Fy roi, mae'n gweld â'r gwaith a chysylltu chi'n gwybod i chi adeiladu'r ddifu'r lleiwn i'r telefonau i'r cyffredinol, sydd yn ddefnyddio'r ddifu'r systemol fel'r ddiffunsu. Rwy'n gweld a thysg o ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddifu'r ddiffunsgol a'r ddiffunsgol The next item of business is an evidence session with the Scottish Government as part of the committee's consideration of petition PE1533 by Geoff Adamson on behalf of Scotland Against Care Tax on abolition of non-residential social care changes for older and disabled people. Members have a note by the clerk and its submission. I should point out that the initial stage of the view of NHS Scotland was not sought on the basis that the questions identified initially would more properly matter for the cabinet secretary in the first instance. Following today's evidence session it may be that the committee will wish to follow up issues specifically with the NHS Scotland. So can I welcome cabinet secretary Shona Robison for health, wellbeing and sport, and her officials, David Forreum and Mike Liddle, for the integration and reshaping care division Scottish Government to the meeting. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement after which we shall move to questions? Okay, thanks very much, convener. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee today about this issue. I certainly recognise the concerns that have been raised by people facing a range of challenging disabilities and conditions, their carers and the organisations that work with them. I'm certainly determined that the Scottish Government will continue to work with our local authority partners and indeed our health partners to improve the consistency and fairness of the current approach to charging for non-residential care. I think it is important to consider charging as part of the wider social care system. We need to ensure that resources are in place so that we can have the quantity and quality of social care that people require and that any charges are affordable and reasonable. With that in mind, on 20 January, I announced a further £100 million investment over three years to increase social care capacity and to help to reduce the number of people waiting to be discharged from hospital. Charges for social care allow local authorities to recoup a small part of their expenditure on social care, but we need to ensure that charges that are necessary are fair and affordable. My predecessor, Alex Neil, and I have taken a close interest in the issue of charging for social care and determined that there should be a fair system for service users. That's why we are working in partnership with COSLA and have ensured, for example, that no-one under 65 and in the last six months of a terminal illness should be charged for the care that they receive at home. We will set that out in legislation if necessary. I am certainly happy to explore with the committee and others what more could be done. Indeed, we are in continuing discussions with COSLA about what further action can be taken to create a fairer care charging system. Thank you, cabinet secretary, for your open comments. Can I say that the petitioner, Jeff Adamson, is in the gallery today? In your letter to the committee concerning the petition, you said that you were sympathetic to the petition. However, much of your response was to ensure greater consistency across local authorities rather than abolishing care charges. Cabinet secretary, do you have a view on the principle of abolishing care charges? As I said in my opening remarks, we need to look at charging in the round. We certainly are in discussions with COSLA about what more can be done. We need to make sure that we have the capacity within social care, given that a lot of the debate at the moment is around how we prevent people being delayed in hospital and how we make sure that people are not admitted to hospital in the first place when they do not have to be. All that requires us to build capacity in the social care sector. That is part of the debate and the considerations that we need to give, because there are finite resources and we need to decide how best to deploy those finite resources with that in mind. Meanwhile, it is important that we have a bigger debate about that balance, because there are issues that need to be resolved. As I said in my opening remarks, we looked at the issue of people in the past six months of life. That is why COSLA is working at the moment on a new financial assessment to bring more continuity and consistency across local authority boundaries and why we are talking to COSLA about what more we can do to create a fairer charging system. I acknowledge that there are, in consistency, quite different systems from one local authority to the other. While we have that bigger debate about what is affordable and in the current context of having to look at the growth of social care and the importance of that, we make the current charging system fairer for those who are paying charges. That is the focus of the discussion that we are having with COSLA at the moment. Mr Dornes, I consider the variance in charging across the 32 local authorities. Has the Scottish Government made any assessment of how much it would cost to abolish care charges? We have, although there are some unknown quantities in that. We looked at the current income that was brought in from charges, which was around £50 million. Clearly, though there are unknown issues, for example, how much would that grow, potentially, if charges were to be removed? I guess that that is quite hard to estimate completely, but I think that we would probably acknowledge that there would be a growth in demand and therefore a growth in costs. If we were to do that, although £50 million in the bigger picture of things might not seem like a huge amount, if that £50 million was spent on that, then that is £50 million that is not being spent on growing capacity. You could equate that to £100 million that could be put into growing social care capacity. Those are the debates and dilemmas that we have in the current financial climate. We have to make difficult decisions about whether, given the challenges of the need to grow social care, the challenges of delayed discharge, the challenges of a growing ageing population, where is the best place to invest those finite resources? Those are discussions that we are having with local government and with the NHS as well. They are not easy to resolve. It is important that, where charges are levied, they are fairer than they are at the moment. I am keen to progress at that, but we do have some very challenging choices to make around investment in social care. Otherwise, we are going to continue to face some of the challenges of not being able to keep people out of hospital and not being able to get them out of hospital as quickly as they need to be and to make sure that there is adequate care provision there for people who need it. The issue in the petition is about the charging regimes that currently exist and the unfairness of the charging regime, and, in particular, the inconsistency across local authority areas in terms of the charges that are made. I view that as one whereby you have made reference in a couple of occasions, cabinet secretary, to the delayed discharges. I look at health boards. Health board boundaries are not coterminous with local authority boundaries. Potentially, because of the inconsistency that exist across local authorities, I take my own area, for example, in Lanarkshire health board. It covers three or four different local authorities. Three or four local authorities have different care charging systems. Could you not see that there has been a potential for some individuals who are pursuing a delayed discharge because they cannot afford the charging regime that applies in their local authority while in other areas there may be greater outscope for the discharge because the care system does not charge as much? You make a fair point. Part of the complexity of delayed discharge is that some local authorities have greater social care capacity, some are able to recruit staff easier than others, some have more provision of care homes, some have greater provision of home care services, some have more intermediate care beds, so I think that each area has some different challenges to another. That may be a part of it, but I think that there are probably other issues going on there as well that lead to some of the differences and particular challenges of delayed discharge being worse in one area than another. Having said that and I have made this very clear, delayed discharge is a problem throughout the system at the moment and that is something that we are absolutely focused on resolving. However, your point about inconsistencies is a fair one, and that is why COSLA has been working on this new financial assessment framework so that what is taken into account in terms of income and things that are disregarded, that there is more consistency around that. However, as I said in my opening remarks, we are in discussions with COSLA about what more can be done. There are issues around when, at what income level, people start to pay charges. For example, that is one area in terms of tackling inequalities, which is an area that has some importance. There is the issue, I guess, of people with complex needs. I suppose to summarise that it is work in progress the discussions that we are having with COSLA. I am sure that the committee will understand that those are difficult and challenging and complex discussions. We need to make sure that, if we do one thing, it does not have a knock-on effect on something else and that we look at that in the round about what more could we do to create a system that is fairer and addresses some of the inequalities that are there within the charging system at the moment and brings more of a consistency to address some of the issues that you are very much raising. Of course, with integration coming the 1st of April, again, those issues of consistency have even more importance. You can be assured that we are absolutely in the middle of discussions with COSLA about what more we can do to help to move that forward in a positive way. Cabinet Secretary, I accept your response. However, the issue is about the lengthy time that it is taking us to get to our conclusion. The working group has been in existence for three years. The COSLA's response in the last paragraph indicates that it will be working over the next year on a number of issues. Do you, Cabinet Secretary, have a timescale in your mind about how you would like to see all those issues being wrapped up so that we get some consistency, but we get some co-ordination in terms of the service delivery for people who require those care services? I note in amongst the COSLA response one of the issues is not just about household incomes, but about taking on board partners' income as well, which I think may be a worrying sign for some individual