Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and can I welcome you all to today's meeting of the Public Petitions Committee, and as always, can I ask everyone to switch off their mobile phones or any electronic equipment, because it doesn't appear with our sound systems? Agenda item 1, consideration of current petition. The first item of business is consideration of PE1501 by Stuart Graham and public inquiries into self-inflicted and accidental deaths following to suspicious death investigation. As previously agreed the committee to evidence from a number of parties today. Can I welcome all the panel members, and then we have the late substitute, which I'm very grateful for today. On my right hand side, if we can start, Stephen McGowan, who's the Deputy Director of Serious Casework, the Crown Office of Procur Fiscal Service, and then we have Alan McReady, who's the Deputy Director of Law Reform for the Law Society, Detective Chief Superintendent Gail Flanagan of Police Scotland, and Alan McCluskey, who's the Director of Operations for Victon Support Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk, and paper 1 refers. I kick off with some questions, as there's not an opening statement, then my colleagues will also ask additional questions, and I'm very grateful for you all giving up your time today so that we can further look into this very delicately of this particular inquiry. My first questions to Alan McCluskey, but obviously any other panel member is very welcome to be involved. In your view, do bereave family members have enough involvement in suspicious death investigations? Thank you, and good morning. I think there's a very strong case for making sure that families are proactively involved in the whole process, from the very start in terms of information and access to as much information about what is happening as needs to be. And if they're involved, then they feel empowered, and at the moment I think there's a gap, and I think that that's one of the aspects that we're keen in terms of the petition that I think is very important that can be factored into how things are taking forward. Thank you for that. Would other panel members like to contribute to the stage? Yes, Mr McCown. Good morning. We try and involve families as best as we can in all stages of our investigation into deaths. Typically, when we receive a report of a death, we'll make contact with the family by phone or by letter, and thereafter the involvement that we have with families will basically depend upon the family themselves and how much the family want to know. There will be limits about what we can tell them when we know about that in terms of giving statements, but at the end of our investigation, once we've come to a conclusion and concluded the investigation and got information about the cause of death and the circumstances surrounding the death, we'll offer a meeting with a family at which point we'll explain to them the conclusions that we've come to and explain to them the evidence, including any contradictions that there might be in the principal evidence, and we'll also be in a position to offer them access to post-mortem reports, medical reports, toxicology reports, other expert reports and such like. So we try to involve families in every stage, but we're always open to feedback in terms of improving the service that we give to people and improving the amount of information that we know that families want. Thank you for that. Mr McReady. Yes, convener. Thank you again for affording the Law Society the opportunity to contribute to its deliberations over this particular petition. The Law Society, regarding the gap that Alan McCloskey referred to, society respectfully suggests there could perhaps be another stage in the process for the small number of families of the deceased who are still dissatisfied standing the outcome, falling upon the Crown Office deliberations. There may be, or perhaps there should be, provision for a preliminary hearing before the sheriff in whose jurisdiction the death occurred, and it would then that that would become a further stage in the process, an independent preliminary hearing which could determine whether or not there should be further inquiry. Thank you for that. Mr Flanagan. Yes, thank you. Notwithstanding the comments that Stephen said about involvement, I think it's worthy of saying that, from a police perspective, quite a significant number of families will be involved through the investigative process. The police would normally seek to speak to family members as part of their broader investigation to look at background and stuff, so it would just be to make that point. Andy Taggart, do you have a quick point? Mr McReady, you mentioned another process there. Could you further explain that as to why that's not happening just now? I have no information as to the arrangements that exist in place. It would simply be a suggestion that, where there are a small number, I'm sorry I can't answer that question particularly well because I wouldn't want to venture into why that's not happening at present. All that the society can really do is if there is an issue with what would appear to be a small number of families who are still disaffected standing in the position of Crown Office, then it's just a respectful suggestion that that's something else that could happen. Perhaps Stephen McGowan can answer that question. Yes, thank you. Just to answer that point why it doesn't happen at the moment, there's no hearing before the sheriff. There's no mechanism to have a hearing before the sheriff at the moment, so what there is is the Lord Advocate's investigation, which is carried out by the procreator, Fiscal and in practice, for most deaths that's done by the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, which is a specialist team who deal with those things. Once we've come to a conclusion about the cause of death and the surrounding circumstances and we've had that conversation with the family, there'll then be a consideration as to whether or not there should be a fatal accident inquiry in terms of the current legislation and there may be in some cases a petition to the court for a fatal accident inquiry. If there isn't to be a fatal accident inquiry, the remedy that the family would have would be to take a judicial review of the Lord Advocate's decision to the court of session. I would suggest that there isn't a gap because that remedy exists, that you can take a judicial review and you can challenge the Lord Advocate's decision should you want to do so. It may assist the committee if I looked at some of the cases that we're currently dealing with between October and the 30th of April, and we've got 256 cases where it may well be that the death has been a suicidal death. In relation to those, we've done further work on behalf of the families and at the request of families to clarify matters in about 10 cases. In the remainder of the cases, there have been no request to do further work, no disagreements. In relation to the 10, I don't think there's been a disagreement as to the cause of death. There's just been further things that families have wanted to have clarified and we've agreed that it's appropriate to go away and clarify those and instruct to those further investigations. Thank you. Check, Brody. Thank you. Good morning. I just wonder about my pick-up on the last point that Mr McGowan made in terms of no mechanism. In the papers that we've had produced by the court, it said that in FAI, and remembering, we do have this petition in front of us, there must be some rationale behind and questioning behind what is actually happening. It said that in FAI, it may also be held on a discretionary basis, presumed by the Lord Advocate. How does he go arrive at a discretionary judgment? Are there no rules, guidelines? The guidance that we have, we've got the fatal accident enquiries Scotland Act 1976 in it, and it sets out the test. The test in that act is whether it's expedient in the public interest. There's further detail to that as given by article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and what that, broadly speaking, provides an obligation to do is to have an independent inquiry into the cause of the death by the state in a way that involves the family and in the decision making and in sharing the decision making. That's the obligation that is carried out now. Is that obligation being met, do you believe, in all cases? Yes, I do. That obligation has been tested in Scotland within the last few years, in a case called M's. The court held that the obligation was being fulfilled in Scotland by the Lord Advocate in his role and by the fatal accident enquiry system, and there was no gap in that in the particular legislation. I wish to be fun to my second question before I bring some of my colleagues in. What options are there for family members who are not satisfied with investigations carried out by the police or the Crown Office and Procurate Fiscal Service? From a police perspective, there's the cap process, so there are complaints against police. Initially, we would look to deal with the matter locally, if it was raised locally, but then we would escalate the matter up through the complaints procedure in order to address that. We wouldn't do that in isolation, though. Because of the nature of what we are dealing with, there would definitely be a role there for the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit. They would be made aware that families were unhappy with the level of information. I would have to say from my own experience that that's something that is highly unusual in those circumstances. It's not unheard of, but it's unusual. Again, we would work very much hand in glove with the Crown in order to make them aware that there was an issue, ultimately, of the decisions that they addressed with the Crown. The first thing to emphasise is that disagreements about those matters are very rare indeed. In any case, with the family that took issue with anything that we'd told them, it's likely that there would be a meeting, and at that meeting there would be a lengthy exposition of the facts that are known. We would give them as much information as possible. I hope that we will get to a conclusion that everyone would agree with. It's probably worth making the point that there are some deaths where, unfortunately, we don't get all of the answers, because the answers aren't there to be found no matter how thorough the investigation. However, if we end up in a position where the family disagrees with some aspect of what our conclusion has been, the remedy would be if we declined to hold a fatal accident inquiry, because we didn't think that it was in the public interest to do so, because we didn't think that there was any systemic or issue or anything that had to be ventilated in the public domain. The remedy is the petition to the Court of Session to overturn that decision and ask for it to be reviewed. Do any of the other panellists wish to contribute to that question? Maybe just a general comment and perhaps for the committee's interest, out with this piece of work in relation to the Victims and Witnesses Bill, which has just been passed, a lot of the work that was done last year through the various stages about making sure the bill came to be passed was making sure that the voice of victims was at the very centre. Before the start of the stage 1 process, victims were asked to come along and present their evidence about their experience of the criminal justice system. Not so much about the experience of being a victim of crime per se, but actually the experience of being passed in their words from pillar to post, from one agency to another. I think there are some parallels about making sure that the victims and the families are at the heart of this, so that they're not having to retell their story and having to fight for justice. It should be a given, and I think there are some parallels in the bill. Also in the Victims and Witnesses Bill, there's a right to complain, and there are rights for information. There are aspects of the bill that I think might be for the committee to actually consider and perhaps adopt some of the principles. I think that's a very good point. You'll recall in the last session, I had a particular interest in creating a Victims Commissioner in Scotland, spent a lot of time working with the England and Wales Victims Commissioner. It was very interesting looking and campaigning contrasting between Scotland and England. I think we've lost to be proud of in Scotland, but I certainly felt there was an additional element that certainly in the Victims Commissioner was a very excellent model. However, I realised that that ship has now sailed. Nevertheless, just to put it on record, I think that there are some interesting aspects from England that we can perhaps look at. Can I go back to Mr McGowan's point? If I recall correctly, you said that victims could go to the court session if there was a dissatisfaction. It's a difficult question to answer, but how much is that going to cost and to take it to court session? Is that a realistic option for ordinary working-class victims that have had a problem? The court session is a very expensive place to get to, is my understanding? I couldn't answer the direct question as to what the cost is. Taking anything to the sheriff is also likely to have a cost. Given the unusual nature of those challenges, it would probably involve similar sorts of costs in terms of if we wanted lawyers involved, but I couldn't comment on the cost. One other point on the court session rather than the sheriff, the investigations into deaths now are done by both the police and the procurator fiscal by specialists. The Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit will be the people who deal with that. If there are any suspicious circumstances in the death, I'm sure Gary Flanagan can tell you how the major investigation teams in the police work. Specialists are doing the investigation and making the decisions. Were there to be a right before the sheriff, there would be a danger that the sheriffs, because they are so rare, wouldn't have seen one. Therefore, in terms of the specialist skills being brought to the investigation and the decision making of the procurator fiscal, the challenge might be to an on specialist. Given the small number of those cases, that's why I'd suggest that the court session is still the appropriate place to have it, because it could build a body of expertise. It's unlikely that, in the sheriff court, you would have that same body of expertise just because of the limited number of cases that you would have of that nature. Just following on that, this is very interesting about expertise. When we're looking for