Public Petitions Committee, 07 Dec 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 7, 2005

Official Report 240KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Victim Notification Scheme (PE899)

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. Petition PE899, by Hazel Reid, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the operation of the victim notification scheme to ensure that the victims of serious violent and sexual crimes are given the right to receive information about the release from prison of an offender who has committed a crime against them, regardless of the length of the sentence that was imposed.

Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petitions site; from 25 October 2005 to 30 November 2005, it gathered 883 signatures and six comments. Members have received a copy of the e-petitions briefing for the petition.

Hazel Reid is here to make a brief statement in support of her petition; she is accompanied by Norma Anderson. I welcome you both to the committee. You have a few minutes to make your opening comments and then we will discuss the issue that you have brought before us.

This time last year, I wrote to the victim notification scheme to ask for information on the release date of my husband, who had attempted to murder me. I also asked whether he was eligible to apply for a day-release scheme under which he would be allowed into the community before the end of his sentence. My main concern was about the possibility of his being eligible for day release as that would mean that he could turn up at my home or my work and I would have no knowledge that he was free on any particular day. Naturally, I believed that he had admitted to a serious crime and therefore I expected to be given information under the victim notification scheme.

The Scottish Prison Service replied to my request by stating that, as my husband had received a sentence of less than four years' imprisonment, I was not entitled to any information under the scheme. I was devastated. For three days I could think of nothing else and I cried constantly. I was living in a state of fear. For years, I had been told by my husband that I was worthless, and in court I felt that I was not worth while, especially as my husband's advocate stated several times that his client was not a danger to the public but only to his wife. The victim notification scheme reiterated that I was of no account.

Contrary to statements that have been made recently by the Executive, the scheme has been running for a lot longer than a year. It began on a trial basis in 1997 and became more formalised in January 2001, when the "Scottish Strategy for Victims" was published. That document contained three key policy objectives, one of which was to improve the availability of information for victims of crime. The scheme then passed into legislation under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which supposedly gives victims or an eligible family member the right to receive information about the release from prison of the offender who committed the crime against them. The Executive has stated on numerous occasions that the scheme is under review, but what does that mean? How long does a review take?

That has been my experience, and I am not alone. I urge the Executive to rectify as soon as possible the ludicrous situation whereby the VNS will release information to the victim only when the perpetrator receives a sentence of four years or more, no matter what crime has been committed. Arbitrary sentencing should make no difference to a victim's right to know or to be consulted, and that right should apply to all victims of serious crime, be they women or men. If I had had the information, I would have known when and where I needed to ensure greater awareness and protection of myself.

It is too late to change the law for me, but many victims of violence, domestic abuse and sexual abuse are likely to face the same situation, because sentences for those crimes are often lenient. Those victims' safety is compromised through lack of information. Nobody—least of all a person who has just gone through the trauma of an assault—should be disregarded in that way; they have suffered enough. Thank you for granting me the time in which to speak to you.

Thank you for your opening comments. I understand that you have been through a traumatic experience, and I am sure that members will be as sympathetic as they can be in their questioning. If you find it difficult at all, please let us know and we will take appropriate measures.

Good morning. You have my sympathy for the dreadful experience that you have gone through. You will appreciate that the timescale for victim notification has been drawn up with the best of intentions, although you are not content with it. Are you suggesting that a special case should be made for domestic violence, as opposed to other crimes? Or are you suggesting that the victim should have a right to information if the sentence is three years or two years? What would you like to happen?

I would like any victim of an assault to have that right, whether they are a man or a woman, and whether the incident is domestic or non-domestic. Also, attempted murder should be viewed as a serious crime. My husband admitted in court to attempted murder—that is what he was sentenced for. However, I was told that it was not a serious crime, as he did not receive a sentence of four years.

So, you suggest that the type of crime should determine whether there is automatic notification of the victim.

Yes.

Thank you for coming along and being so brave as to give evidence today. The committee listened to what you said, and I hope that we will be able to do something about the situation.

I want to ask about information that you may have received before your husband was sentenced. Did lawyers advise you that, if the sentence was less than four years, you would not receive notification? When did you find out that, if the sentence was less than four years, you would not be told about the release date or whether your husband would go into a day prison?

This time last year, when I wrote to the VNS asking for information, I did not know. No one had told me before then that I was not entitled to that information.

So, lawyers do not advise victims of that. Victims receive no information—even from the legal profession or the courts—about what is happening: it is left up to them.

