Public Petitions Committee, 03 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 3, 2004

Official Report 339KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Broadband Technology (PE694)

Petition PE694 is from Alan Gordon Kennedy, on behalf of the Machars Broadband Action Group. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure provision of broadband facilities to all communities throughout Scotland by the middle of 2005. Members might wish to note that before it was formally submitted, the petition was hosted on the e-petitioners site, where it gathered 383 signatures.

Alan Kennedy is present to give evidence on behalf of the petition. He is accompanied by Wes McGregor and Alex Fergusson MSP.

Mr Kennedy, you have three minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will ask you some questions.

I quote, with his permission, words that Andrew Charlesworth, the editor of "PC Advisor" magazine, wrote in February 2004:

"Just as the free flow of goods along transport links created wealth in the 19th and 20th centuries, the free flow of information through the telecoms infrastructure will create wealth in the 21st. As workers and consumers, we need broadband internet access in the same way as we need roads".

In my petition, I have called for action to advance broadband availability across our country. Some six months ago, I knew virtually nothing about broadband. The frustrating inability to get broadband in my extremely rural area in south-west Scotland in order to continue with my DNA research project led me to set up a community campaign. Now, after a lot of work, we are to have a managed community wireless network served by a satellite link that covers two towns and their outlying areas. It will be cost effective and technically sound.

The involvement with that campaign made me aware that there were communities all over Scotland that wanted broadband but were unable to make sense of the many hoops that they had to jump through. The response to my petition indicates the strength of that community frustration right across Scotland and beyond.

I believe that the case is made for something to be done now and I hope that members will want to know what I propose. There are four points. First, the Executive needs a much more innovative and imaginative approach to publicising all aspects of broadband. The television message about broadband that is currently being screened is generally seen as dreadful and quite ineffective. Many people—even those with computers—are still totally unaware of its benefits or of the alternative ways in which they can get it.

Secondly, British Telecommunications must be dissuaded from exploiting its monopoly hold on the network and incentivised to work with other service providers to bring broadband in by means other than sole utilisation of the BT network. An example would be reducing costs dramatically on leased lines to wireless network users, which would allow competitive community networks to operate where satellite or cable services are not suitable solutions.

Thirdly, communities that want broadband must be given simple but effective advice on how they can get it. That would include advice on how to assess the service options, how to gather support and how to implement fully managed systems. At present, such advice is pretty much not available or is poorly communicated when it is available. We need to discourage potential and existing users from viewing BT as the sole provider, as registering with BT simply reduces the choice and competition factors. In addition, BT seems wholly unable to respond to the technical challenge within reasonable timeframes.

Finally, the Scottish Parliament should present a more united front in declaring its support for broadband. It must actively encourage and educate local authorities and institutions in the added value brought by broadband. The Executive should give grant funding or tax incentives to enable all broadband service providers to tap into new technology and develop networks reaching out to the farthest-flung communities and dwelling places. That funding must be specific and focused, with clearly understood and defined outcomes within defined timescales. The objective should be to ensure that broadband can be offered by mid-2005 to all Scottish communities seeking it. That can be achieved, but it needs a mindset change in some areas to achieve it.

I would very much appreciate a couple of minutes of the committee's time. First, I commend Mr Kennedy, who is a constituent of mine, for highlighting the matter in this way. In my capacity as convener of the Rural Development Committee in the previous session, I was involved in producing a report on integrated rural development and some of the major barriers that prevented rural development, particularly economic development. One of the major issues that emerged in rural Scotland was the lack of availability of broadband access.

Many of us in rural Scotland have argued for the whole lifetime of the Parliament that there was logic in putting broadband into rural areas first, to allow them to have a level playing field with their urban competitors. That has not been the case, and the result of the BT target-setting programme—which is very difficult to achieve in some of the smaller communities, such as that from which my constituent comes—is that we have a piecemeal approach in rural Scotland. We can contrast that quite vividly with the situation in Northern Ireland, where there is a Government-backed initiative, which has now gone out to tender and which will give every single person in Northern Ireland access to broadband. That is a completely different approach from that taken here in Scotland. Frankly, if it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be more than good enough for Scotland. I commend the petition to the committee and hope that you will look sympathetically on it.

I am generally quite supportive of the principles underlying the petition. However, when we look at the debate on the petitioner's side, there seems to be a focus on BT rather than anything else. The views that we have been given today are slightly different from those contained in the original petition. In particular, Mr Kennedy, you have made comments about satellite broadband and wireless networks that I do not think reflect people's experience of using them. I am privileged to represent an area that has access to wireless networks, in Helensburgh, Garelochhead and the Rosneath peninsula. Wireless networks are very effective technically and very cost effective. Could you clarify that you are not looking at BT exclusively but are considering much wider ways of enabling the technology in all parts of Scotland?

I am glad that you raised that point. I am not in any way technically capable of assessing the rights and wrongs of all the systems. I come from a background that did not have broadband and I have learned a little bit about it.

Everything that I see and read as a layman leads me to believe that wireless is the way forward. It is interesting to note that Japan has now moved to having more wireless networks than cable or land-line networks. Our area has chosen wireless because it best suits our needs, quite apart from the problems that we might foresee in hitting BT's trigger figures—some of which do not exist.

I am a keen advocate of wireless networks, but I believe that they need a helping hand. That is why I mentioned leased lines in my submission.

That is helpful. Thank you.

I support the idea of rural communities having equal access to broadband and other technologies. However, I would probably disagree with your emphasis in how that could be achieved. I do not necessarily agree that increased competition is the way forward. I support referral of the petition, but do you agree that your petition's aims to improve access to broadband in rural communities might be better served by a democratically accountable, publicly owned telecommunications firm that could ensure that it was not only the central belt that was favoured?

I hear where you are coming from, but I will take broadband any way I can get it. If wireless networks are the way to go, then I will go that way. If BT had been willing to put broadband in, I would not be here today. I am not here to advise one technical solution or another; I am here as a simple guy from a rural area who sees no hope of getting broadband. At the moment, we cannot get digital television or radio. The one way in which we could compete is with broadband. I do not care where it comes from or who provides it; I just want broadband, now.

I support the concept that you are promoting. I represent a rural area where many places are devoid of satellite communication because of the terrain and the geography. How are those more rural areas going to be served? BT and other providers suggest that the technology is available but the infrastructure is not able to provide the service. What are your thoughts on that?

My thoughts are based on what I read, hear and learn. The technology is advancing so quickly nowadays that, whereas six months ago we were talking about a wireless network needing a 2km to 3km range, equipment is now available that can go much further than that—up to 10km or 12km.

We are also probably not making as much use of leased lines as we could, mainly because of the prohibitive cost of something like £15,000 to provide a leased line that would serve a community with broadband. I do not believe that we are tackling such issues in a joined-up way to assess the best value for each community. There are solutions available now in the technical marketplace, but we have to be much more conscious of them.

I am also content to support the main thrust of the petition. I notice that the KA postcode in Ayrshire accounted for the second-highest number of supporters of the e-petition. I also have a certain affinity with Newton Stewart. Do you have details of the current numbers of people who have signed up to broadband in the Newton Stewart area? You said that the trigger figure is now 500 instead of 200.

I am pleased to be able to say that, after a hard campaign, the Newton Stewart area has achieved the BT trigger figure of 500. The problem is that BT cannot install broadband for another six to eight months, by which time Newton Stewart could have had a satellite wireless network.

I am also pleased to tell the committee that over the next fortnight a wireless broadband system will begin to operate in Moffat. Other areas such as Sanquhar and Kirkconnel in the south-west, which is my principal concern, are not too far behind with wireless networks.

We have also set up a south-west Scotland users group to try and help these small communities, because there is no format for people who want to set up a network. One either goes through BT or does what I did and finds out how to get a network installed. We want to help these communities, which is what the users group has been set up to do.

In that case, do you agree that given the pace at which wireless technology is advancing and given that we are talking about 400 or so communities—which represent less than 2 per cent of Scotland's population—it is a little unfair to blame BT entirely for not having covered those communities so far? Indeed, those communities might in future be covered by a form of wireless technology that is more effective than installing broadband in most remote rural areas.

