Official Report 338KB pdf
Rural Bus Services (PE567)<br />Bus Services (Re-regulation) (PE569)
I call Rab Amos and David Cox, the petitioners who will speak to petitions PE567 and PE569. Mr Amos is here on behalf of the Roslin Bus Action Group, calling on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that local authorities such as Midlothian Council can put into practice the spirit of the quality contracts system to enable rural communities to have an adequate bus service.
I thank the Public Petitions Committee for allowing the Roslin Bus Action Group to present its petition on the need for quality contracts for buses in Midlothian. We are aware that the issue of re-regulation has been mooted, and the people of Roslin are not opposed to that principle. The Scottish Parliament had the opportunity to re-regulate buses, but it chose not to go down that route.
I am here today because of the closure of the Peebles and Hawick bus depots, as well as the cuts in services in the Scottish Borders. I should point out first of all that I am here on behalf of the people of the Borders and not as a First Bus employee. I cannot talk about company business, only about how the public are affected by the cuts and the closure of the depot.
I thank the petitioners. I welcome Christine Grahame, who will also speak in support of the petition.
There were 4,000 signatures to the petition. What the committee has heard from Midlothian and the Borders will apply to all rural communities, where the deregulation of bus services has had a dreadful effect. There should be re-regulation; in other words, more control over the contracts.
My first question is for Mr Cox and perhaps Christine Grahame will answer also. How will re-regulation change the current situation?
With re-regulation, services would be spread across the day and not just restricted to profitable routes. The bus companies would have to cross-subsidise each other. They are only interested in big profits. If they were re-regulated, they would have to spread services to ensure that there are buses to take people to and from work, services late at night and adequate services to transport people throughout the countryside.
If companies cannot make a profit, they will not want to be involved. How will re-regulation help that situation?
Until June, Mr Sharkey was the First Bus managing director in charge of the central region and the Borders. He left when the service cuts were implemented. When I started the petition, he told me that he would prefer the buses to be regulated. At least then the companies would be paid for running a basic service and anything on top of that would be a bonus.
Who would pay? Would the regulated bus service have to be heavily subsidised?
At the moment, Borders Council is paying the bus companies a substantial amount—between £1.4 million and £1.8 million—to provide a basic service. The council is restricted by the amount of money that it has; therefore, it would want the Scottish Executive to provide funding. The Scottish Executive and the Government's policies call for social inclusion.
Would you like me to define re-regulation for the record?
No. Mr Cox is presenting a good case. He has explained the basics of re-regulation and how it would work, which is important. Borders Council and Midlothian Council have the opportunity to subsidise specific routes where they see a social need. However, that is not happening. Why is it not happening?
It is not happening because of a lack of money. Last year, there was an overspend of £3.9 million on education in the Borders. Much of the education budget is allocated to transportation. A lot of the money is tied up. The council has to decide where to spend the money and, therefore, it tries to prioritise it on essential services to keep the basics in place.
If there was re-regulation, would the Scottish Executive have to provide direct funding, missing out the middle man, which is the council?
The Executive would have to examine how the services are provided in the Borders. It would have to investigate where there is need and which communities were left out. For a number of years, the council has had to cut back services because of a lack of money and passengers.
I am not exactly unsympathetic to the petition. At the committee's previous meeting, a group from Hawick came to complain about a further education college being moved to Galashiels. That demonstrates the difficulties that people in the Borders face.
In December or January, Councillor David Paterson from Hawick e-mailed council officials to highlight what the likely outcome would be for certain bus depots of the loss of contracts in the area. The council officials brushed that aside and took no heed of the warning of what would happen. As we know, the Hawick and Peebles depots have closed, proving that Councillor Paterson was right to point out the danger at the time. He did a lot of work behind the scenes.
You mentioned that the cuts in bus services were affecting school children. Do those children have a statutory right to be transported to school or are they too close to the school to have that right?
They are within the three-mile boundary, which means that they do not qualify for free transport. However, most of the kids paid their 30p to get from one side of the town to the other. Some kids got picked up on the south side of Peebles at quarter to nine to start school at nine o'clock. As they ranged from primary 1 to primary 7, the older ones looked after the smaller ones and they were able to get to school themselves, without having to be accompanied by parents. Now, however, they have to walk with their parents across town, as it is too far for them to walk on their own.
Both petitioners mentioned the amount of subsidy that the councils are paying for contracts. Are the councils consulting the public about how those contracts should be drawn up, when the buses should be available and so on?
No. The latest problem with buses in the Roslin and Auchendinnie area is that the council decided that, because of budget crises, subsidies would have to be put under the microscope. Those subsidies affect the transport arrangements throughout Midlothian. The council opted to have a link bus, which has been popularly renamed the loony bus or the Postman Pat bus. It takes one hour to travel three miles from Roslin to Penicuik because of the circuitous route that it uses. People in the local community have no input into the bus plans.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the petitioners because I represent a part of the world in which there are similar issues of low population and not many people using bus services. How many people use the available services? Would those people be better served by something along the lines of the dial-a-bus service, which exists in parts of the Highlands and through which, for example, if a young person wants to go to an after school sports club, they can dial and book a bus. Rather than having services running empty, the system allows people to book buses to pick them up at certain times.
A range of services that would meet the needs of local communities might be considered. As I explained in the evidence that I gave previously, despite the fact that Roslin has a population of around 2,500, that it contains the second largest employer in the Midlothian area and that around 37,000 people a year visit Rosslyn chapel, we are classified as a rural community. For the life of me, I cannot find out from the bus companies why, given the population and visitors, Roslin is deemed as non-commercial. The reason that the bus companies refuse to give us the information is that it is of commercial interest to them. Even though Midlothian Council is a shareholder in Lothian Buses, we are unable to get that evidence and information. There is a lack of transparency.
