Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Official Report 273KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Football Stadia (Safe Standing Areas) (PE1248)

Welcome to the eighth meeting in 2009 of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee. I thank everyone for their attendance. We have received no apologies, but one member may be late because of another committee commitment.

I say to everyone in the room that all mobile phones and other electronic devices should be switched off.

Agenda item 1 is new petitions. We have five new petitions to consider. Members have copies of them and the supporting information in the papers that were issued for the meeting.

The first petition is PE1248, by Stephen Taylor, on behalf of Dunfermline Athletic Supporters Society Ltd. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reintroduce safe standing areas at Scottish Premier League football stadia to give professional clubs the option of having seated or standing areas at their football grounds. I welcome to the meeting Stephen Taylor, Andrew Bailey and Deborah Paton. John Park MSP has also indicated an interest in the petition.

Stephen Taylor has two or three minutes to speak to the key points in the petition. He can then respond to questions from members of the committee. Andrew Bailey and Deborah Paton should feel free to speak when appropriate.

On behalf of the Pars Supporters Trust, I thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to speak to it. That opportunity has lifted our campaign's profile and given us a boost. I hope that it will give us a good platform as we proceed. I also thank the parliamentary support staff for their help in getting us this far and John Park for his support.

Why do we want safe standing areas to be reintroduced in top-class football grounds in Scotland? I think that it is generally accepted that we have seen a bit of a decline in support at football matches in Scotland in recent years. Even visits by the old firm to provincial clubs do not necessarily guarantee ticket sell-outs now. Many factors are involved—the standing/sitting debate is only one factor to consider—but it is clear that we need to draw supporters back to the game.

Football has a major economic influence in Scotland. It supports many businesses and jobs throughout the country and is therefore extremely important.

The Scottish Football Association's licensing rules for member clubs impose minimum standards in all aspects of running a professional club. They include the minimum 6,000-seat rule and the no-standing rule for Scottish Premier League clubs. Many clubs have put themselves into severe financial difficulty to comply with the all-seated rule. They include our club, Kilmarnock Football Club and Inverness Caledonian Thistle. I think that Falkirk FC is introducing a new third stand as well. We saw the demise of Gretna FC last year. That was partly due to the ground rules, which meant that it had to share with Motherwell FC for a season. That certainly did not help its financial situation.

This time next year, clubs such as Queen of the South, Greenock Morton and Ross County could be in contention for promotion to the SPL, and they might have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to upgrade their grounds. That is silly in these difficult economic times. Many of the seats will never be needed, so what is the point of having them?

We believe that there has been a clear reduction in the general atmosphere at football matches. The tone tends to be lower and things tend to be a bit quiet when everybody sits. I think that even old firm fans would say that the atmosphere can be a bit flat in normal, run-of-the-mill games at Parkhead and Ibrox, although it is not in UEFA champions league matches or when the old firm meet at those grounds. We were at Dumfries on Saturday. Queen of the South has one of the largest traditional terracings in the country. It was well populated and safe.

Safety is a major concern in the campaign. We have been asked many questions about safety over the past three or four months. It is a bit of a coincidence—an unhappy coincidence in some respects—that our campaign has clashed with the 20th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. That has caused many questions about safety to be asked.

The Taylor report made it clear that the Hillsborough disaster was not an issue about sitting or standing. The problems at Hillsborough were to do with access to the ground and the fact that supporters were being moved into a caged area that had no escape routes. German football leagues have coped with a mix of standing and sitting for many years. As ever, the Germans are perhaps technically ahead of us in the style and construction of terracing and seating.

We have reached the stage at which the policing and stewarding at football matches is very much on top of crowd control. Trouble and safety are not really issues in the standing/sitting debate. Standing is not inherently unsafe. What is the first thing that fans do at half-time in an all-seated stadium? They stand up. What do they do when their team scores a goal? Admittedly, it has not happened at Dunfermline all that much this year, but they stand up and jump around. It is not unsafe to stand up. Why is it that we are allowed to stand at a rock concert or a racecourse?

The football authorities have not always shown themselves to be on the side of the supporters, who tend to be a wee bit down the pecking order. We saw that recently, when some international matches were televised on obscure satellite channels. The fans do not always get the attention that they deserve from the authorities. The campaign has already been knocked back by the SFA and the SPL.

We are not looking for mandatory change or new legislation. Enough red tape surrounds football already. What we are really looking for is support from Parliament to give the football authorities in this country a nudge and to get them to consider reintroducing limited safe standing areas.

We are conscious that Henry McLeish will be heading up a new commission on Scottish football. It would be a great plus for us if we could get on to his agenda. It is great that we are achieving a profile here: we have John Park's support and I hope that we will also have that of committee members.

On the issue of where we go from here, to a certain extent we will have to pass that ball back to the committee. We believe that this is a campaign worthy of support and that it has wide support throughout the country, but it is a matter of choice. We do not want clubs to be forced to introduce seating. Individuals clubs should be able to discuss the matter with their supporters.

Thank you, Stephen. I invite committee members to ask questions. At the end, if John Park wishes to contribute he can do so too.

Good afternoon, colleagues. I have a number of questions. First, Stephen, you said that there is wide support from other clubs and supporters organisations. How do you know that, and how wide and profound is that support?

The petition had almost 2,400 signatures from all parts of the country and abroad. We are part of the Supporters Direct network. Most clubs in the country—Scotland and down south—have set up supporters trusts, which are members of Supporters Direct. We know that there has been tremendous support from other supporters organisations throughout the country. A major campaign in England, which I think is being organised by the Football Supporters Federation, is very much behind us as well.

You talked about the German experience in the Bundesliga. Have there been any incidents that should give us pause for thought before we support the intent of your petition? In other words, given what you said about Germany being an example that we should follow, is it completely safe?

I have found no notable recorded incidents of any form in Germany. Within the past two months, there have been recorded incidents in all-seater stadia in Africa, which goes against the idea that all-seater stadia are safe. The two major incidents in world football have been in all-seater stadia. We are not aware of anything in the German league to cause any concern.

