Public Petitions Committee, 08 Sep 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, September 8, 2005

Official Report 311KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Haulage Industry (PE876)

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2005 of the Public Petitions Committee. I have received no apologies from members.

Agenda item 1 is new petitions, the first of which is PE876, by Phil Flanders, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the future prospects for the Scottish haulage industry and any knock-on impact on the Scottish economy. Before the petition was formally lodged, it was hosted on the e-petition site, where it gained 1,116 signatures in the period from 10 May 2005 to 26 August 2005. The e-petition received eight comments, all of which supported its terms. The usual e-petition briefing has been circulated for members' information.

Patricia Glancey is here to make a brief statement to the committee in support of the petition. She is accompanied by Robert Howie and Hamish Morrison. I welcome you to the meeting. You have a few minutes to make opening remarks, after which we will discuss the points that you have raised.

Thank you, convener. We have approached the Scottish Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the Scottish haulage industry. Many factors are contributing to the industry's problems. The general costs for hauliers are far higher in Scotland than anywhere else in the European Union and there is increasing competition from EU-registered vehicles in Scotland, which come through United Kingdom and Scottish ports.

On average, fuel currently accounts for 40 per cent of hauliers' costs and there is a problem with fuel suppliers, who are failing to increase credit terms for hauliers—those increases are needed because of the high cost of fuel. A credit limit that would normally cover someone for six weeks will now cover them for only around four weeks, which impacts on current cash-flow problems.

An increasing amount of legislation is being imposed on the industry—in fact, some 2,080 main statutes relate to transport law. The industry is small-business oriented. Some 94 per cent of Scottish hauliers have 10 vehicles or fewer; 54 per cent have one vehicle and 30 per cent have two to five vehicles.

The recent introduction of the road transport directive and the working time regulations has had a major impact on the industry. The serious impact of the legislation could not have been estimated at the time of the consultation—its effect on the industry could be shown only on its introduction. Although we appreciate that the impact is felt UK-wide, we believe that the impact is felt harder in Scotland because Scottish goods have a far greater distance to travel to their markets.

Some 5.7 per cent of the Scottish workforce is employed in logistics, and transport accounts for 43 per cent of the cost of logistics. Some 137,000 people are involved, compared with 38,000 people in agriculture, 120,000 in finance and 120,000 in hotels and restaurants. Moreover, 76 per cent of all Scottish road tonnage moves less than 100km and 89 per cent of all Scottish road freight tonnage moves internally in Scotland—the average figure for other UK regions is 66 per cent. The industry is being crippled and we need help. We also need an inquiry to show the effect on the economy.

I have with me Hamish Morrison, who is the operations director for Stewart Milne Timber Systems Ltd, and Rob Howie, who is a haulier from Aberdeen.

Stewart Milne Timber Systems has a 24 per cent market share of timber-frame housing in the UK and services a UK market from Aberdeen. We have a second factory down in Oxford, which was built three years ago. We are in the process of making investment decisions on future factory facilities. The question is whether it is viable for us to make that investment in Aberdeen or whether the investment should be made outwith Scotland, down in England, where our market is. The competitiveness of our products has been seriously affected by the difficulties that the haulage industry is going through. We do not see the situation getting any better; it is all going in the wrong direction for those decisions to be made.

I would like to pose a question: what is being done to stop that drain of local industry in Scotland and to stop investment decisions being for outward rather than inward investment? We are totally dependent on the haulage industry getting our goods to market.

I am a haulier based in Aberdeen. I operate 20 vehicles and employ 25 people. As a direct result of what is happening in the north-east, I also have an operation down in Whitney, Oxfordshire, which employs 11 people. My main concern is the effect that the situation is having in the north-east of Scotland. We have been in business for 31 years and there has been a steady decline in our customer base. I will cite just a few examples. I could mention 26 separate companies that have gone out of business, from paper mills to fish processors and engineering works. They have gone from the north-east, never to return.

Incredible as it might seem, in the past four years, 498 tractor units have disappeared from a total list of 36 hauliers—all based in the north-east. The cost of running a haulage operation from our area is getting seriously out of control, and we are fearful for the future of our industry and of industry in general in the north-east of Scotland. Customers such as Stewart Milne are opening satellite plants in England and companies such as R B Farquhar, from Huntly, are moving to the Czech Republic because the operating costs are far lower there. John Fyfe Ltd, which supplied a lot of the product for the Parliament, has opened a quarry in India and is importing a vast proportion of its materials from China. That is an indication of what is happening across the north-east, which is of grave concern to us.

Do you have anything else to add?

No, that is us. People do not realise the vastness of the logistics, distribution and transport industry and the way that it affects Scotland. It is all right to talk about intermodal movement from road to rail, the length of the journeys and just-in-time deliveries, but even if we moved 300 per cent in that direction over the next five years, 85 per cent of the movements in Scotland would still have to be made by road.

Okay. I will open the matter up for discussion. A few years ago, I asked a question of the then minister with responsibility for transport about what preparations were being made by the Scottish Executive to take account of the working time directive. I was amazed to get the response that the Executive had not looked at the issue. That was a bit of an eye opener for me. Has the situation improved? Have you had any discussions with the Executive about the working time directive and its impact?

The working time directive was implemented on 4 April. Its implementation was delayed purely because one or two issues relating to periods of availability had to be clarified by the union. Six months down the line, the directive is causing great heartache, stress and confusion in the haulage industry. The majority of drivers—especially those in the hire-and-reward sector—are working under drivers' hours and tachograph regulations, which are strict, as Mr Howie will be able to tell you. I do not know why we have to enforce that extra bureaucracy on smaller businesses and on those drivers, as they are governed already. The situation is apparently going to be reviewed by the Department of Trade and Industry next year but, so far, nothing has changed.

I open up the discussion to members' questions.

Although this question might seem simplistic, it probably goes to the core of the matter. If the minister responsible asked you what you needed to make your businesses and, indeed, the Scottish transport industry viable and competitive, what would you tell him?

I know that the matter is reserved, but just now we need someone to look at fuel running costs, which are getting out of hand. As I said, they make up at least 40 per cent of our total running costs.

The legislation that has been imposed on hauliers should also be looked at. When a vocational driver such as a lorry driver takes his vehicle on to the road, he faces more legislation than someone who works in a hospital.

We must also examine the trend of investment in Scotland, particularly with regard to exports. In real terms, our exports have fallen by 32 per cent in six years. We need someone to understand that the industry is not just six lorries supposedly tailgating one another on the motorway; it covers all aspects of the supply chain such as getting the freight to where it is going, ensuring that it gets there on time, ensuring that, once it is there, it can be moved between plants and, finally, taking away the finished product. We need people to understand the size of the industry and the professionalism of the people involved in it. However, we certainly need help with legislation and fuel running costs.

How have we reached this point? How have things got so bad?

No one is listening. In all honesty, when we talk about logistics, we are talking about, for example, Rab Howie picking up stuff, taking it to Stewart Milne's place to be built and then moving it back out again. That process just went on and on. However, Europe is now moving in. A foreign haulier can come into the country with 1,360 litres of fuel in his tank. As a good heavy goods vehicle will do eight miles to the gallon—not eight miles to the litre—that haulier will be able to do something like 2,400 miles carrying out domestic work up and down the country. When we average that out using yesterday's costs, the costs for that foreign haulier are 17.3p a mile cheaper than they are for the man in Scotland.

People say that there are different tax regimes on European hauliers, but that is irrelevant to the man who wants his stuff moved from A to B. All he will see is that, at £360 for a couple of days' work, Joe Bloggs from Belgium can move it more cheaply than Rab Howie of Aberdeen can. That is a severe difference. Rab has already told you about the amount of jobs that are moving away. We are talking about big companies. We want to keep the jobs in Scotland. However, if Rab wants to tender for other work, someone will undercut him.