Re-regulation would entail three parts, which would all involve imposing statutory duties on local authorities. The first part would be to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to develop clear policies and to publish a local transport plan. The second would be to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to specify what local services must be provided and, following a tendering process, to franchise out exclusive rights for those routes to the winning bus operator. The third part would be to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to set up integrated ticketing schemes and to require operators of local bus services to participate in those schemes.
We have just heard an explanation of re-regulation, but I want to mention deregulation. Prior to the time of deregulation, many private bus companies provided services throughout the country. Deregulation created a bus war that eventually created a monopoly. There are now four large bus operators in Scotland that have absorbed the opposition and that seem to have a monopoly. Has that process had an effect on the rural services that were provided previously? The story that the petitioners present is replicated throughout Scotland's rural areas.
The Borders, like other rural areas around Edinburgh, are paying the price for last year's Edinburgh bus war. Companies lost a great deal of money trying to compete with one another and must make savings somewhere. That is why depots are being closed and services are being cut. Everything is being cut back to the bare minimum, so that companies may make money. If people want services outwith the times that the companies have set down, the companies want to be paid in full for running those services. The people of the Borders are suffering because of the bus war.
In Midlothian we have already had discussions with Chris Blyth from First Bus. He indicated that when the deregulation process started, First Bus decided to take on Lothian Buses with a view to capturing the very profitable and highly commercial market in Edinburgh. That campaign was totally unsuccessful. The battle was about providing cheap fares and First Bus lost it. Lothian Buses is now taking the routes that First Bus used to service. Historically, red buses were Edinburgh buses, whereas green buses serviced West Lothian, East Lothian and Midlothian. First Bus has admitted that its tactic of challenging Lothian Buses for control of the commercial market in Edinburgh failed. It is reviewing its strategy and is trying to re-establish its historical position as a provider of services in rural areas. Its problem is that it cannot run those services unless they are commercially viable.
I understand the point that you make. However, if the Government and local authorities are unable to persuade the bus companies to run a service, because they consider it to be unprofitable, that service will not get off the ground. Do you have information about the extent to which Scottish Borders Council has accessed the community transport and rural transport funds, which were established to assist companies to provide services in areas where they were unable to make a profit?
I do not have the exact figures—Scottish Borders Council would have those. I am not sure what services were run under the schemes to which the member refers. I know that recently Farquhar Munro from Langlee received an e-mail from the Scottish Executive that highlighted that councils could apply to those funds for resources to run services for the socially excluded, old people, young people and young kids. I passed on that information to our local manager at Galashiels. I do not know to what extent he has investigated whether it is relevant to services in the area.
You have good knowledge of how the bus companies operate and of the expenses that are attached to operating buses. You mentioned the fuel rebate on fare stage routes. What rebate do bus companies enjoy on fuel? What is the cost of the road fund licence for a 48-seater coach?
Bus companies receive something like 36.68p per litre.
So the rebate is quite substantial.
Yes. When VAT is subtracted, the cost of fuel is something like 18p or 20p. There would be no extra cost in using buses for extra services—the cost of buses is already covered by existing services.
What about the road fund licence? Do you know the cost of that?
No.
I think that it is about £150 for a 48-seater bus, as opposed to an articulated vehicle, for which about £3,000 has to be paid. That is quite a difference.
You have presented a powerful case, about a matter that goes right to the heart of communities. It is not a passing bus, by any means; it affects people's lives.
We are not the only people affected in Scotland. I have read in the Edinburgh Evening News that West Lothian has also been affected. Commuters from there have had problems getting in and out of town. Services were cut to the core—only the profitable ones ran.
Trains serve West Lothian, although there are not many of them.
That is right. We do not have trains in the Borders; we lost rail services in the 1960s.
Are you linked with any other groups in Scotland?
We are not linked with other groups. Twenty-odd drivers from Peebles organised the campaign among themselves. We held a meeting in Peebles, which Christine Grahame chaired; more than 200 people attended to express their views.
Does Rab Amos think that it is unusually unjust—let us put it that way—that, despite being so near to Edinburgh, you are so completely isolated transport-wise? Are you worse off than people in some parts of the Highlands, where there is a railway line here and there?
We are worse off in many ways. Roslin is 8 miles from Edinburgh city centre.
Eight miles?
Yes.
How long does it take you to get here?
The bus that we have now, the 315, takes one and a half hours to travel that 8 miles. As I said, the previous link service that was put on to placate the people of Roslin after the removal of subsidies provided a bus service for people to go to Penicuik. Many elderly people and young mothers use Penicuik for banking, nurseries, shopping and so forth. That bus took an hour to travel 3 miles because of the circuitous route. It would be quicker to go to Italy and just as quick to go to Glasgow from Roslin.
Did someone refer to the post bus situation?
That was the name that the local communities have now given to the services—they call them Postman Pat buses.
Did you say that the post bus took an extraordinary long time to go its rounds or did I mishear you?
The community uses "Postman Pat buses" as a nickname.
I understand, but the post bus service—
There is such a service, but none of those buses comes through Roslin. That is another avenue for making transport available for people in rural communities.
I will make a controversial point. The witnesses mentioned fuel subsidies. Given the fact that everybody here recognises that in rural communities the car is an essential item for most families, do you agree that we should consider distributing the fuel relief to the petrol pumps in the Borders rather than to the bus companies?
In fact, of the 110,000 or 115,000 or so people who live in the Borders, 30,000 are without a car. That is a lot of people. Between a quarter and a third of people probably do not have access to a car and so are dependent on bus services.
Okay. I said that my question was controversial. It was also somewhat tongue in cheek.
I know that the argument was tongue in cheek, but one perception that exists is that bus users are second-class citizens. If we were talking about rail users, the issue would have been highlighted and resolved through central Government funding or by some other means. However, there is a strong perception that bus users are second-class citizens and are entitled only to a second-class service.
The bus user complaints tribunal, which was introduced by the Scottish Executive either last year or early this year, has the powers to compensate passengers for things such as disruptions in services. As far as I am aware, no passenger has followed that route yet, but passengers will be entitled to compensation from bus companies. That might also be worth considering.