Stephen Taylor mentioned Hillsborough, and you explained why you do not think that that is a correct analogy to the intent of your petition. Am I right in thinking that what you are asking for would only involve part of a football ground? The Ibrox disaster—for those of us who are old enough to remember it—was to do with people standing up and there being too many people. I remember that, when I was a kid, there was a great atmosphere. There were about 110,000 people at the old Hampden Park when Denis Law scored the equaliser against West Germany in 1969—it was exciting, but a wee bit intimidating. Am I right about what you are asking for?

Absolutely—we are not looking at going back to where we were. We are looking at probably quite limited standing areas, whether they would be a small corner or a section of an existing stand. Some of the major German stadia—including those of some of the top clubs in the Bundesliga—have some terracing that can take up to 20,000 supporters. I do not think that any grounds in this country would really stretch to that, other than perhaps the two old firm grounds. We are not suggesting that we go back that way. The facilities at football grounds have moved on tremendously in the past 30 to 40 years, and we certainly do not want to do anything that would be viewed as a backwards step.

One aspect that must be considered is the situation in the German Bundesliga. In a lot of cases, the fans are self-regulating and self-policing; it is actually the fans who regulate the safety in the stadium—they take individual and collective responsibility for that.

Does that always work?

It appears to work in the majority of stadiums in the Bundesliga where the fans do that.

That is not the question. The question is whether self-regulation—fans regulating themselves—always works.

In the majority of instances that we have looked at. Borussia Dortmund is a keen example of where it actually works: the fans take responsibility for ensuring that the gangways and exits are clear.

I accept that, but again I come back to my previous question: does it work in all cases? Can you guarantee that?

We cannot guarantee that, but we are not asking for self-stewarding—we would continue to work with the police and the stewarding forces to have a safe standing area covering approximately 10 or 20 per cent of the ground. We are not considering going back to terracing en masse.

I thank Deborah Paton for answering my question to Andrew Bailey.

In my many years of experience in attending football matches—and rugby matches, for that matter—I have often regretted the passing of the standing areas, because the atmosphere is different. I am happy to accept that as a strong argument.

Most of my questions have already been answered, but I have one further question. You have quoted evidence only from Germany at the moment—do you have evidence from other football leagues in Europe? Do you intend to look at other leagues to back up your arguments?

It is an on-going process. We are looking throughout the world to find out where safe standing areas have been introduced. A lot of countries have not moved to all-seater stadia, so there are still a large number of terraces out there. The situation in Germany is the most obvious example, and we have quite a lot of information about that, but we are continuing to look around. I cannot give you any more information than that at this point—sorry.

More research would be appreciated by those people who might be on your side.

I was quite impressed when I read the petition—you have done your homework on the subject. It was persuasive for me when you mentioned the possibility of Greenock Morton getting to the SPL.

That is an ambitious commitment.

It is a five-year plan, convener.

There are two other things that I found persuasive in your arguments. One was the analogy of a rock concert, which made me think. You are right: at rock concerts people can either be seated or standing, and concerts are often held in football stadia such as Hampden Park. I am interested in that argument and the fact that you are not talking about making standing areas mandatory.

What concerns me, however, is that you state that the Taylor report says that the Hillsborough disaster was not to do with whether there was seating or standing. In the part of the report that discussed how to achieve overall safety, Lord Taylor said:

"I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve these objectives than any other single measure".

That implies that he was citing the fact that the stadium was not all seated as a cause of the disaster. Do you dispute that he is saying that? Am I interpreting it wrongly? If I am not interpreting it wrongly, I will be interested to hear your comments on that statement.

I take your point. We all accept that sitting down tends to lower the temperature and subdue the atmosphere in grounds; for a start, you do not get the same movement. However, I maintain that the basic problems that arose at Hillsborough—as with the Ibrox disaster, which was mentioned earlier—were more to do with entering the ground. Once you get people into the safe standing or sitting area, there are usually no problems. Of course, there are other major factors such as policing and stewarding, the design of stairways and so on. As I say, though, I accept that seating is a contributory factor, which is why we are not saying that we should go back to the massive terracing that we had in the past. We are simply saying that there should be fairly limited, well-controlled and well-maintained areas.

By the way, Dunfermline are playing Greenock Morton tonight. They could be in trouble.

You have got no chance.

Speaking of which, I point out that at Greenock Morton's ground the terracing opposite the main stand has seating with standing behind it. That is quite unusual; I do not think that any other ground in Scotland has that.

That is for Greenock Morton's escape committee.

Have you discussed your plans with the police? If so, what response did you receive?

We have not spoken directly to the police, but we have taken the matter up with Dunfermline's stadium manager, who is the main liaison with the match day commander. We realise that we are going to have to talk to the police at some stage; after all, we can do all this work and get everyone on side, but if the police say no that will be the end of it.

That is what was going through my head.

You have made some good and interesting points but, when I watch a football match on the television, I cannot tell whether the spectators are sitting or standing. In fact, they sometimes have a great big flag on top of them and I simply do not think that any of them can see the match. What are the benefits of standing as opposed to sitting? Surely if the spectators do not have a clear view, it does not matter whether they are standing or sitting.

If you replaced a seating area for 500 people with a standing-only area, would that increase or reduce a ground's capacity?

That might be a relevant issue to discuss with the police or, indeed, the SFA's licensing committee. Such a move could reduce a ground's capacity, because we are not looking for a return to the days when everyone was hemmed in shoulder to shoulder, but I cannot say for certain.

Some top-class games will always have a capacity crowd, but I think that, in the 12 years that East End Park has been an all-seater stadium, it has been filled to capacity only twice. There are always lots of empty seats. As a result, even if capacity were reduced, we would not expect it to have a significant financial effect on the club.

I suppose that this applies to other clubs such as Greenock Morton and Partick Thistle that hope to get into the Premier League, but if Dunfermline were promoted how many fans would you like or expect to see in a standing area? I imagine that the average attendance at one of your home matches is 4,500 to 5,000.

Given that the petition is on behalf of the Pars Supporters Trust, why have fans been compelled to express themselves on this issue? Is it because of concerns about the SPL's punitive conditions for entry into the league, which have made it difficult for clubs to survive economically? Indeed, a number of clubs have had to make difficult decisions that have had various consequences.

