Public Petitions Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 9, 2000

Official Report 220KB pdf

---

New Petitions

The first petition, PE176, is from Mr McMillan and deals with the investigation of police complaints. Mr McMillan is here to address the committee.

The Scottish justice system is considered throughout the world as second to none to such an extent that the Lockerbie trial is being conducted along Scottish legal lines. Unfortunately, I am here today to tell the committee that I am heading for Strasbourg with a legal problem about the police complaints department.

I made a complaint to the police about the police and, to cut a long story short, although members have all the details in front of them, I received a letter stating that they were taking no further action, and I was amazed at that. I then found that there is nowhere I can go once those people have made that decision, so it is an inside circle. I wrote to the Minister for Justice and was referred back to the Crown. I wrote to the Lord Advocate and was referred back to the Crown. I could not get outside that circle.

My complaint has been looked at by some pretty sensible people, who feel that it should have gone further, but there is nowhere else in Scotland that I can take it. There is no body to which I can say what I think and what they think, and where somebody can decide in a committee such as this whether they believe that I have a case. I now have to make a private prosecution to sue the chief constable and go to Strasbourg.

That is my statement. I have nowhere to go and I would like there to be a body that could be approached by people such as myself. I am probably the only person in this room who has ever made a complaint against the police. It is a rare thing, so it must be seen to be done properly.

Thank you, Mr McMillan. Do committee members have any questions?

I understand from the letters that you have provided that, unlike English procedures, statements taken from witnesses in Scottish procedures are not normally signed by the witness. Do you believe that, if the Scottish system was changed to be similar to the English system and if the witness had to sign, it would make a vast improvement?

I think that it is essential that a statement made by a complainer is signed and that a face-to-face meeting with the procurator fiscal is conducted to verify the statement and the signature. That would be a built-in safety clause. The documents that I have provided also state that the complaint should be made directly to the procurator fiscal and then referred to the police, rather than the other way round. I made my statement in what I could describe as a broom cupboard in Fettes police station. I did not feel as if I was being taken seriously, and I felt intimidated.

Are you asking for an independent complaints investigation body to be set up?

I want a situation in which, when the procurator fiscal sends a letter stating that no further action will be taken in a complaint against the police, there is a higher authority.

Do you think that there should be a system for appealing against the decision of the complaints procedures?

Yes. It should be outside the legal system—outside the police's and the Crown's grasp and independent.

It would be an independent appeal system to which individuals such as you could turn if a decision went against you.

That is right. I do not think that it would be a very busy committee, but every now and then it might be called upon to act. It could be that its members might agree with the police and the Crown, in which case the complainant would have to accept that ruling. However, in the present situation, it is as if the father is investigating the son.

The correspondence that accompanies your petition suggests that the chief inspector of constabulary and the Crown Office are currently reviewing the police complaints procedure. Would you expect those reviews to address the issue that your petition raises?

Look at who is reviewing it. As you have just said, they are reviewing themselves. The minute you name those parties, I no longer take the process seriously. I want a body that is completely independent.

I understand that investigations are being made into the way in which complaints against the police are handled at the moment. I speak as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and I am sure that that committee will consider the procedures and make a report to the Parliament when the matter arises. It is not a case of who is supervising the supervisors. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee will be able to scrutinise procedures and decide whether it is satisfied that a system is in place that is independent of the prosecution service, which is supposed to be independent of the police.

The prosecution acts on behalf of us, the people. If there is a feeling that that is not the case or that the police should not be investigating themselves—that is a common view, although I make no comment as to whether it is right—the Justice and Home Affairs Committee could examine that.

It is just that the petition—my complaint—does not seem to be going anywhere in Scotland. It has been nowhere, and it is going nowhere.

Okay. We have no further questions, but you can be assured that the Scottish Parliament is still, relatively speaking, in its infancy. The reason why your petition appears to be going nowhere is that the Parliament has not fully—

I was not talking about you.

As Christine Grahame pointed out, the procedures for complaints against the police are under review. They will also be reviewed by the Parliament. As part of that review, I am sure that we shall consider your petition.

Thank you for coming along and presenting your petition. We will now discuss, among ourselves, how to deal with it.

That is fine.

The recommendation is that we pass the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for further consideration. I suggest that we recommend to that committee that it do that as part of its consideration of the Crown Office and inspectorate reviews.

Are you aware of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee's agenda?

I imagine that the committee would do as I have just suggested anyway.

Yes, but rather than say that we are sending the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for further consideration, we should recommend that the committee note it pro tem and consider it further at the appropriate time, when the wider issue is on its agenda.

That seems fair.

We should also send a copy of the petition to the Crown Agent so that he is aware of the concerns that have been raised. Otherwise, I am happy to accept the recommendation.

