New Petitions
Judicial Office-holders (Age of Retirement) (PE1276)
We have six new petitions in front of us. We will hear presentations by two petitioners. PE1276, from John Ferguson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for judicial office-holders, including justices of the peace, to retire at the age of 70. I welcome Mr Ferguson, who is here today with Mr James Strang. I understand that Mr Strang will make a few opening remarks. I declare for the record that I know both Mr Ferguson and Mr Strang, who have key responsibilities in a local housing association in my parliamentary constituency.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Mr Ferguson, those over 70 and those approaching 70, I thank you for giving me the chance to highlight the inequality that is enshrined in Scotland in the 21st century. That inequality is supported by the Scottish Parliament when it passes and enacts laws that set arbitrary age ceilings.
In our submission, which you have read, we highlight the legislation that the Scottish Parliament passed in which it was decided that, when a person reaches 70, they are no longer capable of understanding, making value judgments and reaching conclusions. It seems that, as soon as we reach 70, which we will all do at some point—looking around the room, I should say that some will reach that age sooner than others—the life skills, experience and common sense that we have gathered over the years are judged to evaporate into thin air and that, when it comes to playing our role in society, we are no longer welcome. That is exactly what happens in this country in the 21st century.
At 70, a person must stand down from the justice of the peace bench, as Mr Ferguson has had to do. Others before him have had to do that, and others after him will have to do so, too. They must also stand down from a health board and they can no longer take part in the various appeal panels for organisations such as the Department for Work and Pensions and employment tribunals.
When you made the law, how did you come to the conclusion that, at 70, people are incapable of reasoning? What is it in the biochemistry of the human body that means that, at 70, people's brains automatically cease to function? On what empirical evidence are these age barriers set? The answer is that there is no biological, biochemical, genetic or statistical evidence that you can point to when setting those age barriers. It is a randomly selected age that suits a very outdated and totally irrelevant concept of what age means.
You will be aware that the population is ageing. The life expectancy of a human in this country is rising year on year and, coupled with an overall reduction in the birth rate—this year might be an exception—we will have more older people longer. By 2031—some of us will be around then—there will have been a 40 per cent increase in those aged between 64 and 74, and a staggering 81 per cent increase in those over 75. Are we seriously suggesting that none of those people is capable of making a contribution to the governance of our country?
It would seem that age is not an issue for this building. There is no upper age barrier for standing for election here. What would you do if, at 69 years, you were told that, the minute that you reached 70, you could not participate in this legislature? I am sure that you would seek to change the situation. When doing so, your arguments would include your life experience, the experience that you have gained in politics over the years and the commitment that you have to public service. Mr Ferguson and his peers are exactly the same as you. They have given huge amounts of personal time to public service.
There is no age limit for membership of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, so why should there be one for other essential roles in the governance of our community?
There is no age limit for being a member of a community-based housing association—of one of which I have the privilege of being the chief executive. Of the 243 regulated housing organisations in this country today, the vast majority are governed—I use that word deliberately—by people who are over 60, many of whom are well into their 70s. You will know that to be the case in your constituencies. Those organisations have a combined value of billions of pounds and, even in today's economic climate, are considered blue-chip organisations, yet they are governed and controlled by people of a certain age. The skill, experience, common sense and good judgment of those board members have been demonstrated time and again.
Who would suggest that our head of state—Her Majesty the Queen, who sometimes occupies the building across the road—is, at 80-odd, no longer capable of giving advice to the Prime Minister every second or third Tuesday afternoon?
The law provides another good example. Many of our judges sit well into their 70s, stepping down when physical impairment becomes an issue, or if the Lord Advocate assesses that their judgments have become problematic. That system could be used in the JP courts up and down the land. The new rules could include regular assessment of the JP. That would highlight poor-performing JPs of all ages—the fact that someone is younger does not mean that he or she will perform better than an older person.
As the world moves on, the effects of age are reducing. From personal experience, I know what it is like to turn 50. Indeed, I see 50 as the new 40. At 60, I fully expect to feel the same as I do now. I am sure that everyone in this room, including those in the public gallery, will hope to feel like that too, when they reach that age.
I sense that the committee—and perhaps the Parliament generally—knows that it is right to change the law to remove the age barrier. In the 21st century in Scotland, parliamentarians know that it is morally wrong to deny equal opportunity to all in our society, yet they let that happen when they passed the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. However, all is not lost. Parliamentarians in this legislature can do something about that.
Ageism is very high on the public agenda. Earlier this afternoon, the committee discussed equality rights. The age limit is a similar equality issue. Ageism is very high on the public agenda, from the JP courts in Glasgow right the way through to "Strictly Come Dancing". We in Scotland claim that our Parliament is the best in the world. Let us prove that once and for all by tackling the issue of ageism by amending the 2007 act and any other legislation that similarly imposes an age barrier. Let us ensure that our communities gain from the skills, experience and common sense that people such as John Ferguson have acquired over many years of public service.
With age comes the allowance to go well over the time limit. However, I thank James Strang for that presentation.
When I first read the petition, I was minded to support Mr Strang and Mr Ferguson on a point of principle—although the use of the Queen, MPs and members of the House of Lords as examples does not necessarily push me in that direction—but I want to make three points. First, I do not think that having an upper age limit suggests that people over that age are incapable, although I was interested to hear James Strang's argument on that. Secondly, I want to ask whether the petitioners would abolish all upper and lower age limits for everything. For example, should 16 and 17-year-olds be allowed to vote, given that they are required to pay taxes if they work? Thirdly, I note that the petition argues that removing such barriers
"would save the country a fortune in recruitment and training in the next few years".
I am concerned that that would mean fewer opportunities for younger people who are looking for jobs.
However, we live in ageist society, and I agree with the point of principle that we are guilty of wasting years of experience. The arrogance of the young shines through in most of what we do, not just in this country but in the western world.
On the issue of ageism, the age of 70 was chosen by the Government some years ago. I do not know why it was felt that people were finished at 70. When I spoke to the president of a tribunal down in London, I was told that in some organisations people can continue in post until 75 if the regional chairman puts up a case for them. If that can be done sometimes, why can it not be done all the time?
For some reason—I do not know why—we have started to move forward because, as folk come to the end of their service, they are now assessed every year. Since the new Scottish Court Service was set up—as one of the biggest courts going, the Glasgow court, where I worked for 14 years, was previously on its own—things have moved on and people are assessed every year. Why can people not continue to be assessed at 71 and 72? If they were then told, "Sorry, you're past it," that would be fine. At the moment, people can work in court today but, if they turn 70 tomorrow, they are required to retire because they are considered too old. That just does not make sense. The tribunals do the same thing. People are required to stop at 70. I worked my last day on Friday 3 April—my birthday is on 5 April—and that was me retired. After 14 years, I was required to finish up just like that.