households. We have seen in the past that, in other areas, where partners' incomes have been included, you end up getting separations, divorces or whatever, because people then feel that they are being financially undermined because of the care charges that are applied and the disproportionate charges on someone who may be living in that household. I can understand the committee's frustration at the length of time that some of those things take. I suppose that it is a reflection of the complexity of the issue. A couple of things that have happened during that time referred to earlier have been progressed on the issue of the charging for those under 65 with the terminal illness. It is quite right that that was resolved and that it was not fair that someone was being charged for end-of-life care. The other issue that is about to be finalised is the new financial assessment framework, which will help with some of the issues about what one local authority disregards and what another disregards. It is incremental steps of progress rather than perhaps something that is a bit quicker. However, in terms of time frame going forward, as I said, we are in some very detailed discussions with COSLA at the moment about what more can be done. Obviously, we would want to bring those to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we are keen to try to get that right because it is an issue that keeps surfacing. We want to try to do more around fairer charging and get something that is going to be sustainable and see us into the long term rather than coming back and revisiting the issue time and time again as it has done over the past. I hope that you will forgive us for taking that bit more time. However, as I said, we are in detailed discussions with COSLA at the moment about what more can be done. As soon as those discussions are reaching any conclusion, I would be more than happy to come back to the committee with that detailed information. Cabinet Secretary, you indicated discussions with COSLA coming to a conclusion. As I asked earlier, do you have any timescale in mind? I know that the incremental steps have been taken, but for many individuals and households out there, they want an answer to the questions that are being raised about the charging regimes that apply sooner than later. I would be interested whether or not you have a timescale that you and your department are working towards to try to get a conclusion to that issue. I guess that it is always as soon as possible, but if I put a time frame on it and then that time frame slipped because we had not reached conclusions in those discussions, I am not sure how helpful that would be. I certainly want to try to bring those discussions to agreement and conclusion as quickly as we can. However, as I say, I would be more than happy to make sure that the committee gets early notification of that once we are in a position to do so. You are aware, cabinet secretary, that under the 2002 legislation the Scottish Government could set charges if they so wished, if they felt that there was not getting that support from COSLA members. Has that been part of the deliberations and discussion? I am not talking about with COSLA, but within the department and yourself. COSLA and ourselves are well aware of that. We have said in relation to the six months end of life care and the fact that councils should not be charging for that if required we would enact the 2002 legislation. We are all aware of the power that we have there, but we are trying to take that forward in the spirit of partnership. We have got the new integrated partnerships starting on 1 April. We all recognise that resources are challenging and we need to make sure that where we spend the money is going to have the biggest impact and the biggest help to make sure that social care delivers in the way that we need it to deliver. We need to have caution around what decisions we make. That has to be done in consultation and negotiation rather than any other way, but we are aware of that. I noticed in some of the evidence that, with regard to the income that has been generated from social care services, a lot of it has not been put back into the service. Have you any comment to make on that? For my discussions with local government, I think that I would, to be fair to councils, quite often spend their social work budgets. I do not think that there is a case of them not spending the resources that they have on social care. I think that the opposite, actually. I think that councils are, in the main, doing what they can to meet those increasing demands. I guess that one of the challenges is about how we make better use of our collective resources, which is why integration is so important, because it is the benefits of making sure that those integrated teams that they are working closer together will make that social care spend have more impact than it currently has at the moment. I do not get the sense that local authorities are holding money back in the social care arena. That is certainly not my impression from the evidence that we have. From the analysis that we have done within the Scottish Government on looking at what the actual costs of collections of the charges are, we think that it is likely to be about 15 per cent of the income that is generated from charging that would be releasable, would be the actual cost of administering those charges. It is probably a very small figure compared to, I think, probably about half of what is in the Scotland Against the Care tax evidence that we think is likely to be the actual figure. I understood your question, convener, to be about whether the income that councils get from charging, whether that was going back out on services. We have no information to suggest otherwise when you look at what councils are spending on social care. We do not get the impression that they are holding money back from social care. In fact, the discussions that we have had with specific partnerships over winter, where there have been particularly heightened issues of delayed discharge, local authorities have been pretty upfront about coming up with additional resources in that tripartite arrangement where we were putting money in, health boards were putting money in and councils were putting money in as well. I do not get a sense that they are holding any money back. We have had a few changes in the committee since the petitioners presented this petition. I wonder if I could just give voice to the sentiment that underpinned part of what they were trying to say to us. That was given that the power exists under the act. They are concerned that although it seemed the sensible thing to do to try and get a sensible negotiated arrangement, it has taken a considerable amount of time and nothing really as they see it has been forthcoming of substance, although I take note of just what you have said to us and the evidence that you have submitted. I think that you are right to seek to get the voluntary agreement. Is there any justification to their sense that there has been a lack of rigor within COSLA in pursuing this issue over the timescale? I think that their feeling was that not an awful lot had been happening and that perhaps, given that you ultimately had a power, the Government might have been encouraging a little bit more actively some sort of resolution of the issue. I wonder if you could respond to their suspicion of that kind of lack of initiative and drive? I think that they have made some progress. Obviously, I understand the frustrations of people who would want to see faster progress on that. I am sure that that is the case. However, they have made some progress. Trying to get 32 local authorities to agree to a new financial assessment framework in itself is something that has taken a bit of time because you are talking about what should be disregarded, what should not be disregarded and trying to bring continuity to 32 local authorities around that is not without its challenges. To be fair to COSLA as well, in the midst of them looking at that issue and fairer charging, they have also been looking at the whole issue of integration. We have been working on the national indicators to agree what the £100 million for delayed discharge is going to deliver in terms of integrated partnerships, what they are going to deliver in terms of those national indicators of the 72-hour discharge standard, keeping people out of hospital, getting people... That is a huge agenda. The same people within COSLA who have been working on all of that have also been looking at the fairer charging issue. To be fair to them, they have had a lot on their plate around the whole agenda and have been trying to keep all those balls in the air and make progress on all of them. Whereas I can understand the frustration that people might feel that that pace has been too slow, a lot of those issues are very complex and have required us to have very detailed discussions around each aspect of them. Perhaps that is by way of explanation why it has been a bit slower than people would have liked. Is consistency ultimately achievable in their evidence, such that the geography of the council area is such that it will always be difficult to achieve a degree of consistency that some might regard as reasonable depending on how easily they are able to access services elsewhere? Is that an insurmountable obstacle or do you believe that that concern that they have about the breadth of the council area that they have to represent is something that could be overcome? I think that there will always be differences around perhaps around the edges. If you look at the requirement for travel, if you look at the requirement, a whole host of challenges of delivering services and being able to access services in a remote and rural area is a different challenge from that in an urban environment. However, where the financial assessment framework is helpful is that some things are about what is disregarded as income in one local authority. Why is it not disregarded in another? If you move from one local authority to another, the differences of what is disregarded in your financial assessment are varied, and that is where COSLA had accepted that that variation was too large. If we can get those big inconsistencies marshaled into a better place of more consistency on things like what is disregarded and not disregarded, the differences are more about the things like rurality and the nature of the local authority area rather than a decision about what is disregarded on someone's income and not disregarded. We will get to a better place through the financial assessment framework. Whether that eradicates every difference, it probably won't, but it will be a much fairer financial assessment that we have at the moment. Obviously, we will want to look at that closely as it emerges from approval through COSLA's structures. There has been a specific concern raised by Inclusion Scotland and a more general caveat and warning that has been put forward by the