There are three key issues to address. First, I have to say that we would love to have gates of 4,500 at our football matches. The figure is probably closer to about 3,000.

But if you were in the Premier League—

In that case, the answer is yes; we would hope to get 4,500 to 5,000 at Premier League matches. It would be great to get 10 to 20 per cent of home fans in the standing area; certainly a pilot that involved 10 per cent would be a good way to go.

As we have already made clear, we feel compelled to bring this petition to the Parliament because of the financial implications that the issue has for clubs. Our club has already been through this process, and our stadium is now all-seater. Of course, reversing that would have financial implications that would have to be dealt with, and the truth is that, at the moment, our club would be unable to cover the costs.

As Stephen Taylor has pointed out, fans are the customers of Scottish football, but they have no choice at games. That is causing ructions between different fans, because those who choose to stand in inappropriate places block the view of the people who want to sit down. We want to give all fans the opportunity to enjoy the football experience in their chosen environment.

I cannot remember what the third issue was.

We are probably talking about having 500 in the standing area. We do not want to go back to the old days when several thousand people might have been standing in one area. Quite a lot of supporters have got used to sitting, and we do not expect all of them to get back on their feet again.

That reminds me of my third point, which is about atmosphere. A couple of months ago, when we played in the quarter-final at Pittodrie, all the Dunfermline fans were standing and the atmosphere that was generated was—rightly or wrongly—totally different from anything that we have experienced recently. Of course it was wrong for them to be standing, but there was a better atmosphere. As a result, we feel that it would be better to give fans the choice of going into a safe standing area.

I have to say that I prefer to sit at matches, particularly when I bring my children along. However, if you are in the north stand at Hampden at a Scotland match, you have no option but to stand, because the vast majority of the people are on their feet. In fact, I would argue that at Scotland matches the whole ground stands, apart from the fans in the main stand. That gives you some idea of the challenges that face police and stewards and the issues that can arise between supporters.

Perhaps I should give the committee some background about the Pars Supporters Trust. It does a lot of work in the club—for example, it generates a lot of income for youth development, represents supporters' views and so on—and I am pleased to support not only its petition but its work in general.

Members have helpfully highlighted certain issues that the trust will have to reflect on. For example, Anne McLaughlin made a pertinent point about Justice Taylor's 1989 report about Hillsborough and the fact that at that point the only solution for improving safety in grounds was to introduce seating. However, the culture of supporting football has changed a lot over the past 20 years: for example, more families attend matches than ever before. The grounds, and particularly access to them, have improved and the police, the stewards and the authorities have more of an understanding about crowd control.

The trust is looking for a number of things, and I know that their proposals have wider support from football fans. However, the authorities need to take a closer look at the issue. It would be useful if it could be covered in the upcoming review of Scottish football and, indeed, if it could be examined by some of the other parliamentary committees.

As John Park made clear, it is interesting to compare what happens at football games nowadays, with families and children going along, with the joys and pleasures that I experienced at Saturday afternoon games 30 or 40 years ago and my expectations of what was going to happen either behind or in front of me.

I want to draw out comparisons with the Bundesliga, where the witnesses said the fans police themselves. I suppose that one question is whether there is confidence that the fans would do that in a standing-only terrace in Scotland. The fact is that not every fan is like that—as John Park said, at a Scotland game you could end up standing for the whole 90 minutes because the fans in front of you were standing. That detracts from the pleasure of people who bring their families and young children along to enjoy the game. If someone who is 6ft 6in is standing in front of a child, who is seated or is standing in order to look over that person, their view of the game is completely different. I remember that on the terraces parents had to lift their children on to their shoulders to enable them to watch the game. We need to ensure that the pleasure of watching the game is retained, and we should not assume that self-policing on certain terraces is the panacea that will allow us to move forward.

A number of changes have taken place in football grounds, including in the use of alcohol. The facilities that are available in some grounds now are a lot better than those that were available 30 or 40 years ago, but there needs to be self-policing among fans. If we have standing areas in grounds, how will we regulate them? Will football clubs and police authorities have to put more people in situ? The Ibrox disaster, which has been mentioned, was caused not by people standing on the terraces but by people trying to get back up stairway 13 because a last-minute goal had been scored; there was a crush on the stairway, not on the terraces. We must regulate to ensure that we do not have another such disaster.

One criticism at Hillsborough was that the police and stewards let more and more fans in, so that people had to escape the crush that was taking place. Can we guarantee that that situation will not arise again on standing terraces, especially at some of the smaller league grounds, if 20,000 fans are outside trying to push their way in and the police or stewards decide to open the gates to allow more in?

You have raised two key issues—thank you for making those points. You mentioned the change that has taken place in the past few years, in that more families now go to football matches. When I went to the football 30 years ago, I went with my dad. His choice was to take us to the main stand, so that we were not on the terracing. The crux of the petition is to give people choice, which is no longer available—fans currently have no choice but to sit.

I do not want to take the discussion too far into the issue of self-regulation. The petition is not about that—it is about working with the authorities to ensure that there is a small, safe standing area in which we can create some atmosphere in a sport that is struggling in this country.

You have given us a perfect example of why we need dedicated standing areas, so that people do not stand where they should not and block the view of families and others. Our campaign started partly because youngsters were standing up and other people could not see.

A fair number of questions have been asked, and the answers have been thorough. You know that this is a sensitive issue, as we have just had the 20-year anniversary of a terrible tragedy that occurred elsewhere in the United Kingdom; we have also had our own tragedies in Scotland in the past 30 or 40 years.

I am trying to get a sense of the dimensions of what is proposed. You identified a couple of issues that are subject to on-going review by the SFA; we can discuss whether we want to refer the petition to that review. There are other issues relating to the legislative framework and the SPL's criteria for the condition of grounds and the nature of pitches. I invite members to indicate how they think we should proceed. We can then pull together and act on the suggestions that are made.

