Official Report 255KB pdf
Gaelic Language (PE437)<br />“A Fresh Start for Gaelic” (PE540)
PE437 is about the creation of a Gaelic language act and PE540 is about the implementation of the recommendations of "A Fresh Start for Gaelic". The petitions call for the future of the Gaelic language to be secured through a Gaelic language act. The predecessor Public Petitions Committee considered the petitions on several occasions, but most recently on 14 January.
Yes. The Executive's commitment to introduce legislation early in this new session of Parliament seems to me to meet the petitioners' requests. Petition PE540 calls for the full implementation of the Meek report, which had two main recommendations. One was to establish a body to oversee the development of Gaelic in Scotland, which was done in January, when Bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba was established. The Gaelic language act would, in effect, implement the other recommendation.
The clerks have obtained an update on the Executive's position, which confirms Lord Watson's point. The commitment in the partnership agreement is that the Executive will legislate to provide secure status for Gaelic through a Gaelic language bill. I seek members' views on how we should proceed with the petitions.
Mike Watson's statement covers the situation adequately. I understand that the draft bill is to be presented at the Royal National Mòd in Oban next month, so matters are moving ahead.
I am not convinced that the draft bill will deal with all of the petitioners' requests, although I am open to correction on that. I would like to know more about both of the petitions. Could we keep the petitions open until the bill has been published and we know more about it? That would allow us to compare the petitioners' requests with the bill before we make the final decision to close consideration of the petitions.
As for the bill, it is open to every member to lodge amendments at stages 2 and 3. Perhaps that will put Linda Fabiani's mind at rest, if the bill is not entirely what she hopes that it will be. It is important to get on with the bill, given the commitment to produce it.
Keeping the petitions open does not preclude getting on with the bill.
Absolutely not.
May I make a helpful suggestion? I am conscious that we could keep petitions rolling until the Executive does something. The main terms of the petitions have been addressed and a draft bill is imminent. The way to have the detail of the petitioners' concerns taken on board is to ensure that they are consulted as part of the consultation process on the bill. We could ask the Executive to consult the petitioners as it consults everybody else.
I would go along with that.
Perhaps that covers the points that Linda Fabiani made.
Do members think that we should conclude consideration of the petitions?
Members indicated agreement.
We will let the petitioners know of our decision.
We should also let the Executive know that we want it to consult the petitioners.
Radioactive Contamination (PE444)
PE444 is from Mr Allan Berry and concerns radioactive substances in Scottish coastal seawater and marine life. The petitioner calls for the Parliament to investigate the amount of radioactive substances throughout the marine food chain, which he thinks have increased in the past decade. A previous response from the Executive explained that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, together with the Food Standards Agency, monitors and reports annually on radioactivity in Scottish waters.
The pager is in Jackie Baillie's handbag.
I dare not invade the privacy of a lady's handbag to switch it off. The pager will probably go silent in due course. Does anybody have views on the petition?
SEPA says that, contrary to the claims in the petition about the situation in Norway, the levels have reduced. I have read the petition closely and read the views of SEPA and the FSA. The committee can take no further action on the petition.
That is exactly what I was going to say. I support what Linda Fabiani said.
We have that statement in writing from SEPA and the FSA.
The statement is at the bottom of SEPA's letter. The issue comes down to who we believe. As SEPA is the authority involved, we must take its view. Does the committee agree to take no further action?
Members indicated agreement.
Miscarriages of Justice (Aftercare) (PE477)
I am getting lost among the papers, but the clerks are now circulating to members a further page of briefing that was missing from the original briefing. I ask members to take that into account when considering PE477, which concerns the aftercare programme for those who have suffered miscarriages of justice.
The issue seems to have come increasingly to the fore recently. Aside from the application made by MOJO, I would like to find out about which programmes are provided and funded for people who have suffered miscarriages of justice before we can consider the petition properly. I find it difficult to consider the matter in isolation. I would like to seek some background information from the Executive on the programmes that are in place and on the funding that is provided for them. Which organisations—if any—carry out work that is similar to that which MOJO seeks to promote?
Linda Fabiani makes a good point. I was rather disturbed on reading MOJO's submission. It seems that people have to go through section 10 of the 1968 act to receive any moneys. I would have thought that cases covered by the petition should be treated in the same way as those of rehabilitation for prisoners, with some automatic provision. I am not so sure about halfway houses, as arrangements could be made elsewhere in the community. In any case, the matter merits proper consideration. How do members feel about passing the matter on to one of the justice committees? This is an area where provision is sadly lacking. If moneys are readily available for the rehabilitation of prisoners, I would have thought that it was our duty to make moneys available in this case, but without people having to go through hoops in order to access them via a grant under section 10 of the 1968 act.
