exacte. I can call meeting to order and welcome everyone to this, the 18th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2018. The first item on an agenda is a consideration of new petitions. The first petition is on petition 1, 708 on catering for vegans on all public sector menus. The petition was lodged by Matt Bannerhan on behalf of The Vegan Society and Go Vegan Scotland. I welcome Matt Bannerhan, campaign and policy officer, The Vegan Society and Barbara Bolton co-founder of Govegan Scotland, who will give evidence to the committee this morning. You have an opportunity to provide a brief opening statement of up to no more than five minutes, please, after which we will move to questions from the committee. Thank you very much for having us to speak to our petition. I am Barbara Bolton, I am from Govegan Scotland, but I am also a solicitor and I specialise in vegan law. I will speak to the human rights inequality position in relation to vegan rights this morning. Mark Bannahan from The Vegan Society will then speak to tackling climate change and improving health. Vegans have legal protection under human rights and equality law because the vegan philosophy passes the test for a non-religious belief that is serious, cogent and worthy of respect. The vegan philosophy is essentially that because animals are alive in the same way that we are, we should not use or kill them. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed that that qualifies and that has been conceded by the UK Government and acknowledged by the Scottish Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The protected status of veganism means that we have a right to live in a way that avoids using and killing animals or paying somebody else to do that for us and not to be discriminated against on account of our veganism. That applies in both the public and private spheres but today we are focusing on the public sphere where there is an additional obligation to take positive steps to address inequality. Unfortunately, there is very little awareness about the rights of vegans and we know this from many cases that have been reported to us by individuals but to get a broader picture we guide out a survey of Scottish vegans over 500 responded and they highlighted systemic failure across the Scottish public sector, particularly in hospitals and schools, to provide for vegans. In many of our hospitals, vegans are not provided for at all, leaving vegan patients having to rely on family or friends to bring in food, having to discharge themselves before they are well enough to leave, and not everyone will have family or friends who can cater for them in that way and many words do not allow food to be brought in. Many examples were provided in response to our survey. The full results are available on the Go Vegan Scotland website, but examples conclude that I was in for two weeks when my son was born and they said they couldn't cater for me. My partner had to bring in all my meals, I wasn't allowed to use their fridge or microwave. Another said a particular issue is that it's not possible to pre-book dietary requirements. Another said the chef at the hospital said that he was under no obligation to provide for me. Scotland schools do not generally have meals that are suitable for vegans, most have vegetarian options but generally containing dairy or eggs or both, and even where vegan parents specifically request provision for their children there are many instances where they are told there will be no provision we don't have to provide for you. I was contacted just yesterday by a vegan mother living in Glasgow who is trying to get suitable food for her daughter in nursery and Glasgow City Council is basically refusing. Responses to our survey included our local primary has vegetarian but not vegan options in order to obtain other dietary requirements we have to prove medical need. Another said only vegan school dinner option is a dry baked potato. My children do not do school dinners for that reason, that means my youngest misses out on free school meals and is the only child taking a packed lunch. We've also learned that some food providers are under the impression that they cannot provide vegan meals in schools unless there is a requirement, a health requirement and it's signed off by the NHS so there's clearly a lot of misinformation which is resulting in vegan children being refused suitable food including where they're entitled to free meals. Scottish Government's position that it's up to local authorities is not good enough when they are failing and refusing to provide. The Government has to take steps to ensure that there's consistent provision across the country and the proposed legislation would be the best way to achieve that and Mark is now going to speak to the environmental and health benefits of the proposed legislation. Thank you Barbara so increasing vegan food provision will support environmental initiatives. The evidence is clear that animal agriculture causes significant harm to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, inefficiencies leading to extensive land and water usage, deforestation and eutrophication. In June this year researchers from Oxford University conducted a landmark study which concluded that eating a vegan diet is the single biggest way that an individual can reduce their impact on the earth. In October the IPCC report on climate change announced that we need to be aiming for a global temperature increase of no more than one and a half degrees Celsius rather than two degrees as previously thought. The report estimates that we have just 12 years in order to avert catastrophic temperature increases so we really need to be doing everything in our power now to mitigate these temperature increases which are caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Harvard research also shows that the livestock sector could use almost half of the one and a half degree greenhouse gas emission budget allowed by 2030 so addressing this should be a key part of the strategy to hit climate targets. With a growing global and national population it is clear that our diets will need to change in order to do this. The Scottish Government has made a number of commitments to tackling climate change so by increasing availability and accessibility of vegan food we hope that longer term diet choices will be more environmentally friendly and help in mitigating climate change. Not only this but ensuring vegan food availability will improve public health. The British Dietetic Association recognises that totally plant-based diets are suitable for every age and life stage including pregnant and breastfeeding women and young infants. In addition to this there is now a considerable body of research that links vegan diets with lower blood pressure on cholesterol as well as lower rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer. The UK is currently woefully short of meeting the recommended five portions of fruit and veg a day with the average around three and a half portions a day according to research. It is estimated that diet-related ill health costs the NHS £5.8 billion annually more than smoking, alcohol or physical inactivity. Businesses and the economy also suffer through missed work days due to sickness. Scotland currently has the highest overweight and obesity levels of any UK nation. Building familiarity with plant-based foods in public sector settings could help to address this and reduce long-term diet-related illnesses that currently put strain on the NHS. Children being exposed to vegan food in school at a young age begin to understand that meals do not need to include animal products. The good food nation policy has as part of its aims that everyone in Scotland has ready access to the healthy and nutritious food they need and that dietary-related diseases are in decline. It also aims to reduce the environmental impact of our food. That change would make a significant contribution towards achieving those admirable goals. Scotland has the opportunity to take the lead in the UK and recognise the many benefits that that change would bring to the growing number of Scottish vegans, to the environment and to public health. Thank you very much for that. We might just move on to questions now. You did mention and identified some of the issues in your survey but you also said that you presented the findings of the survey to the Scottish Government. Have you received a response from the Scottish Government to that? I mean specifically to the survey as opposed to the general issues and how have they responded? Yes, their response has been that they recognise that veganism is a protected, non-religious, fundamental belief but that they believe that it is the responsibility of local authorities to address provision and that has been it. So, in regard to the health service, that would not be the case or what did they say about that? Well, I do not believe that it would be the case in relation to the health service or education. I believe that it is their responsibility to take steps but they do not appear to accept that. Specifically around the findings and the survey around experience of hospitals, what was the response to that? Their response has been very limited. There was one letter and it simply stated that it is the responsibility of local authorities and that they seem to approach it on the basis that it should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So, you need to figure out what it is. So, they have not looked at the survey. The survey is dealing with not just what is happening in schools but in hospitals. To say that it is a matter for local authorities, it may not be the responsibility in the review of the health boards either but to say that it is the responsibility of local authorities, it is simple to miss that point out altogether. I think that is right. I think that we have essentially been given the brush off up to this point, which is why we felt the need to bring the petition to ear these issues. Ultimately, if nothing is done in terms of the human rights and equality issues, there will be claims. Claims will go to court and we would rather avoid that because I do not think that that is the ideal way to resolve issues like this. In the background information, you stated that the number of people choosing to live a vegan lifestyle has doubled twice in the past four years, where you can probably tell at first glance that I am not one of them, but it is strange that things have happened. Our briefing says that the vegan society estimates that there are currently around 600,000 vegans in Great Britain. I am curious as to how you estimate those figures. You also stated that, and I quote, more people are choosing plant-based food for health, environmental and ethical reasons. I was wondering if you could point us towards the evidence to support that