Send a copy of the petition to whom?

To the Crown Agent. The on-going review is mentioned in the letter from the Crown Office, and I am sure that the Crown Office is aware of the petitioner's concerns. It would be of value to ensure that the Crown Agent is made aware of any action.

It is agreed that we will refer the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for noting pro tem, until such time as that committee considers the reviews that are being undertaken, when it can form part of that consideration. We will also copy our decision to the Crown Agent. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The second petition is from Mr John R D Stewart, who is here today. His petition concerns legal aid.

My purpose in coming here today is to put dimensions to the situation, so that the committee is aware of the magnitude of the unfairness for which I have sought redress.

In the 1998-99 financial year, £136.6 million of public funds were made available for legal aid. What that money was spent on is laid out, in a most exemplary fashion, in the Scottish Legal Aid Board's report. Who received it, and how much they received, is laid out with equal clarity, at least in respect of the 20 highest-paid legal firms and the same number of advocates. The Scottish Legal Aid Board is committed to complete clarity in respect of its expenditures and will provide information on all other practitioners, albeit with some difficulty because its records are not fully computerised.

The contrast between SLAB's affairs and those of the farming industry is quite startling. In the same financial year, £475 million was devoted to farming subsidies. Information on what that sum was spent on is fairly readily available, but when it comes to who received it, and how much they received, a veil of total secrecy prevails. Mr Sean Rickart, an economist who was formerly employed by the English National Farmers Union, and is now, I believe, retained as a consultant to the United Kingdom Government, has stated that 20 per cent of farmers in the UK receive 80 per cent of subsidies. On that basis, in Scotland, a mere 4,514 producers received last year £380 million; the remaining 18,800 producers shared £95 million.

In the course of several weeks of persistent digging, I have established that 2,150 farmers—that is 9.5 per cent of the industry—each received between £30,000 and £50,000 in total subsidy payments. A further 835 received between £50,000 and £70,000 each, and a final 752—or 3.3 per cent of the industry—received over £70,000 each. On the basis of calculations and figures supplied by the rural affairs department, those happy few—the 752—received, at a conservative estimate, a total of £243 million. Who they are, of course, is a complete secret.

I consider that situation to be grossly unfair to the legal profession. I accept that the interests of fairness would be at least as well, if not better, served by bringing to farming the same open regime that operates in the legal profession, but I am not asking for that; I believe that to do so would be simply to waste Parliament's time. Many attempts have been made in the past to find out who gets what in farming, but farming subsidies remain shrouded in secrecy and the forces that are ranged against any attempt to change that are formidable—within and outwith Parliament. Freedom of information has no meaning in relation to farming. At least if the unfairness to which I have referred were addressed, one of our society's numerous unfairnesses would be put right. Perhaps that would be less than satisfactory to many people, but it is the only thing that I can see being done.

Thank you very much. I want to be clear—you believe that the fact that the detail of farm aid is shrouded in secrecy is an injustice. Is that right?

Yes. I would be less than honest if I said that that was not so.

But you are asking the Parliament to deal with that by creating another injustice—by shrouding legal aid payments in secrecy?

Let me put it this way. If my petition were to fail, but Parliament were to say that it would achieve the same level of fairness by bringing farming out into the open, my tears would not be copious.

So it is a sly move.

Not really. I simply do not want to put Parliament in a position of embarrassment; the problem has been tackled many times, and no one has got anywhere with it.

You are tackling the problem in stages; let us put it that way.

The tentacles reach back to Brussels.

First, I declare an interest. I am a solicitor—still registered, but not practising—and a member of the Law Society. I have also been a legal aid solicitor. Are you a solicitor?

No. I am a sheep farmer.

I wondered about that. My second question came to mind because the petition reminds me of a scene from "Blackadder": "I have a cunning plan." Your plan sounds as cunning as the fox at night. Why not bring the petition in a straightforward manner?

You have an interesting point, but why not ask for the same rules to be brought to bear for farm aid? I heard what you had to say, but I suspect that you will not succeed. After all, the petition will not go to the committee that you think ought to look at it. If it concerns legal aid, it will go to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. It would be better to be up front, rather than to follow a cunning Blackadder plan.

I was accused yesterday in The Scotsman by Mr Fordyce Maxwell of using a degree of ellipticity—I think that was the phrase—or duplicity. That is actually quite foreign to me. I am not trying to be clever—I am trying to spare Parliament some embarrassment, because it will find that it will not be able to force disclosure of farmers' earnings.

As a politician, it is almost impossible to embarrass me now and I suspect that the Parliament is beyond embarrassment, too.

Perhaps my concerns are misplaced in your case, ma'am.

Taken at face value, there could be confusion: area aid and arable aid are two different things.