The witness protection scheme said that there was something set up and that I could apply for that information. I knew that, but no one said that there was a time limit and that the offender had to have received a sentence of four years or longer.

You mentioned the witness protection scheme, which seems to be in two parts. When you were told about that, you assumed that you might be given knowledge, but you actively had to seek out the knowledge—nobody gave you it.

Correct.

I am clear that you want the nature of the crime and the level of severity rather than the length of the sentence to be the determining factor—I appreciate that sentencing varies. I want to take you to the beginning of the process—the point at which the perpetrator was charged. The news articles with which we have been provided suggest that the fact that he pled guilty to the charge might have led to a lesser sentence. Have I picked that up correctly?

That is my belief. A house-breaking charge was dropped because he pled guilty. There was a plea bargain. He said in court that he had a knife in his hand because he wanted to slip the lock and that he climbed in through the window because he was unable to slip the lock, but he actually threw a brick through the window and then came in and stabbed me immediately. He was in possession of the knife before he came into the house, but that was not how it was seen in court.

I am not a lawyer, but I would have thought that if the action was shown to be premeditated, rather than done in the heat of the moment, that might have carried a higher tariff. That illustrates that what happens at the beginning of the process might not be helpful for the victim notification scheme.

Correct.

Obviously, few of us in the room could even begin to imagine what you went through. I seek clarification on one point. It is ridiculous that you were not told when your husband was to be released. You described the sentence of four years as arbitrary, which is exactly what it is. Every victim of the sort of crime of which you were a victim should be notified when the perpetrator is to be back on the streets. Do you know whether the police are advised or forewarned when someone like your husband is put back on to the streets?

The police are told only if they ask. In Hazel's case, the police were told, because her domestic abuse liaison officer took the time to find out. They wrote to the Scottish Prison Service to say that, in their opinion, Hazel would be endangered if he was released on day release, which is why the SPS actively vetoed that.

Hazel, am I right that your situation was exacerbated by the fact that your husband kept contacting you from prison?

Yes.

You asked for the matter to be checked out, but if it had not been, he would have been back on the streets and neither you nor the local police would have known.

My daughter visited him about three or four times when he was in prison. He boasted to her that he would be getting out in some way. She thought that he meant an open prison—she did not know exactly what it was. She told me about it, so I made inquiries, because I was unaware that prisoners could get out on a day-release scheme, two thirds into their sentence. I discovered that in about November or December last year. Because my husband got out of jail in August, he would therefore have been eligible to apply for the day-release scheme in January to start in February. I was concerned, because I felt that I had until August to get prepared, but suddenly I had only until February. As it happened, he was not granted day release, but I did not have any information on whether he would be granted it, so I had to take safety precautions; in fact, I had to take them six months before I was ready to take them.

You may have no knowledge of what I would like to know, but I am just trying to get as good a picture as I can of the problem. We have heard about your specific situation and your individual problem, but do you have any evidence, either empirical or anecdotal, of how widespread the problem is of a victim being recontacted by the perpetrator of a crime against them in situations in which they were not entitled to be notified that that person was being released? Does that happen predominantly with women victims? Do you have any information or evidence on that?

I do not, although I have been told by various agencies that women get very upset because the situation that I am in is not unique to me. Especially with sexual assault, an offender does not tend to get a sentence of more than four years. Many sexual assault crimes are committed by someone who is known to the victim. When you know the perpetrator, there is always a fear that they will come and seek you out once they have been released from jail. When the victim notification scheme refused to give me the information that I wanted, I was at my lowest ebb.

I think that a woman is killed every three days by a violent former partner and that, often, criminal proceedings have already been taken against him.

That is the kind of evidence that I was interested in, because it helps to give us a wider picture. We have heard a good explanation of Hazel Reid's individual circumstances, but I am trying to get an idea of the wider situation.

Concerns have been expressed around the table. Do members have any suggestions on how to deal with the petition?

For me, there are two issues: the differences that we know exist in sentencing practice and the fact that changes can be made to the initial charges that might ultimately reduce the sentence that is handed down. I suggest that we write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Prison Service, Victim Support Scotland, the Parole Board for Scotland and Safeguarding Communities-Reducing Offending to bring the terms of the petition to their attention and to seek their views on a review of the notification scheme with a view to changing it.

I agree entirely with what Jackie Baillie said, but I would also like us to contact the police. I am surprised that the onus is on the police to ask whether such people are to be released and that they are not notified automatically. We should ask the police about that.

Should we ask the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland? There are a number of police bodies and I am not sure which of them it would be most appropriate to ask.