We have to ask why the situation in this country is so advantageous to foreign hauliers. In 1996, 50 per cent of the vehicles going through the ports were foreign and 50 per cent were from the UK. In 2004, the number of vehicles going through the ports increased by 6 per cent, but, by then, 75 per cent of the vehicles were foreign and only 25 per cent were UK registered. Why are those hauliers cutting our throats? We want Stewart Milne to stay in the country and keep Rab Howie and the other Scottish hauliers in business, but something has to be done. That is why everyone in the industry, especially those involved in livestock haulage, are going mad with the amount of legislation that faces them. Livestock hauliers in Scotland are very professional, as they showed during the foot-and-mouth crisis. We need to consider all aspects of the industry.

Thank you.

Sorry—I was preaching.

Good morning, folks. You referred to the change in recent years from a 50:50 split between foreign and UK-registered vehicles to a 75:25 split. Do you think that that has anything to do with British hauliers registering their vehicles on the continent?

The figure that I gave came from a Department for Transport report that was published on 18 August and which is available on the DFT's website. Few British hauliers register abroad. Prior to the fuel disputes of 2000, when the chancellor increased the road fund licence, it was advantageous for hauliers to flag out, as it is termed, by going to the Republic of Ireland, France and so on to register their vehicles. However, once the Governments of those countries got themselves up and running on that situation, they started to impose taxes, tachographs and paperwork on the companies that had registered there. The majority of those hauliers have now moved back here and few hauliers are registered abroad. However, some companies have moved their head offices abroad and retained only a satellite station here. That has to do with the cost of running international companies.

So the 75:25 split has little to do with British hauliers registering their vehicles abroad.

Yes. The days of flagging out to save money are long gone.

You referred to the working time directive, which is of concern to everybody who is involved in transport, as well as to other industries. How much more restrictive will that directive be than the current drivers' hours regulations that govern the tachograph? Will there be a big reduction in the hours that a driver can operate?

The current situation is that drivers must log almost every minute of their working time, including other work that they do, driving time, periods of availability and breaks or rests.

That happens on the tachograph just now.

Yes, but the drivers are governed by the tachograph rules, which means that they can drive either for a maximum of 56 hours in a week or for 90 hours over a fortnight, which is a rolling fortnight. Under the working time directive, drivers can work only for a total of 48 hours in a week. The time is worked out over a 17-week period and it must come out even. However, if they get a workforce agreement, the period can be 26 weeks.

The forestry industry has been severely hit by the working time directive, because its drivers load and unload themselves. They do not have periods of availability as such. They previously worked according to the tachograph regulations, but they must now work according to the working time regulations, which take a lot of time from them. As you may know, one of the vehicles used in forestry has a grab crane on the back, which means that it can load and unload itself. Rab Howie will tell you that the long-distance boys are also not making it.

Apart from the plea from the haulage industry, drivers of heavy goods vehicles have come to me and explained that they have had a drop in earnings through having to comply with the working time directive. That is quite significant.

It is. By the same token, a haulier has no choice but to comply with the law. They still pay the driver on the total duty time, but that is reduced overall because of the new working time regulations. It is only now that the regulations are in force that drivers are seeing their pay packets going down.

So you think that a wide range of issues is affecting the haulage industry.

Yes.

You said that that has been happening over many years and I appreciate that. However, it is not only in north-east Scotland that it is happening—it is pretty widespread.

It is very widespread.

So operators now have to cope not only with the high cost of fuel, but with the working time directive. It seems to me that that is a terrible barrier for any haulage company that wants to keep going and make a profit.

It is. Just now it is difficult to make a profit. The majority of hauliers—we discussed this issue before we came into the meeting—buy their fuel through fuel companies. Those fuel companies take the money out of the haulier's bank on a two-weekly basis. If the haulier does a job in the first week in September, he will most likely—if he is lucky—get paid in the last week in October. If he bought the fuel that he has used at the beginning of September, the fuel company will take that out of his bank on about 14 September. He pays for the fuel before he gets paid.

Given the high cost of fuel now and the state of the industry, fuel supply companies are reluctant to increase the credit terms for hauliers. Someone who has the possibility of drawing on £12,000 of fuel might try to operate his business over five and a half to six weeks so that, by the time he draws the fuel and pays for it, he is starting to get paid, but that period has been reduced to about four weeks and two days. What does he do for the other week and three days when he has no money to go out? That is the grave situation that exists.

As fuel is at least 40 per cent of hauliers' overall costs, they do not have the money to increase drivers' wages; fuel is the highest on-cost to them. That is a great burden on the hauliers, because they value their drivers. A lot of drivers are leaving the industry because of the rates of pay.

I will give a practical example. I ran off a set of management accounts yesterday—we are 11 months into our financial year. Last year, we turned over—I will make no secret of it—just over £2 million and the fuel bill was £550,759. To date, we have turned over roughly £2 million again with the same vehicles and the fuel bill was £605,226. It has cost me some £54,460 more to do the same work with the same vehicles this year than last year. That money should have been going to drivers as a wage increase rather than to the chancellor. It is no wonder that we cannot pay our drivers a decent wage—the money is all being swallowed up. That is the situation in practical, black-and-white terms.

I understand what you say. If it is any consolation to the hauliers in the north-east, operators in the north-west of Scotland tell me that last year, on top of all the costs of running the vehicles, two hauliers paid in excess of £1 million pounds each in ferry fares to the Western Isles. That burden does not fall on hauliers in the north-east, but I appreciate the situation that you are in.

Those issues must be addressed. Ferry fares to the islands are extortionate. One haulier in Skye paid about £12,000 a week in tolls for the Skye bridge before the tolls were abolished. That is more than two wages. People do not realise the effect of all those little add-ons.

That was money up front.

The issue is the payments up front before the money comes in. We urge the committee, while we still have a haulage industry in Scotland that supplies the manufacturing base and keeps work in Scotland, to examine the issue and to hold an inquiry. We have people from all walks of life—manufacturers, timber suppliers and hauliers—who are more than willing to open their books and show the committee what is happening. This is not a load of hauliers whingeing. Those boys are no longer holding on by their fingertips; they are now down to their nails and they cannot hold on any longer.

You talk of work moving down south. Is that because of haulage costs or is it because there is greater market access down there? What is the controlling factor?

Haulage is a big part of the key investment decisions that we are making. It is hard to plan a major investment and make it in Aberdeen, based on what the haulage industry is going through and its viability in the future. The road miles that we have to travel to get to our market are massive. Given the product that we are developing, we expect our haulage needs to quadruple over the next four or five years. Our haulage needs and our costs will both increase. It is hard to make an investment decision without considering the benefits of moving our factory to England.

From what Mr Howie said, the year-on-year increase in haulage costs, for this year at any rate, is about 20 per cent. Is the increase enough to deter you from staying in Aberdeenshire?

Yes. We have to compete down in England with local English manufacturers. We have to try even harder to conceal the haulage costs within our product costs to compete with an English competitor. We want to maintain competitiveness in our Scottish product, but it is becoming harder by the week to do so. The investment decision to go south to get closer to the market is becoming easier to make.

I do not want to make a political point, but given that the First Minister has announced that Scotland will regain parity with England in terms of business rates, are there other issues affecting your business that might drive you to move south that the Scottish Parliament can address?

Yes. We are a Scottish company and we believe in Scottish products. We use a lot of forest products from our partner industries that are based in Scotland. I am thinking of major companies such as James Jones and Norbord, which use local, sustainable forestry products. We would like to stay where we are so that we can access that product, but we are faced with the decision whether to move our manufacturing base to England. We cannot resolve the matter at the moment; we are sitting on the fence wondering what direction to take. It is not just my industry that has to get goods to market; other industries in Scotland are in exactly the same situation.