You have made two points that I must respond to. First, I have suspicions that BT is cherry picking areas where wireless technology might otherwise come in. There have been some indications that in areas in which people have sought to set up wireless networks BT has immediately found that the trigger figure has come down. Indeed, the gentleman in England who supports a project called RABBIT—or remote area broadband inclusion trial—which is introducing broadband across the rural areas of England, and who advises the Department of Trade and Industry on the matter has commented that, as soon as someone mentions a wireless network in a certain area, BT comes in and there is suddenly a change in the trigger figure.

I think that competition is healthy. I also think that BT cannot do everything and that it needs to be encouraged to reach areas that it does not reach. However, I am concerned that BT's alternative technologies are not being sufficiently explored. For example, it is only just now considering wireless networks. Its exchange activate scheme, which is an alternative to broadband, has many weak points and gives a not very satisfactory service to a limited number of viewers. As a result, I am concerned that we are not getting the message across to BT that it needs to do more. I do not think that we can rely on it.

I point out to members that the Enterprise and Culture Committee launched an inquiry into the roll-out of broadband in Scotland on 28 January. As part of the inquiry, the committee will consider issues that the petitioner has raised and has indicated that it would like to invite him to give evidence. I therefore suggest that the committee agrees to refer the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for its consideration and to give the petitioner the opportunity to feed directly into the inquiry.

I agree. Although I acknowledge the concerns that the petitioners have raised this morning, I would like to balance their position by pointing out that on Monday Scottish Enterprise gave a presentation on this matter at which Christine May, Ted Brocklebank, Murdo Fraser, I and all the other list and constituency members in the Mid Scotland and Fife region were given a whole raft of facts and figures. Many of us represent rural areas; in fact, I have the privilege of representing Ballingry, which was the first area in Scotland to receive wireless technology. As a result, I am very familiar with many of the issues that have been raised.

In its presentation, Scottish Enterprise presented figures and graphs that showed that as a result of its advertising campaign over the past year the take-up and growth of broadband had suddenly changed from a steady curve upwards to an almost vertical line. That seems to be down to much of the action that organisations such as Scottish Enterprise and BT have taken. We should remember that there are many other providers throughout Scotland, particularly in the urban areas, such as the cable people. We are four-square behind the petitioners. They are right that broadband is the right way forward to achieve growth and economic development throughout Scotland, but I hope that they agree that many of the agencies throughout Scotland are doing a tremendous amount of work to support that.

Do we agree to send the petition to the Enterprise and Culture Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Alan Kennedy for his attendance.

---

Street Prostitution (PE705)

Our next petition, PE705, which is in the name of Alan J Beatson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to address the problem of street prostitution in residential areas. I welcome Alan Beatson, who is here to give evidence in support of his petition. He is joined by Susan Deacon MSP, who I understand will say a few words in support of the petition. You have three minutes, after which we will ask questions.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

We live in a typical community of about 400 households; there are probably thousands of such communities in Scotland. Members of the committee probably all belong to similar communities. We come from a cross-section of society—members of our community include just about every type of person imaginable, such as dentists, social workers, bus drivers and parents. We are all very busy—we have our careers, we are parents and we have to pay our bills—but the quality of our lives has been damaged so appallingly, even destroyed, that for six months last year, 60 people were prepared to go out with posters two nights a week for a total of eight hours to reclaim our streets peacefully.

Members of the committee have busy lives, just as we do, and I would like them to consider what it would require to provoke such a strong response from ordinary people. That response alone shows how severe the problem of street prostitution, which began in Leith Links in 2002, has become to one local community. That is the petition's origin.

I will not go through how the community has been affected by street prostitution, because time is short. I can summarise it best by saying that, in a sense, we lost our community. Our community was besieged, our civil rights were compromised and we could barely leave our houses without molestation; the situation was so extreme that we were forced to take the action that I described.

The petition asks the Parliament and the Public Petitions Committee to do a number of things. First, it asks them to acknowledge the fact that there is a gap in the law in relation to street prostitution. In England and Wales, there is legislation that makes kerb-crawling illegal. That does not apply in Scotland. It is obvious that the failure to have a workable legislative framework for dealing with the problem has led to the enforcement authorities applying different standards in different parts of Scotland. The situation needs to be reviewed and brought within a legislative framework. That is the business of the Parliament.

We want to emphasise a number of points. First, it is obvious to everyone in our community—and in similar communities—that kerb-crawling is the main, underlying problem. If the problem of kerb-crawlers was attended to, the prostitutes would have no clients. That would be the best solution. In some countries, notably in Sweden, kerb-crawlers receive punitive fines. Such measures ought to be considered in Scotland. We are also concerned not only about the threat to the safety of female residents in our community and in other, similar communities, but about the vulnerable position of the prostitutes themselves. Something should be done in a co-ordinated way to help to rehabilitate prostitutes. For example, nearly all of them are heavy drug users and they should be helped to get off drugs.

Time is short, so I have summarised the petition and I hope that it will gain members' attention and support. I should say that action is already being taken in Edinburgh and that the Executive's expert group on prostitution is considering the issue. However, we cannot afford to wait for years for a decision, because in our community and in similar communities, there is a crisis situation that must be attended to.

Thank you for hearing the petition that we have presented.

I welcome the opportunity to add to Mr Beatson's comments. First, I thank the committee for hearing the petition and I join the Leith Links residents association in asking the committee to consider street prostitution and its impact on communities.

I acknowledge that there is a huge range of views on the issue, even within the residents association. I am one of the constituency members of the Scottish Parliament who has been dealing with the matter and I have had many discussions with various agencies, including statutory bodies such as the police and health and social work, and with organisations such as the Scottish prostitutes education project, which supports women who work in street prostitution and more widely in the sex industry in Edinburgh.

There are different views about what can and should be done, but I think that everyone is united in saying that the current situation is unsatisfactory and in acknowledging that when there was an informal tolerance zone in the city, we did not have such problems and that the situation was better, calmer and safer for everyone concerned, both in the local communities and among the women who work in street prostitution. Anyone who has grappled with the issue, as local residents have done and as I have done as their representative, knows that the issue is difficult, for practical reasons and because people have different ethical and moral perspectives on the situation. However, the simple message that I convey to the committee is that we must do better than we are currently doing.

As Alan Beatson said, the City of Edinburgh Council has taken forward work at a local level. It is important to note that point, as the committee and the Parliament would not want to deal with matters that are, rightly, better dealt with by local agencies. However, the City of Edinburgh Council has acknowledged that a gap remains at national level, in relation both to the legal framework and to other policy areas in which we might strengthen our approach.

The Executive is taking forward the work of the expert group, which is considering the legal framework, among other things. I note that there are different views on the Scottish legal position on kerb-crawling and on the efficacy of changing the law. However, my simple message is that we must take the issue seriously and address it at both national and local level. We must do everything in our power to ensure that communities' needs and interests are addressed—Alan Beatson set out the issues, concerns and problems effectively this morning—but we must also address how the women who work in the sex industry can best be supported. I hope that, through the petition, there will be an opportunity to add momentum and draw attention to this important issue.

I thank Mr Beatson and Susan Deacon. I am familiar with the issue as I sat on the Local Government Committee in the previous parliamentary session, when it took evidence on Margo MacDonald's Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill. As members know, the bill is going through Parliament again. Perhaps this particular issue sparked off Margo's bill.

I want to ask you some questions on community policing. In your submission, you mentioned pimps acting in a threatening way, pulling out knives and so on, and you mentioned kerb-crawling. I agree that the position on kerb-crawling in Scots law should be changed. What type of policing do you have in your area?

The police have many big issues to deal with. It is ironic that the local police station is on the fringes of Leith Links, which is the area in which the prostitutes have been active. The deployment of police in that part of Edinburgh stretches right across the northern part of the city all the way to Portobello, and it is obvious that the police have limited resources. We have meetings with the police every couple of months and we bring the problems to their attention. They are now considering antisocial behaviour orders in relation to the problem, as is the city council as the legal enforcer—that is a positive way forward and it is being undertaken.

The police do not have the resources to deal with the problem because they have many other things to do as well. It is obvious that, because there is no legislative structure that is applicable to the problem, different police forces give it a different order of priority in different parts of Scotland. Anecdotally, we hear that the law is applied much more strictly in the west than in our area. That is part of the chaos and lack of conformity that exist around the problem.