Perhaps you should declare an interest.

I declare an interest in that I am a sheep farmer—or a general farmer. There are two completely different meanings to the word "aid". To compare the two is unfortunate.

I cannot agree. Aid is aid. Subsidy is subsidy. Area aid embraces sheep annual premium, beef special premium, arable aid, hill livestock compensatory allowance, less-favoured area allowance—a variety of subsidies. I do not see that those differ in any way from the subsidy given to the legal profession to allow it to dispense justice to people who could not otherwise afford it.

I am not a farmer, nor a lawyer. The only declaration of interest I have is that I want fairness and more freedom of information for everyone. I admire the way in which you have brought the petition. I would not say that it tickles me, but examining the differences is a good way to bring the matter forward—subtle.

Can we send the petition to the Rural Affairs Committee as well as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? I am sure that they would see the irony.

We will discuss that later. Let us deal with questions first.

I am sorry. I was supposed to ask questions, but most of them have been asked.

I have one final point to make, if I may. If the economist Mr Sean Rickart's 80:20 distribution prevails in respect of the final 752 farmers, as it likely will, 150 farmers will share £194,400,000, or almost £1.3 million each. The total of £194.4 million is considerably in excess of the total legal aid bill for all the practitioners in Scotland.

The confusion is that Sean Rickart's figures apply to England. Your figures—the £450 million subsidy—are not being used in a Scottish context; they do not apply here.

No, that is not the case. Mr Sean Rickart was speaking about Scotland when he wrote his article in The Scotsman two weeks ago.

That is old information.

It is old in that it is from the previous financial year—the end of April 1999—but that is the most recent information available

It is doubtful whether the Justice and Home Affairs Committee would be able to debate the issues knowledgeably, but we certainly cannot. The only issue for the Public Petitions Committee is what to do with the petition. It cannot be sent to the Rural Affairs Committee, because in its present form, it has nothing to do with rural affairs. It is unlikely to be sent to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. If there are no further questions for Mr Stewart, we will move on to discuss that. I thank Mr Stewart.

Thank you, convener.

In its present form, the only committee to which the petition can be referred is the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. However, given that the drive behind the petition is not to shroud in secrecy data on legal aid, I am not sure what purpose would be served by sending it to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

It would just make Roseanna Cunningham angry if we sent it to her committee.

Could we perhaps send the petition to the Minister for Justice, as it was he who brought forward the proposals for freedom of information? It would be interesting to have his feedback on the issues raised.

We might need to go back to the petitioner to explain that if he wants the Parliament to address an issue such as aid to farmers, he should frame his petition in those terms. We will then take up the matter with the appropriate body. No useful purpose would be served by involving the Minister for Justice or the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, as that is not the petition's aim.

Is it agreed that we will write to the petitioner to explain that if he wants to address farm aid, he must present the petition in those terms, and to say that we will then ensure that the petition is dealt with by the appropriate committee here or, if need be, at Westminster?

Will we consider his petition then?

Yes.

Members indicated agreement.

The third petition for consideration is from Mr Robert Durward, on behalf of the Scottish members of the British Aggregates Association, on the new aggregates tax introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A briefing paper was handed to members when they came in, which contains additional information provided by the British Aggregates Association in relation to the petition. I invite Mr Durward to speak.

Thank you. The Treasury's proposal to introduce a heavy tax on all aggregate production will cause particular damage in Scotland. Although the tax is being presented as an environmental tax, there will be little, if any, environmental benefit. All that will happen is that many of the smaller operators, who are already struggling, will close down and their staff will lose their jobs.

Lorry movements will multiply, as aggregates will have to be brought in from further afield. Smaller companies will close, because the massive tax is designed to cause a reduction in demand. Local authority road budgets will be depleted. Local government accounts for 40 per cent of all aggregate sales.

The total cost of the tax to Scotland will be more than £62 million. Scotland will be especially hard hit, as a higher percentage of primary aggregate tends to be used, because fewer alternatives are available. The £1.60 per tonne levy represents a 40 to 50 per cent increase in Scotland, compared with 12 to 16 per cent in southern England.

There will be a loss of employment in rural areas. Quarrying is a primary industry, like farming, so ancillary trades and supply companies will be badly affected. Research shows that we will lose 1,700 jobs in the Scottish quarry industry and more than 1,000 jobs in related industries.

We recognise that there is a need to recycle and conserve our resources, but we have already proved that we are well able to achieve that without using a destructive, blunt instrument such as a quarry tax. The United Kingdom leads the way in Europe on recycling and almost all available material is already being recycled.