On the issue of age limits for young people, I think that it would be fine if a law came in giving young people the right to vote. Let them vote. They can be sent to war and can get married, so why can they not vote?
We will take other questions from members and then we can consider some of those points.
Just for the record, I should say that Mr Strang is known to me from a previous existence. He is always combative and, when pushing a good argument, persuasive—but sometimes he is prolix.
As the member for Glasgow Anniesland, I am mindful that my constituency has the highest concentration of retired voters in western Europe, I believe. I am naturally sympathetic to the case that has been put forward.
Should there be no cut-off point at all? If there should be some type of cut-off point, and if it is not age, what should the criterion be for excluding someone from the offices that we are discussing?
It would be done by an assessment process. As Mr Ferguson pointed out, assessment processes are in place under the new rules to ensure that the performance of the justice who is sitting on the bench is up to current standard. If that person is not up to current standard, there is training. If that does not work, there will be questions about the future viability of that individual, regardless of age.
In addition, there is a ceiling in the legislation. Think of someone who is 69 years of age, two days before their birthday. When they turn 70, they are the same thinking, logical, upright citizen that they were five minutes previously, yet as from that point they are no longer deemed to be capable. I am indeed suggesting that there need not be an upper limit, and that the assessment process could be used. On the question that has been mentioned about a lower limit, I strongly believe that if someone can become a tenant of mine, can fight for their country or can get married at 16, they should be entitled to vote at 16. However, that is a personal opinion.
On the point about MPs and the Queen, I meant no disrespect to anybody, but I must point out that people are eligible to stand for Parliament at any age. In Glasgow, there was a candidate of 79 years of age—an erudite, sophisticated individual, who put up a good campaign. He was not elected, but he was in the fray. It is important that people with the ability and the skill should be given that chance.
So you are arguing for a kind of MOT test. Of course, MSPs and MPs—not the Lords—go through an MOT test with about 60,000 electors every four years. Is that what you are arguing for? If so, that would seem reasonable.
You just have to say yes. [Laughter.] I know that it is difficult for you, Mr Strang, but on you go.
I honestly do not know why Mr Butler is adopting this sort of attitude with me. I am very hurt, I really am.
We won't go there, Mr Strang.
It is correct that you go through the election process every four years. You might wish to consider the practicalities of having elections to the judiciary and the justice of the peace bench and do some research on that. It might be useful to have elected justices. I understand that that is done in certain parts of America. It might be a way round the problem, and it is a valuable suggestion. However, to save all the expense, we have some very strong people who have been disfranchised but who can step up to the plate.
Ms McLaughlin raised the question of younger people and the job. Justice of the peace is a non-salaried post, and the work is carried out purely on a voluntary basis.
If the rules were different for Parliament, I would be declaring an interest. On Mr Strang's observations about not assuming that the brain begins to cease to function at the age of 69, I say that there are days.
I wish to pursue a point that Bill Butler made. Some airlines, for instance, have a cut-off at the age of 60, when pilots are automatically retired. Others are happy for their pilots to carry on until 65. An annual medical check is required whatever the pilot's age and, if they do not pass, they lose their licence.
A medical check is easy, in that a person either passes or fails it. Are you confident that you currently have a set of assessments that cannot easily be challenged? In other words, once the assessment is made, will people accept its conclusion that the individual is no longer fit to be a justice of the peace?
Under the current legislation, a process is set down in the guidelines—it was introduced in 2007. I am not aware of the outcome of the process, because the new system just started towards the tail-end of last year. It will be interesting to see how that assessment process works.
Remember that we are talking about mental faculties and reasoning. Justices of the peace are not similar to pilots, who need certain physical attributes. When lorry drivers reach 60, they have to go through an annual test. The situation for justices of the peace is not quite the same as that, but I take the point that you are making.
I would hope that an evaluation of the current arrangements would bear fruit. However, there is still the arbitrary age limit of 70. Someone can be the fittest person at 70—they can run marathons and have a photographic memory, but they cannot sit on the bench in Scotland.
I am not saying that I am not sympathetic to your cause.
We are not just talking about the age limit of 70. If you try to join some organisations at 65, they will not take you, because you will not be there long enough before you are 70. I phoned up the chairman of Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board, whom I know, and asked whether it was worth my while filling in the application form. His first question was what age I was. When I said 69, he said no. He said that the board might have taken me at 64 or 65, but not at 69. Discrimination starts long before you are 70. We have a list of other public organisations that have positions open but which are the same—they all have an age limit.
We have a list of several organisations. One of the arguments is that they would have to go to the expense of training someone who would be able to sit on the bench, or the board, for only a very short time indeed. John Ferguson is right: ageism starts a lot earlier than 70. If we did not have that arbitrary age limit, perhaps we could attract even more talented individuals from the citizenry to participate in these organisations.
You are aware that people under the age of 18 are not allowed to go to war, so the British Government is not allowed to send 16 or 17-year-olds to take up arms to fight in wars.
On the legislation that applies to retirement, are the petitioners aware of the recent decision by the High Court—the Heyday decision—that the UK Government and employers can still set a retirement age of 65? The High Court has supported the UK Government, despite the challenges that were led by a number of organisations, including Age Concern and Help the Aged.
Decisions on whether someone can continue to sit on the bench are arbitrary. John Ferguson said that the regional tribunal chair can arbitrarily decide whether someone of a certain age can continue to sit on tribunals, regardless of whether that is fair or just. James Strang's face might fit at 70, but John Ferguson's face might not fit at 70. We could get into the situation of trying to impose something that might not be as fair as we expect it to be if we do not have a fixed age or period in which people can serve.
I remind the petitioners that the European courts decided that we could not have elected justices. The elected members of local government who were justices of the peace had to step down from the bench two years ago, because the European courts decided that we could not have elected members serving on the bench, because that was seen to be in conflict with the justice system that should prevail, in which there should be no political interference with the decisions of the bench.
But that was not for age reasons; it was because the justices of the peace were also councillors. The law was changed so that they could not sign warrants and other things. They can still sign passports and so on, but they cannot sign warrants. That was the difference.
I am aware of that; the point that I was making is that it was because of a desire to separate the judicial system from the political system that local elected members had to step down from doing bench duties in the court system.
We are aware of that.
You can tell from the questions that members are exploring some of the implications of the present policy and the challenge that would have to be overcome if that policy were changed.
I will now take suggestions on how to progress our consideration of the petition.
I congratulate Mr Ferguson and Mr Strang on putting forward a compelling case. I am extremely sympathetic, as I suspect other members are, to the point of view expressed in the petition and to the terms of the petition. I think that we should write to the Scottish Government to ask it to review its current practice with a view to changing it. If it is willing to review and change the current practice, which is arbitrary, we should ask it when it will do so and, if it is not willing to do so, we should ask it why not. That would be a reasonable start, but colleagues will have other suggestions to make.