It would be helpful if, before we pass the petition to another committee, we could obtain answers to the questions that Linda Fabiani has put, which I think are reasonable. It would be a good basis on which to proceed if we had all the relevant information before taking a decision.
If the issue is one of core funding for such services, which committee would consider that?
It would be a justice issue, and it would be for the Executive to consider the funding implications on the basis of any recommendation made by one of the justice committees.
It is not clear from the information that we have received that any other services are available in this area, where there seems to be a gap. From the background material that I have read, I understand that the services that are 100 per cent funded by local authorities are intended for those who have been found guilty of committing an offence. There does not seem to be any provision for those who are released under the circumstances covered by the petition. Since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was set up, the issue has arisen more frequently: I note the rise from 27 such cases in 1999, when the SCCRC was established, to 304 cases now.
You make the valid point that there is nowhere else for these people to go.
The central question of principle that we need to address is whether there is a need for distinct services. The Executive's argument—which I would like us to test—seems to be that, by providing 100 per cent funding, it provides a range of services that are primarily for ex-offenders coming out of institutions. However, considering their nature, the services—for example, guidance and assistance on accessing benefits, accommodation, education and training—could be useful to anybody leaving an institution. The central question is whether there is a need for a different type of service for somebody who is released because they have not offended and where there has been a miscarriage of justice, or whether existing services could apply equally to them. That is the issue that I would like us to tease out further with the Executive before we pass the petition to any committee.
That seems sensible.
I endorse what Jackie Baillie has said. The question is whether appropriate services are available for people who have been wrongly incarcerated. The committee should not be regarded as a court of appeal for people who have applied for funding and been turned down. We can get round that by considering the issue of service provision. It would be worth asking the justice committees whether they feel that there is a need for distinct service provision. On that basis, I support the recommendation to refer the petition to one of the justice committees.
I am aware of the work load of the justice committees. We might write to the minister in the first instance, and thereafter, subject to the response, refer the petition to one of the justice committees. Do members want to refer the petition straight to one of the justice committees?
We need to establish the facts first, as Linda Fabiani proposed, and determine what services are available. Jackie Baillie suggested that the same funding should be available to anyone who leaves an institution, and I subscribe to that principle. However, from what Mr McManus and others have said, that would not seem to address their concerns. We need to tease the matter out a wee bit more and clarify the Executive's view of existing provision. We can then judge for ourselves the extent to which that provision addresses the concerns of everyone who leaves prison.
Members would be happy for us to write to the Executive in the first instance, seeking clarification and asking whether the current system could be adapted to suit everybody. We will not prejudge the Executive's answer, but its response will determine how we decide to proceed thereafter.
Members indicated agreement.
I am not sure that I agree. I want to ask the Executive whether there are specific services for people who suffer miscarriages of justice. It may be that such services exist but that they are hidden among other services that we do not know are funded. If there are no such services, we have a big issue. If there are, let us consider how the things that MOJO wants to do tie in with them. If there is a huge gap in service provision, we should certainly refer the petition to the appropriate committee. However, I do not feel that we have enough information to justify passing on what may be a huge issue.
The first issue is about specific services for those who have been released who never committed any offence. The second issue is whether such people should use the same services that are used to rehabilitate those who have committed offences. There is a debate to be had about that and evidence to be taken. There is a load of supporting evidence here. I am worried about the Public Petitions Committee being asked to make that decision when the issue of whether the services should be separate is really for the justice committees to decide.
The petition has come to us; we have to make our recommendation.
I am just checking whether, if the petition comes back to the Public Petitions Committee, it will be for us to decide whether the services should be combined.
That will depend on the information that we get from the Executive. The petition will remain live—we will still be able to refer it on.
Carolyn Leckie will be back by then.
Steve Farrell has a list as long as your arm of all the questions that he will put in the letter to the Executive. If members are happy to allow him to write to the Executive, we will get a response in due course.
The justice system in England and Wales is funding a pilot scheme there for providing such services separately from normal services. We could mention that to the Executive. We might be able to have such a scheme in Scotland.
I must declare an interest. I have been involved in some small aspects of MOJO's campaign. I suggest that we find out exactly what services are involved in the pilot scheme. As well as housing, benefits, work and training issues, there are issues to do with counselling support and so on. We should find out whether those other issues are covered in the scheme that is being run by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. MOJO states that the NACAB project has a narrow remit.