Quality and Human Rights Commission regarding compliability with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities in a particular article 19. Can you tell us whether the Scottish Government thinks that you are compliant and what work is done to ensure that you are compliant? We have looked at the evidence provided to the committee on that today. We do not consider that the general charging framework is incompatible with the acts and conventions that are highlighted. Obviously, we would keep that under review in the light of any further evidence that comes forward. Obviously, we also have to make sure that anything is consistent with the equality legislation and we have done that. However, that does not mean that there are no improvements that can be made on the fairness. It may not be incompatible with all of those, whether it is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or whatever, but that does not mean that there is no scope to improve the fairness of it. That is where we are focusing our attention at the moment. You have said that, under the equality impact assessments, you would have taken the same view that you have had a look at that. The equality act itself has, as you are probably aware, a general duty and a specific duty on local authorities, both of which are relevant to the development of charging policies. It requires you to look at a policy that looks to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance the quality of opportunity, promote good relations between persons who share a relevant, protected, characteristic and persons who do not share it. The COSLA's charging guidance states that, as a result of the general duty, local authorities must consider how to promote equality and ensure that no group are put at a disadvantage by their charging policy and that local authorities should carry out equality impact assessments on their non-residential care charging policy to make sure that there is not a disproportionate impact on people with a protected characteristic. They have to do all that. That is more thinking about if the policy was fairer to one section of the community rather than another in terms of one group over another. Whether people feel that the existing charging policies are fair or not, I do not think that they penalise necessarily one group over another. It is just that perhaps one local authority has a different charging policy than another local authority, rather than differing policy within that local authority, if you see what I mean. However, having said all of that, I think that what I have said throughout this evident session is that that does not mean that there cannot be more done to make it fairer. As one thing being requirements under the law, it is quite another thing about whether or not something can be fairer. I think that that is the territory that we are on. Can I conclude on that issue of fairness? Ian Hood, the Scotland coordinator of the learning disability allowance, I thought made a very forceful and reasoned contribution to our discussion in relation to what has changed in recent times. That is that the income tax allowance has increased significantly, whereas councils were able to charge at 6,000 or 8,000 for over 65-year-olds and that that level used to be consistent with the income tax threshold. Income tax threshold is now 10,000 and is set to go higher. There are individuals who are no longer regarded as being subject to income tax, but because the threshold for charging has not increased, they are regarded as being capable of meeting charging costs. On route to abolition as a principle, which I think that we touched on earlier, whether that issue of fairness is rather exposed by that discrepancy, which has arisen over the period even that this review has been under way, and whether that might not be a route at least to try and alleviate those who are least able to afford the charging? Those are some of the discussions that we are having with COSLA around looking at the issue of inequalities and those who are on the lower incomes and how we could do more about making it fairer from that perspective. You will forgive me for not getting into too much of the detail, but I think that there is a recognition that those who are on the lowest incomes is an area that we probably need to do more about. I will take comfort from that. Any further questions? There are no further questions. Will the committee agree that we reflect on the evidence heard and consider a paper by the clerk at the next meeting before deciding what action to take? Thank you, cabinet secretary, for attending and I now allow you to go. Okay, thanks very much. Could we suspend for a couple of minutes? I believe that there are a number of petitioners from the mesh implant waiting to come in, so suspend for a couple of minutes. Moving on, colleagues, the agenda item number two is consideration of new petitions. The next item of business is consideration of one new petition. The new petition is PE1546 by John Croson on collecting poll tax ar ears. Members have a note by the clerk and the petitioner. The petitioner has indicated that he no longer wishes to proceed with his petition. On that basis, I will invite members to agree that the petition should be closed. The next item of business is consideration of seven current petitions. The first two petitions were taken together, and that is PE1098 by Lyn Merrifield on behalf of King's Seat Community Council and PE1223 by Ron Beattie on school bus safety. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. In relation to PE1098, the committee agreed to defer consideration of the petition and seek an update from the Scottish Government in 2015. That will be requested and available for the committee's next consideration. I invite contributions from members. As no contributions, could I ask the committee if they agreed to write to Transport Scotland requesting that it take account of the petitioner's most recent submissions, highlighting breaches of Transport Scotland's school bus safety guidelines and to defer further consideration until the evaluation report is available in late summer, and to take any other action that the committee considers appropriate. The next petition is PE1493 by Peter John Gordon on the Sunshine Act for Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk. Two submissions were received after papers went out. There is also a further email from the petitioner, so you might like to say that it is unhelpful for submissions to be received after papers have been issued, and that the committee gives everyone that writes to sufficient time to respond. In the case of the Scottish Government, the committee expects in future that the responses are received in good time. Can I invite any contributions from the members? Thank you, convener. Just to press on record my disappointment that the Scottish Government has not responded to date, and your suggestion that notification be given to the Government that we do expect timely responses should be sent. The petitioner has submitted further information, which I think should be passed on to the Scottish Government, because in its response it alluded to the fact that the petitioner had not provided additional information, so it might be useful to forward on the latest correspondence that we have had from the petitioner and ask the Scottish Government to respond to the issues raised within that as well. Clearly, the Scottish Government is saying that it is looking for something that can be brought in that is fit for 2015 and beyond. That is what the petitioner is looking for, so I think that they can concur on that. However, the difficulty is trying to get the appropriate action taken by the Scottish Government to ensure that the petition is meaningfully considered by the Scottish Government and, in particular, by health boards. I think that it is fine. The delay was certainly delivered by the Government. It does seem to me to know that there is a willingness to look at this. It is rather complex given that you are bringing together how various health boards are operating, and it seems to me that, by all means, we should be passing on the information that has come to us from the petitioner to the Government, but we are going to give them some opportunity to bring together and focus what work it is that is on-going and what they are actually going to deliver. I do not think that that can be done quickly, because it is quite complex, given its interaction with other activities, both within the NHS and elsewhere, but pushing them to try and either keep us abreast of matters or indicate, perhaps, a clearer timetable of what action is taking place. Can I say I am delighted to agree with Mr MacAskill? Just slightly through a discord note on this. According to the information that we have, there was guidance issued in 2003 to health boards to establish registers. Now in 2015, and clearly the petitioner has highlighted that a number of health boards don't have a register in place and have no intention, according to the petitioner, of putting a register in place. If we are looking at 12 years down the road that health boards have not taken on seriously the guidance issued in 2003, it is incumbent on the Scottish Government to ask why they have not taken on board the guidance issued in 2003 and why action has not been taken before now to address the issues raised. As part of the letter received by the Scottish Government, the response refers to that we have not had any issues raised by patients or family members. I think that what we have got before us is a petition that is clearly raising issues and should be addressed accordingly by the Scottish Government. If it takes 15 years for guidance to be refreshed and reviewed and implemented then, I think that 15 years is too long. Any other questions? I could ask the committee then that we should write to the Scottish Government, obviously, on welcoming the announcement that it will conduct a wider consultation on the issue and seeking a firm timetable for this work. Can we also agree that in doing so, the Scottish Government's view on the effect, the forthcoming EFPIA code on transfers of value of pharmaceutical companies to healthcare, professional healthcare organisations will have on what the petition seeks? I also could be taking more of the points that Mr Wilson has made. Moving on to petition PE1521 by George Ecton and Jane O'Donnell on no more phase 3 in the Scottish Parliament. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I would like to bring to the members' attention that I have been recently appointed to the SPCB and I am on record in saying that I support the no more phase 3 campaign. Can I invite any contributions from members? I am minded to move that we close the petition on the basis that we have actually fulfilled what was asked for us within the petition, which is not actually the issue itself. The issue was for the matter to be drawn to the Scottish Parliament, which we have done. I suppose we could, if we wished, make a further representation to the SPCB, but our responsibility under the petition was not to ultimately resolve the issue itself, but to highlight the issue within the Scottish Parliament, which I believe has now been successfully done. I am not quite sure what the next step for this committee would be in taking the petition forward. Any other comments? I certainly support the no more phase 3 campaign and it did look a week or so that it had been successful, but that does not seem to have been the case with regard to their overall objective. However, the committee has, as Jackson Carlaw says, done what it has been asked to do. I think that we might be straining to dangerous territory if we are deciding whether or not a particular publication is for sale within the Parliament buildings. I think that that is a decision that should be left to the SPCB. Would you like to refer the petition back to the SPCB or do you want to close it? My own view is that we have written to the SPCB and my understanding is that they have discussed it. My view would be that we should close the petition, I think. It does not mean that I am any reflection on the issue of substance, but I think that we have taken the petition to its logical conclusion. Members agree with closing the petition? The next petition is PE1525, the Catherine Fraser on the Access of Justice. Members have been awped by the clerk, paper 8 refers, and a letter from the convener of the Justice Committee. Can I invite contributions from the members? A lot of work is on going at the Scottish legal aid board and the Scottish Government about how you protect the integrity of a legal aid system that is under financial pressures. I can understand the desire for actions by individuals equally since time immemorial and the establishment of legal aid to avoid a growth of defamation cases. There has been no public policy interest. It would seem to me that all we could do is write to them, because I think that we are in a state of fluidity as legal aid changes and tries to come to terms with court changes and legislative changes to ask whether there is any willingness to change the current public view, but it is very difficult at the present moment for them to bring it in on its own without a wider review of legal aid. The next petition is PE1530 by Spencer Fuldes on behalf of the Scottish Secular Society on guidance on how creationism is presented in schools. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Can I invite members for any comment? The committee has expressed a willingness within Parliament to review, and it has already taken a particular view on this. It would seem to me if that committee is willing to look at it, we should send it to them. I think that might be what we end up doing. I have read many of the submissions that we have received. I have tremendous sympathy with that, characterising creationism as supreme bilge. I think that the issue thereafter is whether or not it should be taught in school. The view of the Scottish Government and of the EIS and the SLS is that they do not believe prohibition would be the right way forward. My own view when we interrogated the petitioners was that, to my mind, anything should be subject to the light of day and that I do not believe that when these issues are raised that individuals and also their families who, after all, parents of a role in all of this do not bring out the truth in people's minds as to whether or not they regard creationism as science, which seems to me to be unlikely. The Scottish Government has said that it did not see merit in banning it. Although I can see we might therefore refer it to the education committee, I do not know that the education committee is going to be able to do anything other than write to all the very same people to whom we have written to receive the very same replies back. Now, if the committee feels that that would be a useful thing for us to do next, then fine, but I am not actually sure that we haven't had a fairly comprehensive and forceful response from the Scottish Government and from the teaching unions and professional bodies, none of whom believe that a formal prohibition in law would be the right way forward. The issue and I may be corrected on this, but the EIS, the school leader Scotland, who was challenged, must be said by a headteacher who wrote in an individual capacity, Alec Wood, who a number of us around this table will know, and others indicated that there was professional safeguards built in. However, the difficulty is, as I understand it, and the problem that we encountered in particular schools that were highlighted when this petition was presented to us, was that there are no such professional safeguards in place for classroom assistance or others that come into the educational settings outwith the teaching staff. I think that the issue for us is quite clear that, although we are not saying that people should be stopped from coming into schools in particular circumstances to present their case, the issue for us is whether or not it was appropriate in the circumstances that happened and highlighted the petition for those situations to have actually arisen. I do think that it would be worthwhile to put that on to the education committee, because I think that there are a number of issues that have been raised, particularly in light of some of the submissions that we received, which have highlighted that there are constraints within the English and Welsh education system, but we do not seem to have any constraints on what is taught in the Scottish education system. It might be useful if the education committee is prepared to look at those issues and how the Scottish system compares with those and other jurisdictions, particularly in light of the response that we received from the Scottish Government. Angus Ewing Thank you, convener. Having read the submissions, I think that one of the most salient point was raised by the Free Church of Scotland, which stated that politicians seeking to enforce their doctrines through the state education system is the mark of an authoritarian, not a democratic state. They went on to say that the petitioners are demanding that children be told what to think. The Free Church of Scotland believes that children should be taught how to think, and we believe that, in a mature democracy, skeptical questioning and alternative points of view should be encouraged rather than banned. From the responses that we have received overall, there is clearly no appetite for the Government to interfere in this issue. However, as John Willsons just stated, there may be a need for further safeguards, so I would be content to refer the petition to the Education and Culture Committee. John Willsons Is that not a call for us, as this committee, having got to that point to write ourselves to the Scottish Government again, drawing the point on classroom assistance and others that Mr Willsons has identified, to see whether the Government believes that they have taken that into account in the response that they gave us previously? I am just not quite sure why we are passing this on when I do not know that, if we feel there is an issue that we would still like further clarification on, our normal course of action would be to seek that clarification ourselves. John Willsons Can we not be happy for the committee to explore the issue further, if that is the will of all the committee members, and then possibly look at referring it to Education and Culture Committee, if need be? John Willsons I mean, as I was persuaded by Jackson's initial point, because it did seem to me that, if it is at the end of the road, it is really a matter for the Education and Learning Committee to decide whether they want to go anywhere further. They might very well decide not to do anything with it. I would be hesitant for us to do anything more other than either remit it there. If they say that they do not want it, I think that we have done as much as we can to focus it and got some clarity on it, and it is for them to decide if they wish to pick it up and run. David Willsons I would be happy to refer it to Education and Culture Committee. John Willsons I would tend to agree with Mr MacAskill to that, perhaps, but that is a first for me to Jackson. I would refer it to the Education and Culture Committee, and then I think it is up to that committee to decide what it should do with it. David Willsons The next petition is PE1534 by Claire Simmons on behalf of Planning Democracy on Equal Rights of Appeal in the Planning System. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. I invite any contributions from members. The Government has made its position quite clear in terms of not seeking any rush to further legislation that has satisfied how matters are bedding down. As with the last petition, if the local government and regeneration committee wish to go somewhere with it, that is a matter for them. It almost seems to me that we have explored the issue as best we can and got some clarity. Going back to the Government, I do not think that we would necessarily take us anywhere further than where we are at the moment. John Willsons Yes, thanks, convener. I would agree with Mr MacAskill. Given that the petitioners have requested that the petition be referred to the local government and regeneration committee, we should accept that request and refer it. David Willsons I beg to support that, convener. John Willsons I beg to support that, convener. David Willsons Could we maybe, well, okay, then we agreed then that we refer us to the local government committee? John Willsons Agreed. David Willsons The next petition is PE1517 on polypropylene mesh medical devices. I welcome Neil Findlay and John Scott to this part of the meeting. As members are aware, due to the weather in New York area, Adam Slater is unable to appear by video conference today. I know that has come as a disappointment to many of the petitioners here today. Another show of contact to me is also here in the gallery. We have a note by the clerk and two submissions. Could I suggest that we reschedule the evidence session with Mr Slater and could I ask what are the views of the members on that point? David Willsons I am happy to support that. John Willsons Right. Is there any comments, Mr Findlay? David Willsons Just in relation to how this proceeds, can you wonder if you or whether the committee has come here at any conclusions as to how this proceeds before I make any comment how we take this further? I do have a point which would lead us to that stage, but I have to say that, obviously, as a committee, we were appalled by the evidence that we heard and, I think, as a committee, we were enormously encouraged by the action of the Cabinet Secretary in suspending or calling for a suspension. I think that we have been somewhat disturbed that this has nonetheless proceeded in a number of places. I have to say that, underneath all of this, I am now increasingly concerned by the