I concur with that.
That is a useful suggestion to explore. We should also write to a range of legal organisations and representatives about the implications of any shift and how it could be facilitated, should there be such a desire. I know that the petition has been passed on to a number of organisations, but it might be useful to get clarity on the views of organisations that represent older people and of the older people's assembly. Mr Strang deployed challenging arguments based on the demographic trend and the changing age profile and so on.
On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr Ferguson, who is already seven years beyond the life expectancy of people in Glasgow Shettleston, for the tremendous commitment to his community that he has shown in coming here. Many of us are fed up of having such statistics thrown back at us. Mr Ferguson is testament to the fact that someone from the east end of Glasgow can do something for their community and still be fully alive and kicking and wanting to make a contribution at the age of 70. We should emphasise that point, because it is missing from much of the narrative on older people and the ageing process in this country.
I think that a few other members have final comments.
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Consumer Council to seek its views on the issue.
I strongly support the petition because I reached the magic age of 70 and never thought about it until I got a letter from the department saying that I was no longer required as a JP. That was the first time that I realised that age might be catching up with me. It had the decency to send me a wee plaque and to say thank you very much. I very much support the petition.
The department disnae gie you plaques now; they gie you nothing—you just go.
John Farquhar Munro is a demonstration of the fact that the Liberal Democrats do not apply the same rules to elected parliamentarians.
Just as well.
We want to make progress with the petition. We know that it raises some fairly challenging issues, but I give an assurance to Mr Ferguson and Mr Strang that we will try to explore those issues to your satisfaction and, we hope, change things for the better so that you and many others like you across the country can continue to make contributions to your communities. Thank you very much.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
Our next new petition is PE1280, by Dr Kenneth Faulds and Julie Love, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the same level of protection to the families of people from Scotland who die abroad as is currently given to people from England by amending the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 to require the holding of a fatal accident inquiry when a person from Scotland dies abroad.
I welcome both Dr Kenneth Faulds and Julie Love to the meeting. I attended the launch of the petition some weeks ago, prior to its submission to the Parliament. Other members have expressed interest both on the petition's website and in asking to speak to the committee today. Bob Doris MSP has come along to speak in support of the petition.
I invite Kenneth or Julie to make some opening remarks.
Thank you for inviting me along today. You might think that I look too young to be a doctor—that is the opposite of what Mr Strang talked about earlier.
I ask members to bear with me, because I am not going to be all-singing, all-dancing and full of bravado; I am here to discuss an issue that is very close to my heart. I am a young born-and-bred Scottish resident from a working-class background and Julie is a Scottish resident, and you guys are empowered to give us a hand.
Julie will go into more depth about the situation regarding Colin Love. The petition arose because a huge number of issues surround people who die abroad. The sad thing about the situation is that people do not necessarily understand or know about the policies and procedures for protecting Scots abroad unless they are in the horrific situation in which this courageous woman found herself. Unless they are in the same situation regarding their own son or daughter, people might not be aware that a loophole means that the law does not extend to protecting Scots when they are abroad.
Deaths abroad are not investigated here. In some cases, it is possible for the death to be investigated but that does not happen all the time. We are not looking for the committee, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to say that every death abroad should be investigated. It is realistic to say that we cannot do that because we do not have the money or resources. We simply want the Crown Office to be able to look at the circumstances, and to say either that there was a full and robust fatal accident inquiry or investigation into the death in the country, therefore it would be inappropriate or a waste of resources to replicate that in Scotland, or to take the view that there was no investigation in the country, therefore it has a vital role to play in obtaining the answers that Julie has not received to this day. There are people in the gallery who have found themselves in the horrible predicament in which Julie has found herself. The petition asks the Government to support us as Scottish residents.
Julie, do you want to add something to that?
Kenny has said it all. Only when you find yourself in this position do you realise that there is no help out there. Something has got to change so that other Scottish families do not have to go through what I have had to go through.
Do you want to add anything, Bob?
If that is possible, convener. In Julie's case, one of the issues is that she wants to ensure that the risks that led to Colin's death do not exist for any other person on Margarita Island. Julie is looking for some simple conclusions that must seem obvious to everyone. Colin passed away by drowning in the waters of Margarita Island, where there is a notorious drowning spot, with no signs up to warn bathers and no lifeguards.
A fatal accident inquiry or another vehicle could investigate the situation surrounding deaths such as Colin's and make recommendations. For example, it could recommend putting up signs on that beach or having a manned lifeguard station. Such recommendations would not be binding on a foreign jurisdiction, but there is no reason why we cannot work in conjunction with overseas authorities. I know that the legal barrier is that it is technically incompetent to hold a fatal accident inquiry into the death of a Scottish civilian overseas. We are asking for that barrier to be lifted so that such inquiries become a reality.
Do members have any questions?
Maybe the fact that there are no questions is a good thing.
I would not say that too quickly.
I have a point of clarification rather than a question, but first I thank Dr Faulds and Julie Love for coming—I will not thank Bob Doris, because he should be here. It must be tough for the petitioners to appear before the committee. I hope that we are making it as easy as we can for you.
The point of clarification is just to check something, although I think that you have covered it. The background information in your petition states that the system in England sometimes leads to wasteful duplication, because an inquiry is carried out in the country where the death occurred and another one is carried out in England. You want the Crown Office to have the power to hold an inquiry if it feels that an inquiry that was held overseas was inadequate, or if there was none.
Yes—that is more or less what we are saying. We are not asking for an exact duplication of the English system. I have spoken to a coroner's office in England about the system there. The person I spoke to was very open—they were critical of the system and said that aspects of it need to be changed. In Scotland, it is important that the Crown Office has the option to say that a full and robust inquiry was carried out in the other country, that that provided Julie Love with the answers that she needed, and that there is therefore no need to replicate it. We would stand by that decision. However, in circumstances where that is not the case or an investigation has not been carried out, we should play a vital role in Scotland to ensure that the basics are carried out.
It is important to clarify what coroners do in England. They confirm the time, place and cause of death and consider any investigations that were carried out. If the coroner thinks that anything criminal is attached to that, he or she will adjourn proceedings and contact the authorities in that country. They pass on the information that they have and ask them to investigate, although the coroner has no power to ensure that the issue is investigated. Such a system would provide Julie with answers—she would know what the inquiry had found and that the authorities in the other country had been asked to investigate the issue.
I add that the recommendations that would come out of any inquiry would make a difference.
Dr Faulds, you stated in your petition and you have said that you do not want an inquiry to be held into every fatal accident abroad. You said that an inquiry should not be held if the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service was satisfied that a full investigation was carried out into the circumstances surrounding the death. What should happen if the relatives are not satisfied with the decision not to hold a fatal accident inquiry, after what might be seen as a desktop investigation? What would you say to the relatives of someone who died abroad if a decision not to hold a full fatal accident inquiry was contrary to what they wanted?