In the light of all the questions that have been raised, we will seek a wide-ranging and comprehensive response from the Executive. As has been mentioned, we reserve the right to pass the petition on to one of the justice committees, depending on the Executive's reply. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Criminal Memoirs (Publication for Profit) (PE504)
PE504 is about the publication of criminal memoirs for profit. The petitioners call on the Parliament to take steps to prevent convicted murderers from profiting from their crimes by selling accounts of those crimes for publication. The petition, which deals with a very sensitive issue, was prompted by the petitioners' own experiences. An interview with the convicted murderer of their daughter resulted in the publication in a magazine of what they considered to be a misleading account of the crime. The petitioners are concerned that the immediate families of innocent murdered victims are powerless to prevent convicted murderers from giving malicious or deliberately misleading statements in published accounts of their crimes, and that they are unable to challenge such statements in a court of law. They request that the Parliament introduce a number of measures, including the establishment of a special court with powers to enforce legislation to prevent convicted murderers or members of their families from profiting from their crimes and other matters.
I have been reading the paperwork associated with the case and, like many other members, I remember the incident happening 10 years ago. I did not realise that another article had been published as recently as August this year.
We could also ask them to let the committee know the outcome of the PCC's deliberations.
I support that suggestion. I am also inclined to support the view that, as there is a consultation going on at Home Office level, it is worth waiting for the outcome of that consultation. People are trying to inform themselves of all those issues so that they can ensure that any future policy is based on good evidence. What Mike Watson has said supports that aim. Once the Home Office consultation is completed, we will be in a stronger position and better able to say yea or nay as to whether further action is required. Do we know the final date for the Home Office consultation?
The clerk tells me that the consultation has probably not started yet.
My goodness.
In the light of that, it might be more appropriate to revisit the petition when the outcome of the PCC's deliberations becomes known. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Airports (Access to Public Roads) (PE528)
PE528 concerns car parking at Scottish airports; it was prompted by the fact that Glasgow international airport is seeking to enact byelaws under the Airports Act 1986 to enable the airport to limit the services that are provided by courtesy buses. The petition specifically seeks changes in legislation to ensure that no restrictions or charges for access to drop-off or pick-up points immediately in front of Scottish airport terminal buildings are imposed on businesses offering off-site parking services or on other courtesy bus services.
It is bizarre that, at a time when we are trying to reduce the number of cars that are being driven with no passengers or only one passenger, people are trying to put obstacles in the way of having coaches taking passengers to airports. We all agree that it is desirable for air passengers to reach airports by bus or train, so it is extraordinary that people are seeking to place impediments in the way.
I have read through most of the committee papers trying to make sense of the situation. However, like Helen Eadie, I still cannot understand how BAA could possibly charge buses that come to the airport to drop people off. People come to Glasgow airport from as far away as Aberdeen.
We could do that. I am sure that that is a worthwhile suggestion. However, I should point out that BAA is no longer the airports authority, but is a public limited company, which means that there may be limited room for the Executive to intervene. Private companies trading on their own land can, by and large, make decisions about who uses their land.
Could I point out an anomaly? If we were all flying out to Sweden, and the Parliament supplied a coach and we all left our cars somewhere in Glasgow and took the coach down to the airport, would the charge apply? Would it apply to a group of rugby players or football players? Where does it stop? I would like some clarification from BAA about what is going on at Glasgow airport and whether it intends to implement the charge anywhere else.
We can write to BAA and seek that clarification in addition to acting on Helen Eadie's suggestions. Are members happy to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Planning Process (PE554)
PE554, which is about repeat planning applications, calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to improve the planning process by proposing that once a planning application has been refused and is not appealed, or is appealed and refused, no substantially similar planning application for the same site should be accepted unless there is a material change in circumstances.
I echo the convener's comments. I think that this is a positive story about how one petitioner can influence a change in legislation. The Executive has recognised that there is inequity in the system and it has made clear its commitment to bring forward the change in the context of a future planning bill. I suggest that we should write to the petitioner to congratulate him on his initiative.
Are you suggesting that we should keep the petition open and request that the clerks monitor the situation?
I am not suggesting that. I think that we have a very positive commitment. I am suggesting that we take a belt-and-braces approach and send the petition to the Communities Committee, not for action but for its information. When the Communities Committee considers the planning bill, it might want to be reminded of the commitment from ministers.
Are members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Amateur Boxing (PE594)
PE594, which is about the health and safety of amateur boxers in Scotland, calls on the Parliament to ask the Executive to fund the medical requirements of the AIBA—the international amateur boxing association—to eliminate abuse of amateur boxers in Scotland. The committee's predecessors agreed in February to write to both Amateur Boxing Scotland Ltd and the AIBA to seek their comments on the issues raised in the petition. ABS Ltd strongly refuted the petitioner's claims that amateur boxers are being abused and explained that while all boxers are medically examined by a medical officer prior to a boxing competition, a number of particular examinations that are recommended but are not obligatory are not carried out due to the costs involved.
