 Welcome to the 17th meeting of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2022. Delighted that we have our deputy convener, David Thorn, back with us this morning. There has been absent for a few meetings. We have a busy session this morning. We have three evidence sessions on three very important issues. Later we are going to be Felly, fydd wedi wneud yn digwydd ac yn mynd i gyd, bydd gwneud o'r sgwrdd. Felly, mae gyd yn gwneud, adael, oherwydd nodi eu ddweud cyllid yn y cyfnodau syddiol. Y gawr yma ar ein fath o gyfer cael ei ddweud i'r cyfnodau, gan gwybodaeth i sefydigion ar gyfer fathodau. is, as petition 1900, which has access to prescribed medication for the detainees and police custody, and was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees and police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. Now, colleagues will recall in our last meeting, we heard evidence from David Strang, eich magw tomorrow conven, myfyrn i'r gwlad yr unrhyw ddeuimbru yn cael ei gwy Curtis yw i'n eu ddweud o'r gwaith yn un lleiwyr yng Nghymru a'r ddweud i'r ddweud o gyflym cyfryd. Ieithio i ddweud o gweithio i ddafni ar ddweud i ddweudio i ddweud i gwyllgor rhan o'r ddweud y gweithgaredd. Oherwydd mwyn o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o gyllid mewn munistur o Gweithgodi Cymru angylchedd Minister, greu cyhoedd, and her officials from the drugs policy division of the Scottish Government, Maurice Fraser, head of delivery and support and Henry Acre's head of culture and structural change. So, good morning to both of you, as well as you are most welcome. Thank you all for coming. We can move straight to questions or if there is anything that you would like to say just by way of introduction or clarification we would be very happy to hear. Well, convener, thank you for inviting me along this morning. My first appearance at this particular committee in my capacity anyway is Minister for Drugs Policy. I want to start by thanking the committee and the petitioner for the work that they have done in this matter. Access to treatment, the right treatment at the right time for each and every person is at the very heart of the national mission and I support the aims of this petition and I agree that people detained in police custody must have access to their prescribed medication and that includes medication assisted treatment such as methadone. Given that we heard from David Strang and Dr Carol Hunt last week, what is the Scottish Government's reaction to the Scottish drug deaths task forces report changing lives because it included quite a comprehensive suite of recommendations? Will the Scottish Government be publishing a plan in relation to those recommendations and by the end of January next year that will be six months since the publication of the report? I recognise that as an implementation group but what is your reaction to it and how do you intend to summarise the way that you expect to move forward? So at the time I very much welcomed the task force report. Indeed I had been looking forward to receiving their vital recommendations. At the turn of the year we will publish our full response to the task force. They have indeed made a suite of recommendations, very comprehensive recommendations, 20 recommendations but with 139 action points. We will bring forward our full response at the start of the year. I should say that, in terms of subject committees, we gave an initial response that went to health and social care justice and the social policy committee. We have given Parliament some indication of the direction of travel but the culmination of our response will be presented to Parliament at the turn of the year. Thank you very much. As you paid tribute to the work of the petition beforehand, it has obviously been a very difficult personal situation that led to the petition that came before us. It identified issues, some of which I think in our correspondence with the Government were accepted as being areas that perhaps merited a little bit of further work and explanation. Obviously, we were very impressed with the evidence that we heard last week because the experience of both David Strang and Dr Carol Hunter was significant and therefore did underpin a very informed discussion. Obviously, our job is in relation to the issues raised within the petition. I am going to let David Torrance turn first to the specific issues that arise from that. Minister, how important do you feel is to embed the medication-assisted treatment standards in practice, especially for regard to ensuring that individuals receive appropriate medication while in police custody? There are two points there, Mr Torrance. One is the more global point about the implementation of the medication-assisted treatment standards. They are vital. They are a big platform of the Government's reform programme. This is about ensuring that people have quick access to treatment, that they have informed choice about their treatment, that services are planned and operated in a way that they are anticipating people's needs and that, as well as quick access to evidence-based treatments, that all of that is connected to mental health and primary care. The match standards are crucial and vital, and they are not optional. Members will be aware of the statement that I made to Parliament earlier this year, and I will make a further statement to Parliament next week. In terms of the specific issue about the prescription of medicine, of opiate substitution therapy and, in this case, police custody settings, match standard 3 requires people's treatment to be provided to them irrespective of their setting. OST needs to be routinely available to those who are prescribed to in custodial settings for match standard 3. All health boards, ADPs and IGPs have accepted the importance and the shared agenda that we all have to the implementation of match standards. We continue to—the issues that were raised by the petitioner and committee, we have of course been engaging with various police and healthcare networks, the police care network, and to the best of my knowledge, the only place where this appears to be an issue has been the one that has been identified in Elgin. I want to be clear. The guidance is clear, match standards are clear about what should happen. In my view, as Minister for Drugs Policy, any interruption of a person's medical treatment is utterly unacceptable because of the consequences in which the committee is well aware of. The interruption of someone's medical treatment, in my view, is discriminatory and it is just not acceptable. Ultimately, the implementation of match standards will resolve the issue where it exists and it appears to be a specific issue to Elgin, but I hope that I can convey to the committee in the strongest terms that this, in my view, is discriminatory where it exists and that we treat drug and alcohol problems as a health condition and drug and alcohol treatments have to be on a par with any other treatment for any other condition. Thank you, Minister. Around the implementation of match standards, the Scottish Drugs Death Task Force recommended that match be embedded by May 2024. Is the Scottish Government course to meet this? If not, how much work is there still to be done? There is a lot of work to do. There is a lot of work on going. Members will be aware of the ministerial direction that I issued in June this year because I was not content with the scaling pace of progress. Part of the purpose of my statement to Parliament next week is to reflect on the information that all areas have provided in terms of their improvement plans. All areas are subject to regular reporting on progress for most areas that are quarterly, but for areas with particular difficulties, that is monthly. The other part of the purpose of my statement next week is to inform Parliament of the Government's view of the recommendations, not just in relation to the task force on this matter, but the Public Health Scotland benchmarking report that was published in June this year. In the submission that the Scottish Government put back in March this year, you were committing to consulting with justice and health to establish the best methods of recording how many requests for prescribed medications had been made for those individuals within custody and whether those requests had been met. From that, can the minister give us an update on any progress that has been made within that area to ensure that that is the case? It is an area that we have been given considerable thought to. My initial response to inquiries from the committee was that I understood why the committee was raising the issue of what could be a potential gap in information. Part of the underpinning evaluation of our national mission to save and improve lives is to ensure that we have the right measurements in place. I will not repeat what I said about MAT standards. Ultimately, issues such as those are resolved through the delivery of MAT standards. It appears to me that, if I can take a slight step back from the question just by way of context, is that we publish a lot of information around OST. A number of people in treatment are already published by Public Health Scotland. The committee is well aware of information being held in terms of prescription and healthcare at a local level. It is the case that, in terms of Police Scotland and its national custody record, that information is available, but it is within Police Scotland systems. We are given some thought about that. There are task force recommendations, more broadly, about ensuring that our healthcare and justice systems speak to each other. There are some other important recommendations about information sharing. In terms of information that is held with a statutory organisation such as Police Scotland, there are particular complexities around unravelling that. However, I am aware that His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constability in Scotland has access to a range of information that is held by Police Scotland. I am contemplating whether that is a potential route, whether I, as Minister, should engage with the inspectorate. I do not know whether it is something that committees consider. The information is available to the inspectorate in terms of the inspections that it has done. Indeed, it did an inspection that involved the Elgin Custody suite. It made a number of recommendations around that, which I am informed that it has led to increasing the nursing provision for the custody and that there is now full-time nursing cover for that centre. In reality, there may well have been that gap minister that was identified. You have now indicated that, through other resources or other ways of managing that, the gap may then be closed, because that is what we are trying to identify. If the gap exists and it would appear that the gap does exist, ensuring that everyone is given and supported during that custody situation. It is not so much a gap in information. It is the availability and transparency of that information at a national level. In terms of the information that is available about what happens within police custody, in terms of the prescription of OST, there is more information available or more information gathered in police custody settings than there are in other settings. That goes back to another issue. Of all the information that we publish in and around OST, we have lots of information around where it is dispensed from, whether that is hospital or pharmacy. We have much less information about where it is administered. The information that is available in a police custody setting or the information that is gathered is much greater than homeless settings, where there are in-reach medical provisions. I was interested and I was going to pursue myself, because you started by saying that you thought that the incident in Elgin was isolated to the particular example that had been raised through the petition. I was unclear why you thought that, but by explanation, although the information is not publicly transparent, it is there and therefore you have been able to satisfy yourself through the availability of the information that Police Scotland has that it hopefully was just an isolated example. Therefore, in response to the committee when you said that the Scottish Government was giving consideration to it, it is not that you are giving consideration to a wholly new process, because you believe that the information is there. It is consideration to how that information, which is currently not necessarily available or demonstrably available for people to see, could be more transparently there so that people can see that, in fact, the prescriptions have actually been prescribed. Is that essentially correct? That is an accurate summation, convener, in terms of the information that is currently gathered that is Police Scotland information. In terms of me satisfying myself about what is happening on the ground, the major stream of work of that is around the implementation of MAT standards. Therefore, we have a lot of granular information about what is happening at a local level. Colleagues may be aware of supplementary information that was published in August of this year, which is given an area-by-area breakdown on where individual areas are in terms of MAT standards. We are, through what we call the MAT standard implementation support team, missed. We are providing real practical hands-on support to local areas in terms of how to better gather information, how to change the ways in which they are working, fully cognisant of the need to challenge stigma discrimination and culture. We have improvement plans in from all areas. We have this quarterly report and, in some cases, monthly report. Through the serious and significant endeavours to implement MAT standards, treatment standards, we have much more information at a local level that gives us that real connectivity that we have not had before between Government and communities. That's great. Thank you very much. Fergus Ewing. Thank you. Good morning, Minister. I prefaced my question by pointing out that I'm not, of course, a clinician, but I did want to raise an issue that was referred to in evidence, namely that there was some concern that, in Granbyn, there has been prescription of dihydrocodine. We had some concerns about the appropriateness of that, so I did take the opportunity of asking Dr Hunter in the last evidence session about that. She said, and I quote, that dihydrocodine is sometimes prescribed in custodial settings as guidance on exceptional circumstances within the UK guidance that I mentioned. Its prescription should not be routine as a replacement, but there are some exceptional circumstances, including when it's not possible to get access to existing prescribed medications safely, in which it would be used by an experienced clinician. Now, to be fair, we are seeking a response from NHS Granbyn as is only right and proper about this matter. I'm not sure that we've got that yet, but I just wondered if I could raise this with you and ask what is the Scottish Government's view about the use of dihydrocodine? Is there something that should be minimised so that, by