I take on board what you say: that is a crucial issue, and we cannot avoid the fact that such a situation might arise. However, that is where good policies and procedures come in, with regard to how families go about appealing the decision of the Crown Office in order to ensure that it is not just down to one person saying, "No, we are not investigating it." There is also further accountability, in that families can always come to the Public Petitions Committee if they feel that there is a difficulty or that the Crown Office is not supporting them.
It strikes me that the advantage of holding an inquiry in this case would have been that it could have established not only the responsibilities of the authorities on Margarita Island but whether the cruise company itself should have been held responsible, as it should have known what the dangers were in that area. If the company did not know, it should have known, and it should have given clear advice to those people who went ashore on where it was safe and not safe to swim.
I can say this because I am not a politician: I think that much of the issue comes down to tourism. The cruise liners make a lot of money going to the island, and if they advertise it as a hot spot for deaths, not many people will want to visit. It comes down to money; although since Colin's death, two shipping companies have pulled out of visiting Margarita Island.
I should mention that there were no lifeguards at Margarita Island. The United States Coast Guard sent a few of its finest to the island to train lifeguards, but they too were drowned. The situation really is horrific. It is not that the waters are very choppy, because it would be possible to see that; it appears to be fine on top of the water, but there is a very serious undertow.
There is an issue in relation to making the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accountable. The FCO has never contacted Julie Love: she was never informed in writing, by telephone or by police at her door that her son had passed away. I feel that much of that is down to the lack of a fatal accident inquiry, although the committee might have a different opinion.
In England, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office knows that it needs to follow everything by the book, because there will be a coroner's inquest, and the coroner can hold the FCO accountable if it has not followed the correct policies and procedures. The FCO knows that we do not have that in Scotland, so it can choose which cases it considers and which it does not. I am not saying that that happens all the time, but certainly in Julie's case, the FCO was able to cut corners, because there was not the same level of accountability as there is in England. The petition is about not just getting answers but ensuring that there is accountability in applying our own policies to protect us abroad.
I know that for Julie Love, the issue concerns more than just fatal accident inquiries. Dr Faulds makes an excellent point in relation to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When someone in your family dies overseas suddenly or unexpectedly, you are not quite sure what to do. While you are dealing with your grief, you have to deal with various questions. How do you get a local death certificate from the relevant foreign country for the person who has passed away? How do you then get a UK death certificate? Do you cremate your relative's body? How do you repatriate the body?
There is a whole series of issues to do with different legal systems, and communication and language barriers. Julie Love felt that there was no single point of contact: no named person at the end of a phone to take the victim's family through the process. Such an individual could be appointed from the Scottish Government or the FCO, but the point is that something has to change—not just at a Scottish level, but at a UK level—to ensure that there is a better system of support when someone passes away overseas. The petition from Dr Faulds and the arguments from Julie Love represent an opportunity to improve what is currently a difficult and distressing experience for the families of people who pass away overseas.
Do the petitioners want to add anything before the committee considers its conclusions?
Jim Murphy, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has been very supportive about what we are doing. He has written me a letter in support of the petition and he supports the committee in taking the issue forward. He is concerned that the FCO is not following its own policies and procedures. He will look into Julie Love's case, to ensure that lessons are learned from the situation in which she found herself.
We are aware that Lord Cullen is reviewing the law on fatal accident inquiries. We made a late submission to his review just over a week ago, and we hope that he will take on board what we have passed to him.
I handed in the submission for Julie. If it is helpful, I can pass a copy to the committee for its consideration.
The timescale of the Cullen inquiry is important in the context of the assessment that the committee needs to make. Do members have suggestions about how to proceed with the petition?
I think that we all want to support the petitioners and advance the petition as appropriately as possible. Given that Lord Cullen is reviewing FAI legislation, as Julie Love said, it might be appropriate, first, formally to forward a copy of the petition to the Scottish Government for information and to ask the Government about its timetable for responding to Lord Cullen's report—when it receives it—and then to suspend further consideration of the petition until we know what Lord Cullen's recommendations are. We can then ask the Scottish Government for a detailed response to the recommendations and consider the implications of the Government's view in relation to the petitioners' request. In particular, we must ask the Government whether it intends to amend the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 in the light of Lord Cullen's report. Such an approach might seem to delay matters, but it would be appropriate to proceed in that way—I do not know what other members think about that.
Do other members want to comment? We are caught between processes and we do not want the petitioners to miss the opportunity for their experience to be considered and their concerns to be addressed by the judicial process.
Bill Butler's suggestion is constructive, and would mean that the petition would remain open. The issue would come back to the committee or to the Parliament and we could see whether progress had been made. That might take a number of months, depending on the timing of the Cullen report and the Government's response to it. The committee could ensure that ministers respond to Lord Cullen's suggestions. We hope that the Government's approach will address the issues that the petitioners have raised.
I thank the petitioners. Julie, you have done an incredible amount of work and you have had to cope with all this as a mother. Part of the process is the need to ensure that no other family has to go through what you and your family have had to go through, which was exhibited at the launch of the petition.
I thank Dr Faulds for his support as a friend of Colin Love. The way in which he and others have organised themselves around the petition is a good example of how the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee process can be used. I also thank the members who came to the meeting to talk about the petition.
We will take the recommendations forward and return to the petition in due course. The petitioners should feel free to communicate with our clerks at any time if they think that further information would benefit the petition. Thank you for your time.
I know that members are keen to consider the next petitions, but we will have a brief break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Houses in Multiple Occupation (Regulation) (PE1261 and PE1281)
I thank members of the public for their patience during the slight delay. Petitions PE1261 and PE1281 deal with issues that arise from houses in multiple occupation. We will deal with the petitions separately when we discuss recommendations, but will consider them together today, given their similarity.
PE1261, by David Middleton, on behalf of Sustainable Communities (Scotland), calls on Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote better regulation of houses in multiple occupation by the following: by giving licensing authorities clear powers to refuse to grant HMO licences where they would affect the amenity of the local area, or would breach planning policy or the requirement for planning permission; by ensuring that planning permission is a prior condition for all HMO licensing; and by introducing more rigorous enforcement of penalties for illegally operated HMOs, including powers of closure and substantial financial penalties to contribute to the cost of enforcement.
PE1281, by Graham White, on behalf of North Kelvin Residents Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to do the following: to urge the Scottish Government to make planning permission a prerequisite of the granting of an HMO licence; to amend or enact laws to control the density of HMOs; to give councils full powers of closure in instances of non-compliant multiple occupancy operation and to increase the fines for that; and to deem local residents' multiple objections to an application to be sufficient reason to refuse or refuse to renew an HMO licence.