As a community, you are entitled to proper policing. Has anyone been attacked and, if so, has it been reported to the police that there have been attacks by pimps? Such attacks are assault. Would proper policing in the area solve the problem, or do you think that a prostitution tolerance zone would be the best way of doing that?

When we started our patrols nearly a year ago, the police were not terribly supportive, to be honest. I think that they saw us as a potential cause of a breach of the peace, and we had a lot of problems getting their support. We would see obvious soliciting taking place and we would phone in, but we would be lucky to get a car many hours later. Of course, the police have perfectly legitimate excuses—if there is a major robbery somewhere else, the problem that we report is a relatively low-level problem to them. However, the police have increasingly responded to the problem. Last April, they started foot patrols, which have certainly helped. Prior to that, we had at most one or two cars operating throughout this big area of Edinburgh. Since the issue has been getting a much higher level of publicity, it is clear that the police are responding much more quickly and they are taking it much more seriously.

There have been incidents. People have been threatened. I was involved in one incident in which a group of heavies drove up to us in a car and shaped to threaten us. If five other people in another patrol had not arrived, there was a serious danger that we would have been beaten up. We were intimidated.

People have been threatened with knives, but by the time that the police are contacted, the opportunity for action has passed. The police station may be very near, but it is not manned for much of the time. However, the situation is improving because the level of publicity has made the police much more conscious of the problem.

Would prostitution tolerance zones be one way of solving the problems that people are having with redevelopment, or would more policing solve such problems?

I certainly think that more policing would help. The police should realise and accept that the problem is serious because people's liberties are being compromised. People have left the area and people cannot leave their houses for fear of being accosted or asked for sexual favours. At one time, the police did not take the problem seriously enough, but they are taking it more seriously now. However, the problem still exists and further action is needed.

Our residents association, which has more than 100 members, is divided on the issue of a tolerance zone. There are arguments for tolerance zones, but many of us think that such a zone must be kept within its bounds because if prostitution spreads outside the zone, the problem will be much worse. Many people see the value of having a tolerance zone, but, to be honest, they are concerned that such a zone should not be too near to them. In the community in question, which has suffered severely in the way that has been described, many people are not keen on a tolerance zone being anywhere near them. They do not feel confident that the problem will diminish as a result of the creation of such a zone, and they think that a zone might attract people—including sex tourists—into the vicinity, which could worsen the situation.

I thank you for presenting your case. I have a few questions to ask.

An interesting debate is taking place throughout the country and I detect some contradictions in what you ask for in your petition, which I would like to tease out. I suppose that a person's analysis of what prostitution is affects their solutions. In defining the problem, the petition says about street prostitution:

"In an increasingly liberal age there is less need for this practice".

Where did you draw that conclusion from? I see prostitution as predominantly the abuse and exploitation of women by men. Such abuse and exploitation are increasing, no matter how liberal we have become.

How would tolerance zones and the criminalisation of kerb-crawling fit together? The petition mentions Sweden. Kerb-crawling is criminalised there, but prostitutes are decriminalised and supported out of prostitution. Will you comment in more detail on the relative merits of both approaches? Can a tolerance-zone strategy sit with a strategy of criminalising the men who are involved and decriminalising the women who are involved?

I will deal with your final questions first.

For a tolerance zone to work, there would have to be strict policing outwith the zone; otherwise, the zone would have no boundaries. We have discovered that one area in Leith that the police designated as a potential tolerance zone did not work because people moved out of the area into Leith Links or an area where there are little gardens, car parks, stairs and other places where they would not be disturbed. There is not a contradiction in saying that the area outside a tolerance zone must be policed properly.

It is obvious that kerb-crawlers and pimps exploit women. I mentioned briefly that it is essential that women receive proper help with rehabilitation and support to reconnect with society.

You talk about the increase in the number of antisocial behaviour orders against women and about more stringent use of the soliciting laws against them. What is your view of the idea of decriminalising the women, even beyond tolerance zones, and criminalising the men?

On my part, rather than on the part of the residents association, I support that because the problem is that kerb-crawlers and pimps exploit the women. It is said that pimps keep women on drugs as a means of exploiting them further and increasing their dependency. Speaking personally, I feel that the decriminalisation of prostitution would be a good way forward, provided that action is taken against the men who are part of the problem. As Carolyn Leckie suggests, it is essential that resources should be given to help women to reconnect with society and to get off drugs.

Street prostitution is different from what happens in saunas, which is on the fringes of the law, because street prostitutes who are on drugs would not be acceptable in any institution. That is why they are on the streets and why they are particularly vulnerable. Carolyn Leckie mentioned our point about society being more liberal. That means that there should not really be a need for street prostitution, because the law is flexible enough to allow alternative opportunities.

One of the problems is confusion about the legislation, which must be examined, tidied up and clarified so that people know what the situation is. The breach of the peace and soliciting laws are applied differently; the fact is that nobody knows what the situation is—it is chaotic.

The petition tells us that

"In late 2001 unexplained and unilateral action was taken in ‘withdrawing' police recognition of"

a zone

"in which street prostitution flourished without hindrance."

A new zone was "unofficially suggested" and no consultation was conducted with interested parties, including the local community. Was that decision made by Lothian and Borders police, by the City of Edinburgh Council or by the two in conjunction?

Councillors and other people whom we have asked have informed us that the decision was taken unilaterally by the police. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected, but that is our belief.

Perhaps Susan Deacon will be able to explain, but I find it incomprehensible that the police could think that moving the zone from an industrial area to a residential area would ever be a positive step in any way.

One has to put the situation in context. For want of a better word, it could be called the gentrification of Leith. Coburg Street has been a tolerance zone for 30 or 40 years.

So the zone was an industrial area that became in part a residential area.

Yes. New houses and flats were built and the residents objected to what was happening outside their homes.

Perhaps I could direct this question to Susan Deacon. I still find it surprising that the police or the council made no attempt to warn local residents of what was happening. It is fairly obvious what public opinion would have been, if they had canvassed it. Did consultation happen at all?

It is important to remember that the previous tolerance zone was an informal tolerance zone. The crux of the debate around Margo MacDonald's member's bill is whether we should legislate for tolerance zones to be recognised under the law.

The situation in Leith was, and is, altogether less clear cut than might otherwise be the case, and it has grown up over a number of years. When something is not formal or official, it is difficult for official decision-making processes to change things. A range of circumstances relate to the move away from the zone, including Alan Beatson's point about housing development taking place in the area. For the purposes of the committee's debate, however, there is too much detail to go into on the circumstances behind the issue.

The important point to make is the one that I made earlier—everybody in the area and the various organisations that are involved say that the situation has dramatically worsened for all concerned since the informal zone ceased to be in place. I want to try to be very upfront in what I say in my plea to members this morning.

I recognise the wide range of views on the issue. Those views are to be found in the local residents association and around the committee table today. I understand absolutely why people want to question the residents association on its analysis of what should be done; I have questioned some aspects of that analysis myself. However, I do not question local residents' experience. Over the past couple of years, the situation has been intolerable. Our job as politicians is to try to steer a course for the future that makes the situation better.

I do not dismiss for a moment some of the detailed questions that are being asked. I am happy to discuss the issue that Mike Watson raised in greater detail outside the committee room. The Local Government and Transport Committee has looked at the history of the Edinburgh tolerance zone. In simple terms, I am saying that, if we strip away all that detail and all the historical analysis, the key questions for us relate to where to go from here and what can be done at national level to better the situation for residents of Leith Links and other areas that might be similarly affected in the future.

It is important that we listen to the experiences of the petitioners, but we have to consider what the petition is about. It asks the Scottish Parliament to examine the issue and to try to make progress on it.

An expert group has been established to consider the issue, the Local Government and Transport Committee is examining Margo MacDonald's bill—its consultation process began yesterday—and the City of Edinburgh Council will be keeping an eye on the situation. There are a number of directions in which we can send the petition.

It would be helpful to get an update from the expert group on prostitution, so that we can find out what it is doing with regard to the specific issues that the petition raises. It would also be helpful to send the Official Report of our discussion to the City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian and Borders police. I am supportive of the concerns that are being raised. My constituency does not face a comparable problem and I feel for the people of Leith and everyone who is involved in the situation.