Good morning. From listening to your evidence and reading PE876, I think that it is obvious that you face unfair competition, particularly from Europe. Also, we know that the price of fuel will go up because of what is happening in Kentucky and Iraq and elsewhere. Do you want the inquiry that you spoke about to look into issues such as unfair duties on fuel? If so, that would have to involve Westminster and the European Parliament.

We understand that you have had no information on the impact that the directive would have in Scotland. Have the Government and the European Parliament taken the situation in the UK as a whole and not looked at the special geographical circumstances that apply in Scotland? You mentioned the transportation of medicine, fish and agricultural products. The regulations that cover those goods seem quite harsh. Do other countries have the same regulations?

I will start with the last question. On 24 December 2004, the European Parliament agreed to upgrade the regulations on the movement of livestock to cover the type and construction of livestock vehicle that can be used, the on-board feeding and watering facilities, the duration of journeys, driver training and the certification of drivers who carry livestock for journeys of more than eight hours.

As I said, livestock hauliers in Scotland are very good, as are the majority of hauliers in the United Kingdom. However, the regulations were written to catch the boys in the new European countries who do not do anything. Their vehicles are appalling and not at all clean. Their drivers are not as professional as ours and drive for hours on end. They have no regard for the legislation that is in place.

The new legislation is to be implemented on 1 January 2007. It is now the middle of September 2005 and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are talking about how to bring forward that legislation. That means that the livestock drivers will have to be certificated, trained and assessed and ready to go on 1 January 2007. We ask ourselves why. Our boys are good. The vast majority of professional livestock hauliers came through the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and trading standards will tell you that we do not have any problems with animal health and welfare. However, because about 60 per cent of Europe has a problem with the movement, treatment and control of livestock, we are being faced with these measures.

We have to look at the working time directive. Livestock men have to take account of drivers' hours, animal health and welfare, the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, and Council regulation 1/2005, which comes into force in 2007. They have a big book of regulations to take account of.

When Rab Howie moves stuff down south for Stewart Milne, he has to ensure that he has two vehicles, because moving a timber frame for a house requires two vehicles. It is no use one vehicle arriving two hours after the other. The timing and the calculations have to be worked out.

I am sorry, but I have forgotten your other question.

Should the inquiry examine unfair competition arising from fuel costs in Europe?

I would like the inquiry to focus on the impact of haulage on the competitiveness of industries such as forestry. We use forestry products, but that industry is being crucified. It is a key driver of the Scottish economy, but the impact of haulage means that it is going in the wrong direction.

You know everything. Your evidence has been fantastic. You mentioned new regulations on the haulage of livestock. Has the Scottish Executive or the British Government given any grants to upgrade lorries?

No. Even during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, when our colleagues in the agricultural and farming industries were given compensation, no grants were made available to the haulage industry. A training directive is going through Europe just now—Rab Howie's face fell when I said that. The directive is supposed to come into force in 2007, but with a bit of luck it will be put back until 2009. It lays down that drivers will have to receive five days' training over a period of five years. It is not one day here and there; it has to be uniform training on a personal development record to upgrade drivers' skills and bring them up to date with legislation. The burden of that will fall on hauliers.

I would like to make an important point. To hold an operating licence a haulier has to be of sufficient financial standing. For their first vehicle they need to have £6,200, and for every subsequent one they need £3,400. A company of our size needs to have a £70,800 pot of money that is readily available, and not tied up in stocks and shares, to comply with the operating licence regulations. Given current financial constraints, such as the cost of fuel, I will stick my neck out and ask how many hauliers have such pots of money sitting on the sidelines. I suspect that very few do.

I certainly do not want you to be placed at any further competitive disadvantage because of the distance that you need to travel to get to your market and I do not dismiss what you say about fuel, but I am conscious that you are in discussions at Westminster level, and I encourage you to continue with those.

I am interested in pursuing with you the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005. Let me play devil's advocate for a minute, because it is important to give you an opportunity to knock on the head any suggestions that might arise, such as the suggestion that drivers are currently working all the hours under the sun to make up a decent living wage. Some of the things that you said made me slightly nervous that that might be the case. First, I give you the opportunity to refute that.

Secondly, I am concerned that in fact what is behind some of the changes is safety, for your drivers and for other road users. If you were to rewrite the regulations—they currently state that there should be an average 48-hour week, and a maximum of 60 hours worked in any single week and 10 hours in any 24-hour period overnight—what would you say was a more realistic set of time constraints to impose on the industry, for the average, the single week and the overnight limit?

Finally, I want to check that I have picked you up right. Did you say that those constraints are being reviewed by the DTI? If so, when, and will you be involved? Would it be useful for the committee to send a signal about measuring specifically the Scottish impact of the regulations, because of your distance from the market?

I will start with the final point and work my way back. We would certainly welcome any representation that the Scottish Executive might make to the Westminster Government. The DTI stated that it would examine the regulations a year down the line. It cannot really assess them until they have been running for a period of time and it was only in April this year that they came into force.

I am sorry if I have misled you into believing that drivers are running round the clock. I assure you that they are not. The vast majority of drivers are professional, as are the vast majority of hauliers, and they stick to the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations that are in force. I looked out some documents that refer to accidents with HGVs. The Department for Transport's August 2005 report on work-related road traffic accidents states:

"However, over half of LGV-related fatalities were actually caused primarily by other drivers."

In every industry and every walk of life there are people who look at the rules to see how they can get round them, but the vast majority of hauliers who are trying to make a living are sticking to the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations. No doubt the traffic commissioner's report for last year, which is due out shortly, will show how many infringements there are.

We do not see a problem with the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations as they stand just now. Of course, they will be examined, because the digital tachograph will soon be introduced. It should have been introduced on 1 August last year. It has not come in this year, but it will be introduced shortly, especially for all new vehicles, after which there will be a timescale for when it must be fitted to all vehicles that are on the go. At the moment, drivers can have breaks of 11 hours, but a digital tachograph will not be able to give 11 hours, 15 minutes or half an hour as a percentage of 24 hours, so the DTI will look at changing drivers' hours then, when the changes come in.

The way the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations have been running has been checked by VOSA and by the police and it is fine, and hauliers can lose their operating licence if their drivers are breaking the law. That in itself—the threat that someone's livelihood can be taken away from them and that they can be prosecuted—should be enough, and that applies to drivers as well. We do not see anything wrong with the drivers' hours and tachograph regulations, do we, Robert?

Not at all.

Thank you. That is helpful.

I apologise for coming in after the meeting had started, but I have heard a considerable amount of what has been said. Like Jackie Baillie, I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment. You might assume from the questions that I ask that I am hostile, but I am not. I am open to be persuaded about the arguments.

First, we have known in this country for the past 12 years that the European working time directive was going to come into force. What steps has the industry taken during those 12 years to plan and prepare for the changes? Whom has the industry tried to persuade that the directive would have an adverse effect?

Secondly, your petition mentions the fact that the issues have been discussed in Brussels

"with members of the European Parliament's Transport and Employment Committee, as well as Commission officials."

What reaction has there been at that level?

Thirdly, playing devil's advocate again, I know that some people in this country argue that it would be better for us all if we moved heavy goods off the roads and on to the railways to reduce the punishment to which the roads are subjected by all the massive 40-tonne vehicles. As was rightly pointed out, heavy goods vehicles are almost like a train on our motorways because they are nose to tail.

Will you comment on those three points?

HGVs represent only 13 per cent of the traffic on all roads in Scotland. That figure was borne out by what Professor Alan McKinnon of Heriot-Watt University said at the freight strategy for Scotland seminar that took place in August this year. We feel that hauliers get very bad publicity because of the size of heavy goods vehicles. However, in all honesty, cars make up the vast majority of traffic in Scotland, as members will be aware. Hauliers account for only 13 per cent of the traffic on all roads.