statement. The vegan society has done independent polling with Ipsos Moray. That forms the basis for our figures. That figure is an estimate now. We are going to be doing a more comprehensive survey in the coming year 2019 to find out an accurate figure. We do expect it to be higher than 600,000 now, because obviously there has been a huge increase in the last two years, and it is showing no signs of stopping at the moment. There are a growing number of people now who are conscious, even though they may not be vegan, but they are consciously reducing their animal product consumption as well, so people may limit themselves to one day a week or take certain days of the week off, and they are also increasing demand for it. That also boils demand for vegan food in the public sector as well. You can also add to that anecdotal evidence. Go vegan Scotland, we have vegan information stalls out on Scottish streets basically every week in Glasgow, Edinburgh and in any towns that we can manage to reach. Increasingly over the last two years, we are approached by people who are already vegan. We have noticed a marked difference in the number of people who are already living vegan, including in smaller towns. For example, you can see the growth of the plant-based food industry. For example, Cercody is opening its first vegan menu today. Vegan menus are popping up all over Scotland. We are not just talking about the major cities anymore, although Glasgow has many, something like 17, and Edinburgh is rapidly catching up. We are seeing a real transformation in terms of the food industry as well. Okay, thanks. Moving on to the section in the European Petition that talks about equality. You have referred to the Equality Act 2010 in the petition, and our briefing has also referred to the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the position of the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission. Our briefing also outlines some specific duties that have to be met by public bodies. Taking into account that detail, can you give us your view on how public sector bodies are meeting those requirements? I believe that they are currently failing, not in every case. We did get some positive stories in response to our survey. For example, there are hospitals where they have a full vegan menu, and there are some hospitals that actually have the food on that menu, but there are many where they have the menu in theory, but nobody really knows that it exists. If they have a back and forth with the patient and they manage to uncover the menu, they then discover that they do not actually have the food on the menu, or they find a frozen meal that has been sitting in the freezer for however many months and they manage to pull that out. Across the board, there is no consistent provision, and if you have a look at the full responses to our survey, you will see that people refer to many different hospitals under various health boards across Scotland, so we are not just talking about isolated cases. In schools, the general position, as I say, is that there are no vegan meals in our Scottish schools. Some vegan parents have been successful. They have had very open-minded and obliging schools or nurseries, and they have managed to get really good provision for their children, but the general situation is that it is completely lacking. One of the important things in relation to schools to remember is that vegan children do not necessarily come from affluent vegan families. There is still a perception that vegans generally are affluent and are eating avocados for every meal, but that is really not the case. Vegans come from all walks of life, and many children make the moral decision to go vegan themselves and are the only vegan in their family. It is not the case that you can assume that a vegan child is supported at home, that their parents can advocate for them or that their parents can provide them with packed lunches when they should be getting free meals. To come back to your question, I believe that there is a systemic failure right now in all Scotland's public institutions. We have not looked in detail at prisons, but there were responses that related to police custody and that type of thing. We are proposing that a vegan option should be available in all state entities. You mentioned health boards and the provision of vegan meals to varying degrees. Are there any health boards in Scotland that you know of that definitely do not provide that service? I do not think that it is broken down by health board. It is very specific to the hospital, and then it is specific to the ward, and then it is your luck as to who is on duty that day and what their level of awareness is. It varies. David Torrance, convener, good morning to witnesses. As a member for Curcody, we have just had a vegan restaurant open and a vegan coffee shop, and I attended the first vegan Christmas fair that I have ever gone for small business Saturday, and it was well attended. However, what I am interested in is your comments about the public sector recognising improvements that could be made in increased provision. Have you any examples of that? There are quite a few examples that the vegan side has got. In Scotland there are limited examples that we are aware of, but certainly in the wider UK there are lots of hospitals, universities that we have contacted who have then decided to implement a full vegan menu, which the vegan side was collaborating with them to make. We have got lots of resources that help these institutions to make these changes. We have got the services of a registered dietitian who is registered by the British Dietetics Association who can help institutions to make these changes and come up with nutritious menus and meal plans that work over a week and a month to make sure that the institutions are providing really healthy food for their vegan clients. One of the examples is not Anglian, the caterer. Often hospitals and schools are catered to by large companies that cater to multiple schools or hospitals. We worked with Anglia Crown and they developed a whole vegan range that they were then going to supply to over 100 UK hospitals. We worked with them to develop their vegan range and now they are providing that to over 100 UK hospitals. It shows that these changes can be made quite easily and we are more than happy to work with people to make it as easy as possible. We have some examples of dishes that are on those menus with us so that we can leave them with you. Thank you. We have got quite a few bits of resources that we are happy to leave with you to have a look at, if you want to consider as well. Thank you. Good morning. I will start off with a bit of clarification on what public sector institutions you are talking about. We talk about schools, hospitals, councils and prisons, but what age are we proposing that school children should have access to vegan meals? At all ages. I think that, if I take that perspective, it takes quite a lot of application, consistent application to maintain a healthy vegan diet. Also, to make sure that specific children who are very active intake of calorific value can be quite difficult without supplements under how you would respond to that. It is certainly not in terms of calories. We have a diet issue and you can provide meal plans that would more than meet any child's age calorie intake. There is a supplementation recommended around one nutrient, which is B12. We would recommend that schools would have that available as well if they were providing vegan food. In terms of calorie intake, there are no real concerns there. We can provide menus that have more than enough calories for a growing child. There is a lot of misconception about the vegan diet and its sufficiency generally. For example, the Germany's strongest man, Patrick Baboumin, is totally plant-based and he has no difficulty getting the calories that he needs to create the huge muscles that he has. There are people at the top end of most sports now who are living plant-based and thriving. There is no difficulty in ensuring that they are sufficient. There is no difficulty in getting the calories that we need. As Mark said, the only supplement that is essential is B12, but that is essential for everybody now, because it comes from the soil and is depleted. We are all lacking in that. Having come from that basis, I had access to some of the top dieticians in the world. My point is that it is not impossible, but it is quite difficult. You have to have that consistent application. You are talking about the top end of sport, the gentleman in Germany, but for a five-year-old to be able to follow that kind of pattern, that would be my concern. I think that what we are looking at here is the knowledge of a vegan diet within the public sector, hospitals and schools. Probably, from my money, it would not be good enough at the moment to be able to ensure that consistent nutrition for our children. We would like to see a lot more work done around education and increasing awareness of that. That probably applies not just to vegan diets but to nutrition in general. That is something that is lacking in education, the knowledge of how you get all your vitamins and minerals. I do not think that there is any danger that, if we increase people's knowledge, over a week, you need to try to get quite a lot of this type of food and this type of food in order to meet your nutrient requirements. If we increase knowledge and then increase availability of vegan food, I do not see that being a problem. There is also a danger that children are becoming obese at the moment and that is a real issue that is happening. That is not for meeting vegan food, it is for meeting the current offering that is being provided over at school and at home. One of the things that a vegan diet can help with is things such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes. If children have the knowledge of what nutrients they need to get and they are eating a lot of fruit and vegetables, they are long-term health gains that could be beneficial to Scotland's public health. I would be more concerned that children are not getting enough fibre than anything else. Also, our schools have nutritional requirements in relation to school meals and any meals will have to satisfy those requirements. Don't conflate the fact that people are eating a lot of really bad food to become a piece rather than eating the healthy food. At one time in my life, I had to eat four and a half thousand calories a day and looked at it in great depth. My perception of it is that it can be quite difficult to intake that amount of calories in a healthy way. The only thing that I am thinking of is that if children are completely vegan, do they have that knowledge to have that consistent application to stick through a vegan diet? Unfortunately, we do not have a dietitian here with us today. I