ACPOS is probably the most appropriate body to ask.

As there are no further suggestions on how to progress matters, I thank Hazel Reid for bringing the issue to our attention. We will get back to you once we have received responses from the organisations to which we have decided to write. At that point, we will discuss matters further and decide what more we can do. We will keep you advised of the responses that we receive and we will seek your views on them when we obtain them.

Thank you.

---

Dalkeith Northern Bypass (PE900)

Petition PE900 is by Jade Allison, on behalf of the save Dalkeith park campaign. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the proposal for the Dalkeith northern bypass is comprehensively and properly assessed with 2005 data and that the results are published and consulted on before any contract is let. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petitions site; from 25 October 2005 to 30 November 2005, it gathered 1,135 signatures and 17 comments. The usual e-petitions briefing has been sent to members. An additional 467 signatures have been submitted in hard copy.

I welcome to the meeting Jade Allison, who is accompanied by Elizabeth Robertson and Colin Howden. Jade will make a brief statement in support of the petition, after which we will discuss its contents.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to the petition. I represent the save Dalkeith park campaign group, which is concerned at the fact that the proposed route for the Dalkeith northern bypass will sever Dalkeith park.

Many people probably do not know the park. Its current designed landscape dates from the 1720s, but there has been a park in the area since the 1630s. Historic Scotland's inventory of gardens and designed landscapes shows Dalkeith park stretching from Dalkeith High Street to the A1 at Whitecraig. The park is part of the Edinburgh green belt and is a well-used recreation area for local people and people from further afield. The proposed route will cut through the park, causing irreversible environmental damage and destroying some ancient woodland.

This bypass has been under consideration since the 1950s. The first local public inquiry on the issue was held in 1992; at the time, the park was not used to the extent that it is now and few people objected to the proposal. Permission for a single carriageway was granted in 1993. A second local public inquiry that was held in 1996 looked solely at changing the single carriageway to a dual carriageway. In its 1999 strategic roads review, the Scottish Executive concluded that the A68 Dalkeith bypass was one of several schemes that, although reasonably worth while, should be held in abeyance. It was stated:

"future appraisals will be conducted using a multi modal approach which will allow potential trunk road schemes to be considered alongside other potential transport improvements in the area."

However, no such appraisal, which should assess possible public transport and traffic management alternatives, has been carried out prior to proceeding.

The research justifying the road was conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s and does not take into account the A7 Dalkeith bypass, the dualling of the A1 and the proposed Borders rail link. Moreover, since then, there have been many changes in infrastructure, transport planning and environmental policy. However, any fresh evidence that was collected in the recent Executive-commissioned studies cannot be used to challenge the decision, because the Executive is not prepared to consult on such evidence or to revisit its original decision. With such out-of-date information, how do we know that the road is the best way of dealing with Dalkeith's traffic problems? In fact, a document that was obtained under freedom of information legislation and which outlines recent local traffic studies suggests that that is not the case. Aspects of the old studies have already been proven wrong. For example, it was predicted that, by 2000, 139 cars would be queuing from Dalkeith High Street back to the Sheriffhall roundabout. That has not happened. Building a new road does not solve pollution problems; it simply shifts them elsewhere.

Given the lack of any local public consultation; the fact that the current local plan, which was produced in 1998, is out of date; the lack of any full environmental impact assessment with public consultation; and the failure to carry out a multimodal study, despite the Executive's commitment to do so, it is clear that the Scottish Executive and the Minister for Transport will not engage with the public. As a result, we need the help of the Scottish Parliament. The petitioners ask the Parliament to write to Scottish ministers and the appropriate committees to ensure that the issues are addressed before any contracts are let.

I open the matter up for discussion. Do members have any questions?

I declare an interest as a supporter of the campaign who has signed the petition.

I want to pick up on a number of interesting facts that you mentioned. First, how were people invited to be involved in the initial consultation? Secondly, can Colin Howden suggest examples of recent road construction projects for which improvements in traffic were promised? Perhaps he can explain whether those new roads have been successful in dealing with traffic problems.

The local public inquiry took place in 1992—I was not in the area at that time, so I did not know that the park existed—but I think that it was simply announced routinely and in the regular way. I think that people were invited to respond to the consultation and that information was made available in local libraries.

My feeling is that, as you said, many of the decisions were made back in the 1950s, when we had very little knowledge of the environmental effects and other negative impacts of road construction. In that era, I think that the consultations on planned roads did not include the entire community. Do you agree that the community has probably changed quite dramatically since then?