As Rab Howie, who is one of our members, will confirm, since the EU working time directive was introduced almost four years ago, the Road Haulage Association has lobbied for hauliers, or mobile workers, to be treated separately from the main directive. We have lobbied MSPs and MEPs to bring light to the situation in Scotland. Although Rab Howie and Hamish Morrison represent people who live predominantly in the north of Scotland, the directive affects all hauliers. We do not see how anyone could have understood the full impact of the directive until it came into force. We will continue lobbying.

If the Parliament undertakes an inquiry, we would like it to look at a cross-section of the industry: livestock hauliers, general hauliers, timber hauliers, tipper operators—I mention those specifically—and fish operators. At one time, operators delivering fish from Scrabster, Peterhead or Fraserburgh were able to have their stock processed and loaded during the night and then take it away down the road. However, once the working time directive came in, if work was started during a block of time from midnight onwards, the workers were allowed to work only X amount of hours. To avoid the workforce being cut because they were working in that core period, the processing was moved to the top. That has meant that hauliers cannot now lift the stuff until later in the day. Therefore, whereas people did not use to see vehicles taking fish to markets in England because the goods went during the night, they now see them.

You suggest that we should take goods off the roads, but when are we supposed to do that? Under the road transport directive, if people work during the core period between midnight and 4 o'clock in the morning, their hours are cut because they are deemed to be night-time workers. People want to work during the night, but they are not able to do so.

On that point, our company has explored rail transport and shipping from Aberdeen, but such options are simply not viable for shifting the product that we make to the marketplace to which we need to move it. We deliver to every building site in the United Kingdom, but the product cannot arrive by railway at every building site in the UK. The changeover time that is involved in taking it off a lorry to put it on to a train, from which it would need to be taken off again and taken to the site, makes the idea totally unviable. People would just use our competitors on the doorstep and we would lose that business. We have explored the option of shipping housing materials from Aberdeen harbour to London, but that is simply not viable. Road haulage transport is currently the only viable way in which can get our product to market. That is where we stand.

The latest issue of "Scottish Transport Statistics", which was published on 26 August 2005, shows that UK HGVs in Scotland lifted a total of 173 million tonnes of freight in 2004. The total amount of freight lifted by rail in 2003-04 was 8.3 million tonnes. We do not have a conflict with rail freight transport because hauliers will still have to take the freight to and from the railhead. However, rail is not flexible enough to meet customers' demands on when the freight has to be delivered.

My question was really directed at companies such as Caberboard in Cowie, which has heavy goods vehicles weighing more than 40 tonnes leaving every 30 seconds throughout the year. There is no break; they work through holidays such as Christmas and new year. Given that there is a railhead nearby, that is the kind of company that I would have thought would benefit from using a main depot where the freight could be transferred from rail to the road.

I agree that that company's product might be more viable for rail transport. That question would have to be put to the company itself. Our product is not suitable for such a method of transport. There are products that are suitable and those that are not.

If I might make a comment, it serves to illustrate that there are companies for whom such a method of transport is viable—

We are not here to examine whether one company or another should do one thing or another. We must come to a conclusion.

Fergus Ewing has joined the committee. Fergus, do you have a question or a point to make before we come to a conclusion?

I have two questions and a brief point to make.

One aspect that has not been covered yet is the impact on the need to recruit more drivers. I believe that Mr Howie's accountant has done an assessment of how many more drivers he will need to take on in order to meet the requirements of the working time directive. What did your accountant conclude? What experience have you had of trying to recruit more drivers locally? What advertising have you done and what responses have you received so far?

The accountant came to the conclusion that we would need another eight drivers to do the job that the original guys are doing.

We have put adverts in the local press and on local radio many times and we did not get one reply. It has reached the stage that we have had to employ a guy from Latvia. He started with us six weeks ago and other hauliers are very interested in how he is shaping up. I had a conversation with Sandy Bruce, a major haulier in Aberdeen, and he is going to Poland with a delegation to see whether he can recruit drivers. Craibs, another haulier in Aberdeen, has three Poles working for it and one or two of the fridge operators are employing Ukrainians. They are having to go right to the far side of Europe to get drivers. The local driver pool has virtually dried up. It is ironic that a driver who has been with us for many years has decided to emigrate to Canada and is going off on 10 October to drive a lorry in Alberta. What is going on?

The Scottish Parliament has power to help with the issue of recruitment. Could Pat Glancey explain what costs are involved in training someone to become an HGV driver? Who meets those costs and do you think that the Scottish Parliament could provide assistance in resolving that situation?

Until almost two years ago, no funding was available for driver training. The road haulage modernisation fund made some funds available and, through skills for logistics, it introduced a training scheme for young drivers under the age of 25. Participants have to be employed in the industry and they have to go through driving training and go on to obtain a Scottish Qualifications Authority national qualification.

The problem really arises with the insurance companies—I am sorry; let me go back a bit. Training a driver without being given funding will cost a company something in the region of £2,700 to £3,200.

I would like to make a brief comment.

Okay—as long as it is brief.

I have been talking in the Parliament about the costs of fuel and fuel tax since shortly after I took my oath, so I will not repeat my thoughts here, but I support the petitioners in their move to have the Parliament carry out an inquiry into freight policy. The Local Government and Transport Committee may be willing to do that. Although some of the issues are plainly reserved to Westminster—whether we like it or not—it has arisen through members' diligent questioning that the Parliament could consider a number of matters, such as the extent to which road traffic can be transferred to rail, training costs, recruitment, the use of the mobile unit that I believe will be available shortly, freight facilities grants and Scotland's input on the livestock and training directives that are being considered. Above all, we could measure the impact on the whole economy that the changes are having. The Local Government and Transport Committee could consider the whole picture of freight, which includes road, rail, ferry and air. I hope that all members share that sentiment.

Let me draw the discussion to a conclusion and get some recommendations for what we should do with the petition. The convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee, of which Fergus Ewing and I are members, has told me that he is aware of the petition and that he would like it to be referred to his committee so that it could consider conducting an inquiry. That committee has yet to agree its work plan, but the convener sees the matter fitting into its remit and as something that it should consider. Therefore, we should refer the petition right away.

We should also write to the Scottish Executive to get its overview of the points that the petitioners have made this morning. We should also write to the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Do members have any other recommendations?

Perhaps we ought to approach the Transport and General Workers Union, which obviously has a major interest in the matter, given the employment issues that have been raised. Given the sustainable development aspect, it might also be useful to include TRANSform Scotland.

I agree with the recommendations. The petition should go to the Local Government and Transport Committee, which is the best body to carry out an investigation. I am sure that if an inquiry was included in that committee's work programme, it would seek evidence from the unions and various other bodies.

If we write to the Executive and other bodies, we will forward the replies to the Local Government and Transport Committee. We will also let that committee know that we intend to refer the matter on to it.

Much was made of the forestry industry's difficulties. I do not know the name of the group that represents the forestry industry in Scotland, but perhaps we could write to it, too.

The Scottish forest industries cluster represents the forestry industry. It could put forward a spokesman to represent the industry.

I also suggest that we write to the Confederation of British Industry, to get an overview.

Are members happy with the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioners for their petition. Obviously, we will let them know the content of the responses from the various organisations and get their comments on them. We will keep a dialogue going on the issue.

---

Coastal and River Erosion<br />(National Strategy) (PE878)

Our next petition is PE878 by James A Mackie, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to consider the need for a national strategy to address the impact of coastal and river erosion in Scotland. Before the petition was formally lodged, it was hosted on the e-petition site where, between 10 May 2005 and 26 August 2005, it gained 329 signatures. The usual e-petition briefing has been circulated for members' information. In addition, members will wish to note that the committee has received a further 182 signatures in hard copy from the Kingston-upon-Spey area.

James Mackie, accompanied by John Fettes, is here to make a brief statement to the committee in support of his petition. I welcome them both. You have a few minutes to speak to us then we will ask questions and discuss the issues that you raise.

