Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is all that I wanted to know.

I would always encourage the minister to be as green as possible, convener.

I agree with Alexander Stewart. In the letter, we could point out that redress and enforcement aspects remain reserved to the UK, so that it is clear that our remit is constrained.

We could also refer to the fact that there has been a previous petition, and briefly append that petition and set out the outcome and the reasons therefore. Although I am keen to hear from Universities Scotland and NUS Scotland, we may well, when we hear from them, find ourselves in a rather similar situation to that of our predecessor committee. We owe them a hearing, but we should not raise expectations too high that we may not be able to fulfil.

This is a problem of access to justice that seems to be growing. I am aware that the Scottish Government intends to introduce a legal aid reform bill and an uplift of 10 per cent to legal fees. That is welcome as far as it goes, but it is a serious matter for someone to be unable to access legal aid at all. No access is effectively justice denied.

I think that we should write to the Law Society of Scotland to seek its view on the action that the petition calls for, and for information about its campaign on access to legal aid, in particular as it relates to people with disabilities. We have a duty to explore that aspect.

We should also write to the Scottish Legal Aid Board to ask whether it intends to undertake a monitoring report on access to legal aid for people with disabilities and if not, why not. We have a duty to ensure that that particular category of vulnerable people has access to justice, and we need to find out what barriers there are. It could be useful to provide that information to the Scottish Government in order to inform its intended law reform and perhaps influence that process down the line.

I have, from time to time, sat in on children’s hearings and have been very impressed by the evident care and thoroughness that have been shown. Perhaps I was shown the best ones—I do not know—but I suspect that the people on the panel were very experienced. I was certainly very impressed.

What, in particular, are children’s hearing panels not doing that they should be doing, and how can that be corrected? Is the reporter to the panel not pursuing certain aspects, or is the panel itself failing in certain ways? Can you be more specific about that? We will want to make recommendations about what precisely should be done. We have received evidence on a wide range of things.

We should keep the petition open. Quite obviously, these are very important matters to the petitioners and to people in this part of Scotland. I represent the Highlands and have been known to mention other roads—

We should encourage the current First Minister to meet Callum Isted—although perhaps not in Bute house, given what you have said, convener. I am sure that the First Minister would like to do that.

We should also seek from the minister an assurance that she will request information from each local authority on water provision in schools. Specifically, we should seek some detail on the methods of provision and how sustainability requirements are met.

In addition, it occurred to me that it would be remiss of us if, in our letter to the minister, we did not specifically invite her to refer to and describe her response to Callum’s petition and if we did not ask local authorities, first, whether they would wish to be part of a national procurement scheme that could implement the petition and, secondly, whether that would be more efficacious in providing a reliable and continuously available supply of water to children. The minister said that the provision of water is up to schools, and they do that in different ways—for example, through water fountains. Often, however, such things do not work or are not available when somebody wants a drink of water.

Everybody knows that it is handy to have a bottle of water. You can take it everywhere with you and keep hydrated all the time. Hydration is important for children, but most of them do not really realise that. That might be a patronising remark, but there is a risk that they do not appreciate how important it is to be hydrated in order to be alert and able to concentrate.

There is a big difference between a water fountain that might be available for several hundred kids—

So there are two issues.

That is really helpful. You have clarified that extremely well.

The other issue is supervision orders. Will you expand on that? You made only a short reference to that, so I am not sure how significant it is. I had a quick look at the definition of supervision orders, and they seem largely to be part of the criminal sentencing world rather than the social work and care world, if you see what I mean. I am not an expert in this area and I was a bit puzzled, because supervision orders seem to be issued by children’s hearings. There is provision for supervision orders to be made in respect of adults as well, but that is very much in the context of sentencing.

Okay—I will move on. Time is short and I want to cover three brief but important issues.

The British Glass federation advised that the scheme would result in a diminution—a reduction—in the amount of glass recycling into new bottles and jars. The reason for that is that there is no remelt target and that Biffa has procured and will use crushing machines, which means that the glass will be crushed into fragments so small that they cannot be recycled into bottles or glass. That means that the carbon saving that comes from recycling into bottles, which is 580kg per tonne, will be reduced to around 4.5kg per tonne, which is a reduction in carbon savings of more than 99 per cent.

Given that, back in 2017, Zero Waste Scotland estimated glass recycling into bottles and jars as being between 70 per cent and 90 per cent, is there not a serious concern? British Glass’s advice was taken by the UK Government, which then exempted glass from its proposed DRS. You do not set the policy, Mr Harris—I understand that—but you will operate it. Is there not a real concern that the scheme will result in less recycling of glass, not more?