The community has changed very much since then. Also, the use of the park and people's appreciation of green spaces in which they can enjoy their recreation time have changed significantly since 1992.

On the process issue, the multimodal study that Jade Allison mentioned should have been carried out. When the Executive published its trunk roads review in 1999, it said that it would conduct multimodal studies to consider alternatives to road building and perhaps to consider alternative road projects to those that were already on the books.

Over the years, the Executive has engaged in good practice on the central Scotland transport corridor studies, which were widely consulted on and considered all the options. Those studies reached the conclusion that the M8 and M80 should still be widened, but that that would do no good on its own because additional investment in public transport would also be required. In that one instance, the Executive has carried through on its own policies.

There has also been bad practice—I think that that is what Rosie Kane was getting at—in projects such as, not surprisingly, the M74 northern extension. The Executive decided to proceed with the M74 without carrying out a multimodal study. Indeed, it was decided that the study would be done alongside the building of the road. That is completely unacceptable under the process, as the study needs to happen before the Executive decides to proceed with a project.

In advance of the construction of the M77, promises were made that the road would result in less traffic, more jobs and an improved community. In your experience, has the introduction of a motorway through Pollok reduced or increased traffic?

My understanding is that no follow-up study on the M77 has ever been done. We never get to see whether the job and traffic benefit claims that are often made for such projects can be demonstrated afterwards. That failing affects the whole range of Executive transport policies, but that is a broader issue. As far as I am aware, the local experience is that the M77 has tended to increase traffic levels.

Since the public inquiry into the Dalkeith northern bypass in the 1980s, the architecture of transport policy has changed. Neither the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report that found that new roads tend to generate increased traffic levels nor the findings on the impacts of transport on the economy were available when the new road was given the go-ahead. We believe strongly that such issues have to be taken into account as a matter of Executive policy before the Executive supports such schemes.

Do you want account to be taken of the SACTRA finding that new motorways simply generate new traffic, such that surrounding areas might find themselves in a much worse situation?

Not all new roads will generate increased traffic levels. A new road that is built in a remote area might not generate more traffic, so the issue is not quite so clear cut. However, SACTRA's 1995 report concluded that the construction of new trunk road capacity in areas that are already congested will tend to generate new traffic. That finding has not been taken into account in the Executive's decision to proceed with the Dalkeith northern bypass.

Some parts of the case are quite confusing. Our briefing note states that in 1993—before the Scottish Parliament existed, obviously—permission was given for the construction of a single carriageway. In 1997 additional land was purchased for a dual carriageway, but in 1999, by which time the Scottish Parliament existed, the Scottish Executive said that the scheme should be held in abeyance and considered again in the future, possibly as part of a multimodal study. I find it strange that the Executive has not done that study and that nobody has had any correspondence from the Executive on the matter.

You have been involved from 1999 to the present day. Has the Scottish Executive explained why it decided to go ahead with the bypass? Have you had any meetings with ministers or any indication of why they changed their minds?

We have had no meetings with ministers, but we have made a lot of freedom of information requests and the matter has been discussed in the Scottish Parliament. Basically, it boils down to the fact that the money is available. When the M74 case went to the High Court, there was money left over. Through written questions, Fergus Ewing established that the scheme was given the go-ahead because the money was available.

I wish that that would happen in other areas. You have had no meetings with ministers and have received no explanation other than the fact that the money was available. Has an environmental impact assessment been done?

The Executive says that it is updating the environmental impact assessment and conducting further traffic studies, but we were told that we cannot get hold of those studies because they are in progress. Basically, the road has been decided on and the studies are being done to justify it.

In the 1990s, two public inquiries established the need for the bypass. Are you saying that, because of strategic road improvements and other transport improvements in the area, a bypass is no longer needed?

It is possible that there is no need for the bypass, or perhaps other measures could be introduced, such as a weight restriction on vehicles through Dalkeith and improvements in public transport. We need a multimodal study to establish whether a bypass is needed and whether it is the optimum solution. There is probably a need to sort out traffic problems and pollution in Dalkeith, but we need to find the optimum way of doing that. I am not sure that research that was done in the late 1980s and early 1990s can tell us the best thing to do.

I see that your petition has 1,500 signatures. What is the population of Dalkeith? Do you think that you represent the views of everyone in Dalkeith?