Convener, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. Some of you who know the other petitions that I have submitted in the past are probably wondering why I am involved with this issue. Garmouth and Kingston-upon-Spey are two villages in Morayshire, where I was brought up. My mother and relatives still stay there and it is my hope that I might retire there one day, if I ever get the chance.

I have over 50 years' knowledge of the river there and I have seen the damage that has gone on. As my family are there, I have up-to-date knowledge of what is happening. The situation that we have now also occurred when I was about 10 or 11. My father and I stood and watched two houses being washed into the River Spey because nobody had bothered to look at the erosion and the way in which the mouth was blocked. For some time, the salmon fishers controlled the river and it went from there.

I discussed the petition with John Fettes who is a farmer in the area and whose land is being eroded by the River Spey. He is also chairman of the local amenities association. I was aware that the association had been talking to local councillors and there appeared to have been no movement whatsoever. Jamie McGrigor and Mary Scanlon had been asking questions, but nobody seemed to be taking an interest in the situation.

Since the petition was lodged we have learned quite a lot, in that Moray Council is responsible for looking after the river mouth and the coast. The other matter that has come out of the woodwork is that coastal erosion is linked to flood prevention by the Government in national flood prevention schemes. We are now aware that the Executive will pay an 80 per cent grant for any scheme. Our problem is that because Moray has so many major rivers coming through it, Moray Council has estimated that the cost of implementing current flood prevention schemes—plus looking at coastal erosion and the problem at the mouth of the Spey—would be at least £160 million. Unfortunately, the Executive's annual budget for the whole of Scotland is only £89 million, so that is a major problem.

The erosion, particularly in tidal areas, is nothing new to me. As far back as 1985, I was trying to resolve issues in the Forth estuary. If members do not know the Forth, I can tell them that most of the banks from Stirling downstream almost to the Forth road bridge are levees. Once those start to go, there will be major flooding. In the past 10 days, we have all seen the devastation that mother nature can bring when a river bank goes. The figure that was allocated for levee defences there was spread out over time, but after hurricane Katrina, we now know how much extra that will cost and the figure is closer to $1 billion.

The other problem that we have encountered in Garmouth-Kingston is that the area contains sites of special scientific interest. Even when a potential breach is spotted in the existing banking and reinforcements, the landowner cannot simply go and repair them. If a site is an SSSI, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, the local council and a host of other bodies have to come in. That means repair by committee meeting. In one situation a few years ago, when it became clear that a river was going to burst through, nobody would make a decision on the day. The decision took 10 days and a lot of damage was done.

That is an overview of where we are at the moment.

This matter has been addressed by the Scottish Parliament quite seriously. The flooding issues advisory committee has been set up, as has the national flooding framework. What do you feel ought to be done in addition to that? There has been much debate in the Parliament on the issue over the past three to five years. Are you seeking more funding or more regulation?

There is a combination of factors. There has been plenty of talk about the subject, but action—if any is taken—is slow. In Morayshire, the moneys that are available are far too little. We are bombarded on a daily basis with information about global warming, sea levels rising and higher rainfall, which must be taken into consideration.

The current experience in Moray is that the official bodies that are supposed to protect the environment are, in fact, creating headaches. Despite agreement that there is a need for change, actions cannot be taken because they will upset the environment. Gravel has been washed down by the Spey for millions of years, and that will continue; all we are asking is that it be got out of the way. By protecting a gravel bank in the middle of nowhere that grows nothing, the official bodies are putting at risk an historic village and salt marshes. The attitude of some bodies needs to be examined, and their powers in such circumstances need to be restricted.

Are you aware of specific funding applications that have been approved by local authorities but have then been refused?

None has been refused at the moment. However, there is a particular difficulty in Morayshire with the number of projects and areas in which there are problems. That includes Elgin, Forres and Lhanbryde village. Moray Council has to submit business plans to get the 80 per cent grants from the Executive. The council estimates that it needs £160 million to do the work. If the Executive's annual budget for the whole of Scotland is only £89 million, that means that there will be major deficits. If small pockets of money are allocated one year after the other, by the time that the whole lot gets paid so much bloody damage will have been done that the costs will end up being a lot more.

I am unclear about this, Mr Mackie. Has the council made an application or had any discussion on the matter with the Executive, as far as you are aware?

The council is aware that there is a restricted fund and that it must raise 20 per cent of the costs from its own area. It needs to consider the worst-case scenario first. The council has a project in place for Elgin and has started doing work there. There is a separate project at Lhanbryde. Those projects are small, but their total value is £160 million.

I am still unclear. Has the council actually approached the Executive and held discussions?

My understanding is that the council is applying to the Executive for small pockets of money. It is aware that the Executive has a small sum of money—£89 million for the whole of Scotland. The council is identifying the worst-case scenario and resolving that first. It knows that it cannot apply for the whole sum, because it ain't gonna get it.

Is it not the case that, because the council must raise 20 per cent, it is limiting itself, rather the Executive limiting the council's actions?

There are limits at both ends to what the council can do. There is not much heavy industry up there in Morayshire. A big part of its economy derives from the Royal Air Force base, for as long as that lasts. The issue is indeed about raising local taxes, but it is also about the amount of money that is available from the Executive.

It seems to me that you are seeking more regulation. The great majority of land in Scotland—including rivers and coastal land—is privately owned. I do not think that you are suggesting that the Scottish Executive should pay to repair or to have restored coastal areas that are in private ownership. Should you or I, as taxpayers, pay for Lord Wemyss to have his coastal area protected?

That is a very narrow attitude. Legislation is in place under which the owner of a river is duty bound to control it to prevent river damage. As a result of my petition, the Garmouth and Kingston golf course is taking legal advice and pursuing the Crown Estate, which owns the river that runs through it. Under current regulations, local councils have a responsibility for controlling coastal erosion. Much of the coastal erosion that is happening around Scotland—especially in Orkney and Shetland and on the west coast and the machair—is on land that is owned by the Crown Estate. As members probably know, the Crown Estate is Crown property that was handed over to the Government. The revenue from that land goes into the Government's coffers, so why should the Government not pay to control erosion there?

Many of the communities that are under threat are well populated. Land was reclaimed, often from bogs and marshes, and that allowed people to come in from the country and live in communities. We are trying to protect established settlements that have been in place for a long time, but which are threatened as a result of weather changes, global warming and uses such as overdraining of Highland lands to put in trees. We all pay taxes and we should get something back. Many landlords spend millions of pounds on restoration of the land and flood protection.

I do not think that you have answered my question. I asked whether the taxpayer should pay for coastal erosion in areas that are owned by private landowners.

The coast right up to the high-water mark is owned by the Crown Estate. It also owns the sea.

Jamie McGrigor has joined us, because he has an interest in this issue.

As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands and someone who has experience of rivers over a long period, I would like to make a couple of quick comments. In view of recent world flooding events and worries about global warming, this petition is important. I am glad that its scope has been widened from Mr Mackie's initial thoughts, which were to have a petition that dealt only with Garmouth and Kingston and the mouth of the Spey. Events all over the place—starting in the Uists, where floods last winter caused significant damage to the machair and the causeways—show that coastal and river erosion is a major problem. There is no way that the £89 million that happens to be in the kitty will be enough if there is a major event. Some thought must be given to how coastal properties, villages and towns will be protected in the future, if sea levels start to rise.

Kingston is an historic town. Enormous damage could be caused to it if the gravel spine there were to break. Every year, boulders flow down rivers such as the Spey in floods—there are changes all the time. For many years, there were salmon netters at the bottom, who kept the mouth of the river clear so that the salmon could come up. That allowed the river to flow out and was the reason for the location of the town of Kingston. The town was not affected by flooding, because the river ran clear through. However, because the salmon netters have not been in place for years and there has been a build-up, there is now a real danger to towns adjoining river mouths.

