 I welcome you to the sixth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2017. Can you remind members and others in the room to switch phones and other devices to silence? The first agenda item is a decision in taking item 4 in private. Therefore, the first agenda in items—this is why we take item 4 in consideration of the committee's work programme in private—are we agreed. If we can then move on to agenda item 2, new petitions, and our first petition is petition 1639 on enterprise agency boards, and this is a petition by Maureen Macmillan on enterprise agency boards. We are joined by Maureen this morning, welcome, and I can also welcome Rhoda Grant, Edward Mountain, Douglas Ross and Liam McArthur, all of whom have an interest in this petition. I welcome you all to the meeting. I can invite Maureen to make a brief opening statement of up to five minutes after which members will have an opportunity to ask questions. Thank you very much, convener. This is really a personal statement. I grew up in the West Highlands in the 1950s and the situation in the whole of the Highlands at that time, the whole of the Highlands and Islands, was that young people were hemorrhaging away and the traditional primary industries were exporting the produce south with little added value. Hydro schemes were coming to an end. The short tourist season was about to be hit by cheap holidays in Spain. People preferred to go to Benidorm rather than Oben, and there was massive emigration to the central belt in Canada and Australia and New Zealand, from everybody from hotel workers to university graduates. In fact, the Highlands were emptying. In 1965, Harold Wilson's Government convinced that one of the schemes for the Highlands were not getting to grips with the underlying problem, set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If Willie Ross, the Secretary of State for Scotland, had stood up in Parliament and said, we are setting up a development board for the Highlands and Islands, which will have its priorities and strategy decided by an economic committee of a dozen or so bodies meeting an Edinburgh and probably chaired by me, we would have despaired. However, he did not say that. To great acclaim, he gave the board power to make its own strategic, operational and budget decisions in the Highlands, by the Highlands, for the power, he said, to act at its own hand. This power is very precious to the Highlands and Islands, and that is why every single council leader in the Highlands and Islands has proposed this proposal, as has Professor Jim Hunter, the very highly regarded former chair of High, and David Alston, the present chair of NHS Highland and former deputy leader of the Highland Council. The people of Highlands and Islands feel that they are all stakeholders in high. They have a strong sense of ownership of it and feel that they are in a position to influence priorities, and that is why the press and journal campaign has been so well supported. I hope that you will read in full what Willie Ross said in the House of Commons that day. It still has resonance. Look for the phrase on Scotland's conscience, as I am sure you are familiar with that. Willie Ross also tasks the new board specifically with growing and supporting communities. This is not just an add-on, it is integral. It means that High not only has to attract and encourage industry to the hubs like Lochaber and the Murray Firth, and I am very pleased at the recent great newsroom for William. However, it has to work in the face of the economic realities to sustain often hard-pressed communities in the northern isles, the western isles, the small isles in the sky, the Argyll Islands, Contire, Lorne, Morvan, Amaricain, Moidart, Neudart, Westeros, north-west Sutherland, Caithness, east Sutherland. I could expand this list, but it gives an idea, I hope, of the diversity and vastness of the task. Communities were nurtured by giving them a sense of their own worth, by supporting community projects like village halls, community shops and cultural events. I wondered if this kind of nurturing will survive in the new regime. The social remit, I fear, may be compromised. Do you think that overarching, hard-aligned economic committee in Edinburgh would have agreed to support the fashion movement, or agreed to build some more austic and slate? Would we have had, in fact, the University of the Highlands and Islands with its unique structure? Would they be impressed that High not long ago stepped in when three teachers in Kinluck-Berby's school needed childcare provision to carry on working? A great example of High carrying out its social remit. Audit Scotland did not find any weakness in High. Our experts are as expert as any other experts. High have consistently outperformed expectations, so you have to ask what is the problem that the Government is trying to resolve here. Since Michael and I decided to settle back in the north in the late 60s, we have seen a huge change in fortune, not just a massive increase in population, but an increase in confidence. It would be an injustice if that confidence were taken away by removing decision making from us. High is very close to the communities that it serves and is part of the fabric of the Highland way of life in a way that other NDPBs are not. We value the autonomy that High enjoys. Maybe it comes from centuries of other folks telling us what to do. There is still work to be done. Not all areas have seen this increase in population or confidence. Indeed, some are still losing population. Many of the remote, rural and island communities are still very, very fragile and need a continuing strategy that will support their economic and social fabric. Special attention needs to be paid to Argyll, the Western Isles, the Orkney Islands, Caithness and Sutherland. Remote, rural and island cannot be hard aligned to the needs of towns and cities. Remote and rural communities are themselves diverse and every island is unique. I fear that the new proposals will be too inflexible to let these communities flourish. Something else that may be lost is the encouragement of good ideas from the grass roots. I give you the example of North Coast 500. What Edinburgh-based committee would support the marketing of a tourist trail around singletrack roads up there somewhere that they have never heard of. Yet it has been a huge success and could create up to 200 jobs in remote communities. There is a lot at stake here for Haigh and for the Highlands and Islands. Haigh has never fitted into a Government department box, nor should it be made to do so, it will kill it. Any alignment should be with other Highlands and Islands bodies, for example the local authorities, the health boards, the University of the Highlands and Islands in the third sector, for the good of the Highlands and Islands. This one Scotland size does not fit us. It will be a great shame and an insult if a power given to us by a Westminster Government has taken away by a Scottish Government. I hope that I have given the committee some food for thought and that it will help to get the best possible outcome for the Highlands and Islands, which, as far as I am concerned, would be the retention of the status quo and the restoration of the local enterprise committees. Thank you very much for that. Can we just move to the questions now? My first question is really to recognise that there has been some scrutiny in the Parliament on this. It has been debated on in the chamber I think on two occasions and voted down. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee is also committed to keep a watching brief. The Education and Skills Committee and the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee have also been scrutinising the Enterprise Skills Review. Given all the attention that the issue has taken, what do you hope that your petition uniquely will achieve? There has been scrutiny but I am not aware of any results of that scrutiny. I know that there have been committees looking at it and there has been a debate in the chamber which the Government lost. I want to keep pressure up on the Government. There are so many people in the north who are objecting to that. I do not know of anybody who is supporting it. I have spoken to a lot of people, I have spoken to Jim Hunter, I have spoken to Margaret Davidson, leader of Highland Council, I have spoken to Sandy Cumming, who is a former chief executive. I have got a copy of this book on Scotland's conscience, which has just been published today. It is the reason that Jim Hunter cannot be here to help me with my evidence, because he has to be at the book launch in Inverness today. However, I would recommend this as a background reading for anybody who wants to get to grips with what high was and the fears about what it might become. I am hoping that—I know that there is a ministerial statement this afternoon—I am hoping that maybe the minister will listen to what I am saying here today. Although I have not any great hopes, it might make them change its mind. I must declare an interest. I am a councillor with Argym bute council and I understand fully about the island issues. The Scottish Government consulted on phase 1 of the enterprise and skills review. As we have already noted, the Scottish Parliament has had the opportunity to debate the review's phase 1 report. What is your view on the process that the Scottish Government has followed in conducting phase 1 review and whether people had adequate opportunity to voice their opinion on the proposals for phase 1? To be honest, I did not realise that anything much was happening because, as Ian McDonald says in his introduction to this book, the announcement