ensuring the availability of, for example, methadone, which I imagine would be the normal, opiate substitute that is prescribed in most cases, at least in accordance with my understanding? Without casting any aspersion or blame to NHS Granbyn, I just wanted to raise the general issue with you, Minister, to see what the Scottish Government's view is about this, because it was raised, I think, by the petitioner or others in evidence. Okay, thank you. Like you, Mr Dewing, I'm not a clinician, but you've had the evidence from Dr Carol Hunter, who is a senior pharmacist of many years' standing, and she's given evidence to that effect. This is an issue, or one of the issues that I have written to NHS Granbyn about. In terms of the specific point in and around dihydrocodine, prescribers can make judgments on a case-by-case basis, based on clinical judgment and health and safety. However, the bottom line is, as I understand it, as a non-clinical person, and in accordance with the guidance—I think that the guidance is pretty clear, both the UK-wide guidance that Dr Hunter referred to and also the guidelines for Police Scotland and healthcare professionals—that the routine use of alternatives such as dihydrocodine does not meet the required level of support for mass standards and should only be used in exceptional circumstances and not routinely. That is what I have stated in my correspondence to NHS Granbyn, and that is essentially a reiteration of the guidance. I have also, convener, just for information, in terms of the broader context of my correspondence to NHS Granbyn, written to them in fairly direct terms, saying that it has come to my attention and I am aware that, despite the long-snadding nature of the issue, it still does not routinely provide OST in all circumstances. It is that issue about routinely. Yes, there are exceptional circumstances that Dr Hunter spoke to, but there should be a position to routinely provide OST and not be disrupting people's medication. I have asked NHS Granbyn if that is the case and if that is the case, when and what are they going to do to remedy it. I would be happy to share that letter with the committee, convener, if that was helpful, and the response that I received in due course. That predicted the question that I was going to ask, which is could you please let us know what response you get from NHS Granbyn? They obviously must have an opportunity to respond and give their view, and that is fair and proper, but part of our job is to make sure that the petitioners plea for the availability of prescription of opiate substitutes, principally methadone, is being properly thoroughly analysed and responded to by this Parliament. That is our job, so I am very keen to see the results of the inquiries. I am very pleased that, minister, you have already made and pursued vigorously, so thank you for that. A key aspect that was discussed in our previous evidence session was the risks associated with release from custody, particularly the Friday release practice. Of course, the change in large report has recommended that it be banned as expeditiously as possible. Can the minister give an update on where the Government is with progressing that? That is a feature in the Bill and Release custody bill that is at stage 1. I have been a long-hard advocate of ending Friday liberations. I would contend that it does not make sense to me, and I appreciate that there are significant operational issues for the Scottish Prison Service to consider in and around all of that. However, when I think of my time as a prison social worker, I admitted that it was a long time ago now, that releasing large numbers of people on a Friday because people cannot be liberated on Saturday or Sunday can often lead to people not being liberated to later in the day. As much as people's care arrangements should be in place before they are liberated, and that is part of the purpose of the justice legislation that the cabinet secretary has taken through, there are practical issues that people have to contend with on the first day of release. It does not make sense to do that on a Friday, because if there are any challenges in that, people can therefore be waiting until Monday. We have to look at the evidence and follow the evidence that any period of transition, any change, comes with its risks, and we know that people being released from custody is a period of elevated risk. We need to be planning for that to mitigate the risk. At a very common-sense level, Friday liberations do not make sense. A key point made by Dr Carl Hunter in relation to that practice was the support of the pharmacy network in Scotland, particularly around seven-day access. Is the minister got a view about how the pharmacy network could support the infrastructure for releasing prisoners from custody, particularly looking at potential changes in doses, where people have been in a custody setting to then managing their medication outside? In general, I would agree that community pharmacies are an underutilised resource. The task force has made some interesting recommendations around a sort of enhanced service contract. There are some parallels with that in terms of arrangements with GPs and primary care. There are 1,250 pharmacies in Scotland. That is quite an extensive network that we could be tapping into. There is, of course, innovative and progressive use and helpful use of pharmacist services in different parts of Scotland, but there is a network of expertise that we need to be making more use of. It is imperative that we are making use of all the assets at our disposal, and community pharmacies are very much part of that. Another key point in relation to the support from a pharmacy network on more generally was Naloxone, particularly ensuring that people released from custody are provided with Naloxone or those who are caring for them or have a support network. The evidence that was provided previously indicated that this is a patchy practice. What is the minister doing to ensure that this is more of a standard protocol? There is good progress being made in terms of increasing the distribution of take-home Naloxone kits. Figures were published either Monday or Tuesday, and they are quarterly figures. Around 6,500 Naloxone kits are distributed. That is in terms of take-home Naloxone kits. Members can refer to those published figures at their leisure, but it gives a breakdown of the settings in which they come from. That includes prisons and kits dispensed by community pharmacies and the Scottish Ambulance Service. In terms of ADPs that have a prison in their catchment, there are 13 ADPs that have a prison in their local area. 85 per cent of them have specific arrangements made with their community justice partners. That is about identifying risks. Part of that is the issue of Naloxone. There is good use in some cases of peers in terms of peer networks. People with lived experience who are now in recovery go into prison settings and support people in terms of training in the take-home Naloxone kit. The other statistic that we monitor—I hate talking about statistics in this fashion, convener, because at the end of the day we are talking about lives—is a national Naloxone programme in Scotland. The reach of that programme continues to increase and we continue to monitor that. It is estimated that 66 people out of every 100 who are at risk of opioid overdose have been provided with a take-home Naloxone kit. Naloxone is very important. It was just one part of the solution in terms of a whole system of care and treatment and support. I believe that we are making progress, but we need to continue on the trajectory. A key part of that wider support network that was discussed was, in supposing people releasing from custody, referrals to supervised overdose prevention facilities was highlighted as a key measure to reduce harm in that period, going from a supervised setting to an unsupervised setting. Obviously, cognisant of the potential Glasgow pilot in this regard could the minister provide an update on the progress with the Glasgow pilot and potentially the interaction with local custody settings as a mechanism for referring people who might be vulnerable to that pilot facility? Mr Sweeney knows my enthusiasm for safer drug consumption facilities and we are doing everything to leave no stone unturned to achieve the goal of a pilot sighting glass goal within our powers. The short answer is that the Crown Office is now in a position to give advice to the Lord Advocate. As you know, I cannot speak on behalf of either the Crown Office or the Lord Advocate, but we have, along with our partners in Glasgow, done extensive work on that and pursued it to the end of the degree. It is not the silver bullet, but it is one piece of the jigsaw. Given the scale of the challenge that we face in Scotland, we need all the bits of the jigsaw. I think that we have strayed a little bit out with the terms of the petition to which the minister is here to discuss. It was just to bring it back to the point about the interaction between custody settings and the potential pilot. Is there going to be a definite link? The broad point that Mr Sweeney makes, whether that is in relation to safer drug consumption facilities or any other service, is that the connectivity between services and services is to go back to your petition. One of the improvements in and around the Elgin custody suite is that they have systems in place where they are informing the local service when people are brought into custody and when they are on an OST script and local services are being informed when people are being released. We are all concerned about what happens in that period, although some are in custody and are they or are they not getting their medically prescribed treatment, which they are entitled to and under no circumstances should be disrupted unless there are exceptional issues in and around health and safety. I occurred to me just as a very final thought in relation to the availability of healthcare staff. Obviously, in the wider political context, we are discussing the pressures that there are upon the resource of staffing. Are you, as minister, aware of any data or any issues currently around the availability of staff to ensure that prescribed medicines are able to be safely delivered to those who are in custody when that is appropriate? On the broad point that you raised about that, it is obviously beholden on health boards and IGBs to be monitoring that. In terms of their routine reporting structures, they can obviously raise and do raise workforce issues with the Government and NHS Scotland more broadly. In terms of the work that I and drugs policy officials are pursuing in terms of the implementation of MAT standards, there is a financial resource attached to the implementation of MAT standards. When I spoke to committee before summer recess, I had said that there were around 100 posts that were going to be funded. That figure has increased. To be specific and more helpful, I know that, in terms of the staff that they have recruited in and around MAT standards, they have been successful in that. Similarly, Aberdeenshire has sought a number of staff and has been largely successful in that as well. I am not disputing that there are workforce issues, but there are examples of where those have been overcome either through additional resource to help the recruitment of staff or with the redesign of services. I have not been ignoring your officials. I assumed that you would bring them in if you felt that there was anything appropriate that they would be able to say. That has been very helpful in relation to the issues that we have been exploring with our petition ministers. Is there anything further that you would like to say to us just in conclusion? No, just to say that I very much appreciate committee digging into this. Very often when we have debates in chamber or other committee appearances that have been obliged to do, but because drugs policy can rarely be considered in isolation, there have been very broad range of debates. It has been very useful and very helpful to take a specific issue in a specific locality and bore down into the details. Thank you for that. Of course, it is one of the advantages of the Petitions Committee. We are taking forward the issues of an individual with a petition rather than bringing forward individual party political considerations, which sometimes allows us to have quite a meaningful conversation about the particular issue in hand. I thank you very much for your appearance with us this morning. Thank you. Thank you. I will now suspend briefly. Members, before I do your content, we consider the issues that we have raised in the evidence this morning at a later date. Then we will just suspend briefly. Thank you. Our second evidence session this morning is in relation to petition number 1928, which is to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. That has been brought for us by David Gallant. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 20 April this year when we agreed to write to Transport Scotland seeking an update on the fair fairs review. A copy of the response has been included in our meeting papers for today. At that meeting, we also agreed to hear evidence from the petitioner and site Scotland. I am pleased to welcome our petitioner, David Gallant, good morning, and Nicoletta Primo, from site Scotland to today's meeting. It is a pleasure to have you both with us. Not always we have the petitioner present when we are able to consider our petition, so it is helpful that you are both here today. Members will have a number of questions that they would like to explore, but we understand that you would both like to say a few words, and I am very happy. I think that the clerks will have told you that it cannot be longer than a speech in the chamber, but we are looking forward to a few words from each of you. I do not know as either of you have drawn straws as to who is going to speak first. David, you are going to speak first. Good morning and welcome. There are many voluntary organisations who have supported this petition, so I do not understand why transport Scotland injects. Due to inflation, the scheme will now actually save money rather than cost money. I am sure that you will be pleased to hear that. With regard to the rules of the free rail travel for disabled people, it is important that rail travel should follow the same rules as bus travel as far as possible. Bus travel is allowed as far as Berwick upon Tweed and Carlisle. Those travelling from Lockerby to Gretli Green or Allen should be able to change trains at Carlisle rather than have to travel via Glasgow. So it is important that Carlisle should be included. It is included in bus travel. It is also important that Carlisle should be included for rail travel, even though it is not in Scotland. You wished to say to us in advance. I am very happy to hear from you now as well. Thank you Nicoletta. Good morning everybody. I would like to thank the committee for inviting South Scotland and South Scotland veterans to provide evidence on this petition. I would also like to extend a thanks to David Gallant for bringing this important issue to the Parliament. Sight of Scotland and Sight of Scotland veterans are two of Scotland's oldest charities. We are dedicated to ensuring that nobody should face sight loss alone. There have been some elected members here today who will be aware of our fail rail campaign. This has one very simple call to provide free rail travel for the companions of those who hold a national entitlement card with the i and the plus one symbol on it. Currently, there is no national policy that entitles companions for free rail travel. That only exists for bus policy. It is our view that this should also extend to rail travel as well. As a result on today's petition, I will be largely speaking from the perspective of those who are blind and partially sighted and their experiences of using the real network. I welcome any questions that the committee might have regarding this. I am going to let Paul Sweeney lead the questioning on the petition. I ask the current provision for bus travel. Why is extending this to include rail travel so important? Speaking from the perspective of those who have a visual impairment quite often, using rail travel will be much more accessible. We have heard from veterans in particular who have said that access to platforms and toilets can just be a lot easier to use through the rail network as opposed to having to use it on a bus, particularly for longer journeys. We have also heard from a single mother that we support. She is spoken of that as well. When she is travelling with her daughter, it is so much easier for her to be able to use a train as opposed to having to use a bus, particularly around the needs of her companion travel. There are some people who simply would not be able to use the rail system without having somebody with them. We have heard that quite often they would prefer to use the train, but due to costs, they simply cannot afford it. Instead, they are deciding to use the bus instead. There are many benefits as to why this should be extended nationally as opposed to having currently the situation for companion travel is very much around. Each local authority has a different system in place. Some offer a concessionary rate for companions, some do not. Even the ones that do it are not always enforced properly, so it is causing quite a lot of confusion, not just for passengers but for rail staff as well. Thank you for that. I was particularly interested in why that is insufficient because of the lack of companion travel arrangement. The companion element is a particularly important part, and it is something that Site Scotland has picked up on. The reason is that, for many people, travelling by yourself simply is not an option. If you have mobility issues or you have sight loss issues or other sensory issues, having a companion with you can mean the difference between travelling or not at all. We have found that people have said that, because they do not get on the bus with my companion and there is the element that it is provided for, they will rather use that than use the train. However, in terms of reliability and accessibility, they would much rather use the rail system, but it is simply not affordable to them. That is very helpful. I understand currently that the disabled bus travel concessionary scheme is about 78 per cent of those who use it have a companion allowance, so does it seem like a major aspect of using that scheme? Yes, it is very significant. Having such a high percentage of users who are using the companion element of it is evidence that it is necessary and that it is needed. If we have it for the bus system and we know that it works and we know that it is used, it makes sense to then extend that nationally on the rail system as well, particularly since ScotRail is now under public ownership. It should be there for everybody to use, and that means meeting the needs of all those in society. I am interested in what costings you might have developed around that. I understand that you hinted that they would save money. I was intrigued by your point. The Scottish Government has no power to control bus fares, as far as I know, and bus fares have been going up. The more people that transfer from bus to rail will save money because the Scottish Government has to pay 76 per cent of the single fare to bus operators. With bus fares going up, it would save money to encourage more people to travel by train. Thanks for that. Do you have any idea of the total numbers of people who might utilise such a scheme in Scotland? I am just out of interest to get an idea of the scale relative to the overall passenger cohort of people in Scotland. From those who hold the NEC card with the I and the plus one symbol or just the I symbol, you are looking at the costings for that would be around £2 million. However, we have had discussions with Transport Scotland for more specific data on that, because that is just an estimate. From that cohort of people, it would be around, I think, about £55,000, but I would need to double check that, but I am happy to send the committee that final figure. Have you got my briefing, perhaps? Yes. It is around 146,000 people, although if you break it down into different components, disabled plus combines about 105,000. That is helpful. There is a potential split point about bus travel versus rail travel, but a lot of journeys are highly integrated, so you need to do a bus. Train travel is an element of that, which would help to make it more seamless for people with a visual impairment, just to navigate the transport system more generally. I personally find it impossible to use the toilets in a rural area of Scotland a long way from any big cities. I personally find it impossible to use the toilets on long-distance buses, but I can use them on trains. The information that we have in relation to companion travel is that there are some authorities—Fife Council, Westloading Council, Strathclyde Passenger, Partnership for Transport—who offer a 50 per cent reduction for companion travel. I wonder whether there is any evidence that you are aware of whether that has made any difference to the incidents of companion travel in those local areas. Is not any specific data gathered on that? However, anecdotally, we have heard that that discount system is utilised and it is greatly needed, but we want to see that go further and mimic the bus system where it is free. As David Wightley pointed out, there are differences in rural areas and urban areas in terms of who is using rail versus bus. As Mr Sweeney pointed out, there are also elements of integration, particularly if you are thinking about looking at the national transport strategy that talks heavily about integration between different modes of transport. In instances in which there is a companion discount, the issue is that it is not always enforced, so sometimes we are hearing that people will get on at certain stations and be told, yes, you can get on for a discount or there is no need to pay this time, and then other times they are being forced to pay the full fare, and it is simply confusing for people. In fact, not having a national policy and having each local authority or SPT's case covering many local authorities is causing confusion and sometimes putting people off because they just do not know whether that companion discount is going to be applied at that time or not because there is no clear policy as to whether it is on that day or not that day when really somebody is entitled to it. That might be something that we as a committee can try and pursue a little bit further and just find out how the schemes exist, what the uptake is and what education there has been in relation to an understanding of them amongst both rail travellers and rail staff. You mentioned, Mr Gallant, that you live in a rural community and Alexander Stewart is going to touch on that. Thank you very much indeed for coming. You talk about the rurality, but is it not the case that, in some situations and circumstances, there are opportunities to develop some process? Can I ask you about the review that you have had at the moment? Has there been any consultation or have you had any feedback into the fair fair's review because that is what the Scottish Government is putting together at the present moment to look at the concessionary aspects of all that? Have you had any consultation or involvement with that fair fair's review? It is not a question of fairs, it is a question of disability discrimination. I simply cannot travel on long-distance buses because the toilets on long-distance buses provided by companies such as CityLink and Stagecoach Megabus are simply not suitable, whereas the toilets on trains are suitable for persons with my disability. Have you had any involvement with the review, Nicoletta? Yes, we have. I say that Scotland has responded to the fair fair's review and we have made the points that I mentioned this morning. I am not aware of any update or report back from that, but we look forward to hearing what that says. I think that this is something that can be implemented ahead of that review. I do not think that that review necessarily needs to be the catalyst in which that change happens. It is quite possible that it could be implemented and, specifically, you are talking about companion travel for those of sight loss through statutory instruments, so there is scope for that. Just to add, you mentioned having different schemes in different places, and I would like to pick up on a cult that I have from one of our service users, which is that my travelling companion can travel for free on some trains in Scotland, but it depends on which local authority they are signed up to. The problem is that it has led to not—a few arguments of training employees and not all local authorities are signed up. You can start your journey in a participating area but end up in a non-participating one, and a trained company employee can insist that a companion pay and buy a ticket on arrival. That has happened to me frequently. It is a recipe for anguish and anxiety, and I think that that stresses the point even further that, even though there are some schemes in place that offer a discount, not having a national consistency in it is really causing people quite a lot of confusion and also real-staff confusion as well. I am trying to understand that, because it is a 50 per cent reduction, so presumably they would still have a ticket. Normally what happens is that if you are at the barrier and you have your national entitlement card, as a card holder, you will go through that barrier. However, the person that is with you can sometimes just go through with the other person and there is no ticketing system in place, or the person is then having to go to a ticket office in order to purchase a ticket. However, not all train stations have ticket offices and there is no option on the automated ticket machines to select a companion travel for the discount, so it sometimes is not always possible for a person to actually even obtain a ticket. To access the actual benefit that exists. Exactly. The bit that I was slightly confused at is that it is not a free ticket, it is a 50 per cent reduction, so I would have expected them still to have a ticket so that irrespective of where their journey ended, they would have been able to present the ticket that they had purchased. They sometimes, and often I cannot even purchase a ticket at the discounted rate in the first place unless they are at a station where there is say a barrier, the person shows their card and they go through. As I said, there is no option on that machine to select companion discount, so sometimes that ticket in itself is simply. So are they then getting on the train not having paid any fare at all? Quite possibly, but then at the other end they would then have to ensure that they paid, and that is when they come to the point of can we get the discount or not. And then they are now trying to obtain the discount at the end of the journey where they are participating, whether it is a non-participatory authority, I understand. Mr Ewing. Thank you, Commander. Good morning to both of our witnesses and thank you for coming along, and I think if I may say so, Mr Gallant, you make a very strong case for the extension of consensually travel to people with a disability both on the grounds of equity and on the grounds of avoiding discrimination. So I just wanted to say that and I do hope that the Scottish Government will respond sympathetically following this review. I want to just ask about one point that you raised before the petition was lodged, which was that you explained that the cost of providing free rail travel for disabled people could easily be met by raising the starting age for free bus travel for senior citizens from 60 to 61. And I must say, I think that it seems to be a suggestion that I hope again the Scottish Government will consider. I'm fortunately or unfortunately I'm 65, so for the last five years I've been entitled to a free bus pass. I've never taken it up, but I'm a bit puzzled as to why myself, as a fairly well-paid person, should need this support, quite frankly, on the grounds of equity. And frankly, I'd far prefer that people with a disability had access to rail travel than people who are able to afford their own costs of public transport should do so themselves. But now that I've got that off my chest, convener, because I think there's a very strong rationale. I know that without revealing secrets that the Scottish Government did consider this at my instigation before, but it didn't actually end up with anything happening, so there we are. But there's a plenty being revealed this morning, Mr Ewing. Well, yes, well, there's certain benefits of being an ex-minister, I guess. But anyway, getting back to the point, did you ever get a response, Mr Gallant, from the Scottish Government about the idea that you could pay for what is being suggested this morning, and it's a very strong case, by, if you like, limiting or reducing or shaving off the benefits of people like myself and many, many others who are over 60 and are entitled to this free bus pass, even though we're well able to afford it? Did you ever get any response at all to that? No, I didn't. However, because of a slight change in the economic situation, it's actually no longer necessary to raise the age for senior citizens from 60 to 61. The scheme would now be self-financing because bus fares have been going up and train fares have been static. Therefore, the scheme would actually bring in financial benefits because the more people who transfer from buses to trains, it means that the Scottish Government would not have to pay bus operators 76 per cent of the bus fare. You made that point in response to Mr Sweeney's question earlier on, that when I asked how much would it cost, he said, well, it wouldn't cost anything, it would be self-financing. However, just to play the devil's advocate, your thesis there about why it wouldn't cost anything does rely on an assumption that people would be switching from bus to train, but would it not be the case that if what you wanted was granted and there's free rail travel for people with