Public Petitions Committee, 09 Sep 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Official Report 325KB pdf

---

New Petitions

Good afternoon and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2008 of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from John Wilson, who has to attend another parliamentary committee this afternoon. He will replace Angela Constance as a member of the Public Petitions Committee for the foreseeable future. I place on record the committee's appreciation of the work that Angela put in on behalf of the committee and wish her well in her new role on the Justice Committee.

I remind everyone to ensure that all mobile phones and electronic devices are switched off.

We are joined today by a photographer who is taking pictures for the Scottish Parliament's annual report. If anyone does not want their picture to be taken, they should look to the side to avoid it. That does not apply to members, whose responsibility it is to be photographed sometimes. The photographer assures me that he will not be too intrusive.

You should comb your hair, though, convener.

If I had known he was coming, I would have had a haircut.

There are a lot of items on the agenda this afternoon as well as a number of petitions, so this will be a fairly lengthy meeting. It is our first meeting after the recess, so please bear with us.

---

Knife Crime (Mandatory Sentencing) (PE1171)

The first new petition, PE1171, is an important one and has been submitted to the Parliament by John Muir, who is present this afternoon. It calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory sentencing for persons who are found carrying knives or other dangerous weapons in public.

I welcome John Muir to the meeting. I met him before the recess, when the petition was submitted. He is accompanied by three members of his family—please make sure that no fights break out, John. If any of you wants to contribute to the question-and-answer session, you can do so. John has three minutes in which to amplify the core of the petition.

For quite some time, there have been many ways of trying to get rid of knife crime from the streets. Some have worked in part, but most have failed. Over the past five years, there have been knife amnesties, education campaigns and increases in sentences that courts can impose, but the rate of knife crime has continued to rise. We think the Government should consider something tougher.

Mandatory sentences in Scotland are not a new idea that we are raising today: for example, there are mandatory sentences for possession of firearms. A person who is found to have a firearm illegally and without proper certification can go to jail for five years. The other mandatory sentence that most people either do not understand or do not know about is for people who deal in drugs. After their third conviction, those people go to jail for seven years. We are saying that if there are mandatory sentences for those crimes, then surely people who carry illegal weapons on the streets should be penalised to the highest and most severe degree. We are not saying for how long they should go to jail; what we are suggesting is that the courts should consider imposing severe sentences. "Mandatory" is perhaps not the right word in this instance, but we are seeking something along the lines of mandatory sentencing.

If some feckless young boy takes out his big brother's scout knife and shows it to his pals, the judiciary must have licence to decide whether that is right or wrong—they must decide in court. We are trying to extend the arm of the police in their patrolling of the streets. A person in Scotland is three and a half times more likely to be accosted by a person wielding a knife, to be threatened with a knife or to be stabbed with a knife—especially in Strathclyde—than is the case anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That is disgraceful.

In my letter to the committee, which members have a copy of, I said that Scotland has

"led the world in many fields".

Scotland has led the world in discovery, and we have been good at engineering, medicine and shipbuilding, but Scotland has more knife murders per capita than anywhere else in Europe. Leading the world in knife murders is some record.

I hope that I can answer members' questions about where we are coming from. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, Mr Muir. That was powerful. Given the circumstances that led to the petition, mandatory sentencing for knife crime is a personal issue for you, and we must address the fundamental points that you have made.

Members will now ask questions. You or the other members of your family should indicate when you wish to respond to questions.

I thank Mr Muir for his statement.

I want to ask about allowing sheriffs and judges to consider the crime that has been committed before they pass sentence. Are sentences currently too lenient? Are the courts not dealing with knife crime offences seriously enough?

I do not think that the increased sentences for carrying knives that were introduced by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, which the Scottish Parliament passed—the maximum sentence was increased to four years—have been implemented. Every day, we read in our local newspaper of someone who had previously been found guilty of carrying a knife being back in court three months later facing a similar or more serious charge.

Perhaps greater co-ordination between the parliamentary bodies and the judiciary is required, because there is a Pontius Pilate situation at the moment. One side says, "We're doing enough" and the other side says, "They won't let us do that." The situation is difficult, but you guys will have to sort the problem out. It cannot be done by the public, or by me as an ordinary elector—you guys are here to try to sort it out. The problems that we have are obvious if we go close to the scene of the crime.

We will get more evidence on your petition and we will write to various bodies, but I can almost guarantee that one of the responses will be that the judiciary should consider each case on its own merits and that we cannot interfere with the opinions of the judiciary. It is obvious that the issue is close to your heart, but what would you say to people who said that to us?

I may, unfortunately, digress in answering your question, as it relates to our circumstances.

The person who murdered my son got 17 years, but he got a reduction of two years as a discount for pleading guilty. We received a letter from the courts that explained everything—why the person got 15 years, the punishment part of the sentence, and the fact that he will be a life-sentence prisoner. We understood that. The Crown Office then wrote to us to confirm that.

On 8 January this year, we received a letter from the Scottish Prison Service, which clearly said that there would be no parole for the person until 2022. That was fine—the Scottish Prison Service agreed with what was in the Crown Office's letter. However, the second paragraph of the Scottish Prison Service's letter clearly stated that under rule 15, I think, of prison rules, he would be entitled to work placements and home visits. In the best scenario, he could be entitled to them four years before the end of his sentence. Who's kidding who? The judges gave the person 15 years as the punishment part of the sentence, but the Scottish Prison Service has told us that he may have to serve only 11 years.

I wrote to Lord Brodie, who wrote back to me. His two-paragraph letter said that the contents of my letter had been noted. The second paragraph of the letter said that the sentence was what the court decided fitted the crime and it was up to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Prison Service to implement it. The letter was signed off on Lord Brodie's behalf. That does not bode well, and does not give great confidence. Other people must feel as upset as we do about the untidy way things have happened. We know that the guy will be inside for the next 11 years, so we have plenty of time to work with the committee again on sentencing. Today we are here to talk about knife crime, but I wanted to digress to let you know how we feel and where we are coming from.

Thank you. That was very helpful.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr Muir. I have a son, and I have been sitting here wondering how I would feel if I were in your shoes—if somebody had killed my son. I am struggling to think how I could possibly sit here, so I want to say that I admire your courage in coming to us and presenting the case so thoughtfully.

From what you have said, I know that you appreciate that many issues arise. I would like to sort out in my own mind exactly what you are asking for and how we should consider mandatory sentencing. As I think you acknowledged in your introduction, if the term means what it says, we would be telling judges that they will have to do something every time. Leaving aside the constitutional position, I think that there is a general consensus that that probably would not be terribly wise, because every case has to be considered on its merits and we always have to consider the exceptions. Can you clarify that? How would the idea behind your petition be written? I am not looking for the precise words—we can let the lawyers worry about that—but what would be appropriate? You feel that sentences are insufficient at the moment, which I understand and accept, but how would we frame a provision that would be mandatory but would allow judges to retain some discretion?

Judges have to have the final say, and the police should have the final say at the early stage of arrest. The police would realise whether it was right or wrong to proceed when there could be a mandatory sentence.

I have written a note saying that it is important that some young, feckless and stupid people are not sent to prison when doing so would be inappropriate. The note proposes that the courts should have an opt-out—although by "opt-out" I do not mean that the courts would deny what had happened—if strong mitigating circumstances meant that they should refrain from imposing a custodial sentence. That right has to be given to the courts at all times.

I absolutely agree—society would be in trouble if we took that right away from judges. Is what you are really asking for a general raising of the sentence, to be applied across Scotland, when there are no mitigating circumstances and when people have just gone out with weapons? I am talking about people carrying weapons in general, not just knives, when they have no useful reason for having them but are just looking for trouble. Is it a fair interpretation to say that you are asking us to use whatever methods we have to ensure that the sentence tariff is raised?

Yes, that would certainly be a fair assessment—although it would not stop petitions coming, because that would be pointless at this stage or at any stage. However, the rule of law, and the rules that are laid down by Parliament, have to coincide with what has to be done to ensure improvement in sentencing and to ensure the safety of victims.

The committee is looking at four victims. We felt very sorry for ourselves at the time, but we soon got over that sorrow when we realised that we might be able to prevent some other family from going through what we went through. We have put our backs to the board and have pushed hard. We intend to push hard until we think we have got something that is sensible and appropriate. We will not be hard to persuade if that happens.

I am thinking about where we come from. When you walk round the premises here and look at people, you ask yourself, "Are they at the sharp end of the boat?" No, they are not. We have attended meetings organised by councils and parent bodies, including one in Easterhouse, and we have met people whose daily lives you would not believe—because of people with knives—until you heard about them directly. I came home a very chastened fellow after the second meeting I went to because I had heard what people have to put up with: by goodness, it is dreadful.