slipped in on the answer to a question. It says, while on his feet Mr Swinney slipped in the news that there was to be a shake-up, the Government planned to bring together the various bodies. It was Rhoda Grant, a Highlands and Islands list MSP, who has pursued the Government relentlessly on this. I thought that I would just say that so that Rhoda would get a smile on her face. Nobody really realised that it was happening. There was no consultation beforehand. It was just an announcement. People began to realise that something awful was going to happen. I really did not pick it up until the P&J started their campaign. Then I phoned Rhoda and said, what on earth is going on? As far as I am aware, there has been no consultation in the north. No committee has sent a rapporteur up around the Western Isles to see what people there think about it. Nobody has sent a rapporteur to Argyll to see what their views are. I really do not think that there has been much consultation that I am aware of. There may have been consultation in private with, I do not know, the great and the good or something like that, but the great and the good certainly did not include James Hunter, or Brian Wilson, or Michael Foxley, or Maggie Cunningham, who are the authors of the essays in the book. The Scottish Government has yet to come forward with phase 2 of the enterprise and skills review, and, although you have already said that, there is a ministerial statement this afternoon on this issue. Do you have any evidence or concerns that the Scottish Government is not listening to the Scottish Parliament or wider concerns in formulating phase 2 of the review? We will see whether that is the case or not when we hear the statement this afternoon, and I do not need to have any great hopes for that. There was Lorne Crerar's take on what might change, and that did not go down terribly well, either. I have copies of letters here from Highland Council and, in fact, from the leaders of all the councils objecting to phase 1. From Margaret Davidson, the leader of Highland Council objecting to Lorne Crerar's conclusions. Unfortunately, she had been hoping to get the other council leaders to sign up, but, because the council had gone into Perda, she was not able to do that, but I would imagine that they would not be terribly happy either. I really do not see that there has been much difference and much change over the piece. I hope that answers your question. In the debate chamber on 28 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work said that a number of members of the convention of the Highlands and Islands expressed support for continuation of the board, but they also said that the nature of the board had to change to take into account developing circumstances. He acknowledged that it is important to listen to views and that perhaps some of the fears being expressed might not come to fruition, and that the best chance of achieving that outcome will come through having a dialogue about what might happen in the final stages of phase 2 of the review. Do you have any views on that, and would you expect or hope to contribute to that dialogue? I would like to see what the proposals were. Sometimes it is not worth contributing to a dialogue if he has totally set his face against letting High keep its autonomy. What dialogue is there to have? As regards the board, I would like to see changes in the board. I would like to see the board change back more to what it used to be because it used to be Highlanders who were on the board, and now it seems to be more like civil servants as far as I am told. I cannot say that for sure for myself, but not having met many members of the board. However, there is a feeling among people that I speak to that the Highland board has changed, and that it is not as Highland as it used to be and therefore not as committed to the Highlands and Islands as it used to be. If there are any changes in the board, I would prefer to see it revert to being a proper Highlands and Islands board with Highland and Highland people on it. The committee has been given a briefing that highlights High's responsibilities and funding, including its role in account managing 50 communities. What is your understanding of how the existing role of High would or would not be taken by a Scotland-wide statutory board? Can you outline what the problems might be with that? Those 50 communities—and, of course, they are quite small communities, and there are ones that are even smaller that are not the countholders. That is all part of the social fabric of the Highlands and Islands. What seems to have been missed by the minister when he wanted to set up his overarching board is that it is reported—I do not know, but it was reported—it was in the press and journal, so it must be true that he did not know that High had a social remit. Now, if that is the case, he has been badly advised, but the civil servants have always been a bit wary of High's social remit because it does not deliver the economic goods, it delivers cohesive communities. I think that there will be a big difficulty in this new, hard-aligned committee looking after these small communities and being account holders for them. There is a lot of good work going on in the Highlands and Islands that might be lost, or once that particular phase is over, it might not be replicated again. I am extremely worried about the small communities if that goes through. I take it from that. You are not convinced that a Scotland-wide board would look at what has gone before and try to build on it or replicate what good practice has been going on? I would be very wary of that. They do not have any background in doing it. I do not see Scottish Enterprise doing that. I do not think that they recognise that that is part of their role. I would really worry that it would be some kind of all-so-ran that it would not be seen as what I think is one of High's main reasons for existence. Okay, thank you. Thank you, MacDonald. Okay, thanks. I should say that I hear from the Western Isles originally. I am happy to state for the record that I have sympathy for this petition and I have seen the benefits of the HIDB and High at first hand. That said, however, in his evidence, the Education and Skills Committee in December last year, Cabinet Secretary Keith Brown explained that the Scottish Government gathered evidence from account-managed companies and that they have currently been provided with services by High and Skills Development Scotland. Mr Brown explained that the evidence led the Scottish Government to view that there are elements of duplication and a lack of joint working such as in relation to international activities, so I would just be curious as to what your view is on that. Well, I am sure that there would be evidence of duplication and I am sure that that could be looked at, but I do not think that it means that everything has to be taken under the one umbrella. Those things can often be sorted out just by dialogue. If there is one particular problem with duplication, I would be sure that that could be sorted out by negotiation. I really do not think that you need such draconian measures to sort it out. It is not an insurmountable problem. I do not think that it is an insurmountable problem at all. I know that, in the past, there has been a bit of pushing and shoving, for example, between High and Highland Council and so on, about who does what. However, those things can be sorted out by negotiation, by compromises, by sitting round the table and saying, I will do that and there is no sense in us both doing it. You do not need an overarching committee in Edinburgh to sort that out. I wonder if there is any of our visitor colleagues who want to ask a question and grow to first. Really, to support Maureen, I am pleased that she has taken this petition forward and I am even pleased at her about her warm words about me, so I better put that on the record. I think that there are real concerns in the Highlands and Islands about what is going to happen to High and what it was set up to do and whether it can continue to do that. I think that there probably are issues about co-ordination and working together, but surely that is for the Cabinet Secretary to start banging heads together and make sure that we should expect all Government bodies to work together. They are being paid from the public person and that is their job, so I would hope that that could happen without changing the whole format of High, because when High was set up, as Maureen said, it was in recognition of the particular issues in the Highlands and Islands, the geography, the depopulation and the like. Some of those have been addressed. If you look at places such as Inverness, the fastest growing city in Europe for a while, while other places were going in the opposite direction, that was down to High. However, we have had creeping centralisation, as Maureen said, of the board and some of the solutions as well, such as account managing and the like, where they work for some things, but they do not work for very small companies and one or two people organisations of high needs of freedom to work within the urban sectors but also the very rural sectors, while encouraging growth around the Inner Murray Firth, which has seen booming. Some of our island communities are still depopulating and we need to make sure that High has the powers, the strength and the local responsibility to do something with that. I am maybe being a bit unfair to the convener, but you represent an area in Glasgow but you have also got your roots in the islands. You can imagine, in your constituency, where jobs are short. If the option was