It has been an interesting session that has cleared up matters for me and, I hope, for other members. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government. I know that it has said that it has no plans to review the current policy on all-seater stadia but, when we write to the Government, we could perhaps ask whether there are any circumstances in which it might hold such a review. We could ask it what representations it has received on the issue from football clubs, supporters organisations, the police and other interested parties.

Health and safety is important, so we should perhaps write to the Health and Safety Executive for its views on whether standing areas should be reintroduced, albeit on a restricted basis. Is there any evidence of a causal link between standing and accidents at football stadia? It would be helpful to know about that.

I would like to follow up my question to Mr Taylor by asking the police what they think. That would probably mean writing to the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to seek their views.

We should ask them to acknowledge that an increasing problem is being caused by people standing in seating areas.

We should refer the petition to the McLeish review, which will perhaps have some discussions on the matter. It might be asking too much of the review to find solutions to all the issues that face Scottish football, however.

I am intrigued by the question that has been raised. Watching coverage of the Bundesliga, I am struck by the numbers of people and the atmosphere. There are still big attendances at games in Germany, where access to football matches is still relatively inexpensive compared with Scottish or British football. I would be interested if the Scottish Parliament information centre could provide us with an overview of the issues from around the world, including Germany—an advanced European nation with similar infrastructure characteristics to ours. It is a good example to consider.

There could also be a discussion with the SPL and the Scottish Football League about whether there is any flexibility on interpretation regarding the nature of football grounds, given that the requirements have caused clubs difficulty in the recent past and bearing in mind the economic climate that clubs face and its effect on attendances. There will continue to be pressure on clubs.

I suggest that, when we write to the Health and Safety Executive, and possibly when we write to the Government, we ask why the rules are different for rock concerts, particularly given that they are often held in football stadia.

Okay.

I am not sure whether Supporters Direct or the Football Supporters Federation have been mentioned. It would be useful to get the views of the fans, too, and to see whether there is a general demand for the reintroduction of standing areas. In particular, I would like to draw out the views of the fans who support the petition on family attendance at games. We must bear it in mind that we are trying to widen out football to bring in the younger generation, not only to view and support the game but to participate. It would be useful to find out whether any difficulties are foreseen with younger children. There used to be parent-and-child terraces in many grounds—but that is going back a few years ago now.

I think that we have gone through all the issues, so I will explain what happens next.

We will explore the issues further, and the petitioners will be kept fully up to date on what happens. The petition will return to the committee once we have received the responses. Although you do not have the opportunity to speak directly to the petition again, given that you have had this involvement today, the MSPs who express an interest in a petition often come back to the committee to follow through on the issues. You will also be invited to the committee when the petition is considered again, although, as I have said, you cannot participate directly at that stage.

I hope that we can explore some of the issues further. I thank the petitioners for their time. They have raised an issue that people wish to be explored further, and I hope that we can assist with some of that discourse.

---

Holiday and Party Flats (Regulation) (PE1249)

PE1249, by Stanley Player, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a statutory duty on landlords who offer properties for short-term, holiday and party-flat lets to register the properties as such; and to comply with all necessary houses in multiple occupation, noise, safety and environmental regulations. I welcome to the meeting Stanley Player. Sarah Boyack MSP has been raising the issues, and we have a letter from Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP about the impact of party-flat lets in the Lothians. I am aware, however, that such flats are a feature in cities throughout the country. I invite Stanley to speak to his petition.

There seems to be confusion between the terms "holiday lets" and "party flats". The term "holiday let" sums up a nice little place in the country, or even a festival flat, where visitors stay while they take in the city, go out and see shows and have a nice time. There seems to be a suggestion that we are somehow trying to stop the Edinburgh festival existing. I was born in and live in Edinburgh. I was there at the start of the festival, which is wonderful. Nothing is going to stop the festival; a couple of little laws will not stop it going ahead. We need some sort of link between the public and the party flats.

Party flats cause a lot of noise, misery and fear—fear of parties starting up at all times of the morning. We are woken up by parties at 1, 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. There is no one we can call. We can call social services, but they do not seem to react to such situations. If I phone the noise team and say that there are 15 people up in the top flat creating a rammy, they say that it is a police matter—I might have already waited an hour to get through. Meanwhile, the police arrive and ask what we are doing about the situation. I tell them what the situation is and what I am doing to try to stop it. They tell me that I am doing all the right things and then they walk away and leave me. There is nothing to stop these situations.

The situation is not unique to Edinburgh. It is not unique to our street; it happens in the centre, the old town, the new town, the suburbs and Leith. Everybody is having problems with party flats. I have here an article that explains that Glasgow has exactly the same problems that we have with noise and people being sick and urinating in the stair. If you live in a stair and someone rings the bell at 2 o'clock in the morning, it gets you up and you have to answer the door. That is when the problems start.

I have just received a letter, which I am sure that committee members have received, too, about Sapphire Point in Lochend Road. There are 52 flats in the development, of which 42 were bought by one person. They have now become party flats. That means that the remaining 10 residents have to put up with all those parties going on. That must be absolute hell on earth to live with.

It is hell for us, too. Busloads of people arrive and they all go up to a small flat that has wall-to-wall beds. The problems are absolutely horrendous. People come in and go out at all times, with doors banging. We cannot get our sleep because we are disturbed.

The situation is deplorable and we cannot seem to do anything about it. Whatever authorities we call do not seem to take any notice. I am looking for some sort of legislation to rectify the situation.

I invite Sarah Boyack to comment, from the point of view of a constituency member who receives complaints about the issue from constituents.

I first heard of the concept of a party flat just over a year ago. As Stan Player said, Edinburgh has a long history of promoting tourism, so the point is not that we have not previously had tourists staying in the city—we have lots of accommodation that we want tourists to come and stay in. However, a party let is not a short-term let, as the property is let for only a weekend. As Stan Player said, 10 to 25 people can come to a normal tenement flat of the sort that there are in Glasgow and other big Scottish cities. Although those flats accommodated quite a few people in their early days, they did not accommodate as many people as there are in party flats. The people who come for the weekend want to have a good time and enjoy themselves. The issue is not that they hold parties in the flats, but that there is a lot of noise when they arrive, when they get ready to go out and when they come back, sometimes in the middle of the night or the early hours of the morning.