Nigel Don talked about mandatory sentences for people carrying knives. The biggest issue is that there should be a deterrent to carrying a knife. The person who murdered my brother had a history. He was not scared of things like a community service sentence: it did not bother him and he did not stop carrying a knife. He was supposed to do community service and he was out on parole for other offences. That did not stop him carrying a knife and—sadly—killing my brother.

For my family, the law needs to be stronger. If someone who is found with a knife has a reputation and the police know that that person will cause harm, they must be put away. My brother's life would have been saved if that boy had been jailed two or three years earlier, because he would not have done what he did to my family.

We take the point about deterrence; many of us tear our hair out about finding effective deterrents.

The law must be much harder—it must be extremely hard.

You are right. We are all well aware—Henry McLeish's report made it clear to anybody who was not—that prison is not a deterrent for many people: they keep going back. The problem is difficult to crack.

I know, but a person who carries a knife might be given community service that they do not attend and the police might not realise that they are out on parole. Such people are not controlled. My family wants something to be done. The person who was involved was going to cause problems with a knife. For us, anybody who carries a knife will cause harm. The lesson needs to be that if people carry a knife, they will be punished hard.

We attended a save our streets campaign meeting in Edinburgh. My dad is campaigning for sentences of two years, but most people in the audience, when they were asked how long a sentence should be, said that it should be five years. People are fed up.

I understand. Many of my colleagues will have suggestions, but one thing we can do is refer the petition to the Government. If we do that, the Government will say that it is to establish a sentencing council. That will be a mechanism for discussion, so the hope is that it will at least be a productive way forward.

I agree with Nigel Don. We have spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice—not at great length, but we had a reasonable conversation. It was good to hear that positive moves are being made in considering violent crime, which is what we are talking about.

The letter that I wrote to the committee explains a little bit. I gave

"Some examples of prominent political and judicial representatives making statements on the crisis of knife-crime but seeming to take a … light-handed approach to solving the issue."

Too many people are talking and not enough is being done.

I also said:

"I am sure you are aware of who made the following statements …

‘I fear for my children'"

was said by Cherie Blair, and

"‘I feel uneasy and unsafe in our streets at night'"

was said by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary. What they say on television is enlightening and annoying.

I continued:

"These comments are from people who live in a 24-hour police protection zone far away from that faced by ordinary people in the front line of this crisis."

If one of those people walked to one of the bad places in Glasgow that we have been shown, I do not think that she would just say she was frightened—she would look for protection. The people in those areas are looking for protection by the law, which must be provided and be done democratically.

We have a website, on which many people have left their names and comments. It comes across loud and clear to us that they want their streets back. They are scared and they want their children to be safe and they want to be safe. Keeping the campaign going is a daunting task for us, but an even bigger task is for you guys to sort out the situation communally. That is not something that one party should do; a cross-section of politicians should work collectively. I have told the Labour Party, the Liberal party, the Conservative party and all the parties that we have talked to, "We know you can sort it out. You're the only guys that can do it. We can make the noise, but you must do the simple thing of getting it addressed."

Good afternoon, folks, and thank you for coming here, which must be pretty difficult after your experiences. I am pleased that you have said that although the judges or the courts are, on serious crime, the ultimate arbitrators on the sentences that are dished out, we must be assured that sentences are undertaken. The largest percentage of knife crime on our streets involves youngsters or teenagers—I read about that daily in the newspapers. Most of the time, knife crime is not perpetrated by hardened criminals, but by toughs on the street who aspire to be hard men. That is my concern. Most youngsters who are picked up for carrying weapons get community service or go in front of the children's panel but are back on the streets in a couple of weeks, as you are well aware. The judiciary or the police should take a stiff line with any individual who is caught carrying a knife or other bladed weapon, because if we could arrest the situation at the early stage, that might have an effect on the next generation—the 20-year-olds. What is your view on that?

It is difficult to make a comparison on that. We have spoken with the violence reduction unit, which has a solution that should be eagerly sought by Parliament. The unit says that in order to get rid of knife crime over a period, we need to start with children at an early age in the school system and explain to them the damage that knife crime does. The daunting thing that the unit has to deal with is that, if it does not do that brainwashing or have those conversations with children, by the age of 12 they already carry knives. That is where the problem comes from. They then go out on the streets to make their mark. They want to become one of the tough guys.

As I said in my letter to the committee, we have spoken to community councils and councils, some of which back our campaign 100 per cent. That is fine. We must be careful of the mantra about not criminalising the young. The majority of crimes are committed by the younger generation from the age of 15 to 21. That is a terrible indictment. If you go to the sharp end of the ship and meet the guy who has been caught and who is doing time or will do time for having a knife or stabbing someone, he is a junkie. When the police go to his home to speak to the parents, they are junkies. The police might think that the grandfather will take the boy under his wing, but they find that he is a junkie, too. So there is not one, but three generations to convert. That is how difficult it is.

Karyn McCluskey rightly said that if someone is carrying a knife, they are a user. That must be applied whether or not the knife has blood on it. It is good if someone is caught with no blood on their knife, but when they are caught with blood on it, that is really serious.

We need to curb that element among 12 to 15-year-olds and instil in them that there will be a prison sentence for someone who is caught carrying a weapon—not community service, but a custodial sentence. There should be no doubt that, if someone carries a blade, they will be put in prison.

That is a fair comment from you as an individual but, collectively, we must start to get people to think the same way round in a circle to meet up with me. Doesn't that sound good—"meet up with me"? I do not mean it in that sense at all. We need a medium that will allow everyone to find a solution so that we can put the issue to bed.

The final paragraph in my letter to the committee says:

"We fervently appeal to our First Minister, his government colleagues and all elected MSPs to impose a bill giving a total ban and zero tolerance to the carrying of dangerous and offensive weapons. Knife crime results in more deaths per annum than deaths from firearms. A law was rushed through parliament that banned the carrying of firearms without licence. Why can it not be the same for knives?"

It is as simple as that to the person on the street. They say it to me regularly at seminars and meetings. We have been going round Scotland listening to people. Honestly, some of the stuff that comes from them.

Elected members—please go and speak to your electorate. They will tell you how difficult and bad it is, if they have not already spoken to you.

What would you say to the criminals who murdered your son, and to other people who are trying to do the same to others? What would you like us to do about them?

This is where the water can go over our heads. If we ask for too much, we will not get it, and if we ask for too little, it will not start.

I have made it quite clear that the courts' sentencing powers should agree with what the Parliament recommends as being a proper sentence. At the end of the day, we are lay people: we do not have the experience to know all the imponderables. We have heard so many different questions about how knife crime can be identified, and about the mandatory sentence.

We were at a meeting a week past Wednesday and a special constable with 20 years' experience flung a question into the middle of the discussion like a hand grenade. He said that he has been called to domestic violence incidents in which the wife of the house had taken a kitchen knife and stabbed her partner. He asked whether a mandatory sentence should cover that situation. He also said that he had been at a fight in a pub where two guys were giving another guy a kicking. The guy stood up for himself, and when the police arrived, they arrested the three of them. When the first two had been taken into custody, the police started to take the other guy's details and they found a knife in his pocket, although no knife was used during the affray. Should that guy get a two-year sentence? It is very difficult. We are not in a position to understand all that.

That is very true. It is a very difficult situation. If three generations of junkies are living in a house, and one is sentenced, that is no punishment. We are giving them a comfortable life in jail.

Exactly. A prison should be a prison. Take away their PlayStations. If they are sent to prison for two years, they should be in there for two years. If they are sent there for 15 years, they should be in there for 15 years. It is prison, and this is the outside world. This is a great place to live: if they are on the other side of the wall—well, there you go. The old-age pensioner cannot afford heating, but the guy in the cell can ask for his cell heating to be put up to 68°. No—give them a blanket or tell them to coorie in to their cellmate. Make a prison a prison.

Yes. You are talking about hard punishment.

Yes, and then maybe people will realise and think, "No way am I going in there, and there's no way I'm going to carry a knife, or a broken bottle or a gun." We need to put an end to it.

I am conscious of time, but we should explore two or three things for the benefit of the petition.

Obviously it was unfortunate that you could not have Paul McBride with you today. I would be interested to hear about the kind of discussions that you have been having with him. You have touched on fundamentals today, such as how to interpret a set of circumstances. If you pay the money for a relatively good Queen's Counsel, they can interpret very differently the series of events that you saw with your own eyes. In talking with an experienced QC like Mr McBride about the nuances of sentencing, what kind of things has he shared with you that might be useful for us to think about as part of the next stage of the petition?