do not think that anybody around the table has any qualification in nutrition or dietetics, so probably the best thing for us to do is provide you with the information afterwards, because obviously, this has been looked at in depth. The vegan society has been around since the 1970s and has been looking in detail at this. It became a charity in the 1970s, and it has been around since the 1940s. We are not speaking from a platform of no knowledge of the nutrition and dietetics position on this. We can certainly give you some more detailed stuff around nutrition directly from a dietitian that is registered by the British Dietetics Association. The British Dietetics Association says that it is suitable for all ages and life stages, including young infants. If schools have implemented a vegan meal plan that over a course of a week or a month covers off absolutely everything, there would be no danger from a child eating that food every day. I have remembered the second point that I wanted to make. It sounds as if you are approaching this on the basis that, if we make this food available, children will go vegan, but it is the other way around. Children are already vegan. They have already made the decision that I do not want to eat animals, I do not want animals to be killed for me, and they are not being given food. So what is a child in that situation supposed to do? Just not eat is essentially what we are saying. I am not taking it. I am just taking it from a pure perspective of ensuring that children get proper nutrition. That is where I am coming from. My position is that I want children to be more active and healthier. I am certainly not against vegan diet. I am just coming from the position of ensuring that the knowledge is out. The problem that I have here is that, in taking evidence to the NHS, I have said exactly what I have said around the difficulty in maintaining that sort of health and nutrition. They have come from that position. We also recognise that a vegan diet is entirely sufficient, as long as you are eating the right things. He also thinks that vegan parents tend to be much more knowledgeable about nutrition than non-vegan parents, because of the lack of general information, because of the misinformation that is out there. From the very point where someone becomes pregnant, they know that they are going to be quizzed about what they are feeding their children. They really know their stuff. If the vegan child is within a vegan family, they are going to be getting all that support at home. Can I ask a brief question before I bring in Rachel? The first vegan that I knew was for I might say medical reasons was dairy intolerant. What proportion of vegans are in those circumstances? For them, it is not an option to have another diet, and I wonder whether that has been a subset of issues for vegans. I want to clarify one thing and then I will let Mark speak to the figures, because the vegan society has the figures. The vegan term is used as a shorthand for plant-based food, because that is just handy, and we all do it, and we are all online, and you need short words. It is important to clarify that veganism is not just about food, it is not just a diet. Recognising that animals are alive and that they do not want them to be killed for you, so you do not eat them, you do not wear their skin, you do not use them for entertainment, you do not buy animals, you do not use things that have been tested on animals, and that is a vegan, that is somebody who is living their life in a way that recognises that animals are alive, recognises animal rights, essentially. Every vegan is plant-based, they follow a plant-based diet, because by default, if you are not eating animals, you are plant-based, but not everyone who follows a plant-based diet is vegan. So, there are a lot of people who don't eat animal products for various reasons, like you say, they might have dietary requirements or it might be for religious reasons, they may be abstaining from animal products because they recognise that it's very important for the environment, but if they are not living their lives in a way that avoids exploiting and killing animals altogether in all these other ways, then I wouldn't say they're vegan, I'd say they're plant-based, but we use the vegan term very broadly. They may call themselves vegan. Yes, a lot of people do that. A lot of people are not aware of the history of veganism, but I think that if we look back to the roots of it, to the forties, we see that it's really about animal rights and it's been a social justice movement throughout that time, and so the fact that it's been somewhat co-opted by the plant-based industries as well, and diluted by that, I think, for the purposes of the equality and human rights position, we have to remember what veganism really is, but in terms of the figures. Yes, thanks, Barbara. I don't actually have that particular figure in terms of how many people are vegan due to, say, dairy intolerance. Do you consider them vegan anyway, surprise or academic? We would consider that they were eating a vegan diet, and what this petition is about is providing vegan food in public sector settings, so they would also need vegan food in order to be provided for. We do know that most people go vegan for ethical reasons, but there are now a considerable number of people who decide here to eat vegan for environmental or health reasons as well, so those areas are increasing. Barbara, you spoke about misunderstanding and misinformation, which are obviously two different things. You said that there's so much misunderstanding and misinformation. To what extent do you think the lack of provision is misunderstanding and to what extent is it misinformation and perhaps hostility to veganism? I would say that it mostly stems from misunderstanding what veganism is and misinformation in terms of the rights of vegans, so they kind of go hand in hand. I think that most people believe that veganism is about diet. Many, many people still believe that it's just a personal choice. If you think it's just a diet, then I can understand why, if somebody is in hospital, you might think to yourself, well, just put your diet to one side and eat what we give you.  But if people understand that it's not a diet, that actually that person is someone who has lived and is doing their absolute best to avoid animal exploitation and killing and that, to suggest to them that they eat something that's been taken from an animal who's been used and or killed for them is equivalent to trying to get somebody to do something that's against any other fundamental conviction—religious or non-religious. I think that there might be more understanding, but there's also just a lack of awareness that vegans have these rights and have to be catered for in the same way as they would cater for somebody who had a certain religious belief. I don't know if that answers the question. No, no, that's fine, thanks. I think that we're sort of getting diluting the argument slightly here, because if somebody walked into an NHS setting wearing leather shoes and actually asking for vegan food, then are you going to deny those people that food because of choice and human rights? In this sense, I think that we should get back to the situation where it's about choice, because I believe that you're confusing your argument about the definition of veganism in terms of plant-based, but you can defend that in a minute. We are in a situation at the moment where many private sector restaurants and many public sector organisations are having to offer various diets, allogen-free, gluten-free, kosher, halal. When I was a south of Scotland regional MSP, I went to Dumfries prison, where there were varying diets being offered. They were talking to me about the cost of that. I agree that there should be choice, but if we look at it from the perspective of what is the barrier currently in Scotland if it's working in NHS trusts in England, you talked about Anglia Crown and their plant-based diet being delivered to over 100 NHS trusts. What really is the barrier and what did the NHS trust do in England to make that transition to change their policy and to take into account perhaps the financial obligations that would come with having a more expensive plant-based diet? What did they do in order to train the catering staff or to upskill them in terms of offering different dishes such as stir-fries or quinoa or plant-based meals? First of all, on the cost implications of this, it actually doesn't have to cost any more. It can actually be cheaper. I know that they were speaking yesterday to Mark Ruskell MSP, and he was telling me about a school in his area that has decided to do a meat-free Monday. They found that it was considerably cheaper to do this. Obviously, meat is quite expensive when you compare it to fruit, vegetables, pulses, grains and things like that. They managed to use the savings to try and buy some really local produce as well to increase their sustainability credentials. There is another place where this has actually been done. They have this law in Portugal since last year, and we have been speaking to the Portuguese Vegetarian Society, who campaigned to get that law in place in Portugal. They found that vegan options can actually be up to 40 per cent cheaper than non-vegan alternatives. In the long run, they are finding that their institutions are saving money by offering a lot more vegan food. Most people believe the opposite, that it would cost a lot more to do this, but we find that it would actually be quite cheaper. We do not have any data yet for any of the hospitals that have decided to offer more vegan food. A lot of these are really recent, but we are hopefully doing a bit of work next year to try to get some UK applicable data for that as well. In terms of training and upskilling, as you said, again, a lot of these changes have been made quite recently, so I had a chance to go back and revisit some of these, but that is certainly information that we can get if you want me to submit to the committee the following this meeting. Thank you, Mark. I think that it would be really useful, because a lot of NHS boards currently actually produce meals on site. Not everyone uses large companies who deliver the meals to those sites. It would be very interesting to know, basically, has there been a cost increase, has there been a cost decrease, how many NHS trusts in Scotland are currently using organisations that are able to deliver, within their budgets, the vegan option or a plant-based diet? You might want to ask ourselves if that is something that is, if you are asking across the board of NHS boards what their approach is, it might be something that we can do, rather than asking you to—whatever information you have would be useful to the committee, but, rather than perhaps that would sound like quite a large exercise, that