to create two or three jobs in Tyrie or 100 in Glasgow, it is almost a no-brainer where you would go, well, maybe not for you. You should not be on the spot like that. However, anyone making that decision will see value for money per job. They will not really see that those few jobs in Tyrie would underpin the economy of the whole island and keep it going. There are those kinds of decisions that need to be made. I do not have a question for Maureen, but I want to support her petition and hope that the committee will examine those issues really closely. I think that there is a lot being missed. If the cabinet secretary was aware of what we could lose by this, I do not think that he would be going down the road at all. Thank you, convener. First of all, I declare an interest as a Murray councillor. Clearly, HIE has a big role to play in Murray as well. First of all, I thank Maureen Macmillan for taking the petition forward. She has rightly highlighted the involvement of Labour MSPs. It is also fair to say that Scottish Conservatives led a debate in Parliament, which ultimately led to the defeat of the Government on this issue. Edward Mountain, Donald Cameron and myself have spoken that. We all agree with what is being said in the petition today. Tavish Scott for the Liberal Democrats had a question at First Minister's question on the issue, and John Finnie for the Greens also questioned the First Minister on plans to centralise HIE. That shows the strength of the feeling across Parliament about those issues, certainly from the representatives in the Highlands and Islands. I was struck by what Maureen Macmillan said, that HIE is in the Highlands, by the Highlands and for the Highlands, and that is something that we have to stress at every point. That is an organisation that is based at the heart of the area that it is trying and has successfully improved over many years, but wants to continue to improve. From a Murray point of view, we are often caught in the middle. We are not quite Highlands, we are not quite Grampian, but with HIE we do see a significant role and a significant investment by Highlands and Islands Enterprise in the Murray area. With the Forest Enterprise Park, with the considerable work that it has done and continues to do with the Murray economic partnership, an awful lot of the successes that have been achieved in Murray would not have been achieved or certainly to not the extent at which they were achieved without the investment and the support of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. You also mentioned the North Coast 500, and I have been struck since coming to Parliament the number of times that all politicians from all parties, including the governing party, celebrate the new jobs that were created recently at the Forest Enterprise Park, with HIE managing to bring in another outside agency to bring in more jobs to forest and Murray, and we all celebrate that element. If HIE is doing all that great work, it is being recognised locally in communities, and it is being recognised by politicians across the political spectrum, why are we trying to change that? I would say that I and my Scottish Conservative colleagues fully support that petition. We would hope that, even at this late hour, Keith Brown is watching proceedings of the Petitions Committee and is considering his statement to Parliament this afternoon. We will be watching very carefully and asking very critically to ensure that the will of Parliament is observed this afternoon to make sure that the strong belief that this organisation should not be dragged down and emerged in with other organisations does not go ahead. Finally, if I could ask a question, rather than just making a statement, would Maureen Macmillan be able to tell me any time after centralisation when someone says, well, do you know what, since the local decision making was taken away from the local area, dragged down to the central belt, actually the local decisions were better or more informed, or would she agree with me that that never happens and therefore we shouldn't do it on this occasion? I cannot think of a single example, I have to say. I think that Douglas Ross has very clearly set out the cross-party feeling on this. I think that, frankly, Jim Hunter would be one obvious example, but I think that within the chamber there is anointing to sympathy within the SNP group as well for a lot of the arguments that you have made. On that basis, like Douglas, I hope that the cabinet secretary is watching proceedings this morning and even at this 11th hour is minded to take a different course. I was particularly struck by the point that you made in relation to this being a solution searching for a problem to solve. Angus was right in highlighting one of the arguments that have been posited around improving the collaboration around internationalisation. I think that there is probably something in that for some of the companies, but I think that one of the successes of HIE, and I think that you alluded to it, was that it is able to provide very targeted support to businesses, to individuals who have absolutely no intention or aspiration to internationalise or even to branch out terribly widely across the Islands and Islands region itself. Those sorts of interventions that are made at the moment have been historically made since the setup of HIEB, which are potentially at risk when it is being scrutinised by a central board, which is matching numbers. In a numbers game, the Islands and Islands is rarely ever going to register on the radar in comparison to counterpart enterprises of growth or sectors of growth elsewhere in the country. Would that be a fair assessment? That would be a fair assessment. I think that community cohesion is terribly important, and you are not going to get that by a drive for exports, let's say. Those tiny little communities in Harris or Lewis or in Orkney, they are not going to do that. All those businesses drive for exports. I have been, for the last nine years, chair of the Murray Firth Partnership, the coastal forum, and we had a big project trying to get fishermen not to export the local seafood but to make it available to local people, to eat and to have lovely fish restaurants in a trail all round the Murray Firth. One hand does not know what the other hand is doing. At the minute, all this stuff is going to Spain, but we would actually quite like to keep some of it at home and provide jobs at home in restaurants and fish vans and fish mangers and so on for local people, which, again, you could replicate that at any where in Scotland that has a fishing boat coming in up here. I wouldn't like to create the impression that we are a region that's inward looking. I mean, there are sectors that are truly international at world class and actually where HIE has recognised the significance of those and got alongside individuals and businesses early on within my own constituency and the support around the European Marine Energy Centre would be an example, but through to some of those in fashion and jewellery, which on a national scale don't look particularly significant, but within the Orkney and the Hannas and Islands economy are absolute linch pins in terms of job creation, in terms of wealth creation, in terms of skills development, the sorts of things that HIE has been very good at. Craft industries are very important to small communities because they can export, if you like, not abroad, but they'll export out of their area and bring money into their area in that way. Things like smoked salmon places now that I get my smoked salmon at Christmas from someone in UST and I think, well, there's money going into the UST economy. All these little enterprises are underpinned by HIE. Is there something—I mean, the argument is that, in a sense, 50 years on since the birth of HIEB, there is a need to, in a sense, reinvent HIE to some extent, this has been the Scottish Government's proposal for enabling it to happen. What would you suggest is the answer to where HIE needs to go next in terms of addressing challenges and opportunities? I would say that HIE now needs to look at the rural areas, the remote rural areas and the islands more specifically. I think that Roundabout the Murray Firth is doing pretty well. If somebody from East Sutherland said to me not all that long ago, it just looks after itself now. It doesn't need the input that it used to have. Well, that's maybe not quite true, but that's a perception from further north and further west. I do think that there are places that are still struggling. 