drift of travel in the various reviews that are taking place to which we have previously referred, particularly the review that is being conducted by the Medicines and Healthcare Product Regulatory Agency, which, it seems to me, is moving towards recommending that the benefits outweigh the risks in terms of proceeding with mesh implants and are also notwithstanding that, saying that they have come to that conclusion despite the fact that there is evidence of underreporting, and there are concerns that the MHRA is not aware of all women who have experienced problems. This seems to me to potentially be quite a dramatic obstacle to what many of us thought was progress. I do not know whether it is competent, convener. I am not actually sure. Are we able to invite the MHRA to give evidence to this committee? As part of our process, we really ought to, when they get to the point of concluding their review, which I think is in March, we really ought to be seeking to take evidence ourselves from them because I am concerned that their report may give considerable force to the direction of travel of Governments, and I mean beyond our own shores, potentially, despite the fact that there is a very considerable concern on our part that the rather glib assessment of the benefit outweighs the risk seriously fails to represent the very considerable concerns that we have heard from many of the people who have given evidence to us. I think that we could see what we thought was tremendous progress going into reverse. We have got a responsibility to take evidence and to pursue that issue. Thereafter, I think that it may well be that this is an issue that we would like to open to wider debate still on the floor of the Parliament when we have an opportunity so to do. Could I say a number of things? I think that it is very disappointing that Mr Slater cannot give his evidence, and that is perfectly understandable given the weather conditions that we see in the US at the moment. Since the cabinet secretary announced his alleged suspension in mesh, we know that this is still being fitted inside the bodies of women in Scotland, but it is now called a clinical trial. Since then, we have witnessed multimillion-pound compensation claims being paid out to several people with thousands more sitting in the pipeline. We have a whole range of other issues related to the on-going scandal about the whole ethics of how medical trials work, about the involvement of professionals in those trials, about the people who sit on those review bodies. There is a whole range of issues in here, a very tangled web that we have to unravel now. I think that if we are going to get all of this out in the open, it must come, then it is up to this Parliament to do that. Whether that is through this committee having an inquiry, I do not know if it is within the remit of this committee, I have never sat on it, I do not know, or that we ask the health committee to have such an inquiry, or whether the committee can bring a committee debate to the floor of Parliament, something has to happen to allow us to debate all of the very complex issues that relate to this case. Mr Slater's analogy that he gave in the Sunday Mail at the weekend was a very powerful one in which he said that politicians would not allow a car on the road if one in 10 crashed and injured people. For nine out of 10 people driving those cars, the benefit outweighs the risk. For one out of 10, crashing that car could end their life or dramatically change their life. Are we saying that we are going to allow that to continue to happen in Scotland when we know what has happened across the US and across the world? My appeal to you would be to say that I am quite happy to come back and I am very keen to hear Mr Slater's session, but that the committee makes some sort of decision very soon as to how it wants to proceed with us and bring us to the floor of Parliament or have a more in-depth inquiry, because every day that we delay, the potential is that another woman's life is ruined. Mr Scott. Thank you very much, convener. I identify myself with the foregoing remarks by colleagues. I, too, am disappointed that Mr Slater cannot give evidence today, but for obviously entirely understandable reasons. I am concerned about the different approach by different health boards to this issue. I am concerned given the precedent that is being set in America about the financial liabilities that may be being incurred by individual health boards in terms of compensatory payments being required at some subsequent date. Ultimately, that one would come back on to the Scottish Government. I am disappointed that the MHRA may not be aware of all the risks or problems, apparently almost by their own admission. What is the point of a body if they admit that they are not aware of all the risks? I therefore think that it is absolutely right that the issues should be invited in front of this committee to explain themselves. Mr Finlay draws the analogy of one-in-ten cars being defective. I do not think that that is an acceptable standard, certainly in transport, and I cannot see why it is an acceptable standard in health matters and particularly mesh implants. I would support the view that this must be investigated much more fully than it appears to have been. If this Parliament is taking the lead in a worldwide sense in that regard, then all power takes elbow. Any other contributions from members? Well, could I say that, as I said from the offset, we should reschedule an evidence session with Mr Slater as soon as possible? With regard to an invitation to the MHRA, I think that we should do that, but my understanding of being advised that we cannot compel them to attend, but we will endeavour to do that. With regard to whether we should perhaps have an inquiry, I would have thought that rather than, I do not know how the process would work for us, but rather an inquiry could very well maybe be quicker for a chamber debate to take place in that issue. The action that I think that I can do from this committee is one that we can very quickly get in touch with Mr Slater and second will contact the MHRA and then that should be the end of our evidence in that respect, which will allow us then to have that report ready for where we can then send it to, but I think that with regard to a chamber debate, if that could be fulfilled, rather an inquiry might be a quicker way forward. Colleagues at the Scottish Government have an independent review, which is taking account of the MHRA inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr Leslie Wilkie, which will make its own recommendations based on the MHRA review. I would have thought that if in fact they do, then as well as the MHRA, we might want to invite the chair of the independent review group also to give evidence so that we can understand their thinking based on what they have heard as well. I support Jackson Carlaw that we basically, as well as having the evidence from Mr Slater, the MHRA in front of us and the chair of the independent review body, may also be useful to bring back the Cabinet Secretary for Health, because the initial discussion that we had with the previous cabinet secretary, the committee was under the impression that all mesh implant operations had been suspended pending the inquiry. Clearly that did not happen, and some health boards are using the issue of clinical trials as a way around the suspension. It would be useful before we have the chamber debate convener to hear the evidence from the Scottish Government officials, as well as the cabinet secretary, MHRA, as well as Mr Slater. I think that there are still issues that we need to examine, because what I would not want us to do as a committee is to ask for a chamber to debate without all the facts being before us and the results of MHRA's evidence-seeking inquiry. I think that there are some concerns that have been raised in terms of the Department of Health response to the committee. Clearly that is not doing a full troll of all those who have had mesh implant operations to find out whether or not there have been benefits. No, Mr Finlay made an analogy of the one in ten, but clearly, as we have already heard in this committee, a number of the patients are only now coming forward because the campaign that has been developed and the discussions that have taken place in this committee. It is incumbent on us to make sure that MHRA is doing as full and inquiry as possible before it presents evidence, and, likewise, the independent inquiry that is set up by the Scottish Government does the same to ensure that we reflect the situation that is out there and not what is hypothetical or suspected to be. We know from the evidence that we have received so far, convener, that not all medical staff have reported where there have been complications and some patients have not been aware who to report the complications to. We really need to make sure that any inquiry that is carried out is a full inquiry and takes on board the views and experiences of all those patients that have underwent those operations. Two things on that. Time is off the essence here, because the more we delay, the more potential there are for more people to be, in my view, victims of this growing scandal. If we are going to get people in to do evidence sessions, I can, having not spoken to the petitioners today, but I can almost guarantee that the same number of people will be here each time there is an evidence session on this issue. Those are probably the most determined and diligent campaigners that have come across in a long time. Therefore, given the pain and suffering that many of those people have and that there is a challenge to them being here, can I make an appeal that, if there is to be sessions, it is one session that all of the people who are invited attend, rather than us, to have three or four sessions where people who find it very difficult to travel and walk have to come here time and time again? As a commission gave evidence at the end of last year to the European Commission, the European Commission have a report coming out earlier this month that might be worth asking them to give us evidence as well. I invite you to. Can I, any further questions? Can I maybe sum up then? Probably four or five action points. One, again, is that we very quickly get in touch with Mr Slater to give that evidence. Two, we invite the MHRA and the chairman, chief executive, along. Three, we write to the new health secretary, inviting him back for an update. Four, we give consideration as to whether it will be a one-off agenda item. We will try to accommodate as many witnesses as we possibly can on that day, but that has to be logistically. We need to look into that. The fifth point is that we also invite the European Commission. I said that we would invite the cabinet secretary for an update. We write to the cabinet secretary and ask for an update. That means that the cabinet secretary comes here to give the update, rather than a correspondence.