At the moment, the problem with the debate is that people in extreme circumstances such as you are in feel powerless. Ordinary members of the public feel that we are not listening to their concerns about some of the most challenging neighbourhoods in Scotland. I represent a neighbourhood that is, statistically, probably the most challenging place in Scotland as far as knife crime goes, so I know about the damage that it does to communities and families. How do we get on the right side of that argument and demonstrate the message that will change generational attitudes of having no respect for the law or the difference between right and wrong? How do we get across to the 15, 17 or 19-year-old, who might or might not have the excuse of being involved in alcohol or drugs, that there is a consequence to their actions when they close the door behind them as they go out on a Saturday night?

We can get tied up in the nuances of what lawyers tell us. You want to get beyond that to find out what is the right thing to put in place so that you, as a member of the public, feel that the right thing has been done through the justice system. Privately, you probably feel very frustrated, judging from some of the things that you have said.

I am sorry that I took so long, but I wanted to get to the nub of what the committee needs to address.

Our main consideration is something that is important to communities in all Scotland. We were at a meeting in Edinburgh, where knife crime is minimal in comparison with elsewhere. However, everyone has a problem on the streets at present. Our website shows clearly that there are problems on the streets in various locations throughout Scotland. We read stories and think, "Thank God we're not there." We hope that as a result of today's meeting, our petition will get referred to the Justice Committee. When we get to the Justice Committee, we might have been able to do more homework to find out how to proceed.

The violence reduction unit, with John Carnochan and his team, seems to have everything going in the right direction. The team is superb to talk to and what it is trying to do is superb. We need to talk to them, just as we need to talk to solicitors and Queen's counsels and so on. We have the backing of a number of QCs. We also have the backing of the two national papers, as well as our local paper, so people are reading about us. People will see me again tonight on the television, without a song and dance. People will see us in the street and ask how it went and we will tell them that we went to Parliament and what the outcome will be. We trust that our visit here today will assist us to get to the next stage in Parliament, whatever that may be.

The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Government

"to introduce mandatory sentencing for persons found carrying knives".

I am getting the sense from the conversation so far that you would like those sentences to be custodial for the most part. Is that correct?

Absolutely.

But that is not what the petition says, so you are leaving it open for a conversation about whether the mandatory sentence would be custodial. The figures show that, at the moment, 30 per cent of those who are convicted get custodial sentences, 31 per cent get community sentences and 29 per cent get monetary sentences.

I draw to the committee's attention my entry in the register of members' interests: I am a member of the Howard League for Penal Reform.

Quite a lot of the people who are convicted will have been in prison before; they might have been released, but reoffended and returned to prison. A mandatory sentence could be 15 to 20 years. If nothing is done for the person who committed the crime during their time in prison, they will be just as likely to commit a knife crime when they come out as they were when they went in—although society will have been protected for 15 to 20 years.

I understand what Robin Harper is saying, but I do not think that the two debates are incompatible. We have to separate what we do to rehabilitate those who are sentenced, which is a massive, critical issue, from whether someone who carries a weapon, or takes it to someone else, should get a custodial sentence.

What I think John Muir is saying—what I understand from the language of the petition—is that we need to think more critically about sending a message back to members of the public who, like him, have been dramatically affected by knife crime. Anyone in the public gallery or any member around the table today could face the same thing when their young son or daughter is out on a Friday or Saturday night in any part of Scotland—although there are more obvious hotspots, by the look of things.

I am trying to separate the issues, as I do not think that they are part of the same debate. The current debate is about how we deal with the petition and what we do about knife crime.

A senior official in the legal profession has said that some young people put a knife in their pocket as quickly as they put a mobile phone in it. That is quite damning if it is what is happening on the streets—a knife and a mobile phone together. It is terrible. If they have one, they generally have the other.

I thank you for your attention today. Everyone here has been very kind to me. You have been very soft on me as well, convener. I was expecting to get a bit more of a bashing, but it did not come. Maybe it will be worse next time—I hope that there will be a next time.

It is fortunate for you that I am a very gentle Glaswegian convener.

You have raised some fundamental issues that we should address on your behalf. Many things still need to be done over the period to address your concerns. We have now reached the bit where we pull together committee members' thoughts about what we would like to explore.

You have already received parliamentary support—I should have mentioned at the outset that your local MSP, Duncan McNeil, has been supportive of the petition. He has also written to us. I said that I would read out a couple of sentences that amplify what you have said. He writes:

"custodial sentences would be a powerful deterrent to those knife carriers that their actions have consequences before they rob someone of their life."

He adds that he

"would support the will of the people for tough action against those who carry and use knives."

I know that that dialogue has been had with Duncan McNeil in the past, when you presented the petition. Unfortunately, he is attending another committee this afternoon.

We need to pull together the concerns that have been raised into a programme of exploration and action on the petition. I am open to committee members' suggestions as to how we should proceed.

I have not asked Mr Muir any questions, but I have been most impressed with what he has said. I agree with much of what has been said, as do my party colleagues, and I certainly think that we should take the petition forward.

In the first instance, we should get in touch with the Scottish violence reduction unit and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. We might also contact Victim Support Scotland, which I presume has dealt with clients who have shared Mr Muir's experiences. I suggest that we start by contacting those three bodies.

We should certainly push the petition to the Scottish Government. However, it calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce "mandatory sentencing". We have established that that phrase does not mean quite what some people think it means in the context of the petition. The petitioner acknowledges the fact that there needs to be judicial discretion, although some people might feel that that is not what the petition is asking for. I therefore wonder whether, when the petition is sent off, we can include a covering note that conveys an understanding of what is really being asked for. Otherwise, we could get involved in unnecessary constitutional and theoretical discussions.

It is clear from what the petitioner says that he believes that tougher sentences should be made available to the judiciary and sheriffs and that often, even when they impose tough sentences, the parole service gets involved and folk are allowed out earlier. I am therefore keen that we ask the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for its comments on sentencing and the confidence of those who impose a sentence in how it will be delivered. As the petitioner said, the people who have the information in front of them and make a decision about the sentence that is passed down are not always in control of the actual sentence that is served. That is a critical point.

Nigel Don suggested presenting the petition to the Government. I suggest that we pass it to the Justice Committee or the wider Parliament.

I do not think that there is any purpose in sending it to the Justice Committee. Sentencing is not an area in which we have any locus. It would be interesting to know that committee's views, but it cannot do anything that the Public Petitions Committee cannot do.

In that case, I suggest that we also communicate with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, because it is bound to have tremendous influence.

We have been assured that if the matter goes to the wire, ACPOS will certainly put its hat in the ring.

I offer a big suggestion after having a chat with the clerk earlier. Given that the Sentencing Commission for Scotland's report is being considered by the Government and the Justice Committee's present commitments, is it beyond this committee's ken to pull together some of the folk who have been mentioned, to explore the issues? We did something similar on cancer drugs, which was in the public interest, and it worked well. It strikes me that it is clearly in the public interest to explore the issues in the petition because people have different ideas about what would be useful and effective.

I am struck that there has not been an opportunity to get stuck into the matter and allow ordinary citizens to contribute to the debate and, I hope, walk through the process. I believe that if people are confronted with some practical issues they will arrive at sensible, intelligent solutions if information is shared with them, even if they start out being pretty angry. Is it beyond our ken to think about pulling together people who might help to influence that broader debate?

Somewhere down the line the matter will have to go into the chamber or through the ministerial process to get a Government response, but the debate should be informed rather than partial. I throw that out for members to consider, as we did good work on the cancer drugs inquiry, which shifted the debate in the right direction. Perhaps the same could happen with Mr Muir's petition. I realise that my suggestion is a bit of a sidewinder.

Your suggestion might be really helpful because knife crime is a concern to lots of communities. Mr Muir talked about some of the folk who live at the sharp end and who live with knife crime on a daily basis. As well as speaking to the decision makers, it would be good to speak to—

We do not live at the sharp end; we just happen to be part of—

But you did. You did not expect to be there, but the reality is that you were.

Mr Muir, you spoke in your evidence about the people who live at the sharp end daily, with the consequences and the fear. It would be good to speak to people from those communities to give us, who are lucky enough not to live in that situation, a better appreciation of what it is like.

Do we want, in principle, to explore those suggestions? The clerk would have to come back to the committee with a fleshed-out model for our approach. It would be helpful to us to understand the nuances of the debate, because I am sure that if you were to put three Queen's Counsel in the room they would give us three different answers—at a price.

If legal bodies sat with you and gave you advice about what can and cannot be done, a solution would be found much more quickly than would happen if the matter were referred to someone else.

I agree that we should move heaven and earth to put a stop to the rise in knife crime and, I hope, to reduce it considerably. The convener's idea of consulting further and our producing a report is excellent. I suggest that we add the Association of Directors of Social Work to the list of people we write to. My reservation is about how much mandatory sentencing can contribute to the debate.

By the time we have finished, we will have you believing in it, like us.

Could we also write to children's panels? We have heard evidence that the carrying of knives can start very young. It is often young people who are involved; the adult services do not always become involved initially.