We quarry today for exactly the same reason as we have always quarried: because we need stone to provide a strong, inert, cost-effective and durable material to build roads, houses, hospitals and schools. Quarrying is not only a necessary activity, but it provides many environmental benefits. The green movement is being perverse and illogical when it attacks one of our oldest industries, which has no absolutely no active wastes and by-products and has a good environmental record. Furthermore, it is obvious that the Government is using environmental concerns as a Trojan horse to add new taxes.

Thank you, Mr Durward. Are there any questions?

This information might be in your submission, but I did not see it. I know that you represent the Scottish members of the British Aggregates Association. How many firms are there?

The British Aggregates Association has 54 members of which 14 are Scottish.

You might not know this, but perhaps you can give me an idea of how many people are employed in those firms.

Only 3,000 people are directly employed.

In particular, you made an interesting point about the impact on rural areas. What proportion of firms are in rural areas? I presume that nearly all of them are.

They have to be.

Yes. They would hardly be based in the middle of Edinburgh. That was a silly question. I wish I had not asked that. Is all of the impact therefore in rural areas?

Yes. The employment tends to be away from the towns.

That is fine.

You mentioned that aggregate prices are £10 per tonne in southern England and £4 per tonne in Scotland. How do you explain the difference?

It is to do with supply and demand. Scotland has an overabundance of stone and sandy gravel whereas the south of England is short of stone and is building a lot of infrastructure.

Has your organisation raised this issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Yes. We have had a few letters back, but not very useful ones. The department keeps using research that was done two years ago. The chancellor claims that that research shows that he is doing us a favour by charging us only £1.60 per tonne while the research showed that the public were willing to pay as much £15 per household to have the quarry shut down.

You mentioned in the additional material that you provided to the committee that there may be a contravention of European law. Is anything being done about that?

We have taken legal advice, which has told us that Governments tend to be fairly lax in checking up on other countries' tax laws. There has been a contravention of European law, but it is unlikely that Brussels will do anything about it.

Your argument is that there is a specifically Scottish dimension to the problem and that that means that the Scottish Parliament should address it.

We use a higher percentage of primary aggregate here because it is so cheap and so good. That seems to be a problem for the Treasury. There is no doubt that the Treasury's proposal will cause severe damage.

You say that we have more stone and that it costs less. Would there be a way in which we could create employment by transporting the stone down south? Would high fuel prices make that unfeasible?

The stone can go by sea. We ship stone out of Leith to the continent. Glen Sand, a superquarry on the western seaboard, ships a lot of its aggregate to the home counties.

Thanks for coming, Mr Durward.

The recommendation is that we pass the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and recommend that it consult other committees as it sees fit.

I support that, but I think we should send it to the Transport and the Environment Committee as well because environmental considerations were part of the rationale for the chancellor's proposal.

I find this petition very interesting. I think that we should send it to the Rural Affairs Committee as the proposal has an impact on rural communities. That committee should at least be made aware of the petition for information, as should the European Committee, which might want to consider the suggestion that European law has been contravened.

I think that some European directives are relevant as well.

I think we should send it to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee because of the European law aspect. I do not know whether we should send it to the Rural Affairs Committee.

We could send it to the European Committee in the first instance. For the sake of our clerks, who have other responsibilities, I remind members that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee can consider sending the petition to other committees and that we do not have to do it ourselves. We deal with every petition that comes in to the Parliament and we will create a tremendous work load for our clerks if we continually send every petition to every committee. That would be unfair. We can recommend to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that it sends the petition to other committees.

From my experience as an engineer, I agree with the figures presented by the petitioner. People have lobbied me—in a way that it entirely in keeping with the lobbying rules— about the figures.

Do we agree to send the petition to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee with a recommendation that it consider consulting the Transport and the Environment Committee, the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

The next two petitions are from William H Watson, on behalf of the Haddington and District Community Council. In the additional papers, we have information from Councillor Charles Ingle, the vice-convener of the environment committee of East Lothian Council. With us to speak about the petition is Mr William Watson.

I am here as a representative of the Haddington and District Community Council and of the parents of the pupils at Haddington Infant School.

Since 1971, it has been known that there has been a problem with road safety at Haddington Infant School. In 1997, East Lothian Council stated that there was a potentially serious road safety problem. The report of HM inspectorate of schools, published on 2 May, states that action should be taken to reduce the risks to pupils from traffic outside the school.

East Lothian Council has often stated that the problem is the fault of parents for driving their children to school and parking in the adjacent narrow streets, but the vast majority of vehicles using those streets are through vehicles. Only a small number and proportion of vehicles are driven by parents. Therefore, we do not accept the logic of the council's decision to do nothing.

At the community council's meeting on 9 April, East Lothian Council offered a new argument for doing nothing: that there have been insufficient accidents. We do not accept the validity of that argument. Accidents are under-reported and, in any case, we wonder how many accidents it will take for East Lothian Council to act. We argue that there should be a proactive approach to prevent accidents rather than a reactive one after a tragedy.