50 years seems a long time, but in fact, in the years and years and years of Highlands decline, it's not all that long a time to get things turned round. As I said earlier, Argyll needs attention, the Western Isles needs attention, or the Orkney Islands, not so much the mainland, but the Orkney Islands needs attention. Cathness, whatever you think of nuclear power, had a big industry on the north coast there with very, very high-class jobs. They don't have it anymore. The decommissioning will finish. Although there are renewable energy jobs there, they are not in the same category as what was there before, so that needs to be looked at too. There's a lot still to do, and I think that to start interfering with Highlands and doing what is proposed, I think that that would be counterproductive. Thank you very much for that. Unless there are any further questions, I thank Maureen for the evidence that she's given. I now need to think about how we want to take that forward. I think that what has already been said is a statement this afternoon, so I wouldn't suggest that we let go of the petition at this point so that we know what the statement says. From my point of view, I went to school in Glasgow, where every island community in the west coast was represented. We were the children of depopulation—Tairie, Islay, Lewis, Harris, Sky—because our parents had to move to work. I'm glad to say that there must be about 50 generations in Scottish terms, but my nephews are now able to contemplate staying on the island of Lewis and getting good-quality work there because, in my view, a lot of what HIE has done. Also, Scottish Enterprise got rid of its social remit, which is a matter of great regret to some. It represents a city that needs community attention as well as chasing the big companies. The last thing that I would say was that, at the education committee that we took evidence from the cabinet secretary, he did say that the solution had come out of the consultation. Of course, when we asked who had suggested it, it would appear that nobody had suggested it, except perhaps the minister himself, and then folks said, well, maybe, yeah, maybe, and I think the problem has been—Stage 1 has produced the answer. Stage 2 is not about testing the answer, it's about implementing it and it's a bit in the middle that I think we're losing, which I think this petition and the petitioner has exposed, which is actually what is the driver behind it and what are the consequences of it. I certainly would hope that we would either be doing something or perhaps referring it to the Rural Affairs Committee, but I think it would be useful to wait till after the statement says that it might be sensible to wait. I'm inclined to want to hang on to this one in this committee. I'm not sure whether the Rural Economy Committee specifically would look after Highlands and Islands. It's a much broader remit, so my personal feeling is that I think that we should hang on to this. Angus? Yeah, well, it all depends on the statement this afternoon and what the Government's response is to Professor Crerar's comments. I'd been keen to refer it directly to Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, however, clearly there's a strong argument to wait and see what the statement says. I mean certainly my view is that what we've been looking from the statement is not something that gives a nod in the direction of, you know, I think we're looking for some body that does what it's already doing. And I think actually what Maureen has said about how you might strengthen it has actually been very interesting as well, which is perhaps to revert more close to what it was in its original time. But I think we were there for being agreeing that we do think that there's more for this committee to do once the statement has been made, but we certainly think that the Parliament should be doing more on it, and I think that at that point we can decide whether we want to let it go to the Rural Affairs Committee or to hold on to ourselves. With that, I thank you very much, Maureen, for your evidence. I think that that was very useful. I thank our guests for coming along and I'm going to suspend very briefly while we get ahead with the next item. I recommend this book on Scotland's conscience. I said to Ian that I would show it around the committee. It's being published today while it's being presented today, and it only costs a tenner. I hope that you're getting paid for the plug. Can we move on now to petition 1633, private criminal prosecution in Scotland? The next petition on the agenda is petition 1633 by Bill Alexander on private criminal prosecution in Scotland. Members have a copy of the petition that collected 37 signatures and 10 comments. Members will see that the petition is calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to give the people of Scotland the same legal rights as the rest of the UK by removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced in Scotland. Background information to the petition is set out in the SPICE briefing, which members have been provided with in the meeting's papers. If members have any comments or suggestions for actions? Much higher level of private prosecution is set to the border than is up here. An obvious one. The question then is that a good thing or a bad thing, I suppose. That would be right to the Crown Office and the Procurator Viscal Service, etc. Health and Safety Executive and Partnership in Health and Safety in Scotland take their view on the application as they are the ones at the sharp end. I think that one of the things that we need to understand properly is why I get the idea that you are prosecuting the public interest, but I am not sure whether other people have a disexpansion. We have had a number of experience of constituents who seek a fatal accident inquiry and do not get that because it is not regards being the public interest. They cannot get a criminal prosecution, they cannot get health and safety to get involved and they are left in a position where they feel as if there is nowhere to go. I wonder if that compounds that feeling because they have to seek the permission of the Lord Advocate who clearly does not grant those things lightly. I think that they said in the papers that there have only been two in the last... I have been working in one just now. I am seeing that it can be looked at what is happening down south and it is a hugely higher number down south. Exactly that question is where do we go. There have been some high-profile examples of private prosecutions that have not ended to the satisfaction of people who have had a terrible experience. I am not sure of... The other issue that is in here, which I think that the Smith commission wrestled with, and we certainly wrestled with it in our own among parties devolution commission, was the fact that health and safety regime is determined across the United Kingdom, which I think, while we are part of the United Kingdom, is a good idea. The Scotland committee, I do not know if it has the powers to address some of the health and safety breaches within Scotland. I just felt as if there were a lot of questions that posed to me. I think that what you are saying is absolutely right, but I think that that is maybe a different area to what he is talking about. The petitioner appears to have written to the health and safety executive and the Crown Office, et cetera. I am not sure what to be gained from writing to them again. I would maybe suggest that we write to the Government to seek their view on the petition and to ask for clarification on what action it is taking to improve health and safety outcomes in Scotland to have it on record. It is a huge ask. It is a huge issue. I think that it is something that we probably want to get a better understanding of and recognise. I think that the committee would agree that there is an issue. We are writing to the Scottish Government and asking what action it is taking to improve health and safety outcomes in Scotland. The suggestion is not much of a difference, but my recollection is that, for example, fatalities in the construction industry are higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. There could probably also be explanations for that. Does that mean that the health and safety regime needs to be stronger? I think that we are writing to the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. The health and safety executive has more as I suggested. The partnership on health and safety in Scotland is seeking their views. It is a kind of thing. Even from the papers, you could see the logic of the argument about the public prosecution and the public interest, but it is dealing with that bit where people feel as if they are not getting justice. In that case, if we can move on to petition 1634, equality and council tax payment options. This is a new petition that collected 51 signatures and calls for clarification of council tax legislation so that people are able to choose to pay their council tax in 12-monthly installments in all local authority areas in Scotland. Currently, 22 of the 32 local authorities in Scotland offer residents the option to pay their council tax bill by installments over 12 months. Of the 10 local authorities who do not allow payments by installments, only five councillors announce plans to introduce this following the petitioner's research. A number of councillors have cited the lack of legislation in this area as a reason for not introducing payments by installments, with the legal framework being unclear. I wonder what members' views are on this petition. It is a local authority matter, and it is up to them whether they spread over 12 months or 10 months. I think that we could write to Coslins and ask for their view, but I definitely think that it is a local authority matter. I agree with that. I think that the local authorities might experience that there are different pressures, and it may be valid reasons why they do 10 months and not 12 months. I would like to find out why. I agree that it is a local authority issue. We obviously work within a framework to get the responsibility lands in this place. I would certainly like to understand that, because that is putting pressure on some and others. I would like to understand why, I think, before any further. Angus? I agree. I have to say that the petition does not seem to me to be a big ask, but it is an issue primarily for local authorities. I am certainly keen to get some more information from Cosland to have their view on it. I am intrigued. I think that we would get to the petitioner who has also done their own research and established the difference, and the explanations, which we are not able to do any of them, is because it is determined at the centre. At