objectivity, sometimes we don't want people with too much expertise, and we should be making judgments on the evidence that's presented before them. I'm not sure what the difference is, why we would want to go down this route, an expensive route, even though there are a few cases, of saying that we want legal decisions by made only by those that have got expertise. Is the expertise in the decision making and making sure that investigations are full and thorough? The decision making will always be objective, and it will always be on the basis of the evidence that's before us, but in terms of the gathering of that evidence and the looking for evidence, and the looking at making sure that the avenues have been completely seen, that's done by specialists, and that informs the decision making. The decisions are always made objectively by whoever makes them, but to know the background of those investigations, to know the detail, to know the things that commonly arise in them, and to know whether or not, in other cases, other avenues of investigation have proved fruitful, is, I would suggest to the committee, something that is useful and does bear out the expertise. Has engagement with bereaved families improved since the launch of the Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit and the establishment of Police Scotland in April 2013? I would say that it definitely has. The Scottish Fatalities Investigation Unit, as I've said, only deal with is death investigations, only deal with is families in relation to death, so they're able to respond better, more quickly and more easily to families, and they're assisted by specialist VE officers who are dealing with, for the most part, only deaths cases, so that they're much better placed to respond, to learn the lessons, to take on board the feedback that we always get in terms of how we can improve our service in future. That specialism of approach that we now offer, which we weren't in the position to offer three or four years ago or more, is now a big boon, I think, and we'll develop as time goes on. I really couldn't comment on how well that's working, I'm afraid. Certainly, to reiterate the society's position, where there is still the issue of dissatisfaction, we'd respectfully suggest that, rather than the Court of Session, because there's the resultant costs. By way of an aside, members may be aware of the Courts Reform Scotland Bill, which is present before the Justice Committee. It seeks to impose a time limit within which a judicial review can be brought, and also a test, and also the fact that the judicial review is simply a review of the law of advocates decision without looking at the merits of that particular decision. How well the current system in place is working, I'm afraid, I'm not in a position to comment upon it, but if there is an issue here, then a suggested remedy from the society would be, as previously stated by myself, before the committee this morning, a preliminary hearing before the sheriff. Thank you, that's very helpful. Mr Flanagan? Yeah, the introduction of Police Scotland has introduced a level of scrutiny that didn't previously exist across an inconsistency, which exists now that didn't previously exist. Stephen touched upon the importance of specialism and what that actually gives us. It's not necessarily just about the information sharing, it's about making sure that the investigation is thorough and professional from the outset, so we're in a better place to give for the families the type of information that they would require. Well, I'm very confident that we're in an improved position there because of the level of scrutiny that's given and the availability of specialist resources across Scotland. Now, obviously, when we look at our death of a loved one, we're dealing with an individual event for each family member and it's can we say that we're handling those situations better? Well, I think they tie up the partnership between the Crown and ourselves and that the level of scrutiny, the level of dialogue that takes place now, I think, probably is a strong indicator that the things are better for the families. There's two slightly different issues. We will support families' bereave through murder, going through a murder trial, but there's no referral mechanism for fatal accident inquiries. So, as Stephen said, victim information advice service will support families providing information and advice about fatal accident inquiry, but there's no referral mechanism and that's one of the gaps I referred to earlier for families whose loved one has been affected by self-inflicted or accidental death, so I think there is a difference in that regard. Thank you very much for that. I can move on to my colleagues. I'll start with Anne The Taggart. Oh, yes, thank you, convener. Really, just going back to you had mentioned earlier, or I had probed earlier, about what can be changed, is there any plans or suggestions for improving the position of bereaved family members, given that the petitioner isn't seeking to extend the FAIs, they're simply looking for a simplified procedure whereby families are able to challenge an investigation into death and the outcome of that investigation. What plans do you have in order to simplify for families? We, as I said earlier, we're always willing to take feedback on board, and I think Alan's mentioned an area where I think we'll need to work in terms of a referral mechanism to victim support. We don't have a specific plan to improve the simplicity of decision making round about people who challenge decisions, but we are working to make sure that we bring families into that decision as often as possible and as in-depth as possible and give as much information as possible. We're going to, and we have been looking at the information that we give to victims round about just what we will give them. Now, these aren't rights which are codified in the same ways they've been in the criminal system, but we're in effect offering the same service and the same information, and what has come out as far as we are concerned is a lack of knowledge, perhaps, on the part of families as to what they're entitled to in terms of our policies and what we will take to them, so we're looking at all of that again in terms of refreshing the amount of information that we give them. In terms of the simple hearing before the sheriff, I'm not so sure that it would be a simple hearing before the sheriff. The reason I say that is that if there's been a lengthy investigation into a death in order that the sheriff can consider that there would have to be a legal test, and we don't know what that would be, because there is no mechanism for it at the moment, that would have to be met, but there would also have to be a consideration of the evidence that we had obtained, so I'm not quite so sure that that hearing would be just as simple. It would almost be a mini-FAI in itself, and it could last more than a day or so. I don't envisage that being a simple hearing. We've had a number of mentions this morning about a preliminary hearing before the sheriff, and I'm not quite so sure that that would be a simpler process as has been perhaps envisaged. Convener, we have had a few suggestions raised this morning on how we could get round this, and some of the suggestions involve the Justice Committee and the work that they are doing, but it would also be remiss of me not to mention my colleague Patricia Ferguson MSP in Glasgow for a possible member's bill. Part of that member's bill would be to make the process of investigating deaths quicker and more transparent to refer appropriate cases to specialist sheriff courts, and to give the families of the deceased person a more central role in the process. Can I ask your views on that? There are other parts of it, obviously, but just for that section. I think that my position is that what that bill proposes isn't necessary in the form that it's proposed in. My view is that we can achieve the same ends by looking at our processes, et cetera, but the bill that is proposed isn't something that is necessary in order to give the service that we need to give for victims. Thank you very much. Jackson Carlaw. Venor, thank you. Good morning. Can I actually just move to the heart of the petitioner's request, which is that in what I think we've established is a small number of instances, a new category of mandatory public inquiry be established where the family of the deceased would wish such an inquiry. Now, I understand you will have come to this with a perspective, but I wonder if you could set that aside in the first instance, give us the benefit of your views as to what the advantages and disadvantages of that would be, and then I think cut to the chase and tell us what your own attitude is to the actual proposition as put. But I think we'd like to understand for the benefit of us considering it with all your experience what you would see both the advantages and disadvantages of it before we actually know what your own particular attitude to it might be, and I'd be interested to hear from all and any of you in particular order that you would like to jump in. In terms of the advantages of it, the advantage and the only advantage is that there is a public hearing in relation to the particular instance to scrutinise that decision. As I've said to the committee earlier, I think that that public hearing is already available. It's just in the form of a judicial review in relation to disadvantages. There are a number. Firstly, we have the potential for people to be for suspicion to fall upon people when there's no reasonable suspicion. So there may be suspicions on the part of third parties, but objectively there's no suspicion. So you'd have a public hearing and the suspicion that are personally committed a crime without necessarily the ability to defend themselves. There would be the potential for families not to agree with each other because we're talking about families as if they speak with one voice. As the committee will appreciate, families are diverse. Families don't always speak with the same voice. In our experience we have families to speak with the same voice, but also we have families who take diametrically opposite views in terms of this. So you have the potential for that. The purpose of the current best investigation in fatal accident inquiry system is to make sure that, if there has been a crime, crime can't be concealed and there's a proper investigation of it, but also where there are risks to public health, safety and welfare, they're looked at so that there can't be a repeat of that. That's really what we're looking at when we're looking at having a fatal accident inquiry. So, as I said to the committee, I think I have some difficulty in how the sheriff makes that decision without actually having an effective inquiry. That means that the family have the right to have the inquiry as opposed to the Lord Advocate having the inquiry in the public interest when there's something that the Lord Advocate feels in terms of the health, safety and welfare of the public needs to be taken into account and needs to be prevented from being repeated. In effect, you have a situation where the family to achieve their aim would be having the inquiry rather than just the preliminary hearings that were. So it moves the thing into a different position altogether with the family in effect to have a right to have an inquiry in every case. Okay, thank you. I think that's one limited benefit in your point of view perspective and perhaps not so much in mitigation beyond that. Mr MacReady? In citing an advantage, I can do no more than refer to the society's written evidence. If only a small number of families are dissatisfied with the creation of the statutory right to request inquiry, it might result in a very small number of additional hearings each year throughout Scotland. The hearing provides closure to the families who still have unanswered questions, should have minimal economic impact, particularly if it goes to the sheriff as opposed to the court of session. It should reinforce public confidence in Scotland's system for investigation of apparently self-inflicted deaths. Was your suggestion made in terms of the preliminary hearing before the sheriff intended as an alternative or as a preliminary to the suggestion within the petition itself? I think it was seen more as a remedy to the situation where a family is dissatisfied if there is that additional safeguard, that additional independent safeguard put in place by law to let the sheriff consider it objectively and decide where it should go if you have a family who's dissatisfied. In essence, in producing it as a remedy, am I leading you in suggesting then that your own attitude to the petition is that that would be the wrong approach? I'm not terribly sure on what, having looked at the petition, my understanding of the petition was that there is something which is missing from the process. And the answer to that, or a suggestion... Is the remedy you've come forward with? It's simply a suggestion, Mr Carlaw, that this is perhaps something which Parliament could consider. And yet Mr McGowan's view, I think, is on this, that the number of instances would be sufficiently minimal that the experience might not be there, which was the point that Mr Brody touched on. I was just going to allow the other two to... Yeah, I think I should make the point that the investigation of death as a highest priority. So for yourself mentioned about the simplifying and expediting a process, then that's not always possible. But it should be noted that we do, you know, the investigation from a police perspective is given the greatest priority. The outcome is sometimes more difficult to determine and that can sometimes be a difficulty for the family. Where we're dealing with complex issues where suspicion may still exist, then clearly that makes it very, very difficult for us to share information. And we're not... I don't personally envisage from my experience that we're going to find ourselves in a situation where we would be able to do that, because for the reasons that Stevens alluded to, we wouldn't know from the criminal investigation where the actual outcome might be. In terms of trying to assist you with the advantages or disadvantages, we are talking clearly about a very small number. And I can't really offer anything beyond my colleagues here in terms of how that might... I think we have to look at each case on a case-by-case basis, and we'd have to, you know, be careful. We have to examine the actual points that each family are making as to whether or not it's possible to be able to assist them there, as to whether their complaint, their difficulty lies in the manner in which they've been dealt with, which can