We read about the knife problem among youngsters almost every day. Most of the young people concerned are taking drink, which is so cheap and so easy to get. To me, drink is the main cause of the problem. Drink should be available to buy only after the age of 21. By providing for that, the Government is taking a very good step forward to deal with the knife problem among youngsters.

I am sure that we will have a petition on that anyway, from people aged 18 and over. The evidence base for alcohol fuelling much of people's negative behaviour is available. It is a cultural and social thing that we in Scotland must deal with. How we deal with it is a debate that we parliamentarians will have over the forthcoming period, but there is a shared belief that the excessive alcohol culture does lead to some other excesses.

There are also statistics that indicate that some folk, who are perfectly sober but have a very violent attitude, also go out weaponed. In my area, which is in the east end of Glasgow, people are not drunk when they make up the weapons that will cause the damage. They might be fuelled up three hours later, but they will have made up the weapons in their living room. That is the tragedy of a mindset according to which it is okay to graft three different implements together to create something that will cause maximum damage to another human being. Those people do not take it out just as a show weapon; it has a purpose, should it be required. The drink might fuel the event but the mindset is already there, and we need to try to deal with that.

The benefit will come from the sort of work that John Carnochan is doing. He is looking at the links between family, social background and alcohol and drugs, and the combination of those elements that results in some of the tragedies that have happened to too many families.

This is possibly the longest that we have spent on one petition, which indicates the seriousness of what you have raised with us this afternoon, Mr Muir. We have come up with some reasonable suggestions for where to go next. I will not kid you on, however—you are on a journey to get a sense of closure, not just personally but in the form of fairness and justice in Scotland. I am sure that you and your campaign will be doing other things to highlight the matter. I hope that today has been useful for that process. We will return with a report about what we want to do next. As the petitioner, you will be kept fully informed. Whenever the matter comes back in front of our committee, or when there are any further developments, you will be fully involved in a dialogue with us. We will spend time working through the issue, and I hope that that is of use and benefit to you and your family.

I thank the committee for taking the time to listen to us. I say on behalf of the girls with me and my son that we look forward to hearing from you and meeting you all—or some of you—again.

Thank you very much for your time, which we appreciate.

---

Billy Liddell (PE1172)

I thank everyone in the public gallery for their patience. Petition PE1172, by Bill McCulloch, on behalf of the Billy Liddell memorial campaign, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider what support and assistance can be provided to local authorities to erect lasting memorials to local sporting legends. I welcome Bill McCulloch and Mike Payne to the meeting. John Park MSP is here to speak in support of the petition.

The deputy convener, John Farquhar Munro, said that he is too young to remember Billy Liddell, but I am not convinced and wonder whether it is another highlander's tale. In the next three minutes, the witnesses have a chance to explain why they seek recognition of Billy Liddell and others who have contributed to Scottish sport over the years.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak in support of our petition.

Watching the Olympics recently, I was struck by how many of our sportsmen and sportswomen talked about the people who inspired them to take up sport and to reach the pinnacle of winning gold medals in the Olympics. If we want our young people to get involved in sport—which we do—we need to provide the facilities and training to enable them to develop their skills. We also need to provide them with a belief that they can succeed wherever they come from, whether it is a big city, a town or a small village, such as Townhill near Dunfermline. One way of doing that is by recognising and honouring our local sporting heroes. In Scotland, we are not very good at that; many sporting heroes have not been recognised.

Sadly, Billy Liddell is one of those forgotten heroes. The son of a coalminer, he was born in Townhill in 1922. He signed for Liverpool Football Club just before the outbreak of the second world war, for the princely sum of £3 a week. If we contrast that with the fortunes that are paid to today's footballing stars—if that is the right word—such as Wayne Rooney, we can tell that we live in a completely different world.

Billy Liddell was awarded 29 international caps for Scotland and he scored eight goals—we could probably do with somebody like him today.

Certainly tomorrow night.

He was a good left wing, and he scored quite a few goals coming in from the left. He would undoubtedly have gained many more caps but for the second world war, in which he served as a bomber command pilot and pathfinder. He died in 2001. In 2004, he was the first player ever to be honoured by Liverpool Football Club with a commemorative plaque at Anfield. Sadly, to date, there has been no recognition for his achievements in his home town, or indeed in Scotland.

I have provided the committee with background information about our campaign and about Billy Liddell, which I will not repeat. The wider aspect of the petition is that it is important that we recognise our sporting legends, not least because it provides our young people with role models that they can look up to and emulate. Billy Liddell fits that bill in terms of his footballing achievements and how he led his life on and off the field. As you said, convener, there are others who probably deserve recognition: in Fife there is John Thomson, a Celtic footballer who, sadly, was killed.

What do we want the Scottish Government to do? One possibility would be to establish a fund or national scheme to which local authorities and community groups can apply. However, the campaign is not just about funding projects; we realise that we will need to do a fair amount of fundraising—but we need local authorities to be encouraged to be more proactive, to put projects such as this on their agendas and to integrate them into their general thinking about sport.

We have had some good support from officials in Fife Council to help establish our group, but when it comes to getting things done this sort of project does not seem to fit into anyone's work plan. It is not really on the radar, so it is difficult to get people to take such a project forward. If the committee thinks that getting local authorities to recognise local sporting heroes past and present is a worthwhile objective, we would invite it to discuss with local authorities how that might best be done.

This is a grass-roots campaign that has been built up around Townhill and in Dunfermline. Billy Liddell is recognised most in Liverpool, mainly because of the number of years he spent there. It is important that he should be recognised in Dunfermline; that is why I have been happy to support the campaign. Bill McCulloch made an interesting point about how role models can be developed in all sports. If Billy Liddell were alive today, he would be a role model; he was a role model while he was playing football. I am more than happy to support the campaign, and anything the committee, the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government can do to assist it will be very welcome.

I echo what Bill McCulloch and John Park have said. My focus is on Billy Liddell the person and the role model. Today, Billy Liddell would be an unusual football player: he did not smoke, he did not drink, he believed in God, he went to church and he turned up at prizegivings for young people. I try to get across to young people the message that being a football star is not about receiving £160,000 a week in wages, but about what people do when they are in that position.

Do you have links with the people in Hill of Beath who organised a memorial to Jim Baxter? There seem to be parallels between the two campaigns. There was a fundraising process to pay for the statue that has been put up in Hill of Beath. Have you had discussions with people in the area about how they managed to establish that memorial?

I spoke to former Councillor Alex Sawyer about it. Billy Liddell's widow felt that a statue would not be appropriate for someone as modest as he was, so we decided to campaign for a cairn, with a plaque, in a community garden.

I am interested to know whether you have had discussions with people in Hill of Beath about how the money for Jim Baxter's memorial was raised.

We have had more contact with the John Thomson campaign. Mike Payne knows a bit about that.

The difficulty that we face is that whereas most Scottish sporting heroes lived and played their sport in Scotland, Billy Liddell spent his whole football career in Liverpool. Collections were taken at Ibrox for the Jim Baxter memorial, but the distance between Dunfermline and Liverpool makes it extremely difficult for us to do the same. We have spoken to people about it.

My question is about the dialogue with folk that needs to take place. The nature of the memorial—whether it should be a statue or a cairn, or whether there should be a plaque recognising the player's birthplace—is probably a matter for private discussion, but there must also be discussions with the likes of VisitScotland. A number of folk from ordinary communities have made a contribution, not just in the sporting sphere.

We want to say to people that, no matter where they live in Scotland, there is someone who can inspire them. At one end of one road in Paul Martin's constituency was the Celtic and Scotland legend Jimmy McGrory, who was, by any standards, the greatest ever goal scorer in British football. At the other end, in Kennedy Street, was the guy who, playing, I think, for the New York Giants—I am not an expert on American baseball—hit what the Americans quaintly called the shot that rang around the world. It rang only around America, but you know what Americans are like. At each end of the street were folk who are really important in sporting history, but it is not recognised in that patch. Are you suggesting that there should be on-going efforts at local authority and VisitScotland level to do a bit of storytelling?

We are in the early days of our campaign; lodging the petition was one of the first things we did. In our experience, it is difficult to know who to turn to for advice and support. We are looking for some sort of focus, either nationally or locally.

Is it possible that the idea might develop into a living memorial that would involve all sorts of sporting heroes and encourage young people? That might involve setting up a fund in the name of some of the bygone sporting heroes to help young people who are coming forward in sport. I wonder whether sportscotland and other active bodies might become involved. Have you thought about that?

In Scotland, we are not very good at singing our own praises. We have people who are good at sports and people who are famous throughout the world for other things. I see that you are wearing a Malawi badge. David Livingstone is probably more famous in Malawi than he is here. The Chinese consider Eric Liddell to be their first Olympic gold medal winner, but he was not known about in Scotland until a movie was made. We need to sing our own praises more.