East Lothian Council has recently granted planning permission for housing at a site called the Maltings, which is adjacent to the school. That approval is subject to ratification by the planning division of the Scottish Executive. The community council believes that the development will exacerbate the present dangerous situation. East Lothian Council has consistently argued that it cannot afford to provide the necessary pedestrian safety measures. That argument seems rather hollow, given that it will receive £200,000 from the sale of small bits of land to permit the development to go ahead. We believe that some of that money should be spent on making the area around the school safer for pedestrians.

On 9 April, East Lothian Council informed the community council that it had other priorities for the money. Given the circumstances of the case, we find it difficult to imagine what higher priority than children's safety there can be.

The situation is not entirely black. Since our campaign started in February, East Lothian Council has undertaken to instigate its safer routes to school programme. However, it has been unable to say what that will entail except for the fact that it will not involve pedestrian safety work. We understand that in the past few weeks, East Lothian Council has undertaken a feasibility study into the improvement works that we have been advocating. Perhaps the fact that we have petitioned the Parliament has something to do with that.

We ask that the committee take up this matter. It appears that East Lothian Council requires only a little more persuasion for it to change its mind.

Let me clarify the roles of the Scottish Executive planning division and the Scottish Executive inquiry reporters unit. Why does the development at the Maltings have to be ratified by the planning division?

The planning permission is conditional. East Lothian Council has said that it approves the scheme. The important point is that the council will get money from the sale of the land, which is conditional on the planning division giving its approval.

In what way is the inquiry reporters unit involved?

It is involved with a development at the Briery Bank site, which is at an earlier stage. I want the committee to take a particular interest in the Maltings development.

The development will not go ahead unless the Scottish Executive planning division ratifies it.

That is correct.

Right. I understand. Do members have questions for Mr Watson?

You mentioned safe routes to schools, which is an East Lothian Council initiative. As a parent and part of the action group, have you been in contact with that initiative, which, I believe, is run by Sustrans?

No, not as an individual.

Are you aware of the initiative?

Personally, no. A number of us are involved in different parts of the action the group is taking. As a group, we met East Lothian Council, which has been unable to tell us at this stage what is involved in that initiative. I have regular meetings with relevant councillors in the area, including Mr Charles Ingle.

Are you aware that safe routes to schools is a national Sustrans initiative?

I am aware of the document on safer routes to school.

I should declare an interest. I am not a petitioner, but I was involved in the presentation of the petitions to the Parliament by assisting Mr Watson and by dealing with the press.

Mr Watson, you repeated the local authority's statement that the situation is all the parents' fault.

That has been the council's position for almost 30 years. In 1971, East Lothian County Council issued for the first time a leaflet to parents that said, "Stop taking your car to school—it causes congestion problems." The council told us that it has never undertaken a traffic survey to identify the problem.

I accept that there is a problem with irresponsible parents taking cars to school and parking as close to it as possible, but I do not accept that that is a reason why the council should not act. We have undertaken our own crude, unscientific survey, which showed that approximately 80 per cent of the cars on the relevant street are through vehicles. Even if no parents took their cars to school, that would remain a significant problem.

The Maltings development will greatly exacerbate the problem. The location of the site and the nature of the housing are such that it is likely that most of the cars from the site will use that street to commute to Edinburgh. It is also likely that, during the development of the site, most of the construction traffic will also use that street.

Have you requested the council to undertake a traffic survey?

Yes. Two councillors, including Mr Ingle, gave a verbal undertaking that such a survey would be carried out some time ago—the Maltings development has been bubbling under for a number of years. However, that is no longer East Lothian Council's position—no survey will be undertaken prior to the work being started. Planning permission has been granted in all but name, subject to statutory ratification.

Does the council accept that this is an accident black spot? Perhaps that is putting it too dramatically, but your papers say that many accidents go unreported.

There was a serious problem in 1997 and, in February 2000, three pedestrian accidents happened in one week, which is why the action group was set up. The accidents were sufficiently serious for East Lothian Council to get to know about them. As parents, we are aware that unreported accidents and incidents take place almost weekly. The incidents are not sufficiently severe to involve the emergency services, but they are severe enough to give us great cause for concern.

Members have copies of East Lothian Council's minutes for 8 February, which state:

"It was noted that traffic calming measures would probably not have prevented the accidents."

Is it your position that traffic calming measures would have helped to prevent accidents, because of the through traffic?

A number of issues are involved. I accept that traffic calming measures would not prevent all accidents, but they would make accidents more unlikely, and slowing traffic down would make the potential consequences of an accident less severe.