Do you know whether the bus user complaints tribunal is a successor to the transport users committee, which embraced all transport users?
The tribunal was introduced under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. Obviously, I get information only from the internet and in wee bits and pieces from press reports. Members will be more able to get information about the tribunal than I am.
The tribunal deals only with complaints from passengers who wish to be compensated for a lack of service or for a bus breaking down or not turning up. As far as I understand it, the tribunal has few or no powers to influence how rural bus services are delivered. That denies the transparency that is necessary for the communities in which we live. If, after people have been involved in the decision-making process, they are told that they cannot get a bus service, they will readily accept that because they are politically mature enough to understand.
We can certainly ask that question of the Executive when we consider the action that we will take.
I brought along some timetables that have come out over the last six months. If the committee wishes to plan a route, it could try and do so.
You have certainly come well prepared this morning. We are indebted to you for that. I am sure that the committee clerks will take that information from you.
I am sorry that I was late; my plane was not working.
We could ask what the body covers and relay that information to the committee.
I feel that there is a great illusion going on with the use of the term "services". There should be another term for the services that have been cut beyond the point of them being a regular bus service.
That is almost implicit in everything that we are doing.
Fuel tax relief was mentioned. I agree that that should be directed towards the companies, as long as they are providing a service to the rural communities that they should be serving. I would like to ask whether the Scottish Executive is content that the tax relief that is given to the bus companies is being used appropriately in the provision of services.
All those points are relevant. We have made a note of them, we will write to the Scottish Executive and we will get back to the petitioners. As members have no further suggestions, I thank you on behalf of the committee. Your attendance has been helpful. I am sure that the issue is relevant not only in the Scottish Borders, but in other parts of Scotland.
It might be worth while consulting the traffic commissioners, who play a major part in the process.
We will wait for the Executive's response first, but we will hold on to your suggestion.
Doctors (Court Reports) (PE534)
Our next petition is PE534. Mr Shields is the petitioner, on behalf of Fathers Fighting Injustice and the International Men's Organisation. He calls for the Scottish Parliament to readdress the issues that were raised in PE352, which related to the use of doctors' reports in court actions. I welcome Mr Shields, who will make a brief presentation. You have three minutes.
We thank the committee for allowing us to present the petition; we especially thank the clerk to the committee, Mr Farrell. On behalf of Fathers Fighting Injustice and the International Men's Organisation, we provide the following evidence.
Thank you very much. I invite members to ask questions.
I should first disclose the fact that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland.
I am sorry to interrupt you, Winnie. You are making some good points, but could you make them a bit more quickly?
I do not accept the point about doctors having undue influence in custody cases. I just do not believe that that is the case. It is not their job and, indeed, I have never seen them exercise such influence in my practice.
The International Association of Suicide Prevention at Griffith University carried out the most thorough research ever into this issue, and its report states clearly that there are political reasons why cases of suicide can be covered up. Doctors cover up such matters. For example, while Harold Shipman was murdering people, he was being asked by social services to provide evidence for court actions. I am gravely concerned about how he could possibly make assumptions about family circumstances when he was murdering people. Indeed, that question has never been resolved. There is more than one Harold Shipman in Britain, as we know from cases in which fathers have died because of psychological trauma—
But that was an English case.
Mr Shields, you have submitted a document that relates to another country entirely—
It is an international document. It covers all countries.
Let me finish my question. I was wondering whether you could back up your assertions with evidence from a Scottish context. As Dr Ewing pointed out, you have made some fairly serious assertions and you are obliged to back them up.
The evidence is contained in the document. It includes UK statistics.
With all due respect, that is an international document. I am asking for evidence that relates to Scotland. Things have moved on significantly since the Shipman case, and the Scottish Executive has introduced a number of measures that go a long way towards removing many of the aspects that allowed such a situation to happen. Do you have any specific evidence in that respect?
I have figures from the Scottish Executive. In 2000, 700 men committed suicide in Scotland. Moreover, the newspapers yesterday carried a report in which Malcolm Chisholm stated that he would spend another £12 million on examining further concerns about suicide, particularly in relation to young men. However, we need action to ensure that inquests into suicide—
But—
Can I finish please? Inquests into suicide should investigate litigation if that was taking place prior to the death. We have a figure of 700 men—
With respect, Mr Shields, we are not asking you for a statement about the number of suicides in Scotland. Instead, we are asking you to provide evidence to back up your serious assertions about collusion.
That is what I am saying. Seven hundred men died in 2000 and, as Mr Chisholm said yesterday, even more than that died in 2001-02. We ask that inquests should examine the background of suicide, because such cases need further investigation.
You have highlighted the real problem of the level of male suicide, particularly in the younger age bracket of 18 to 25-year-olds. On reflection, do you think that the petition would have been better directed towards that area rather than the more general aspect that the petition covers?
Our first concern is the suicide figures, which we believe to be inaccurate because causes of death that include certain issues, such as the effects of being involved in litigation, are masked. Karin Hoffer recently published a book called "Legal Abuse Syndrome", in which she states that many victims of the legal system suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. She characterised that as legal abuse syndrome brought on by abusive and protracted litigation in our courts.
All right, Mr Shields.
Can I just finish? I have just one wee bit.
No, Mr Shields. You are expressing somebody else's opinion, but I accept that.
Ms Hoffer's opinion is important because she has over 20 years' experience in the field.
I want to know what the petition's purpose is and where we are going with it. My view is that you have identified an issue that must be considered further. The issue is the suicides of young males and problems associated with litigation that might be involved in the suicides.
Exactly.
If the Minister for Health and Community Care were to conduct further investigations into suicides, would it satisfy you if he looked particularly into the issue of the suicides of young males?
Very much so, Mr Gallie. That is a very important issue. The legal process is failing to take due account of physical and mental health issues.
All right. Again, that is your assertion. I want to consider what the minister could come up with that would satisfy you a little. If he investigated suicides, particularly the issue of those who were involved in litigation prior to their suicide, that would satisfy your requirements.