might be something that we could do. That would be very helpful. Also, in terms of long-term costs, we believe that if there were more vegan food being served, certainly in places like hospitals and schools, that that would have a long-term cost-saving implication to the NHS in general. As we say, it is around about £5.8 billion in the UK that is attributed to poor diet. If we can, on the long term, increase people's ability to make better, healthy diet choices, then obviously those costs could decrease as well. Rather than just being a very short-term old, we have had to change a menu here. That cost us a bit more thinking long-term as well. Just to come back to the first part of your question there, just to clarify, when we make a distinction between the plant-based diet and living vegan, it is not in any way to try and suggest that people who follow a plant-based diet should not be respected or that people who have dietary requirements should not be provided for, they clearly should. The benefits in terms of this proposal for the environment and health apply because of the plant-based aspect. The equality and human rights arguments that I put forward, they flow from the right to freedom of thought conscience and belief, religious and non-religious. The test for that and who gets protection is quite a detailed list of requirements. The vegan philosophy that I outlined whereby you avoid the use or exploitation of animals altogether has been found by the European Court of Human Rights to qualify. That is what has been recognised by the Equality Commission. That is why it is important to understand what that is and where those protections arise from. There have also been decisions by the Employment Appeals Tribunal recognising that somebody who lives their life in a certain way because they have a fundamental belief that that is necessary to protect our environment because of climate change, and that includes a plant-based diet. That has also been recognised as protected under freedom of thought conscience and belief. It is not to segregate plant-based from vegan to create confusion or difficulties around that, but it is just to clarify that we have got the rights aspect. Those people under law should be provided for and that we are currently failing to do that, but we have got the wider benefits of plant-based eating itself. Why do we need to make this law in order to do this? Why can't we just do it from the base of choice and the base of nutrition within the public sector? Why do you have to go down this route? That is what I am trying to get at. In the private sector, there are still issues, but it is to some extent taking care of itself because there you have supply and demand, and demand has gone up and supply is rising to meet that. In the public sector, it does not work like that. When you go into hospital, whether you know that you are going in in advance or not, you cannot make arrangements in advance, you have to just go in and see what they have. As I outlined earlier, we are hearing from people all across Scotland that in many hospitals, many wards, there are many instances of people being told that they just do not have anything for you. As I say, they are having to rely on friends and family. In some cases, nurses are trying to be really helpful and nip down to a shop to bring them something back. That is not the inclusive approach that we want to have in Scotland. We want to be able to cater for people who need a decent meal after an operation or because they have had difficulties with their childbirth or whatever it happens to be. In school, as I say, we have heard from many people telling us that even when they go to the school and they explain why their child needs those meals to be provided that do not include animal products, they are being told that they will not provide for you. That is happening frequently. As I said, somebody contacted me just yesterday. She is a vegan mother, and she is trying to bring her daughter up vegan. She is getting pushback from Glasgow City Council telling her that they simply will not provide. That is at the nursery level, but based on the information that we are getting from across the country, she may well experience those same issues when her child goes into primary school. I believe that we clearly have a situation in which allowing us to be addressed in the moment, on a case-by-case basis, is not working. We should recognise our obligations. We should also recognise the huge benefits of bringing this in across the board and face up to it and take a bold step, just as Portugal did not long ago. Do you have enough substantive evidence to suggest that all local authorities are not addressing that situation? You have used examples of Glasgow City Council, but I think that there needs to be some more substantive evidence to suggest that those local authorities are not committing or are pushing back on delivering that choice. I would very much like to see a statement from each local authority, each health board, telling us what the current situation is with their provision of plant-based food, because I think that that would be very interesting. We are just a voluntary outfit, so we have not had the resources to investigate this to that extent as of yet. Obviously, I am aware of the Freedom of Information Act and we can take those steps if we need to, but that information should be available, so that would be useful to see. I would like to agree with what Barbara said. What we would like to see is either a piece of independent legislation that covers off what we are saying, or maybe as part of a wider bill, like, for example, the Good Food Nation bill. If what we are asking for could be part of that, that would also be sufficient for us. I do not know whether there is going to be a consultation very soon on that. I do not know whether we could try and get, as part of the consultation, questions around what we are asking for in there, to try and get other stakeholders' views on that and to bring that into the conversation as to how that bill is shaped. Although there has been a very long lead-in to the Good Food Nation bill, it is really uncertain to us where that is going to end up, so I would not like to see that kicked into the long grass either. I think that this is something that could be done as a stand-alone measure much more quickly. Okay, thanks. Just on the Good Food Nation bill, there are some comments here at this end of the table that has been dropped, but as I understand it, it is going to be included in the new agriculture bill, but I could be wrong. If I am aware of time constraints, convener, so if I could just quickly go back to the climate change aspect that Mark brought up, I would not like to close the evidence session without looking a bit more at the IPCC report. You will know that the Scottish Government has been pressured into putting a zero emissions target into the climate change bill that is currently going through Parliament. NGOs and some opposition parties are calling for zero emissions, and that is clearly a tall order, but we have to get there, whether it is by 2050 or not. Mark, you mentioned the IPCC report, which gave us all a wake-up call, particularly those of us focused in here on climate change. The report states that there is increasing agreement that overall emissions from food systems could be reduced by targeting the demand for meat and other livestock products, particularly where consumption is higher than suggested by human health guidelines. Adjusting diets to meet nutritional targets could bring large co-benefits through greenhouse gas mitigation and improvements in the overall efficiency of food systems. For the record, I was keen for you to expand a bit more on that, if you could. Yes, it is not just the IPCC report. There are new reports all the time. There was a report last month from a Harvard fellow, Dr Helen Harwat, that says that on current projections, the livestock industry would use up to 50 per cent of the allocated greenhouse gas emissions budget by 2030, which would lead to unrealistic emissions reduction targets in other sectors. If we do not address that, there is basically no way that we could ever meet the one-and-half-degree targets. In terms of demand as well, it adds to deforestation, certainly in places like the Amazon rainforest, where forests are not only cleared for grazing but also to grow crops that are then fed to animals, which is obviously a very inefficient way of getting energy from crops rather than just eating the crops directly. There are many other areas, such as deforestation, soil erosion and desertification. Those probably do not affect Scotland in some way, but the demand for the meat is affecting other areas as well.  Methane is far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide as well. Even if you have a free-range pasture-fed cow, that is still causing significant damage to the environment. We really need to change our diets. Dites are changing, but not a rate that is going to be enough to meet the targets that the Scottish Government has committed to. You mentioned that the Portuguese law has changed. My understanding is that legislation does offer an opt-out so that, if there were not demand, it would need to provide. Is that something that we would need to do with legislation so that it is more about what is in schools, whether it is a request for provision or whether it would be more generalised in that? The Portuguese law means that all public sector institutions have to offer a vegan option. The opt-out is only in very rare cases where they can demonstrate that there is zero demand. I do not envision that that would be a good way to go in this circumstance. Maybe in very, very limited cases, if you have a school of 10 children, if it was that small, then they could maybe demonstrate that there was zero demand. However, I think that there are benefits from offering it on menus anywhere that is outlined in terms of building familiarity with plant-based foods so that that would, in the longer term, lead to more environmentally friendly and healthier long-term diet choices. I do not think that it is a good idea to set out on this route already with exemptions in mind. I think that only in very, very specific circumstances that that would be a good thing to include. We mentioned that in the private sector, and I think that probably my sense is that younger people are more likely to be leading than older people. It is something that the private sector is responding to, so it is responding to demand. Would that not the same thing happen in the public sector, where there was demand? The issue is that you seem to be identifying that demand but the local authorities are refusing to meet that demand and the health authorities are refusing to meet that demand. Does that make sense, rather than creating a provision before the level of