I do not want to go into the details, which are covered in the petition, but there is a particular problem with parked cars. The children involved are very young—car drivers cannot see them behind parked cars and the children cannot see cars coming. We want car drivers to be able to see that a child is trying to cross the road, or that there is a chance that a child is going to run across the road to another child on the other side of the road. These young children are not aware of the danger.

Have you ever involved the police during school opening hours, at lunch time or when children are going to school in the morning or coming home at night? Has the council asked the local police to warn parents that they should not park their cars in certain areas outside the school gates?

We do not want to prescribe to East Lothian Council what has to be done; a range of initiatives could be taken to alleviate the problem. It is the council's responsibility to make suggestions, such as putting double yellow lines where people stop. The police say, informally, that that would help them to take action. We want to keep matters informal.

As a community council, do you not have the right to tell the council what you want it to do for the safety of your children? It is obvious that you have not approached the council in that way.

You mentioned that a 20-mile-an-hour zone is a possible solution. That would not take a long time to implement or involve much statutory consultation—such zones are all over Glasgow, where it takes between three to six months to set them up. Have you mentioned that to the council?

We are trying not to be prescriptive. The council could turn the street concerned into a cul-de-sac, which would greatly alleviate the problem, or it could install chicanes. We do not want to tell the council what to do because there are so many options available to it. We want something to be done, as long as that action is reasonably coherent, but we do not want to say, "You have to do only that."

Mr Blackie, the director of education, gives in his letter a commitment to establish a safe routes to school project in Haddington from August this year. Have you asked to be involved in the consultation process?

Our wish to be consulted is in our petition to the Parliament. We have also indicated that to Mr Blackie.

Would the Public Petitions Committee passing on your petition before you get details of what the safe routes to school project will involve be premature?

I understand, informally, that East Lothian Council is waiting to hear from the committee—it is preparing itself.

We have some power.

Thank you, Mr Watson.

It is recommended that we pass PE181 to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking her to ensure that the issues raised in the petition are taken into account by the planning division and the inquiry reporters unit because that is what the petition requests and it is straightforward.

The other issue to be confronted is less straightforward but, as the papers from Councillor Charles Ingle were made available to most members only today, I am uncertain whether he is acting on behalf of East Lothian Council. He may have written in as an individual councillor. It is suggested that we write formally to the council to ask for a response to PE182. That would give us the council's position, rather than only an individual councillor's position.

Should we do that before we pass the petition to the minister?

Two separate issues are involved. The petitioners are asking us to make the Scottish Executive aware of their concerns, which we can do by passing the petition to the minister. She will then make the planning division and the inquiry reporters unit aware of these positions.

The other issue is that the petitioners are almost asking us to get the council to take action. We need to give the council a chance to respond to the petition before we can say that. Councillor Ingle is not writing on behalf of the council.

There are 1,375 signatures on this petition. It is a bit rich for the local authority to lay the blame at the door of parents. Although, as William Watson quite rightly points out, some parents park on zig-zag lines, the council has been rather dismissive of the parents. Perhaps we could tell the council—in the nicest possible way—that it is wrong and that there has been a breakdown in communication.

To be fair, the purpose of asking the council to write formally would be for it to give its position.

The council has sent us the minutes of the meeting.

Councillor Ingle has not written to us on the council's behalf. We have to give the council a chance to state its position formally.

But we can refer to the minutes of the meeting of 8 February, which say that

"it was noted that parent/vehicle behaviour was the most significant problem causing traffic congestion in the area".

We could focus on that point when we write to the council, perhaps without being as nippy as I have been. When 1,375 people sign a petition, we should draw the council's attention to the fact that there might be more to the matter than meets the eye.

Christine's point about not being nippy is important. The public must acknowledge that there is an issue about parents always driving their children to school; some housing schemes were not built to cope with such a volume of traffic. The council has to use its limited budget to ensure that there are sufficient teachers and books in the classroom. We should tell parents that it would not hurt any of us to walk a wee bit further. We must strike a balance on this issue.

I agree, but that is not—

I think it would be fair to draw the council's attention to the fact that we have a petition that has been signed by 1,375 people who believe that this is not just a matter for parents. The committee would like to know the council's position. Can we agree the second part of the request and write to the council? We cannot take Councillor Ingle's correspondence as representative of the council's views.

Members indicated agreement.

Sharon Wright will speak to petition PE184, from the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland.

I have an additional briefing paper, which might be of use to the committee and could be included in the petition if it is referred to other committees.

Any additional information would be very helpful.

What should I do with it?

Just pass it to the clerk.

We have collected 2,000 signatures from the public in support of our campaign. The campaign has three aims: to extend entitlement to free school meals to all families receiving the new tax credit; to maximise the take-up of free school meals; and to introduce minimum nutritional standards for school meals and develop nutrition education in schools.