I am sure that I do not represent everybody. We held a public meeting in Dalkeith, which was well attended by about 300 people. The upshot of that meeting was that, although people felt that something needed to be done about the congestion in Dalkeith, they were not prepared to lose Dalkeith park. They wanted further investigation to determine whether the construction of the bypass was the right thing to do. I think that we represent the vast majority of people in the Dalkeith area.

Mr Howden, are you from the Dalkeith campaign or do you have a particular interest in roads and transport?

I am from TRANSform Scotland, but I was asked to come along today by the save Dalkeith park campaign. TRANSform is the national sustainable transport alliance.

I thought that I recognised you from somewhere. I just wanted to establish that.

I am curious. There have been two local public inquiries, which is a higher degree of scrutiny than many communities achieve. What did those inquiries not cover that gives you such cause for concern?

The second local public inquiry examined only the dualling aspect. There was considerable representation from people who opposed the road altogether, but their concerns could not be heard because of the remit of the inquiry.

I am sorry—I have forgotten the rest of your question.

Did the inquiries consider the environmental concerns or any aspects of the dualling that related to the original concerns?

The first and second local public inquiries had environmental impact assessments carried out, but they were non-statutory environmental impact assessments that did not comply with the European directives. It was felt that the bypass would be far enough away from the site of special scientific interest—the ancient oak wood—for it not to warrant such assessment. No public consultation was done as part of the environmental impact assessments, and the use of the whole park was not properly considered at that time.

Does the fact that the Executive has indicated that it will go back to baseline environmental information and put in place measures to mitigate against the effects of the road give you any comfort at all?

No. There needs to be a public consultation.

Given the fact that the decision to build the road has been made and that the project is going ahead, I question why further assessments are being done. Surely, assessments and research should be done first, to work out whether the project is the optimum thing to do, before it goes ahead. I have no comfort in those things being done after the event—after the decision has been made.

I reinforce Jade Allison's comments. Things have changed. The evidence that has been submitted mentions infrastructure changes in the construction of the A7 Dalkeith western bypass and the Executive's proposals for the construction of the Borders railway. Frankly, I would like to know what the impact of the Dalkeith northern bypass will be on the viability of the Borders railway, which is something that we strongly support but which I fear that the Dalkeith northern bypass will damage.

On top of that, there have been changes—I will not go into them in depth—in transport policy and environmental policy, with the Executive's commitments to tackle climate change and the changes in national planning policy over the period. The policies that were set in 1992 belong to a different era.

To balance that, we must recognise the changes that have taken place in the profile of transport usage and the fact that car ownership has increased substantially in the same period.

I concede that.

The committee is joined this morning by Mark Ballard. Mark, do you have any questions that you would like to ask?

I have some comments. As an MSP for the Lothians and a campaigner on transport and environmental issues, I understand that the Dalkeith bypass was held in abeyance after the 1999 strategic review, which was conducted by Sarah Boyack. As has been said, a multimodal study was to be done to assess the potential benefits of the proposed northern bypass against the benefits of other—also, I presume, costly—investment in transport infrastructure in the area. I was, therefore, surprised when it was announced in June that the bypass was being taken out of mothballs.

I have received a great deal of correspondence from local people—not just in Dalkeith, but in the wider Lothians—who are users of the park and who consider it an important area of green space. Many of those correspondents expressed their surprise that the public inquiry took place as long ago as 1992 and commented on how much the area and the usage of the park have changed since then. Like everybody else who is involved in the debate about the park, I am frustrated by the lack of up-to-date information on the impact of the proposal on the environment and the lack of a multimodal study. That makes it impossible to conduct the needed public debate about this £40 million to £80 million proposal.

I urge the committee to take what steps it can to make that information available so that there can be a proper public debate on the potential benefits—or otherwise—of the proposal. That is the light in which the committee should look at the issue. Whatever side members take, in opposing or supporting the scheme, it is necessary to make that debate possible; at the moment, it is not.

The more that I have heard, the more confused I have become. I do not know the Dalkeith area or the history of the project—I have not been involved in it at all. Is there a problem of congestion in Dalkeith that has to be addressed? Would you support any project to address the issue, or are you saying that there is no problem and, therefore, no need for a bypass?

There may be a problem of congestion in Dalkeith: some times I have found traffic queues; other times I have not. The issue has not been researched properly. We are confused as well, convener, because research has not been done to show what the problem is.

Recently commissioned reports, which have been released under the freedom-of-information scheme, show that congestion happens only with westbound traffic. That traffic would not be affected by the Dalkeith northern bypass. A report that we read talked about people trying to avoid the Edinburgh city bypass at Sheriffhall roundabout by travelling along Salters Road and going west through Dalkeith. We need to establish what the problem is in order to solve it.