In the past year, I have become much more aware of the issue. In some areas in the city centre, landlords are targeting the market. On the internet, one finds that stag and hen weekends are targeted. It is not good for the name of the city, and there is a particular problem for residents in reasonably busy residential streets, who might have HMO properties near them. The party flats are beginning to tip the balance and the situation has become untenable.

I am also concerned about safety. One reason why the HMO legislation was introduced was that we had fatalities. I worry about the mix of overcrowding, alcohol and people who are here for a good weekend. There is nobody to oversee the situation. The flats are not bed and breakfasts, so nobody is there to check whether people are okay or to ensure that they look after the property. There is a lot of money in these lets, so the issue has become an economic one. We need regulatory checks and somebody to take an interest in the issue. An unintended consequence of the HMO legislation has been to put into people's minds the idea that they can rent out flats in this way—it has become an attractive and lucrative industry. Many party flats in the city are advertised on the internet.

I am worried about the health and safety aspects for the people who rent the accommodation. I am also worried about other tenants and owners in the stairs where the party flats are. Something needs to be done. It is difficult to involve the police, because they do not regard the activity as illegal. As members know, it is necessary to get somebody to deal with a noise problem at the time, because otherwise the people who are making the noise will be long gone or will have gone quiet. We might assume that the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 would be a good source of action, but the way in which it is crafted means that it simply enables the Scottish Government to introduce regulations to include party flats or holiday lets—it does not include those at present, so we have ended up with a loophole.

The practice is a new and unregulated economic activity. As the member for Edinburgh city centre, I absolutely do not suggest that we should destroy the tourism industry in Edinburgh, but the problem of party flats must be considered. Neither the antisocial behaviour legislation nor the HMO legislation is easily applicable because, when that legislation was written, the use of accommodation in this way was not envisaged. The loophole must be examined, and I hope that the committee is interested in doing so.

Committee members will have sympathy with the points that have been made, particularly those on noise nuisance, safety and antisocial behaviour. However, in our briefing, there are comments about responsibility for repairs. Will you comment on that, too?

These people do not seem to exist. We have tried to have a conversation with them but, when we arranged a meeting with them, they did not turn up. Three other residents and I went to the police station, where the owner of the party flat had agreed to meet us, the police and someone from social services. However, the owner did not turn up. That is extreme arrogance and is the type of thing that people have to put up with when dealing with the owners of these flats.

On the issue of repairs, you can imagine what happens when you have 20, 30 or 40 people in these flats, all using the facilities, toilets and showers at the same time. A lady at the bottom of number 31 was nearly drowned in sewage because 25 girls were in the party flat and the shower seemed to clog up—the flat even ran out of water. The flats were not built to deal with that sort of situation.

I know that people in tenements often have difficulty getting other residents to maintain the communal areas, such as the stairwells. Is that a particular problem for you?

We are fortunate enough to have our own private garden at the back, but all we get is cigarettes coming out of that flat—they are not stubbed out; they come down lit. What happens in the flat when they are smoking? Do they drop cigarettes down the back of chairs and so on? The idea that there might be a fire terrifies us.

Most of the party flats are on the top floors of tenements, which means that you get 20 or 30 people going up and down the stairs at all times of day. Where is the sense in that? There is no legislation to say that the flats cannot be used in that way. That is our problem.

When did the problem start to kick in? Did you previously have a fairly stable environment in the tenement and notice a substantial shift in the past year or so, following the purchase of certain properties? That is a problem across all our cities. People no longer know who lives in their neighbourhood or residential area, and they can feel quite insecure when they find that they do not recognise the faces of people who live around them.

The problem has been going on for a long time, but it seems to be gaining momentum. I have had letters handed in to me about the situation in the city. The woman who wrote to me from Lochend Road is having terrible problems. She has a young family and has to deal with appalling noise and disruption.

As you say, it is not only Edinburgh that is experiencing this problem. The same thing is happening in Glasgow and even England.

The situation is intolerable and something must be done about it. If we go on like this, the problems will escalate and become more serious. The people in the flats are unattended, and I do not know whether the flats are covered by fire regulations and so on. We telephoned the fire brigade to ask about that and, although we got a response, no one ever arrived to inspect the situation.

The problem must be brought under control. The fire brigade, the police and the social services must be brought into the situation, or there will be a serious accident.

I sympathise with you and support your call for the Government to consider ways of tackling the problem. When I lived in a tenement flat, I had an antisocial neighbour. Every six weeks or so, he would play his music all night long—I would not have minded if I enjoyed the music, but I did not. At the time, I realised how hard it is if people cannot shut the door behind them and just relax in their own home. The situation was utterly stressful. I knew the man very well, but I found it extremely difficult to go to his door. If that is how I felt, I can imagine that you find it almost impossible to face a group of up to 25 strangers. When I went to his door, he would not answer it, and the music would go off eventually. He would avoid the neighbours for a week, and the following week he would look pretty sheepish when he saw us. That was because he knew us, but you are dealing with people who are going to disappear in a day or two, so they do not need to try to maintain good, neighbourly relations with you. That makes things much more difficult for you. Further, people who are on holiday or are away for a night or a weekend with their friends are much more likely to behave badly than if they are in their own home. People tend to go a bit wild on holiday—they will stay up later and drink more.

Another issue is that some of the people who are causing the problems that you are talking about might not realise that they are doing so. I had friends who had a party in an apartment in Edinburgh that they had rented for the weekend. However, one of the neighbours came to the door at four in the morning and said, "Could you just stop, please? We have work to do tomorrow." My friends were horrified because they thought that all the flats were holiday flats; they did not know that there were residents who lived there all the time.

The fact that you are dealing with people who do not have any requirement to build up a relationship with you as a neighbour makes things difficult. It is difficult enough to maintain a tenement when everyone in the flats lives there all the time, but your situation is much worse. I support your call for the Government to consider how to tackle the problem, because that is no way to live in your own home.

You are quite right. We have a great problem trying to get something done about the flats.