disability, many of them may now not use the bus at all, not least because of the practical problems of lack of toilet facilities. In other words, there would be some people who would use with a disability who will use the benefit of free rail travel who do not currently travel on the bus at all, so there would be bound to be some extra cost with or not. It could be for a very small number of people, but, of course, it's impossible to predict what the economic situation will be in the future, but I don't see inflation coming down rapidly. No, okay. Well, it's not a question that I would frankly expect you necessarily to be able to answer because the economics and the calculations are all pretty complex here, as we've seen from the information that we've got from the information centre in Parliament, but thank you very much for putting your case, and I think you've both made the points very well, so thank you. Yes, thank you very much. I think that the committee is very sympathetic to the case that you've made. We'll obviously be able to consider the evidence afresh and decide how next best to take forward the petition, but before we draw anything to our conclusion today, is there anything further that you would like to say to us? David? No, I think just about everything. Thank you. I might just like to just leave some words from somebody who that we support, who has a very rare eye condition and who is also a single parent. So this person has said, I go everywhere by bus only because of free companion travel. That's the reason I use the bus over the train because of the concession rate for whoever is with me. I'd rather take the train as the bus could be so unreliable, especially in the darker nights, which reduces what vision I do have. I take the train more if I could, but with the cost of living it's too expensive to always pay the fare for my companion, and I can't expect my sister or whoever is with me to pick up the cost. The train has better facilities too, access to a toilet, and it's much easier when I've got my wee girl with me. There's also more space, as I'm not always able to get on the bus of my buggy if a wheelchair user is already on. If we could get free companion travel on trains like what we have on the bus, it would make life so much easier. Thank you very much. Colleagues, we would normally consider the evidence a future meeting, but I think that one issue that's come out of this is the issue of the companion travel on the local authorities. I wonder if we're content to initiate a series of inquiries of the local authorities that offer the scheme, just in relation to the uptake of it, the working practices in terms of the understanding of passengers and rail staff. I think that the issues have been identified about which it would be interesting to know if the supporting local authorities are aware of passengers unable to access the ticket at the start of their journey, finding that they're then not entitled to the reduction at the end of the journey. I think that it would be interesting to just initiate some inquiries on those points that would help us to inform our next discussion. Mr Sweeney. It might be interesting regarding the financing of the scheme. I note that the current concessionary travel scheme for older and disabled persons has a 55 per cent rate against the full adult single fare, and they have an overall budgetary cap of £226 million in the current financial year. It might be interesting to see what the actual utilisation rate of that budget is and whether it could be then funded through the provision that's already there if it's underutilised. I think that we can agree that it would be interesting to have consideration. We can then have that information available when we next consider the petition. In which case, I'd like to thank both David and Nicoletta very much for coming along this morning. It's very much appreciated and certainly helped to inform our consideration of the petition. I'll now suspend the committee briefly to allow a change. Thank you. Welcome back again to our third evidence session this morning. This is in relation to petition number 1859 to retain Falkner's rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland. It's been brought to the committee by Barry Blither. Barry, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. We're joined this morning by the petitioner, Barry Blither. Good morning. Welcome to it, to our deliberations. We've managed to consider this petition from time to time along the way and has provoked some quite interesting discussion amongst the committee. We have a number of questions that we'd like to put to you. Before we get to that, I understand that you'd like to say a few words to us and I invite you so to do. Thank you very much. First of all, I understand that Dr Fox hasn't been able to get an internet connection to create a remote link to the committee this morning, which is a little bit unfortunate, but you have, I believe, the outline of an opening statement that he was going to prepare. I don't have a copy of that in front of me, but I'm sure you will have considered it anyway. So just as an introduction and to make a few extra final points before the Q&A starts, I just prepared a short opening statement. So if it's okay, I'll just read through that. Please do. So my name is Barry Blither. I'm the petitioner for the matter at hand and I would first like to thank the convener and the committee members for inviting me here today. I would also like to thank everyone from the public and the wider falconry community who have contributed to the petition so far. Falconry has been my passion basically all my life and in 1996 I decided to make it my full-time profession. I moved to Scotland, made it my home and I've never looked back. It's become more of a way of life to me over the years and this is why I'm in front of you today. The legislation that came into force on March 1, 2021, as amendments to the World Life and Countryside Act is quite simply flawed. From a conservation angle, an animal welfare angle and from a democratic angle, it's a little bit of a travesty. An add-on that I would like to make and I'd need you to consider what you've read from Dr Fox at this point, but just as a minor add-on from his last submission, I would like to add that the Scottish Government have, on a number of occasions, mentioned how they consulted on the legislation with NatureScot and the Scottish Hawk Board. They did consult with both bodies but the allusion that we're presented with is to suggest that that consultation was in advance of the passing of the legislation. It wasn't. It was after the legislation was passed and it was only to discuss the shaping of licensing. The result of the licensing makes a mockery of the Scottish Government's claim that the protection offered to the mountain hare does not impede the falconer's ability to meet their legal and moral obligations to allow their birds the freedom to demonstrate behaviour natural to the species. It absolutely stymies that option. To expand on this, we have to remember that under the guidelines provided by government, based on the government-provided JNCC range map for mountain hares, falconers should now only fly their birds on the 2.5 per cent of Scotland's landmass, mostly built up where they have no chance of seeing a hare and catching it. This means that the falconer cannot anymore provide even a school talk, a flying demonstration at a game fair or a village gala. He can't do bird deterrent work to prevent bird strikes with aircraft and subsequent aviation disasters or keep pest species away from food-producing plants in any part of that 97.5 per cent landmass of the country. They would face prosecution under the Wildlife and Countryside Act if the birds saw a hare in those locations and took it. We must remember that one of the ways NatureScot says pest controllers should keep gals away from undesirable or dangerous locations before they may apply for a licence to remove gul nests is by using falconery, the very practice that now places the falconer at risk of prosecution across this huge part of the country. The Scottish Government has unfortunately no understanding of upland falconery. This may be in part why falconery has been snagged as an unintended bycatch of the legislation, but when their own spice briefing is focused on completely separate, on a completely separate falconery discipline, it's not surprising that the judgments are a little flawed. I won't bore the committee with a long repeat of the information you have at hand from the submissions and the information that has already been provided, but the final point I would like to make are these. The legislation was brought in as a quick exploitation through the corruptions of the suggestions put forward about grassmore management in the Warrity report. This report we must remember, just like the brief parliamentary debate, does not mention falconery at all. The aim of the legislation was to prevent the must culling of hares by shooting, which many people have found intolerable and unpalatable. The report suggests that data was missing and that if in five years hair numbers were deemed unfavourable following more accurate counting, the licensing of shooting should be considered. The data on the hair numbers has already been exposed as flawed. Numbers are likely to be two and six times greater than the numbers used to justify the amendment. Indeed, on managed land, haired numbers are likely to be 35 times greater than those on unmanaged land. The counts made were largely on unmanaged land. The point has been suggested that hair numbers cannot sustain the pressure of falconery. Let's put that in its place. Hares have sustained the pressure of shooting and the lowest numbers of hares quoted as killed by shooting each year are at 26,000 and the highest numbers quoted are at 50,000. Based on the most optimistic numbers of hares taken by falconers in a given season, for falconery to account for the number of hares taken by shooting in one year would take falconery between 26 and 50 years. The pressure of falconery is so infinitesimally small as agreed by NatureScot that it cannot be considered relevant. This is why when we look at the Wildlife and Countryside Act we note that for the very same reason there is an exemption from the legislation that protects birds which quotes for the purpose of falconery. NatureScot has suggested that it does not understand why the same derogation has not been made in the act relevant to mammals and indeed it does not support the omission. All that is required to correct is a small amendment to the legislation to bring mammal and bird legislation in line, an amendment far less complicated than that which has already been imposed. It does not require any change in primary legislation. The change we require to allow the 4,000-year-old-art falconery to continue, bring the welfare, education, conservation and commercial benefits that it brings with it is simply the line in the legislation except for the purpose of falconery. That's all I've got, guys. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr Blyther. That is a very comprehensive statement in support of the aims of the petition. It touches on the issues which we as a committee have tried to address and it obviously underpins the reason why we have you with us this morning. In your correct, we had hoped to be joined by Dr Nick Fox who was going to hopefully achieve a parliamentary first by joining us from an international flight, but unfortunately he's not over the two and a half percent of airspace which allows a connection to be achieved with our our debate this morning. We're going to touch I think in the evidence as we develop the discussion on the issues that you've raised, but since this is really the first opportunity there's been for the whole discipline of falconery to have an airing here in parliamentary discussion, I thought it might be useful just in the first instance to get an overview of what the practice of falconery entails and what its cultural and social significance to Scotland is. With respect, I can't in the room with the amount of time that's available give you a big overview of the whole practice of falconery as a pastime, as a sport, as a hobby or or anything else, but what I can do is narrow down and hopefully bring some focus for your considerations, this discipline, this point of upland falconery, especially with a large buzzer type species and eagles. I've heard it mentioned in the committee room on several occasions when we've talked about birds catching grass, birds catching rabbits, birds catching stoats and well no one's going to want to catch a stoat with any kind of bird of prey, but yes you can take a falcon onto a grouse more and you can hunt for a grouse, you can take the same falcon onto the lowland and with the birds you can hunt a partridge, you can take a hawk onto farmland and even indeed in more urban situations and use them for pest control to catch a rabbit even though rabbits are becoming vanishingly rare these days. The focus here is upland falconery. I can imagine that the committee has a picture of a falconer wearing their glove with a medium sized bird of prey on the fist carrying it around in the countryside looking for a quarry item releasing the bird, it chases it for a few moments and catches it. That's nothing to do with upland falconery, it's not connected and this is where we are called out. So I will rent an estate, perhaps 10, 20, 30, 000 acres with a group of friends so that we can afford it because frankly it's bloody expensive and then either in landrovers or perhaps an Argo cat will make our way out onto the hill and this is proper Cairngall mountain upland countryside. We're looking to get onto a ridge maybe two and a half at a minimum perhaps three three and a half thousand feet on the ground before we even start. We get to that position, the eagle is prepared and we're looking for a ridge, a ridge which has a windward facing side and at this point the eagle is released and this is where the eagle gets to be an eagle to demonstrate behaviour natural to the species in that screaming gale as an aside that the highest wind speed on the ground that I've flown an eagle so far is 87 miles an hour, the wind speed at altitude probably closer to 140 miles an hour. You release the eagle and as the wind hits the hill it's pushed upwards and these enormous wings, those very wings that make it unsuitable for an eagle to fly in woodland near fences in towns and more enclosed spaces suddenly give the eagle the opportunity to rise on the shore to two three four thousand feet and it may not come back to ground it may not touch ground again for four hours it's up there busily being an eagle. Now if we're actively hunting our job on the ground would be to drop off the sides of the hill move through the countryside move through the heather moorland and see if we flush a hair if it's just about exercising the eagle we'll stay on the ridge where there may be not game and we'll move backwards and forwards in the eagle because its training has led it to understand or believe that all of the good things in life happen