I would be satisfied if that investigation included looking at doctors' ability to convince families of the stigma attached to suicide, which allows doctors to falsify death certificates. I am also concerned about whether the figure of 700 for 2000 is correct and not the tip of an iceberg.
Thank you.
As you perhaps know, doctors do not normally put "suicide" on a death certificate. We might trust at the start our lives, but as we go through life most of us learn not to trust. We learn not to trust professionals carte-blanche, but to ask them questions. Nevertheless, as Phil Gallie pointed out, considerable work is being done on suicide. In fact, from the inception of the Parliament there has been an unprecedented steer—backed by all parties—towards investigating the dreadful problem of suicide. Further, the Executive has taken some positive action in the past couple of days. Would you be content to await the long-term results of that action? Do you accept that we are trying to do something?
The Executive's action is definitely an improvement on what was done previously. However, the Minister for Health and Community Care is still not identifying the true causes of suicide. As long as the fact is avoided that litigation can play a substantial part in post-traumatic stress disorder and that vulnerable people are monstrously affected by the brutality in courts, which can push them—
But Mr Shields, do you accept—
There are young children in the public gallery today—
Sorry, just a minute—
Mr Shields, could you listen?
Okay.
Do you accept, for example, that when a suicide occurs and the press inquire about it, the police are extremely discreet? They will say that someone has collapsed and died, but will not say outright that there has been a suicide because obviously they are thinking of children and relations. They cannot state outright that there has been a suicide. Surely the quality of mercy must sometimes be involved in not making it public that someone has committed suicide.
But if there is to be a project to find out the causes of suicide, there must be an accurate assessment of the figures, even if that is done in private. In the public gallery there is an aged person and three young children—never mind fathers and men—who have been massively affected by the brutality in Scottish courts. That is of serious concern. Vulnerable people are being attacked and pushed over the edge. Part of that process is the asset-stripping of somebody on their death. The Harold Shipman case showed that for many years he was getting—
To be fair, we have not had a Shipman in Scotland—or at least a Shipman has not been found yet in Scotland. England also had a John Bodkin Adams.
Shipman gained as a result of signing death certificates, as did the lawyers who gained from the closure of the estates.
You came before the committee on a previous occasion on the same issue, Mr Shields. The information that we passed to you at that point showed the massive amount of work that had been done in the Scottish context to address the matter. Members are concerned because, as yet, you have not given us evidence to substantiate a number of the assertions that you have made. Everyone has sympathy for people who have suffered as a result of individual suicides. However, you have made serious allegations against professions in Scotland and the committee wants to be reassured that you will provide the evidence that lies behind those allegations.
I have already proved that—
With due respect, you have not proved anything.
I am sorry, but I have—
You have given us only an account of the issues that you have raised, but that has not provided us with answers as yet. Other issues that you raise in your petition are being addressed in some of the Parliament's on-going work. Dorothy Grace-Elder is a member of the Health and Community Care Committee and is well qualified to respond.
If the Scottish Executive is doing so much, why are the suicide figures going up? If the Executive is doing such a good job, the figures should be going down.
As members of the committee do not have further questions for Mr Shields, I thank him for giving evidence on PE534. We will now consider the action that we should take as a result of Mr Shields's presentation of the petition. You are welcome to stay and hear the discussion, Mr Shields, but it is now up to members to debate the issue.
I have a couple of points to make. Mr Shields's presentation was rather intemperate at times, but that should not mask the fact that he has a point to make. The issue is not necessarily that doctors are falsely identifying medical assessments; perhaps it is more to do with social work and other departments' interpretation of the assessments when family decisions are determined. That wider question has to be addressed somewhere along the line.
There are many strands in Mr Shields's petition, which is perhaps a problem, in that there are several people to write to. I suggest that the committee write to the Law Society of Scotland and ask what safeguards the public have regarding the distribution of moneys from wills and the handling of work on wills. We get an enormous amount of complaints and we know that there are people shivering outside the Parliament almost every week complaining about lawyers—with the exception of our distinguished colleague, Dr Winnie Ewing, who did not go into the law to make large amounts of money.
I never did, either.
No, and there are other lawyers like that. However, many lawyers make a fortune. It is a very secretive trade, especially in relation to wills. I have come across some extremely disturbing cases. Can we write to the Law Society of Scotland?
I have made a note of that.
What exactly will we ask the Law Society?
We will ask the Law Society what safeguards the public have in relation to beneficiaries and will making. We could also ask for statistics on the number of wills that are handled in Scotland in a year. Only wills over a certain value of estate are published.
Looking at members' faces, I am not sure that there is unanimity on that.
Certainly not.
I am a little puzzled by that. A person making a will instructs a lawyer to make that will on their behalf. I do not understand what safeguards are needed. It is up to the individual to organise a will. A lawyer will not draw up a will unless instructed to do so.
People complain about the way in which wills have been drawn up and about the time delays.
Usually when they miss out.
Yes, exactly. People complain about the time delay in distributing estates and about estates evaporating.
With respect, that is not the main topic of the petition. I sense that members do not feel comfortable with that suggestion. Unless committee members feel strongly, we should perhaps leave that issue aside.
One point occurred to me as I listened to what Mr Shields said. There are perhaps times when doctors would cover up a suicide, as he suggested. Given Dorothy-Grace Elder's comments, there might be a financial reason for that, but perhaps the doctor feels sorrow for family members who have suffered a bereavement and wants to see some benefits going to them by way of insurance certification or whatever. In some instances, a doctor will take a very sympathetic line. I would not like to think that we are putting pressure on all doctors not to have a bit of compassion, at least, in their decisions.
That is a pertinent point. I have noted Phil Gallie's general point about writing to the Scottish Executive about the number of suicides that are linked with litigation and family separation. We will also ask the Executive about its proposals in the wake of the Shipman inquiry. It would be useful to know about that, as the Executive has done a lot of work on it.