How big is the park?

About 1,000 acres. It goes from the A1 at Whitecraig and along Salters Road, and from Sheriffhall roundabout to near enough Dalkeith High Street.

So it is 1,000 acres and you are objecting to one road going through it.

Yes.

The road will bisect the park. That is the concern: it is not a road going through one corner of the park, but a road that will drive a wedge right through the middle of the park.

I want to pick up on the convener's question. I have been concerned with congestion in Dalkeith, but there is a feeling that only one shot of Executive money will be available to solve that congestion. At the moment, it is not clear whether the northern extension would be the most effective use of that public money, or whether more effective ways of tackling pollution and congestion in Dalkeith town centre could be found. It is impossible to debate the issue because the facts are not in the public domain.

I want to ask Mr Howden—or Mr Ballard—a question. There has been debate recently over the route of a bypass to address congestion in Aberdeen. No one argued that there was no congestion in Aberdeen; the argument was over the route of the bypass. Is the situation in Dalkeith similar? Are you concerned about the route of the bypass, or do you think that no bypass is needed?

You asked initially whether there was congestion in Dalkeith. At times there is, but the question is whether the best way to address it is to spend £40 million on a new road. Would we support any road proposal? Perhaps—but only after alternatives had been investigated.

I am from Aberdeen, so I know a little about the terrain there. Broader concerns have been expressed over the Aberdeen western bypass than just the concerns over route choice. If you have missed hearing about the other objections, I am pretty certain that you will hear them when the public inquiry is held in two years' time. If you have £400 million to spend—that is the figure that is proposed for Aberdeen—people might feel that it would be better to spend the money on addressing the radial flows of commuters into the city at peak hours, rather than on a circumferential route. A circumferential route will not do much to cater for commuting trips into the city, because of the constraints on road capacity once commuters hit the built-up area.

The Aberdeen and the Dalkeith proposals are different beasts.

I want to ask another question about Dalkeith park. The Meadows in Edinburgh is bisected by a road, and some might suggest that, in a similar way, such a road would give access to the Dalkeith park. Would you not see that as a benefit?

There would be no access off the road and into the park. In fact, the road would cut through many of the tracks and paths that people use at the moment.

The Meadows is quite different. It does not have much by way of wildlife; it has no deer, badgers or kingfishers, for example. Building a road through Dalkeith park would disturb a wildlife corridor. The River Esk valley is a listed wildlife site and it will be bisected by the road. In the Meadows, the road probably offers better access, but that would not be the case in Dalkeith park.

The park is probably 50 times the size of the Meadows.

Yes.

Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?

We should seek the views of the Scottish Executive, Midlothian Council, TRANSform Scotland and Friends of the Earth Scotland. We could also seek views from a wildlife organisation. Could anyone assist me with the name of an appropriate organisation?

The Scottish Wildlife Trust.

The Woodland Trust Scotland would be another option.

Do we need to request the views of TRANSform Scotland, given that they have been stated so eloquently today?

There would be no harm in writing to TRANSform Scotland to get an official response. Jackie Baillie's question is legitimate—in the past, representatives of organisations have spoken to petitions and we have said that, given that they came along to the meeting, there is no need for the committee to receive a written response from them. However, given the wider implications of the issue, it might be useful to get the organisation's views rather than those of an individual who is assisting a petitioner. That gets us round the problem of setting a dangerous precedent.

May I make another suggestion? It might be worth speaking to Whitecraig community council, which feels that it has not been consulted. The issue has been dealt with in Midlothian, but people in East Lothian will also be affected.

There is no problem with that. That is a good suggestion. We will do that.

We will discuss the matter further when we get the opportunity. We will let you know what the responses are from the various organisations and seek your views on them. Thank you.

---

Maternity Services (Rural Areas) (PE898)

Our next new petition is PE898, by Mrs Lynne Simpson, on the provision of maternity services in rural areas. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the provision of maternity services in rural communities to ensure that the quality of services and local access to services are retained. The petitioner refers to a petition that has been signed by 15,300 people from Fraserburgh and the surrounding area to save the 24-hour Fraserburgh maternity unit, which is under threat of closure.

We are joined by Stewart Stevenson, who has indicated an interest in the petition. Stewart, do you want to comment?

