve data collection and demand for residential care and identify suitable alternatives to out-of-area placements. The Scottish Government's submission states that the themes emerging from phase one of the project include solutions to improving the discharge of people with learning disabilities with complex needs, focusing particularly on suitable accommodation. The submission also highlights that further consultation will be required before any recommendations can be made in terms of strategic direction to support people with learning disabilities with complex needs. The committee also agreed to seek a response from the Scottish Government in relation to concerns raised that research will not address the gap in knowledge about people with profound and multiple learning disabilities. The submission highlights a range of work streams that have been commissioned to address the data visibility of people with learning disabilities in Scotland. The petitioner's view is that those projects fail to address the issues raised by the petition or the gap in data relating to people in Scotland with profound and multiple learning disabilities. The petitioner also raises concerns that the focus of the project is largely concentrated on the prescription and effect of anti-psychotic drugs. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. The Government is to inform them of the petitioner's response and also raise the point about anti-psychotic drugs to find out where the consultation is going and point out that perhaps the petitioner is not going to address the concerns of the petitioner. There is a frustration there from the petitioner's point of view that there is lots of work being done, but it is not really a bad work, but it is not really addressing the questions raised by the petitioner. Obviously, underpinning that is, and I think that she made the point in her last sentence, where she says that we need action, substantial funding and a clear plan. Obviously, at the moment, all three of those are missing, with the centre one being probably the stumbling block, potentially. If you do not know the scale of the problem or where people are, what their issues are, what support they require, you cannot then meet that need within communities. It is interesting because all of those individuals will be on the radar, they are not flying under the radar, all of them will have medical and social work involvement at some level. I am not sure if that is true, but the point of the petition is that if you have complex needs, you almost certainly have some input at some level. The issue really is, do we have any system for gathering that data? That is where we are missing it, because they are not all being put into the same data system. We are obviously in a state of flux at the moment in terms of the integration of boards and how services such as that are delivered. Is that something that is impacting the impairing delivery of services? I wonder whether it is as simple as what they are looking for in these circumstances are residential care options. There are not any, so what happens to folk remains supported at home and their needs are not, or they are sent out of their own local area, because there is not sufficient appropriate accommodation or support where they live. You just get the sense that data is important, yes, but the whole focus of it should not just be on data, because the problem exists. The data is useful to back up, but there is undoubtedly a problem with residential care, so that seems to have been overlooked. I suppose that the main thing that we would be wanting to highlight is the mismatch between the problem and the response. There is nothing wrong with the response, but it is not really relating to the core issue that has been highlighted. I don't know if we can maybe write to the Scottish Government to ask, as you have said, about the consultation and to respond to the petitioner's comments. Is that agreed? That's a preceded direction. The next petition is petition 1596 by Paul Anderson on in-care survivor service Scotland. At a previous consideration of the petition in January, we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek clarity on the interim finance arrangements and to ask him to address the petitioner's concerns about the long-term sustainability of funding and the potential adverse impact on service users in the event of a loss of skills and continuity of contact. In the submission of 13 February, the Deputy First Minister indicated that, since the change in funding, there had been continuity in support, adding that survivors are able to access a broader range of support to address their individual needs through the fund. The Scottish Government's previous submission of 18 January also indicated that it employed a survivor engagement manager and intended to create an engagement plan designed to capture the views and concerns of more survivors in the future. The petitioner has acknowledged that the interim finance arrangements have led to improvements but expresses concerns that there is no formal agreement with regard to the on-going support to survivors by Open Secret. He stresses his view of the importance of the consistency and continuity of relationships between survivors and their councillors. He asked whether survivors have been consulted about their needs and what opportunities they have to provide input to discussions about their health. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I think that it is worth noting at the outset that the Deputy First Minister has said that no survivor has had to change or lose support since the change in funding was introduced. I also note that the petitioner has acknowledged that the Scottish Government has provided assurances with regard to the service delivery crossover between Open Secret and the in-care survivor support fund, and that those have been delivered. However, that said, the petitioner raises a couple of valid questions. Namely, survivors from ICSS have been consulted about what they need and about changes in place in the future. Secondly, is there any evidence that survivors have had the opportunity to provide input when decisions about their future health have been discussed? Those are two salient points and two valid questions. I would certainly be keen to seek an update from the Scottish Government on the role of the survivor engagement manager that you mentioned earlier and any progress that has been on-going, the on-going engagement plan, given the questions posed by the petitioner. With everything that Angus has said, I get the sense that the petitioner is looking for some security and there is still a doubt in his mind. He does ask valid questions about the involvement of the survivors and whether there has been enough. There are questions that we need to ask the Government, and we should take that forward on behalf of the petitioner. What is found with these changes quite often is that it is not about whether there is a service available for people, but it is the model of that service. I think that what might be useful if it was feasible to do it is a side-by-side comparison of what they had and what they are getting because it is things like time-limited intervention that significantly change a user's experience of what they are getting and the value of what they are getting. I think that frustration from workers coming from the petitioner is the lack of recognition of what was being offered. Therefore, the new model is stripping what they consider to be the important content of what was being offered. I think that it would be quite useful to have that direct comparison. I think that the point is that the in-care survivors who were getting support from OpenSecret were still entitled to that support. They were still getting that support if they wanted it. There is a separate question about what would happen if somebody else now refers themselves. There is now an issue. I think that this is an on-going debate among survivor groups, a member of the cross-party group and adult survivors of child sexual abuse. That is very much something that exercises them and some of that is reflecting its petition. Angus is absolutely right to say that in terms of the petitioner, those who have had that service will continue. However, I think that they put the questions that he has asked our legitimate ones to pursue with the Government. The broader questions about strategy have been highlighted, but I think that the very specific points that Angus has made are the ones that we can pursue. In that case, if we can move on to our next petition, which is petition 1607 by Peter Gregson on behalf of kidsnot suits and congestion charging in major Scottish cities. Our previous consideration of the petition was in November 2016, when we agreed to defer further consideration until the publication and scrutiny of the draft third report on policies and proposals, RPP 3. The note by the clerk provides an update on scrutiny of RPP 3 and notes that the final RPP 3 is expected to be published in the first quarter of 2018. The note also refers to the inquiry into air pollution that Scotland has been undertaking by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. It also highlights the Scottish Government's undertaking in its programme for 2017-18 to introduce low-emission zones in Scotland's four biggest cities by 2020, with the first zone introduced by the end of 2018. Do any members have any comments or suggestions for action? Rai? I'll be absolutely sure that this is a really interesting petition and that we have to get some capital from somewhere to instigate or change the transport around cities, for me personally, manipulateurado fy ngaisen. The environment is about the sight of the situation is about people being able to cycle. Penedig,ryn Aydoms Twirio. Ehist Warrior E awhile Err i tri but tease am rhellwydau i am cildiwg ddiar pawnfour ac yn cyd-ddiwg myd yn ei enty wneud. Benedig ar Y Sin Aròu hefyd, penedig o aheadfing ble yn gwneudён. Thank you,箩s. As a member of the eclair committee, we've just started our work on the air quality inquiry, so we'd certainly welcome the petition, I'm sure, but I can't speak for the committee. We've considerable work to do on the issue, but the main point for me was a Felly, rwy'n gael y pethwyr bod gaelonhau'r clywednau gan geithre stylef o argyllid amser ac mae'r Gwlu Gwlofonion yn gwneud edrych yn gweithio'r��f hwn. Fi ни ddwy'r gyda ni'n gweld i ni arweithio'r gweithre stylef oherwydd mae'r gweithre styleff yn gwneud ei ddweud. Felly, mae'n gweithre styleff oes, oherwydd mae'n gweithre styleff, oherwydd mae'n system petitions can help to direct government policy? I think that it is to be welcomed that the Scottish Government has made a commitment on early Zeds. I think that we would want then to close the petition. The only question is whether we're simply meeting the other committee aware of it or are we actually referring it to the matter. I suppose I would bow to your wisdom in this angle for which would be better, which is going to cause us less grief. Perhaps it might be a suggestion to make the committee aware of the petition, rather than refer the full petition to the committee, because we are in a far better place than when the petition was submitted. If that is agreed, we would want to close the petition really on the basis that much of what the petition has sought is in the process. The issue underneath it has clearly been recognised as an important issue, and it is right to underline comments by Angus MacDonald on the role of the committee and of the petitioner in how these issues are naturally securing some progress. We would of course wish to make the ECCLR committee aware of the petition in relation to its inquiry into air quality in Scotland. Is that agreed? If we can then move on to the next petition of consideration, which is petition 1616, on parking legislation. We last considered this petition in February and agreed to defer further consideration of the petition until the Scottish Government's consultation on parking was complete. The consultation is now closed and is anticipated that an analysis of the responses received will be published in autumn 2017. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. I think that the way we are just now is given that the consultation is now due to write to the Scottish Government and ask what action it is proposed to take. That's run-up date from them. I think that's the common sense to do that, although I think that having looked at it is unbelievably challenging in terms of how, given the number of households that now have cars in comparison with the past, there are clearly big issues for, if you're in a wheelchair or you've got a pram or whatever, navigating around some of our streets, particularly in the city of Glasgow, but it would be worthwhile finding out from the Scottish Government. I presume that they have to respond. Is it the outcome of the analysis of the consultation that's been published? It's the analysis of the consultation that's due to be published, and I presume that there's a Scottish Government response to that. We would be asking them to keep us updated on what their intention is. No, you would hope so. In that case, if we could now move on to petition 1621 by Jim Robertson on sepsis awareness, diagnosis and treatment, that our last consideration of this petition on 29 June, the committee agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport expressing a review that it would be appropriate for the Scottish Government to launch a national public awareness campaign. The initial response in 11 August, the cabinet secretary indicated that the Scottish Government did not feel that it was necessary to launch a national public awareness campaign, but that it would continue to work closely with NHS Scotland, the Fiona Elizabeth Agnew Trust and other stakeholders on raising awareness of sepsis. The cabinet secretary subsequently announced a national public awareness campaign on 27 September and in correspondence with the committee on 17 October indicated that the campaign is expected to commence in 2018. The petitioner has stated in his submission that he's very pleased that a national public awareness campaign will now go ahead. I'm not quite sure whether the minister actually met directly with the petitioner himself. I wonder if members have any views on action to take on this petition. It's going to go ahead, I think. I think best on that. Our work is done. Any other views? Angus? I think that it has to be said that, excuse my lack of knowledge of Latin here, but as vote facies go this one was a cracker. Having been told that there would be no awareness and then told that there will now be awareness made. So I'm delighted that the Government has paid heed to the petition and the call from this committee that the awareness session should be made. I think that we would want to acknowledge the role of the petitioner. Again, in so many circumstances and very difficult times, trying at least out of terrible circumstances to improve public policy and I think the achievement of a public awareness campaign, which clearly the Scottish Government wasn't inclined to do and had been giving anwys not to do, but the force of the argument has obviously been very strong. I think that the petitioner has to be commended for the fortitude in bringing this forward. I also thought that it probably would be something, I thought, one of the interesting arguments was this issue round the Goon of a National Awareness campaign because people would refer themselves inappropriately. Wherever that thinking is, you would hope that the Cabinet Secretary has had a look at what was forming that advice because that is something you would, I get, you don't want people inappropriately to be worried about their own health or inappropriately to refer themselves, but surely that would be better than somebody not realising what was happening and not getting the medical attention that they needed. The national campaign is so that people can identify correctly what is happening and know how to respond quickly. It is hugely beneficial to the NHS if people come early and you catch things before they progress too far, so it was a very odd decision at first. Can I just say that this petitioner is a constituent of mine and everything that has been said, I agree with and he is extremely grateful to the committee and for the decision that was taken eventually. I think that he feels that it was very worthwhile bringing it to the committee, so I am personally delighted and I know that he is too. I think that this has been part of a broader campaign and the issue has been really pushing Government to do things that they don't want to do is a great achievement. That basis is a way of agreeing to close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Government has confirmed that we will launch a national public awareness campaign. If that is agreed, we would wish to note the efforts of the petition and other stakeholders in securing this positive outcome. If we can move on to our next petition, which is petition 1627 on consent for mental health and treatment for people under 18 years of age, we will ask consider this petition on 20 April, and that meeting agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Faculty of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The committee asked the Scottish Government how the petitioner could contribute to the chief medical officer's review of the consent process for people who receive care and support in Scotland. The response indicated that patients are already represented in the review process, but that it would consider how the petitioner could be further involved. The committee also asked what funding is in place for the links worker programme and the number and location of general practices that are participating in the programme. The clerk's note summarises the information provided by the Scottish Government. The committee asked Royal College of Psychiatrists and Scotland's Faculty of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry for its view on the clinical guidelines for mental health conditions in children and adolescents in the context of this petition. The response stated that there was universal support for maintaining the rights to confidentiality of young people who can give informed consent to treatment. The faculty's response concluded by stating that they would be very happy to work with other colleagues about how to support young people accessing high quality, timely services for mental health disorders in Scotland. The petitioner has indicated that she does not feel that answers have been received to the questions raised by the committee. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. Brian? I think that we were all fairly removed by the petitioner herself when she came in here and gave her own experiences. You cannot be afraid to be moved by that. I would just like to know that it raises a bigger issue for me, and there is obviously a massive issue of confidentiality, but also the competence of somebody presenting with mental health issues to a doctor, and then their competence to be able to take their medication as prescribed in terms of being given a month's worth of drugs. For me, it is not what the petitioner is asking for, and I do appreciate that. For me, it opens a whole different ballgame in terms of how we are approaching the treatment of mental health. I do appreciate that the petitioner is talking about under 18s, but my thought process was much wider than that. I would quite like to bring the minister from mental health in to get her opinion and the Government's opinion on how we could take that forward, because it is obviously an extremely complex process here. Anyone else? I agree, but I wonder whether we ought to be asking the chief medical officer to be present as well, because of the complexity and the nature of that. I think that the minister alone would not be adequate. Although there is no doubt that the minister can bring whomsoever she likes, that might be something that we would be content with the chief medical officer being there as well. I agree with what Brian is saying. It is a big issue. There are almost two separate issues, and that is how mental health care is delivered to young people. However, I can understand why the petitioner feels that her questions have not been answered, because it does not directly address confidentiality. It is more about support. The answers that we were given are more about support and links workers and so on. It is not about the specific question of confidentiality for under 18s. As I understand it, the solution that Annette Mackenzie identified was that if she had known that she would have been able to support her daughter, which is utterly compelling, is put against the medical profession. Indeed, from the youth organisation's point of view, the importance of young people feeling that they can go and seek help and have confidentiality now, there must be a middle ground between where having the support of your family, if you are in no circumstances, would not necessarily be a bad thing. That compelling argument about even if she had known that she would have been able to manage the dispensing of the drugs. There is something here that has been highlighted by this terrible case, which the solution may not be what our petitioner has suggested, but there must be something else. I think that that broader question is something that I would certainly be interested in exploring with the minister. What are the guidelines around how much medication you hand to somebody who may be in a vulnerable situation or other ways where you can manage prescription of drugs? There is an area that I certainly do not know a great deal about, but I think that the petitioner has described circumstances that we think need to be addressed. The solution that she identifies may be one that some people feel is problematic, but I think that we would want to look at it further with the minister. How widespread—we may have asked this in the initial evidence session, but just how widespread is it for children under 18 still living at home being prescribed drugs without anyone else knowing? Is this down to a doctor's decision? Is it quite unusual, or is it widespread? I am not sure, so we need to find that out. I suppose that the difficulty is about for every GP to have a depth of knowledge and understanding of mental health issues, of being able to have the time to assess a patient to the degree that you would—for young girls who are reporting night terrors and all the rest of it—I would have expected to see some wider assessment of that young person, and sometimes that is down to availability of services, so a referral to CAMHS or whatever. I suppose that there is something about the pathways that are available because we know that there is a huge delay in assessment now for many young people, so there is a wider and bigger issue here. I would also like to hear from some of the leading mental health charities for young people who do provide some of this wider support and what their views are, because often young people will go and talk to a voluntary agency where they feel their confidence will be kept, but at least then they do have a point of support. I suppose that I had always thought that there would be an aversion to prescribing drugs to a young person, that you would try all sorts of other things first, but I clearly was not in a position to understand what the actual consultation was like. I think that we did ask for comments from the GPs, and their emphasis was on the question of confidentiality, too, but that they would give advice to a patient to speak to family members and look for support. I think that there are a number of issues here that we want to explore with the minister and perhaps look at what further witnesses alongside the minister we would want to have along. I should want to know why she was not signposted for mental health support. We would obviously... I think that the individual case of my understanding is that there is not any action pending against anyone, so we would be looking at it in policy terms and practice terms