We could pass a copy of the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee for information, given that it is considering Margo MacDonald's bill.

I wholly endorse everything that the petitioners ask for. I think that their requests are entirely reasonable and I give them my full backing.

I would like to know how the request relating to antisocial behaviour orders would work. It might be too technical an issue to deal with today, but I have doubts that that would be an effective way of dealing with the problem. Legislation on kerb-crawling would go some way towards solving the problem.

The petitioners might be aware of the approach that is taken by Glasgow City Council—basically, it is one of zero tolerance—and I wonder why they do not think that that is an appropriate approach for Edinburgh. If that policy were introduced and enforced in Edinburgh, that would provide another means of dealing with the issues that the community faces.

There is no clear legislative framework and, as a result, each community has developed its own culture in terms of policing, local government and social work policies. The situation is too complicated to say simply, "If the council in Glasgow has a severe policy, why can't the council in Edinburgh have the same policy?" The cultures of the two cities are different.

Nature abhors a vacuum and, in the absence of anything else, each community has developed its own way of dealing with the problem. It is not easy to import a change of attitude into a situation that has an established way of dealing with a problem. The police in Edinburgh have viewed the problem in a certain way for a long time and the police in Glasgow have seen it in another way. A policeman from the west of Scotland whom I met had a totally different view of this matter from ours. I do not want to go as far as saying that Edinburgh is a liberal city with different traditions from Glasgow, as that would impugn Glasgow in a way that I would not wish to do.

The problem must be examined from the top down. It is no use telling the police that they should suddenly start acting in a way that they have not acted in the past. We have had meetings with the police at which we have been told that they cannot apply the law any differently. I have met senior police officers from Glasgow who say that they have the capacity to use the current law in a way that allows them to deal with the problem. What do we do?

The use of ASBOs and a number of other issues that have been raised this morning were addressed in a written report that was produced by Edinburgh's multi-agency expert group, which has been referred to. That report might be of interest to this committee or to anyone else who is considering the matter. In the chamber, I told the minister that the work that is being done in Edinburgh to address the problems should be considered at national level.

On the point about ASBOs, quite a lot has been done by the community in the past couple of months. People have been keeping diaries and so on in an attempt to prepare the way for the orders to be served in the community. The people on the ground who are involved in the measures are confident that they will provide a way forward.

What do you mean when you talk about the "people on the ground"?

I am talking about people who have problems outside their houses. Prostitutes linger on some street corners because they are highly visible and, if your house is on such a corner, you literally have a problem on your doorstep, if not in your stairwell. People who are exposed in that way are keeping diaries and records because they recognise the women involved and their pimps. The keeping of such diaries is an essential prerequisite of the serving of ASBOs. I cannot give you details, but a lot is happening in that regard.

I understand absolutely the petitioners' desire for a national framework. It must be dreadfully frustrating not to have that. However, I would question the idea that Glasgow is less liberal or has a more severe policy than Edinburgh, on the basis that what is important is not the actions that are taken but the underlying analysis. If you think and believe that prostitution is about the exploitation and abuse of women—as many in this committee do—you have to ask whether our society should tolerate that. However, that is a debating point for the Local Government and Transport Committee.

On that basis, I support Helen Eadie's suggestion that we communicate with the expert group on prostitution to find out whether it is examining the areas that the petition covers, and that we refer the petition, for information, to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which is considering Margo MacDonald's Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill.

There is a group in Edinburgh called SCOT-PEP, which exists to support the women, but its funding for education and rehabilitation has been withdrawn. SCOT-PEP is in a very exposed position: there is a fine and difficult line between supporting the prostitutes and supporting them in prostitution. Many of the local residents are very concerned that that line is being crossed.

Are members happy that we take the action—

Convener, can I add—

I really do not want the discussion to go on for longer, unless what you wish to say will bring us more information that will help us. I will give you a bit of leeway.

I agree entirely about where the petition should be sent, but could the Official Report of our meeting also be sent to the Local Government and Transport Committee? A lot of interesting stuff has come out with regard to the tolerance zone. That is all that I wanted to say.

That will happen as a matter of course. Every time that we send anything to a committee, we also send the relevant part of the Official Report for information.

The issues are complex, and we do not have sufficient time to come to any conclusions about the action that is required. I support the referral of the issues that the community has raised to the various other committees, and we should follow the progress of the expert group. However, I would not be comfortable at the moment with Helen Eadie's emphasis on giving support to the action points in the petition. The issues around criminalisation, decriminalisation and tolerance zones are extremely complex, and they require thorough debate. I do not think that it would be helpful for this committee to take a position on those issues.

That is fair enough. If we pass the petition to the Local Government and Transport Committee and to the expert group, without any recommendation, I am sure that they will look into the issues that it raises in the course of scrutinising Margo MacDonald's bill. The expert group has a very wide remit, and is examining all aspects of the social issues relating to prostitution. I am sure that it will take on board our discussion this morning. Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thanks very much for your time, Mr Beatson.

---

Travelling Show People (PE698)

The next petition is PE698, in the name of Jane Rodgers, on behalf of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, Scottish section. The petitioner calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to introduce a national policy for travelling show people. Philip Paris is present to give evidence in support of the petition.

Welcome to the committee. You have three minutes, after which we will ask questions.

My name is Philip Paris and I am the chairman of the Scottish section of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. There are another nine sections of the guild and our main, or central, office is in London.

The main reason for the petition is that, since devolution, most, if not all, of the matters concerning our business and our way of life are now governed by the Scottish Parliament. We think that the Scottish Parliament should consider adopting a national policy for travelling show people.

We have a number of issues. First, there is a shortage of suitable areas for use by travelling funfairs. Many sites have been lost due to redevelopment, and not enough consideration has been given to alternative sites.

Secondly, between 1982 and 2003 every Scottish local authority started to require travelling funfairs to have a public entertainment licence. However, there is no consistency across the country. For instance, fees for a licence can be £25 in East Lothian but as much as £600 for exactly the same thing in Ayrshire. There are also great differences in the information that each area requires before it issues a licence. There is, at present, no requirement in England and Wales for a similar licence for funfairs. Public entertainment licensing is going to be introduced in England and Wales, but it will be for regulated entertainment only and will not include fairgrounds. In the past, we have asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for help, but to no avail.

Thirdly, there is a need for affordable permanent sites for showmen's depots that both cater for residential caravans, which we need, and have space for parking fairground equipment. Maintenance of the equipment is essential to meet health and safety requirements.

We are fighting for the acceptance of circular 22/91, which we are told is not valid in Scotland. The circular was issued by the Department of the Environment to give guidance to planning officers, and it explains what is required by showmen. However, we have been told that there is no intention to introduce a similar document in Scotland.

We can provide evidence that circular 22/91 has assisted both showmen and planning authorities in England in dealing with applications. We do not accept the view that showmen's applications should be dealt with under paragraph 26 of the Scottish Executive's planning policy SPP 3, which deals with the accommodation needs of Gypsy Travellers. We are not Gypsy Travellers; we are a totally separate community. We regard ourselves as small businesspeople, not an ethnic minority. Permanent sites would assist in the education of our children and would provide security for our old and retired people.

We have major problems with the way in which we are perceived by the general public. We would like the Executive to assist us in making people more aware of the type of people that we are and of our way of life.

I understand that Gypsy Travellers and show people are entirely different and that, therefore, their needs are different. The letter that accompanies the petition talks about the education of children and the welfare of the elderly, but your presentation was predominantly business focused. I understand entirely what you are asking for from a business perspective—permanent sites would make your life easier and would make it easier for you to operate across the country. They would satisfy your call for circular 22/91 to be applied equally here. Would it be fair to say that, although there would be positive spin-offs for children and the elderly, your primary purpose is to secure changes to the framework that would make doing business easier?

I do not agree with that at all. We are travelling show people; we provide family entertainment throughout the country. It would be helpful in a business sense if it were easier to get a licence. I cannot see how the need for sites and the education of our children is necessarily connected with the business side of things. We are a community and we wish to remain so. Most travelling show people can trace their ancestors back at least 100 years, and probably more.