We see value in working with local primary schools to raise the profile of Scottish sporting heroes and speaking to the kids about what it means to be a role model, or a model citizen, I suppose.

I just wonder whether a living memorial might be more effective than something static, such as a cairn or a statue. Perhaps it would be better to have something that will go forward in perpetuity.

The concern of the petition is who would take that forward, is it not?

Yes.

If someone comes up with an idea for which they get support from one or two sympathetic people in a local authority, where should they go first to act on that idea? I remember that, years ago, there was discussion about recognising the contribution of the international brigaders in Glasgow because the city was a major place of recruitment. That was a controversial topic, but something was done to recognise the role that those people, who were mostly volunteers, played in the 1930s, before the second world war. In that case, it was the local authority that acted.

There might be a story to tell about all the different neighbourhoods where ordinary citizens have made a contribution, whatever form that story would take, but I would not know where to start in trying to do that. I think that that is what the petitioners are anguished about.

I echo that in part. The primary responsibility for erecting a plaque to—or remembering in other ways—people who contributed to politics, science, art, literature or whatever usually lies with the local authority. The statues in Edinburgh were put up with funding from a combination of sources. Some of it came from the local authority, but in many cases the majority came from private contributions. Have you thought about scoping with our 32 local authorities the number of people whom they might want to remember in one way or another and the size of the fund that you think the Parliament should provide to cope with the demand?

I think that we were hoping that you might do that. No, we have not. Our campaign is focused on one particular sporting legend. We are drawing it to the committee's attention that the wider issue needs attention. Scotland should give more recognition to people who have made a contribution to sport and other fields.

There are two issues. There is a strong case for Billy Liddell to be remembered in his home town, but it is not necessarily for the Government to provide a large pot of money for which councils can bid whenever they want to erect a statue, a plaque or some other memorial to someone who made a significant contribution to sport or who can be held up as a role model.

I am slightly puzzled by your petition and am trying to get the bottom of what you want. I understand where you are coming from with your memorial proposal but, to my mind, setting up an agency to deal with memorials and the like takes away from the idea of a memorial as something that comes from the grass roots. If a community wants to commemorate a person's life and contribution, surely it is better for it to commission the memorial, carry out the fundraising and so on. After all, the memorial needs to reflect back on the person for whom it has been erected. Simply having an agency that puts up statues all over the place does not accomplish anything; part of the person's legacy must lie in the community's strength of feeling that leads to the memorial being erected in the first place.

If we put that to one side, the next question is how a community with such strength of feeling goes about getting a memorial. Are you suggesting that we need someone who would guide a community or group of people through the whole process of commemorating someone or something, present the options available and explain what permissions and so on are needed?

Yes. The community is a very important element in all this and, as John Park said, this is a grass-roots campaign. However, when we sought to take this proposal forward, we were looking for some support from national Government or local authorities for groups such as ours. A national approach, for example, might invite applications for proposals whereas local authorities might focus more on sports provision and on encouraging more people to get involved in sport. One aspect of that, of course, might be the creation of role models.

We have discussed things such as statues, gardens and plaques, and Nanette Milne talked about a living memorial that young people are encouraged to get involved in. No one body can happily accommodate such a range of proposals, so perhaps what we need is someone who can take a more cross-cutting approach and say to groups, "Have you thought about this or that? If that is where you want to go, so-and-so or such-and-such an organisation might be able to help." Instead of having an agency that takes away a proposal and gets it done, we probably need someone who provides help and guidance.

That is the idea. I am not criticising the council, but this kind of project is just not on its radar. I looked for an answer in the single outcome agreement—

I do that, too.

Although the agreement contains many worthy things, nothing in it really fits our proposal. We need to get councils to accept that they should be doing these things.

We are still waiting for responses to a petition on blue plaques that we discussed at a previous meeting; in fact, we expect the Government to respond before Christmas. I certainly think that someone should be beavering away at co-ordinating some options here. As the planning authority, the local authority is responsible for the erection of statues and other such memorials and will therefore play a key role in this matter. However, we want guidelines that provide folk with points of reference. I do not think that it would be inappropriate to use this petition as a means of addressing some of those issues. We will certainly see what we can do in that respect.

As Mike Payne tried to emphasise, the other issue is to do with showcasing Scotland's history. After all, when you look at the names of those commemorated in our municipal squares, you might recognise many of them, but there will also be many that you will scratch your head about and think, "Why did that person receive such recognition?" The answer, of course, is that they were probably very important or very powerful at the time. However, very ordinary citizens from very ordinary communities have made a contribution to sport, popular culture or whatever, and memorials to them provide those communities with inspiration and a sense of lineage.

We should write to the Government to find out how this petition might fit in with that debate. We could contact the likes of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland—if, of course, it still exists by that time. It is, after all, on the radar in the clean-out of the quangos, but getting a lovely suggestion from that organisation might serve as a good parting shot. We should also get in touch with VisitScotland.

I am open to suggestions on which local authorities we should contact. It is certainly worth exploring the views of a couple of our big city authorities, but we should remember that tourism is important in other parts of the country. I suggest that we ask Highland Council for its views, given the area that it covers.

Do members have any other suggestions on how we might go about exploring the issues in the petition? What about, for example, the hall of fame proposal? How far have you got with that, incidentally?

I have to say that it is not very clear to us how people get inducted into the Scottish Football Association's hall of fame.

Well, we are talking about the SFA.

Our application has certainly been received and we should hear something in October.

Good luck with that. It could be helpful. However, we need to pull together suggestions for dealing with statutory and Government agencies.

It might be a long shot, but is there any point in getting in touch with the organisers of the Commonwealth games? They are looking for a legacy, after all.

That is not a bad idea. We could write to those who are organising the legacy debate. I had better choose my terms carefully, but I imagine that the success of the Scottish athletes and the Great Britain team will be used to extol the virtues of sport and physical activity in the six or seven years leading up to the Commonwealth games.

The Government and Glasgow City Council are also putting together consultations on legacy issues, so it might be useful to get in touch with those who are involved in that activity.

Would sportscotland have anything to do with that?

It could have.

I nominate the City of Edinburgh Council, given the huge number of plaques and statues in the city.

I realise that, coming from a member for the Lothians, that suggestion contains a reasonable degree of self-interest.

I hope that this discussion has been useful to the petitioners. Essentially, you are asking us to try to open the door a little bit.

The committee wishes you well both in your campaign and in your endeavours with the hall of fame proposal. It is good to see that other football legend, John Park. I have seen John play for the Scottish Parliament football team—and I cannot imagine that there will be any rush to put up plaques for him. I should say, though, that I am just as bad.

I hope that we can secure some support for your proposals. I thank you for your time and patience this afternoon.

---

Acquired Brain Injury Services (PE1179)

As members will see, the convener has left us for a few minutes so, for my sins, I will take over the chair of the meeting.

PE1179 is from Helen Moran, on behalf of the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of "acquired brain injury" to ensure that people with acquired brain injury and their carers get the services and support that they need and that agencies can plan and deliver services more effectively.

The usual format is that petitioners get about three minutes to speak to us and make their case. We then throw it open to questions from the committee.

I represent the Brain Injury Awareness Campaign—also known as BrainIAC—which is a group of people who have acquired brain injury and their carers. It is because of our experience of the services and the gaps in services that we have come together to ensure that future services are more effective.

From personal experience of having acquired brain injury, I know that ABI does not have a cure. The brain cannot rebuild itself, so ABI affects people for life. That means that people need the support of services over a long period or even for life. ABI does not discriminate; it affects people from all walks of life and affects each person differently. Some people are left with profound physical disabilities, some with cognitive thinking problems and some with emotional problems. The majority of people feel isolated. People usually have a mixture of those problems. The brain controls everything, so the effects can be anything.

ABI also has an effect on the social side of people's lives. It leaves people unemployed, vulnerable to abuse and isolated from society. It affects the family and friends of the person and it also affects the society in which we live.

It seems that, when it comes to funding sources, the buck is being passed between learning disability, physical disability and mental health. ABI is separate from all those and needs to be funded separately. We believe that if the funding were separate, local planners would be more able to set up suitable services in their areas.

The services are patchy and piecemeal across Scotland. If someone does not live in the right place, they might find it difficult to get access to appropriate support. I ask whether, if one of you or one of your family had ABI, you would like them to be treated like that. We believe that the outcome of change would be more than just an improvement for the individuals or in the services being funded. If people had the proper support, that would reduce the number of people who are on medication for depression, who commit suicide or feel suicidal, who are assaulted, who abuse alcohol and drugs, who are stuck in hospital long-term or who are in prison. There would also be a positive effect on society overall.

It is more than interesting to note that, 10 years ago, Sam Galbraith, who was then responsible for health in the Scottish Office, agreed to have community care planning guidance changed to recognise ABI as a separate group. However, that does not seem to have been followed through.