rather than about an individual case. That is about care pathways, isn't it, so that if a young person comes in, they should always be referred to mental health support. For guidelines for GPs and whether that should actually be happening at all? It is a very high degree of autonomy in how they deliver care, so it goes back down to how they are training in this particular issue. You do want to have very good guidelines. Questions can be asked. If a GP perhaps is under phenomenal pressure, is it easier to prescribe rather than to direct people and speak to them? The only question that I suppose I would ask is, in terms of what the minister in, they may bring the chief medical officer. Do we want to have oral evidence from some of these mental health charities, or do you want to seek written evidence? I think that it would be interesting if you had them all together as a panel so that they could share views on it. The only question would be, sorry to interrupt you, that if you are asking the minister to respond, then I think that it would have to be two separate panels, and you might even need to have time for the minister to reflect on what that evidence was, so that would give you a more substantial, this is what they take with you now, the minister, so we could maybe timetable it in that way. Could I suggest that we speak to the voluntary sector first then, so that we can reflect on what they say to us, the minister? That would be logical. I think that in this particular petition is that I am not absolutely clear which direction we are going to go in, and I don't think anybody here is probably in a position that we would be clear about, but we recognise that it is the issue here of some description. I think that it would be fair to the petitioner and to their family to say if not what is proposed in the petition, then what instead, because clearly there is something here that is not right. If it is not the question of breaching confidentiality, what is it instead? I think that there is quite a lot there that we do recognise just how difficult it is for the petitioner and their families because of their individual and very direct experience of this. If we can then move on to the next petition, which is petition 1631 on child welfare hearings, we will ask to consider this petition at our meeting in May, and at that meeting we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Family Law Committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council. The committee sought to establish the cost of implementing digital recordings of child welfare hearings. The Scottish Government estimated that that would be approximately £390,000 in addition to on-going running costs. Regardless of those costs, the Scottish Government is of the view that it would be inappropriate to record child welfare hearings as they are not structured as evidential hearings and there is a risk that it might increase their formality. The petitioner's response stated that the costs estimated by the Scottish Government seem prohibitively expensive and that child welfare hearings should not be measured only in costs. The petitioner also highlighted that child welfare hearings at the proof stage are recorded and questioned why that could not be the case for ordinary child welfare hearings. The committee sought to establish whether the proforma used in children's hearings to produce a record of proceedings could be adapted for use in child welfare hearings. The Scottish Government confirmed that there is scope for the proforma to be adopted. In its submission, the family law committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council highlighted that a sub-committee has been set up to take forward work in relation to case management, including considering ways to achieve greater continuity in how child welfare cases are handled. The Scottish Government is represented on the sub-committee and will provide an update to the committee after the sub-committee is reported to the family law committee on 23 October 2017, so it's just passed. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. That's a good question. Obviously, I haven't been present for it previously, but in terms of verbatim recording, why is that not done or why can it not be done in just a very simplified form of a little strands of it recording? For me to be remarkable, it's going to cost so much when most of us could probably record these things. Sorry, that's what I was getting at, you know, on these little digital recorders that you just stick down. I mean, they're not expensive to buy, you get the recording and then I suppose there's a cost if you want to type it up, but if you use a stored digital one, you can just keep it, so I'm unclear. I mean, there would be other costs in terms of recording it, storing it and so on, but I suppose the point of the petitioner was that where it wasn't the same person that was dealing with the case every time, the case was being restated and the evidence that established what the issues were were sometimes being missed and the frustration that, you know, you were having to remake the case or the point of the argument was being lost because there wasn't a record at every stage. I agree with the petitioner that child welfare hearing shouldn't be measured at only in costs and that, you know, 390,000 sounds like a lot for what we're asking, but in actual fact I don't think it's, you know, weighing up against the service that we'd give, I don't think it's too much. However, given that the sub-committee was reporting to the family law committee a few days ago, I think that we should ask the Scottish Government to provide us an update on the outcome of that so that we know where we are with it. Okay. Is that agreed? Is there anything else we can do further just now? Probably not. No. Okay. Thank you for that. If we can then move on to petition 1646 by Caroline Hayes on drinking water supplies in Scotland. We first considered this petition on 25 May when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government's Scotch water, the