The situation is made worse by the seeming policy of SNH and other bodies not to allow anyone to do anything with the rocks and boulders at the bottom because that might be detrimental to the environment. Flooding in a bird sanctuary and the town of Kingston would obviously be considerably more detrimental to the environment.

Not enough has been done nationally to examine the possible effects of the coastal erosion and flooding that are going on. We are not well-enough prepared, which is why the petition is good.

What do members suggest we should do with the petition?

I confess to being slightly confused. In response to a parliamentary question, the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development said:

"The Scottish Executive has, to date, met all requests from local authorities for funding to support the construction of approved coast protection schemes."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 8 December 2004; S2W-12530.]

Before we write to all and sundry, I am keen to ask the Executive whether Moray Council has approached it and to write to that council; that issue is at the heart of the petition. If that dialogue has not happened, the petition is probably ahead of its time.

I, too, picked up on the point that Jackie Baillie made, which is narrow. Jamie McGrigor made the subject much wider. I agree entirely with Jackie Baillie. We should write to Moray Council to find out whether it has applied to the Executive, because whether it has done that is unclear in our papers. However, not just that area is affected—the scale is wider, as Jamie McGrigor said, so we must ask the Scottish Executive for its views on the petition and on the matter overall.

Are members happy with that?

May I make a brief comment on those points?

Yes.

Moray Council has applied for funding for the projects, but because it knows that the fund is limited, it is not applying for everything at once.

Another problem is a dearth in Europe of experts in coastal and river erosion who can examine the situation and draw up a scheme. A combination of factors is involved. A plan can be produced only if experts are available, but experts cannot be obtained. That is a hidden problem.

I hope that the responses that we receive will allow us to investigate that aspect. It is worth making the point.

Whom will we write to? Will we write to the Scottish Executive?

We will write to the Scottish Executive and Moray Council.

Will we write to SEPA?

We will wait until we receive the other responses. Jackie Baillie's point was that the petition appears to have had its beginnings in an issue in Moray, although it brings into play discussion of the wider issue of coastal erosion. However, unless we identify the points that Mr Mackie made about what underpins the petition, we cannot widen the subject. We must establish what drives the petition. We will eventually have to contact several bodies, but we must have a base point to provide the ground from which to proceed.

I take your point, but we will have to write at some point to ask the flooding issues advisory committee whether it is content with the planning that has been put in place or whether it has plans to do anything else. Perhaps that is for further down the track. I agree with Jackie Baillie that the petition is perhaps ahead of itself.

In the interests of compromise and given that the flooding issues advisory committee was established by the Scottish Executive, perhaps we could ask the Executive to speak to that committee in formulating its response.

Okay. We will let Mr Mackie know what the responses are and take it from there.

---

Bankruptcy Law (Sequestration Recall Process) (PE865)

Our next petition is PE865, by Edward Fowler, which calls on the Scottish Parliament

"to investigate the sequestration recall process and consider amending the law to allow the right of appeal for those made bankrupt by mistake and that all such appeals should be heard by a Sheriff."

Edward Fowler will make a brief statement in support of his petition, after which we will have a discussion on the points that he makes.

My petition seeks to allow a person who has been sequestrated in error to go back to a sheriff court to rectify the error and have the sequestration recalled. That is allowed in England, but it is not allowed under Scots law.

I am speaking to you about a system that allows people to be made bankrupt by mistake but makes it impossible for the bankrupt to have the matter recalled to court. In Scotland, the only redress is to go to the Court of Session in Edinburgh. That is impossible unless one has substantial amounts of money, which a bankrupt does not have. It is impossible to get help through legal aid. I have been trying to do that for two and a half years.

Using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I found out that in 2002 and 2003 there were no cases in which legal aid was granted for recall of sequestration. In my case, there was a mistake in the procedure when the petition was raised. Errors were made and the court was given the wrong information. Two and a half years later, the court is still unaware that a mistake was made. Why is it so difficult to return to court and correct the mistake? I believe that my case proves that our system of justice has given me no right of defence and that justice has been denied to me.

My view of the VAT people is that the interests of the state are everything and the interests of the individual are nothing. I do not exist as a person, which is why—

Mr Fowler, if you are finding it difficult to make your statement would you prefer us to ask some questions? You have given us a good briefing and I think that members understand the subject. To be fair to you, it might be easier if you were to answer the committee's questions rather than try to make the statement.

Yes.

When I read the papers about your petition, I felt a huge degree of sympathy for you but also a deep sense of injustice about what you experienced. We have a helpful note that says that the parliamentary ombudsman has decided to launch a full investigation into HM Revenue and Customs. Will you update us on what has happened since then?

I have heard nothing since then. I was told that it could take a number of years and that it could be a long time before we heard anything. I do not know too much about it.

Obviously, you applied for legal aid. Can you remember the grounds for refusal?

I have never been refused legal aid for advice. I am allowed that, but not legal aid to recall the matter to court. Legal aid asked the permission of the insolvency practitioner and the VAT people and they refused.

They have an interest, of course.

Yes. The insolvency practitioner said that he did not want to allow it in case I sued him at the end.

It is not surprising that he said no, then.

Good morning, Mr Fowler. Like Jackie Baillie, I read the evidence that you provided and I find it hard to believe that this could happen to anyone without their knowledge. Are you saying that people turned up at your door without your prior knowledge and that that was deemed lawful by the courts?

They did not even turn up at my door; it happened in a phone call. Someone phoned us and said, "Do you realise you're bankrupt?" and I said, "I can't be. That would be impossible." They said, "Well, no. We'll send someone round to the business." An hour later someone turned up and said, "I want your keys." They wanted absolutely everything, including credit cards and bank accounts.

So you had no prior knowledge of this and no defence. Your partner put forward a defence, but that was not accepted. They just said that that was the law. I read that you contacted umpteen solicitors in Aberdeen, but they said that it would be better just to accept what had happened.

Yes. I was a member of the Federation of Small Businesses, the local chamber of commerce and Aberdeen Enterprise Trust, so I thought that I would have support if something ever happened. I did not think, though, that anything like this could happen.

Thank you, Mr Fowler. I find what happened to you amazing.

I am sorry that I missed the early part of your presentation. What VAT sums were involved?

The VAT people said that I owed them the sum of £30,000, but I had paid it and they had made a mistake. They did not realise that I had paid it. They put the sum in another department or whatever. It then took them nine months to tell us that. The legal aid people said that we should have recalled it within six weeks, but we did not know for nine months that the VAT people had made a mistake. Well, we knew that they had made a mistake, but they did not admit that they had made a mistake.

During all the time that I was writing to the VAT people, they never wrote back to me. Only when I got my MP, Anne Begg, involved did they write, but they wrote to her—I did not exist. I did not exist to many people, including solicitors and banks. As a person, you stop existing and stop having anything.

Again, my apologies for not being here to begin with, but why do you think that this situation came about? Was it just a mistake by the VAT people that caused it?

Yes. A woman visited us in the November. I had been in business for six years and we had never had a problem. The other way in which we never had a problem was that there were no other creditors as such; I mean that there were only the normal creditors—I had no history of bad debt or anything. A lady from the VAT people visited us in November. My accountant believed that she made a mistake. She went through the computer accounts, with which we were having a problem, and came out with figures that were all wrong. That is where this problem started.

Did she not give you an opportunity to explain?

All the papers that came through did so after I was made bankrupt, so I was never able to explain anything. All my accounts were taken and my access to my records—everything was taken from me. From that moment on, it was as though I did not exist as a person.

Have you had no word from the VAT people?

The parliamentary ombudsman wrote to them and they admitted that they had made a mistake. The ombudsman is now going through a full parliamentary inquiry into that.

When do you expect a result from that?