I am aware that the committee has dealt with a number of petitions in the past that relate to changes in or proposed closures of maternity units. I want to highlight why this petition is different and why it deserves consideration beyond the committee. First, this maternity unit is perhaps different from others that have been the subject of public agitation in that it is a midwife-led, community-based unit. There have been some developments since the other petitions came to Parliament, such as the proposals in the Kerr report, which seeks to devolve to the community as much activity as possible that can safely be done in the community. The proposals to close this and a number of other community maternity units in the Grampian NHS Board area deserve examination. We should consider whether it is appropriate for Parliament to seek to persuade the minister to intervene and give further direction to the health board on the implementation of the policies that are contained in the Kerr report.

There are some special considerations in relation to Fraserburgh. The first and key one is that, despite the fact that it has a population of 15,000, Fraserburgh is relatively isolated from major centres of hospital support and national health service acute services provision. It is the only town with a population of more than 10,000 that is more than an hour's travel away from an acute services hospital. If services were transferred from the maternity unit in Fraserburgh to Aberdeen, where the director of nursing at NHS Grampian has already said there is no spare capacity, it would involve a round trip of more than four hours to go there by public transport. That illustrates why the Fraserburgh community feels particularly strongly about the matter.

Fraserburgh is also isolated from good transport links in general. There are no railways in that part of Scotland at all. Indeed, once the Borders rail link is built, I will represent the only constituency in Scotland that has neither railway nor airport, which illustrates some of the local issues.

In the public gallery today are the petitioner, Valerie Ritchie, and her friend and fellow campaigner, Rachel Allan. Wendy Bowie would have been here, but she gave birth in the unit in Fraserburgh on Monday. Like many of the inhabitants of Fraserburgh and the surrounding area in the past, she is committed to taking the opportunity to give birth close to home, friends and family when it is safe to do so. We hope that the committee will agree, in the light of the Kerr report, that the matter deserves further consideration by the Parliament and that the petition is distinctly different in its focus from previous petitions. We ask the committee to acknowledge that the midwife-led unit makes a particular contribution in an environment in which there is a shortage of obstetric consultants and that it would be quite perverse to allow Grampian NHS Board to proceed with a reduction in midwife units when there is a need to relieve the burden on consultants rather than increase it.

I am happy to answer any questions that I think I can answer.

Thank you. I would like to say, for the record, that we have previously considered PE689, PE707 and PE718, which were all on maternity services. One of them, by Jamie Stone, was about consultant-led maternity services in the Highlands. The committee never examines the specifics of an individual decision; that is not what we are here to do. We consider the general issue that is raised by a given petition, so although I understand that the Fraserburgh situation is new to Fraserburgh, it is not new to the committee, because decisions have led to concerns before and we have addressed petitions that have been in a similar vein. I point that out so that members stay focused on what we need to look at. We will not sit in judgment on the decision re Fraserburgh, but we will look at how the decision-making process arrived at that decision. If members stick to that, we can consider the petition in that way.

I would like to be helpful and to consider the matter in its general context. We have considered a number of petitions about maternity services in the round before. What interests me about PE898 is that it throws up the principle of what we are doing with midwife-led services. Those are being hailed as the answer in other parts of Scotland, so I am slightly curious as to the reasons given for the reduction in the midwife-led service and whether that has anything to tell us about wider policy. Will the minister have to sign off the proposals, or is the matter internal to NHS Grampian?

My understanding—and it is a qualified understanding—is that the minister will have to sign off the changes that the community health partnership, as part of NHS Grampian, is proposing. To ensure that I do not mislead the committee, I should say that the change is part of a series of changes that are being made, but it is fair to say that it is the one that is attracting the greatest focus. Mike Rumbles led a members' business debate on the situation in Aboyne, which is different, and I understand that there are threats to maternity units elsewhere in Scotland, although I cannot offer the committee much specific information. However, Jackie Baillie is certainly correct that the petition is distinctly different from previous petitions on the issue in that respect. It is worth saying that English health boards are talking directly to midwife-led units in Aberdeenshire to gain their advice and experience in establishing new units in rural England. That illustrates the regard in which the work that is done there is held.

I want to press you on the reasons why you are—

I do not want us to get into a question-and-answer session with Stewart Stevenson, because we are trying to address the petition and Stewart is not here as the petitioner; he is here to comment on it because he has local knowledge or an interest in the issue. Our aim is not to have a dialogue with him but, if you need clarification on anything, I am more than happy for you to ask him for it. I am trying to get a discussion rather than a question-and-answer session.

I want to establish whether the generic reasons for the reduction relate to a wider policy position, rather than simply to what is happening in that locale.