I am speaking to you today because you have the power to change the way in which acquired brain injury services are funded and planned. We know that things will not change automatically, but we think that the ideas outlined in the petition will make a positive start. We ask you to introduce a separate and distinct health and community care client category of acquired brain injury.

Thanks for listening. With me are Mark Ziervogel, who is a carer, and Christine Flannery, who is from the managed clinical network for ABI. We would be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you very much.

We will move on to questions. Paul Martin has expressed an interest in the petition. I will give him a chance to comment and then we will have a question-and-answer session.

Thanks, convener. I met Helen Moran's group some months ago. My meeting with the group informed me about areas in which I would have expected there to be services in place and clarity about those services. One of the points that Helen has made so eloquently today is about the need for clarity: ABI should have a specific category within the care plan.

A number of the issues that Helen's group raised do not necessarily require resources—not yet, anyway; Helen might clarify that at some point in the future—but clearly people with ABI want to be recognised as a separate group to ensure that they are supported during a difficult period in their lives.

I think that Helen has publicly stated her position on the challenges that she has faced as a result of ABI and the challenges that carers face. Some basic improvements could be made as a start. When a patient is discharged from hospital, a basic manual or information pack could be provided to them so that they and their families have the necessary information to assist them on returning to the lives that they previously led. Work by the Government is required on clarifying the specific needs of the ABI group and on how to progress matters.

The Scottish acquired brain injury managed clinical network is consulting on national standards for adults with traumatic ABI. Have you been involved in that consultation? Would standards apply across the board? I presume that national standards for traumatic ABI could be rolled out to cover other forms of ABI.

I am the manager of that network; I am not a member of BrainIAC. The network does not campaign, but I recently fell over Helen Moran and her group in my work.

The Scottish acquired brain injury managed clinical network, which is basically a way of working—it is not a department or a service—came about because it was thought that better co-ordination and integration of services were needed and that attempts to get services in place should be made if they did not exist. We are considering traumatic brain injury as the first step simply because the subject is so big to tackle. Traumatic brain injuries are one reason—indeed, they are the biggest reason—for people getting acquired brain injuries.

The three-month consultation, which has been passed through BrainIAC and other groups, such as Headway, started only this month. We hope then to move on to the other categories. At the moment, we are considering people from 16 to 65 only, but we hope to consider a bigger age group and to widen the categories over time. However, as I said, the consultation has just started, and we have not received many comments back from health boards or local authorities.

So it is early days.

It is very early days.

Again, we are talking about such a huge subject that it is quite difficult to quantify things and see where you are driving towards. My understanding is that the support for a person who has an acquired brain injury can vary hugely across a range of elements, depending on the problems that they face. Therefore, I am not sure how we could box the support into something that is easily tracked funding-wise and service-wise.

I wonder whether an organisation such as NHS Quality Improvement Scotland could draw up helpful guidelines as opposed to our saying that acquired brain injuries should be seen as a specific field with all the funding following it, because I think that some of the funding would come from local authorities and some from the health service. Given the difficulty in tracking money through the health service, would it be better to say what the outcome that we want is rather than, "This is the badge and this is the funding"?

As a carer, I would like to illustrate the problems that exist. The problems are hugely complex for carers. The patient—the person for whom one is caring—is treated in a neurosurgical unit in the acute phase. From there, they are moved to their local hospital, which may or may not have a brain injury policy—it may have a head injury policy but not a brain injury policy.

The person for whom one is caring could be placed in a short-stay surgical ward that wants to put patients through quickly, even though they have a long-stay problem that might last for months, with the result that they are viewed as a bedblocker because they are affecting the ward's statistics. There is a desire to get such patients out and, although the staff all work hard, with the best will in the world, they have no facility for looking after or managing people who, by that stage, are agitated rather than critically ill. Accidents happen—people fall out of bed and break their jaw, for example. Efforts are made to move such patients into rehabilitation.

Age discrimination is another problem. Some units will not take people who are over a certain age. The idea of rehabilitation is to get people back into the community. The title of the excellent unit in Glasgow is the physically disabled rehabilitation unit. However, brain injury is not just physical. Although support staff are available to deal with other aspects, the injury is treated basically as a physical disability, but it is not a physical disability—it is a brain injury, with all the problems that go with that.

There is huge pressure on the beds, so hospitals want to move patients with brain injuries out into the care of the local authority. There are 14 health boards and 32 local authorities. Some have fairly good policies for handling traumatic acquired brain injury, but some have none at all, so the level of care that someone will get is a lottery—it is both a postcode lottery and an age lottery.

I have not even mentioned the problems that arise if the person for whom one is caring is employed. What agencies should one refer them to? If they are bringing up children, there are all sorts of long-term problems. It is not a question of being let off after a couple of months. We are talking about a separate condition. The number of people who have it is large—others here can tell you how many people have it. Once one becomes involved, one realises that it is a hidden epidemic in our society. Trying to get other services to fund treatment for and look after people with acquired brain injury is not the answer. If the petition is taken up, we will at least be able to find out what the real problem is and to put in place appropriate care programmes, so that even if the care that people with the condition get is not the best, it is at least appropriate. That would be a great help to those who look after people who have a brain injury.

Forgive me for not being present for the opening statement. You have emphasised your experience of the process. As your campaign evolves, do you feel that you are getting anywhere with any senior decision makers or do you feel that you are just going round in circles?

I can speak only from my own experience. A group in Glasgow tried to put through a plan for dealing with acquired brain injury, but it was not funded, so funding is an issue. I would not say that it is possible to make great progress. It is pot luck—one needs to see the right person at the right time or to be told about and referred to bodies such as Headway or Momentum. Some people say that it took them 18 months before they got the necessary advice. That is not the way to handle a large group of patients. The figure that I have is that 275 people a day are seen for head injury and 45 of them get admitted to hospital, but head injury is not brain injury. People who have brain injuries are haunted by problems years after they acquire the injury. The problems remain with many people for the rest of their lives.

You are articulating an issue that we have encountered whenever we have dealt with health issues, which is that the pathways of information are so haphazard that if we were to find ourselves in the situation that you have faced, we would not know where to go and would find out what to do only through luck or opportunity. We would not have a sense of what could be done.

There will always be a resource allocation issue in the health service, as we all recognise. The issue is how to reduce the barriers of trauma and assist people in their emotional struggle in the most traumatic circumstances, so that they can deal with the reality of their injury. We need to do better there. It is not sufficient that, in 2008, whether someone gets a basic level of information depends on who they are or whom they know.

I also get the impression from our papers that we are not collating the right information in the right place. How can a patient identify what to do next if the information about where the appropriate resources can be accessed is not even catalogued in the right place? Even if someone finds the money, where would they put it if they did not know the evidence base and did not know how resources are allocated?

Those are the two things that struck me as important, having read the papers. You may wish to add to that.

Acquired brain injury needs to be recognised for what it is. It covers a lot of different things. Many hospital patients are not given any outside services. They are not given any help. Patients sometimes come out of hospital and are just told, "Bye." They might go around looking for help, going from one service to another, but always being told to go and see a different one. Each time, they are just looking for one type of help, but that is not being recognised.

Let us try to pull the discussion together.

I do not have any questions for the petitioners. It has been impressed on me that this is a classic case of what we are here for. Sometimes I wonder what we are talking about—that is not meant to be critical of people who bring their issues to us—but Helen Moran has put a whole range of issues in front of us and has basically said that the health service does not really know how to deal with them. Perhaps it could deal with them, but it is not doing so at the moment.

This is a classic case of a petition that we need to refer to the Government and the appropriate minister, and a few other folk as well, so that they can talk about an issue that has been brought to us but which we do not technically understand—I do not, although Nanette Milne, who is professionally qualified, might well do—and which requires somebody's professional skills, mind and time. The issues need to be drawn together, no doubt in consultation with the petitioners, so that a scheme might be drawn up to make things better.

We are all in agreement with that. Paul Martin has expressed a similar view.

It is important to consider what has happened to Helen Moran and other people—to carers and patients who have had similar experiences through their own journeys. Helen Moran has set out her experience clearly and publicly and has said where she thinks that there are failings in the system. The approach is quite clear, and we need to ask where we need to improve the system.

It is sometimes a matter of basic information. How do people interrogate the system? For instance, Momentum might be available to provide a service, but should it be by accident that people find that out, or should information be provided in a more sophisticated manner as the patients are being treated? If the Government could commit to carrying out a more detailed piece of work, as Nigel Don has suggested, that would at least be a start.

The campaign will continue, as Helen Moran and others try to improve people's experience. Their work will serve as a legacy for others; they are trying to ensure that other service users in the same position have an improved experience, through some simple reconfigurations of the service.