A number of members whose areas are most directly affected by HMOs have expressed interest in speaking to the committee. I welcome Mike Pringle, Sandra White and Margo MacDonald. Pauline McNeill cannot make it. We also have—I am having a senior moment—Ted Brocklebank. [Laughter.] I thank the clerk for helping me out there. Pauline McNeill has had to move on, but she left a written statement, which we can consider later. Sandra White has requested to speak first because she had to be somewhere else 10 minutes ago. I invite her to comment on the petitions.
Thank you, convener. It is good of you to hear me first. I am happy to speak in support of both petitions.
First, I put it on the record that Graham White is not related to me, in case anyone thinks that he is, but I have worked closely with the tenants associations and residents group in the area. The situation in Kelvin and the west end of Glasgow is becoming quite horrendous. I do not want to promote nimbyism—I am not against students, migrant workers or others who live in the areas, but they contain a large concentration of HMOs for which planning permission is often granted only retrospectively. Sometimes it is difficult to get planning permission for HMOs even though they have been granted a licence. That is one of the biggest issues. Also, the three sets of legislation on HMOs do not complement one another. I hope that the committee will pick that up and ask the Government to look closely at the legislation.
I mentioned the west end, but the situation has also arisen on the south side of Glasgow. In some cases, residents say that their lives are in great danger because of the types of flats that they have been made to live in. That should not be tolerated any longer. Residents who live in HMOs, particularly students in the west end, move in thinking that they will have a decent place to live, but sometimes, as I said, their lives are being put in danger because landlords—not all landlords, but a minority—do not look after their properties. They have an HMO licence and they can seek planning permission retrospectively. It is illogical that a licence can be awarded for an HMO even if the premises do not meet the planning criteria. That must be examined.
Another concern is that, when officers are sent out and landlords are caught, the fines are paltry and it takes a long time to get them paid. I know that the Scottish Government will address that in the forthcoming housing bill, but I hope that the committee will raise the matter with the Government as well. We need to introduce much greater fines.
In conclusion, I fully support both petitions because action is long overdue. In certain areas, the problem is private housing. That was not considered in 2006, but the minister has said that he will do so through the forthcoming bill. I ask the committee to consider and flag up the petitioners' concerns and requests and to send the petitions to the minister. People should not be allowed to flout the law in the way that is happening at present. We should also consider the fact that amenities cannot cope with overprovision of HMOs in such areas, which affects everyone in the local community, including those who live in HMOs.
Thank you for letting me have my say.
I invite the other visiting members to comment.
I concur with Sandra White. It seems to me that the current laws have proved to be ineffective in controlling or remedying the problem. The petitions offer a way forward that respects the interests of all who are involved.
As a member for Mid Scotland and Fife and a resident of St Andrews, I will touch briefly on the specific problems in that community, where students now comprise almost half the population. The town centre is almost entirely given over to student flats, many of which are HMOs. It is difficult to overstate the effect that the concentration of young and exuberant residents has on that part of the town.
We are not being anti-student, and we are certainly not being nimbyistic. Many of the houses in that historic quarter of the town are listed, but as a large proportion are owned by absentee landlords, there is growing concern about the lack of maintenance of buildings and gardens in what is, after all, not only Fife's top tourist centre but one of the most important tourist towns in the whole of Scotland.
I wrote to the minister in June this year, raising some of the problems, and he was kind enough to include a section on HMOs in the consultation paper on the forthcoming housing bill. We welcome what we see as a possible suitable vehicle for changes that are essential if the serious social effects from the concentration of HMOs are to continue. However, we do not believe that the proposals that we have seen go far enough. We are not convinced that the draft legislation is strong enough to counter the illegal operation of HMOs.
It is right to say that the community's perspective is that the current approach favours the landlord who is prepared to operate illegally. Such landlords can generally do so with little or no fear of detection.
I think that Mike Pringle is going to speak mainly about the HMO petitions PE1261 and PE1281. The one that I have perhaps more information on is petition PE1249. Do you want me to speak to that now, convener?
We will not deal with that one right now.
Apart from just backing up what Ted Brocklebank said just there, I say that the remedies for the malfunction of well-intentioned legislation have proved to be quite ineffective. I think that the matter does have to be revisited.
We are considering PE1261 and PE1281. I know that Margo will speak on the other petition later.
I am here to speak to the two petitions on behalf of David Middleton, who is the petitioner for PE1261. As I see it, the problem is not that HMOs exist; it is that they become concentrated in certain areas. One such area is the Marchmont and Sciennes community council area, which has a very high concentration of HMOs. I think that Ted Brocklebank alluded to such a situation in Aberdeen, but it also happens in Edinburgh. In Edinburgh, 54 per cent of HMOs are concentrated in two areas, although many other community councils support the petition.
It is slightly paradoxical and it does not serve anyone's sense of rational government to have one arm of a local authority—planning—trying to control density, while the licensing arm refuses to implement the recommendations from planning because the legislation is not clear or is very contradictory. The only alternative, which is obviously very expensive, is for local authorities to go to court on a case-by-case basis in order to test the interpretation of aspects of the legislation. Moreover, it is also, as we all know, extremely time consuming to go to court, and it does not necessarily solve the problem, or perhaps does so very seldom.
The lack of clarity and confusion have led to serious problems in various areas, as can be seen from the number of community councils that have been affected by the issue right across Scotland. Not only are communities suffering, but responsible landlords, who are the majority—we have heard about lots of irresponsible landlords, but they are the minority—get penalised and lumped in with the irresponsible ones. Should they therefore bother going through planning hoops when it is not compulsory and other landlords do not bother, and particularly when the planning departments often do not have the resources to enforce any breaches? Petition PE1261 is driven by plain common sense and a wish to retain balanced and sustainable communities. There is an element of desperation because community councils cannot make sense of the law and have failed, either by using local arguments or by offering a different interpretation of licensing laws, to find a way to get the protection that they need for their communities.
It is, I suggest, universally accepted that successful communities are mixed, balanced and sustainable. The Scottish Government has an opportunity to resolve the issues here equitably and simply through minor alterations to legislation, particularly to housing legislation that is currently out to consultation. I support both PE1261 and PE1281, and I hope that somebody upstairs in the Scottish Government is listening and will act on the recommendations in the petitions.
I thank members for their comments. Pauline McNeill MSP was here, but had to leave because of a pressing commitment in Glasgow. Key points have been identified by members and she has emphasised some of them in a brief note, which I will pass to the clerk. Essentially, she asks for urgent implementation of part 5 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, particularly in relation to targeting HMO operators that are operating illegal HMOs or individuals operating HMOs illegally, to try to get intervention in respect of fines for such activities. She has met some key individuals in Glasgow City Council departments to try to address the issue.
Five elected members have come along today, which demonstrates that there is serious concern. I hope that that is reassuring to the petitioners. I invite questions or comments from committee members about how we wish to address the concerns that the petitioners have raised.