That is what I do not know. I do not know how long it takes.

I find it difficult to comprehend that this has happened. It seems an incredible injustice and it must have been very difficult for you to live through it, Mr Fowler. You said that somebody phoned you and broke the devastating news that, according to them, you were bankrupt. Before that, when you were paying your VAT, were there any problems? If you were late in paying, did they contact you?

I had problems with the computer system whereby we could not get our VAT returns out, but we always paid the VAT. Therefore, although our returns were not being done or were late, we had paid the VAT that was due. That is where the problem arose. When the woman from the VAT people came in, she did the returns for us and then said that we were due to pay all this money—but we had paid it. Although it looked on paper as though we had not paid the money, we had.

Did any communication take place between you at that point, whereby they said that you owed this amount and you said that you did not?

There was no communication. We explained things to the woman from the VAT and she went away and did all the figures. Then, as someone said, they just hit us with a sledgehammer.

As I am not a businessman, I would like you to clarify what you thought the procedure should have been if you had not paid your VAT.

If we had not paid our VAT, the VAT people would have had the right to take us to court. However, I should have known about that decision and had the right to go to court and say, "No. They've made a mistake. I've paid the VAT." Indeed, the VAT people acknowledge that I paid it.

That should have happened long before you were declared bankrupt.

Yes.

Forgive me, but surely you must have had bank statements and cheque books showing that the money had been withdrawn from your account and paid to the VAT office.

I showed that information to the insolvency practitioner that day. However, he said, "I'm not interested in anything like that—I'm here to close you down". That was that.

That sounds pretty outrageous.

I want to make some recommendations. We welcome the parliamentary ombudsman's investigation and, given that your MP has already been helpful to you, I am sure that she could ask for an update. However, two issues that should be examined are access to civil legal aid and the law of bankruptcy and diligence. Luckily, the Executive has indicated that it intends to introduce legislation—in this session, I think—to modernise the law of bankruptcy and diligence and ensure that appeals go before the sheriff court. That might also take care of the legal aid problem.

I suggest that we write to the Executive to confirm that our understanding is correct and that such legislation would have an impact on people's access to legal aid, which is also under review. Such an approach would allow us to address the policy position that underpins Mr Fowler's experience.

Are members happy to follow that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Fowler, we will keep you updated on our progress on this matter. Thank you for bringing your interesting petition to the committee. It has raised a matter of concern for us, and we will pursue it as vigorously as we can.

Thank you.

---

Affordable Housing<br />(Scottish Executive Policies) (PE877)

The next new petition is PE877, by Janet Walton, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review its policies, particularly in relation to the impact on the elderly and people on low incomes. Before the petition was formally lodged, it was hosted on the e-petition site where, from 13 June 2005 to 26 August 2005, it gained 27 signatures and one comment. The usual e-petition briefing has been circulated to members for information.

Do members have any points to raise or recommendations to make?

The lack of affordable housing is a major problem not just in rural areas but in cities throughout Scotland. As a result, I suggest that we seek a response on this petition from Communities Scotland, which has overall charge of the budgets. Members might wish to seek other views, but that organisation needs to provide some answers about how it is addressing the lack of such housing.

Do members have any other suggestions?

Perhaps we could also write to Fife Council, the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Tenants Organisation.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That probably covers all the bases.

---

Justice System (Child Sex Offenders) (PE862)

Petition PE862, in the name of Margaret Ann Cummings, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to conduct a full review of the current system of dealing with and monitoring convicted child sex offenders. Before PE862 was formally lodged, it was hosted on the e-petition site where, from 14 January 2005 to 28 February 2005, it gained 32 signatures. There were also five comments on the e-petition, all of which supported its terms. The usual e-petition briefing has been circulated to members.

The committee has been joined by Paul Martin MSP, who will make a statement on the petition.

Thank you. I add for members' information that Margaret Ann Cummings will today present the committee with a petition containing 6,000 signatures in support of a review of the current arrangements for monitoring sex offenders.

I think that there has been some misunderstanding, in that Margaret Ann Cummings thought that she would be able to speak today. She thought that she had returned the relevant form, but there appears to have been a discrepancy. As a result, she has asked me to speak to the petition on her behalf.

PE862 calls for a review of the current system of monitoring and dealing with sex offenders. There are a couple of important points that I want to make. It is important that I amplify local concerns, although not everything that I will say will necessarily reflect my views. First, I want to say something about the disclosure of sex offenders in the light of what has been called Sarah's law and the more recently proposed Mark's law, following the death of Mark Cummings. The petition calls on Parliament to at least interrogate the possibilities of disclosure. So far, there has been no interrogation by Parliament—I refer to interrogation through the committee system in particular—of the various possibilities that exist throughout the world. In other parts of the world—the United States in particular—there are disclosure programmes and there is mass disclosure of sex offenders. I am not saying that such an approach would necessarily work in the United Kingdom, or in Scotland for that matter, but the petitioners call for interrogation at least of whether that approach can be replicated in Scotland. They call for not only the Executive but for perhaps one of the subject committees—a justice committee—to consider the matter.

Another issue is how housing for sex offenders is allocated. Currently, there is no coherent strategy for housing sex offenders. Stuart Leggate had been identified in another part of Scotland and therefore took up residence in the Charles Street area, where Mark Cummings was murdered. There is a misconception out there that sex offenders are carefully managed through the social services system: in fact, they are not. The process was not managed—Stuart Leggate managed his own housing prospects. He decided to stay where he was of his own accord. Margaret Ann Cummings is concerned that he was placed in a multistorey flat in Charles Street, which was predominantly populated by young children like Mark Cummings and she strongly believes that there must be a housing policy to deal with such matters.

It is important to discuss the sentencing tariffs that are currently available to sheriffs. We have seen what I am about to describe in other cases. Stuart Leggate was sentenced to five years for sexual offences against children. It is certainly inadequate that a person should serve only two years of a five-year sentence. I am amplifying Margaret Ann Cummings' concerns. I keep using an analogy. We have moved the agenda on in respect of how we tackle those who are involved in trafficking drugs and so on; in my constituency, for example, a person is serving 19 years for drug smuggling, which is welcome. However, Margaret Ann Cummings and others have said that we must replicate that approach when we deal with sex offenders against children, given their predatory behaviour.

There is another important issue about which Margaret Ann Cummings has been particularly concerned. A close relationship was formed with the police following the tragic murder of Mark Cummings, but how the police react when children go missing and the need to highlight where sex offenders are located when they do so are issues. Margaret Ann Cummings has called for a much more effective strategy so that we know exactly where every sex offender is when a child goes missing—she feels strongly about that. She has also raised the issue of the pace of our consideration of the matter on a number of occasions. We keep saying that there should not be a knee-jerk reaction, but Mark Cummings was killed in June 2004, which is well over a year ago. There has been talk of change and there have been various committees, but she has raised concerns with me a number of times and she wants to see change once and for all. It might not be that everyone can agree with such a change but I, too, feel strongly about it; we have to make a once-and-for-all change.

I have one final point that Margaret Ann Cummings would also make. The press and media are obsessed with the vigilantes, stories about sharing information and vigilante action that has happened in the past. I make it clear that communities do not, as a rule, act in such a manner. We have seen that that is the case in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland even when people are angry and it is particularly true with Margaret Ann. I have already paid tribute to her and will do so again today. She made a constructive case on behalf of her child, who was murdered in the most appalling circumstances anyone could imagine. She is asking for people to get involved not in vigilante action, but in peaceful demonstrations such as the one that took place in George Square after Mark's death, and in other peaceful forms of protest such as petitions, the New of the World campaign and other media campaigns. We want to move forward and make this change so that we give maximum protection to children in the future in Mark's memory and, tragically and more recently, in Rory's memory.