There is a website called hen Edinburgh. Is that how we want Edinburgh to be known? We have nothing against these people coming to the city for hen nights, stag nights or anything like that. However, we have hotels that they can stay in. We have a 200-bed hotel at the bottom of our garden, and we have never had any problems with that. Hen and stag parties use that hotel all the time. Why do they also have to be able to use flats in tenement buildings?

If I rented a party flat, I would go there expecting to party. However, as you have suggested, I might not realise that there would be people around me who were not on holiday.

You cannot talk to the people who rent the flats because some of them are that drunk that they would not know what they were saying anyway. Some of them have great difficulty finding the keyhole, so they ring every bell in the stair.

That is the sort of situation that we have to cope with. There are times when the party flat is empty, and you are still tense, because you are expecting something to happen. You ask, "Where are they? What's happened?" You look out of the window to see what is happening. That is the type of tension that these flats create. My children are grown up, but someone with a young family must feel that they are living through a nightmare. We are frightened to ask people around to our house in case a party starts upstairs and we end up with drunks outside our door.

Again, I say that we do not blame the visitors, as they are only doing what they expect to be able to do in a party flat.

We should now discuss the ways in which we can respond to the petition.

Mr Player, would I be right in saying that, at times, you and your neighbours feel yourselves to be prisoners in your own homes?

Yes. As I say, you cannot go and confront them. One of our neighbours did that, and the police came the next day to see him—not about the party flat but about him confronting the neighbours. There is no way out.

We cannot define a party flat as being the same as a holiday let. They are two different things. They are complete opposites. There is no way that party flats should be able to operate without rules and regulations. It might be easier to take action if a clear distinction was made between the two sorts of accommodation.

I stress again that we are not against people having a good time in Edinburgh. Why people who are against our position keep bringing the festival into it is beyond my comprehension. They seem to think that the festival will come to an end if there are no party flats, but that is not the case. Indeed, hotels will be put out of business if people keep opening up party flats, because they are a cheap option—as I have said, you can pack 10 or 20 people in a room.

We do not know what is going to happen next. If there is a fire, drunk people are not going to get out the door; they will just sit there and breathe in the fumes.

Margo MacDonald is with us to discuss a later petition, but perhaps she has something to contribute to this debate—I know that she has lived the life of a Rechabite.

Thank you, convener.

Mr Player, the type of behaviour that you describe is not acceptable in any circumstances, whether people are in a party flat or not—I say that not because I am a sinner who has repented, but because it is a piece of nonsense to think otherwise. People should not expect to come to Edinburgh and behave in a way that would be unacceptable in their own place.

Since we cannot prevent private owners from letting their property in the short term, perhaps we could have notices in every room reminding folk that there are laws against drunkenness, offensive behaviour, fouling the streets and making other people feel that they do not have the freedom to walk them. There should be wee notices all over the place telling people that if they do not behave properly they will be lifted.

We cannot get people to act in these situations. What would they do with 25 girls in a flat? They could not put them out on the street, and they could not put them in jail because they would fill up the police stations. What can you do?

It is like a lot of things. You will have talked to your pals over the years, so you will know that, for example, the big visit for Glaswegians used to be Blackpool, but they would never consider behaving back home in Glasgow in the way they thought they could get away with behaving in Blackpool. People live colourful lives.

The issue is about the framework that operates around where you live and whether agencies are able to deal with these situations. A recent phenomenon has emerged, with people in different cities purchasing properties knowing that in recent years those cities have emerged as weekend destinations. That has happened as part of the tourism framework—and quite rightly. Those people recognised that there is a market, and they know that they are ahead of whatever legislation is in place; they know there is a gap between the antisocial behaviour legislation and the HMO legislation.

As a result of your petition, we will try to explore whether there are ways—through guidance and interpreting the legislation—that we can do more to try to empower residents so that they have more peace of mind where they live and are not inconvenienced. That is where we want to get to with the petition. I am looking to members of the committee to suggest helpful ways in which we can move the petition forward so that we can try to address the issue that Mr Player and others have raised with us.

It would certainly be useful to ask a selection of police forces what figures they have. It would also be useful to know whether they record figures for party lets separately. In other words, when they are called out by people in a stair, do the police make a distinction between a disturbance in the stair and a disturbance in a party flat? If they are not doing that already, they should start to do so. That is an important point.

I would ask the police whether they record these incidents separately or as part of a general picture. Any force that records the figures in such a way as to be of assistance to us should be asked to go back over them for the past three years. I am pretty certain that the police might support the petition.

I am sure everyone around the table has a great deal of sympathy for Mr Player. It is not an Edinburgh phenomenon: it has spread to Glasgow and perhaps it is a Scotland-wide phenomenon. I have an Evening Times headline here that says: "Forced Out of Homes by Party Animals". I have only one quibble with the headline: why bring poor animals into a situation that involves people misbehaving in such an abominable way?

There has to be a close examination of the regulations and whether they can be made more resilient so that they can act on behalf of people who find themselves in the circumstances in which Mr Player and his neighbours—and the residents of Balvicar Street in Queen's Park—have found themselves recently.

I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government and ask a number of questions: what is the timescale for the review of the licensing of short-term lets, as part of discussions about implementing new rules on HMOs; what assurances will the Government give that the specific issues of short-term holiday and party lets will be fully addressed; and what immediate measures will it take to alleviate the suffering—I put it as strongly as that—that people have to endure because of these so-called party lets.

The loophole in the current legislation, to which Sarah Boyack referred, must be closed immediately, or as soon as the Government can do so. Mr Player's example of rooms with 15 beds in them, wall to wall, in a party flat shows how people are flouting the legislation that the Government introduced to prevent unscrupulous landlords from filling up rooms with as many beds as possible. In residential areas, where other residents are trying to live a normal life, that is a dramatic flouting of the legislation. We need to find a way to close the loophole in the legislation as quickly as possible.