with near or around us it at altitude will track our position from up in the sky an eagle in this situation the trained eagle in this situation remember the environment that we're in it's not going to see a rabbit they can't live at these huge altitudes and in the weather and the conditions that are there if there are grass around i have to make sure that all of the training that's been put into any of our birds is designed to have the eagle avoid grass because that's going to get us kicked off the moor and realistically it's not a legitimate quarry for the eagle anyway they're too expensive for us and it's not what we're there to do what we're aiming to do in that hunting environment is have the eagle behave and fly in the same style of and as well or better than its wild counterpart this is why we get called upon to create footage for natural history documentaries one end of the scale blue chipfilms for nat geo and netflix and at the other end of the scale something more light hearted like you know country-filed landwood or winter watch but we're called upon because of that entirely natural behaviour and if the eagle sees a hare it is going to follow its natural instincts and put in that devastating vertical stoop on near vertical stoop back to ground in a bid to catch the hare on around 15 percent of occasions it will be successful but has evolution has shaped the predator and the prey in most situations on most occasions the eagle sorry the hare quite frankly makes the eagle look quite foolish outmanoeuvre is it and trots off up the hills largely unconcerned it is worth noting that even though the proposals for using falconry as a pest control method for hares to protect crops and trees and so on even though it's unworkable we simply cannot fly an eagle in forestry it can't see the ground because it's going to fly altitude it can't get between the trees it is seven feet wide and most of the gaps between the trees are just a few feet the forestry is surrounded by fences and if an eagle hits a fence it's going to be killed leaving all of this side the the aim is to have the bird fly in an entirely natural style and if it catches a hare we need to remember that unlike other methods of pest control it is a non-wounding activity the eagle puts in a stoop and it catches the hare and with the enormous power of an eagle's feet the hare is effectively switched off as quickly as it would have been if it was shot but what never happens is that the hare gets away wounded we don't leave an injured hare that's been shot in the leg or the foot etc it's either caught or it's not okay and well i'm going to bring in Fergus Ewing in a second but it just for the editorial point of view of our understanding how many falconry businesses are how many people do you estimate there are like yourself who are involved in this in this business i mean is there an a quantifiable employment underpinning the the the practice of falconry i'm not going to pretend to to suggest you that i understand the number of falconry businesses there are lots of small micro businesses that serve local areas doing village goalers educational school talks and so on there are other larger businesses which might be a visitor attraction there's medium-sized businesses like my own there are six of us working we run a breeding for conservation programme but the breeding for conservation programme because there's no support for it for example is entirely self-funded so it relies on the business doing well to be able to continue the breeding programme and any business like ours anything really that operates outdoors in scotland is always going to have a tough time in winter so there is limited scope to what a business like ours can do to keep to keep turnover moving to keep cash flow moving during the course of the winter and although the contribution it makes is modest being able to take guests out into the mountain to see an eagle doing its thing whether it's hunting or not remember that some guests will come to us and want to see an eagle doing its thing but they're not really quite sure about whether or not they want to see it hunting but for an eagle to do its thing we've got to go into the same place so we have to be completely honest when we put it to the guest that where we'll endeavor not to move ahead but if an eagle is at altitude or any of the large birds of prey are at altitude and they see one instinct is going to kick in so it may take it regardless but to return to your point yes there are a number of businesses all over the country i cannot give you a number unfortunately i'll just don't have the answer to that all right active falconers that are interested in flying in areas where there are hayers as my understanding is at the moment within scotland without tourist falconers coming here i'm standing at around 120 121 i believe okay that's helpful thank you very much Fergus Ewing yes thank you convener good morning morning and thank you for the petition and you start off by saying that your evidence is that you had no opportunity whatsoever to contribute to or be consulted about this law prior to its passage is that right absolutely at no point at all i do think that that's something that is completely wrong i won't dwell on that but but i just want to make that point could i ask you though the law is the law it's passed what what is the impact of the 2020 act on on falconry they remember that we are in this niche area of of falconry when we're talking about specifically the practice of hunting hayers in the uplands that's that's quite a small and modest part of the falconry community that want to do that under any position where they've got the birds that make it suitable the bigger issue that how it affects falconry more broadly is the way i've touched upon it in my opening statement the the government suggested that if a falconer is going to put himself or herself in a position where they're going to eliminate the possibility of them being prosecuted if their bird catches a hare they must endeavour to make sure that any free flying they do with their birds takes place in an area where they are either definitely not or highly unlikely to see a hare now as i mentioned earlier with the jncc map joint nasia conservation council map that was provided by government to give us the range that hayers are known to inhabit in scotland that basically precludes 97 and a half percent of the country as being a safe zone now to quantify that to put that in a real world scenario i do pest control to keep gulls away from a vast area in a in a big property in forfer but it sits right at the edge of the bottom of the angus glens and if i sit on the roof with a bird of prey that i'm flying backwards and forwards to try to disperse adult gulls early in the season to have them avoid coming in here to build nests if i sit there with binoculars i can see hares that are just changing their colour and even the very first leverets as we go into may just hopping around around about half a mile or three quarters of a mile away from where i am now if i go to that site to try to deter gulls with a bird of prey it opens up the legitimacy for me to apply for a licence later in the season which would make it legal for me to remove gull eggs and nests to protect the site if preventative measures and one of the approved preventative measures is falconry are not followed and i cannot evidence that i have followed them then i can no longer get the licence but the world that i mean now means that if i release the hawk it flies up to a large part of the building over their quarter or a half a mile away it sees a hare it flies off the roof and catches it it's a predator it's just following its instinct it's an infinitesimally small chance that it will happen but a very real chance nonetheless but if it happens i'm now open for prosecution so the government is telling me i have to do this before i can get a licence to continue my programme but if i do it and the bird catches a hare they're going to prosecute me anyway so i mean is it is it over dramatic or to generalise to generalise the statement to to state that the effect of this law is to make every falconer a potential criminal if they carry out the practice of falconry absolutely and whether it be a school talk or a gala or a film job doesn't matter what you're doing if you're free flying a bird of prey at all in 97 and a half percent of scotland if the bird sees a hare and it catches it then you are at risk of prosecution it makes everything that we do potentially a criminal offence yeah it's a matter of record that falconry was not mentioned whatsoever in the 2020 debate and i think it's also fair to say that when a criminal offence is being created by a parliament it's essential that proper consideration is given to any conceivable circumstances of prosecution that simply did not happen here it's quite shocking i think you are actually owed an apology by the Scottish government for that but moving on to solutions one solution is that a change in the law is made and you've said that that would not require primary legislation could you maybe just explain exactly what you mean as to how in practice your solution could be implemented because i had thought that primary legislation would be required namely an amendment for the 2020 act but i mean are you saying that subordinate legislation could be used as a means of solving this or do you envisage that some other solution is is is possible such as a general license which i think is something that dr fox said was a possible solution can be in his evidence licensing is viable i see it being onerous for falconers bearing in mind just looking at pest control we already have to fly birds of prey to enable us to get a license to enable us to remove gull nests so from the pest control falconers point of view we would now have to justify the application for and apply for a license nature scott would have to issue the license we would then have to practice that part of our pest control programme for the summer and then apply for another license to remove the gull nests so we're bombarding or everybody would be bombarding nature scott with this cycle of licenses and that's just from the pest control angle then we've got the the number you i quoted is now active falconers looking to hunt hairs another 121 people making an application for a license then you've got both national and international tourists coming from other part of the uk and europe all wanting to come and hunt the hare potentially in scotland or if they even if they don't want to hunt a hare because of the risk under the legislation that exists now that they could be prosecuted if they catch one as a byproduct they've got to apply for a license anyway so now we've got belgian and dutch and check republic and french falconers all applying for a license not because they want to catch a hare but they want to come and see if they can hunt a rabbit but they might catch one and they don't want to be prosecuted so we've got all of these issues around licensing that i could see would just make it complicated for the people on the ground that are applying and indeed the people that are issuing licences it's my belief that an amendment and forgive me if i'm wrong i'm i'm i'm not a parliamentary or i'm not i'm not the right kind of person to make the exact comment but i have been led to believe that in the same way that an amendment was placed on the the current mammals bill an amendment just placing the emission for the purposes of falconery is in fact not a challenging primary legislation if that's not correct i apologise and well we will consider that i think it's fair to say that's within our our our view but just just to just to pursue the point about the impacts i mean is there any way in which falconers could maintain their work without impacting the protected species in other words is there not some way in which you can carry on with falconery despite the problems of facing a potential prosecution why could potentially fly my eagle in the car park at heart hill services i could potentially fly around the dox in abadine harbour perhaps on some of the rigs that are being repaired just off the coast there in abadine the reality of it is no if we want to absolutely eliminate the chances of specifically upland falconers being prosecuted there isn't a current way to do it i mentioned before me and i'm this is just about being honest the risk of doing a an educational talk at a school in the cairngall mor grampion region leading to a hawk flying over the fence and catching a hare is limited but it's real it has happened to me i've been in a situation where i've been providing a flying demonstration at a venue and the hawkers left the arena and caught a hare nearby now remember that birds of prey are naturally wide ranging and free flying so another picture is and and here's a very viable one flying demonstration in the highland gamesfield at bremar just at the edge of infomarky stake birds flying around doing its thing all of a sudden fire engine comes into the arena as part of a separate display eagle doesn't like the look of that drifts off two three miles out into the hill where now you've got an eagle flying around out on the edge of the hill it's a predator hares live there it could catch one i'm not there to catch a hare but the risk of it doing so are very real and they do exist so any any falconry at all could lead to any falconer facing prosecution absolutely right could i just ask one final question if i may convener which is and you touched on this in in your evidence i just want to make sure that i understood it properly namely the kind of the the number of mountain hares that are kind of taken by uh by the birds that are used in falconry and i think it was your evidence that really compared with shooting we're talking about a very small number but can you maybe just and i think you you you did mention some figures but could you maybe just clarify what your view is about the impact overall of falconry on the number of mountain hares that are killed in relation to the overall statistics regarding hares and i know there's a lot of controversy about the numbers because those in the kind of country sports side think that the hares are not under threat at all and there is a lack of evidence and they they want to sort that but what is your view about the impact of falconry on the number of hares killed in scotland as i mentioned in the opening statement there depending on what figures you believe and as you mentioned there is a huge disparity but the the lowest number of hares that i've seen quoted as a county by shooting annually in scotland is 26 000 the general range is between 26 and 38 000 and the highest number i've seen quoted a 50 000 now for the record i must say that i have no issue with shooting i go on to managed moorlands and despite what you're reading the press and the stories that come out the stories about these big barren wastelands and mono cultures are largely not true and on these managed estates the hare populations are absolutely burgeoning there are tens of thousands of them you can literally be at the point where whole hillside seem to be