Today we are asking for our children to be better educated than they have been in the past. Unfortunately, although there are various schemes for the education of occupational travellers, there is no substitute for children being in the one place and attending the same school. That is what my children have done, but it involves a lot of travelling back and forward from wherever we are operating in the country. We are looking for more permanent bases where we can leave our family behind and operate as travelling showmen, while our children would attend the same school and have the same opportunities as every other child.

However, we need to be able to pack and maintain our equipment. Circular 22/91, which is one of the main issues that we are discussing today, was issued to explain to planning officers—and whoever else we were making an application to—the needs of travelling show people and that we have dual-purpose sites that are different from Gyspy Traveller sites and other sites. We are not talking about exactly the same sites, but that does not mean that planning policy has to change. We are asking for guidance to be introduced. We cannot produce it here, but we have evidence of planning appeals by showmen in which the reporter has quoted circular 22/91 to support his conclusion. We are asking for something similar to be introduced in Scotland.

Thank you for coming to speak to your petition. There is a reference in our papers to an on-going dialogue with the Executive. Will you explain how that is going and tell us whether you are getting anywhere and whether anything productive has come out of it? You said that you see yourselves not as an ethnic minority, but as a community. However, you are raising equal opportunity issues in respect of children, elderly people, access to services and education. Do you agree that the issues that you are raising relate to equal opportunities, or does your belief that you are a community rather than an ethnic minority bar your petition from being considered under an equal opportunities heading?

We are definitely a community. People in our community have lived in caravans all their lives. When the elderly people retire they do not wish to move into a house; they wish to remain among the people with whom they have lived all their lives, which tends to be on a showmen's site. Families look after their elderly mother or aunt just the same as do people in any other community. We do not see ourselves as an ethnic minority; we are Scottish or British people. We are not immigrants or something different. We live in caravans because we operate a business that travels about. I could provide you with a definition that states what a travelling show person is and what a Gypsy Traveller is. I have nothing against Gypsy Travellers, and I do not wish to sound derogatory in any way, because they have their own problems. The point that I am making is that there is a difference between Gypsy Travellers and show people.

We have been writing to various MSPs for more than two years to try to get something done. At Westminster, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee produced a report on travelling fairgrounds, throughout which circular 22/91 is mentioned. People in Scotland who were making applications thought that the circular was valid in Scotland, but they were told that it was not. I have spoken to Brian Donohoe MP, who was one of the members of the committee. He told me that the circular is not valid in Scotland and that now that we have the Scottish Parliament, not much of the committee's report would apply to Scotland. We are looking for recognition of Scottish travelling showmen. If the circular is good enough for showmen in England, it should be good enough for us in Scotland too.

Last year, we raised all these issues in two meetings that we had with two gentlemen—Paul Smart and Jon Owens—from the equalities unit. At the second meeting, we heard the answers that had been sought from the various departments, including an answer on the circular from the planning authorities. The person from the planning authorities said that we should be dealt with under paragraph 26 of SPP 3. When we looked into that, we were not happy because that would put us in with Gypsy Travellers, whereas we are not Gypsy Travellers.

There are definitions for these things. If you look at previous discussions that local authorities in England and Wales had about how to accommodate Gypsy Travellers, you will see early on in the paperwork that travelling showmen are not included. Putting us into the category of Gypsy Travellers goes against everything that has been published since then.

I want to tease out some of that. Do you see yourselves as a community that is discriminated against?

Yes.

Would you be happy for your issues, concerns and demands to be addressed under the heading of equal opportunities as long as you were treated separately from Gypsy Travellers?

Yes. I am sorry if I have gone round the houses.

I want to clarify a couple of things, Mr Paris. I see that you are a member of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. Do travelling show people from Scotland travel to England and vice versa?

Yes.

Do you benefit from the guidelines for the part of the working year that you are in England and Wales?

If you are talking about parking sites, most Scottish show people use parking sites in and around Glasgow.

Sorry—I think that you misunderstood me. When your shows are in England and Wales, do you benefit from the guidance to planning officers that is contained in circular 22/91?

Circular 22/91 deals with parking sites, not the operation of fairgrounds.

I see. However, if the guidelines are available in England and Wales, I see no good reason why a similar facility should not be available in Scotland. The committee should highlight that issue.

Where I have slightly less sympathy with Mr Paris is the letter from Jane Rodgers that outlines the five points that you want adopted as national policy. Apart from the third point, which is about the operations of fairgrounds, all those points would apply equally to the needs of Gypsy Travellers, as far as I am aware of those needs.

I can appreciate the difference between show people and Gypsy Travellers, but if I was asked to explain the difference between them, I would probably say that Gypsy Travellers live in poverty whereas show people do not. That seems the most obvious difference. Another difference is that travelling show people tend to be more warmly received than Gypsy Travellers in the areas that they visit.

There is a misconception here, in as much as the needs of travelling show people and Gypsy Travellers are very much the same. Both communities need a place where they can stay for as long as they need to while they are in an area, and both need access to education and so on while they are in an area. Although I can understand why you want to draw a line between show people and Gypsy Travellers, I am not sure that it is helpful for that line to be too finely drawn, given that the needs of both communities are in many ways similar. Do you accept that?

There are many similarities between the two groups, but we promote ourselves as small business people. We pay our taxes. I stay in Glasgow just now, where I pay my council tax and am on the electoral register. I am not a homeless person or a person of no fixed abode, although that is how the general public perceives us.

My perception was that, almost by definition, travelling show people have no fixed abode. Are you saying that travelling show people tend to have a permanent address but travel around in the course of business?

Unfortunately, that is not widely known by the wider community. If someone wanted to insult me when I am operating my business—to put it bluntly and without wishing to swear—they would call me a Gypsy so-and-so. For a start, I am not a Gypsy.

I also want to ask about your discussions with the Executive. Our papers suggest that the Executive is keen to maintain an on-going dialogue in order to resolve the issues. Carolyn Leckie might have asked this question, but I did not hear the answer clearly, so will you say whether you think that that on-going involvement with the Executive is likely to resolve the issues?

We were supposed to have a meeting with the Minister for Communities, Margaret Curran. However, one of our members wrote to the First Minister to raise many of the same issues that I have raised today. He had previously written to Margaret Curran, but her reply more or less repeated word for word what we had been told at the meeting that was attended by the gentleman from the planning authorities. She seemed unwilling to go into the wider issues.

Are you saying that the meeting with Margaret Curran will not now take place?

We hope that it will. We have been advised to submit this petition today as a result of some of the meetings that we have had in the past.

I am somewhat confused about the terms used in the first five points in the letter received from the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. The first point relates to the need for "permanent dual purpose sites". Are such sites needed for storage and accommodation, rather than as a location for operating the fairground?

Such sites are needed not for operating but for our equipment, which is central to our livelihood. In many cases, people are unwilling to be separated from it. Traditionally, we have lived on sites with caravan or chalet accommodation and a separate area that is used for the storage of vehicles and the essential maintenance of equipment.

Based on what I have seen on the roads when showmen are in transit, there can be a substantial amount of equipment. The showmen will not need a small site, therefore.

It does not have to be a massive site. We tend to need a number of smaller sites rather than fewer large sites. That seems to be the preferred option.

If the sites are approved, would the guild wish to have one in each of Glasgow, Stirling, Perth and Aberdeen? That is quite a demand.

I estimate that 90 per cent of Scottish showmen are based in Glasgow. We have a major problem because one of the main areas in Dalmarnock is due for redevelopment. An interdepartmental report produced by Glasgow City Council states that more than 1,000 show people are living on sites in Dalmarnock and that their relocation will have to be considered at an early stage. We sit on a working group but, having attended a number of meetings, we have yet to be offered any alternative sites. Work will start at Dalmarnock within two years. Some of the sites are rented from the council, but many of them are owned by those who live there and have full planning permission for the use to which they are being put. We have been told that they will be in the way of the development and that those affected will be offered compensation or alternative sites. We are still waiting to find out where the alternative sites will be.