Renewable Energy Programme<br />(Strategic Environmental Assessments) (PE559)<br />Wind Farms (National Strategy) (PE564)
We will take the next two petitions—PE559 and PE564—together. I welcome Mr Jeremy Carter, Mr Ben Palmer and Mr Bob Graham to the committee; it is a pleasure to have you with us. I will give you a moment or two to settle down, after which we will hear from Mr Ben Palmer on PE559, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to support a strategic and environmental assessment of Scotland's renewable energy programme. We will follow the usual format: you have three minutes to speak to the committee, after which committee members will ask questions.
Good morning. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present the petition to the Scottish Parliament. Dr Jeremy Carter will support me if you have any questions of a technical or legislative nature. I will be quite happy to answer questions on anything else.
Mr Graham, do you wish to speak?
Good morning and thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here. I say hello to Dr Winnie Ewing, who probably does not remember me, but she was the MP when I lived in Forres. Like Ben Palmer and Jeremy Carter, I am a confirmed environmentalist and I totally support the principle of renewable energy.
Please bring your remarks to a conclusion, Mr Graham.
Okay. Wind farm applications are contrary to agenda 21, which states that the indigenous population has a right to have a say in what happens to their environment. As a result of planning legislation, local people have little or no input into the planning process. Decisions are made based on pressure from the Scottish Executive. I have demonstrated that there should be a moratorium on wind farm development until there is an effective national strategy for renewables and, more important, until there has been much more public consultation.
Support for the petition has been received by e-mail from Michael Ryan, Mr and Mrs P Metcalfe, Marilyn Henderson, Graham Henderson and Helen Richardson. I remind members that we may not discuss the individual planning applications to which the petitioners have referred. We are to consider the more general issues that they raise.
My point may appear to be opposed to the petition, although I am sympathetic to the petitioners' views. Reference was made to the fact that Scotland generates 70 per cent more energy than it needs. However, at least 90 per cent of the production of our whisky industry is probably excess to Scotland's needs. That is not a bad thing in some respects.
Turbines from the current generation have a mean output of 2MW. However, because of their inefficiency and the random nature of the wind, no turbine has produced more than 27 per cent of its production capacity. That equates to just 0.25MW.
You live not far from Peterhead power station. Do you know the power station?
Yes.
What is the combined output of the two units at Peterhead? How many wind generators would be required to produce that?
You have picked the wrong example.
I will help you. The output of Peterhead power station is about 1,200MW, plus 1,320MW installed capacity. On your figures, that is equivalent to the output of almost all the wind farms that are currently installed in the UK.
You are absolutely correct.
Were there many objections to placing a power station on that nice, compact site?
I am not here to represent views on the compactness of the power station at Peterhead.
The issue is relevant to the evidence that you have given. Your submission shows a cluster of wind farms. It is one thing to generate electricity, but it is another to transmit it. Along with generators, power lines and transmission lines are required to take power away. Are wind farms being clustered to reduce transmission costs and the provision of unsightly transmission lines?
Absolutely not. I am sure that the three developers who are involved in the projects do not consult one another. They target sites that are as close as possible to the national grid. One of the restrictions that Moray Council placed on the applications for Cairn Uish and Paul's Hill was that the cables should run underground, because of the distance between the turbines and the nearest connection to the national grid. At Drummuir, the developers are hoping for reasons of cost to put cables above ground. I do not know whether the planners will allow that.
A comment has been made about the Government's attitude towards wind farms. The Government encourages wind farms and subsidises them heavily. The provision of underground cables would demand even more subsidy. Have you any idea how much that subsidy would be?
Brian Wilson has committed £1.6 billion to beefing up the grid system in Scotland. At a meeting of Highland Council on 15 November, he said that, in effect, he intended to turn Scotland into a wind farm for England. Scotland already has a surplus of electricity and has exceeded by a considerable margin the target that has been set. The sum of £1.6 billion is coming out of taxpayers' pockets.
Is that money to be used for transmission or to subsidise generation?
It is to be used to beef up the grid system. I understand that there are only 400MW of spare capacity on the grid system. If the amount of electricity that is generated increases by more than 400MW, the grid system will collapse. The Government must rebuild the grid system, which will cost consumers £1.6 billion.
I do not quite understand the point, but I will let it go.
Petition PE564 says:
Sadly, no renewables are commercially available in a form that will provide a reasonable amount of electricity. Investment has not been made in other forms, such as wave power or biomass, which are still at the experimental stage. The hardware for wind turbines is available and will be provided by Europe, because we do not have the technology. The form has been chosen because that is all that there is. No other viable forms of renewable energy exist, which is why we are stuck with the problem of windmills.
The investment in the nuclear industry was colossally greater than any sum that you are talking about, yet Dounreay has not produced one bit of electricity yet and we know all the trouble that it has caused to many people. I do not know whether the cost would take us near to having a strategy, but you are right to say that no strategy exists and that some of the statistics about the amount that can be achieved by such-and-such a year show great optimism. Will wave power be commercially viable?
It is possible that wave power will eventually be commercially viable, but that is hypothesis. We are dealing with the realities. In Scotland, 140 sites are earmarked. Some are at the planning stage and some have been developed. I ask members to cast their minds back to the UK Government's decision to experiment with anthrax on Gruinard island. Anthrax was kept under control, but Scotland was targeted for that experiment. I relate the wind farm situation to that, except that the virus of wind farms is out of control. The developers are being allowed to apply piecemeal where and when they like; what they are doing is almost unrestricted.
Is your objection largely to the look of turbines? We have talked about sustainability. I could respond to your answer about wave power by saying, "Just a minute—with all new things, you sometimes have to spend a lot of money, as the oil industry did." What about the damage, if any, that windmills do? I have been to all the sites in Orkney and have spoken to all the people roundabout, who do not seem to mind the turbines and do not say that they are suffering, although they are quite near. Do you object to the look of the turbines or the fact that they are unsustainable? Will you narrow your argument?