moving with hares and for this reason i don't have an issue with shooting at all it's not my bag at all but i don't have any kind of problem with shooting whatsoever but we're not here to talk about shooting we're here to talk about the impact on falconry so a comparison is always going to come into place now if we refer again to that 121 falconers that are interesting practices in falconry in the UK if we take the statistics that were put together kindly for us by a future with falconry it would suggest that if every single one of those falconers went on to the hill for the maximum amount of available time they've got each year and bearing in mind that this is a winter activity most of this is happening sort of october at a push november december january and into febru the core of the historic season for hares but if every single one of them went there for the maximum possible amount of time that they could were never affected by weather the hawk was successful enough that they reached the maximum number of hares that they would ever want to take in a day and every single one of them did it in a year the maximum number of hares that would be accounted for in scotland is just over 2800 but in reality if you bring that down to a real world scenario you lose when you're flying in these upland places you lose days out because of heavy snow you just can't see indeed rain or floods sometimes you can't get across the fog to get on the hill fog and low cloud are the biggest issue we probably lose around about 50 or 60 of the days that we're on the hill to weather or conditions on the ground so then you then bring it down to the reality being that falcon is in scotland are probably accounting for an absolute real world maximum of a thousand hares and that that's really in terms of the overall population despite this the the controversy over the the counting methods you know around a thousand there's diminumies it's negligible is that is that it's infinitesimally small nature scotland have already said that they consider it so infinitesimally small that it can't even be quantified but they just on that point the one thing that i would like to say is that what the legislation has done is it has devalued the hair it's gone from a game species to be an a pest species now a game species has a commercial value to the estates an estate is there to make money whether you are a supporter of field sports or shooting or any of the other field sports at all it doesn't change the fact that these these estates carry a vast areas of scotland they are well managed for the animals that are desirable to be there and the desired animals there are those that bring revenue to the estate when you move a hair from being a game species to a pest species you take it from an animal that is a nuisance it eats the same food as game species that bring you money it competes with grouse it carries a tick which is a carries a sheep born disease called lopping eel although the hair can't carry lopping eel it can transfer the tick from sheep or deer to the grouse that kills the grouse now historically that risk of damage to the wider activity of the estate would have been mitigated by the fact that people would go to the estate and pay money to shoot hairs or indeed falconers such as myself would pay money to fly my eagles over them now that we can't and the only way that you can take a hair is where it's considered a pest damaging crops forestry etc it now has no value to the estate so the estate is going to become less tolerant of them they're not going to manage the estate in a way that is going to support hairs they're going to do everything they can within the the realms of what's possible within the law to try to move them on if there are peat hags hairs love to sit in a peat hag got the peat behind them no protection behind so they a predator can't see them coming they can look out over the open moor they can get water they can step over there and take a bite of heather come back in and they're protected they love peat hags not really anything else on the hill likes a peat hag and when you're walking on the hills they're awful because you fall over in them and end up at your neck in peat and boggy water what would the estate do now that it can't shoot the hair get rid of the peat hags what happens then the hairs move off the habitat that keeps them protected from the natural predators that live there is being depleted so hair numbers go down this is an absolute own goal for the conservation of hairs it will see their numbers collapse if their numbers are allowed to explode without control then the issue for them is disease if their numbers don't explode then their numbers will deplete because the estate have no motivation they've got no appetite to protect the species because they no longer bring revenue to bring in David Torrance who would like to ask a question thank you very much convener and good morning um since the legislation came into place and birds have been restricted doing what they're not really do um the birds the captive birds that you've got welfare of them how is that affected not being allowed to go and hunt mountain here the easy way to answer is probably to talk about just two birds just as an example to keep it simple our collection including the conservation program is around 70 some are unaffected because they're here for breeding for conservation from various locations around the world but if we just take two birds as an example i've got two golden eagles an unnamed female that was bred in captivity in scotland in the year 2000 and a male that you're going to meet this afternoon called Stanley who was bred i believe in the Czech Republic although i might get that wrong and he's about 15 years old throughout their lives the birds have been trained to fly in exactly the discipline that i started or i described earlier on out onto the open hill screaming gale wide open spaces not offence to be seen in 30 miles that's what they do if we take those eagles and fly them in a different discipline within falconry so we take them out to a flat field maybe there's broccoli growing or something similar and there are brown hairs you hold the eagle up in the air somebody flushes a brown hair it's it's taking the eagle outside of its its skill set and it looks at the hair looks at me and basically says what exactly the hell do you expect me to do with that there is no understanding it just lifts its foot has little rails prins its feathers and and goes back to doing nothing those two eagles since the legislation was brought into force have both been sitting in an avery and have not flown more than 20 feet in two and a half years these are two eagles whose entire lives have followed a cycle of picked up for retraining exercise and management of their condition to get their cardiovascular system up to top form to get them flying and active we then take them out into the hill and we fly them in those environments for a minimum of six out to nine weeks as blocked booked days out on the hill and extended days elsewhere where we can snatch a day here and there it's all they know how to do and quite simply they do not understand how to do anything else the 15 year old male eagle will probably live to be about 40 and under the current legislation it will not fly again the 23 year old female eagle she will probably live to be closer to 50 and under the current legislation she will probably never fly again thank you i think the the discussion we've been able to have this morning has been fascinating and compelling and as you say you you've brought a golden eagle with you today and we're looking forward to meeting stanley as you said in your evidence if stanley were flying above heart hill station he apparently would have to understand the precincts of heart hill station absolutely better than most motorists who probably go through our hill station do but if he were to stray beyond the precincts of heart hill station he would survive with impunity but you would be prosecuted for anything he might then do and uh you know i don't know if we were going to be able i said that he wasn't here to give evidence he was here in evidence but i mean i think the absurd thing is you know we're almost at the situation where the legislation requires us to ask stanley if he understands the perimeters within which he's entitled to hunt which i think illustrates the the nonsensical nature of it all mr blither barry thank you very much i think that's been incredibly helpful i think that this petition has identified and i think the committee is aware of this a real issue that we will want to find a way to pursue and we look forward to meeting you and stanley again in a short while and i'll suspend the committee just just now thank you very much thank you very much we're still in public and welcome back we're now still on continuing petitions and we are now looking at petition number 1905 the public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950 lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJW support calling on the Scottish Government calling on the parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse since 1950 the committee will recall the evidence we heard directly from the petitioner Angela about her experiences and the issues she would like to see addressed and can i once again thank Angela for taking the time to speak with the committee on what was a particularly difficult topic and at our last consideration of the petition we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the evidence session and the findings of the independent inquiry in england and wales the independent inquiry in england wales has now published its final report and sets out 20 detailed recommendations some of which relate directly to the suggestions that were made by Angela and our papers highlight the relevant recommendations now the deputy first minister has responded to the committee and reiterated that if the remit of the inquiry was widened it would add years on to the timeline and produce negative outcomes for survivors the deputy first minister does not consider that the scope of the inquiry should be extended or that a separate inquiry should be established to consider abuse that took place in non-religious residential religious organisations the Scottish Government set out a number of alternative measures including engagement with faith leaders and a public consultation as part of work to develop the national child protection guidance in scotland 2021 that guidance covers reporting practice creation of policies and procedures and careful vetting processes within religious settings now Angela has provided a written submission to the committee which includes links to relevant articles and support of her petition she points to the research undertaken by the inquiry in england wales to reach a decision on mandatory reporting highlighting the importance of this for victims and insular organisations Angela says that religious organisations who do not wish to engage will not be required to do so Angela states that religious leaders should be mandatory reporters and that training should be provided alongside pvg checks as part of any process any vetting process so we've heard evidence we have seen the recommendations from the inquiry in england wales we have yet again received the deputy first ministers assertion that they're not willing as a government to increase the scope of the current inquiry or even to initiate a separate inquiry and we have Angela's response further to all of that and i just wonder what comments or suggestions colleagues have given really the intransigent it seems to me position with which we're confronted david convener um it's a very difficult situation that the government's not going to move on this at all but i wonder if we could write to scots government and highlight recommendations vending pin inquiry into child sexual abuse in england wales and ask a scots government to consult on the introduction of legislation with places a certain individuals mandate reporters under statutory duty to report child sex abuse and to consider need for and the value of a child protection authority for scotland i'm very happy to support that colleagues happy to support that i don't particularly still want to lose sight of the conviction that i think we as a committee came to really on the back of the evidence we had heard that the government's position is incorrect is the wrong is wrong headed and i wonder whether colleagues would be prepared to invite the clerks to draft a letter really summarising our conclusion on the back of the evidence that we've heard that the scots child abuse inquiry notwithstanding everything the government has said should have its terms of reference extended or that there should be an investigation into the possibility of establishing an alternative inquiry based on the evidence that we have heard in the course of our consideration of this petition our colleagues content for us to proceed on that basis as well so we will keep the petition open and we will proceed on the basis of the two suggestions that have been made we move now to agenda item three which is the consideration of new petitions the first of these is petition 1957 home reports make surveyors more accountable and that's been lodged by Catherine Donaghey and it calls on the parliament to urge the Scottish government to ensure surveyors are legally responsible for the accuracy of information provided in the single survey and to increase the liability in surveyors to pay repair bills where a home report fails to highlight existing faults in the condition of the property Catherine has shared her experience of buying a house only to discover that the property had major faults which had not been highlighted in the home report and she tells us these faults included a hole in the roof missing rainwater and gutter systems none of which have been noted as having a category three rating requiring urgent or immediate repair as we do with all new petitions and I should have said this just a moment ago ahead of considering them we do invite the Scottish government to comment on the underlying principles of the petition and to invite them to respond and in respect of this petition the Scottish government has stated that they consider the tasks of the petition to be inappropriate a because the scope of the home report survey is outlined at the beginning of the report and clearly identifies the limitations of the survey and b because members of the royal institution of chartered surveyors carrying out the single survey and valuation in a home report must be appropriately qualified carry professional indemnity insurance and have in place a complaints handling procedure which offers independent third party that's to say people like Catherine recourse to complaints in responding to the Scottish government's view Catherine Donahue explains the difficulty she has experienced of pursuing a complaint with the royal institute of chartered surveyors and suggests that all home reports should include contact details for the centre for effective dispute resolution so an interesting petition do members have any comments