be remedied, or whether it lies in the outcome, or the perceived outcome that they're unhappy with. So I'm not sure I can assist you any further. Simple terms, the petition calls for more information to be provided to families and for families to be at the centre of the process, and we would absolutely support that. That has to be an advantage to the system. In terms of disadvantages, I mean Stephen's right, there are issues in relation to family dynamics that need to be factored in, but those needs need to be assessed in terms of a decision-making, but it has to be right that families get as much information and are involved in the process for this to be truly effective. Thank you. I can't just take, if I may, the last point made by Ms McCloskey, which is one with which I, and I'm sure we shared in terms of the families and given the dynamics of family situations, are at the centre of this, not so much the process. That said, however, I'm even more confused than I was earlier on about the role of the hearings in front of a sheriff, which Mr McCloskey said we held objectively, and I asked the question earlier about the role of the court of session being more objective. Help me. Clarify, please, if you wouldn't mind, the difference in the roles between what you see information with the sheriff, the sheriff court, and the decision being made or one that is promulgated further up the line to the court of session. I'll try that one. Yes, I think, as outlined earlier by myself, the judicial review, the remedy that's in place at present, would simply just look at the decision that's been made and whether or not it's a proper decision as opposed to the merits of that particular decision. How or in what way the sheriff would determine is certainly something that could be considered further, but it would be held locally and it would certainly be of minimal economic impact to the public purse if it's going to a sheriff as opposed to going to the court of session in Edinburgh. I take on board what Stephen said about expertise where perhaps the judges in the court of session are considering more of those cases, but I think there's definitely an issue of perception and the fact that whether it's a court of session or whether it's a sheriff, the fact that it's actually being taken out, the decisions being taken out of Crown Office and considered elsewhere is something that I think perhaps should be increasing public confidence for the very small number of dissatisfied families. Okay, thank you. Angus Macdonald. We may have covered this briefly earlier on, but say for example there's a situation of which family members are not in agreement with holding of a public inquiry. How might that situation be handled or dealt with? I know you've mentioned earlier that there are a number of meetings with families, I think Gary Flanagan mentioned that, but how would that sort of situation be handled? The family's views to whether there should be a public inquiry will weigh heavily in the decision making that we make as to whether or not there ought to be a fatal accident inquiry. So it would be a significant part of our decision making. Now it may well be that in any given death there are issues which should have such public importance to the wider public at large that despite the family's desire that there not be a public inquiry then we would feel that there ought to be because there are issues which require to be ventilated. At the same time if there were issues which could be dealt with in another way and the family were very keen not to have a public inquiry then we would take that on board. But the family's view is something which weighs heavily in our consideration as to whether it's in the public interest, but there may be wider public interest considerations which would say we would have to have a public inquiry anyway despite of you from the family that they don't want on. Anyone else? No, okay, thanks. Okay, check really. Yes, we may have caught this. I'm slightly confused about some of the information we've had. I wonder if you might address as to whether and how the provisions of relating to fatal accident inquiries might be adapted, for example part of the State of Scottish Government plans to legislate during their lifetime to reform FOIs. I wonder if we might consider how they might be adapted in order to provide a suitable and acceptable form of public inquiry. Ms MacRae? I think that it's difficult question to answer, Mr Roddy in term. There's various proposals which are being made by government and we've had mention of the private embers bill that there already is that's been consulted upon. It's a difficult question to answer because from my perspective there's not too much wrong with the current system, it's fit for purpose in relation to most cases, so it's a different question to answer in terms of saying what could be done to make it better. Easy answer could be nothing needs to be done. For the most part, I think that very little needs to be done. I wouldn't like to pin my colours for the mass and say what changes I would personally make, but very little needs to be done to the current system. But as I said before, Mr Roddy, for the small number of cases where there are still issues in some form of hearing before an FAI to determine whether or not the case should go ahead is a suggested way forward. I'm bound to agree that it's difficult to see that we would change something radically when there are a few cases. Clearly there's an issue here. I didn't say radically, I'm just saying. We are in the areas of adaptation, isn't it? My apologies. I don't see that there are obvious opportunities. The primary one is the gap in relation to support. I mentioned earlier that there's no protocol between the Crown Office and ourselves in relation to fatal accident inquiries, and those families will not get access to support, so they're left having to deal with the information and the whole process by themselves. That cannot be right. Thank you. David Torrance. To ask a panel if a different system, possibly more closely related to a system of recorders in question England, might be desirable in order to meet the aims and concerns of the petitioner? I'm not sure that it would. The corona system in England and Wales means that there is a public hearing in relation to every death. Our experience of families in relation to cases is that the majority of them want to get on and to move on with life and not to have a public hearing in relation to that. That's particularly so where the death may be at the person's own hand and may be as a result of self-inflicted injuries. That's because often that will be very sensitive matters in relation to mental health, sexuality, family dynamics, sometimes infidelity. All of those are potential things that can be behind something of that. To have that played out in the public eye is something that most families in my experience wouldn't think as desirable. I don't think that that gives us any great advantage of the English corona system. I think that we've got all of the advantages of that at the moment, but without the downside of putting families through additional distress and potential trauma by going through a public hearing because most families wouldn't want that in our experience. What might be useful is, for some compare and contrast exercise, given the very low number of cases that proceed to FAI as a result of an apparently self-inflicted death, that there may be some merit in considering the position in other jurisdictions. I appreciate that in England and Wales there is the inquest by the coroner in every case, and perhaps that's not appropriate for this jurisdiction. A useful exercise may be to compare and contrast with other jurisdictions as to how many inquiries are held where there has been a self-inflicted death. In our reply to the committee, we highlight that NOA system is perfect. It's the example given in the literature that was provided. We highlighted the tragic events at Hillsborough. It's just, you know, epitomising that NOA system is perfect and that you're always going to find a situation where we need to look and see if we can learn lessons from individual circumstances. I think probably our position is that we feel comfortable. Police Scotland, we feel comfortable with the current arrangements, recognising that we need to continue to provide the victims' families with the best possible service that we can. One aspect that I would agree with Alanon is the opportunity to look at other jurisdictions to see what measures are put in place. That's something for the committee to consider. One definite advantage of the English coroner system is that it does very much put the victims and all the families at the centre of the process for their questions and concerns to be addressed. That's an important aspect of the English system that is beneficial. Thank you, convener. Good morning. Just to follow on from Mr McGowan's comment about public inquiries and the issue, and how you express quite clearly the issues regarding families and trying to protect families, the enhanced reason for not adopting a coroner's court-type scenario. Who makes a decision whether or not an FAI is held? Because you did make, in your earlier evidence, you gave an example whereby the procreate fiscal or the Lord Advocate may decide to go ahead with a public inquiry against the wishes of the family because he thinks it's in the public interest. Who makes that public interest test and who carries that forward? That's a decision which the responsibility for that decision sits with the Lord Advocate and the decision is made by Crown Council on behalf of the Lord Advocate in any case. We're talking about discretionary FAIs here. There'll be mandatory FAIs where there's been a death in custody or death at work. Those, the legislation mandates that they will ordinarily happen but for a discretionary FAI those are decisions which are decisions of the Lord Advocate. This is the issue that the petitioner is raising and I know that there's areas where there is no discretion in terms of whether an FAI should be held. What we're discussing in terms of the petition is self-inflicted or accidental and it's whether or not the evidence that is provided to the families is sufficient for them to come to the same conclusion that the procreate fiscal or the Lord Advocate has come in the determination not to proceed to a full public FAI and can seek assurances that remedies will be taken to ensure that families are fully consulted about the decisions that are made by the Lord Advocate and that the information and evidence available as long as it's not proceeding to criminal case is made available to families so they can fully understand and be part of the decision process that is made not to go to an FAI. The families will be fully consulted in relation to that. Ultimately the decision rests with the Lord Advocate that's what the legislation says but the families will be fully consulted in relation to that and in terms of sharing of that evidence that's been gathered in the investigation, the reports like the post mortem reports, medical reports, toxicology reports, collision investigation reports if that's appropriate. Those are things along with photographs which we are happy to share with nearest relatives. We'll also give them a summary as we understand it of the evidence and point to any points where there might be discrepancies in that evidence. Final point convener can we well can I ask whether or not there'd be any movement by the Lord Advocate in relation to the situation in Victim Support Scotland the issues that have been raised by Mr McCloskey in terms of the lack of referral for families where they have been subjected to a self-inflicted or accidental death within a family so that they can actually get that level of support and advice because in many respects it's not just about support, it's about advice and how to take forward any issues that they may have of concern and could I suggest that the Lord Advocate's office take on board the points raised by Mr McCloskey today. I think the very simple answer to that is yes, I will go take that forward. Thank you very much indeed convener. If there's no further questions and points from the committee. Sorry, Mr Fanaghan. Yeah, could I just pick up on a point that Mr Wilson made earlier just to reassure the committee, I've been personally been involved in investigating death for 30 years and I've had a number of occasions where I've actually been present with representatives from the fiscal service and myself and other officers where we've met with family just to go over and explain the findings and that's something which has done increasingly I would say in the last decade but it's something I've got personal experience I'd like to reassure you that that's something that very much does take place. Thank you Mr Fanaghan and there was no further questions from the committee. As witnesses will know we now go to summation so if you can just stay with us for a couple of minutes there's no further questions from either side. This section is for the committee to decide what the next step should be and this is a matter for the whole committee. There's a number of options which the committee will be aware of. One option for example is that we invite comments from the petitioners and the Scottish Government on the evidence that we've heard and consider the petition again once responses are received but as always I just want to check with the committee that there's not a contrary view or there's some other alternatives they're just asked committee members their views on that. Well I think one of the recommendations should be that the petition is carried forward perhaps the Justice Committee with a perhaps submission to the Lord Advocate has getting his direct view over he will be asked clearly by the Justice Committee later but I certainly think it's not just worthwhile I think it's expedient that we do carry this forward to the assembly of the Justice Committee. Well there's an option obviously I think we're all arguing that we continue this petition we can either invite comments from the petitioners to the Scottish Government and others and consider it again in the future or there is a possibility of course referring to the Justice Committee in the basis that expects to consider the draft legislation on FAIs during the parliamentary session so that in a sense is a second a second option again that's a matter for committee Jackson Carlaw. I would have thought for completeness convener that it would be appropriate to allow the petitioners and the Scottish Government to comment on a summation of the evidence we've heard today. For us then to consider it again and potentially at that point be able