Some of the measures that are needed are basic, such as providing a manual to families who find themselves in a similar situation to that of Helen Moran. It could list the organisations that can support them through the process. I do not believe that that is a difficult step to take. It would not have required significant resources to provide Helen with a manual or some sort of information brochure saying what help she could get from the national health service. That should have been provided, and such information should be made available without the need for the Parliament to carry out any studies about it.

I now invite suggestions on what to do next with the petition. The discussion has been helpful for us in deciding how to proceed. Nigel Don has said that we should communicate the concerns that the petition has raised directly with the appropriate minister. That will be done.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the consultation that the managed clinical network is carrying out. I presume that you do not know when the report is likely to be made, once the consultation is over.

I have October 2008 down as the date.

The consultation closes at the end of October. We intend to revise the standards in November and publish them by January.

That will be useful.

The MCN has also been carrying out a mapping exercise across all health board areas in Scotland. It is not high-tech research, but it gives us an idea of the different pathways that exist across the country. We hope to have that available in November.

That, too, will be useful.

We should communicate with some of the key organisations that provide assistance in this area, for example Headway and Momentum, and perhaps two or three others. Are there any other organisations that members wish to suggest?

I would be keen to hear what the health boards have said. Given that the mapping exercise is now going on, however, we might wish to wait until that is completed, rather than write to individual boards. It would be good to find out what facilities are provided by the different health boards.

Are there any other suggestions?

Perhaps NHS Quality Improvement Scotland.

Okay. We need to explore the matter with a range of health agencies. We should get the information from the managed clinical network. We should write to the minister and the health department for their assessment of the situation and of the gaps that exist. Specific questions are raised in the petition, which we can pull together as we make our inquiry to the minister.

A strong emphasis, which has been amplified by Paul Martin in particular, has been put on the issue of the availability of information at the initial stage for anyone who finds themselves in these circumstances. Are there any other strong suggestions?

Of interested parties to contact?

Yes.

The Association of Directors of Social Work.

It is always useful to ask. Sometimes we might omit an organisation that might be able to participate to great effect.

Unless you define the entity, which is what the petition is calling for, it is not possible to work out a care pathway, as exists, for example, in the excellent breast cancer programme, or for heart disease or diabetes. A definition of acquired brain injury as an entity is required, so that it can be processed.

We will build that expectation into whatever inquiry we make. We will say that we want absolute clarity and attention to be paid to how information is gathered. As I said earlier, there has not been a time when a health petition has been presented and someone has not said that we do not have the necessary data or information, or that it is not categorised in the right place. It is hard to be specific about things if that is the case.

Your experience could be said to be absolutely specific. You are describing the reality from the point of view of users—those who experience, or rather do not experience, the level of service that we would hope for. We will make sure that that point is clearly made in any correspondence or communication that we send on your behalf.

Could we also write to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers? The trust might be able to give us an insight into the problems that carers face.

I hope that this has been useful. This is just the beginning stage of the petition, however, and there is a long way to go as we raise the issues that you have presented to us. Following the presentation today, and with the opportunity that the clinical networks present, there is a chance to tackle the issue. I am sure that the committee members who have expressed their interest and concern about the matters that you have raised will be happy to continue to pursue them.

I know that this has been a long afternoon. Thank you for your time.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

---

Free Public Transport (Under-16s) (PE1174)

I thank the public and committee members for their patience. We move to new petitions on which we will not hear verbal presentations. PE1174, by Juliana Wolkow on behalf of Holy Cross high school secondary 4 pupils, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide free public transport for all under-16s who have no income.

Do members have suggestions for dealing with the petition? As usual, we received the petition in advance of the meeting, so we are aware of the issues that it raises. I look to our younger committee members—I am sorry, Nanette; I was not being cheeky. How do we feel about the petition? Does any member have strong views?

As an older committee member, I think that the petitioners have a point. Young people tend not to have an income, but they nonetheless have to pay bus fares. Could we write to ask the Scottish Government what plans it has—if any—to consider the matter? We could also write to Young Scot, which has petitioned the committee and has a good strong voice on young people's behalf. I am keen to hear what that organisation has to say.

As a Green party member, does Robin Harper have strong views on the petition?

Are we looking at petition PE1174?

Yes.

My view is that free public transport for everybody would be quite nice, but I do not have a strong view on the petition.

The Government has manifesto commitments on access to public transport by different cohorts in society. A commitment has been made on finding measures for people who are in full-time education post-school and a commitment was made to the scheme for older people and to considering extending that to people with disabilities and so on. That has been explored, so the request in the petition is not unreasonable. However, cost is an element and the proposal would have to be compared with other priorities.

We will write to the Scottish Government. I presume that the pupils have written to the Scottish Youth Parliament—do we know whether they have done that? We should refer the petition to the Youth Parliament for its consideration, as I would like it to be filtered through that debating chamber. I would also like to write to Transport Scotland about the cost basis and whether such a commitment would provide value for money.

The world is a very big place and I was just wondering whether there are parts of the globe where people of different ages get free transport. Someone could look up that data and find out whether there is a comprehensive review of what goes on.

We will ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to do a paper.

Yes; maybe SPICe are the right people to do a search.

Those are reasonable suggestions to deal with at this stage.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Historic Building Listing (PE1176)

The next petition, by Thomas Ewing and Gordon Prestoungrange, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to provide a right of appeal against decisions by the Scottish ministers, following advice from Historic Scotland, not to list a historic building and to review the criteria used to list such buildings to ensure that the value that a community places on local heritage assets is fully reflected, and that buildings can be considered for listing even when a planning application affecting them has been submitted. Are there any suggestions about how to deal with the petition?

We need to do some exploration on this petition this afternoon rather than come up with any firm views.

It is very strange when an application is made on a building and then, all of a sudden, Historic Scotland takes an interest, says that the building should be listed and puts a listing on it that curtails any development or restricts the type of development that was proposed. I do not like the idea, but that is what happens.

There is also a problem when a building is not listed but a lot of local people want it listed to prevent it from being demolished.

The petitioner has other options. The petition is new to the committee but it is not dissimilar to one or two others that have popped up about the role that Historic Scotland or Government guidelines can play. We should write to both the Government and Historic Scotland. Are there any other strong views?

We could write to the Royal Town Planning Institute.

Okay. Anyone else?

Forgive me, but I plead ignorance. I do not really know what organisations deal with this kind of thing. I presume that there are sets of people who worry about our architectural heritage—it is almost a matter of finding the right list. I guess that this is an opportunity to write to everyone who is on the standard list, wherever that is.

Okay; we will do that. Is that all right?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Radiation (Genetic Effects) (PE1177)

The next petition, by John Connor, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out research into the genetic effects of radiation for all Ministry of Defence radiation workers and to investigate whether child clusters exist in those parts of Scotland where nuclear submarines were, and currently are based.

Are there any initial observations on the petition?

John Connor is a constituent of mine and he has contacted me, along with other Fife MPs and MSPs. He is very concerned about the issue and he has been feeling a bit frustrated with the process of getting it resolved. It is fair to say that he remains unsatisfied with current research.

The papers that John Connor has provided show that his main concerns are the health of MOD radiation workers and childhood clusters near nuclear installations. He gives details of a report on Rosyth that shows

"a trend in risk with distance from the plant"

which does not seem to have been resolved. That is one of the areas that still vexes him. The covering note to the petition says that ISD Scotland is carrying out research into childhood clusters and their distance from Rosyth. It would be worth trying to find a way to pursue the issue within Scotland. I appreciate that the issue is reserved and devolved, but the petitioner feels that he has been passed around a bit over the years, so if we can make progress, it would be much appreciated by him.

From my reading of the papers—as someone who has no great specialist knowledge—it strikes me that it is worth seeking further information before the committee takes a firm view. Obviously, the MOD is a reserved matter, but the health implications for folk in the locality are clearly a devolved responsibility. If the evidence base suggests that such radiation has an impact, the devolved health service and support services would be affected by that.

It would be useful to seek further information from ISD Scotland to see whether any effect is reflected in the statistics. We should also approach the Health and Safety Executive, which covers not just Scotland, but the United Kingdom. It might also be worth our while—this suggestion is missing from our papers—contacting the main union, given that most of those places were unionised. I should perhaps declare an interest in that my brother is a convener of Amicus—now part of Unite—but it would be worth exploring whether the union's stewards and works conveners have found such impacts. Given that asbestosis became an issue from the 1990s onwards rather than in the 1950s when the buildings were constructed, there might be latent health impacts whose outcome is still to be seen.

It would be useful to gather that information before we determine whether the issue should properly be addressed by the committee or referred to Westminster.

We should also ask the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment for a summary of its conclusions. We are informed that the issues were considered by COMARE, but I do not know how deep that consideration was.