The turbines are a futile gesture. They do little or nothing to alter the greenhouse gas situation, so that argument can be pushed to one side—it is not an issue. Opinions about the look of the turbines are personal. I cannot stand the damn things, but that is not the position that I represent. One of Mr Wilson's favourite comments is that everybody in the anti-wind farm lobby is a NIMBY, which stands for "not in my back yard". Our back yard is Scotland, which is why we are all here. We are not just representing views on individual applications. We are here because we are concerned about the proliferation—that was difficult to say; I will put my teeth back in—of windmills.
I am not aware of the situation in Moray but I have read a lot about the recent suggestions on the development of wind farms in the Isle of Skye. It has been suggested today that, before any such schemes go ahead, an environmental assessment should be conducted. I am sure that no one would argue strongly against that suggestion. However, the environmental impact assessment of any wind farm development, such as the one that has been mentioned in Skye, would be done on behalf of the planning department of the local authority.
Site-specific environmental impact assessments are an important part of the planning procedure. However, there is a problem: NPPG 5 and planning advice note 45—PAN 45—put such an emphasis on the development of renewable energy that renewable energy projects are regarded as being green from the start. While the environmental effects of a coal power station or a nuclear power station would be scrutinised carefully—
They are not scrutinised closely enough. There has been tragedy after tragedy.
I agree, but my point is that the environmental impact of wind farms is not adequately scrutinised because they are perceived to be clean, green and sustainable.
Surely what you say about the number of golden eagles that would be injured or killed is an assumption. Has any calculation been done to produce an accurate assessment?
We do not know about the first application for Skye because we have not seen the data for it, but the second application, which is for 14 turbines, predicts a damage to the local eagle population of between 1 and 20 per cent. Obviously, that figure is uncertain: the developer's estimate could mean one eagle every five years or one eagle a year. However, good evidence based on the experience of wind farms in the United States of America suggests that badly placed wind farms that are not subject to proper environmental scrutiny can be damaging to golden eagles.
I accept that you are here to speak to a petition about what is happening in Skye and that Mr Graham is concerned about what is happening on the Scottish mainland. However, very few representations have been made to me on the subject—I speak as a representative of Skye. I would have thought that I would have heard from the Scottish Crofters Union, individual crofters or others who might be affected by the wind farm development, but I have not. That is why I am reasonably satisfied that the planning department took account of all the representations that it received when it approved the wind farm development last Friday.
I ask members to stick to the general issue, rather than to refer to the specifics of a planning application.
I respect the opinion that has been voiced, but the petition calls for a strategic environmental assessment. Agenda 21, the Aarhus convention and the new European Commission directive all say that development cannot be called sustainable unless a strategic environmental assessment has been conducted. That is what we want—we do not want to argue over particular cases; the cases that we highlighted are just examples.
I said at the outset that there would be no objections to your proposal for an environmental assessment. I am not objecting to that; I do not think that any reasonable person would.
The question is whether the planning system is able to deal with the situation. That is the broader issue.
We would question the assertion that the planning system is adequate, but I would say that, even if the system worked perfectly, it would be no substitute for strategic assessment.
I thank members for their questions and the witnesses for their attendance and for presenting their case so articulately, for which we are grateful. It is now for members to consider what action they think it appropriate to take. We will keep the petitioners informed about any progress on or developments with their petitions. You are welcome to stay seated and listen to what members have to say. My colleagues get their turn now.
You mentioned the petitioners' claim that electricity from wind farms costs double that from conventional sources. I was interested in that statistic. Could we seek clarification whether they include nuclear energy as a conventional source?
We could certainly add your question to our letter.
If nuclear is conventional, the petitioners' claim is not true. I do not know whether they can come back on that point.
Is that the question that you want to put in the letter?
I have to know what is meant by conventional before I can say whether I agree.
That is a matter of interpretation. I am asking you whether you would like us to ask that question of the Executive.
The petitioners' claim is not true if they are applying the term conventional to nuclear energy.
The cost of a nuclear unit is now down to something like 2.3p, compared with something like 5p to 6p for a wind farm generated unit.
I do not want to argue about the issue. I just want to know whether that is the question that Dr Ewing wants us to ask.
As long as my point is made: I do not agree that nuclear energy is a conventional source.
Those are points for the petitioners to make. It is not really—
We need to agree whether to make these points. I am saying that I agree with some points but not others. That is perfectly permissible. I agree with the point about the failure to generate long-term jobs or revenue. However, I do not agree that wind farm developments pose a real threat to house prices. I base that on evidence from Orkney.
I accept that those are your views. However, the petitioners have given us their views, for which they are asking us to be a conduit to the Executive. Are you content that we ask those questions?
Yes, but I would like my comments to be added, as I am a member of the committee.
We can also send a copy of the Official Report.
I do not necessarily accept that the points made in the petition are true.
We will send a copy of the Official Report, which means that your views will be made clear.
I want to pick up one of the petitioners' concerns, which is that Jack McConnell has set a target of 18 per cent renewable energy over the next 10 years—I think he said that renewable energy should reach 40 per cent over the next 20 years. I would like to know how the pressure of those targets, applied as national targets, is reflected when councils determine the outcome of applications for wind farms. At the moment, wind farms are the only practical form of renewable generation other than nuclear, which is also renewable. The volume output means that it will not be possible to meet the targets that Jack McConnell has set. It would be worth while to take this opportunity to question him about that.
We will take all those points on board and we will ensure that a copy of the Official Report goes to the Scottish Executive to make clear members' differing points of view. I can see that this is a controversial matter.
Do you, and the petitioners, agree that we should replace "conventional" with the term "present sources", because we cannot participate in enshrining nuclear energy as a conventional source of energy?
Are the petitioners happy to take that point on board? I do not have a problem with it.
Certainly. We could change the phrase to "existing sources".
Are you happy with that?
That is fine.
Good—consensus reigns.
Do members also agree to link PE564 to PE559 and PE493, which are related?