to forward to the Justice Committee something that was a little bit more rounded than just taking it to them at this early stage. I think that makes sense and I am a target. A timescale for that more roundedness. I'm not sure when is the Justice Committee does anyone know the timetable of when they're going to look at it? We don't have that but clearly the clerks lay is very close with each other on this issue so we can report that back at a future meeting. One we didn't want to miss. Sure, yeah. I think that's the point we take on board. John Lawson? I'm reminded that we continue for responses from the Scottish Government and the petitioner and anyone else who wishes to comment on this. There may be others who might want to based on the evidence of their today comment but I think ultimately I think it will be a referral to the Justice Committee but not at the present time. I'll be taking the petitioner forward and waiting for comments from the petitioner and the Scottish Government. I'm content to continue and await the comments from the petitioner and the Scottish Government. Thank you very much colleagues so as you've heard we are obviously interested in this petition and we're going to continue this. Seek the views of the petitioners and the Scottish Government. We're going to look at this matter again in the future and obviously we'll keep you up to date with development. I can finally just thank all four of you for giving up your time and giving us such expert witness advice and guidance today and I'll suspend for two minutes till all our witnesses to change round. Thank you very much indeed. We stand to our committee. We're now on agenda item two, consideration of new petitions. The next item of business is consideration of a new petition. The new petition is PE1517 by Elaine Holmes and Olive McElroy on behalf of the Scottish mess survivors here a voice campaign on mesh medical devices. Members have a note by the clark that's paper three, the spice briefing and the petition and the submissions and we've got Neil Findlay MSP and John Scott MSP who've both got an interest in this issue in attendance today and could welcome both members along today. The committee of course will wear that a number of cases have been lodged at the court of session. As you know the committee cannot become involved in individual cases so no reference should be made to name clinicians and no statement should be made that would identify any individual coalition or NHS staff member. According to the rules of the Parliament I'm being forced to stop any member or witness who brings us into the current arena. Could I thank the petitioners and the Sunday Mail for all the work that they've done in this petition? I'm sure all members would have followed this very sensitive case in the pages of the Sunday Mail particularly and I think it's another good example of how a petition is formatted and put forward and addressed by this individual committee. So can I welcome the petitioners Elaine Holmes and Olive McElroy and also Marion Scott from the Sunday Mail to the meeting. I can invite Ms Holmes to make a short presentation of around five minutes and to set the context of the petition and I'll ask Neil Findlay and John Scott to make very brief statements and then we'll kick off with questions from myself and other members of the committee. So can I ask Ms Holmes if you may have a brief statement to us of a maximum of five minutes. Thank you very much for coming along. Good morning. We'd like to start by thanking the health secretary Alex Neil for recognising the seriousness of the situation and the failures in the current system. We are grateful to him for instigating a working group of mesh victims and health professionals and are currently working to produce a new patient information and consent booklet. This will include all known risks associated with polypropylene transfaginome mesh implants. This is something we didn't have but should be available in every Scottish hospital before another single procedure is undertaken. We would like to stress that none of what we are asking for will benefit any of us here today. We can't change what happened to us but it's not too late to make the changes we believe will protect others from future injury, saving them and their families from pain, frustration, helplessness and possible disability. While other countries are now taking action, the US by reclassifying mesh for some procedures is high risk, Canada by issuing warnings to hospitals and doctors, we are failing to bring in the measures needed to protect the unsuspecting others sitting in hospital waiting rooms right now. We've been told regulation and safety is an issue for the European Commission but if our First Minister shows political willingness to intercede over fishing quotas, we ask that he show political willingness to intercede over something having such a detrimental effect on human life. The MHRA has confirmed we already have the powers needed to make a difference in Scotland today and too many Scottish women are being hurt on a daily basis for us to wait on the slow moving wheels of Westminster. The rest of the UK can follow suit but let us lead the way. Almost two months ago a US court found the mesh implant of choice in Scotland, the ethical TVTO, to be defective. If it is defective in the US it is likely to be found defective here if a UK court were to examine the same evidence but because there is no implant register here Health Secretary Alex Neil has had to admit there are no available records to allow health boards to write to each of the women given the defective implant to warn her or to check on her health. We weren't told as many as one in five mesh implants can go wrong and when you consider 11,000 women in Scotland have had the procedure suddenly one in five becomes an alarming statistic and as complications often take years to develop we fear we may just be the tip of the iceberg. Women are still being told their pain is not mesh related because they don't have mesh they have tape. They're still being reassured that the mesh inside them is safe that it's different from the problematic mesh reported in the media. Both claims are untrue. Our implants are all made from the same plastic polypropylene mesh. All transvaginal mesh is high risk and must be reclassified. Using polypropylene mesh for a transvaginal procedure is a contraindication. Words from Ethicon's own website state as with all foreign substances, gyna care intercede should not be placed in a contaminated surgical site. Surgeons consider the vagina to be a clean contaminated surgical site and polypropylene mesh is a foreign substance until each and every woman injured through mesh implants has been properly diagnosed and treated and all complications judiciously recorded. We do not believe the MHRA or the NHS in Scotland can continue to state these procedures or safe or say that the benefits outweigh the risks. The present system has failed because it is voluntary. While official figures show 328 women endured multiple surgeries, some as many as 12 operations to repair damage caused by mesh, just 12 doctor reported incidents have been received from Scotland by the MHRA. Why did not these doctors report the complications in 328 women because they did not have to? I personally know of three women who have died following mesh surgery but just one had reference to the procedure on her death certificate. Why? There is confusion over numbers, missing data and underreporting and we ask that you hear our voice and support us in suspending these procedures pending an independent thorough investigation. This is an emerging global scandal affecting hundreds of thousands of women. We may not be able to answer all your questions and we don't know how much these changes will cost in monetary terms but in human terms please just look at all the women behind us. We leave our dossier with you for further information. Thank you very much for making that statement. I know that this is a very sensitive, very difficult area for you so thanks very much for that. It has been very helpful for the committee. I could also thank all your supporters in the gallery for coming along today as well. I would like to ask First World's new family committee a very short statement then to bring in John Scott. Thank you very much for allowing me to contribute to your consideration of this petition that was presented so well by Elaine Narar. She is here to, as representatives of hundreds of Scottish women who have received polypropylene mesh implant and indeed hundreds of thousands across the world. They have either experienced serious complications or have concerns that they may do so in the future. This is an issue that I became aware of shortly after being appointed to the Shadow Cabinet. It was then that I met the petitioners who are here today and other mesh victims but when they met me many of them, like today, did not walk into the room where we had our meeting. Some limped or shuffled into the room, some had to be helped into the room, some had walking sticks or crutches, others wheelchairs and they all believe that they have been injured because of the medical procedure that they have undergone. They described to me the horrific consequences for them for their health of a mesh implant that they believed and had been told was a cure for their condition. Since then, convener, I have to say that the more I look into this issue, the more anxious I become. Let's be clear that this is not just a Scottish problem, it's a growing international healthcare issue and potentially a massive global scandal. That international context and the weight of evidence worry me greatly. The day I first met Oliver and Elaine, I went with them to a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary and Government officials. At that meeting, they were reassured about concerns over informed consent and told a new process would be put in place. We're told that an information leaflet would be provided and that women would be made aware of alternatives when being assessed and that there would be action to address the underreporting of adverse incidents. We left that meeting with optimism, thinking that things would be moved on quickly, yet here we are nine months later with little or limited progress. Indeed, five years after a complaint was upheld by the Scottish Public Services ombasmen about a patient not being given information about the risks attached to this procedure or still not in a position to provide systematic informed consent to women in relation to the procedure. That is obviously a grave concern for those involved, but also for our NHS ward broadly, which I believe might have, in a legal sense, left itself wide open on that. At that meeting with the Cabinet Secretary, he also suggested that evidence relating to adverse incidents was weak, with only six adverse incidents reported. To that, the six women around the table said, well, that must be us six then. But since then, through parliamentary questions, I've been advised that around 100 women have had mesh fully or partially removed. Then, through freedom of information requests to the NHS board, we established that over 300 have had complications. Now, this statistical inconsistency raises alarm bells for me. The reality is that I don't think that anyone knows how many women are affected by this, and we may just be scratching the surface. I think that that is mainly explained by the fact that doctors are not compelled to report adverse incidents. I believe that they should be compelled, and I think that this petition is right in calling for that, and that the Government needs to take action on this immediately and on the need to set up the register. I'll be very quick. We have a product that continues to be used in hospitals, and continues to damage Scottish women as more and more receive this treatment. I think that the evidence from abroad is very compelling, and I'm off the opinion that we should suspend the product, depending on an inquiry into the scale of the problem and the safety of the product. We should also introduce the rest of the changes that the women want to see. I think that if we don't have an inquiry by the Government, then I think that this committee or indeed the health committee should do so and should do so immediately. I would urge you to support the aims of the petition and I would thank the campaigners and the Sunday Mail for their support in this. As we see today, we see women who are very determined who have been willing to talk about a very personal matter that has had a devastating impact on their lives. Some have left in wheelchairs, some have lost organs, and many have lost jobs, and some are marriages. I think that this Parliament is here to represent the issues concerning communities and our people, and I trust that the committee will take that very seriously. Thank you, Mr Findlay. John Scott. Thank you, convener, for this opportunity to speak, and I also thank Eileen for her very moving presentation. I will identify absolutely with what Mr Findlay has had to say and indeed what the petitioner has had to say. I have a few specific points. I am particularly concerned over the scale of this problem. 