The relevant policy issue is the Kerr report, which focuses on ensuring that we deliver health services as close to the point of need as possible. That applies to a range of services, but especially to maternity services, which deal with people who are well, not ill, and which, of all services, most need to be delivered locally. There is an opportunity to deliver the services locally through midwife-led units, which are cost effective. That is a particularly important point that is in line with the Executive's policies as exemplified in the Kerr report, which has been produced since the committee considered the previous petitions on maternity services. The Parliament should be aware of whether the Executive's policy is being implemented appropriately on the ground—I bring an example that suggests that it is not.

We have received various petitions on the issue, most of which have concentrated on consultant-led services. The present one, which is on maternity services in rural areas, is slightly different, particularly given that we now have the Kerr report.

I seek clarification on a couple of issues. Stewart Stevenson might be able to provide clarification, or we could write to the Executive or Grampian NHS Board. Was a consultation carried out throughout the Highlands and other rural areas on the closure of midwife-led maternity units? Was the Royal College of Midwives approached regarding the closure of the units? Perhaps there are not enough midwives, or there may be another simple reason, but many questions need to be answered. Obviously, the issue is not just about Fraserburgh; it is about the Highlands and all other rural areas. Was a consultation carried out similar to the one that was done in Glasgow? In Glasgow, we felt that it was not done properly and the minister is looking at that.

Our papers state that NHS Grampian will make a decision on the issue early in the new year. How early in the new year will that happen? Will the issue go to the Minister for Health and Community Care? How much time do we have to get answers? We have one more meeting before Christmas, but it will be at least January before we get any answers back.

Those are all legitimate questions, but we do not need to ask them of Stewart Stevenson. We will direct them to where they have to go—the Scottish Executive or the NHS must be asked how the decision was arrived at. You have raised several questions that we can legitimately ask the Scottish Executive. Our next meeting is 21 December, so I doubt that we will have a response by then, but we could write with some urgency. Even with the best will in the world, a fortnight's turnaround for a response from the Executive would be asking a lot.

If we wrote to NHS Grampian to ask for the reasons for its decision and the timescale, that would give us a rough idea.

We can certainly write to NHS Grampian and ask for information on the decision, which would allow us to judge how the decision was made and to test that against the consultation and decision-making process that is required. That would be a legitimate route for us to take. We will take that on board and ask the relevant questions.

We have touched on much of this already but, given Mrs Simpson's letter, I am concerned about whether the consultation process has been carried out as it should have been. The importance of consultation was a strong theme of the Kerr report.

I am sorry to be site specific, but I am also concerned that it is a 9 am to 5 pm maternity midwife service. What happens through the night? If the minister has signed off the proposals, is he aware of all the issues, which are not peculiar to the area that we are discussing?

I see that the Health Committee looked into the issues as part of its workforce planning inquiry and noted that accident and emergency services and maternity services should be provided as close as possible to the point of need. Who has ultimate responsibility—the Health Committee or the Minister for Health and Community Care? Does the minister take note of what the Health Committee says? An accident and emergency unit in my constituency is also affected. The minister needs to provide the bigger picture in his response.

Would you like those questions to be asked when we write to the minister?

Please.

Okay. Are there any other contributions or questions?

Could we write to the Royal College of Midwives?

Yes, we will take its view. It will be worth hearing whether it has any concerns. As ever, we will collect the responses, examine the information and see what else we can do to address the concerns that are raised in the petition. I thank Stewart Stevenson for his contribution this morning.

---

Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (PE901)

Our next petition is PE901, by Bill Alexander, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to repeal section 32(1)(b) of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. Correspondence from the petitioner has been circulated to members. I am happy to hear what members think we should do in respect of that information.

I thought that I had gone deaf, until I heard somebody's voice in the distance. Does anyone have a view on the petition?

We should pass the petition to the working group for research into the legal services market in Scotland.

We have already received a similar petition.

Yes.

It was about extending who can represent people in court. As we are examining that petition, and PE901 is by the same petitioner and reiterates much of the previous petition, perhaps we should close PE901.

Are members happy that we do that? John, you had a suggestion about writing to someone for information.

Is the petition exactly the same as the one that we received previously?

It is not. It would not have been allowed to proceed if it was exactly the same. It is on the same area, but it is different.

It would do no harm to pass the petition on to the working group, which can do with it as it wishes. I agree with Sandra White that thereafter we should close the petition, as we have already addressed the issues.

Jackie, do you have a view?

That is fine.

Are members happy to do that?

Members indicated agreement.