It is also incumbent on us to write to local authorities. Mr Player talked about phoning up the council and trying to get it to intervene on his behalf, as a council taxpayer and a resident, to resolve the situation and stop it happening. There is an onus on local authorities to ensure that people can lead peaceful lives in their own houses without being disturbed by party lets. We should write to local authorities—particularly the City of Edinburgh Council, given the cases in Edinburgh that we have heard about today—to find out how many calls they receive annually from residents who are complaining about the use of party flats.

We should also try to find out whether the City of Edinburgh Council knows how many party flats there are in Edinburgh. There should be a register of HMOs. Does the council know how many flats in Edinburgh are being used as party flats? Does it know about the impact that they are having? If there are 15 or 20 people in a flat that is designed to hold six people at the most, the facilities in the flat will be overstretched and will cause problems for the other residents in the area.

It might be useful for us to ask local authorities whether they have such figures. If they do not, we should ask why they are not monitoring the situation. There is also the issue of why antisocial behaviour orders have not been taken out against the owners of the flats, making them responsible for the behaviour of the people who use the flats.

That is a series of constructive suggestions from committee members. We will get a range of views from the police and local authorities on the powers that are available at the moment and the interpretation of the legislation. If we pull all that together, we will have a coherent response to the issues that the petitioner has raised with us this afternoon.

I have one final suggestion, which arises from what John Wilson said. Can we ask the Government why it has not considered modifying part 7 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to remove holiday lets, or party flats, as they are popularly called, from the list of exemptions? I think that there is a way, through regulation, to make the 2004 act much more resilient.

Okay. Does Sarah Boyack have any final comments to make before we conclude our consideration of the petition?

I thank the committee members for all their questions and their interest. Party flats are a relatively recent phenomenon and an economic opportunity for people who own property.

I have experience of taking people through the process that is set out in the 2004 act. People tend to keep a diary. As members know, it takes months before anything can happen, as proof is required that it is not just someone complaining. Another difficulty with monitoring party flats and short-term holiday lets is that they are not registered in the same way as other properties, and the landlord's details cannot be found as easily. That can be quite intimidating for people. Marlyn Glen asked about common repairs. It gets a lot harder to resolve the situation when the person who is responsible for the property that has created the problem cannot be found.

It would be really useful to address all those issues. I think that, when the legislation was drafted, people did not imagine that flats would be used in the way that has been described this afternoon. That is why the issue needs to be examined reasonably urgently. A relatively small number of properties is involved at the moment, but I worry that the problem will be much bigger in the future if action is not taken.

I hope that the discussion has been helpful, Mr Player. We will pull together the responses and notify you in due course when the committee is to discuss the petition next, after it has received the responses. We will continue to raise the matter and we hope to explore some of the issues on your behalf. The committee's questioning indicates our genuine sympathy with the plight that you and other residents face. We hope to find better solutions that overcome some of the difficulties that you have experienced in past years.

Thank you. I hope that the committee finds solutions, because the situation cannot continue.

Thank you for your time.

---

Sheltered Housing (Self-funded Tenants) (PE1245)

PE1245, from John Wood, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to consider how it will ensure the continued independence of self-funded tenants of sheltered housing whose funds and savings are being eroded by increased costs, for example through the supporting people programme.

We have information on the petition. Do members have suggestions on how to deal with it?

We need to separate the issues that might be raised. From reading the information that is in front of me, I am not entirely clear about precisely where we are. Mr Wood says that he thinks that he is being charged twice. That seems unlikely, but I will not disagree with his words. It is more likely that he is being misinformed about charges from different parties, but we need to clarify that.

I am aware from my constituents of another issue, which is that some people find themselves—almost without choice—in sheltered accommodation, where they have to pay from their own means, if they have them, for warden services that they do not need. They might need such services some day, but they know that they certainly do not need them now. The local authority sometimes puts people in such accommodation in a hurry, when no other option exists. Perhaps Mr Wood is not referring to that issue, but that should be teased out in the process.

We can ask the Government what its policy is and what measures are in place to ensure that people who have means do not use their savings unnecessarily to pay for services that they do not need.

Age Concern Scotland would have a view on the problem, of which I have been aware for years. We should write to ask Age Concern for its comments on people who are charged for housing support services and on the assessment of people who pay for services.

It might be an idea to write to ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or at least a selection of local authorities whether the measures that are in place to ensure the continued independence of self-funded tenants whose funds and savings are being eroded are satisfactory and whether any review of the funding arrangements for housing support services is required. That information would help.

I suggest that we contact Aberdeenshire Council, as the petition comes from its area, and—given the context—Dundee City Council.

Those suggestions were helpful. I agree with Nigel Don, who is right to identify the fact that information about the petitioner's circumstances is separate from the debate about the principle. It might help to draw the petition to the relevant local authority's attention and to ask for its experience of the issue. We approve the recommendations on the petition.

---

Smoke-free Mental Health Services (Consultation) (PE1246)

PE1246, from Belinda Cunnison, on behalf of Freedom to Choose (Scotland), calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review "Achieving smoke-free mental health services in Scotland: a consultation", which, the petitioner states, contains factual inaccuracies, thus making the process fatally flawed. We have paperwork on the petition. Do members wish to ask any questions or make any observations?

We could ask the Scottish Government whether, in its opinion, the statistics and information that it used were accurate, because the petitioner seems to have profound doubts about that. We could also write to ASH Scotland and the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco for their views. That would give us the whole picture—or, certainly, two particular viewpoints that it would be worth trying to get.

I am interested in the petition because the consultation questionnaire did not seem to take into account the point that some mental health patients perhaps ought to be allowed to smoke in the establishments where they live. People reportedly use smoking to decrease stress and anxiety, and perhaps that should have been included in the consultation.

It might be interesting to write to a mental health organisation such as Scottish Association for Mental Health to ask its opinion on whether it is advisable to ban smoking altogether in psychiatric hospitals and units.

I agree. It strikes me that the questions in the consultation are quite loaded, given the circumstances surrounding mental health. If I remember rightly, those circumstances were taken into consideration when we passed the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005. Therefore, we should question the consultation and the petitioner is right to draw it to our attention.