11,000 women in Scotland are affected at the moment, and one in five are affected. That is a very large number of affected women, and there may be more. That leads me to our next point, which is concerns about underreporting on this matter and that there may very well be, regrettably, women who have this problem and who are not even aware of it. I am concerned also about the pathway of treatment for women identified with this problem because it is far from clear what that pathway should be in future. I am concerned over the lack of standardised guidelines on this subject because, to the best of my knowledge, standardised guidelines across our different health boards do not exist. Finally, I am concerned about the risk to future pregnancies of affected women. That is perhaps the greatest concern of all. That is all I have to say, and I thank you for the opportunity to be able to see these fewer. Thank you again, Mr Scott. Thank you both, gentlemen, for coming along. I would like to start by putting some questions to our petitioners today, and then I obviously want to bring my colleagues in. I can start with Elaine Holmes. You have mentioned the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which is the regulatory authority that you referred to earlier. How effective a watchdog would you say it is? They do not take our concerns seriously. We write to them on a number of occasions, we telephone them, we get the standard copy and paste replies, and they do not listen to us. They say that they can only take complaints if you have your full device details, otherwise you are put on what is called a trending database. Given that most of us do not know what is implanted inside us, it is an impossibility. Quite often or more often than not, the device details are not recorded in your medical notes. Sometimes it is in your theatre notes, sometimes your guess is as good as mine. Even they do not know the full scale because there are very few of us that have our full device details. I agree with what Elaine Holmes said. They seem to be part of the EU medical directives, and most of it is dependent on the evaluation of reported incidents. With no mandatory reporting, those incidents are not getting to where they have to be to be evaluated, so they are not getting the reports because it is nothing mandatory, it is all voluntary. They seem to think that the operations of things devices have not even been tested on humans right away from the very start. Mya Scott, do you wish to come to the stage? After almost 40 years in front-line journalism, I can honestly say that I have never come across such a horrendous scandal. These women's lives have been utterly decimated by what has happened to them. The effects are not just on the women themselves but their families. To see young women who are stuck in wheelchairs through what they were told was a simple operation is beyond belief, and to see these women struggling and to bravely come forward and tell the stories. What saddens me was that many of these women were told that they were the only ones suffering, when in fact that was not the case. Quite often it was the same doctors who were telling these women that they were the only ones. It is a great sadness that many of these women feel very let down by the very people who were supposed to be helping them. It is a great mystery as to why these doctors did not come forward and report what was happening. I think that you made some very good points. I was reading some of our evidence earlier from Professor Joyce, who talked about the precautionary principle. His argument was that patients need to have informed consent before having this operation. Do you feel that that has happened in the medical practice? No, not at all. Most of the women that I have spoken to and I have spoken to hundreds of them, the vast majority of them were never properly told exactly what this device would do. They were all just given a pat in the head and told, this will sort you out.  They were not given alternatives. It is shameful that the sad fact of the matter is that they can do six of these mesh operations for one of the alternative operations. I think that that is exactly why this has happened. I am sure that all three witnesses will be aware that the European Union has got a very important role here through the CE marks, the European conformity mark. As you well know with all your research that you have done in the Sunday mail over the years, that medical products have to comply with the CE mark. If there are complaints from either the devolved authority or the UK authority, that the CE mark could be withdrawn. Is this a course of action that you have looked at in its generality? I think that that is something that should be looked at and that is perhaps something that we could take further. I do know that the licensing, if they have a licence to use this product, this is the mesh here, this is polypropylene mesh that they use to tie up newspapers and it is the same substance that is used to put inside these women. The only difference is that the mesh holes are bigger and the tissue actually grows through this mesh and when they are trying to remove it you can imagine the damage. What happens is that they give a licence to use mesh in another part of the body. They do not have to go back again and ask for a brand new licence. Therefore, if it is okay to go for one part of the body, it is not always the same to go for another part of the body and you can see the damages that are caused here. My final point before I bring my colleagues in, I am sure of lots of questions. Neil Findlay mentioned the international comparisons and I was reading the other day that in the US the mesh implant is seen as a high risk procedure now. What are your thoughts on that? I think that America has done exactly the right thing and it is something that Scotland can do today. It is something that is very much needed. Scotland needs to lead the way. America has done exactly the right thing. We should really be doing this today before another single woman unsuspectingly ends up like all the ladies that are here today and all the ladies that are too ill to come and there are many of them. Although America is proposing to reclassify mesh for pelvic organ prolapse, they have not included mesh for trans-faginol stress urinary incontinence. It is all the exact same material implanted through the exact same clean contaminated surgical field. If anything, mesh that is used for stress urinary incontinence is heavier weight mesh, which in a sense is more problematic and that should be included. I am conscious of what we are trying to keep going as long as possible because I think that it is a very important debate. Could you describe to the committee in a very straightforward manner what the alternatives to mesh are? There are lots of alternatives.  If it is for stress urinary incontinence, you might want to consider pelvic floor exercises, physiotherapy, continence pads. There are all sorts of things you can do. The non-mesh surgical options are birch copal suspension or facile sling whereby they use your own tissue and that was the way the procedures were carried out for years before the revelation that mesh was coming to play. Those operations have a similar success rate to mesh, but when a birch copal suspension stops working after a number of years, you are back to square one, you have a leaky bladder. If you have got mesh and it stops working, well, where the proof of what can happen, it can erode through your organs or your urethra.  Thank you for explaining that to me because it is very helpful. I will now bring in my colleagues. Start with Jackson Carlaw. Thank you, convener. Can I just declare that I have met Elaine Holmes and encouraged her in her petition and can I thank you both for the evidence that you have given and the way you have given up this morning. I just want to try and get a few things into the record of the meeting as well. What is the age range of the women who are most likely to be affected since the introduction of this treatment? We have women in their late 20s right through to 70+. It is very comprehensive. Of course, the harrowing aspect of all of this is the largely irreversible nature of the introduction of mesh because of the way it was described by Marion Scott and the fact that tissue grows through it and the consequences of all of that. The Government's hesitation, or at least the hesitation of people within the health service, is that it has been applied successfully for a number of women. I am interested in how you respond to that point. Is it the product because there are a variety of products that are on the market, albeit with the same principle underpinning them? Is it the product that you think has been at fault? Is it the clinical procedure that you think has been at fault? How do you react to those comments that for some people it has proved to be successful? Why do you think that has been? Firstly, on paper it may appear the benefits outweigh the risks. When you have only had 12 reports given to the MHRA from Scotland, that would seem so considering 11,000 women have had the operation. However, there is no database, there is no mandatory reporting, and there are hundreds of us litigating almost 400, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Many of us have had multiple procedures and each and one of those procedures is an adverse incident and should be reported. If they were reported, I think that we would be looking at a very different scenario. The benefits wouldn't outweigh the risks. Sorry, I can't remember the second part of the question. Essentially, I think the argument you make is that if this procedure is allowed to carry on indefinitely, then across the world the emerging cohort of people who have had an adverse reaction, if it were properly reported would be huge, and therefore it may well therefore not be the procedure, it's the product, it's the whole principle underpinning the actual treatment which is at fault. One of the devices that TVTO, which is the most, it's the preferred device that's used in Scotland, was recently found in the US Court of Law to be defective. So there is definitely mesh, any mesh is, I feel, the product is defective, and that's where the MHRA is. We are thinking is the benefits outweigh the risks, but the benefits don't outweigh the risks when people are getting disabled. I mean, it's not minimal. No, I understand that. I'm just trying to get some of this into our records so that it's there. And just finally, convener, I think I understand that your very clear desire is that this product no longer be used, or there's form of treatment no longer be used in the alternatives that we found, but you have actively engaged with Government and with the Health Secretary with a view to trying, short of that becoming a reality, the proper advice be available to women so that they understand exactly what risks they might be entering into. In terms of the discussions you've had, at what point in moving those to a conclusion that you would be satisfied with and believe that that knowledge was now being communicated? Where do you think you are in relation to that? We're working towards new patient information booklet for stress urinary incontinence at the moment. Our aim is to make sure that women realise that A, they're having mesh because it's often referred to as a tape, but it's made from polypropylene mesh, and this has got to be very clear within the information the women are given. They have to be told it's a permanent device, they have to be made aware of all known risks, and they also have to be aware that even if risks do occur, multiple surgeries may be necessary, and perhaps no resolve at the end. They just have to be aware. And where do you think that advice currently is in terms of it being at a point where it would actually be being communicated? Well, we're hopefully not too far away from having this document in use throughout Scotland, but there's a few points that we haven't agreed on as yet. Thank you, Mr Carlaw. Can I invite now other members who wish to come home? Chip Dory? Yes, good morning, and thank you for the presentation. We know that, as a consequence of your meeting with the health secretary, he's taken up certain actions with regard to, with the MHRA and Europe, and that new consent forms will be available, I believe, next month to record complaints. Let me focus on, if I may, GPs. How aware were they of the implications? So there'd be no channeling of information to GPs? No, and even the two communications put out by Sir Harry Burns and laterly by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, I believe, they were more directed to health boards. We need direct communication specifically to GPs, because that is often the first point of call. So in terms of that, so consequently, there's been no feedback to government, to EU and to MHRA and then EU, as far as you're concerned. What guidance, there's a mention of guidance that's been given or had been given. Are you aware of any change in that guidance, any recent change in the guidance that's been given, for recommendation to or recommendation by MHRA or the European community? I don't really understand your question. Recently, Michael Matheson, the Public Health Minister, said that if there was any change to the guidance or recommendation that's been made to MHRA regarding the devices or the European community, that the Scottish Government would act accordingly. I'm just wondering if you're aware of, given the comments that you've made regarding international implications, of any change to guidance? No, there's no change at the moment. The health minister has written to the European Commission and he's written to the MHRA asking them to urgently reconsider and look into this with regards to what's happening in America. I think that the European Commission has also recognised that there is serious problems with medical device implants that read up some information on that and they are looking, they're actually planning in the future to have every implant, every patient with an implant to have like a barcode or an implant card, but if they do have any problems with their implant it's recorded and this is where it's all about everything just now is voluntary. There's nothing mandatorily happening, it's all voluntary and it depends on the classification of the devices and the fact that if an adverse incident happens then if they don't know about it they don't know there's a problem and then when they do eventually find out, the only time they find out is when hundreds and thousands of patients come forward with complications and by that time the horse is basically bolted at the table and you know we're in the situation brand just now. Clearly we can go into specifics but I want to just take me briefly through the kind of conversation that someone might have with the GP regarding this product. In general if I was going to my GP initially it was you know the symptoms I was getting tested for all different you know possible causes but at the same time the GP wasn't aware of mesh medical device complications and I kept saying no it's my mesh, it's my mesh. She said no no we've did this, we've did this, we've did this, but she had no knowledge of the actual complications to you know eventually I was referred on to a consultant. Prior to the recommendation or you know when when the problem was diagnosed were you, were anybody taken through the range of options?  