demand has been identified? The level of demand is there and it is growing all the time as well. Our data suggests that 40 per cent of vegans are aged between 15 and 35, so we think that it is definitely skewed towards the younger generations. That indicates that the numbers are only going to rise over coming years. There are already problems, as Barbara has identified, and those problems are only going to increase unless the public sector does something about it now and makes a change, which is why we are asking for this change. Thank you very much for that. I think that we have probably spent slightly longer than that than I had expected, but thank you very much for your evidence. I think that it has given us plenty to think about. In terms of how we take this forward, I think that we would want to explore some of those issues further, without necessarily thinking that that solution is the one that the committee would support. I think that we would be interested in getting more information, I wonder if I am calling for some suggestions of what we might do. As you are aware, I have a big interest in the health and diet generally. I think that there is a general lack of understanding or a falling lack of understanding of what constitutes a healthy diet, being vegan included in that. I think that my concern is around the education system, and I believe that education is the main part of all solutions. What interests me is that councils and the NHS trust, etc., to a great degree, have access to the central excel procurement contract, and that is where they get a lot of their meals and sources from. Would it not be an idea to write to the procurement contract and ask them how they cater for various diets, including vegan, because it is through them that a lot of the councils and a lot of the NHS trusts source their food? It would be interesting to know how difficult it would be for them to meet demand. If a hospital says that they cannot do that, it is because they will not do it or they cannot do it, it would not be quite interesting. We should probably write to health boards and to local authorities, perhaps via COSLA. The first instance task is something that they are actively looking at, because if there is anecdotal evidence that I am sure must be developing a pattern within certain areas, and I think to write to the Scottish Government, I would be interested in getting some clarity on what has happened to the good food nation bill. If it is going to be included, as you have said in the provisions on another bill, will they be consulting specifically around ensuring that people's not just health eating choices, but philosophical choices, I suppose, would be met and are they looking at that? To highlight to all those people that we are going to write to about how they considered the financial implication of choice, it is not to take away from this petition in particular, but it is also in this instance to define what choice is being given. Is there a chance for people to have gluten-free food? Is there a chance for people to have halal and kosher food? At the end of the day, it is about meeting the demand of a huge group of people with different needs and different dietary requirements. Of course, this petition is about focusing on veganism, but it is just going to throw itself up because, being a restaurant owner myself, I know the demands and the trends, and I know that we are having to make changes through exactly what you talked about, which is supply and demand and lifestyle choices. Therefore, it throws up a whole new scenario for local authorities and NHS boards. I mean, we were taught a very long time ago when it was entirely legitimate simply to provide what children would eat. So, they wanted chips and they got chips. Well, they don't get chips now in a lot of schools. They actively engage and don't offer the choices that young people want. Routinely, they would have had vending machines in schools and they don't have them anymore. Clearly, local authorities really understand that they have a public health responsibility. I wonder whether they see that in terms of veganism. Is it something that they have even looked at? I suppose that they would be interested in that. At the level of wearing schools, in particular, or maybe in hospitals, where food has been offered on site, what is the training and understanding among catering staff themselves? There will be schools—I mean, I am not quite sure of the structure of it—but they must have somebody who is responsible for identifying dietary, getting all of that balanced out in cost and provision and what demand is and so on. I don't know whether it would be through the unions that work in the public sector, that work in providing food in hospitals and schools or whether they would have a view on it, but I think that it would be quite interesting even if that conversation is taking place. It feels odd to me that you can go into big branches of restaurants and franchises in the high street and they will offer a very detailed range of choices in vegan meals, but if someone is in the hospital they are told that they don't do that. It feels as if the public sector is behind the curve. I have just one last point from me, convener. The Scottish Government had published a healthy future Scotland's diet and healthy weight delivery plan. It is going to produce relevant guidance by 2020. It is important that we hone in on what the Scottish Government has done or are doing to address the situation of a plant-based diet or a vegan diet or other diets within that plan. The benefit of being very old is that it would not have been considered even a matter for a school meals provision to understand people's faith needs in terms of diet. That is something that has changed over a long period of time, the idea that you would have a vegetarian option or halal meat or whatever in the past would not have been considered. It is somewhere along that journey already and I suppose the question that you are asking is, to what extent veganism is now even on the radar for organisations, and it would be interesting to find that out. Is there anything else that we could do, Angus? Yes, thanks. I think that it is always good to lead by example. We should contact the Scottish Parliament's corporate body to see what their stance is on it. Obviously, we have caterers in here who have been awarded the healthy living award and the healthy living award plus, which is good news. Of course, there are vegetarian and vegan options available here, but it would be good to see what the SPCB stance is on it. We have given ourselves quite a bit of information gathering to take. We will look at the official report just to clarify the issues that Rachel was seeking. Obviously, if you get information, you can provide it to us, but the substance of that would be some questions that we would be asking of local authorities and others. If you attend today for your evidence, we will be in contact with you. Once we get a response, you will be able to make a further response to the on-going conversation that we are having with those who have gone to highlight the issues that are raised in the petition. Thank you very much. I will suspend just briefly. If I can call a meeting back to order, I can now move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1710 by Edward Archer in community hospital and council care home services in Scotland. The petition calls for a review of the provision of services for the elderly and long-term sick in community and cottage hospitals, as well as council care homes across Scotland. Members have a copy of the petition and a briefing prepared by Spice and the Clerks. That briefing discusses the various changes to government policy in this area dating back to 2005 in the Scottish Executive's national framework for service change in the NHS. The briefing outlines the various policy and legislative changes in the intervening years and covers issues such as integration of health and social care provision, specialist care provision, reductions in hospital beds and residential care and costs to authorities of care for older people. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action on this petition. I am concerned about the delayed discharge currently. The Scottish Government is taking steps to minimise the amount of time that particularly elderly patients are kept in the hospital setting. I think that centralising some of the healthcare pathways has been detrimental. It is really important that the community hospital setting, what it has done and what it has provided, gives people a way of staying out of hospital. It offers so much more than we think. I just think that it should be reconsidered by the Scottish Government and that there should be some work done around this. I think that the petitioner makes good arguments. Brian Whittle has been investigated quite in depth by the Health and Sport Committee. In general, it is very topical at the moment because of the desire to move from the secondary care to the primary care setting. It would be interesting to understand the capacity issue. There is definitely a capacity issue around that, which is leading to the delayed discharge. It would be quite interesting to write to the Scottish Government and to get the feeling in how that change from some secondary care to primary care setting is going and how they are going to make up the shortfall. In essence, that is the biggest issue around that. The IJB model how the council and the NHS are working together. I think that you will find as well that there is quite a difference across the country depending on which local authority you happen to be in. There is quite a disparity. We have been interviewing quite a lot of health boards and some are doing extremely well. I have to say that it tends to be those in rural communities that are doing particularly well, as opposed to urban. It would be quite interesting to draw that out. Why do you think that they are doing better in rural rather than in urban? In terms of the integrity joint policies, they have always had to do that because of geography. They have had to have that integration approach in rural settings because of the distances and so on. It is just out of necessity. They are doing better than urban at the moment. It would be quite interesting to draw that out. Ultimately, there is a lot across my reference with what the work of the health and support committee are doing. What struck me was that there is a trade-off between having a local provision, but centralising it and being a specialist and being more successful is entirely logical. Do not keep people unnecessarily in a hospital and get them out as soon as possible. I know in Glasgow that there are some very good examples of step-down provisions, so they come out of the hospital, but they go into a clear setting that is funded by the