I agree with Marlyn Glen in that many people with long-term mental health problems who are not ill enough to be sectioned but for whom it would be advisable to go into long-term residential care might refuse to do that if they felt that they could not smoke. However, unless I have got it wrong, the petition calls for the consultation to be reviewed rather than for us to respond to the consultation. It does not express a view on whether people with mental health problems should be permitted to smoke; it focuses on the consultation.

It is about the process.

My point is that we should not do as Marlyn Glen suggested. We should write to ask mental health organisations whether they think that the consultation was accurate rather than whether they think that people should be allowed to smoke.

To disaggregate the discussion, there are two points. The first is whether people with mental health problems should have the freedom to smoke, and the other is the challenge to the figures. It is worth observing that the fact that there was a significant reduction in heart attacks—whether 6 per cent, 17 per cent or some other figure—is not challenged.

Are we okay to follow through the points that members have raised?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Scottish Courts (McKenzie Friends) (PE1247)

Our final new petition is PE1247, from Stewart Mackenzie, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts as a matter of urgency.

Margo MacDonald has expressed an interest in the petition. I invite her to comment on it.

I have been interested in lay representation in the Scottish courts for a while. My interest arises out of the failure of Scots law to enact a provision that has been running successfully in England for about 20 years now. That provision allows professional representation rather than legal representation in highly complex technical cases such as fraud cases or cases in which it is necessary to have knowledge of the construction industry. Companies may apply to be registered to provide such representation. Only two or three have registered, but the system works because not many cases of such complexity go through the English courts every year. There would be even fewer such cases in Scotland, but we have failed to enact that legislation, and I have yet to be given a satisfactory explanation why.

I now find that in civil court cases, for example involving the rescheduling of small debts, people can find it impossible to get legal representation. They might be unable to afford legal representation in a more complex action so they need to represent themselves in court. For the past 39 years, what is known as the McKenzie friend system has been operational in England. That allows persons who are defending themselves to be supported, aided and backed up by expert information or even simple help. For example, having spread out my papers on the table, if I start really to shake, it might be handy for me to have a McKenzie friend to fix my papers. That is the situation in which unqualified persons can find themselves in court. That is the sort of function that a McKenzie friend might fulfil.

As well as being backed by Which? magazine and the Consumers Association, the petition appears to be backed by the European convention on human rights, which is heavy-duty support. The European Court of Human Rights has defined the principle of equality of arms as meaning that

"a party must be able to put forward his arguments in conditions such that he is not put at a considerable disadvantage vis-à-vis the other side".

If someone is unrepresented in a court, they are at a disadvantage to start off with. That disadvantage is made considerable if they are denied the practical support that I have mentioned.

In essence, Mr Mackenzie's petition asks that the Scottish courts incorporate the principle and facility of a McKenzie friend as soon as possible. Lord Gill seems to support the idea, so I think that the petition is a serious runner for receiving the committee's support.

Do members have any comments?

I would be happy to act as a McKenzie friend to Margo MacDonald at any time.

Thank you.

You are an old charmer, Robin. A silver fox.

The idea seems so obviously good and full of common sense that we must pursue it. We should ask the Scottish Government directly whether it will introduce a McKenzie friend facility in Scottish courts and, if not, why not. We can ask whether the matter will be included in the Scottish Law Commission's eighth programme of law reform.

We could also ask a number of other institutions—including the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Scottish Court Service, Citizen Advice Scotland, Money Advice Scotland and the Scottish Consumer Council—whether they support the introduction of a McKenzie friend facility and, if not, why not.

It is worth noting that the McKenzie friend was not introduced by the British Government but was simply allowed by the courts. The matter was tested in the Court of Appeal, which said that the McKenzie friend should be allowed. If members are looking for helpful material, I can point them to a wonderfully comprehensive review—it is dated about 2006—by Robin Spon-Smith, which I found on the internet. He shows how the law has developed in England and Wales and suggests how it could develop in Scotland. We can write to the Government and the Lord President, but it is plainly open to the courts to introduce a McKenzie friend system. They do not need to be told. We probably just need to encourage them to do that. If Lord Gill's review will encourage the introduction of such a facility, we will probably find that nothing else is needed other than perhaps a nod from the Lord President.

May I respond to that?

I will let other members comment before allowing Margo MacDonald to respond.

I know that, in small claims hearings and certain other sheriff court procedures, parties can speak on behalf of the folk involved. However, if I may play devil's advocate, is there evidence that the McKenzie friend facility works as a support and is not simply superfluous?

There is such evidence from England.

You can also respond to the point that you intended to speak on previously, Margo, before I gently cut you off.

To respond to Nigel Don's point, the reason for doing something now is that there has been such a time lag in implementing the provision that has been running successfully in England for expert lay representation in court rather than professional legal representation. It would appear that there is some form in this regard in the Scottish system.

On whether the McKenzie friend facility works, I point out that it has been running successfully in England for 39 years.

I am not against asking the questions that Robin Harper suggested, but I just wonder about the evidential basis.

Thankfully, it is not up to me to provide the evidential basis in written form. If you want it, I will ensure that Mr Mackenzie knows that the committee would like to see it. However, I think that it is self-evident that using McKenzie friends works, because they are used in England with no complaint.

I point out to Bill Butler and others that McKenzie friends do not represent and put the case for others; rather, the person representing themselves puts their case and the McKenzie friend simply sits alongside and, as Margo MacDonald said, keeps the papers in order, nods, suggests and gives advice, help and encouragement. This is not to do with advocacy, which is a separate issue that the committee recently debated.

We have a series of suggestions to explore. For example, with reference to Nigel Don's comment on the framework of the courts, the clerk has suggested that we could write to the Lord Chancellor's department in England to explore its experience of, and observations on, the McKenzie friend facility, which might help the dialogue on the issue that Bill Butler understandably raised. Robin Harper's suggestions are helpful, too. Do you have any final comments, Margo?

No, except to say that I think that committee members can see the common sense in the McKenzie friend approach. I sense, too, that the committee wants to know that the facility is not superfluous to requirements, but I think that that can be demonstrated.

Okay. I thank Margo MacDonald for her presence for this item. We will have a comfort break for a couple of minutes and a quick cup of tea before we move on to current petitions.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—