Do you mean from the consultant? From the GP or the consultant? The only time I consulted my GP was when I started having problems and then you would be referred to a consultant but the GPs are unaware of actual mesh complications. In an education point you know my GP didn't know anything about mesh medical devices or complications and eventually after all tests were exhausted and most were coming back in conclusive I was referred on. I think if a patient presents to a GP now with mesh medical device complications complaining of any symptoms as per the BSUG list of reportable complications that should be getting reported to the MHRA they should automatically be referred to a consultant rather than the GP going through months and months of trying to find out. I appreciate that a bit and again we have to talk in general since we can't be talking about specific situations. What I'm trying to get to is is there a proponent when advice is given? Is there a proponent and advice that this is the answer as opposed to any other possibilities, any other devices? Is there a proponent to say this is the solution to the medical problem? Why are you the... They say well they can't realise that I give advice if they don't know the information that they need to give the advice in the first place. GP's are totally in the dark, they're still totally in the dark even after getting letters from the deputy chief medical officer that there's still a lot of confusion about mesh medical implants. There's no post as you pointed out, there's no post recording of... No, there's no register, everything's voluntary, there's no mandatory regulations whatsoever. Do you know if that applies internationally as well in terms of recording? I'm not sure internationally if they have... I would guess there's nothing mandatory there also. Is Marion, are you available? Do you know from your investigative... Some of the countries are busy looking at this whole issue as well. In respect of the doctors not recognising things, I know from speaking to a lot of the women here and a lot of the other women who can't be here. A lot of them were actually dismissed and told that they must be imagining things, that it was all in their head. Some of them were even sent to psychologists, psychiatrists when they were actually suffering horrific physical. When this stuff cuts through your organs it cuts through like cheese wire and you can imagine the physical pain that these women were going through. And because of the long delay for the GP to get to well maybe it is a mesh implant and it's causing the problem, by that time the tissue has already grown through the mesh and trying to get it out is really really problematic. There's only a couple of doctors in Scotland who are used to taking this stuff out and when you see the scale of the problem that's completely not a line adequate. I would like to declare an interest in having are in the process of dealing with some constituency case work with regards this issue and also just about to thank the women obviously for your presentation today and for the other women that are here to support and Marion for the hard work that you have done bringing this issue to the forefront of people's minds. One of the questions that we haven't round the issue about not being registered, how far back would this procedure go? It started I think late 90s 1998 I think for TVT which is for stressurinary incontinence and I think 2003 for TVTO and pelvic organ prolapse somewhere in between I'm not quite sure. And to date we've had to date we've had 11,000 women who've went through that procedure. Well it's approximately 11,000 because there's no accurate data. That's in the last seven years though those figures. There's no records available before that. Convener I have obviously through the case work that I have been dealing with it and have been trying to get questions answered myself. Having been a member of this committee I think I don't know about two years now maybe more maybe less. It is a non I'm not sure if the women are aware that it is a non political makeup on this committee so we don't we don't talk about political parties in a sense. We take each petition as it comes in and on that note this is this happens to be one of the most horrific petitions that I've ever came across within this committee but I'm unsure as to why we haven't done anything you know if this has been flagged up and I've heard it being raised within the chamber if this has been flagged up nine months ago of the details that we are getting just now I'm really unsure and surprised as to why nothing has been done about it and I'm not saying nothing has been done about it but surely there's not enough been done about it. We're asking for that these procedures to be stopped and for it to be fully investigated. I'm not sure why we're not doing that. Clio B. Obviously at the end of the discussions we have today it's up for the committee to talk about next steps but I'm sure the committee would want to write to the Scottish Government for example but that's not up for the committee at the end of this session. If you have any further questions for the witnesses. Not to stay. Kev, John Wilson. Thank you, good morning and thank you very much for your evidence not only in terms of today but also the other written evidence we've received and the weighty document we received as we've just sat down to consider this petition from Sunday Mail. The issue for me is one whereby you've raised a number of concerns and you've also indicated that you've had meetings with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Health officials and first of all I would like to ask what assurances if any did you receive from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and the Health officials about the potential request to suspend all operations until this is fully investigated? None. He's refused to suspend. The Cabinet Minister said there's a fear of being sued by the mesh manufacturers. He refused to suspend even including the fact that we don't have any proper procedures and advice booklet available for women who have been recommended this type of operation. He refused to suspend until that document was produced and we had clear guidelines issued to all practitioners in relation to advising patients of the options and the dangers potential side effects I should say of this operation so there's no indication it would suspend and that from both the Cabinet Secretary and the health officials as well the health officials have not taken or given any indication they would be prepared to consider suspension of these operations. The other question and it goes back to Anne McTagar's question that you've put in the submission along with the petition that there was over 10,700 have had the operation but that's just based on FOIs because there is no accurate data prior to 2007 because it wasn't recorded. Do you think that 10,700 is an accurate figure or is it way out in terms of we could be potentially looking at double that figure of women? It's just difficult to know because there's just no accurate data for reporting for database for follow-up you know keeping track of who's suffering as a result unlike the car industry if there's a problem they can issue a recall they can't do that with mesh because they have no clue. There's no preposinary principle when it comes to medical devices it's like if you ground an aircraft as well it's you know if something goes wrong in the airline industry the aircraft are grounded right away that doesn't happen with medical devices they don't have that precautionary principle where they'll stop the line and investigate they just keep putting the medical devices in will you while they're waiting to find out what the problem is telling us the benefits outweigh the risks. As other members have mentioned this morning that it might be that we are just scratching the tip of the iceberg here in relation to the cases that are coming forward in terms of the survivors network are you finding that the the demand for information through the survivors network is increasing on a daily basis? Yes definitely right and these women are struggling to do this on their own that this is the only support network we have is each other we're not medically trained we're not legally trained we can only offer support right that's about the only thing the good thing that's come out of these mesh medical devices is the new friendships that have evolved through you know finding each other because initially everybody was sitting thinking that they were the only the only one we were unique and that's what consultants were telling telling you when you were going to see the consultants like the same consultants the same consultants this is very rare you know so you know so that's evidence you're picking up from the survivor's helpline in terms of the same names that are appearing consistently so there's an awful lot of very rare and very unique people yes can i thank you very much convener and please me on to a couple of recommendations which we'll be working on sure thanks mr wilson um as i said um we are over time but i take his decision we should extend the time because something this is important to do that um will members perhaps who haven't contributed wish to say anything this stage yeah jackson carlid did you have a thank you convener if i can just have a one something i've left this deliberately to the end because i thought it was important to hear the very factual evidence that you gave but these are very personal stories and i just wonder if the two petitioners would share with the committee how their lives have changed okay um i can walk from my front door to the driveway that's as far as i can walk i now rely on a wheelchair i've had severe left side nerve damage my life isn't what i envisaged for myself my husband or my family we've learned to live with it we have good days and we have bad days but like all have said we've gained support from each other i've basically you know the life i had i did have was a healthy active employed life and and i don't have that anymore now i'm disabled basically i've got chronic pain like i've got brush your teeth in the morning pain you know sitting walking if i can't i'm like Elaine i'm i'm determined not to be in the wheelchair but you know it would make my life so much easier if i was so it's just constant symptoms there's no off switch for the symptoms and that's the same for for all the girls that we speak to so thank you for that and again thank you for providing such sensitive personal information that it does i think help advise the committee in looking forward to the next steps do you have any members of the committee of any final points before i'd like to ask Neil Findlay to a very brief point we are very short of time could you keep it very short i think the question for the committee is and i say this you know given that it's a very male dominated committee but i'll say this is a general question would any of you have this operation if you know what you know now would you allow your wife your partner your daughter or any female relative to have this operation and if the answer to that is no and i think you know what this committee has to do and it has to act on behalf of these women who've been so brave to do that thank you mr Findlay and she probably goes from the previous petition we're now at summation so we've stopped to ask you a question can i conclude the statement if you make it very short it's just basically on behalf of everyone it's got his male survivors thank you all for listening to us and for considering our petition i would like to thank our families all who signed our petition politicians from all parties for the support special thanks to marines go and the sunday meal for the hear our voice campaign thanks to the mesh injured girls and all that made it along today to support us special thoughts to the girls not well enough to attain the eyes sorry the eyes of mesh injured women across the world are watching what is happening here today in the Scottish parliament they are all relying on scotland taking the initiative and leading the way to prevent even more victims being being harmed by mesh implants what we are asking for is so very little when you compare the human cost as well as the financial burden of doing nothing at all our suggestions will ensure that proper early warning systems are put in place and we believe these simple measures can easily be adapted to protect anyone undergoing any implant procedure please make the change the changes to prevent scandals like this in the future so no more no more lives will needlessly be destroyed please study our dossier the evidence is overwhelming please hear our voice thank you thank you thank you very much for meeting that statement oh it's very personally difficult and although technically i'm not allowed any applause in the gallery of making decision in this occasion i'm going to allow it and we're now at summation so that we've stopped asking questions um and but i would ask you just to stay where you are certainly my own personal view in the three years i've convened this committee i think this is one of the most significant petitions we've had and thanks again to sunday meal for all the work they've done in highlighting this i'm sure to speak for other committee members must say that we would clearly need to continue this petition and i for one would certainly want to get the views of the scottish government the middle health care products regularly authority the NHS national services but also i do things important that we do right to the european commission because they as i said in my early question do have a regulatory role and if the committee are agreeable we had a provisional date to go and meet the european petitions committee in october that hasn't been confirmed yet but if the committee were so minded it may be that we could visit one of the dgs who've got responsibility for this particular issue but again that's just my individual view and it would be for the committee members to look at the next steps so i've set out some parameters i just wonder if perhaps i'll start with the deputy convener chick rory on your views on the next steps thank you for your presentation again um this committee doesn't make formal decisions or the finality of decisions and recommends um further action on a personal level i have no doubt that the evidence given supports the action that you're asking for to that end convener i suggest not only write the scottish government but that we clearly carry forward the petition and invite the cabinet secretary to come to the committee and explain the actions that regrettably are not yet in in our hands where we have to discuss with EU but i am frankly once again disappointed that we seem to have products entering the marketplace which in which we have no confidence or little confidence and i think that's for another day but i do think that we should invite the cabinet secretary to come and discuss this matter with us thanks so much mr brody so was a recommendation then which has been continuous we write a variety of organizations sorry john wilson thank you convener i've got another couple recommendations to make who we write to first of all could i suggest we write to royal college of surgeons and the bma to seek their views on these procedures i could also suggest we write to four health boards in scotland and i've just randomly chosen lothian greta glasgoog and clide airsharing iron and five to ask them their views on the issues that have been raised by the