Are members happy that we explore those issues with the appropriate core agencies as well as with the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the trade union?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Wind Farms (Moratorium) (PE1178)

PE1178, by Professor Dixie Dean, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to call a moratorium on all wind farm installations until its chief scientific officer has completed consideration of their mechanical vibration long-term impact, the implications for planning regulations and the need for research into such impacts.

On the issue of timescale, we can perhaps defer consideration of this petition until we come to PE1104. I have just realised that my notes point out that PE1104 is very similar. Can we deal with both petitions at the same time?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Further Education <br />(Students with Complex Needs) (PE1180)

For our final new petition today—I should be courteous here, because he can determine whether I am on my best behaviour in the chamber—I welcome Alex Fergusson, who has joined us in his capacity as a constituency MSP. Presiding Officer, I am not offering any quid pro quo, but I will show tremendous courtesy, as we are meeting prior to question time this Thursday.

PE1180, by Tom and Josie Wallace, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that students with complex needs are supported in achieving further education placements and that appropriate funding mechanisms are provided to enable such placements to be taken up.

Given that we have been joined by the Presiding Officer—as always, I am his humble servant—I ask him whether he wants to comment on the petition.

Convener, it is good to know that you know which side your bread is buttered on, but let us see how this goes. I am grateful to you for allowing me to comment briefly on the petition.

Mr and Mrs Wallace, who are constituents of mine, drew this problem to my attention some time ago. They are by no means the first constituents to draw the issue to my attention. I should point out that Mr and Mrs Wallace have made the long journey from Wigtownshire to be here today and I am sure that the committee will want to welcome them. They are in the public gallery with their daughter.

Mr and Mrs Wallace have a son, Thomas, who is now 19 and has very complex educational needs. During his school education, he was provided with a considerable amount of support, which is what we all agree should be the case. Like all children with complex needs, he went through a process of assessment for his further needs. During that process, the steer given—if I may put it that way—was very much that, on leaving school, Thomas would benefit best from residential educational facilities and support. Indeed, it was with that expectation that his parents went forward.

On leaving school, all children, but particularly children with complex needs, undergo a transition from being under the umbrella of an education department to falling under that of a social services department. It has become obvious to me and, vividly, to Mr and Mrs Wallace and the others who have contacted me about the issue, that there is a great difference in the support that is available and the assessment procedures when people leave the education department and come under the social services department. In Thomas's case, the assessment that was put in place suggested that local facilities were adequate to attend to his needs and, in effect, all thoughts of residential accommodation were put to one side.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the procedures, the result is that a set of parents who expected to receive a certain sort of support, including educational support and access to facilities, in this case residential, had their expectations dashed by the procedures in social services. They were left to fend for themselves, whereas previously they had been given every reason to think that they would be supported and helped through the process. That is a real issue. There is certainly an issue about local government departments not communicating properly with one another. That could be addressed locally, but the Government could take a lead on ensuring that cross-communication between departments takes place and that parents' expectations and hopes are not dashed in that way. Obviously, Mr and Mrs Wallace will do everything that is humanly possible for their son, but I like to think that the system could have done an awful lot more and did not have to put them through the heartache that they have been through.

With those remarks, I leave the matter to the committee's deliberation. I hope that members will take the petition extremely seriously.

That clarified your experience of the process that you went through on behalf of your constituents. In the petitioners' additional submissions to us, they clearly set out the processes that they experienced that made it almost impossible, if not impossible, for their young son to continue his educational experience, which should be a right for everyone in Scotland.

We want to explore a couple of issues. We need to find out about the mapping exercise. I note with interest that several elected members have been addressed on the issue, which raises the question why we have not been able to encourage local authorities to share expertise and opportunities. One local authority might find it difficult to find resources, but why cannot there be a willingness to exchange? In exceptional circumstances, the costs could be shared equitably if there was a mechanism for that. In all my years of public service, I have not seen a case quite like the one that the petitioners have raised. I am sure that that is true of most other members. It is unfortunate that a young boy has been denied access to FE when he could cope with it perfectly well if he was given the right support.

Members want to explore a couple of issues.

I find the case disturbing in this day and age, when we are trying to provide equal opportunity for all. A couple of years ago, the Equal Opportunities Committee produced a lengthy and significant report on disability and access to education and other opportunities in life beyond school. I wonder whether there is anything in that that might be of help. I do not recall the detail of the report, but it might be worth looking at it.

I ask Alex Fergusson about his experience of dealing with the local authority. Was the situation basically driven by cost?

Without any doubt.

So the issue was not that no practical experience was available; it was that putting together a package would have been too costly for the authority within its budget.

I can safely say that, when the matter came within the social services rather than the education budget, cost became a considerable factor.

We will have to interrogate that issue. Cases such as this are exceptional, but any big budget within an authority could absorb the costs if they could be allocated within the structure. It can be a case of getting a nod and a wink from various folk at different budget levels within government, to say that things can be done without much difficulty. That has been people's experience.

The usual expectation of a student going to university is that they will get residential accommodation. I cannot remember the exact figure, but hundreds of thousands of students automatically get residential education, but here we have a case of one student who desperately needs a residential education but is being told that none is available. We should take this issue very seriously indeed.

More than one case exists; I have three cases similar to this one. The set of circumstances here is not unique. The facilities are there, but it is a question of resourcing the placements at those facilities, which is expensive.

The petitioners have raised extremely concerning issues. What shall we do next?

Can we not find out why such a difference exists between the provision in different local authorities? One would think that there would be a yardstick that would apply to all local authorities. A lottery should not decide who gets funding and support and who does not.

An additional complication for local authorities might be location and isolation. However, two or three authorities in reasonable proximity might come together and say, "We will share the burden, so that whenever any family in our areas requires residential support, one of us will be the host but all of us will share the cost equitably." Government could then respond to that, recognising that flexibility would be needed within social work budgets when there were exceptional circumstances. It is not beyond the wit of people to sort this out if they want to. We will have to ask people in Government, directors of education and directors of social work about the efforts being made. Reports tell us that people are supposed to be sharing knowledge and expertise more and more. This type of issue is surely a key example of where expertise has to be shared. It is quite right that a child should get support at school, but why should it be that, as soon as he or she hits 16, support is not allowed? That is not equitable.

Mention has been made of the Equal Opportunities Committee's report that covered special needs. We can explore what the previous Government did, and what the new Government is doing, on the recommendations in that report.

Education, education, education—that was the motto of the previous Government, wanting to educate the nation. When a student has needs for their education, our Government should do its best to provide whatever that person needs, so that they can get the education that they want.

The clerks have told me that, not that long ago, there was a funding mechanism whereby some costs could be absorbed when local authorities and training boards were in partnership. Some felt that, from an educational point of view, that was not the best model and I understand—although I will apologise if I am wrong—that it has fallen by the wayside. A mechanism was there but is no longer there, and no alternative has been developed. We are therefore in limbo and people are not getting the support that they should be getting. We will need to unravel that.

We will take on board what members have said, but someone should be able to pull together a grouping of folk to try to find a way forward.

This will not be the only area in which much would be gained if small groups of local authorities got together to provide services that would be too expensive for a single authority. Several authorities could combine to provide high-quality services of the kind required.

So they should aim for a version of the historic concordat with each other.

We have identified one of the big issues, which is about financing the courses. The other issue raised by the petitioner is about whether there is sufficient provision in Scottish colleges. I understand that in the petitioners' case the son will have to go to the north of England for the quality of setting that he requires. I see from our notes that there has been a mapping study of the further education available to students with profound and complex needs within Scotland's colleges. When we agree to write to the Scottish Government and other agencies, we should also ask about the level of provision in Scottish colleges and what steps will be taken to make progress on improving it.

We have pulled our ideas together and will contact the FE and college sectors about provision and liaise with the Government and other agencies including the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, as the matter falls between those two agencies' areas of concern.

What about sending a note to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?

Yes, there has been a mapping exercise in local government so we can ask COSLA whether it is issuing any guidelines or recommendations on taking a collegiate approach, whereby local authorities share the cost of a single resource within a reasonable geographic distance that meets the needs of that part of Scotland—as Robin Harper mentioned.

Alex, do you want to suggest anything else?

No, I am grateful for the committee's deliberations and for what you propose to do. I will point out only one thing: we all know about the educational facilities that exist through the colleges and other means; it is support outwith the residential educational facility that is lacking. I am grateful to the committee for the time that it has given the matter.

Can we write to the voluntary sector groups? In my area, such groups help people get into work and provide one-to-one assistance. A voluntary sector group that has a view on the matter is probably out there. It might have an answer to our questions, but we need to find it first.

Okay, we have identified a range of individuals to approach. I thank the petitioners for their patience this afternoon. As they know, it is a journey and a half to get here. We will not hesitate to raise your issues through the petitions process and I know that your constituency member will be assiduous in pursuing them on your behalf too. Thank you.