Those aims are extremely important, as 30 per cent of children do not go home to a cooked meal. For some, a school dinner is the only substantial meal they receive in a day. There are clear links between poverty, diet, health and school attainment. Scotland has a particularly poor health record: a recent study has shown that health inequalities are the biggest ever measured and that there is a huge gap between the health of the highest and lowest social classes.

It is clear that something needs to be done for the children and young people in Scotland who are worst affected, and the CPAG believes that school meals have an important role to play in stopping the cycle of disadvantage.

On the campaign's first aim, before 1988 families in receipt of family income supplement received free school meals. Entitlement stopped when family credit was introduced. Families that now receive the equivalent of family credit—the working families tax credit—do not receive free school meals, despite evidence that working families tax credit does not provide enough money for families to afford basic necessities.

As for the campaign's second aim, we are asking the Parliament to introduce measures that would cover school meals for all local authorities, even though we recognise that schools and local authorities have responsibility for that area.

Our third aim is also very important, as Scotland has now fallen behind England, which has compulsory nutritional standards for school meals and nutrition education. The Parliament has given a clear commitment to ending child poverty in a generation, but we must invest in the health and education of Scottish schoolchildren because child poverty will not be eradicated until the matter is addressed. We ask that the petition be passed on to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and believe that all three aims could be covered by an amendment to the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which is currently before the Parliament.

It is nice to see you again today, Sharon. I see that you have brought the sunshine with you as well.

Do you think that the petition should also go to the Health and Community Care Committee? Furthermore, do you agree that there seems to be a lot of evidence from organisations such as Health Education Board Scotland that what children eat affects their educational attainment in schools?

Yes.

In section 4 of your paper, you have outlined options for extension. Which do you think is the best option?

Ideally, we want all schoolchildren to have free school meals, but that is probably not very viable financially. The options are in order of preference, and the next favoured option is for free school meals to be extended to people receiving the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit.

How many children in Scotland are currently entitled to free school meals? Do you have those statistics?

I think that those figures are included in the briefing paper.

In the additional briefing paper?

Yes. On page 3 of the paper there are costings for each of the options we have outlined and figures on the number of children that each option would affect.

Good. Perhaps the answers to my other questions are also in the paper. How many children take up free school meals?

Those figures are also in the paper.

How many would take up school meals if the various options were implemented? Are those figures also in the briefing paper?

Yes.

Has anyone from the CPAG submitted or had someone submit an amendment directly to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee?

I am not too sure about how the process works, but I understand that Kenneth Gibson lodged an amendment with 16 signatures. However, it did not move beyond that point.

We have put much effort into trying to contact different MSPs on committees and have received support from 24 of them. Furthermore, we have written to the Minister for Children and Education, Sam Galbraith, who has said that although the aims are within the Parliament's competence, he is not prepared to do anything about them.

As most of the members on this committee are also on other committees, we do not have the time to engage in the work of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. The most direct method for debating a subject in any committee is to lodge an amendment, which you are already doing.

On page 3 of your briefing note, you mention that swipe cards might be introduced. How widespread is that practice?

It is becoming more common. I understand that cards have been introduced in Angus and Glasgow, and there are plans to introduce them in Fife. I do not know how far those plans have been developed.

Swipe cards raise concerns about stigmatising children who use them.

That is right.

I have now had a glance at your additional briefing paper. Although you have supplied costings for your options, there are no figures for the number of children who will be affected. That information would be quite useful.

Okay.

In your introduction, you said that family income supplement, which guaranteed free school meals, was replaced by family credit. In what year was that?

It was in 1988.

Thanks very much.

During our questioning, several recommendations became clear. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee should be the lead committee, as it is considering the bill. We should suggest that that committee also consult the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee. This is an important issue.

When I was a school teacher there was one rogue called Billy Stewart who used to hide in the bushes until the bell rang for dinner, when he would come in. He then plugged again in the afternoon—to everybody's delight, as he was a terror when he was in the school.

Is this committee therapeutic for you, John?

It is much easier than teaching third-years on a Friday afternoon.

The next petition is from Mr Frank Harvey—again. There are additional papers from Mr Harvey in support of this latest petition, which asks the Parliament to make representations to the Prime Minister about the tenders for the roll-on-roll-off ferries that are required by the Ministry of Defence. Mr Harvey asks the Parliament to lobby on behalf of the Govan shipyard.