health board to prepare them for going home. I am very concerned that the idea that it is better for somebody to be in their own home, rather than to be in an institution, I suppose, is absolutely true. However, if being in your own home means that somebody comes and sees you for 15 minutes in the morning, comes to you for 15 minutes at night, gets you up far too early or puts you to bed far too early, that does not feel to me like any kind of existence at all. Home-based care or local care works if the care package is substantial, but where care packages have been reduced because of costs. I have heard people who have the strongest of advocates for self-directed support for autonomy of the person who have argued that they can see the logic of having smaller units of people coming together, because at least they have got a bit of community that the provision is more caring than the 15 minute, even if it is a 15 minute visit. My sense from this is that some of this is suggesting that there is a community hospital cottage hospital setting, which is almost like a step down. If that is what the petitioners are thinking about, that is certainly interesting, but it is almost as if the reality is quite a gap between the philosophy around joint boards and the reality in our communities. I would be quite interested in exploring some of that. I would be keen to explore the rethinking in specialist care as well. Clearly, there are some tensions existing in the system, given that there is an ambition to centralise a number of acute services to particular hospitals, so I would be keen to get further information on that from the Government. Also, there is this generalisation that, especially in the elderly population, they often come out of hospital worse than they went in. The need to make that journey through hospitals as quickly as possible is highlighted in the petition, but it will still end up going, what is the service provision that the councils have in conjunction with the NHS? As I said, we will find, as the Health and Sport Committee has found, that that level of care is quite patchy. That inquiry by the Health and Sport Committee is on-going? Is an IGB—well, IGBs take up a big chunk of our time, as you might imagine, because it is the big ticket item at the moment. We will be asking questions from the Scottish Government about the reaction to the petition and a later stage, reflecting whether that is something that we would want to feed into the Health and Sport Committee. David? I would also be interested in why the strategy that was produced in 2006, shifting the balance, was shelved? Was it continued? Where did it go? I am not quite sure. My sense is that that is the same in terms of policy, and that agenda is the same, which is to specialise, to centralise acute services, but to take as many people out of acute services as possible by having local support services and working out what can be done at a local level and what can be done at a more specialist level. The whole acute services review was not without its challenges when it went through, but philosophically we are still the integrated joint boards. It is the same thing that I do, that there is a continuum of support that is required, and we do not want anybody inappropriately in the wrong way. My question is to the extent that, in the middle of all this, if we have left people who are contained in their own homes, they are not sustained there, they are there, but if that is a better choice than being in a nursing home, I am not sure if it is, where you are not meeting people, you are not seeing people during the day and those kinds of things, but I think that these are maybe simple questions that we could be asking rather than having come to any conclusion. So, if we agree, then we will write to the Scottish Government's secrets for using the action called for an repetition. Do we want at this stage to be writing to anybody else, or will we leave it at that, first of all? We understand that there are broader questions around the role of health boards and integrated joint boards and local authorities, but we may come to that later stage. We would want to thank the petitioner very much for submitting the petition, and we will of course have been in conversation with him once the responses have been received. If we can then move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1712, by Laura Hunter on soul and conscience letters. The petition calls on the Scottish PAM to urge the Scottish Government to review the use of soul and conscience letters in criminal proceedings and to produce guidance for the courts and GP practices on the use of those letters, including alternatives to court appearances if an accused person is deemed unfit to attend in person. We have some background information in our briefing papers, which explains that a soul and conscience letter is essentially a letter from a doctor who excuses someone from attending court due to ill health or injury. Soul and conscience letters can be used for both accused persons and witnesses. However, the petitioner seems more concerned about the use of letters for accused persons. Particularly, she is concerned that a trial can be discontinued if the health of an accused person is a factor. The decision to discontinue a trial is once made by the prosecutor. The petitioner states that the court should have the discretion to disregard any soul and conscience letter that it finds unsatisfactory, which would suggest that she has doubts that the courts are able or willing to do that. She also suggests that doctors do not have a good enough understanding of what they have been asked to do and its implications. In that respect, she is looking for the Scottish Government to review any current guidance for the courts and GP practices on the use of those letters. A copy of the Scottish Courts guidance note is at Annex A. In the briefing note, the Crown Prosecution Service note is at Annex B. Alongside the review of the use and guidance of soul and conscience letters, the petitioner also suggests that courts could consider alternative methods of bringing accused persons to court, for example of writing evidence via video link. The notes that we have point out the provision in the Criminal Procedure Scotland Act 1995, which generally provides that no part of a trial shall take place outwith the presence of the accused. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action in this petition. To me, I am reading this correctly. The petitioner is looking at the system as abusive or working system. I am sure that we are all aware of instances where court proceedings have been delayed and delayed and delayed by this particular issue that seems to be an abuse of the system. I have a lot of sympathy for what the petitioner is saying. I wonder whether, in this instance, we are straight to the Scottish Government. I agree that, to get the views on the current system and perhaps where, in the minority of cases, the abuse of the system or working system is evident. I think that we should thank the petitioner, Laura Hunter, for bringing this to the committee's attention. She raises a valid point, which I must admit that I hadn't considered up until now. In her background information that she provided in the submission, she does mention that an accused person could provide evidence via video link or the GP being asked to attend court on behalf of the accused to give evidence on why the accused is unable to attend their court appearance. I think that those are fairly valid points, but I'd certainly be keen to hear from the Scottish Government as to their view before we proceed with the petition any further. Far be it from me to disagree with us with all. The one bit in there that makes me slightly uncomfortable is asking the GP to turn up at the turnip at court, because they have quite a big workload, as it is at the moment. It's an aid where it would help to concentrate minds, I think. One of the things that we might want to write to do is to write to the GP's representatives and say, is this an issue? I think that it's a general issue for GPs having to write letters and do assessments and so on. Can a GP feel pressurised into providing this kind of letter? If they thought that they were going to end up in court, I'm to justify it, they may not. Maybe it's looking at it from the other side. I suppose that I also thought that there was a distinction—well, the two distinctions. One is the difference between something being good and being discontinued, because somebody is not well. I was quite surprised that that would be the case, but the abuse of the system is one of the things that we might want to identify. I would also be interested to know from the people who know the legal situation better than me. I think that it says that a hearing shouldn't be—what was it?—that the trial can't take place outwith the presence of the accused. Does that mean that a video link would be defined in that way? We have already accepted that for vulnerable witnesses or whoms who ever. Indeed, simply in terms of convenience, you will hear that people will plead by video link from prison or whatever. I would be interested in the legal term around that or something that could be raised on that question. I thought that it raises a series of questions.  