the very least, we need to resolve that conundrum. I am also interested in what are the motives behind the local authority referring 10 months from 12. Is it about securing payment? Are they more likely to get the money in in which they can then manage their budgets better if they do it over 10 months rather than 12? I do not know whether that is the case. It also looks as if some local authorities introduced 12 months when people are under pressure, financial weather, and got into debt. In order to prevent debt, would it be more logical to say that it makes sense to make payments over 12 months? I am assuming that those things that they must have thought about. I certainly think that the petitioner raises some interesting questions, but I would be interested in what the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities say about it. I get the sense that, so far, the Basie said—the Scottish Government said, well, that is the way it is. It is not for us, and the local authority has said, well, it is a matter for regulations. We need some kind of proper clarification of where that is. We are then trying to tease out local authorities. What is the downside of offering people 10-month payments? I presume that it is only about securing their own budgets, which is a reasonable pressure, I guess. Are we agreeing, then, that we write to the Scottish Government and COSLA on the action called for on the petition? If we can move on to petition 1635 on the review of section 11 of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. The next petition is petition 1635 by Emma MacDonald on the review of section 11 of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. The petition did not collect signatures. Members have a copy of the petition, the spice briefing and a note by the clerk. Members will recall that we had the opportunity to meet informally with the petitioner in order to assist her understanding of the background to the petition and the note by the clerk summarises the issues that were covered in that meeting. I think that I will be speaking for all members in saying that we were very grateful to the petitioner and those who tended with her in giving us such clarity around the issues that have created the need for this petition in the first place. Those issues included the unregulated nature of child contact centres, the location and security of the centres and the qualifications required or on-going training delivered to volunteers, staff or other professions involved in the child contact process. Included within that last point are questions of who is responsible for the safety of both children and adults while they are on the premises. On the issue of the suitability of contact being required at all, the underpinning concern of the petition is that the voice of children is heard. For example, whether sheriffs are ordering the contact that is required to undertake professional development and how professionals such as teachers and doctors can have input. Another issue relates to funding and accountability. The briefing material that we have indicates that parents can be required to pay for this service, which may raise concerns about who contact centres are accountable to. The Scottish Government has signalled its intention to bring forward a family justice modernisation strategy that is intended to ensure that the child's voice is heard. However, the timescale for delivery of the strategy is not clear. I wonder if members have any thoughts on what action we might take on this petition. I think that the petition raises a number of very serious issues. I think that we have heard some of them when we spoke to the petitioner in private. It relates to child welfare and to current practice. We should seek the Government's views on the action called for and to establish the progress of the family justice modernisation strategy. Then I would be very much in favour of a round table evidence session with all stakeholders involved. We have a number of suggestions here that we might include Relationships Scotland, Sheriffs Association, Children and Young People's Commissioner, Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Experts and individuals organisations train specifically to represent and support children through the justice system and professionals such as doctors, teachers or childminders. Virtually anybody who is involved in child welfare should be involved in this petition. I think that the evidence session would be a really interesting way of tackling this. We got from the evidence that the very raw examples of practice that is going on. At that stage, I would have liked to have had the other stakeholders round the table listening to that to get their response. I agree that that would be a very positive way forward. When I was very struck by what Rona had said at that meeting, as someone with experience of the hearing system, that you were not aware of those issues and as someone who would be very alive to it. Because the comparison between the hearing system and what I was hearing was night and day. Something has to be done clearly. Timmy is in terms of the Scottish Government's approach to domestic abuse around coercive control. Over many years, I certainly have had experience of the way in which quite often the contact system is used as a means of continuing the abuse. That is evidenced in the paper that we have got, which suggests that both the mother dropping off the children or the children themselves can feel quite frightened. I might miss it. I think that women's organisations too, but the idea of trying to get people around to who have experience in his field might come up with some solutions. We are particularly useful to have relationship Scotland who clearly run the service. We will be doing so, I am sure, for the best of reasons, but to be aware of the way in which that is experienced. The other organisation that I might suggest is the women's support project in Glasgow, which has done a lot of work around the place where contact and the legal system and domestic abuse all meet. However, we can leave to the clerks to think about who is there. The other person that I thought was among the group of people that we heard from was the child support worker. It was very interesting. I am not sure that that is a role that exists right across Scotland. It is useful to know to what extent other local authorities have those individuals there. The child line might be a name that they obviously gather a lot of evidence. I wonder whether they have anything about that. Perhaps I had it at even of the round table. I do not want to be appropriate to flag up that we are interested in this issue in any organisation. You might not be able to attend the round table realistically if you have a limit on who would be able to come, but if there are other people who want to provide either evidence or information of their own direct experience, that might be something that we should alert people to. I will say an item through paragraph 3 of the back-up evidence. It says very clearly that currently there is no system of regulation or inspection, which I think is absolutely appalling. I think that, given that we take child protection very seriously, that is something that appears to have fallen through the loophole and needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. Clearly, the centres have been created to solve a problem about confidence, about contact and secure contact. The motivation is the right one, but then it is about what the lived experience is, which is something that we need to attend to. I think that some councils work this very well, and the system that they do is excellent, but it is not regulated in any way. It is down to the individual councils on how they deal with that. I think that there are loads to be getting on with, but again, to express our appreciation to the petitioner and those who are with her in terms of highlighting what is a very challenging issue. If we can move on then to petition 1636, which requires all single-use drinks, cups that are 100 per cent biodegradable. The final new petition for our consideration this morning is petition 1636 by Michael Traill to require that all single-use drink cups are 100 per cent biodegradable. Members have a copy of the petition, which collects 51 signatures and five comments. The clart's note identifies one of the constraints to making disposable cups recyclable is the mixture of materials used to make the cups. The note refers to current European standards, which define what characteristics of material must have to be compostable and highlight some recent initiatives that have been developed to address this issue. I wonder if members have any views on what action to take on this petition. As a member of the environment committee, I would certainly like to thank the petitioner for flagging this up. I am sure that most of us are surprised that many of the single-use drinks cups are not 100 per cent recyclable. In fact, that includes the ones that we use in this Parliament. That is why they encourage us, as members, to bring our own cups along, to cut down on the amount of single-use containers that have been disposed of. I would certainly be keen to hear the views of the Scottish Government on this and also COSLA. I would also like to seek the views of organisations or companies such as Bedgeware, the Environmental Paper Network and Hubbub that are developing initiatives to address issues such as this one. There is also an argument to contact the Association of Organics Recycling, but I would also like to hear from Zero Waste Scotland, because I know for a fact that it is on their radar, so