Hello everyone, I'm James Milan. Welcome to this ACMI special. I am here at the Roasted Granola Cafe, one of the gems of Arlington Heights, and I am here to introduce the founders and of a company that is starting with an effort here in Arlington, but hopes to have a global reach. That company's name is Recirculable, and let's go meet the founders. For now, I just want to introduce the two founders of Recirculable. Farthest away from me is Ulrika Müller, and, or Müller would be a better way to pronounce it, and in between us, Margie Bell. So first of all, thanks so much for carving out the time in what are busy lives for you guys for sure, made busier by this effort to join us to talk today. It's great. So I want to just start at the beginning, which is obviously the two of your business partners. How did you meet? How did that happen? Yeah, that goes back to over five years now. No, yeah, maybe six or seven. Six or seven years, yes. So at that time back, I was doing a new company in the enterprise software company, and through the network of people we hired, Margie also joined the company. So we were working together in this enterprise software company for like four years, and got known to each other, well became friends, and also knew how we can trust each other, what we can rely on each other in a work environment. And that's how we met.  What do you say? Yeah, so we work in the software industry. We met actually working at an e-commerce company, so all that online purchasing that we're all doing. Ulrike and I built software in that domain, Ulrike for Yeah, so I have a background in computer science, more on the technical side of the software, and Margie has a background in product management. Okay, and clearly that's going to have an impact as we get to start talking about Recirculable in, you know, how it is that you came up with this idea and then rolled it out. But tell us first of all, so now we know how you met, but how did you come to realize that, hey, you have this kind of strong connection around this particular cause. And let's just say, well, let me ask you, either one of you, if you're going to say one line about what Recirculable is, what is it? Well, Recirculable really is all about removing waste in our everyday lives with a focus on takeout. So Recirculable is reusable takeout containers. Perfect. And how this came to be, well Ulrike and I were working together, we spent two years in Berlin working at the software company. And, you know, Germany has a definite culture of reuse, and I would say they're ahead of the US in terms of how they embed that in their day to day lives. And so while we were there, I noticed this movement towards reuse in takeout. And fast forward, my family moved back to Arlington and shortly after the pandemic hit. And, you know, I felt really fortunate to have a job and we wanted to support local businesses. So we did a lot more takeout than we normally did. And a lot of black plastic started to accumulate. And so it got me sort of thinking back to the experience of Germany where these reusable takeout programs were already getting momentum. And it got me thinking that this was something that we should be doing here. And I needed a partner in crime. Yeah, so Margie approached me with his idea. And at that time I had left my previous company and was thinking about what should be my next chapter. And it was also a little bit like where should I go with my life? Should I do another enterprise software company, be in a larger organization? And then what intrigued me is really the idea, the purpose of it. And I said for myself, in my next chapter, I really want to do something with a good purpose. And I could relate to this very, very well. And working with Margie again, that was exciting for me. And I also saw the opportunity to address some of these problems with digital technology. And I think we will speak about this then also later. So that all in a combination convinced me. And I said, yes, that's what I want to do. Yeah, I mean, I love the idea. And I bet others in the audience will that both of you were in comfortable jobs that you were good at. You'd had success in those jobs. You could have stayed doing that for the rest of your working lives. But instead, clearly part of the motivation here is, as you just said, there's purpose and meaning beyond corporate profit to the work that you're choosing to do now. And I think that's always an inspiring message for people to hear. And to, you know, to talk, we'll speak frankly about what the benefits of that, but also what the challenges of that can be. Yeah. I definitely think we felt like just as you say, we felt like we had a skill that we could use in a more community focused, local impact way. So let's step back just for a second and talk about the larger kind of situation and certainly the problematic, the globally problematic situation that it is that you are seeking to address in a small way, of course, right now. But give us the background or give us that larger context and why it is that this is so important to take these steps right now. Yeah. Yeah.  But, you know, it's not, are the pace at which we're creating waste is far greater than our ability to recycle it anymore. And so I think as we started to look at this particular problem and saw all of these takeout containers, it was sort of shocking as I dug in to realize those black plastic containers, they have a recyclable symbol on them, but they're not actually recyclable, they're garbage. The styrofoam containers, thankfully Arlington has banned those, not recyclable. And so then, you know, you look at the solutions that have come up and have been proposed as alternatives, things like compostables, they're largely unregulated. And in fact, the studies show that the compostable containers are more often worse than other single-use alternatives. They can't be composted or only in industrial composting facilities. It's of no use when they're in your garbage. So all of this sort of like myth after myth, showing that, you know, recycling is not the way we get out of this problem. And certainly, even if you just think about the fact that the energy required, even if recycling is perfect, to take something in a form factor, break it down and remake it, is far worse than just reusing the same thing over and over again.  But second to that is embedding a lot more reuse into our day-to-day lives. Yeah, and something that struck me in the materials that you had given me to look through in preparation for the interview is the fact that as you've just alluded to, there's a certain amount of energy being put into the process of simply what you call downcycling. So in other words, the end result of that process is something that is not either as useful or as good or, you know, it's just it's a inferior product. Yeah, exactly. And you're spending energy to get there. That's right. Yeah, like so much of the plastic does not go back into its original form. It gets downcycled into, you know, decking and, you know, it's not a it's not a circular forever recyclable cycle. So you've just mentioned the word circular and people might be wondering, what's that name of that company again? And it is recirculable, which clearly contains that as a central part of its meaning. But tell us a little bit, Rika, how did you come up with that name? And why is it that that idea of circularity is so intrinsic to what it is you guys are doing? Yes. So yes, as you mentioned, the name is a little bit a mouthful, but we and it was a longer process us to find us the name. And what do you want to have is the key what Margie alluded to is that we want to go to a circular economy that away from single use. And you see this already in other like when you think about car sharing services, that is where where things are shared. And I think that's generally a concept which can be introduced in many parts of our life. And the common term for this one is that we are in a circular economy. So where goods are circling and they're not recycled, but they are used multiple times by different people. And because that's on a bigger thing, what we actually want to introduce into the communities and to the people to think more about these circling things. And so that's why we also said that we want to have these names circle as a central element in our name. And for sure, you can become a medium with great names. But for sure, we also in our nowadays, we need to get the, for example, the domain name. And that this was really the tough thing to find a good name, which is also available as a domain. And I think we we tried hundreds of names. And finally found we found it and it has so re-circable. And it has better the circle. It has a little bit of another knowledge to recyclable. So it's not recyclable. It's recyclable. And so that's how we landed with this name. Yeah. And as we discussed before we went on air, I mean, it is exactly a perfect name for to get to the num of what it is that you're after here. But also a bit of a mouthful. It's a mouthful. We hope eventually people will get this mouthful just like recyclable. Right. Exactly. Recyclable already. So I have to ask you guys, one thing that hasn't come up in our conversation so far is who's bearing the cost for this? You know, I know this is a labor of love and of important for you guys more than anything else. But it's also intended to be a sustainable business. So right now as between roasted granola customers yourselves, who's bearing the cost? And how do you see that playing out going forward? Yeah. So first of all, we are currently bearing the cost of purchasing the containers and the conception we are lending them to the to the restaurant and the restaurant is lending to the customers. And our philosophy is that the restaurant is paying basically per use. So similar what they would pay for single use containers. And what we have seen over the last year, especially to the pandemic, even priced for single use containers went up significantly. But but it's in this range where we want to price it for the restaurant. And it's also our idea what we talked before that it should be a frictionless and seamless process. So we want to make them that for the restaurant, it does not make a difference or that and that they feel good about it using a reusable container and that they don't have to think about, okay, can I bear the cost for these for the reusable container? And also for the customer, it's free as long as they return it. It should be also not a question. Can I can I pay this additional just for reusable containers? So that's a core philosophy. And per use, this is not much. But we think about when this container can be used oftentimes that we actually at scale can build a sustainable business with it. Yeah, I think a big part of this for us is we want it to be we've had lots of debate about how do you make it sustainable in the long run. But it's really important to us that this is accessible and available to anyone. And so for that reason, we don't want to charge customers a fee for using this because you're actually doing something better in the long run. And for the restaurant, similarly, we don't want the cost to be higher to them than using single use containers. Because both the customers are taking on the responsibility of bringing the containers back. The restaurants currently at this stage are taking on the responsibility of cleaning and sanitizing the containers. So we really feel it's important to keep it equitable and sustainable for them. But by the same token, based on the projections we've done and looking at models in Europe, we absolutely believe that at scale, this can be a sustainable business for us as well, because these containers, if they're tracked well, can get used many, many times. Great. So it sounds like mostly gain, minimal pain for customers and restaurants. And let's hope it works out the same for you guys. Yeah, exactly. Welcome back. And we are going to be joined now by a couple of members of the Roasted Granola staff. First of all, Emily Patel, who is one of the two owners. Hi, Emily. Hello. And Somerset Gull, who is on the front line for Recirculable in Action here at Roasted Granola High Somerset. Thanks, you guys, a lot for joining us. And we want to hear, really, like, what is it like?  