petition and the evidence referred today i would also seek as part of when we write to the scottish government royal we ask the scottish government what advice is being provided to gps on the issues raised in the petition because clearly the first point to call after the operation for many women is their gp because they don't get a direct referral to the back to the consultant and we clearly based on the evidence the gps need to be made aware of the issues that are being raised and the complications that are coming about so the gp women do not feel they are left on their own to deal with an individual case and lastly uh no it's not lastly convener could be asked the scottish government and what procedures will be put in place to ensure the appropriate recording of complications either a gp level or a hospital surgeon level of this procedure and lastly but not least reinforce the call for the suspension of all such procedures until such time that we have the assurances and other factors in place that people have informed consent can be given on the issues raised by this petition today thanks mr i think that's a very comprehensive list of additional recommendations so i would certainly endorse would other members like to come in jackson carlaw similar to say convener i feel a weight of responsibility on the committee with this petition some petitions we hear i don't believe are time critical but i believe this one potentially is time critical because whilst it might be something the health committee might otherwise have been expected to consider they have their own very busy and detailed agenda we've heard evidence this morning and in a way i feel we should feel compelled to act on that evidence and so i think i would very much whilst uh and picking up a point chic brody made but maybe giving just a little bit more urgency still to it that while we might be seeking the views of others i would very much like us to flag up with the cabinet secretary at the earliest opportunity that we would like to have the opportunity to discuss with him the issues that have been raised because i think whereas sometimes that might be the end of the process in this instance it might only be an interim step on the process of action this committee might wish to recommend thanks mr carlaw for that in fact my own thoughts were that we would in the committee agreeables we'd invite mr masterson or mr neil to attend two weeks today which is our final week before the recess alternatively as you know we have a meeting scheduled in august as well and so the the current will certainly make that clear to the minister's office in fairness the minister has always been reasonable very reasonable about turning up when he's had a request so i'm not looking for any problems on this front amic target thanks just to agree with what's been said on the recommendations going forward but also for the committee to have some background information on some of the procedures elsewhere in the uk if we're able to ask spice for that information we'll certainly speak to spice thanks for amic target's point is there any additional point which is very comprehensive in terms of his recommendations i do differ though in terms of approaching four health boards we should be selective about this i think we should approach all health boards so that all are involved in what should be a very timious exercise and i do think that we need somebody here before recess to make sure that there is a quick clear action plan going forward i agree with mr brodie and that said we've won for the meeting but certainly it'll be my view that we they should be here in two weeks time so and we'll certainly keep the all our witnesses here today up to date so i think you've heard from the committee that we this is a very very important petition i think we've taken this very seriously we've tried to cover every single option that we can and clearly if mr neal or mr mastan here in two weeks time you are certainly as you know or very free to come to the gallery on that occasion so can i thank all of you for coming along both our witnesses and all the supporters in the gallery today is a very sensitive area but clearly the committee feels this is extremely serious and we'll do everything we can to pursue the aims of your petition thank you very much for coming along and i'll suspend for two minutes till our witnesses to leave if we could restart our committee we're in gender item three consideration of current petitions the next item business pe 1319 by lonesmith and scott robertson on improving youth football in scotland members of a note by the clerk submissions from the scottish youth ffa and the children's commissioner and in light of the evidence heard the last meeting committee is invited to consider what action it wishes to take on the petition one option as members will be aware is to invite scotland's commissioner for young and for young people to review the current registration process from a rights perspective and report back to the committee with his findings could ask the committee the review on black recommendation i think that's fine give me that but i think i'd also like us to invite a the scottish schools football association to give evidence at the same time okay can i bring in other members just got a comprehensive view mangoes mcdonald yes thanks convener certainly welcome the submission from tam bailey the commissioner for children and young people in his beliefs that i review the current registration process from a rights perspective should very would be beneficial so i would certainly agree with the recommendation that we invite him to review the current registration process i wonder if we can try and sort of make a link between the two and i would be keen to go ahead with commissioner but could we get the information that chick brody is asking for and make sure that information goes to the young people's commissioner so that he's fully aware of all the information so that it's all joined up certainly makes sense john wilson do you have a chance i'm members all i'm members all happy with that recommendation okay and so we're going to invite scotland's commissioner for young people to review the current registration process and if i move on to the next competition it's pe 1460 by susan archibald on behalf of the scottish parliament cross party group in chronic pain on improvement of services and sources to tackle chronic pain members have been note by the clerk and clearly there's been a lot of work done i think in fairness by the scottish government in this particular issue and i think hopefully our work in this committee is made a bit of a difference and i can't see what further work is available in terms of this petition and i think it's been excellent work by susan archibald and i'd like to thank her and the cross party group for the work they've done and so i would then suggest and let's members have any other options that we close the petition under rule 15.7 on the basis that chamber debate on chronic pain took place in the 29th of main may that a consultation in the future provision specialist chronic pain services held following which the establishment of a new specialized residential chronic pain management services has been taken forward and Jackson carlaw i personally would have preferred to leave the petition open until the government to finally confirmed the absolute establishment of that new centre i believe the cabinet secretary hopes to be able to do that before the commencement of the recess and i know that i have every confidence that he will but i think for completeness sake and particularly the investment that there has been by so many people in susan archibald's petition that if we could get to that point and then draw a formal line under it knowing that we had made that final achievement on their behalf yeah i'm personally relaxed about that but just to bring in other members john mason can i say and put on record of both jackson carlaw and my interest in this issue as co-conveners of the cross party group and chronic pain and could i suggest we support jackson carlaw's suggestion that we hold on to this petition and like jackson carlaw i would agree i think the cabinet secretary and the minister are about to make that decision and public but i would prefer to hold on to this petition until such times as it is made public around the members the committee agreeable yes thank you very much we will continue this in light of jackson carlaw's points and look at this again in the future and we'll move to the next petition it's pe 1482 by john warmersley on isolation in single room hospitals members are not by the clerk and alec fergsant msp has a constituency interest i don't think he's been able to attend but i would just for the record mark mr fergsant's interest in this petition i could invite contributions from members members will wear there's probably two main options for action we could write to scottish government to request that cost benefit analysis of 100 single rooms as opposed to 50 over the course of the hospital's lifetime be undertaken or we could defer consideration petition until the scottish government's review of the research of single bed accommodation the hospitals is complete and the results of the review published can ask members views on either option or indeed if there's other options members have interested to hear them just on point one i think given that we are aware of hospitals being built with single rooms it's not just the the cost benefit in terms of operational cost it would be instructive to look at the capital costs involved in building 100 and we should have that information sent from south of scotland 100 single rooms as opposed to 50 so it's not just an operational cost clearly the more important issue which is the the research in terms of the sociability of single rooms as opposed to shared in some cases 50 percent accommodation and that's in my book a more important issue but i don't think i do think we should still ask for the the capital cost situation. Just touching on mr ability's point i think in annex a in the spice brief there was some issues about the capital costs but i don't know whether mr buddy wants to check whether that's sufficient for his purposes and i'm proud of carlock well it's rather satisfied mine i'm not altogether sure what more we do do with this petition i think that the scottish government's policy is very clear i think that the cabinet secretary has indicated that he would undertake a review i think that it would be interesting if we are going to continue the petition to invite the scottish government to start to provide some feedback on the attitude of patients who've actually experienced a single room hospital accommodation because my understanding is it's been very favourable and that some of the questioning that underpinned previous surveys of opinion was predicated with some rather pejorative suggestions as to what they might be likely to experience and in fact the reality has proved to be quite different so i think personally i feel we've given the petition a good hearing and i think that the government's undertaking that there will be a review in due course in order to ensure that they learn lessons from it is probably as much as the committee can reasonably expect i'm slightly less persuaded about drilling further into the cost benefit analysis as an issue of policy in terms of the government and determining what they believe to be in the best interests of the health of patients and i'm not quite sure where you know whether the light bulbs cost more or not in those circumstances is to my mind relevant to be clear mr gala you're suggesting it's option two to defer consideration to the scottish government review well my one personal view would actually have been to close the petition on the basis that our review has been guaranteed by the government to take place at some point and i think that is is a sensible and pragmatic course of action can ask other members views can i just come back on i mean i disagree wholly with this because of the as i mentioned the the sociability the concern i have is the scottish government's review of there is they're doing research on single-bedded accommodation in hospitals i trust that we're not just talking about whether single-bedded accommodation is good or bad but also looking at the alternatives and i think that in terms of the and i disagree with jackson i think that in having some multi-bedded areas in hospitals is has a very good social and idiot healing effect so i would keep the petition open and the costs are important thank you for that can ask other members we've effectively got two options we've got a closure or keep the option keep the petition open i think until the scottish government's review is complete mr brody that was you think your suggestion can ask other members john wilson i'm quite happy to keep the petition open at the present moment convener and seek those additional answers to the questions that have been raised thank you for that david tarnes petition open and the target how long do we have to wait for the other information to arrive um well the review will obviously we'll keep a close watch and see if government when that review is complete so the scottish government will announce that the other information is a factual one so i wouldn't expect it to be get that in the next four weeks i would just expect the review is over the course of a year so the review is over the course of a year so do we keep it open for that lengthy time do we keep well that's the length of the review so that would be that would be what the continuation would be suggesting so we can keep a watching brief on it and in the meantime the other piece of information has to be so yes that's good we have kept other petitions open for that lengthy time i think we have to complete it okay thank you for that and finally hangs mdoll yeah i think given that the petitioner in his email of the 26 of may asked or requested that we write to the scottish government on the to task that a proper cost benefit analysis has done i think we should honour that request okay as well and certainly keep it open so i think majority position is that we continue petition until get the view over and seek the piece of information that the petitioner was was asking for and obviously we report this back to um to a future meeting i am bonus eight convener i do not for the life of me understand why we take a year to do research accommodation single-bedded and multi-bedded accommodation you know the tail is wagging the dog in some of these situations and it's you know we really need to ask the question as to when we expect these things to be completed well if members wish they obviously were expecting mr