drink of water quality regulator, SEPA, NHS Highland and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. It is encouraging to note that they all provide the submissions, which have been included with our meeting papers. The committee sought to establish whether the protocols within the regulatory regime were sufficiently robust and whether there was any conflict of interest within the regime. The submissions clarify the responsibilities under their framework and consider that there is no conflict of interest. The drinking water quality regulator submission included a background note on the specific local issue, which led to the submission of the petition. In its response to the committee's request for comments on concerns raising the petition about potential health impacts, NHS Highland's submission provides a summary report of the local investigation conducted by its health protection team. The summary report identifies, quote, anecdotal opinion of an increase in health impacts such as skin complaints, but it notes that there is a, quote, lack of evidence of any increased prevalence. In our submission, the petitioner reiterates concerns about the disinfectant byproducts associated with chloramination and asks how Scottish Water monitors these byproducts. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. We did have a very substantial response in terms of the various groups of people that we spoke to. I wider know it. I think that a few cases in constituency are gasing myself around the quality of water and the measurement of the quality of water. It seems to me that there is an ambiguity around which agency is responsible for that measurement, whether it be Siebel or Scottish Water. I certainly think that there is some sort of clarification around that. I would certainly welcome that. I do not know how we can go about doing that, but I would like to understand specifically who's responsibility that is. That is information that we can provide to members. Given that we have so much in the submissions and some of it is quite technical, we should write to Scottish Water. The main issue here seems to be about safety. The petitioner acknowledges that the water supply is safe, but asks whether the drinking water quality regulator is sufficiently effective in ensuring that the water is also pleasant to drink. Given that the main issue is safety, we need to ask Scottish Water what measures they have put in or will put into monitor the quality and safety of the water and see where they are with that. As you go across the country, some places have the waters pretty icky to drink, but it's pretty icky to drink because it has to be more heavily chlorinated to make it safe. It's quite a difficult one. I think that safety has to come first. If it's not going to kill you, it might not be particularly pleasant to drink, but it's not going to kill you. I think that this is always going to be an ongoing problem, to be perfectly honest. At any time, you are free to ask for your water to be tested, and SIPA is the primary environmental regulator, as I understand it. I don't think that it's one that's going to go away any time soon. It's worth noting that, with SIPA and Scottish Water, the operations come under the remit of the clear committee. Depending on how the petition progresses, it may well be worth highlighting to the clear committee that there has been an issue. I don't have the work program dating that's in front of me, but I think that Scottish Water may be due to come in pretty soon to give evidence, so it may be an opportune time to raise the issue at the clear committee as well. Can we be at least without the committee through the clerks and when that might make sure that the issues have been highlighted to them ahead of that session? If that's agreed, we would be writing to Scottish Water as suggested and highlight the issue to the clear committee. If we can then move on to the final petition for consideration today, which is petition 1647 by Angus Henley on protection for all employees in NHS Scotland, we previously considered this petition on 25 May. Submissions received from the Scottish Government Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Health and Safety Executive and BMA Scotland all consider that the existing legislative framework provides the protections requested within the petition, whether that is under existing common law and statutory offences or specifically within the terms of the Emergency Workers' Scotland Act 2005. BMA Scotland, however, considers that an extension of the legislation as requested in the petition may act as a deterrent and that a potential benefit of adding non-medical staff to those protected under the 2005 act might raise the profile of assaults on, for example, receptionists, porters or auxiliary staff, although it considers that that could equally be achieved through education. Education has identified the Scottish Government as a, quote, priority area of focus at this time, along with enforcement of existing legislation. The petition acknowledges the protections available under common law but considers that, quote, a specific offence of the statutory sentence may well deter and would be assailants from attacking all NHS employees and volunteers. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for further action. I've invested in just, I spent many years in the NHS and have been on the receiving end of this. It is a management issue and most hospitals now have clear signs that say they won't tolerate, they have a zero tolerance and a progression towards staff. The law is there and it has been used and people have been prosecuted for attacking NHS staff, but I think it's not just about NHS staff. We have a problem for police officers, we have a problem for fire service, it stems across all public sectors to some degree and to private sector and voluntary sector. I would be personally a bit wary, therefore, of saying that one group needs protection more than others, because I think that the law is there already. It's about how we use it and it's about how we structure the way in which we operate our front doors and all the rest of it and, ultimately, it's cultural. It's about how people behave. I was going to actually say something similar in terms of not just with NHS staff, we know what the tax on police officers, we know what the tax on the fire service is well on. The law is there, the statute of law is already there and it's within our remit to try and suggest that any kind of law is strengthened or whether we deem an assault on our service industry should be deemed a worse crime. I don't know whether that's within our remit at all to do that, I know what I think. Having been around when the legislation initially came in, it was the idea that ambulance workers would be attacked as they were trying to treat somebody or a firefighter would be attacked as they were trying to get somewhere to put out a fire. That was all round the argument. It then developed, for example, shop workers unioners. I still had a campaign with protection of shop workers who, again, as we come up to Christmas, will be subject to all sorts of abuse. It's about general protections, but there is also this question that we're now wrestling with in other legislation about sending out a message and the deterrent effect of having legislation, which is also important. I can see the motives behind that and the merits in it. The question is whether it's necessary. It feels like somehow to say that it's not necessary and implies that we don't think there's a problem, so I think that's the challenge that we have too. The issue as well is attacks on staff coming in different forms. There are people who are just of that ilk who think that attacking people is quite reasonable. There are people who are under massive distress or pain who are reacting the way they probably wouldn't react if they were or behave if they were in a different place. I think that we do need to send out very clear messages that it's unacceptable, but it's about creating layers of law because if we're not prosecuting them already, why would we suddenly then be prosecuting? The law is already there, so it's about using the law that we already have and being very clear about it and sending those messages out clearly. If you assault somebody in this department or on the street when they're trying to help, we will prosecute you and we have to then do that. If we're not already doing that, why would bringing another law in suddenly make us do it? That's my issue. The Government's submission states that, in 2008, the Emergency Worker Scotland Act was extended to provide legal protection to ambulance workers, doctors, nurses and midwives and that the penalty is up to 12 months imprisonment or a 10,000 fine or both. As Michelle said, it's there. The legislation is there, so perhaps just pursuing a greater public awareness campaign might be the answer, but, to a large extent, it's cultural as well, so it's a difficult one. Do you want to write to the Scottish Government on how they would take forward their focus on public education and ensuring enforcement and, as they're looking at, how many cases are there in a year? I think it comes back to starting at the beginning. In terms of prevention and it's about how we educate our young people when they're coming to school about what is necessary and we used to use a programme that was developed about how you can find yourself in a situation where you behave violently and then the consequence is a massive, not only for the person to whom you're violent to but also for you as an individual if you end up down a court procedure. If we were looking at how to stop this, we should be looking at what processes we have within education, what messages are up front and what actions we take when somebody misbehaves. I think that it's a combined, three-pronged attack, if you like, but we have to be consistent and I don't think that we're always consistent at the moment. I think that the question for the committee, which is a much broader question, is whether we hold on to the petition in order to establish what the Scottish Government is doing around a public education programme or we close the petition on the basis that those things are being done. The legislation is adequate, there may be a question about enforcement and I wonder if there's views on that. Is there an argument for bringing it to debate to the chamber so that it actually highlights the feelings and starts to be around it? In terms of committee slots, I think that we've been over-allocated already, so I would think it would be unlikely that we would get another slot, whether individual parties would want to bring it forward as a different matter, but I don't think that we would be entitled to something like between 12 and 15 slots in a year, and we have already had one, I might be expecting at least another two, so I think that that would not necessarily be an option, but I suppose that in terms of deciding, do we want to take a bit further as the Scottish Government for a bit more information or do we want to close the petition? I mean that I'd be minded to close the petition under rule 15.7, standing orders on the basis that existing legislation and common law are considered to provide sufficient protection for staff, but also in the hope that there would be better public education in the future. Could we then agree to close the petition, however, to write to the Scottish Government with our reflections on the petition and the importance of enforcement and public education, and say to them that those are matters that need to sit alongside the legislation itself? I think that there's an issue, but we don't think that more law is the way to address it. In that case, we're agreeing to close the petition on the basis that existing legislation and common law are considered to provide sufficient protection for staff, but we do think that the Scottish Government needs to be alive to the issue of public education and to be monitoring enforcement. With that, I thank everybody for their attendance and conclude our business for today.