It would be good if you could stretch a point and hear one of the people who are here from Edinburgh because there may be a difference in emphasis. Pauline McNeill emphasised illegal operators, but there are people in Edinburgh who are operating legally but badly. They are neglectful rather than acting illegally.
I do not want to be difficult, but we have clearly defined rules about who is able to make a direct contribution to the meeting. I want to explore the issues that have been raised by the petitioners. I hope that they understand the process and that members who know the areas well can perhaps amplify points in the discussion.
From what we have heard, committee members have a broad awareness of the issue. We want to see whether we can help with the petitions, so comments from committee members about how they want to progress matters may be useful.
There are obviously serious problems across the country, so it might be helpful to get an overview from the Scottish Government, given its recent consultation and the fact that it issued HMO guidance. In our correspondence with the Government, we might wish to ask a number of questions. Will it reissue its guidance to make it clear to planning authorities that they must adopt policies to manage HMO concentration and protect communities? If not, why not? Will it make prior planning permission a condition for HMO licences? If not, why not? What measures are in place to ensure that HMO accommodation is properly maintained? Those are three issues to start with, but obviously there will be others.
Members who have particular issues in their areas may want to raise their concerns.
Bill Butler's last point is the one that I was trying to make. The people in Edinburgh would probably agree that the big issue is landlords who are neglectful and do not maintain their properties. In a common stair, that impacts on all the dwellings. I am not sure whether that is the point that Pauline McNeill was making.
A number of us have pockets in our areas—whether it is in a parliamentary constituency, a city, a town or wherever—in which issues are now emerging. My big concern is that, no matter the legislative framework that is in place, the ingenuity of some of the individuals involved in property development and property letting means that they are always ahead of whatever we put in place. Problems will continue unless we pull things together better and drive matters forward through a combination of enforcement, the legislation and perhaps some of the consultation that the minister has undertaken on the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006. It is clear that in all our areas in the past four or five years there have been substantial shifts in the way in which properties are being deployed in our communities, whether as a result of pressure from students or, as in the area of Glasgow that I represent—other members have also raised the issue—as a result of the pressures that new communities emerging unexpectedly in a city can put on the housing stock.
The panel of MSPs who came along to participate in the debate have highlighted the differences that exist in respect of the operation of HMOs. Ted Brocklebank gave the example of St Andrews being taken over by students. In some respects, the fact that we have a large student population in St Andrews is to be welcomed, but the problem is to do with how landlords operate the accommodation and whether they flout the current HMO legislation.
Sandra White and, I believe, Pauline McNeill have raised the issue of landlords flouting the current regulations and not registering themselves as suppliers of HMOs. The convener was also right to make that point; I am sure that he is aware of the number of landlords in his constituency who rent out properties without declaring them as HMOs. To bypass the requirement to register properties that have three or more tenants, they get only two tenants to sign the lease. We must bring together the examples that Ted Brocklebank and Sandra White highlighted in order to address the issue of how landlords are operating.
Reference has been made to the 2006 act. It might be worth our asking the minister when he intends to bring into effect part 5 of the act and to implement the regulations relating to it. We could ask what work will be done with other agencies and which agencies will be involved in monitoring. We must ensure not only that there is proper provision of HMOs and that those who rent the flats are not abused, but that we deal with landlords who flout the regulations through their failure to register flats that should be registered under the HMO legislation. The point has been made that such landlords are putting tenants at risk. The HMO legislation was designed, in part, to stop some of the horrific incidents that had occurred in large cities throughout Scotland. Tenants were in danger of death—and some actually died—because landlords were flouting the regulations for the operation of flats.
John Wilson has made some important points. When we write to the Scottish Government, we should ask it to include both petitions in the consultation on the proposed housing bill. Furthermore, what recourse is available to tenants who have complaints about HMOs? How effective or ineffective are those mechanisms?
I will answer Bill Butler's question immediately. I am not aware of one HMO application in Edinburgh that has been rejected by the council's regulatory committee, despite the fact that on many occasions large numbers of residents come to the committee with serious concerns, sometimes about HMOs that are properly registered.
John Wilson makes a good point. The City of Edinburgh Council tried on numerous occasions to take to court someone who was operating an illegal HMO, but the court system repeatedly rejected the case because it was not important. Finally, after some persuasion—I will not say from whom—the courts accepted the case and the landlord was fined about £3,000 for running an illegal HMO. The following week, the council received 800 or 900 applications for HMOs, because everyone suddenly thought that the issue was being taken seriously. That was the result of one court case.
The nub of the problem is the relationship between the licensing authority and the planning authority, neither of which knows how to talk to the other. How the law applies to HMOs and, therefore, to planning is a real issue. The Scottish Executive must examine the relationship between the two. If we can sort out that problem, we may sort out many of the problems in HMOs.
If a week goes by in my constituency without someone complaining about an HMO that is causing a problem for residents, I wonder why. That is how often complaints come in—sometimes more often. The problem of illegal HMOs is massive in some areas, and people's lives can be seriously affected. Indeed, people even complain time after time about residents in recognised HMOs. The licensing authorities receive the same complaints, but I cannot think of one HMO application from my constituency that has been turned down. That is also part of the problem.
I am aware of the time, so I will bring in Ted Brocklebank and Margo MacDonald and then try to pull everything together.
There is much in what Mike Pringle said. The problem is that different local authorities appear to apply the rules in different ways; there is uneven treatment across Scotland. Some streets in St Andrews have eight permanent residents and 35 HMO flats, which means that there could be as many as 140 bed spaces in one street. Those are the levels of density that we are talking about. Dundee City Council's system is entirely different to that which is operated by Fife Council, so we really must grasp the lack of clarity and encourage even dealing by licensing authorities throughout Scotland.
As Mike Pringle has pointed out, there is a contradiction in the approaches of those two council departments. The shortage of accommodation all over is exacerbating the situation, and it is difficult to pursue the law and all the strength that it can muster. For example, if you close down some HMOs on planning grounds, we will find ourselves with all sorts of social problems. No one is willing to take that action. The problem is that there is a housing shortage in Edinburgh and what could be good housing for families goes to students—and, indeed, young single people—simply because they have nowhere else to go.
Committee members have raised a number of points that we will want to pursue and explore with the relevant Government officials and departments, so we will keep the petition open. We will also summarise the contributions from the five MSPs from the areas of the country that are affected by the problem. We will respond back in due course and, of course, everyone will receive notice of that.
I thank everyone for their time. I know that members who are not committee members are sticking around for other items. Our meeting is going to be quite long, so I cannot guarantee exactly what time we will get to particular petitions.
I am sticking around for the party flats.
Okay. You have often been described as the life and soul of the party, Margo. Some would say that you have also been kicked out of quite a few.
I do not know who you have been talking to, and I remind you that I have only ever been in one party.