it would be good to know what action they are taking to address the issue. I would also like to hear from Keep Scotland Beautiful, who is also aware of the issue, who is quite a lister, but it would be good to hear the views of all those organisations. I think that we should also see the impact on the fast food chain companies to seek their views. If there is a practice that we have done an all-round review and the Food and Drink Association, it would be good if there is an organisation that represents those, rather than writing them all. I suppose that I was quite surprised. The scale of use of these cups has obviously just exploded. I agree with Angus, because I assumed that they were recycled, because they were cardboard rather than cups. I am looking at the thing upside down around the wrong way. It has been useful information to provide from the petition, and I think that Angus suggests that we should move forward with the organisations that might contact them. One of the technical problems that I know from the knowledge of the drinks industry is that the cups are coated with plastic, and that is the problem. It is not the main material, so it is really that coating that is the problem. Otherwise, they are just disintegrating. That is the problem. There is a lot there that we can pursue. Again, we want to thank the petitioner for highlighting that issue. If we can move on to agenda item 3, which is continued petitions. The first one is petition 1319 on improving youth football in Scotland. Members will recall that we last considered this petition by Willie Smyth and Scott Roberts in our meeting on 9 February. At the end of that meeting, we agreed to reflect on the recent evidence that we heard on the petition at a future meeting, which we will do today. As members are aware, I, along with the deputy convener, met the SFA and SPFL informally on 20 March, and it may be helpful to provide feedback in that meeting before members discuss what further action we may wish to take. I think that I know that it was circulated to you. We did appreciate the time that was given to us by Neil Doncaster and from the SPFL and Andrew McKinley from the SFA. There were a number of issues that we discussed. We discussed the question of player registration and the old question of the way in which this has been highlighted by the commissioner for children and young people. We did look at the issue of minimum wage issues, but the view of the SPFL in particular was that this was a matter for the tax authorities and it was not their job to deal with that while giving information and advice on people's responsibilities. We raised the question that, although there have been very few formal complaints, and my view was in a culture in which you do not want to be seen to be a difficult person or a troublemaker, there may be an encouragement not to complain about those questions. I think that this is all overlaid in my view with Scottish attitudes to football and the way in which football in particular is seen as good data of what an opportunity it is for you to make a fantastic career out of it. There was a question of how you would calculate the hours worked by a player and so on. I think that we were interested in looking at what role the SPFL and SFFL could have in that regard. They also provided us with an update on project brave initiative, which is based on a performance strategy to develop the best players. One of the aspects of the initiative was the reduction in the number of players in the club academy Scotland system. It was a sense that possibly there were lots and lots of young people being caught up in the academy system without any great likelihood of them really achieving at the highest level. We also discussed with the commissioners' view that external regulation was necessary and the potential implications of that relation to FIFA as a world football's governing body. There is an issue that I do not think that either Angus and I had appreciated, which was, and we have asked for more information in this, that if we do move as a country to regulate football, FIFA will be concerned about that, because they are great believers in self-regulation that we are all too aware of from their own past. However, there may be consequences for Scotland in that. That is something that we have asked for more information from them on. We also discussed the question of child protection, and we know that it has given evidence to the health committee on that matter and that it has been pursued. However, it is also included, covered by the PVG legislation that comes to youth football, and the review that has been undertaken in light of allegations of historic sexual abuse that gave us an update on that. I think that they spoke about the whole question of intermediaries and agents, which I think is a whole area that the health committee is probably looking at. However, I think that this committee is very alive to that there is not any regulation of adults who can have a lot of influence and a lot of control over young people's destiny in terms of football. Some of the evidence that we have got was suggested that they would not necessarily be acting in the interests of the young person. I am right to remember that the commissioner felt that he ought not to have an agent acting for you if you are under 16. I do not know if there are other issues that you wanted to flag up from the meeting. I am not sure whether you have covered it well, convener. The only salient point that was flagged up was the issue of Government interference. They used the examples of Mali and Greece, who have been suspended from competing internationally because of interference from Government. However, having looked at the reasons for that privately, there do not seem to be anything relating to the issues that we are looking at here in Scotland. Fundamentally, a number of the issues here in Scotland are human rights issues, so neither the situation in Greece nor the situation in Mali are similar in any way. That was the only point that I wonder if there are some suggestions on what we might want to do next. It was also worth noting that the committee has already agreed to seek time for a debate in this petition in the chamber, which I think has been agreed by the convener's committee. I should know since I am on it. I think that we did agree to that, but we have not got a timing for it yet, so that is something that is in the system. I do not know what other views there are. As you are aware, I have quite strong views on that. First and last, the consideration is around child welfare. In my view, there are so many missed opportunities, if that is the way to put it, that seem to be being brushed over in terms of looking after the child. For me, having twice taken evidence in this, it highlights to me that child welfare is not the first consideration from the SFA or the SPFL and how they are conducting themselves. Having listened to what you had to say there, saying that FIFA might not like it, is excellent. Given their track record, I think that, because other countries are not looking after this in the way that they should, there is no reason why we as a country should not step up. I am almost inclined to listen to Gordon Strachan talk about this quite a few times in terms of the academy structure and what is happening in the best interest of the child. I am sorry, Gordon, if I am lying, you will write in it here. I just find the whole thing incredible that we are still having to debate this at all or discuss this. Having taken evidence from the SFA and the SPFL before and subsequent evidence seems obvious to me. Can I put it this way? They have been scutting around the issue rather than answering the questions that we asked. I would really like the opportunity to speak with them again. I agree with Brian. I think what you have told us about your meeting in private has been really interesting and I am wondering if we could ask them back whether they would be able to elaborate on what they told you, whether they would say it in public, so that we could ask them some questions just to progress a bit. I would like to invite them back for evidence. I think that it would be useful to invite them back. As I said at the beginning, we were very grateful to them. It was a substantial meeting. We met for a well over an hour and we discussed a lot of issues. It was certainly never intended as a substitute for the Petitions Committee's own role. We were quite clear about that. I also think that there was some evidence that I read in a briefing around what the professional footballers association is saying about this question. It would be interesting to know what they think now about the petitions or maybe get a bit of an update from them, but also particularly around the question of the implications of external regulation. I am quite surprised that we had not heard before. Given how much the commissioner had said on it that somebody had not flagged up very quickly, he could get booted out of his competition. We need to tease out if they come back. The other thing that they did suggest is that it would be worthwhile to think about whether they want to get the opportunity to visit the academies and get a sense of if they were willing and able to do it privately with young people who are involved in the system. I think that there are quite a lot of positive things going on there. My sense was from our meeting that they were reflecting on how effective they had been and how they could make them better. I am just confirming that we would be seeking another opportunity to discuss with them. I think that we might want to look for further comments