Much of the pressure on the city of Glasgow would be relieved if a policy was in place to assist showmen in acquiring planning permission elsewhere in Scotland. It took more than two years for me to be granted planning permission for a site in Motherwell, although I eventually received permission for where I want to be. Most showmen live in Glasgow because there is a perception that Glasgow City Council is more used to dealing with show people. When we go to other areas, we find that our circumstances are alien to people there, who immediately think that our children are unwashed and do not go to school. We seem to be placed in a certain category. I am here today to seek assistance in promoting our small businesses. We are not the type of people that many others consider us to be.

I appreciate that. Point 4 of the letter from the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain states that when traditional fairground sites have been developed or lost for one reason or another, you require alternative sites. You suggest that you should be given a site for permanent occupation—for storage and so on—and also a site on which to operate the fair. If you consider a small town such as Perth—or any other town that you care to mention—you are asking to be allocated a substantial piece of territory for your profession.

Sites on which we operate fairs and permanent sites are two separate issues. In Wishaw, Hamilton, Dumbarton and elsewhere—the list is endless—what has tended to happen is that although the fairground traditionally operated, sometimes twice a year, on pieces of common land, supermarkets, shopping centres or leisure centres have now been built on the land. It is often difficult to find an alternative site that is within reach of the public, who we need to attend the fair, and alternative sites tend to be on the outskirts of the town, whereas the original site was central.

Can I get recommendations from members on what we should do with the petition?

I have a genuine difficulty. I thought that I was being helpful to Mr Paris when I said that, predominantly, I see the petition as being about a set of clear business needs rather than a matter that raises wider equality dimensions and which should therefore be an issue for the Equal Opportunities Committee.

From my perspective, the petitioners are looking for action to address the shortage of suitable sites, action to address the licensing regime and action to deal with permanent sites, fixed as dual-purpose sites under planning guidance. The consequence of doing all that is that there would be the stability showmen currently have for their children and elderly people. The way into the matter is very business focused, in which case I would dispose of the petition differently than if it involved equal opportunities issues. Mr Paris rejected my earlier notion, and I am at a loss as to how to dispose of the petition.

I can see where Jackie Baillie is coming from. The petitioner talks about getting acceptance of circular 22/91 into Scottish Executive planning policy, so we should send the petition to the committee that deals with planning issues. However, the issue also relates to providing assistance for a business community; in effect we are talking about a travelling business, so the petition raises travelling enterprise issues. If we want to generate and encourage renewed development, we should consider a mixture of issues—societal issues that are to do with the welfare of showmen's families and business issues. It is hard to say whether we should just send the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee. If I was going to send the petition anywhere, I would send it to the Communities Committee, which deals with planning issues. However, we should first write to the Scottish Executive to get its feedback. Perhaps we could also ask for guidance from the Scottish Executive, because my perception is that the petition needs to go not only to the Equal Opportunities Committee but to other committees.

In my community in Fife—I know that Philip Paris comes to Fife because we have met before—we have quite good facilities, although they may not be ideal and perhaps they could be improved.

I suggest that, in the first instance, we write to the Scottish Executive, because we should reflect on any good practice that exists.

It might be useful to ask the Executive for its views on the guidance that operates in England and whether there are proposals to mirror that guidance in Scotland.

Further to that point, Mr Paris states in his submission:

"We have been told that there is no intention to introduce a similar document in Scotland."

We should ask the Executive why that is the case.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for that. I also thank Mr Paris for attending.

With that, we have considered all the petitions in relation to which petitioners have attended the committee to speak this morning.

---

Pyroluria (PE706)

The next petition is PE706; I have been dreading this one all morning, because I know that I will mispronounce "pyroluria". The petition was lodged by James A Mackie on behalf of the Overload Network and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that national health service boards recognise, diagnose and appropriately treat pyroluria. Pyroluria is a genetic condition, which can be diagnosed through urine analysis and which can result in symptoms such as severe mood swings, short-term memory problems and depression. The condition has been linked to schizophrenia and can be treated with zinc and vitamin B6 supplements. The NHS information and statistics division does not currently collect data on the incidence, prevalence or treatment of the condition.

Do members have any suggestions about our approach to PE706?

As there is no one here to speak to the petition, should we simply write to the Scottish Executive to ask it to comment on the issues that the petition raises? I confess that I have never heard of the condition, so perhaps we could ask the Executive whether it has information about how widespread it is. We could also ask the Executive to comment on the adequacy of the treatment that is provided.

I agree with Helen Eadie's suggestion. We should ask in particular about the situation in different health boards.

Are members happy with the suggestion that we write to the Executive for clarification? I noticed that you all avoided saying the name of the condition.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Health Service Configuration (Consultation) (PE707)

The next petition is PE707, in the name of Professor D Young, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider a new legal framework for consultation on the configuration of health services, which would include advice on proper use of guidelines on and an independent process for selection of expert advice, particularly where the provision of national services is affected, and to create a process for the establishment of integrated maternal and child health services for Scotland. The petition was prompted by the petitioners' concerns regarding the consultation on the proposed closure of the Queen Mother's maternity hospital at Yorkhill in Glasgow.

Members will recall that at its most recent meeting, the committee considered PE643 on the same topic, which was submitted by Dorothy-Grace Elder, and that we agreed to seek comments from the Minister for Health and Community Care. Professor Young was advised of the action that was being taken in relation to PE643, but he confirmed that he wants to proceed with PE707.

Pauline McNeill is with us this morning—

I ask for clarification. Professor Cockburn was particularly interested in attending the meeting to present and speak to the petition, but I have been told that the clerk to the committee advised him that the petition was very similar to the one that Dorothy-Grace Elder and Charles McGhee submitted. Was Professor Cockburn phoned and given the opportunity to come to this meeting, or was he advised not to come along to present the petition to the committee?

Everyone who submits a petition is asked whether they want the opportunity to speak to the committee. It is then a question of time management. As the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I must choose which petitioners will come and speak. It is now nearly 11.30 am and we have heard from speakers to three petitions so far. We discussed the issue extensively at our most recent meeting and I thought that it would be more appropriate to hear today from petitioners who were raising issues that the committee had not previously considered, than it would be to hear from a speaker on a matter that we had already debated.

Pauline McNeill has—

Are you saying that Professor Cockburn was phoned and told not to appear in person?

Yes.

That is indefensible. Professor Cockburn worked hard on the petition with other doctors and was very keen to appear. PE707 raises some different issues from those that were raised in PE643. For example, there was no mention in PE643 of the need to

"create a process for the establishment of integrated Maternal and Child Health services for Scotland."

That is why we are considering the petition. We did not need to have the professor before us today—

I want to record my dissent. We should be discussing that issue.

The issue is being discussed.

No it is not. The petitioners were phoned by the committee and told not to come along because similar—not identical—petitions have been discussed previously. I do not believe that it is within the committee's remit to do that.

We had six requests to speak at the meeting and I chose three petitioners to come and do so. It has taken us an hour and a half to get through those three petitions. If you want to sit here until well into the afternoon and give everyone who requests the opportunity to come here—

It has nothing to do with sitting here. It is to do with choice and fairness.

It is about time management. As I said, we are discussing the petition—

No, convener, this is absolutely wrong.

If you want to raise any issues from the petition, feel free to do so. However—

I have already raised the particular issue that is causing me concern and which should cause concern among everyone round the table, which is that people are being phoned and told not to come to speak to their petitions. Is PE707 similar to the next petition as well?

Yes.

We were not even informed that the petitioners had been phoned.

Are you saying that if anyone and everyone who requests to come here—

Absolutely.

Well, I cannot agree. That is not within the Public Petitions Committee's remit.

That is why the Public Petitions Committee exists. The public should be able to come along here and have their say.

Other members now want to—

It is not for the convener to pick and choose whom he wishes to come along and give evidence.

It is in the standing orders that the convener chooses who comes before the committee. That is done for every meeting and has been the case during the five years of the Parliament.

No.

The convener chooses who comes before the committee, although I accept that it is a judgment call. You have the right to raise any issues in the petition that you want. However, we must manage the committee's time and I made the decisions about that.

I suggest that, instead of spending our time debating the process, we should debate the substance of the petition, which is far more important. That is how we have operated since I and current committee members who were members of the previous Public Petitions Committee joined the committee. When we start to debate the process, I feel that we lose sight of the petition's argument. Please let us get on to the substance of the petition.