Freight Trains (Overnight Running) (PE1273)
PE1273, by Anne Massie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to take the necessary action and make representations to the appropriate bodies to stop the overnight running of freight trains on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line. Dr Richard Simpson has expressed interest in this petition, and I invite him to say a few words.
I know that the committee is always under pressure, but with regard to this petition you have the benefit of the membership of Bill Butler, who was convener of the committee that oversaw the passage through Parliament of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill.
When the proposal for the railway line was being considered, people fell into three groups: those who were in favour of it at any price, those who objected to it at any price, and those who thought that it was probably a good thing but wanted the environmental issues to be considered properly. The impact report that was commissioned by Clackmannanshire Council and Transport Scotland and undertaken in 2001 by Scott Wilson did not look at night-time running at all. Indeed, in that lengthy and full report, which focused in particular on noise and vibration, Scott Wilson stated on no less than 17 occasions that there would be no night running of freight trains between 23:00 and 07:00 hours, and that only one passenger train would run between 23:00 and midnight and 06:00 and 07:00.
I was the MSP for Ochil at the time. I attended a number of public meetings at which I heard Transport Scotland give public reassurances to that effect. The middle group of objectors was accommodated on that basis. They thought that they could tolerate a bit of noise during the day and that at least their sleep would not be disturbed.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing says that the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway reopened in May 2008. On almost the same date, an application from DB Schenker to run trains at night was approved. An application had not been made previously, and we have no idea why it was made. No more trains run on the line than the number that the impact report stated was manageable between 07:00 and 23:00 hours, but the trains now run during the night. My constituents along the line and constituents in Stirling and Larbert—in Michael Matheson's constituency—who previously had no concerns or worries about living alongside the main railway line are now complaining bitterly about the noise that is created by heavy freight trains with 23 wagons.
Network Rail tells us that it has absolutely no right to bar the night-time running of trains. Under its remit, it must allow trains to operate on the line if it is safe to do so. That is its legislative requirement. There are no environmental considerations of any sort. We can go back to the Government and to Transport Scotland and say, "You commissioned this without considering the impact of night-time running and now we have night-time running. What responsibility do you bear for that?" Transport Scotland totally denies that it has any responsibility in that regard.
We may say that surely the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee had a duty to deal with the matter, but in fact it did not, because the matter was not within the scope of the bill. Although the objectors who appeared before that committee repeatedly stated their environmental concerns, the committee rightly thought that, because trains would not run during the night-time, there would be no problem.
My constituents have been misled. They are being disturbed, their mental health is being affected, and children are repeatedly up during the night. There is considerable anguish in a relatively small number of households. Probably around 100 households are affected, but they are seriously affected. We do not even know whether they can get compensation, although the minister's answers indicate that they may be entitled to it. They have been grossly misled about the process.
The petitioners have rightly asked the Public Petitions Committee to look into the situation, find out why it has arisen in the way that it has, and seek to get the Government to reconsider the running of trains during the night-time. There are possible long-term solutions. For example, if passenger services were extended to Kincardine and the line between Alloa and Kincardine was dualled, it would be possible to run enough trains during the daytime, even with Network Rail's new restrictions.
In the meantime, my constituents are very angry. There have been public meetings. More than 300 people attended the public meeting in Causewayhead, more than 250 attended the public meeting in Larbert, and a similar number attended the public meeting in Clackmannan. There is considerable anger in those communities. They feel that they have been let down by the Government and the parliamentary process.
I thank Richard Simpson for his presentation.
While the petition specifically refers to the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway line, as Richard Simpson indicated, Michael Matheson raised in a recent members' business debate an issue that constituents from Larbert had raised with him. On a personal note, I live less than 100yd from a level-crossing that the freight service in particular uses. I have lived there for almost 20 years, and I know from personal experience that no freight traffic used to go on that line. Every community from Hunterston right up to Longannet is being affected. Housing estates were built right along the railway line on the basis that there was no freight traffic.
Although it is useful for DB Schenker's freight transport to use the railway, residents from Hunterston right up to Longannet are being inconvenienced and disturbed because of the sort of freight and when it is transported. I assure the committee that the freight trains run every hour during the day and almost every hour during the night. Freight travels past my house at 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock in the morning and at 4 o'clock and 5 o'clock in the morning. Everyone along the line is disturbed by that.
Parameters must be set. As Richard Simpson rightly said, Network Rail must take some responsibility for the impact that reopening the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line has had on communities that were assured that freight would not be transported through the night, but Parliament must do so as well, particularly those members who campaigned for the line to be reopened.
I emphasise the fact that the freight vehicles are heavy coal wagons. As Richard Simpson pointed out, 23 wagons at a time are being hauled along the line, which causes a great deal of disturbance. When I sit at the level-crossing outside my house, I can count the freight wagons as they go by.
I point out that not only the residents on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line but the residents up and down the railway line that goes to Hunterston are affected. Families moved into houses thinking that the line would carry a passenger service that would finish at midnight and would not start up again before 7 in the morning. However, the operation of the heavy coal wagons is causing a great deal of disturbance, vibration and noise.
It is worth taking the petition further. As I said in Michael Matheson's members' business debate, many communities along the length of the railway line are affected.
I listened carefully to Dr Richard Simpson, and it goes without saying that he speaks for his constituents and the constituents of other members along the line.
I was the convener of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee—in fact, the clerk to this committee was the deputy clerk. I feel that the committee would certainly not have agreed to freight trains running through the night. We were told—perhaps 17 times—that that would not happen. I can well understand the huge anger of people along the line. They feel that they were misled, and I feel that my committee and I were misled as well.
We have to try to deal with the situation. We should write to a number of agencies. We must ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to reverse this detriment to the lives of people who live on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line; what representations it has made, if any, to freight operating companies that are causing huge aggravation to constituents; and what help or mitigation is being offered to residents who have been affected.
We are duty bound to ask the Office of Rail Regulation whether it will make it a licence condition that freight trains should not run during the night in residential areas, including the ones that the petition is concerned with. That might be a way of solving the problem.
We also have to talk to DB Schenker, which is the successor to English Welsh & Scottish Railway—I am reminded of Tom Paine's view that lords change their names more often than rogues or ordinary villains. What DB Schenker is doing approaches the criminal. It is certainly having a severe effect. I think that it should be brought to book. We should at least ask whether it would consider increasing the number of trains to Longannet that run during the day rather than at night. Dr Richard Simpson made that point.
I feel very angry that the committee of which I was convener was, I believe, misled on this issue. We and the Parliament should do all that is in our power to reverse the situation. This is a scandal.
That was a good contribution.
I also think that there is a strong if not incontrovertible case for compensation, including retrospective sound insulation for the houses along that stretch of the line, and compensation for the misleading, almost duplicitous, way in which people appear to have been treated.