And then Somerset, as I understand it, will move to you to find out, okay, what's it like when you're actually signing somebody up and, you know, giving feedback to Margie and Ulrika, which is vitally important to do all of this. So let's start with you, though, Emily. So take us back to when Margie first approached you. And, you know, what did you think and how's it been going? We were initially very immediately intrigued with the idea. I didn't understand it at all. Yeah. How it was going to work. But Margie and Ulrika were just, you know, we're really good at meeting with us so many times. As a matter of fact, Ulrika was in Europe when we first connected. And so Margie, it fell on you to convince us. I think we were convinced from the start that we wanted to work with you. But I think it took you a while to get us to really understand what, you know, how it was going to work.  It felt really good to be on, as we feel, the front lines of something new and something that's been happening in Europe for a while that everybody's already on board with.  It really felt good. And, you know, we were talking earlier, and this is where I'm actually throwing it out to both of you because I think each of you has a useful perspective to share. We were talking earlier about the fact that this is a, it's a work in progress and a case study for them to work out a lot of kinks in this system. So how has that been for you guys? Because you need to both deal with it in real time as something comes up that hadn't been anticipated, I imagine, and then also provide that feedback, right? Yeah, yeah, I mean, I can probably speak to that a bit. I think it probably seems very easy, kind of from the outside, just like checking out a bowl or something. But because we have like an online menu, some of our customers order over the phone, and then obviously people can come in person. There's kind of a lot of different ways that we help customers and a lot of different ways that they kind of order food. So that's been one of kind of the main kinks, I think, especially during the pandemic, when a lot of people are more likely to like order online or over the phone. And so we've been working a lot to kind of figure out how to make the system fit with our different like points of sale. I think that's, yeah, that's been one of the trickier parts. And just give us a kind of a concrete example of where that was like, you know, just something came up and you're like, oh, hadn't thought about that, or you guys hadn't thought about that. Yeah, I mean, I think with so some of our most regular customers are like the ones who immediately got on board, but they order over the phone. And so, you know, you don't know to ask them if they want it in zero waste.  But there's no like communication of that on the phone. So that was kind of something tricky. Or sometimes customers actually don't bring in their phones to the store, which we found pretty unusual because like, I mean, I always have my phone with me, but a surprising number of people just come in and quickly grab their food. And the way the system works is that you have to, you know, use your phone to scan the QR code to check out a bowl. So that was an issue you were running into. So these are folks who are expecting to get one of these their food in one of these containers and take it out. And they've signed up for the program already. But they walk in without their phone anyway. Yeah, yeah, which is which is funny, but it is it's kind of but yeah, I mean, I think it's kind of interesting to just see like how different people are using technology because I think it's very different than how I would have expected. Well, I can interject there. Through Somerset's observations and Marty and Rika, they've already solved that problem. So that that was a problem. And we, you know, we sort of found that out through our customers that didn't come with their telephones. And these guys just, you know, have all worked together to make make it work without telephones. You know, you have to sign up initially, but then you can come in and pick it up now without having to have your phone with you. So that was that was kind of a big bottleneck there. Yeah, a big hurdle, I guess. Yeah, yeah.  And you would not have known that Somerset, you know, spends a ton of time here and, you know, is really going to be your ambassador in a lot of ways. How, you know, how, how has that worked out for you? Like, did you realize, oh my God, we got really lucky to have Somerset when we never would have expected. Oh, gosh, we feel so lucky to have landed with Emily and Sarah and Somerset and all the staff, because it's such a there's so many lessons like I was thinking another lesson to not even just whether they have phones, but there's a natural behavior that someone might call in the order, but someone else might pick it up for them. And so that notion that even if they have their phone, if they're not the customer who started, there's just lots of scenarios that we have to think through. But it's just been such a great partnership and this chance to kind of pop in and have conversations and share. We never, I mean, we still have a long way to go, but we never would have got as far as we are without the support and trust and collaboration. Yeah, I know for America, it's probably the most difficult because we, Marty, lives right up the street, and we're already here. So it's been really nice with even just choosing what type of balls that was a huge and long, long process, choosing what type of ball works the best, just how it closes, how people are going to use it, how it looks. And there were so many aspects of it that we went back and forth for such a long time. America brought things from Europe that we could test out. And so that was pretty arduous, but it was proximity wise. It was really nice with Margie. And in that way, the pandemic helped because Margie was working at home, so she could just pop in and we could chat about things, you know, on a regular basis. And some were set being here and being here from the beginning and understanding our system, which is not the greatest system either. And that actually, because of the pandemic, is changing constantly. They keep up, they bought another, you know, we have Square and they bought something new to make things work for online ordering. And some are set was there at the ground level. So she really understands how that works and integrating that with this new process has been really, you know, just amazing, I think. Yeah. And I think also in terms of collaboration, not only between like us, but a lot of our regular customers are really good in that sense. And they like customers love to get feedback. So better and worse, but usually for better, we have a lot of really loyal customers. Yeah.  And that's, you know, that's usually what I have to share with you guys. Yeah. And I think you kind of hit it on the head. Summer said a little earlier when you said, yeah, people think, and you've alluded to this before too, people think, well, that sounds simple. You thought that sounds simple, right? And yet, you know, choice of container turns out to be like a month's long process of getting feedback and trying things and seeing how they work with the, you know, with the dishwasher and everything else. Yeah, absolutely. So everything, probably every little thing is just more nuanced and complicated than you might have anticipated.  Yeah, exactly. So I'm wondering, you know, we're talking about all of the useful information that you've gleaned from having this put into practice.  I don't know, funny necessarily, but I think, I mean, I think the QR system has been kind of an interesting one to work with. I used to have like an old Samsung phone, which wouldn't even accept QR codes. I know I was super worried about that when I started. But yeah, I think a lot of people who aren't like as familiar with QR codes, that's something that's been kind of funny, because like we'll have to go out and like take customers phones and try and show them how to use that system. And so it's kind of like a lot of, like you have to kind of help the customers learn on the go. So it's, that is kind of always interesting. Yeah, because if I can jump on that, I am a little curious about how it works in terms of demographics, basically, in that, of course, you would have chosen this location as we know has a clientele, which is going to be inclined to be very receptive to this as an idea. But also, I don't know, does it skew older? Does it skew less tech savvy?  I think they're your customers. Well, and again, I will defer to Sarah, but I would like to say that, you know, that the interest spans old to young. Absolutely. The zero waste, the reusable, I would say almost more, maybe not more so, but many of our older customers, which really, until recently, most of our customers seem to be on the older side. We're very interested. Everyone is very interested when it comes to actually using a QR code, scanning things, signing up, you know, just the idea of using your phone to do it was very intimidating to a few people I spoke to. Again, Somerset speaks to many more than I do, so I'll defer there, but I do think that the technology was, was, you know, something that is a little bit of a hurdle for people to get over. Yeah, I mean, I think in general, the people who have actually signed up do tend to be older, so I think it has been a learning process for some people, just like using the QR codes and figuring out kind of how to navigate that. But I mean, honestly, like everyone sometimes has trouble with technology and just kind of like random blips have come up with, you know, younger customers too with the, with the online system. So, and people are really, have been really willing to kind of learn the new system as well. So even if there is kind of trouble, people want, people want to figure it out. So let me, let me wrap up this part of our conversation by asking all three of you what, from what you've learned so far in the process and from how far along you've made it so far. What do you anticipate over these next three months, six months, a year or so, you know, is going to happen with the program?  