I thank Paul Martin for speaking on behalf of the family and himself. It is obviously tragic that this issue has to come before the committee and that such a thing has happened to anyone. I have long-term concerns about sex offenders and the lack of information that communities are given. It is not just communities that lack information; there is a lack of exchange of information between the police, social services and housing services in particular. The point has been made before, but it always seems that such people are housed in poorer areas where there are young kids and which suffer from deprivation. I have yet to see—and I would not like to see—sex offenders going to certain other areas. They seem to be put in areas where the most vulnerable people live.

We have to consider a new set of criteria. I know that the First Minister announced that the Executive is considering bail issues in respect of sex offenders, but he has not said whether he is going to introduce new criteria for sex offenders. It seems as if robbers or drug dealers get more time than murderers. Those people should be put on a list; people should know where they are, particularly when a child goes missing. There is a lack of coherent communication among the agencies that are involved with sex offenders.

The Justice 2 Committee is considering a bill, but I do not know whether it is considering that issue because I am not on that committee. I think that it is considering the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill. I do not know whether what I am talking about would fit in with consideration of that bill, but the comments that Paul Martin and others have made in this committee should go to the Justice 2 Committee.

We must consider separate legislation for sex offenders so that people know their movements. We have to protect our children. This kind of thing is unfortunately happening more and more, although the evidence from the Sentencing Commission for Scotland says that the level of reoffending among sex offenders is lower than among other classes of offender. I do not know so much; that is the evidence from the Sentencing Commission, but the levels certainly do not seem to be lower. Kids' lives are at risk. Those people are predatory and they should not be anywhere near children. If they are near children, people should know where they are so that they can be contacted.

I say that we should certainly pass the petition to the Justice 2 Committee and hope that it considers it separately for possible legislation. I am open to suggestions.

Even if we send the petition to the Justice 2 Committee in the hope that it will consider it when it is considering the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, the matter might not fit in with that bill. If it does not, there might be legislation in the new programme into which it would fit. It might be worth writing to the Executive to ask where it thinks such legislation would fit into its programme for reform of the criminal justice system.

I support that. Paul Martin spoke well on the issue, and everything that he said chimes with the grave concerns that are felt throughout Scotland on this important issue. In particular, I picked up on his point about how we allocate housing for sex offenders. It is a serious issue; there is fear, worry and concern in our communities.

I had a serious case in my constituency. It was not as tragic as the one that is before us, but it was serious. The sharing of information between the police, housing services, social work and other organisations is crucial. As the convener does, I hope that the Scottish Executive will address the serious concerns in our towns and villages, where people are living in anxiety and fear. We have to move much more quickly on such issues than we have done, given the tragic events that we have seen throughout Scotland.

Let me sound a cautionary note as a member of the Justice 2 Committee, then I will try to be helpful. That committee is about to commence detailed scrutiny of the Management of Offenders etc (Scotland) Bill, but the kind of debate that Paul Martin is rightly after would go much wider than that. Stage 2 presents a useful early opportunity to extend what the bill offers, if we can do so. It would be worth while sending the petition to the Justice 2 Committee, as we would be suggesting to the committee that it should take a wider look at the totality, because the bill does not currently deal with disclosure, monitoring of housing or sentencing tariffs and bail. I therefore support the idea that the Justice 2 Committee and the Executive should explain to us where those issues will be addressed.

Are members happy for the committee to conduct its affairs in that way?

Paul Martin spoke about interrogating best practice worldwide, which would be reasonable. From your inquiries, do you have examples of better practice that could point us in the direction that we need to go?

There are websites in the United States that list the names and addresses of a number of convicted sex offenders. The process is open, although I accept that the environment in those areas might be different from that in our communities. That issue would have to be addressed.

In a similar campaign down south, Sara Payne suggested a buddy system, whereby sex offenders are monitored effectively by the local community being aware of their past. The buddy system cocoons them to ensure that they are carefully monitored and supported by various agencies. That would be a difficult measure for our communities to take, given the background to some of the tragic cases, but Sara Payne made that suggestion, which is why I made the point about vigilante action. People like her are willing, despite their own tragic circumstances, to make constructive suggestions.

We need to examine all that evidence and ask: Where do we go? We have not done that so far. We have had as many reviews as we could have had, going back to the Cosgrove report in 1997. We have a complex issue to grapple with, but we need to make a once-and-for-all decision that takes into consideration practices elsewhere. I accept that disclosure in a state in the US is different to disclosure in Scotland, but we need to use all the expertise that has been gained. We have done that with other subjects and taken evidence from around the world—for example, I took part in a videoconference with people in Canada on the prison estates review. I do not know why we cannot do that with the issue that is before us.

I stress that we need to progress quickly, but this is not a knee-jerk reaction. All the evidence is available; there is a wealth of information on how to tackle the issue, but the Executive needs to pull that information together, although there are signs that it is doing so. I think that I am representing the views of Margaret Ann Cummings when I say that although Cathy Jamieson has met us on a number of occasions and has shown interest in taking the issue forward, pressure must be placed on the Executive to take decisions to ensure that we provide maximum protection.

I agree with the convener's idea to ask the Executive where the proposed action would fit into the overall legislative programme. It is clear that although the issues that Margaret Ann Cummings has raised in her petition are predominantly justice issues, housing issues are also involved. As well as forwarding the petition to the Justice 2 Committee, we should ask the Executive in what parts of its programme all the issues that have been raised will be tackled.

It would be useful to get an overview of that. Are members happy for us to deal with the petition in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

I discovered only 15 minutes before the start of the meeting that Mrs Cummings expected to speak to the committee this morning. If there has been a misunderstanding, I give an assurance that that was in no way an indication that the committee does not take the issue seriously. There has been a genuine misunderstanding with regard to the paperwork that was sent to Mrs Cummings and I hope that the comments of committee members have conveyed to Mrs Cummings the seriousness with which we are treating the issue. We will pursue matters with as much vigour as possible to ensure that we obtain clarification on where the legislation can be amended to address Mrs Cummings's concerns, which arose from the tragedy that she experienced. On behalf of the committee, I extend our sympathy to her for the circumstances that led to her submitting a petition to us.

---

Vulnerable Adults (Medication) (PE867)

Petition PE867, which was submitted by W Hunter Watson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to provide adequate safeguards to prevent vulnerable adults from being given unwanted, unnecessary and potentially harmful medication by surreptitious means. The petitioner is concerned that, in the absence of adequate safeguards, unwanted medication that may be inappropriate and harmful is being administered surreptitiously to elderly care home residents.

Do members have any comments?

Although not all care homes carry out such practices, I have concerns. As a member of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on older people, age and aging, I have visited various care homes, some of which are good and some of which are bad. I am not suggesting that all care homes administer drugs that they should not administer, but we should examine the issue because there is evidence from Alzheimer Scotland and other agencies that inappropriate drugs have been given to patients. I am sure that all constituency representatives have heard horror stories about care homes.

I suggest that we write to the Executive, Alzheimer Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health to seek their views. We might also want to write to the British Medical Association or other organisations. Unfortunately, there is no doubt that such practices take place in some care homes.

I agree that we must go down that route. However, given that section 47(5) of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 was amended when we considered the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005, I am surprised that we did not take that opportunity to address the issue if there was a burning need to do so. We amended the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 as a result of a petition that was submitted to this committee. Nevertheless, we probably still have to go down the road that Sandra White suggested.

I share the concerns that Sandra White and John Scott have expressed. I know of an incident that occurred in the past few weeks, in which a home asked a general practitioner to administer a sedative to one of its residents, who was incapable. The GP did so, but there was no consultation of the resident's family. It is a bit scary that such practice is going on. I have great sympathy for the petitioner and I fully endorse the recommendations that have been made.

Are members happy to take the action that has been proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

That was our final new petition. We will continue, because I know that a few members must leave shortly. [Interruption.] I am sorry; we cannot have people speaking from the public gallery.