or suggestions for action alexander stewart thank you convener at this situation i hope is just a one off but it may not be for this individual who found herself in this situation you would assume that when you get a report that the fundamentals within that report would be covered but i think it's important that we continue to make some reference within this petition so i would request that we write to the institute of chartered surveyors to seek a view on the issues raised by the petition requesting information on training and guidance provided to surveyors and values to ensure the accuracy of information provided at a home report and to provide a view on the proposal to include contact details for the centre of effective dispute resolutions as a matter when they're dealing with a survey and i also think it would be useful to write to the law society of scotland to seek its views on issues raised once again within this petition because as i said if this is not a situation that occurs then it should that these regulations are there to protect the individual who is who is purchasing a property and the saviours and the quality of that is vitally important thank you mr stewart i mean i should say that of skeptics of the proposal for home reports of which i was one i have to say at the time the concern was that the principal underpinning home reports is it would do away with the need for the undertaking of expensive surveys when people were making offers for properties but if the home report is going to be deficient it's certainly been my experience in the years since when buying a home that a survey has been required or has still been required as part of the requirements of the mortgage lender mr ewing yes i in addition to the content of the the letters to the royal institute of charters affairs in the law society i wonder if we could add further inquiries as to the number of about the complaints process the number of complaints per annum perhaps the number of the complaints that have been upheld the number that have been rejected and in comparison with the total number of home reports because you know my experience when i was solicitor albeit in a different century to the one we're now in was that most saviours were pretty professional and thorough and i'm very surprised that a hole in the roof wasn't spotted it does sound like a pretty patent defect as opposed to a latent defect but i would be very interested to know how widespread the complaints are and the people who make complaints how they what the upshot has been because the petitioner says that her experience was pretty dismal and it would be good to get the bigger picture so i wonder if these matters could be added to the letters. I think that would be very sensible i mean i think the experience of the committee in respect of petitions we've considered before has been that sometimes the veneer of a possible recourse on examination by the committee to evidence the substance of it has fallen short of what might have been hoped for or experienced so i think interrogating the actual practice experience numbers and resolution of the existing complaints process would be a sensible thing for us to try and and try and establish i think in particular to tease out whether or not those complaints that have been upheld have resulted in a remedy namely a financial recompense and whether if that has been the case that recompense has been provided by the indemnity insurers or by the saviours it's probably quite a complicated area convenient because i think it'd been overlap between whether the slister was negligent or a severe was negligent and it could be that in some cases both maybe in which case there would be a recourse to dual indemnities the legal slisters professional indemnity insurance and the severe insurance but nonetheless it would be useful just to get a picture rather than just look at this in isolation content our colleagues content that we proceed on the basis of the suggestions made by most of Mr Stuart and Mr Ewing Mr Sweeney thank you convener i share the concerns raised by the petitioner about the fit for purpose nature of home reports it's a particular consideration i suppose i should declare interest as a trustee of the glasgo city how to trust but in the tenemental properties in particular there are major deficiencies in assessing overall building condition in relation to home reports in glasgo and i know certainly our colleague graven Simpson MSPs reconvened the tenement maintenance working group in the scottish parliament so it might be an opportunity to also write to all under one roof scotland the charity that provides impartial advice to homeowners and people purchasing homes as well as the built environment forum scotland who are the secretary for the tenement maintenance working group i certainly know that an action on this is to improve the standard and quality of home reports also understand that the scottish law commission are undertaking a project on improving tenement law and it might be an element of their work that is about improving the regulations around home reports because i do know there are major issues with people purchasing property based on highly defective information which then leaves them in the highlight highly liable for significant repairs to say a roof of a tenement which hasn't been assessed as part of a home report if they have a ground floor flap for example they're still liable for the roof but they haven't actually been looked at at all so i think it's particularly problematic in relation to tenemental property okay yeah we can do that too have we content to incorporate that as well john we are thank you we move next to petition number 1958 to extend aftercare for previously looked after young people and remove the continuing care age gap this petition has been lodged by jasmine kasaya pilling on behalf of who cares scotland and the petitioner is with us in the gallery this morning although isn't contributing to our consideration orally at this time the petition calls on the scottish parliament to urge the scottish government to extend aftercare provision in scotland to previously looked after young people who left care before their 16th birthday on the basis of individual need to extend continuing care throughout care experienced people's lives on the basis of individual need and to ensure care experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care experienced people this includes ensuring that the un convention on the rights of the child the findings of the promise are fully implemented in scotland now jasmine kasaya tells us some care experienced people in scotland find it difficult to access services due to the application of arbitrary criteria relating to their age and when they left care she says care experienced people who leave care before their 16th birthday are not included in the legal definition of care lever and are therefore not eligible for continuing care and aftercare this means they are left to navigate difficult issues without the support that many of their care experienced peers are entitled to she asks the committee to consider how continuing care the promise and or human rights legislation can strengthen protection in line with the inclusive definition set out by the promise and the first minister's personal commitment to care experienced people she suggests that this situation could be fixed by improving existing legislation to ensure all care experienced people have access to support responding to the petition the scotish government have said that they are fully committed to improving the lives of our care experienced young people and highlight that continuing care and aftercare are available to young people who are care leavers the scotish government's response mentions a range of support available to young people with care experience and plans to introduce a care experience grant to provide young people with additional financial support the government also highlight the publication of the promise implementation plan setting out the work they are undertaking to keep the promise made to scotland's children and young people who are care experienced now i would draw members attention to the further written submission we've received from jasmine casay and which she highlights that the scotish government have not addressed her concerns about young people who leave care before their 16th birthday nor they ask to extend support throughout a care experienced person's life she tells us she is aware of many care experienced peers who have been left to struggle without support due to not being formally looked after at the age of 16 as well as others who have had to push to be kept on compulsory supervision orders when the local authority tried to remove them before their 16th birthday so a very complicated but very serious issue that obviously has an impact and colleagues you've had an opportunity to consider the papers and the latest submissions we've received have we any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed David Torrance thank you convener with a committee's agreement of light to invite a petitioner and representatives of who cares scotland centre for excellence of children's care and protection scotish through care and after care forum the promise and the children and young people's commissioner to around table discussion to explore the issues raised in the petition and if the committee has agreed it could we invite some people with experience life experiences of the situations that have been raised in the petition you're supporting that suggestion and in advance of that we might write to various organisations i think just to seek their views to help us inform the discussion that takes place so to the centre for excellence of children's care and protection scotish thoroughfare through care and after care forum to get their contributions as well do we want to wait until we've had that conversation before we write to the scotish government or we mr ewing yes i think we should have the round table first and then write to the scotish government in order to get the flavour of i'm just going to maybe add just a small suggestion to what mr torrance suggested with which i agree which is that in seeking to invite individuals with lived experience to participate in the discussion perhaps we we could ask specific to ask the petitioners who have said that they are aware of other examples if they would be happy to suggest or suggest us people with that lived experience because they have knowledge about that and it would be good to to see if they can point us in the right direction i'm happy to agree to that so we all agreed on that so i'm able to thank the petitioner personally for bringing the petition to the committee we take the petition very seriously and as you can see we will now write to various organisations ahead of sponsoring a round table discussion here in the parliament where we can explore the issues in some detail and in consequence of that then write to the scotish government summarising our our thinking and any conclusions that we reach at that time we all agreed thank you we move then to petition number 199 tackle scotland's affordable housing crisis we've finally reached it petition in the year i was born so we've been creeping up on me it must have passed years a long time ago fungus petition number 1959 to tackle scotland's affordable housing crisis has been lodged by amber robert's and it calls on the scotish parliament to urge the scotish government to take action to improve the current housing crisis by merging housing associations and local council housing and considering considering introducing a new right to buy scheme for council tenants amber suggests that merging housing associations with local council housing could help more council houses become available and result in more than 76 000 council homes being built by 2034 amber also sets out a proposal for a right to buy scheme which would allow council tenants who have lived in the property for 10 or more years the opportunity to buy their home responding to the petition the scotish government state their approach to the planning and delivery of affordable housing is focused on providing the right homes in the right place unquote and they highlight that housing associations and councils have a long history of working in partnership with one another in the delivery of affordable homes noting that not all councils build new homes as six local authorities have previously transferred all of their housing stock to housing associations references made by the scotish government's own target to delivering 110 000 affordable homes by 2032 of which at least 70 percent will be available for social rent and this the highlight would exceed the number of homes for social rent suggested in the petition and be delivered within a shorter time frame a lot of houses to be built in 10 years the scotish government have also stated they have no plans to reintroduce the right to buy scheme and have provided details on the support available to assist affordable home ownership this support includes the low cost initiative for first time buyers and the open market shared equity scheme do members of any comments or suggestions for action david torrance thank you convener and consider the scotish government's response and the plans not to reintroduce the right to buy scheme for council tenants i think there's nothing that the committee could do but close the petition down under 15.7 of standing orders it is difficult to know what meaningful steps we can take forward given the government's position and nor i think can we wait and keep the petition open till 2032 to see if the 110 000 homes are materialised but i mean obviously that itself is a very challenging issue but i think given the scotish government's very definitive response i'm unclear as to what more we could do so our colleagues content that we close this petition on that basis so we thank amber robert's and regret i don't think there is anything more we can actually do of a practical nature petition number 1960 to formally recognise private hard cars and taxis as modes of public transport lodged by edward grice on behalf of the scotish private higher association calling on the scotish government to formally recognise private higher cars and taxis as modes of public transport and to shine such recognition in law i should say to encourage us to encourage to urge the scotish government to that end the spha tell us that private higher cars and taxes provide a valuable service and play an important role in local transport despite the important role they go on to tell us they are more often overlooked by planners and policy makers in comparison with other modes of transport which has led them to being excluded from public transport stakeholder groups and prevented meaningful engagement from taking place and decisions affecting the services they provide in responding to the petition the scotish government highlight there is no legal definition of public transport and each transport mode is subject to specific legislation and in their view this means there is no obvious legislation that could be amended to