again, as I said from the petitioners and from the Scottish Professional Footballers Association. It might be sensible to ask whether writing to clubs themselves would provide further information, because they might feel compelled, because the SFA and SPLF have been seen there, but the actual deliverance of it might be sensible to write to them and ask them for their views. I am not sure that they would just refer us. I think that they would, I don't think that they would. I have been interested to do that. I mean, I am interested in putting that in, and if we might, you might have heard us all about it. There isn't anything to stop any of them responding right now, if they felt that they wanted to deal with that, but maybe at this stage, if we are kind of looking to the organisations that represent them, certainly it was the case that the SPFL and Neil Domcast were quite clear about what their role was in relation to the clubs and what their actual registration bed and so on, which was possibly more limited than we had imagined it to be. They feel that the Petitions Committee will instigate them getting kicked out of FIFA. I am really interested to think what it is that they think they are doing that they are highlighting. I just thought that it was interesting and that they did say that FIFA is very exercised by self-regulation, and I just think that it would be worthwhile. They did say that they would give us the evidence and that it would be worth exploring that further. I think that we are agreeing that we would want a further, there are so many issues here, we have got the debate and a further evidence-taking session, which would certainly include the SFA and the Scottish professional football league, but we might want to look to see if there is anyone else that could bolster that evidence-taking session. Is that agreed? If we can then move on to petition 1458, the register of interest for the members of Scotland's judiciary. This petition by Peter Cherbae calls for the introduction of a register of interest for members of Scotland's judiciary. When we last considered the petition, we agreed to seek further information from the Lord President and the judicial complaints reviewer. Responses have been received from both, and we also have submissions from the petitioner and a member of the public, Melanie Collins. Members will recall that, in writing to the Lord President, we repeated her invitation for him to provide oral evidence, which is now indicated that he will be willing to do, and I think that I will express her gratitude for that. I wonder if members have any comments or further action to take on the petition. The Lord President has agreed to give an oral evidence, and that seems to be the case. Thanks, convener. Having followed the petition from day one, I think that it was lodged in December 2012, and having deliberated on it for what is now over four years, it is encouraging and refreshing to note that the Lord President has offered to provide oral evidence to the committee. Given the difficulties that we had, it was the previous Lord President giving evidence to the committee, so, as I say, that is extremely refreshing, and I think that we should take Lord Carly up on his offer. I think that we should also note that Alex Neil has expressed an interest in speaking to the petition, but it is unable to be here today, so it may be that at that meeting, as the Lord President is there, he will be able to attend that meeting, but I think that Angus is right that this is a step forward. We agree to invite the Lord President to provide oral evidence at a future meeting, and then we can see what comes out of that. Okay, thank you very much. If we can move on to petition 1545 on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled. The next item on the agenda is petition 1545 by Anne Maxwell on behalf of the Muir Maxwell Trust on residential care provision for the severely learning disabled. Members will recall that we last considered this petition at our meeting on 29 September 2016. At that meeting, we agreed to defer further consideration of the petition until March 2017. Members will see from the clerk's note that the Scottish Government has developed a project plan around issues identified in this petition, and the first project that will undertake a quantitative analysis was due to be completed by the end of February this year. The project plan in its entirety was estimated to take two years, and I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for the action? Can be an ad that, in my own region, I had to come down to visit its Hansel down in Samarkden, and they have residential care there for people with severe learning disabilities, and I have done for as long as I can remember. I have just told them that I remember them when they used to mow the roof, used to have a grass roof, and I have got pictures of them mowing it down. I had a tour of what they do, and as you might imagine, many are. It is a fantastic facility. Again, as to the petitioner's comments, their concern is, of course, about continuing funding. I am sure that we would thank the petitioner for bringing this, but I would really be interested to see where the Government is currently with its project plan and if we could write to it to find out where we are in that process. We would be right to ask the Scottish Government to get an update. Certainly, from the briefing, it looks as if it has been doing quite a lot, which is to be welcomed, both quantitative and qualitative work. It is probably also worthwhile to seek an update from the petitioner on the progress of the plan, because it seems to have been quite engaged with the petitioner, and that is obviously to be welcomed. Is that agreed? That is agreed. Okay. Thank you very much for that then. The next petition is petition 1551 on mandatory reporting of child abuse. The next petition is petition 1551 by Scott Paterson on mandatory reporting of child abuse. After our previous consideration of this petition, we wrote to the Scottish Government seeking an update on its engagement with the UK Government and to ask what steps it would take in the absence of any meaningful response or action from the UK Government. In the time of its response in February, the Scottish Government advised that there was still no clarity about when the UK Government might publish its findings from its consultation, other than to say that it is expected to be the first part of this year. The Scottish Government said that it would give careful consideration to the findings when published, but did not give much in the way of what steps it might take in the absence of movement on its issue at a UK level. What member's thoughts are for action on its petition? I can imagine that there is a lot of sympathy for this petition. I am concerned that we currently have no real step forward either from the UK Government or from the Scottish Government. I am not sure what we do about that. We are just making a statement here that I think that this is a petition that it should move. My recollection from earlier discussions is that there is an argument to be had in either direction about the consequences of mandatory reporting. I think that there are certainly some people who have been involved with child perception and thought that there might be consequences. What I do not understand in one view is that if the UK is not progressing, why the Scottish Government just cannot take this on itself since child protection is within the remit and responsibility of the Scottish Government? I am not sure why they are hooking their action to the UK action. I mean that they must be concerned at a UK level if they are not acting on it, but I would think that we could maybe really discontact the Scottish Government and say why they delay. There are a whole series of things here that we have been interested in their response. If I went for the UK Government to go through, would the Scottish Government not have input into that at all, just from my personal place of ignorance on this? Does there is no input from the Scottish Government into a UK-wide? I suppose that I have not really kind of got in my head clearly why are they waiting for the UK-wide report. I think that we should write some clarification of that and also to get it. They do say that they were expecting it to be published in the first part of 2017, so we are well into that. I think that it is a really long contentious issue across the party. Yes, that is right. I think that we need to find out where we are with it and seek clarity on why we cannot strike out. I am thinking or I am advised that the reason for waiting for the UK-wide report is that you would not want differentiated regimes in different parts of the United Kingdom, although there are other issues that would by definition be differentiated. In terms of people can move, they can travel and there should be consequences wherever they are. Certainly, some of the issues around the English inquiry into historic abuse are dealing with somebody who is a survivor of abuse but who was abused in Scotland. There are also quite complicated issues there. On the specific issue of mandatory reporting, it must be possible for the Scottish Government to be developing a view, I would have thought, but just really to get its clarification. Do they have a timescale? Is there a point beyond which they will say, right? We cannot wait any longer. Was that agreed then? Yes, agreed. If we can move on then to petition 1613, taking account of sound sensitivity in regulating antisocial behaviour and environmental health, the penultimate petition on our agenda today is from Craig Thomson. We first