I thank the petitioners for their attendance this morning. We will keep you informed about the progress of your petitions and the outcomes. The clerk to the committee will contact you.
Scottish Law (Protection of Minors) (PE565)
For PE565, I invite Jacqueline, Mark and Karen Shields to come to the desk. I welcome you to the committee this morning. We are always pleased to welcome young visitors in particular.
My name is Jacqueline Shields. I am 12 years of age. I am here today with my brother and sister, who are helping me to present the petition.
Thank you. It is a bit unfortunate that a professional has been named in the committee. Wherever possible, we try to avoid that. I ask both members and witnesses not to name the individual professionals who have been involved, but to keep to the general issues. The committee has the responsibility of sticking to the general issues.
Have you heard of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995?
Could you repeat that?
Have you heard about the Children (Scotland) Act 1995? Let us just call it the children's act of the mid-1990s.
Yes.
I might be wrong, but that act states that the courts must take into account the opinions of children of eight years and over. When you have been involved in the legal process, what kind of contact have you had with the sheriffs who have been making the judgment? Have they taken you aside or into a separate room and found out what was on your mind?
No. When my mum and dad were there, I have said in court why I would like to stay with my dad, but I have not actually been taken into another room.
The sheriffs have tried to find out what was on your mind and they have still gone against your wishes.
Yes.
I am trying to make the point that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was meant to address the fact that youngsters' opinions should be registered and accepted by the courts. If this case is typical then it gives me some concern about the workings of the act.
Jacqueline, thank you for a well-put presentation. I know that it is not easy. I would like to clarify one or two points. There are three members of your family here. Are all of you living with your mother or your father? How is it working?
At the moment, I am a student at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. The situation is now worse, because my mum has custody of my sister. My dad is only supposed to have access from 11 until 7 on Saturdays.
You are talking about your younger sister.
Yes. I only get home at certain times of the year, when I am on holiday.
Your mother has custody of your younger sister. Did she have custody of you two until you reached adulthood?
No, and that is why the situation is so bad. I was of a similar age to my sister when my parents first separated. At that point I was allowed to express an opinion, so I said that I wanted to stay with my father. That is why I have to question why, when Jacqueline is now 12 years of age, she is not being allowed to express her opinion.
I interrupt to ask you whether you are here to talk about the wider issue or just about your specific circumstances?
I am just explaining the situation.
I asked the question in order to see if their situation is related to a wider problem.
I am 23.
How old were you at the separation?
I was 16 and I have lived on my own.
Did you live with your mother or father at first after the separation?
I lived with my father.
So all three of you chose to live with your father.
He was living in the family home, so it seemed natural that we would choose to stay there.
Jacqueline has to live with her mother—is that correct?
Jacqueline lived with her father at first and my mother got custody and took Jacqueline to live in a women's aid refuge rather than letting her stay at home with her family.
Did any legal or other so-called professional consult you and Mark about Jacqueline's situation?
Not at that time.
That happened later on after custody was awarded. It has been like a game of tennis—backwards and forwards. She used to be allowed a two-night stay over; then it was a one-night stay over.
Was the report in relation to Jacqueline?
Yes.
So you did get some say—with the social workers, for instance.
Basically they were asking me about the situation at home to try and find out who was more suitable to take responsibility for Jacqueline. Their report missed out a lot of events that I told them about. When I complained to the social work department, I was told that because there were two social workers, my interpretation of the situation was wrong. The worst thing about it was that they said that because I was a child—I was a teenager at the time—my interpretation was wrong. If they responded like that when they were questioning me at age 15, what are the chances of their properly reporting my sister, who is much younger?
Are you trying to raise the issue that a child of over 12 years of age should have the right to their own lawyer? Is that one of the things that you are saying?
Yes. I have tried lawyers—I have a list here—but none would act for me or get back to me about the matter. I have waited for a month or so without receiving a reply. I phoned a couple of lawyers, but they said that they could not become involved.
Currently, you do not legally have the right to your own lawyer. Are you asking for the law to be changed to give you that right?
Basically, she wants the right to choose where to live. She can achieve that only by legal means, as any question that arises about where she can live goes back to the court. I do not see how she can attack the problem in any way other than by legal means through a lawyer.
The courts have a duty in respect of a child's welfare and well-being. That is the law, so the law has not been disobeyed. The problem is that Jacqueline is one of many people in custody who is not happy with that custody. Currently, the law allows the court to make a judgment.
I contacted it for advice.
Did it help you in any way?
Yes. It gave me telephone numbers, which I phoned. However, the lawyers whom I phoned either told me that they could not act for me or did not get back to me.
So the centre advised you to go to a lawyer.
Yes.
We are considering the more general issue of access rights. To pick up on what Dr Ewing said, legal representation exists in specific circumstances only, in respect of children's hearings. Would you like that representation to be extended? Is that the more general issue that should be addressed?
I would like to have representation that I could trust and would like to know that my representation would go to court and say where I want to stay.
I have been taking notes. Am I right to assume that you blame the legal process that you have gone through and the actions of lawyers for worsening your relationship with your mother, for instance, and that that relationship might even be better if you had not been subjected to things that you say the legal side did? Is that assumption fair or unfair?
I think that my mother's lawyer, Jill, has affected matters. Even when I said that I wanted to stay with my dad and ran away, my mum received advice from her about what to do.
If you and your mother only talked about things without intervention, do you think that things might be better?
We do not want to put the petitioner in a difficult position. I sense that she feels uncomfortable, so we will leave that question, although she can answer it if she wants to.
I want to return to what I said about the 1995 act. I was wrong to say that a child's opinion should be registered from the age of eight—it appears that it should be taken into consideration from the age of 12. Jacqueline, you are now 12, so perhaps things will improve from now on. However, problems arose for you from the age of seven or eight. Do you think that, when you were eight, you were in a position to make it clear—to whoever asked—what you wanted to do?
No, I do not think so.