enshrine the definition in law and set out the relationship between the different transport sectors and local and national government however the government state they do consider the provision of taxis to be a vital part of the transport system and will continue to engage with industry representatives on matters such as low emissions zones and licensing i mean i think we obviously heard from taxi owners in a previous evidence session this flitted in and out of the conversation do members of any suggestions as to how we might proceed alexander stewart i think that we need to take some more evidence and information on this convener so i would suggest that you're right to the chief officers of transportation scotland and the confederation of passengers transport and heads of planning scotland to seek their views on the petition including how the views of a taxi or private hire trade include in their decision making process what scope there is to include a taxi and private hire trade in public transport stakeholder groups and to engage in consultation on decisions that affect the services that they provide and to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on what's happening with the short life working group and further information on any action being undertaken to improve the engagement between taxi and private hire industry and planning and licensing authorities i think that would at least give us an indication of where we are and where we stand with the whole process i'm happy to support that our colleagues willing to support those suggestions mr uring is just a small addendum to to the inquiry that stewart recommended which is entirely support is the Scottish Government short life working group contains members of transport scotland local authorities united union and it says representatives of taxi and private hire trade i wonder if if we could ask the government to specify who these representatives are whether they're sufficient is it rather top heavy with public sector bodies and perhaps not sufficiently representing the range of interests in the tax in private hire sector in other words could we ask the Scottish government whether they feel that the membership of the short life working group might be extended to include a greater representation from the people who who are whose lives their businesses are affected that seems a sensible proposition are we content with that we are petition number 1961 to make it a specific offence to assault threaten or abuse a private hire or taxi driver while at work this has been lodged by edward grice on behalf of the scottish private hire association spha and calls the scottish parliament to urge the scottish government to expand the protection of workers retail and age restricted goods and services scotland act 2021 to include private hire and taxi drivers by creating a specific criminal offence of assaulting threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they're engaged in private hire or taxi work and considering such offences as aggravated when the offences committed whilst the driver is enforcing a licensing or operational condition the spha highlight the 2021 act and the creation of a new offence for situations where a retail worker is assaulted threatened or abused while engaged in their work the spha believe that a similar offence is required to protect private hire and taxi drivers while at work now in their response to the petition the scottish government note there are a range of common law and statutory offences to protect everyone including private hire and taxi drivers from abuse and violence and these include the statutory offence of threatened or abusive behaviour and common law offences of assault and breach of the peace do colleagues have any comments or suggestions I was kind of struck by the scottish government pointing the finger at daniel johnson relation to this and I'm not quite sure what he thought they thought mr johnson's remedy might be but colleagues get any suggestions as to how we might proceed david torrance thank you camera wonder if a committee could consider writing to police scottland seeking information on the number of frightening and abusive behaviour offences recorded in each year over the past decade however a day it can be broken down by occupant and workplace and i wonder if a committee could also write to scottish taxi federation and unite scottland to seek their views on the petition i'm content with both those colleagues wish to add anything to that or are we agreed we're agreed petition number 1963 to phase in a meat production ban by 2040 lodged by roger green calling on the scottish parliament to urge the scottish government to phase in a ban on meat production in scotland between 2030 and 40 to coincide with anticipated changes to future food production and consumption roger highlights an initiative being implemented by the united nations the world health organization to reach a global plant based diet roger states that scottland should act achieve healthy dietary goals by 2030 40 and amongst other dietary priorities this should include phasing out meat consumption the spice briefing provides detailed information on various aspects of meat production including the economic impacts proportion of meat eaters in the uk and the environmental impacts the briefing states that 70 percent of people in the uk are meat eaters and the total agricultural workforce in scottland is around 67 400 people it also points to the uk climate change committee's recommendation to bring forward policies to encourage consumers to shift their diets and reduce beef lamb and dairy production by 20 the scottish government's report the response states its vision is for scottland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative farming and highlights funds to encourage adaptation to climate change within the sector it confirms that the scottish government will continue to work closely with public health scotland food standard scotland and other agencies on diet health and climate impacts to inform future policy do members have any comments or suggestions david thorns thank you convener um considering that uk climate change committee recommends a reduction of meat consumption rather than a ban on the production the scottish government's climate change plan updates sets out plan for 24 percent reduction and overall emissions from agricultural category by 2032 and a banning meat production may have a negative environmental and economic consequences and the scottish government has stated that it continues to actively promote the consumption of fresh local and seasonal produce i'd like the committee to consider closing the petition under 15.7 of standing orders i think given the response of the scottish government and its detailed explanation of the various initiatives that has before it that there's little more we as a committee could do our colleagues content on that basis to close the petition we are um we then moved to position 1964 to create an independent review of the scottish public services ombordsman apologies i've quite a long screen to read you here but um this is our final petition this morning and it's alloged by accountability scotland and it calls on the parliament to urge the scottish government to create an independent review of the spso in order to a investigate complaints made against the spso b assess the quality of its work and decisions and finally to establish whether the current legislation governing the spso is fit for purpose now the spice briefing outlines the role and responsibilities of the spso and the budget resource challenges the complaints process service standards and challenges it states that over a four-year period the spso received 369 complaints about the service it provides and the briefing also highlights the spso's request for a change to legislation to allow it to take complaints in any format and to enable it to initiate its own investigations and note of previous related petitions is also contained in our briefing the scottish government's response to the petition states that due to current resource constraints the independent nature of the ombordsman and parliament's role in scrutinising the work of the ombordsman it does not intend to take forward an independent review of the spso in the near future the scottish government also states that it has opted not to amend the legislation in relation to the powers of the spso at present due to competing demands and resources now members may wish to note the local government housing and planning committee took evidence from the ombordsman yesterday as part of its scrutiny of the spso's annual report and i understand that that consideration did not include the issues raised by the petitioner now we've received several additional submissions from the petitioner and others and these set out concerns about the complaints process and the spso's consideration and handling of evidence including the approach taken where factual errors have been identified people's negative experiences and the impact of the spso complaints handling process and complaints has also been highlighted and issues raised include the challenges of self investigation and the need for structural independence and the submissions call for an independent review of the spso accountability scottland say they would welcome clarification from the scottish government as to whether it considers there is value in an independent review i also thought that in an interesting submission to the committee from bob doris msp he states that he believes there is a clear value in reviewing the spso 20 years on as there has been no meaningful or detailed analysis of the processes and system currently in place and he suggests there would be merit in exploring how effective the spso is including the effectiveness of the safeguards and what changes are required he also suggests that we may wish to understand the scottish government's thinking on whether or not such a review would be desirable i mean it did strike me reading the scottish government's response that they weren't necessarily denying some of the issues that were raised in the petition but simply took the view that they didn't feel they had the resource or the time at the moment to actually explore these going forward but nor did the express as bob doris says a view as to whether they thought doing so in itself would be something of value and to be considered a later date do we have any suggestions as to how we might proceed david torrance thank you convener i'm just wondering before we make any other recommendations if we could write to local government housing and planning my task what relevant work we're going to do in this area and if we're going to look into what the petition's asking for apparently we have already established that and they are not interested in pursuing the issues that the petition has raised if that is the case i wonder if the committee would like to ask a petitioner to come and give everybody this in front of us and the scottish public services ombudsman and i've got a rather lengthy ask then now that we also write to the scottish public services on the issues raised in the petition including its approach to handling and the consideration of evidence and the rationale not to review its decisions when complaints are upheld and i wonder if we could write to scottish government as well to clarify a view on the need for the desirability of a review of the scottish public service ombudsman after 20 years of operation and ask if it considers a process and safeguards in relation to sposo are sufficient and effective and ask if it considers that the legislation governs pso is fit for the purpose i would benefit from a review and what revisions may be required i'm very happy to write to the various organizations that suggested but i think we would do that instead of taking issue taking evidence from petitioner at this stage so we would write as you suggest the spso and to the scottish government i remember any other suggestions or members content that we proceed on that basis mr stewart i think it would also be quite useful to write to the scottish parliament to corporate body seeking clarification of its role in relation to the spso and views on the action carried out for the petition specifically with the value of the independent review of the spso. That's very generous of you mr stewart since i'm on the corporate body and we're therefore one of the people who will be in receipt of the letter you've stressed it mr aswini i would support those proposals i noted that the assembly petition was brought before the committee in 2014 and it was recommended at that point that there should be oversight but that the government had advised that it was too soon to consider this in light of the legislation 2002 feels that we're sufficiently distant from that juncture to now reconsider the the issue and whether there might be a means by the scottish parliament as an institution holds greater oversight of the of the ombudsman perhaps through a discrete committee that actually can be the ultimate arbiter or the ultimate escalating body perhaps mr ewing yes i do agree with mr aswini that this it must be time for some sort of review after 20 years and the can has been kicked out the roads so much that there can be much road left i also note the budget has increased from 4.7 to 6.3 million in just four years and yet the spso will say that they've insufficient resources because of case volumes um and i'm interested to learn a bit more information about about that because on the face of it the increases have been much more handsome than other public bodies have necessarily received over that period and finally i mean one of the to be fair to the to the ombudsman one of the limitations is that it hasn't really any teeth and therefore even complainants who who do get if you like um an upheld complaint don't have any actual remedy they don't get any cash they don't get anything else they might get an apology if they're lucky but that that is an inherent limitation that's not the fault of the ombudsman convener but it is something i would have thought that would fall to be considered in any review as to whether or not the the role of an ombudsman is actually efficacious and whether it achieves what society might expect where there has been serious maladministration i'm happy to take all those suggestions on board i mean this parliament has existed for not much longer than that and we've managed to have two or three reviews into how we operate function it seems perfectly reasonable that after a similar length of time it might be time to have a look at the way the spso does too and i don't think as you say you can argue that we need to defer it indefinitely it's been deferred long enough so i think we're agreed collectively on the various suggestions that have been made that concludes the opening open part of the session we'll be taking the rest of the agenda items in private and the next meeting will be a week today unusually which is our discussion with participants who were on the citizens the citizens panel of our public participation inquiry we'll now move into private session