neal to appear before us for another subject the previous petition if people want to ask further questions that's totally in order as far as i'm concerned i'm sure that that's a response which would be entirely reasonable is he would actually like some people to experience single-bedded accommodation in order to be able to comment upon it and i think that might take some little while so i think we could continue this for some time but let's draw a line under this so we're going to continue this until the reviews complete and we're going to ask for the information that the petitioner is requesting can we move to the next petition and it's pe 1488 by Pete Beggs on behalf of kids in our suits and fossil boring local government members have a note by the clerk on submissions again i think this is a very comprehensive petition i can ask members views on next steps i mean because clearly there is an issue that the petition is mostly about policies that matter for locally elected representatives obviously Audit Scotland the counts commission is responsible for auditing these policies to date has not identified any weakness related to fossil boring which is required to be flagged up in the annual report for the for a local authority and obviously we found a lot of information from local authorities about it if members are happy with that way forward and we can close the petition if they're not please suggest some other course of action recommendation if that helps on the basis that silence is a scent and we will close that petition on the basis of the points i made earlier and we move to the next competition is pe 1497 by Ailey Harrison on behalf of senior to Tesco on supermarket expansion on local high streets members have a note by the park and the submissions and we have got Patrick Harvie MSP here today and Sandra White who recommends some very useful points and can i ask if there's a very brief comment from Mr Harvie and Sandra White before the committee look at still gracious thanks very much convener and i appreciate the opportunity to say a few words before the committee considers the petition i'm here really to urge the committee to take the petition seriously i think very few people would want to do away with supermarkets very few people would deny that supermarkets when they came into the the high street added something genuinely new something additional to the the retail environment to the sector we've got reached the point though now where the scale of the domination by a handful of multinationals really is getting absurd i remember about 10 years ago the scottish parliament was discussing some of these concerns and at that point the big four controlled somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of the the retail sector in this country now it's getting close to 90% and still expanding now i know that the petition raises some specifically local issues but i think all members will recognise that this is something that goes right into every community dense urban communities rural communities very many of them find that what competition means in retail is now simply a choice between one supermarket and another rather than the rich diversity that many communities used to enjoy so whether your priority is as local and national government talk about diversity vibrancy in town centres and competition or whether your priority is some of the arguments around shorter supply chains greater trust and local resilience in local economies which supermarkets because of the nature of their logistics are always going to be bad at we're going to see continual problems with a long complex supply chains that gave rise to the meat scandal in recent years whether you're talking about those sustainability arguments or the competition arguments i think we should recognise at this point that the objectives that governments are setting local and national governments are setting for those those for a rich diversity of retail offer and vibrancy in town centres those objectives are not being met and i do hope that the committee will consider very carefully whether through use classes or some other mechanism for example giving local authorities the ability to consider the cumulative total of floor space that an applicant has rather than simply the individual premises for which permission is being applied or for which permission may not be needed whatever the mechanism i think we have to recognise that the public policy objectives which governments have been talking about for a long time are not being met and in fact are being undermined by the continued dominance potentially we could be here in another 10 years seeing 95 plus of the retail sector in this country being controlled by four companies that's not competition and it's not sustainable so whichever side of that argument you fall on i think it's time to recognise that objectives in terms of the common good are not being met thanks for having me thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak to this and thank the justice committee for finishing a wee bit earlier today to enable me to come down if i could possibly even look at the local issue obviously early and others petition emulated from an issue in the Great Western Road area of my constituency in Kelvin but as Patrick said it's not just about that area it's other areas also we have seen in the past number of years small localized shops closing down we have areas of Mary Hill Road some in my constituency some in Patricia Ferguson's constituency which basically all the small shops have closed down and we just have big supermarkets in the area you take that on board with to say local shops not just employing local people but using local produce as well and it's something which adds to the diversity of an area such as my constituency in Kelvin we have the Kelvin bridge area the Finistin area York hill etc etc where the small shops are closing down something because Tesco's and others have opened up there's also the issue of land banking by these big supermarkets which buy up the land and they sit vacant for 12 20 years even before they actually put forward a planning application to that so i would just ask that yes you know is a serious issue it's not just a very localized issue it's all over Scotland not just in my constituency of Kelvin but i must say when you're walking about an area the diversity of the local shops is something which you know is great and it brings people into these areas as well you can go to your Tesco's anywhere or i'm not just saying Tesco's there's others as well but you can go to huge supermarkets anywhere they all look the same they all sell the same produce you go along a high street or otherwise and you've got a diversity of shops selling a diversity of goods and that can only be good for the local area now i know we're looking at the mp3 the planning issues as well maybe local government could look at the petition i don't know i'll leave that up to your expert cells to decide what to do with the petition but i would you know plead with you to yes have a look at this petition it's not just happening in one area it's happening throughout scotland as well thank you very much and as members won't know as Andrew White's written to us and examined some helpful suggestions suggesting that we asked the scottish government about the use of the retail impact assessments for shops of under 2500 square metres and for its views on suggestion by the Federation's whole business that the town centre master planning toolkit takes into consideration the issues raised by the petition are members happy with these these two suggestions just like a big following comment i met with professor lee sparks who's now head of the town centre partnerships and there's some in the professor of retail at sibling university who enlightened me with the fact that supermarkets out of town supermarkets are now some which have been built covering 100 000 square feet realise that there is a vast need reduction to something like 60 000 square feet and what we're talking about in the petition here is is a supermarket expansion in the local high streets and i think well i appreciate sander white's request about the RIAs of course we can't just talk in those terms about supermarkets openings shops of that size or what have you we're talking about all shops under two hundred and two and a half thousand feet and i make the point i made earlier i am i have no truck for supermarkets at all i find it there's not a level for playing field but we're also suffering of course from internet shopping which is affecting shops in the high street so i understand as though there are localized issues in my area as well but we have to be recognised that if we are to restore the vitality and viability of town centres then it becomes difficult to say well we're going to have these shops and we're not going to have these shops recognising i believe that supermarkets are the out of town supermarkets are on seriously on the wane and you just have to look at the results and that will provide enough sustenance to that argument i think i've said previously convener i've been un persuaded by the evidence that we've heard i don't regard supermarkets as some evil empire and what we've been asked to do here is to restrict the supermarkets owning smaller convenience store sized units many of them and formerly abandoned wool worth stores and others which in many town centres laid derelict with for years with nobody expressing any interest in operating them whatsoever i also have repeatedly gone to sandra whites constituency i am attracted to that particular corridor of great western road and then bars road i find the diversity of shopping they're remarkable i went to school round about there and the shops today are very different to the shops that were there then but i would expect that in the nature of retail that units will progressively and always change what is fashionable and what is desirable is completely different now and will be again in the future having said all that convener i'm very happy though to support sandra whites suggestion that we're right to the scottish government seeking their information on the specific proposals that have been made and i'd be very interested to hear hear the feedback and respect of that members agreeable to that suggestion thank you can i thank patrick harvey and sandra white and i remember the petitions committee for coming back thank you very much and the next petition is p1 500 by stewart houston ob e on behalf of isp b scotland on the golden eagle is a national word for scotland members of a note by the clark and submissions and can invite contributions from members clues a couple of options here one is that we ask isp scotland to undertake a public consultation to enable to demonstrate there's widespread support for the concept of the national bird and for the choice of the golden eagle over other bird species or we could suggest that the scottish government undertakes research and the benefits is assigning further national symbols and obviously this was a significant one in that was her 15th hand petition and i know some members have got quite strong views on this but i would welcome members views around the table. Jackson Carlaw. I hesitate. I would like to return to the minister's response to the previous consideration which i felt was a very comprehensive response and i would be very interested to know what the minister's response or thoughts are on the various responses we have subsequently received. I have to say i felt that the response from the conveners of the various other committees was mixed and must be described in some cases as indifferent and in one case where the enthusiasm was expressed the eye word was used rather than necessarily the committee's view and I wasn't altogether clear whether it was the convener's personal view or whether in fact it was the view of the committee concerned. At the end of the day I thought that the minister articulated the concerns in relation to the value of national symbols and also the process by which they might be adopted very well in his letter and in a way I would be interested to know whether he feels in the light of everything else that's been heard. The government feels that a case has been made or a process that he would feel appropriate has been identified. Thank you. Thank you for that. Can I ask members views on Jackson Carlaw's suggestion as we write to Scottish Government effectively with the evidence that we've currently got? I'm concerned that it was expressed before, not to the same extent about the national tree. I hardly see people running around saying, hooray, we've got the pine as the national tree of Scotland. I suspect that, while it's good to have that as a symbol, I suspect that the Golden Eagle Mr Carlaw permitting would follow the same route. I agree with that course of action. So we continue to write to Scottish Government with all the evidence that we've received and we continue this petition to a future date. The final two current traditions day will be taken together. That's PE1510 by Jody Curtis on behalf of the emergency services and on emergency service call centres. PE1511 by Laura Ross on the Inverness Fire Control Service control rooms. Members have a note by the clerk and submissions. I think I mentioned before that subsequent to the petition be lodged, Laura Ross came to speak to me about the generality of this particular issue. There's a number of options here. We did write to Justice Committee as you call about this and they are certainly, they've got a subcommittee which is looking at some of the workings of, which have covered some of the areas that these petitions are involved in. And it does seem sensible that we could put both of these petitions to the Justice Committee to look at this in more detail. Clearly, these are very important issues, but Justice does have a current subcommittee looking at this work. People agreeable?  I'm keen that we don't lose this into the recess, but there's a couple of issues that I'd like to raise on that and I don't think we can do justice in the time. I think members will agree that it was right to keep the mesh inquiry going a bit longer than we had time for. On that basis, can I formally... Sorry. One thing, perhaps, is a personal feeling and view that you may have two questions. I've got many questions of the Government's approach in terms of the response, so it does require meaningful time. I think that that's a good point and clearly I've asked the clerk to make sure that we schedule a decent chunk of time in two weeks time so we can discuss it further. If there's nothing further, can I formally close the meeting and just ask members to stay back for two minutes just a couple of quick points?