At the time of the separation, one problem that arose was that Jacqueline wanted to see both parents—as I did—but people did not look at the whole picture and take into account the opinions of the family about our mum's mental state and how fit she is to be a parent.
My mother is using the legal process to do that. When families split up, there is a lot of emotional tug-of-war between parents. The court mediates that situation in the child's best interests, but only for a short term. What usually happens is that couples that have split up will eventually agree their own arrangements as the emotional tension eases. However, the situation with my mother has worsened and, instead of her lawyer advising her to address Jacqueline's feelings, she has continued to allow my mum to stand in court—
I am sorry to interrupt you, but I must point out that we want to examine the more general issues that are contained in the petition. We do not want to get involved in cases on which courts have already ruled. We are asking you for evidence on wider issues. Your useful evidence has focused attention on some of the more important general issues, and I think that members might have gathered enough information to consider those. Unless you have anything more to say on the general issues, I thank you for your evidence.
I agree with all those actions. Indeed, I was going to suggest the last point myself.
Certainly.
I agree with the suggested courses of action. Indeed, Dr Ewing's point is well made.
That is fair enough. We can accept that.
It is alarming that we have heard two similar complaints today about professional misconduct, whether that is about the Law Society of Scotland or some other organisation. That seems to be a regular presentation, and we should take it more seriously and ask questions, rather than just dismissing it.
The Justice 1 Committee has conducted an inquiry into misconduct and the legal profession, and it is in the process of producing a report on that. We could point you to that.
We have heard today about problems that go wider than the legal profession.
I thank the petitioners. It is always a harrowing experience for anyone to come before the Public Petitions Committee, but particularly for younger people. You have done very well, Jacqueline, and I thank you and your brother and sister for appearing today. We will report back to you so that you will know exactly what is happening.
Complementary Medicine (PE571)
We turn now to our next petition. We do not have a speaker to it, but we welcome to the committee Sylvia Jackson, who will speak in support of the petition. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to require health boards in Scotland to implement the recommendations of the 1996 report on complementary medicine in the national health service by the national medical advisory committee of the Scottish Office department of health.
Thank you, convener. I am here to represent one of my constituents, Ethne Brown, who unfortunately cannot appear. You outlined what the petition is about, and committee members may have explanatory notes. I will go through the main points.
We are grateful to you. We have received two e-mails. One was sent on behalf of the chief executive of the Prince of Wales's Foundation for Integrated Health, giving the foundation's full support for the petition lodged by Mrs Ethne Brown.
I once hosted a meeting of CAM practitioners, at which Helen Eadie was an active participant. There is a big access problem and a big research problem. One of the problems is whether CAM practitioners are also recognised as practitioners by the official body that we recognise, which is the BMA. We were surprised at how many of the CAM practitioners who came to the meeting that I held were fully qualified practitioners. It may be that there is not the problem that we think there is.
We could ask the Scottish Executive whether it has a view on that issue. I support wholeheartedly what Winnie Ewing has said. I was present at the briefing that has been mentioned, for which the room was packed. I have a keen interest in this topic. I am 120 per cent behind the petition and wish it well.
The issue that Winnie Ewing has raised may be important. In preparation for the 1996 report, a survey was carried out to determine the current uptake of complementary therapies within the framework of the NHS. It was found that many health boards were purchasing complementary medicine through what were called hidden contracts. Interventions were being carried out in pain clinics, physiotherapy departments, health centres and hospices without that being acknowledged explicitly. Given that complementary treatment is being provided, we must ask why it is not integrated into the NHS. That would avoid the fragmentation that currently exists. However, Winnie Ewing is right to ask whether people on low incomes are prevented from seeking complementary therapies.
We will include that question in our letter to the Executive.
Do we intend to write to the chief medical officer as well?
It has not been suggested that we do that, but there is no reason for us not to.
The chief medical officer advises the minister.
If we write to the Scottish Executive, I presume that the chief medical officer will reply.
We do not know that. The minister's assistant may write the letter.
We can address our queries specifically to the chief medical officer, if members would like us to.
What is the problem? Malcolm Chisholm has confirmed that it is up to GPs and hospital clinicians to determine whether someone should receive alternative treatment. GPs and hospital clinicians remain responsible for the overall health of individuals, but they can offer alternative or complementary therapies whenever they regard those as appropriate.
We can address our letter specifically to the chief medical officer, as Dorothy-Grace Elder requested, or we can address it to the minister.
I suggest that we write to both of them.
In effect, we are writing to the same person. If the letter is sent to the minister, the chief medical officer will answer it. I ask members for guidance on what they would like me to do. We know that the minister supports the provision of complementary alternative therapies. We need to ask why health boards are not pursuing Government policy. Perhaps we should ask health boards why they are failing to do that. However, it is for the minister to indicate why health boards are not following a policy that the Executive has articulated clearly.
I return to the comments that Malcolm Chisholm has made. He has said that health boards can provide complementary alternative therapies, but he places the onus for seeking them on GPs and hospital clinicians. That directs us towards the BMA. What are its members doing? What attitude do they take towards complementary alternative therapies? If they already have the power to refer patients to alternative practitioners, why are they not using it? Are health boards imposing restrictions?
I suspect that health boards are imposing restrictions.
I was slow to reply to Phil Gallie because I am in a difficult position. As parliamentary aide to Malcolm Chisholm, I must be careful about what I say in the light of the ministerial code. That is why I was careful to make it clear that I am representing my constituent.
I am trying to sense what members want. All your questions are covered by the suggested action in the report. However, the committee can make clear to the Executive specific points to clarify the policy and ensure that it is being implemented. Therefore, I assume that the committee is happy to progress on that.
I suspect that there might be a saving. What is the financial effect?
That is a good question. The financial effect is probably the nub of the argument for the health boards. Members can refer to the report and ensure that we pick up on the various points and highlight them for the minister. It is a vital area, on which the committee must work, and, as an MSP, I will give as much support as I can. Are members content with that approach?
Next
Current Petitions