Sandra White was present when we agreed the committee's process. She took part in that discussion when we had our away day last year. We decided that there would be a process for the convener within the committee's process.

It is unfortunate that Professor Cockburn is not here to speak to the petition. As members will recall, PE643 referred specifically to the situation whereby when charitable funding has been given to hospitals, there should be special arrangements in relation to consultation. I agree that some of the issues to which PE707 refers were drawn out in discussion of PE643. However, there are specific proposals in PE707 and references to further evidence. Professor Cockburn's presence would have allowed us to question him on that; it is unfortunate that he is not here.

I appreciate that there are pressures on management of the committee's time, but that could be helped by reducing the time for discussion and individual contributions to allow more people to speak to their petitions. The time does not necessarily need to be managed by reducing the number of people who can speak to petitions. In this case, the exclusion of Professor Cockburn is wrong. As long as my view is recorded, that is fine—I agree that we need to move on to discuss the issues that the petition raises.

I take your points on board, but at the next meeting and at every meeting it will still come down to the convener's judgment as to who gets called. If you wanted to raise the issues to which you referred and express concern over Professor Cockburn not being called, you could have approached me before today; you have had the agenda since the weekend. The agenda states who will speak to petitions and who will not, so you could have raised the issue with me earlier. You are raising the issue now, which is taking up time. However, I take on board your advice and in future I will curtail members' lengthy questions and preambles.

Pauline McNeill has come along this morning, having given notice that she wants to discuss PE707, so I invite her to comment on it.

Thank you, convener. I spoke to the professors who submitted the petition and they were obviously disappointed that they were not allowed to speak to it. However, I think that they understand the Public Petitions Committee's work load.

The professors are keen for a distinction to be made between their petition and the one that Dorothy-Grace Elder submitted. I want to say a few words about why that is the case. PE707 has been submitted by retired professors who were experts in their field at the Queen Mother's maternity hospital in Glasgow, which faces closure. Some of us in the room have campaigned to save that hospital. However, that is not the petition's primary purpose, which relates to the consultation. As required, there was a pre-consultation process, which consisted of a four-member panel making a recommendation to the health board.

The substance of the petition is that the professors, who are experts in their own field, provided expert opinion about how the service is run, but they cannot trace that in any transcript and cannot find any evidence that what they said during the process was taken account of. Given that the health board has used the information to make a decision, the professors believe that there is a flaw in the process and that a framework, within a new national framework, is needed to remedy that.

The role of national guidance, the expert group on acute maternity services and the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons in Scotland are also specifically mentioned in the petition. The guidance has been misquoted in the consultation process. If that is the basis on which health boards make decisions, and the health board says that the guidance is flawed, there is no mechanism for challenge. The health boards are focusing on the need to consider expert information in the consultation process to see whether there is a means to make a challenge if people are unhappy with the way in which a decision is taken.

I support the petition and thank the committee for giving me a minute to speak to it.

I am disappointed because the petition raises issues that only experts could have answered—[Interruption.] Would you let me finish, please?

The petition asks for the creation of integrated maternal and child health services. That is something that we should be considering and I support that particular aim of the petition.

To pick up on what Pauline McNeill and Professor Young have said, expert advice was omitted from some of the evidence that was produced by the consultation group. Members are aware of that, but I would have like to have been able to speak to Professor Cockburn and to hear his evidence, which no one has yet seen because the health board has not produced it.

I am concerned by the petition: proper consultation did not take place in that evidence was either withheld or lost, according to the health board. Experts did not even visit the Queen Mum's, the closing down of which has been based on facts that were not widely presented to the public.

We have to take seriously the expert evidence that we have and I fully support everything in the petition. I know that the convener is supportive of the consultation as well as being critical of it and I am sure that he will support the petition. However, it is important to pick up the two main points that the petitioners have made, about the configuration of health services and integrated maternal and child health services. Those are the two main issues in the petition.

I would have liked to ask the petitioners how we could go about that. Those two main issues are separate, but we will await the answer to PE643. PE707 should be treated in the same way as the previous petition: we should send it to the Minister for Health and Community Care, expressing our concerns and those of the experts.

It would be helpful to have specific documented examples of some of the allegations that are made in the petition, especially those on the misquoting of EGAMS and BAPS. There is additional correspondence that is not included in our papers; I wonder whether that includes examples of those misquotes. If not, it would be helpful if we could put on record what those misquotations are, if Pauline McNeill has them to hand.

The two main points—the legal framework for consultation on the configuration of health services, and the creation of a process for the establishment of integrated maternal and child health services—are relevant to this afternoon's debate on the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill. Both those measures could be possible under the provisions of that bill.

The professors' submissions—in person—should be sought by the Health Committee, if they have not been already, when it considers the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 2, to see whether the requested measures can be covered by the bill. My views on the proposals for Glasgow's maternity services are well known. The question of the national provision of maternity and child health services should be urgently addressed on a strategic basis.

As with PE643, the issues in PE707 are serious and urgent enough to warrant immediate action. It is suggested that we await the Executive's response to PE643, but the issues that are raised in PE707 are a wee bit different and more complicated. Given the evidence, we must bring the petition immediately to the attention of the Minister for Health and Community Care and ask for his comments. We should also immediately refer the petition to the Health Committee because it is relevant to that committee's current business.

We cannot do that at present because we are still gathering information. We will do as Carolyn Leckie suggests when we receive a response from the Executive. If Carolyn Leckie identifies the misquotations for the clerks, they will check the correspondence and we will flag up the issue to the minister when we write to him.

I want to ensure that specific examples of the misquoting of EGAMS and BAPS are submitted. The allegation is made in the petition, but there are no examples.

If you speak to the clerks about the issue after the meeting, we will ensure that the point is included in the submission to the minister.

I, too, support the petitioners' aims and objectives. There is a need throughout Scotland for the introduction of guidelines on consultation procedures. A recent consultation process on paediatric services in Ayrshire left many people there feeling, at best, unhappy with the situation—many people felt very unhappy.

As Carolyn Leckie and I have said before in the committee, there is a growing need for a high-level strategic review of the health service in Scotland. I appreciate the difficulties that are involved with maternity services in Glasgow, but the fact that no decision has been made on that issue is holding back strategic considerations in areas that surround Glasgow, particularly Ayrshire. Maternity services drive the provision of other services. If I have the sequence right, neonatal services come before maternity services and paediatric services come after. The issue of where maternity services and specialist units are to be sited affects the strategic balance of hospitals in the area. That issue must be addressed more coherently than it has been addressed.

We must respect the fact that we should not discuss the particular case that has been raised in PE707; rather we should discuss the need for proper consultation—which I have raised previously with Greater Glasgow NHS Board in relation to other consultations. The point applies particularly in the case that relates to the petition. With due respect to Professor Cockburn, I am not sure that his presence would have assisted us. He and his colleagues have made four serious allegations, which are not just about the individual case, but about consultation on proposed changes—particularly major ones—by health boards in general throughout Scotland.

The committee should at least ask Greater Glasgow NHS Board for its comments on the allegations, which will inform any debate on whether there should be a properly redrawn consultation and what form that consultation might take.

As I am a member of the Health Committee, I know that it has taken the issue of consultation seriously in its consideration of the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill. The evidence that that committee has received has underpinned the importance of consultation. The point to emphasise is that, although consultation has been taking place in the health service since way back in 1947, the problem that we have had throughout is that consultation means different things to different people. The issue is how to produce guidelines that satisfy the public at large and which close the loop by involving the public. Even though there was a massive consultation on the reconfiguration of health services in Fife, some people were still unhappy at the end of the day. The key criticism was always that the loop had not been closed.

The essential issue is how to make submissions to a consultation publicly available. One good thing about the Scottish Parliament is that many submissions that are made to Scottish Executive consultations are publicly available in the Scottish Parliament information centre, where all MSPs can access them. It is essential that we ensure that when consultations are held all submissions to health boards are available in the public domain.

Can you provide guidance on how we should deal with the matter? Will we wait to discuss it further or will we proceed before we receive a response from the minister, given that some of the issues relate to PE643? Do you intend to make other suggestions today?