If you are not fit to come to court, you cannot be compelled to come, but if not being well means that a case is then abandoned, I think that from the point of view of a victim that would be a concern. Rachael Y Llywydd. I think that clearly GPs will be operating in good faith over this, and it is what they see at the time. They are being asked to do so many things now, for example, with gun licensing and all sorts of things, to verify that person's state of mental health and so many things that they are having pressure put upon them. As Angus said, he hadn't necessarily thought about the whole process here. I get letters from constituents who are frustrated because they cannot take a case to court because of this particular situation, but I think that there is a distinction between the process with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal and the situation with the GPs. Getting that balance absolutely right and ensuring that those people are taken to trial is really important, but there are two quite distinctively different things from assessing somebody's health at the time in order to be able to go to court. The observation that I have certainly anecdotally, is that GPs themselves would scribe in the past feeling pressured into giving somebody a note saying that they are unfit for work. For example, is this the kind of thing that they feel they are under pressure on? Or people who have said that they have gone to the GP and the GP have said, for example, they are looking for a house because the house is in its not-fit. Some GPs will write a note, very sympathetic note, others will not. Is there somebody who can't get a GP to confirm that they are not well enough to go to court as well? I think that the role of the GP in this and their perception of it would be interesting to establish, but also the significance of these letters in the understanding of the legal system. I am quite interested in that. If a trial cannot go ahead without the accused being present, how do you prevent or is there an issue due to the lost society who has ever thought there is an issue around the way in which these might be abused? I think that it is not to suggest that there is a major problem here, but I think that it would be worth establishing how robust the procedures are. We are writing to the Scottish Government Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service, the BMA. I do not know if there is a group for GPs who might be quite interested to write to them directly and maybe to the lost society just of their observations. Can we just ask about the alternative methods? Would it be the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal who would be able to advise on whether they had looked into alternative methods of going forward with court proceedings? I am sure that, historically, there were resistance to video links as well. There was also resistance to the idea that some should not be able to just simply represent themselves, for example, in rape cases, but it would be good to get an understanding of what the understanding of the profession is and who it is that we would make that decision. What are the options? If that is agreed, we would want to thank the petitioner, Laura Hunter, for raising the issues that she has done in the petition. I think that there is quite a number of areas that we would want to explore with irrelevant bodies. If we can now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the consideration of continued petitions, the next petition for consideration is petition 1540 by Douglas Filand on a permanent solution to A83. We returned to the petition that the committee last considered in December 2016. At that time, the then Minister for Transport and the Islands had outlined a programme of engagement and consultation, which would include work on the issue of the A83 as part of the national transport strategy. It was indicated at the time that work on the strategy was to culminate in 2018. I am bringing the petition back before the committee for consideration. It is noted that there have been further landslips on the A83, resulting in further disruption to road users. That is despite some mitigation work having taken place. The most recent disruption was in October. Following the scale of that landslide, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity, Michael Matheson said, and I quote, I have asked Transport Scotland officials to review the current programme of mitigation measures with a view to further improving the resilience of the road and report back to me in early 2019. We understand that the cabinet secretary convened a meeting of the A83 task force in November 2018 for local and regional stakeholders to have the opportunity to discuss the recent incident and wider issues. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. I thank you, convener. As a member of the Public Petitions Committee in the last session, we visited the rest and we thank you to see the measures that we have put in the catch fences and improvements to Old Mill to the Road. In October there, what was it? Over 3,000 tonnes of debris was caught by a catch fence and it still managed to get to Old Mill to the Road. The A93 is a vital link in that area, and it has special economic benefits. I suggest that we write to the Transport Minister and see what updates he has had from Transport Scotland. Angus? In doing so, we should get some clarification on the cabinet secretary's comments following the October landslip where he said that we are also working closely with the Forestry Commission Scotland to reintroduce vegetation on the hillside to help to reduce the risk of landslips. I would be keen to hear from the Scottish Government what the timeline is for the planting of any trees or vegetation. Like David Torrance, I was on the petitions committee when this came in at first. One of the solutions was planting trees to secure the soil. Of course, the petition came in in 2014 and the trees still aren't planted. I would be keen to get a timeline on that. I was just noting that the national transport strategy that is currently under way is not really due until the end of this Parliament. I would be keen to explore whether the Government is considering that outside of that. Before any work was done, we were probably looking at three years down the line, which in this particular instance is probably going to be too long. As long as it doesn't take away from the A77, the A75, I'm completely up for it. We're not having a priority list on roads. Although I'm interested, I do think that the argument pertain round is not just a transport issue, it's not just a safety issue, but it's actually about the economy, the local economy, and it's very significant for that part of Argyllshire, if there's a road blocked. The level of inconvenience for people when they have to take a detour is quite a massive angus. Thanks for letting me come back in. It's probably worth noting, and probably not much consolation to the people who rely on the road in Argyll, but it looks like from the Cabinet Secretary's comments, the preventative work that they've undertaken so far helped to stop the road being closed for at least 40 days. Given the work that's been done already, there have been benefits to it, but clearly not enough. I think that there is a sense in which there was some progress at this frustrating that then clearly there was another landslide after that, so this issue around forestations becomes even more important, I guess, if there was identified mitigation, which has not now been pursued or has not yet been pursued, I might be interested to know why. Rachel? At what point might this become something that's prioritised? The consultation that the meeting of the task force, the recommendations that have been put in place, at what point do we really say, right, none enough is enough? We need Transport Scotland absolutely have to put this to the top of the list and do something about it? What is it that's blocking the decisions that we've already made? We're agreeing to write to the Scottish Government, asking for an update on the consultation on the review of the national transport strategy and where the age is three-feets into that and whether the issues around it could be taken out from the strategy. I think it's the point that Brian is making, so it's not just a long, long-term thing that's recognised and this is immediate. The whole question of mitigation and forestation, what's happened in relation to that and to get an update from the meeting of the 83 task force in November 2018, I think would also be useful for anything else. In that case, if that's agreed, again we're recognising that this is a long-standing issue for the Public Petitions Committee and clearly a great deal has already been done, but there are clearly some challenges remaining and I think the emphasis of the petitioner on a permanent solution to the 83 is not lost on the committee. With that, we move on to the next petition. The next continued petition for consideration, which is petition 1642 by Norma Austin-Hart on the sale and marketing of energy drinks to under-16s. The committee considered the petition in September and noted that the UK Government had launched a consultation in August seeking views on whether the sale of energy drinks to children should be stopped. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government asking whether it had any plans to consult on the same terms in which the UK Government is consulting and to keep the petition open until a response has been received. The Scottish Government has now responded to say that it intends to hold its consultation in spring of 2019. The Scottish Government states that, quote, the UK Government consultation does not explicitly seek the views of young people and therefore it will commit to some bespoke engagement with young people in Scotland to seek their views. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. First, I thank the petitioner for bringing this in. It links into so many of the work that has been currently being done within the Parliament around health. Generally speaking, I would be uncomfortable trying to legislate four people into behaviour in this particular instance. I think that it has become quite endemic and I think that it has become a particular problem. I think that it is good to see the Scottish Government actually going to delve into this and I think that it is specific from the input from this committee as well at that point. Given that the Scottish Government is doing such an in-depth study of this, I think that it is probably at a point now where we can do not much more, so potentially closing that petition would be a matter of interest. I would like to put on record that I would like to thank Norma Hart for bringing it to the attention of the Public Petitions Committee as well, because it was very timely, because I had a situation with a head teacher in the boarders talking exactly about this and the instruction that it was making within the classroom and the issues that the teachers had with controlling children who had been drinking high-level caffeine drinks. It is just so important and I just hope that, with the Scottish Government consultation launching next spring, I think that it is really important that this does not drag on and that the UK Government and the Scottish Government work very much together to address this serious issue. I certainly am very pleased that they have wanted to consult with young people on the question. They have taken on the seriousness of the petition. It feels to me that it would be appropriate for us to close the petition, recognise the progress that has been made, urge the petitioner obviously and others with any interest in this question to participate in the consultation and encourage young people to do so and that, if they have progressed at all for any reason, it may be that the petitioner would want to return. Angus, do you hear me? I agree with the comments that have been made so far. We recognise the progress that has been made. We are closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis that the Scottish Government does intend to consult on the issue of restricting the sale of energy drinks and, as I have already said, to encourage the petitioner to participate in this consultation. If that is agreed, we would want to thank you almost in heart very much for bringing the petition to the committee