considered this petition in October when we agreed to seek written submissions from a number of organisations in response to the actions called for in the petition. We have received a number of responses. The responses consider the action called for within the overall framework of housing allocations and building standards, and while the responses recognised that there may be issues for individuals with particular sensitivities, there was not support for the action called for in the petition. I think that it would be worth saying that we were very grateful for the scale of the response that we received from a whole variety of organisations, including local authorities, and the time that they had taken to respond, they clearly recognised that that was an issue of some concern that the petitioner had raised. Obviously, they identified concerns about what would be the implications of implementing the proposals that were suggested by the petitioner. It would be worth reflecting on what is a very gracious response from the petitioner himself, who said that he would like to thank all who have responded to and discussed my petition. It is my hope that it generates awareness, compassion and help for those who find themselves in a similar situation through no fault of their own. It is also my hope that it helps towards sowing the seeds of change towards a better, more humanistic and altruistic world. I thought that that was very gracious, given that the respondents were saying that we are not sure if your solution is the right one, but I think that he was really saying that even just if he has raised awareness of the subject in his performance in an important role, I wonder whether people have suggestions on how we deal with it. My own sense is that we really have explored the issue. We recognise that the solution in the petition is not one that is going to be implementable, but there has been an opportunity afforded for people to be clear about their awareness of the question. For somebody in this particular situation, we feel that I have empathy for that situation. It is something that is going to be really, I do not know how you could possibly implement it. My sense would be that it would be down to the sensitivity of the housing organisation and recognise that there is an issue, and then maybe you are thinking about your allocations policy in terms of the individual recognising the challenge that it presents for them and being sympathetic to that in terms of individual decisions that cannot be determined at almost like policy level? I agree, because I think that the petitioner's response was very dignified. We should commend him for that, but I think that we have taken it as far as we can, but we hopefully have raised awareness. I think that the fact is that the statements from the councils clearly indicate that they are aware of it and that some are doing more than others. My own council, I know, for fact, has this question of maybe even creating a special room when it has worked on a case where that has been done. I know that the officers and the housing allocation do take a lot of things in consideration, so I think that there is not much more that we can do. It is really in their hands. I might suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on a basis that there is no support for the action called for in the petition, but there is a recognition that there are options open to individuals who may be more sensitive to noise on a case-by-case basis. Does that agree to it? I thank those who responded to the petitioner himself. If we can move on to petition 1625, wider awareness, acceptance and recognition of pathological demand avoidance syndrome. The final petitioner for consideration today is petition 1625 on wider awareness, acceptance and recognition of pathological demand avoidance syndrome, PDA, lodged by Patricia Hewitt and Mary Black. Following our previous consideration of this petition, we have received submissions from the Scottish Government, the National Autistic Society Scotland and Inquire, which is managed by children in Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government. We also have a submission from the petitioners. The petitioners are calling for PDA to be considered as a specific behaviour profile on the autism spectrum. The National Autistic Society's submission says that the profile is becoming increasingly, but not universally accepted, while the Inquire submission noted that calls to its help by relating to concerns of parents that their children's needs weren't being identified and there seems to be differences of opinion between professionals involved. The Scottish Government refers to the two major diagnostic classification systems currently in use, ICD-10 and DSM-5. Those are regarded as the gold standard for autism diagnosis, and neither of them recognises PDA. Similarly, neither sign or nice guidelines recognise PDA as a distinct category for diagnosis. It appears that the principal reason for this is that a greater evidence base and understanding of the condition has identified that the behaviour within PDA falls within the diagnostic profile of autism spectrum disorder or OASD. It also appears that whatever term might be applied, be that ASD, PDA or something other than that, an individualised approach to support and treatment is a recommended best practice. It might also be worth noting that the ICD-10 is expected to be revised next year. I wonder if members have any views or suggestions for action to take on this petition. I thought about what I was struck with was the inconsistency across councils from getting a full range of support to the next council sending the mother for parenting classes. There has to be a better structure than that. Autism is a spectrum. You cannot pin it down. I have been inclined to see if there is a way that we can formalise this a little bit better in terms of treatment across the country. The idea that your child can gain support or that you can be sent for parenting classes seems to be a wildly different approach to an issue. The difficulty that we are wrestling with is that the clinicians or professionals who do the diagnosis are not in agreement. There is a question of whether there is a condition on its own within the spectrum. I suppose that the protection is that, regardless of whether you recognise the condition or not, all treatments and support should be directed to the individual. Some of that would be about listening to the carers and family members who are looking after somebody with PDA in their view that do not offer them things that are supports. That was the kind of drive of the evidence, was it not, that they were getting solutions that would create greater problems for the person that they were caring for? I do not know how that is, but I would really like to hear from professionals on the other side of that argument. I suppose that my issue would be that, even if we heard both sides of the argument, no matter the wisdom of Solomon, I do not think that we would be able to judge between clinicians. That is clearly what they are wrestling with, is that there is not a recognition across the board by the experts in the field that the condition that they identify very strongly is not being acknowledged. I think that we have two choices. We can either close the petition given what the Scottish Government has said in its very clear view, or, in line with what Brian is suggesting, we write to COSLA and get an overview of whether PDA is recognised among local authorities and, if it is recognised, how do they support it? That might give us a sense again of that. I would be doing that route, because as Brian said, there are inconsistencies among local authorities and it would help us to understand a bit more about it. Just for clarification, convener, have we already written to COSLA and not received a response? That is disappointing, because in the previous session we had some difficulty with COSLA, not responding quickly or at all, so I hope that we are not going down that route again. Certainly, I would be keen to hear what COSLA has overviewed us of whether PDA is recognised among local authorities. It might be worth while talking to the IJB, the health boards as well, because that ties in the clinician side, but also remember that now we have its half ownership by both the NHS, whichever region and the local authorities. I think that we need to include a view from them. In terms of COSLA, apart from the fact that I do not think that technically they have heard about it, they are obviously going to be moving into local government elections and then the reconstitution of COSLA, so we are talking quite a long-term process, but in terms of an issue like that, it takes quite a while to gather the evidence together on an issue that is quite specific and probably not across the radar of everybody within the local authority. I think that it would be worth contacting your suggestion of health boards. I think that because now so much has been delivered through that, it is taking up the local authorities. It really supersedes all the local authorities because social services come under IJBs. It may be that the reality is that it is a condition because it has not been universally acknowledged, then how would it even have come across the radar of some of those bodies? If that is partly about raising awareness, then that is something that will be out. We can write to COSLA and just clarify what timescales they are able to, in which they are reasonably able to respond and recognise the challenges of that. If that is agreed, that is our final agenda item in public, so I close the meeting to the public.