In the briefing note, Henry McLeish makes it clear that the Scottish Executive, with the Scotland Office, is already making representations on this matter to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The suggestion is that we pass this petition to him and ask him to act on it as appropriate. The additional information seems to be to do with D-day or something—I am not quite sure. We will pass on the additional information to Mr McLeish as well. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Steve Ratcliffe, on the cost of the new Parliament building. He is asking the Parliament to publish a full and concise report of the costs of the new building. We are aware of the recent decision of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to establish a progress group to consider that issue. I understand that that group is in the process of being established, as certain difficulties are associated with it. In the absence of that progress group, I suggest that we pass this petition to the SPCB and ask it to confirm the current position in writing to the petitioner. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Perhaps we could get a copy of that response.

Just the edited highlights.

The next petition is from Thomas McKissock, and concerns hepatitis C infection. It calls for the Parliament to take steps to establish a scheme for compensation, to assist people in Scotland who have contracted hepatitis C as a consequence of infected blood transfusions.

The issue is similar to that which was addressed by petition PE45, which has been passed to the Health and Community Care Committee. That committee is awaiting the outcome of an Executive inquiry into the matter. The suggestion is that we pass this petition to the committee and ask it to consider it with petition PE45 when it responds to that Executive inquiry. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE186 is from the National Federation of Sub Postmasters and calls on the Parliament to influence the Government at Westminster, in whatever way possible, to prevent the introduction of an automatic credit transfer system and to resurrect the Benefits Agency swipe card for the payment of benefits at post offices.

The subject of this petition is similar to issues that we have considered previously, in the context of the closure of sub-post offices following changes to the system of benefit payments. Those petitions were passed on to the Rural Affairs Committee and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and I suggest that we treat this petition likewise. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and concerns the culling of raptors. This is an old issue, on which the association used to petition the Westminster Parliament.

The committee note states that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions set up a UK raptor working group, which published a report in February, which was the culmination of five years' work into this issue. That report makes clear that the EC Wild Birds Directive allows lethal control as a legal option only in particular circumstances. The report ruled out the lethal control of raptors.

Committee members have details of the UK raptor working group, which does not include the petitioners, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. The Rural Affairs Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee are to take further evidence on the raptor working group's report as part of their consideration of a previous petition that we passed on to them. It is suggested that we pass this petition to those committees and ask them to include it in their consideration of the raptor working group's report.

I could give you more information, convener. I have been appointed as the reporter to the Rural Affairs Committee on this issue. That committee's team, which has been appointed to the Transport and the Environment Committee on the issue, is Cathy Peattie and Alex Fergusson. You might want to ensure that those members receive a copy of the petition as well.

Okay. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE188 is from Russ McLean and calls on the Scottish Parliament to enable Caledonian MacBrayne to take over the Campbeltown to Ballycastle route,

"which is critically important to the fragile economies of Argyll and Antrim."

It is suggested that this petition should be passed to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further consideration, or directly to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, requesting her comments. What are the committee's views? Should the petition be passed to the committee or to the minister?

I have to claim ignorance, convener, about the urgency of this matter. If it is urgent, the petition should be passed to the minister. There is no indication of the urgency.

There is. There are more than 3,000 names on the petition.

Yes. I recognise the weight of that. If something is really under threat, we normally approach the minister directly.

Perhaps Helen Eadie knows whether the Transport and the Environment Committee intends to consider the matter.

I do not know the urgency of the issue or the time scale. We should send the petition to both the committee and the minister, as a belt-and-braces operation.

There is enormous urgency to this issue. The ferry service was withdrawn after the summer. The situation is desperately affecting the local economy, as people do not know whether to prepare brochures and local tourist attractions and hotels cannot be properly advertised.

Can we agree to send the petition to the minister for urgent consideration, and copy it to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its information?

Was this not the subject of a ministerial question last week?

Yes. The contract is being put out to tender.

Has Sarah Boyack replied to the question that was put to her? If so, it would be helpful to have a wee look at that. The petition should be passed to the minister, but she may already have addressed the issue.

If the petition is to be passed to the Transport and the Environment Committee, it might be useful—although this might not be part of our developing remit—to ask Mr McLean whether he has anything to add that might help the committee to decide on the urgency of the matter.

Perhaps the petition should be sent to the Rural Affairs Committee as well, given that a remote rural area would be seriously affected by the withdrawal of the service.

If we send the petition to the minister, asking her to respond, we can send copies of it to the Transport and the Environment Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee for their information. We can also write back to the petitioner, asking whether he has any evidence to support the urgency of this matter.

That would be helpful.

We could point out that there are more than 3,000 signatures on the petition.

Okay. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The final petition, PE189, is from St Michael's parish church, on marriage guidelines.

St Michen's.

St who?

St Michen.

St Michen's? It looks like St Michael's to me. Never mind.

The petition calls for guidelines that affirm the centrality of marriage to a family society in the legislation that is to replace section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. As the Local Government Committee is dealing with this matter, it is recommended that we refer this petition to that committee, to take it into consideration when it deals with that part of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Bill. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.