I will take suggestions on that. If we want to retain possession of the petition, we cannot refer it to another committee and ask that committee to do something with it. If we refer it to another committee, the petition will become the other committee's petition, so we must be careful. We can send the petition to another committee for information, but if we want to retain control of the information that is received from elsewhere we cannot refer the petition to another committee until we have decided what we want that committee to do with it. We can send the committee to the Executive and inform the Health Committee that we have done so. I am not recommending that—I am simply clarifying the process.

Does Robin Harper want to say something on this issue?

No, I am waiting for the committee to discuss PE712.

I want to clarify an issue that relates to the Helen Eadie's last point. Although the petitioners are calling for a number of things, including the creation of a process for the establishment of integrated maternal and child health services for Scotland, their emphasis is clearly on expert advice. The petitioners are retired professors who ran genetics and specialist services. They are saying that their expert advice was ignored and they seek to ensure that the process addresses that specific point. Carolyn Leckie said that Scottish Executive guidance was misquoted in documentation. I am absolutely certain that the petitioners would provide the committee with evidence of that, if members wished. I want to distinguish that point from the general issues relating to consultation. The petitioners are focusing narrowly on expert advice and the misquoting of national guidelines.

As I said, the clerks will check that and we will put the specific questions that Pauline McNeill has raised to the minister, if the committee decides to send the petition to him. The accusation of misquoting and failure to consult are part of the petition. We must check those issues before we ask the minister about them.

My point relates to the convener's comments and my previous comments. I am keen to pursue the matter. The issue of expert advice, as well as that of public consultation, could have been dealt by the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill. I understand that the Public Petitions Committee is keen to retain control of the petition, so that we can be satisfied that appropriate action is taken. However, we should send everything that we have received to the Health Committee, if only for its information, as soon as possible. That would enable that committee to address the points and arguments that have been made, to seek evidence from the professors on the issues of consultation and the use of expert advice and to consider whether those can be dealt with in the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill, which provides us with an opportunity. Parliament does not often consider legislation that could deal as quickly with issues that are raised in a petition as may be possible in this case. It is important that the Health Committee has the opportunity to do that.

I will suggest something slightly different. There are two issues. The first is the clear flaws—which were amplified by Pauline McNeill—in the consultation process, and the fact that expert opinion was, to all intents and purposes, ignored. That relates to the short-term proposal, which is the closure of the Queen Mother's hospital. The second issue is how those flaws are learned from for the long term, which is where the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill comes in.

It would be perfectly legitimate for us not to defer consideration of the petition, but to say to the minister, "Here is another one on the Queen Mother's hospital. It is on the broad field of consultation, although on a very specific point. Could you include in your reply before 19 March consideration of PE707 as well?" We could then turn it round quite quickly, and go to the Health Committee.

It is not beyond the wit of members to say to members of the Health Committee that they might want to be aware of the presence of the petitions, without our formally referring a petition. That would address the short-term urgent need to place PE707 before the Minister for Health and Community Care, as well as the longer-term need for us to ensure that we learn from the flaws. We should not just push everything to the Health Committee at this stage.

On a point of information, this afternoon in the Parliament is the stage 1 debate on the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Bill. Any member of the committee who wants to participate in the debate and make such points can do so this afternoon.

Are members happy with Jackie Baillie's suggestion that the Executive be contacted with the specific recommendations?

I do not have any difficulty with that, but can we pass the petition to the Health Committee for information?

Yes, there is no difficulty with that. Are members happy with that process?

Will my suggestion to ask Greater Glasgow NHS Board for its comments be taken on board as well?

Will we ask that health board to comment?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Green-belt Land (Legal Protection) (PE712)

The final new petition is PE712, from Shirley McGrath, on behalf of Viewpark conservation group, which calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that green-belt land is given appropriate legal protection. The petitioners are concerned about the potential impact on wildlife of a proposed development in an area of green-belt land in Lanarkshire. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petitioner site, where it gathered 260 electronic signatures. As members will be aware, the Executive is in the process of preparing to introduce a planning bill, and will conduct further detailed consultations to identify some of that bill's likely content early this year.

Before we consider the petition, I bring members' attention to my entry in the register of interests. I do not have a constituency interest in the development, but the parent company of the developer was formerly based in my constituency, and for two years supported a competition that I ran in primary schools in my constituency. I thought that I should register that on the record.

Robin Harper and Alex Neil are here. Do you have anything to say?

I am here as the member for Lothians to speak to the general concerns that are raised by PE712. Last night, I hosted a meeting in this room, at which 20 students from the University of Edinburgh presented research that they have done on planning laws in relation to green belts. They said that there is a growing perception—and I say perception, right or wrong—that Scottish green belts are being treated as land banks, rather than as protection for the environment. That is a serious issue. At the meeting, a considerable number of community councillors expressed concern about how the green belt around Edinburgh is being treated.

Not only because of the local issues, but because it raises national concerns, I recommend strongly that PE712 be referred to the Executive, and that the Executive be asked to respond before the planning legislation is produced. It would be good to know in advance what the legislative attitude will be towards green belts.

The petition should also be drawn to the attention of the relevant committee—I am not aware of which committee has been chosen to deal with the planning bill when it comes before Parliament. I will keep my remarks as brief as that.

I, too, will keep my remarks brief. First, I apologise to the convener for not being able to give notice that I would be here; I had thought that I had something else on.

The petition arises primarily from the planning application in respect of the Douglas support estate. There are two issues involved: the green-belt issue and the fact that some rare species inhabit the land in question. Robin Harper has already articulated some general concerns about erosion of the green belt. Although some flexibility is always required, sometimes that flexibility might be one-sided. The concern is that the proposed erosion of the green belt to which the petition relates is particularly unnecessary, given the amount of vacant land that is fairly near the site in question. It is not reckoned that the land that is the subject of the proposed development is in any way required to meet the industrial or commercial needs of the local economy. A desire to protect the green belt lies behind the petition. It is particularly annoying that, in this case, the erosion of the green belt would be highly unnecessary, because alternative land is readily available within a few miles.

The second issue, which goes along with the first, is the protection of rare species of wildlife. That may be more a matter for amendment during stage 3 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

The green-belt aspect is for the forthcoming planning bill, but wildlife should be dealt with in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill. There is an issue about uniqueness—a number of rare species in the green belt are potentially under threat and, quite frankly, to disturb them unnecessarily would be counter to all that we are trying to achieve in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and, I hope, the proposed planning bill. I support the petitioners' intentions. The case highlights the special problems that we face in particular areas and I hope that the Public Petitions Committee will be able to take up the matter with ministers and other committees, as appropriate.

Do members have any comments?

I support the petition. There is obviously a bit more time in relation to the planning bill, so I support the idea of referring the petition to the Executive to get its views on the proposed legislation. We should also refer it to the Environment and Rural Development Committee to find out whether there is a way that some of the concerns can be taken on board in the context of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill.

Are members happy with that?

I am happy with that suggestion, but there is another point. Members received a letter from Brian Clarke of Park Lane Palisade Ltd, in which he says that he learned of the petition only by chance. He asks that, in future, parties that find themselves in the same position that his company is in be at least informed of the issues that are being discussed. I would like to ask the clerk whether that is usually the case. If it is not, Mr Clarke's request seems to be reasonable.

I hold a similar view. I spoke to the clerks yesterday. The problem is specific to e-petitions. If a person sends in a petition, it is not published and the paperwork on petitions that are not electronic is not made public until we discuss the petition. An e-petition is different in that whatever the petitioner and anyone else who wishes to contribute to the discussion on the e-petition site say is made known to the public. This is the first occasion on which it has been highlighted that, if someone makes a specific point in relation to an individual or a company, it might be appropriate—out of courtesy, if nothing else—to advise the relevant person or company that the comment has been made, in case they wish to respond to it. PE712 has highlighted an issue that we had not thought of before; the international teledemocracy centre at Napier University has been asked to investigate how it can flag up any such issues in future. I thought that Mr Clarke's request was reasonable.

Are members happy that we refer the petition to those in the Executive who are involved in the proposed planning bill and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that, as it is 12 o'clock and we still have a number of issues to go through, we should take five minutes for a comfort break. That will allow us to focus and concentrate better.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—