I campaigned for the reopening of that line and I walked along a stretch of it. However, on the general issue of the mixed use of railway track, part of the reason for the policy of reopening and rejuvenating our railways is to get heavy traffic off our roads and on to the rails, which are more efficient, cleaner and generally better for the environment. Also, most of our major rail lines run through our cities and residential districts, and there is simply not enough room during the day for the amount of heavy goods and passenger traffic that we want on our railways for them to operate efficiently. If we restricted rail companies to operating railways during daylight hours only, we would deny them a huge tranche of their income.
There is a difficult balance to be struck across the country, and that certainly cannot be done on the principle that goods traffic should not run in residential areas, because that would bring our railways to a standstill. The petition is a special case, in that people were led to believe one thing but have found themselves in a very different situation, so they are justifiably angry and upset, and they deserve compensation.
Convener, I would also like the committee to write to Network Rail to seek its views on the operation of the rail network. As I said, although the petition deals specifically with the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line, there is an issue about the operation of heavy freight throughout the night. It might also be useful to seek the views of the Department for Transport.
I do not mind freight on the railways. A lot of rail freight comes through the area in which I live, and I welcome the fact that a number of operators are using the rail network to shift freight. However, the issue is the nature of the freight that is trundling through communities overnight, such as the 23 coal wagons at a time. From where I live, I know that there is a vast difference between a 20-carriage freight train carrying normal trucks, and 23 carriages laden with coal. Different noise and vibration levels are created. It is about trying to get Network Rail and the Department for Transport to realise the impact that that is having on many communities throughout Scotland—particularly those who bought houses next to railway tracks that they thought were underutilised and would not be used throughout the night.
Okay. I want to pull this together. Members have made a lot of recommendations.
There is a difference between the Freightliner wagons and the DB Schenker wagons, which is demonstrated in Falkirk Council's review. Falkirk Council and Clackmannanshire Council have undertaken reviews, which you might wish to consider. In addition, the committee might want to consider the fact that the levels of noise that are regarded as a nuisance are unclear—different groups say different things. In order to determine compensation, we need to have clear rules in Scotland about what constitutes a nuisance and what does not. That is a specific problem.
I have been in correspondence with all the groups and I have got absolutely nowhere, as every one of them denies any responsibility for the mess that we are in. I wish the committee well on our behalf. I hope that the weight of the committee's membership, the fact that it is a committee of the Parliament, and the fact that a previous committee of the Parliament was misled, meaning that the Parliament is held in judgment on the issue, will enable the committee to deal with the matter in a much weightier way than I have managed on my own with the help of Michael Matheson.
You have heard members' views. We want to pursue the matter. I share the concerns that you and Mr Butler have raised about commitments that were entered into in good faith and understandings that were approved in the process of the freight line and the line overall not being honoured. We will pursue those matters and return to the petition in due course. I thank Dr Simpson for his contribution.
Overseas Aid (Cessation) (PE1282)
The final new petition is PE1282, by Ronald Hunter, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to cease overseas aid and donations immediately and to apply those funds to the more pressing demands of Scotland. Do members have any suggestions for how to deal with the petition?
I will be frank and say that I am not sympathetic at all to the petition. I doubt whether any committee member or any member of the Parliament would be. Perhaps the petitioner has not heard—even in trade terms—of enlightened self-interest.
Having said that, we have a duty to ask a few questions of the Scottish Government anyway, in order to get a response that we can convey to the petitioner. For instance, we could ask the Scottish Government whether it will cease overseas aid and donations and apply those funds to what the petition calls "the more pressing demands" at home. I hope that the Government says that it will not, but we must still ask the question. We could also ask how the Government addresses concerns about the level of overseas aid that it is providing during a time of financial crisis. Again, I hope—and I suspect strongly—that the answer from the Government will be objective and will deal with a petition that is wrong-headed, to put it mildly.
Like Bill Butler, I confess to being entirely unsympathetic to the petition. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the credit crunch is affecting the poorest people in the world far more than it is affecting us, so, if anything, the burden is on us to provide more rather than less aid during this time of difficulties both at home and abroad. Nevertheless, as Bill Butler says, it would be worth putting a few questions to the Government, if only to affirm our commitment to our international responsibilities.
As Bill Butler and Robin Harper have said, there will, I hope, be very little if any sympathy for the petition in the Parliament. However, I understand some of the reasons why the petitioner felt it necessary to lodge it.
I suggest that, as well as writing to the Scottish Government along the lines that Bill Butler proposes, we should ask the Government what the impact would be of withdrawing aid from the countries that we currently support. I suggest that we also write to a number of aid agencies and ask them what the overall impact would be if aid from the Scottish Government or charitable donations collected in Scotland were not utilised to assist the third world. I hope that that will address some of the issues that the petitioner has raised, and that he might realise that, without aid from Scotland, people in many more communities in the third world could be condemned to a worse lifestyle, or even death. It would be useful to write to a number of organisations, such as Save the Children, Christian Aid, Oxfam, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and any others that the clerks might think relevant. It is incumbent on us to carry out as much of an impact assessment as possible on any withdrawal of that third-world aid.
I echo everything that has been said, and I will answer a couple of points that are made in the petition. The petitioner speaks about a desire
"to resolve our problems first."
I strongly argue that problems in the developing world are our problems. We are all global citizens, and it is worth noting that the effects of the damage that we do in the developed world have a greater effect in the developing world. He refers to sorting out
"our immediate and demanding issues"
first. I completely understand that, and I completely sympathise when I look at the list of demands that he has supplied, but there will always be "immediate and demanding issues" that we need to deal with.
He refers to "the wish list" and "the needs list" of politicians. I simply echo what my colleague Robin Harper said: the credit crunch is affecting the developing world far more than it is affecting us. It is not a wish list, it is a needs list—people in those countries need our support to create a sustainable future for themselves, and they need it now more than ever.
I have two points to make. First, what could possibly be more pressing than people abroad who are starving? I do not think that we have instances of more pressing need than those for which the money is intended. Secondly, it is important to ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that all aid that is targeted on developing countries reaches its intended recipients. Most people would like an answer confirming that aid actually does get to the intended recipients.
A broad, consistent view is emerging from members. We should recognise the issues around the petition, and we should explore some answers. Essentially, we are considering the philosophical position on international aid. First, we can relate that to Government agencies and the Government itself. Secondly, the wider social and economic benefits for citizens here, never mind people who are in more acute circumstances, have been identified. Thirdly, there is a reciprocity and an understanding about donations and the obligations on us in the prosperous parts of the world towards people in the less prosperous parts of the world. Finally, one of the most important, if contested, examples of international economic aid over the past 100 years has been the Marshall recovery plan, which benefited substantial parts of Europe—even if that has been contested with regard to intellectual capital.
In its context, you can understand the petitioner's concern, and we need to explore that. However, members have expressed their views about the overall picture, and we hope that that will be part of the response in exploring the petition.