The assurances that have been given by ABS Ltd should be accepted because, as stated in the papers, it has an administrator who is funded by a grant from sportscotland, which takes seriously the issues of safety in any sport. If that person were not doing his or her job effectively, I am sure that sportscotland would have done something about it. Although I understand that safety must be maintained to the highest degree, I believe that the view of ABS Ltd should be accepted and that we should take no further action on the petition.
From my reading of the papers, a lot of safeguards appear to be in place. Boxing is a dangerous sport and, presumably, people go into it knowing those dangers.
ABS Ltd points out in its submission that
As a matter of information, was it not the Executive that made that point rather than ABS Ltd?
The note that I have says that ABS Ltd points that out. It might have come to us via the Executive but it was quoting ABS Ltd.
If everyone is content, are we agreed that we will take no further action?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Census 2001 (Pagans) (PE600)
PE600 calls for an analysis of the number of pagans who responded to the 2001 Scottish census. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the General Register Office for Scotland to carry out a count of the number of those who entered "pagan" as their religion in the 2001 Scottish census, and to make that information freely available to the public.
Why is the situation in Scotland different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why should the Scottish form be different? The briefing note for members states:
We could seek such information. Perhaps different questions are asked of people in Scotland and those use up the available space on the census form. However, it is not for me to speculate. It would be far better for the organisation that is responsible for the census to provide information on the matter. We could write to it.
I do not advocate a change. I do not think that we could justify such a change for a group that consists of between 4,000 and 12,000 people. However, the fact that there was automatic coding of the relevant boxes on the UK form but not on the Scottish form means that there will be an imprecise estimate of the figures. There might be examples of other differences. Members will remember the debate over the ethnic minority categorisation for the 2001 census in Scotland as distinct from that used in England. I do not know whether Linda Fabiani and Sandra White agree, but I cannot understand why the Scottish census form has to be different for particular issues. There might be additional choices, but I do not understand why some choices should be excluded.
That issue is different from the issue pursued in the petition.
We are dealing with a point of information about the petition. We have had an assurance that, prior to the next census, it will be possible to suggest questions for the census form. We could write to the organisation responsible for the census about the petition, which would mean continuing the petition. If members want to do that in the full knowledge of what it means, we will do so. Do other members have views on the matter?
My view is, regretfully, that the petition should end here. The purpose of the census is not just to gather information for no particular reason. The information must be of use to potential users, such as local government. I fail to understand how counting the number of pagans in Scotland would in any way contribute to decisions, particularly those about types of services. I am sure that the number of pagans in Scotland is of interest to the federation. The Registrar General has indicated that the GROS would do a manual count of the information if the federation were willing to pay the cost of doing so. Therefore, I think that the federation should be left to get on with it. Ultimately, the test for including information in the census is its usefulness to the wider populace rather than to one narrow section. If we were to agree to the petitioners' request, we would create an unhelpful precedent.
Indeed. Other organisations must pay for the manual retrieval of information. Are we happy with Jackie Baillie's recommendation?
I support that. When we write to the petitioners it might be useful to remind them—because not everybody remembers this—that when the next census is being prepared there will be an opportunity for the federation to be consulted on the format of the census form. Indeed, that opportunity will be open to us all. I remember well the debate on ethnic minority issues to which Mike Watson referred.
Okay. If members are happy to proceed on the basis of Jackie Baillie's recommendation, we will do so.
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Human Rights Commission (PE603)
The next petition is PE603, regarding the establishment of a Scottish human rights commission. The petitioners call for the Parliament to support the establishment of a commission that would have clear lines of accountability to the Parliament.
I do not think that we can take any further action on the petition. The legislative process to establish a commission will give people the opportunity to make representations after the draft bill is published. The subject matter of the petition will work itself through. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the petitioner will have the opportunity to lodge a further petition at that point. As far as the Public Petitions Committee is concerned, I think that the issue should now be closed.
Is that the view of the committee? Are we content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Law Society of Scotland (Complaints Procedures) (PE606)
We move to consideration of the last of our current petitions, PE606, which calls for a review of the complaints procedures of the Law Society of Scotland. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to improve the transparency and accountability of and accessibility to the Law Society's complaints procedures.
As far as the Public Petitions Committee is concerned, PE606 should be closed as the issues seem to have been addressed. However, I want to say one thing about the master policy. Members will see from the Law Society's letter that the policy is publicly available on its website and that the society thinks that that is the best way of disseminating information. Although that might be fine, a lot of people do not have access to the web. Part of the trouble is that a lot of organisations think that if they put information on the web they have no further obligation to publish that information. It is difficult for someone who does not have access to the web to phone up an organisation and ask for a hard copy of a document. Hard copies do not seem to do the rounds as they used to do.
Should we forward the petition to one of the justice committees?
No. An investigation was undertaken into a similar subject.
Therefore, there would be no benefit in doing so again. Are members content with that position?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
New Petitions