Public Petitions Committee, 02 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 2, 2001

Official Report 245KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

Less Favoured Areas Support Scheme
(PE372 and PE384)

The first two petitions are PE372 from Mr Robert Epps on behalf of a group of farmers and crofters from Islay and Jura and PE384 from Mr Eddie Nicol on behalf of those involved in the agriculture industry in the Shetland islands. At our previous meeting, we agreed to wait for a response from the Scottish Executive to both petitions and to reconsider them. We also agreed to pass a copy of the petitions to the Rural Development Committee and the European Committee for their information.

We have now received responses from the Executive and from the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions. The CPMR hopes that the Scottish Executive will carefully consider valid representations that are made in the form of petitions. In its reply, the Scottish Executive gives an account of its efforts to ensure that the whole of Scotland was given an advantage under the less favoured area scheme. It argues that it cannot change the scheme without renegotiating the agreement with the European Commission. Its response shows that negotiations to secure even the current agreement were difficult.

The Executive believes that, although the current scheme is not perfect, it goes at least some way towards compensating livestock farmers in disadvantaged areas of Scotland. We must consider whether the Executive's arguments are reasonable. If they are, we may agree to pass copies of the responses to the petitioners and to take no further action. However, if we do not agree with the Executive's response, we may wish to refer the petitions and responses to the Rural Development Committee for further consideration. I am the first to admit that I am not competent technically to decide whether the Executive's line is reasonable.

Well, this is really a political matter. A rotten deal was negotiated and I believe that to change from headage to acreage in areas such as I have represented will cause absurd hardship and will probably lead to people abandoning crofting. The matter was badly negotiated. I do not always accept the views of ministers who say that it is difficult to renegotiate. It is certainly difficult if no one tries, which is often the situation. I was involved in such matters for 24 years. I am completely critical of the change.

When Mr Ross Finnie has had the matter put to him in Parliament, as has happened many times, he has said that this was the best deal that he could get. He shows no inclination to want to point out the hardship that has been caused. I do not know how we can deal with such a nakedly political matter. Some, but not all, farmers are compensated. If we are to accept the suggestion, can we explain to the European Committee that the policy is not working out in the interests of peripheral areas and that the matter should be renegotiated with Europe? As the European Union is meant to defend peripheral areas—and often does—the matter should be put to it again.

The outcome is that the matter should be referred to the Rural Development Committee, with a recommendation that it consult the European Committee about whether the deal could be renegotiated.

I agree with Winnie Ewing. Let us put the matter to the European Committee and tell the Rural Development Committee that we have taken such action. That will speed things up and it will mean that we do not have to wait for the item to come up on the Rural Development Committee's agenda and for that committee to agree to take action.

One committee will have to take control and consult the other committee. Which committee will it be?

The matter should go first to the European Committee. Are we just to lie back and, without even trying, say that nothing can be done?

I am just seeking views.

I assure the committee that the Irish state does not just accept matters. It renegotiates and usually ends up with what it wants.

The Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, has already taken evidence on the matter. I think that the responses should be put to European Committee and copied to the Rural Development Committee, given that the issue is already on its agenda. The issue will then take priority.

I am tempted to go the other way. Problems with the agreement arose because of the initial dillying-dallying approach to discussions with Europe on the less favoured areas. The agreements were a hotch-potch, but it is my impression that the overall intention in Europe is to move towards area, not headage, status. I have an interest in such matters, in that I come from the south of Scotland and there are benefits to the north and north-west of Scotland that the south and south-east of Scotland do not receive. Those areas are basically losers under the agreement.

They are not exactly peripheral.

They might not be peripheral, but they have less favoured farming land. They are probably the biggest sufferers under the agreement.

I doubt that.

The claims are coming from the north, which has both winners and losers. I believe that those with the relevant expertise are members of the Rural Development Committee. I do not understand what the European Committee can achieve, given that it will be difficult for it to establish the lines on which it has to go forward with respect to any change in the agreements.

To clarify matters, what aspects does the committee want the European Committee to consider?