People are going to slowly get used to it being, you know, I think other restaurants are going to pick it up. And I think once one or two pick it up, I think people, you know, other restaurants will be more inclined to do it.  I think when people have the choice, they will want to do that. There will still be people who, you know, if you're going to the beach for the day and you want to take things with you and not worry about your, your containers, you know, those will still have the, you know, the regular to go things and people who aren't on the program. But I think it'll be a pretty significant part of our business. And not too far in the future, I don't think, you know, I don't think it'll take that long personally. That's encouraging. Yeah. I think I was going to say, I think there's kind of like, in my mind, there's three parts to it. Like there's awareness that there's a problem. And I think we're still very much in that, like in the general population in that awareness phase. And then there's solutions like this that have to help solve it. And then I think finally it's got to be legislation that comes in that's going to be the final kicker to change it. So just from our perspective, because we've used Germany as an example of where this is happening at scale, one of the dominant programs there started in 2019. And it's hit two million uses on their reusable container program. So that's pretty significant. But it's fueled by, I think they're ahead of us on the awareness curve. There's more solutions. And then most importantly, they have a mandate by 2023 that all restaurants have to offer some form of reusable. So I think it's really, it takes those three things coming together for this to really take off. But I think you got to start somewhere. That's a good point with the legislation. Yeah. Yeah.  Exactly. And you know, the adopt, sometimes the legislators follow the people instead of the other way around. And not infrequently really. So how does it feel for you Emily, for instance, to know as a business owner, what is entailed? And then to be able to speak to another business owner who might be interested. Do you feel like you're going to be a helpful ambassador in this way? Because again, some of the kinks have been worked out, but also you'll be able to speak very clearly and plainly to folks who are considering this about what the pros and cons are. I think it would be, especially having worked out the kinks. And I know there are many more kinks and hurdles that we have to go over, but I would be glad to be an ambassador. I see really just positives about it. And these two women, they're amazing to work with. And I think if you have a willing staff, and Summer said so much more than just staff, she guides us through these things as well, that these pieces put everything together. I know that certain restaurants that are maybe busier than we are do more takeout, see it as a monumental step. But I think as people speak about it more and it becomes more the norm, they'll see it differently. And as things just are really positive about it, I think it'll catch on. And I will definitely advocate jumping in. I'll just say, I mean, we've been so, so thankful to have a partnership. Emily talked about how it's working with us as women. It's nice that we're also local businesses and we're women who are really trying to collectively support the community in different ways. And I think that's just been a great part of this. Great. I have been speaking with Somerset Gaul and Emily Patel from Rose Granola here. And of course, with the founders of Recirculable Marquis Bell and Off Camera, but not out of our minds, Rika Muller. I'm James Milan. This has been an ACMI special. Thanks so much for joining us. We'll see you next time.


Hi, my name is Anand Gaurav, and I'm a Program Manager with Visual Studio and .NET. In this video, I'm going to take you through the NuGet Package Manager experiences in Visual Studio for Mac. Hey, here we have a .NET application running on Visual Studio for Mac. Let me show you how you can go and install a new package to your project. You can go to the NuGet Package Manager option on the Projects Context menu and click on Manage NuGet Packages. This brings up the NuGet Package Manager dialog, wherein you can search for the functionality that you are looking for, or the package name if you have that available. Let's say I'm looking for a JSON-related package. So I search for JSON, and this brings up a list of different packages that have JSON functionality in it. Now you can go ahead and select a package that works for you, and click on Add Package that will install this package specific version into the project. It can additionally pop up a window to ask you to accept license terms, which I do accept here, and finally, it will be installed onto my project. At any time, you can go to a project and the same package manager and view a list of all the packages that are installed for your project. For example, in this project, there are these packages that are already installed. You can also go to the updates tab to see if there are newer versions of this package available on the package repository. You may choose to install the latest version as needed. This summarizes the different package management options on the project context. So let me move on to solution level package manager. You can go to the solution context menu and click on Manage NuGet Packages. This brings up the NuGet Package Manager for a solution. You can note that it has the fourth tab, which is the Console Data tab. I'll come to this tab in a bit. Let me show you the browse experience and how you can install package for a solution. If you have to select a package and install it to the projects in the solution, you can click on Add Package and that pops up the list of different projects where you can install this package too. So I can select some of them and install it. For now, let me just leave it out of it. Now go to the install tab. It will again show you, similar to the project level package manager, a list of all the packages that are installed but in the context of the solution. That means across all the projects in the solution. Updates also show you all the packages, again in the context of the solution instead of a project. That means these packages are installed in different projects across the solution. Now coming to the Console Data tab. The Console Data tab lists all the packages where you have different versions of the package installed across different projects. For example, the newtonsoft.json package I have different versions installed on different projects. So how do I go and fix it? It's very simple, just select the version that you want to install across all the projects. In this case, I'll choose 12.0.2, which is already installed in the couple of the projects and say, Console Data Package. This should get me the latest package version across all the project. Hey, that's all I had for today. Thanks for watching. Catch you next time.


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here today I am back with another Fortnite glitch video and this one is again people how to carry unlimited items yes you heard that right Epic thought they'd patched it well according to this they most certainly haven't but hey before we get into the video guys I am giving away 2800 vbooks to be with a chance of winning simply subscribe to the channel if you are new around here hit that bell button to turn notifications on drop a like on the video and leave a comment down below winners are picked on a weekly basis and contacted via YouTube direct message so good luck people okay so I was messing around in the recently added limited time game mode blitz which is super fun by the way and it's here for another week storm is absolutely relentless no do not get trapped in that storm it change your health now I was messing around in this and I came across a boogie bomb now I know these were taken out of the game because they were used to glitch out the game so you could literally carry unlimited items now the initial glitch people find was different to the one I posted a few days back but because they took out the game to fix it I thought they literally fix every way you could glitch it out well it seems as though they haven't at all the glitch the way I said to do it still works so basically what you need to do is find a boogie bomb when hunting for one make sure your inventory is full if you find one before you're full on items that's fine just keep hold of it until you fill up your inventory so once your inventory is full and you come across a boogie bomb what you need to do is pick it up if you already have one make sure it's selected then locate any weapon or item which you can pick up and take up a slot in your inventory and simply throw the boogie bomb and pick up the item at the exact same time you do need good timing but you will get the hang of it it's pretty easy now if you have done this right you should throw the boogie bomb and pick up that weapon but you should still have the crosshairs from the boogie bomb on your screen if this is the case then you've done this glitch correctly now once in this glitch if you switch weapons you come out of it so do not do that but when you are in this glitch you can literally pick up every single item you see without dropping stuff you already have picked up you can literally pick up unlimited amounts of loot and when you finally want to drop them to feed your teammates etc etc you can by simply going into your inventory menu hovering above the weapon you initially picked up when you threw that boogie bomb and simply drop it from your inventory hover across to a another weapon go back to that drop to weapon slot and drop again keep doing this and you'll drop all the items you have picked up if you want you don't have to drop all the items straight away when you come out of the glitch they can stay in your inventory for as long as you want you can drop them at the end of the game if you wanted that's completely up to you but like I said once you are out of this glitch by either dropping that weapon you picked up at the time of throwing the boogie bomb or by just simply switching weapons the glitch is over until you find another boogie bomb but the weapons you did initially pick up during the glitch stage will still be on you ready for you to drop them whenever you are ready so this is a working unlimited inventory space glitch and like I said I've been doing this all night even blitz which was added earlier today and basically guys that is it have fun because it's not that sooner or later this will get patched and guys on that note I am out now I hope you guys did enjoy the video if you did leave a like really does help me out thanks as always for stopping by and hopefully people I will see you on that next one