and recognising it as an issue that is beyond a very local issue. I think that it is something that is concerned and shared about that. The response to that then looks like it is for another day, perhaps, and I want to thank her for raising what has been recognised as an important issue. With that, we agree to close that petition. If we can now move on to the next petition for consideration, which is petition 1671 on the sale and use of glue traps, this petition was lodged by Lisa Harvey and Andrea Goddard on behalf of Let's Get Mad for wildlife. Since our previous consideration of this petition in April, when we took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, we have received two submissions from the petitioners and those are included in our meetings papers. The first submission dated 27 August 2018 reflects principally on the Cabinet Secretary's evidence. The petitioners appear broadly to welcome the Cabinet Secretary's evidence, although they do outline some remaining concerns, not least the position that glue traps cause unacceptable unnecessary suffering. The petitioners offer some suggestions as to how the Scottish Government might work with a range of policies, including in New Zealand, with a view to developing future policy in this area, to agree a revised code of conduct and restrict the sale of glue traps to certified pest controllers only. In their second submission dated 20 September 2018, the petitioners offer detailed feedback and suggestions on the current pest management alliance code of best practice for the humane use of rodent glue boards. The pest management alliance has acknowledged the petitioners' comments and feedback, and it has indicated that it will look at the potential of a redraft of the current code of practice in that context. It adds that it will be willing to present any revised code to the committee for future consideration, no wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Rachael Hamilton Obviously, animal welfare is a very big part of a politician's consideration these days, and it is a very important issue. I think that because the Cabinet Secretary had suggested that the Scottish Government might approve an existing industry code of practice as produced by the pest management alliance, we do take evidence from them to understand a little bit more about how that code of practice might work here in Scotland. Rachael Hamilton I am interested in exploring why they cannot simply be banned, because the Cabinet Secretary said that it would be difficult and there were certain circumstances. I am quite interested in what those circumstances are and what the protections are, because the kind of concerns that were highlighted about the impact of glue traps on small birds or whatever was something that we all found very distressing. I suppose that what I want to explore is that there is a suggestion that it is too complicated to do something different, or since we do not have to find another solution, we are not going to look for one. The fact that the pest management alliance is willing to review its guidance and to come to the committee, we should recognise that they want to engage with that conversation, too. In that case, we are agreeing to invite the pest management alliance to provide evidence of future meeting in early 2019. Obviously, if there are further submissions from the petitioners, we will take them as part of our evidence as well. If that is agreed, we can then move on to the final petition for consideration this morning. It is petition 1683 by Jennifer Edmiston on support for families with multiple bus. At our previous consideration of this petition in June, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People and the Minister for Children and Young People. The clerk's note summarises submissions received from the Cabinet Secretary and Minister and notes that those submissions are broadly welcomed by the Scottish Government and Tamba. Tamba welcomes the Scottish Government's consultation proposals into the best start grant and the minister's example of how payments would be expected to be made under the best start grant and the sure start maternity grant. Both the Cabinet Secretary and Minister outline measures that the Scottish Government is considering and taking forward within legislative competence and remit. With the Cabinet Secretary in particular referring to, quote, complex and detailed discussions, they would be required to be held with HMRC to develop regulations for topping up benefits. The Minister for Children and Young People refers to the trial of the Deposit Gam T scheme. That trial will run until 21 December 2019. Therefore, she adds that the information gathered from the trial will be analysed, then aftersaur. She adds that the information gathered from the trial will be analysed, further to inform how the scheme will be rolled out in the future. At the moment, I note that there is no firm indication of when the full analysis will be available, but we have to assume that it will be at some point in 2020. Tamba indicates that they look forward to the review of the scheme, although the petitioner sounds a note of caution on what she refers to as, quote, a large gap between the ages of zero and three. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. Rachel? I'm really interested in, obviously, the newly devolved benefits through the Scotland Act 2016. The cabinet secretary has said that HMRC could be issues with doing that and that any such reforms in this area would require further legislation. I'm really interested in finding out the specifics of that and what HMRC would need to be able to do to get to that point. Where we get that information from, I'm not sure whether it's the Scottish Government or whether it's from HMRC, I think that it would be a valid point to write to both of them. Brian? That exercise my mind quite a lot. One of the things that strikes me is that, as you know, this is quite a hot potato, if I can put it that way, a political hot potato in that particular respect. The idea in terms of family planning, financial planning for family planning and then having the surprise of having a multiple berth in the different connotations of doing that is definitely something that we need to look at. I'd be interested to know what provision would be made under those circumstances, both from the UK Government and what the Scottish Government can do or how we can inform the Scottish Government as it comes up with its own system. How we can inform them, at least bring this particular issue to the attention of one informally of the Scottish Government as it deliberates on its own welfare plan. Two, to ask the UK Government what provision it has made under the current legislation for that, because it's obviously multiple berths is not something that I particularly plan for but can have a huge impact, obviously, on the finance of the family. Interesting, we were out just door knocking locally very shortly after his petition was signed the last time and met a young mum who had just had twins and the point she made was that she didn't really understand the impact. I mean, I don't think that any of us understand the impact of a new baby in the house anyway but if it's more than one, the actual disproportionate impact in terms of cost is very difficult to plan and prepare for. I suppose the question is whether it's just the social security system we're looking at, what are the implications for multiple berths all the way through, but they're very practical things and I suppose we'll be asking Governments to look at that. I don't know whether we agreed it before to write to children's organisations but whether that was an issue, for example, for a home start or whatever, who support young families with something that they were aware of too. I suppose that once you accept that there's an issue, then you have to almost proof your policy. For example, if you have twins, do you get two baby boxes or do you get a twin baby box, which would make more sense, so you're not getting a duplication of some things but perhaps extra of other things that you would need if it's a multiple berth, right? I am interested in a broader understanding of how we could be supportive of these families, which maybe goes beyond... I think there are things, what is the UK Government doing, what's the Scottish Government doing, but the argument that it's all very complex and the HMRC might be involved is a kind of a defence through the ages anyway on a whole range of policy areas, but I think it's more looking at it, how do we seek proactively to understand its impact and what supports you can give families that everybody would sign up for? I think that if we take it on from that logically, the numbers are not big. Practically we can work out quite simply the costs and requirements of those individuals and then if we can tease that out, it's then I've been saying to both the Scottish Government and the UK Government how are you going to deal with that? I think that we could probably sit round here for 10 minutes and come up with a decent plan. It's how we get legislation put forward or adjustments to current legislation that would take those practicalities into account. Anyone else? I think that we're agreeing that it's an important petition and we recognise it perhaps at the time of the petition for us being presented. We're very struck by the evidence that was given, so we are wanting to write to the UK Government and the Scottish Government about both the very specifics around the connection between changing the benefits and implications for HMRC, but other ways in which they both feel that families with multiple bus can be better supported and we would want to review that. If there are suggestions of third sector organisations or others who might have a view on that, we could perhaps raise with them to get a better understanding of it or maybe review how we might address it. I think that that would also be useful. Is that agreed? What are your comments about not just the financial implications but the practical implications as well? You're quite right that it's difficult to get back to work with just one child and not just multiple births as well. Perhaps some of the aspects of employment law need to be reviewed on the basis of those women who are having multiple births. Absolutely. There may be some kind of policy change that understands that my stagger start to get back my help. I should say that, in fact, home start have already given a submission on this, so we can way further look at that. I think that we're agreeing that there's an issue that is important and it's not necessarily big ticket issues that would sort out help families. That's some very practical things that could be done as well. If that's agreed, we've reached the end of our agenda. I want to thank you for attending and I'll close the meeting.