We want the European Committee to consider whether the agreement can be renegotiated.

Phil Gallie's point was well made. The Rural Development Committee has the matter on its agenda, so we could send the information to that committee, asking it to continue but recommending strongly that it consult the European Committee about the possible renegotiation of the deal. Does that satisfy the committee?

Okay, d'accord.

It is a case of trying to renegotiate not the agreement, but the distribution formula that has been adopted by the Scottish Executive.

Yes, that too.

Is the committee satisfied with the action that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

Criminal Injuries Compensation (PE375)

The next petition is PE375 from Mrs Elaine Crawford, to which Dorothy-Grace Elder referred at the beginning of the meeting, which deals with the review of the criminal injuries compensation procedure and policy.

We agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive. The Executive has provided details of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, explaining that the scheme was placed on a statutory footing in 1996. The scheme is administered by a cross-border public authority under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 and can be amended only by the Home Secretary, although he is obliged to consult Scottish ministers who do not have priority to amend the scheme for Scotland. Given the reserved nature of the legislation under which the scheme operates, Parliament would have no power to change it even if, after further consideration, it believed that a change was justified.

The Executive has also made clear that, within the rules of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, there is no scope for Scottish cases to be brought entirely under Scottish control and considered differently from those in the rest of the UK. I suggest, therefore, that the committee agree to copy the Executive's response to the petitioner for information. The committee should also agree to copy the petition to the relevant UK Government minister and ask him to respond directly to the petitioner on the issues raised.

Dorothy-Grace, are you able to report further progress?

I spoke to Mrs Crawford yesterday. She said that her appeal seemed to have succeeded but that she did not know how much would be paid.

The original stance of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was to give Mrs Crawford absolutely nothing because her husband had tried to chase away the people who then murdered him. She told me that the board is making an offer, although I have yet to find out what the full amount is.

Mrs Crawford is not in a good state of health. When I talked to her yesterday, she said that she would face eviction from her mother's house some time within the next few weeks. Her mother has died and she does not have the housing co-operative's permission to be in the house. However, she had to flee her own house because it was in the same area as the gang that had killed her husband. It is a terrible situation.

We should refer the case to the UK Government minister who has the power to do something. We should ask him to write to the petitioner and to the committee to explain what action he is taking.

This case is emotive and I have tried to remove myself from the emotions of it and to consider the wider scene. It is a UK situation and we are talking about criminal injuries.

I recognise that there is only a loose connection, but one of the things that annoys people is the comparison between the settlements in criminal injuries cases and some of the weird and wonderful settlements in industrial tribunals south of the border. Could that be identified as an issue?

Sentencing policy, which is a matter for the Scottish Executive, was also raised in the original petition. The Executive's response does not refer to the sentencing policy.

We considered sentencing policy in previous petitions.

The matter is reserved and we have to pass it to the responsible UK minister, but given that Mrs Crawford petitioned the committee, the committee needs to be kept informed of the outcome and how the petition is dealt with finally. If we are not happy with the outcome, we can reconsider the case.

We should not accept the stonewall approach, which says that such cases cannot be dealt with in Scotland even though they are Scottish cases. We are not asking for advantageous terms over England. Many people in England have also not been well treated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Surely to goodness it would be much more efficient to handle Scottish cases in Scotland.

That is an argument for constitutional change, which should be made elsewhere. As the law stands, the matter is reserved. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 is a UK act and it deals with all cases in the same way.

I recommend that we pursue the petitioner's case with the UK minister, ask to be kept informed and then decide whether we are happy with the outcome.

Can we do that urgently, given that the petitioner is threatened with eviction?

Should the Minister for Social Justice get a copy?

The Minister for Social Justice does not have any remit in terms of criminal injuries compensation. As an individual, you could raise the question of eviction with the Minister for Social Justice. However, the UK Home Office will not be interested in that. It will only be interested in the law and the award of compensation.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next paper is an update on the changes in the progress of petitions.

Time is pressing, so if anyone has points to raise on the paper, they can consult the clerks later.