Public Petitions Committee, 12 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Official Report 360KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Domestic Abuse Policy (PE644)

Good morning and welcome to the seventh meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in the second session of Parliament. We have a busy agenda, so we will crack on.

The first petition that we must consider is PE644, on the Government's domestic abuse policy, in the name of Mr Keith Cowan, on behalf of Outright Scotland. The petitioners call on the Parliament to urge the Executive to develop its current gender-based policy on domestic abuse to include all other forms of abuse that take place in domestic settings. Keith Cowan and Brian Dempsey are here to give a brief presentation in support of the petition.

I declare an interest as a patron of Outright Scotland.

Thank you, Mike. That is important.

I welcome Keith Cowan and Brian Dempsey, who have three minutes for their presentation. Members will then have the opportunity to ask questions on issues that are raised. Mark Ballard MSP is also here to speak.

Good morning. I thank members for giving us their time.

I represent Outright Scotland, which is a small and unfunded lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organisation that has a long history of successful campaigning in Scottish society.

We would like to make four points about our petition, which members will have read. First, domestic abuse that women suffer at the hands of men is a serious problem in Scotland and resources are needed to tackle it—we have no argument at all about that.

Secondly, every year, thousands of female victims of women, male victims of men and male victims of women report having been assaulted by their partners. Therefore, domestic abuse does not affect exclusively female victims of men.

Thirdly, the operation of the current gender-based definition of domestic abuse has the unintended effect of marginalising other minority victims of abuse, which also leaves their children unprotected. Last, we believe that no victim of domestic abuse deserves to be made invisible in the fight to end domestic abuse in Scotland.

We ask Parliament to consider such concerns, to consult on a way forward and to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse are recognised and supported. That consideration might be undertaken by a committee's taking evidence from LGBT groups, the police and experts in family law—perhaps one of the justice committees could do it. We are happy to answer questions and to be constructively involved in future deliberations.

Does Mark Ballard want to say something before we move to questions from committee members?

It is clear that the petitioners are not asking for replacement of the current policy. They have made it clear that they support the work of the Executive and organisations such as Scottish Women's Aid. Compared with men, 10 times as many women suffer from domestic violence—we ought not to underestimate the scale of the problem that is faced by women throughout Scotland. The petitioners call for provision that would tackle the problems that are faced by the small minority of men who face domestic violence. Such provision would be additional to current provision for domestic violence. I am here to support the petition, which would add to existing Scottish Executive policy rather than undermine or contradict it.

Good morning. I am losing my voice, so please excuse me if it goes. I remember from the short time that I was on the Equal Opportunities Committee that there was a commitment that LGBT issues would be considered in a much wider scope. I would have imagined that this issue would be part of that. Has the Equal Opportunities Committee considered any issues related to your petition?

We are not aware that it has. We raised our concerns with the Scottish Executive equal opportunities unit, which agreed that there is a problem that should be examined. All that we are aware of is that there has been an acknowledgement that research is needed.

In the middle of 2002, the Executive conducted some research into domestic abuse against men in Scotland and only a small section of the conclusion to that research refers to LGBT people. It says:

"Innovative research strategies will also be needed to adequately investigate the extent and nature of abuse experienced by men living with male partners."

I am not aware that that has been acted on in any way. Because Outright Scotland is a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organisation, we are also concerned about lesbians, bisexual and transgender people who experience domestic abuse.

The situation is different in England and Wales, where the Home Office has an inclusive domestic abuse strategy. The Home Office consulted widely on that and it paid an organisation called the Broken Rainbow Forum to conduct specific consultation and research in the LGBT community. That means that the Home Office's guidance on domestic abuse has, for example, specific reference to the needs of transgender people who experience domestic abuse. We are not aware of any similar guidance in Scotland.

You mentioned the research that was done by the Executive. I know that you are a voluntary group, so funding will obviously be difficult for you, but have you done any research into abuse and do you have any figures? I do not see any in our papers. You mentioned the example from England. Do you know how much that cost to set up?

We do not have the resources to do such research. The only statistics that we have come from a statistical bulletin that the Executive produces each year, which reports on recorded domestic abuse in Scotland. I think that a new bulletin is due out now; the most recent one that I have, which was published in October 2002, says that the vast majority of people who experience domestic abuse are women, as Mark Ballard said.

In 2001, 32,509 women reported domestic abuse, although it is likely that there is huge under-reporting of such abuse. The number of men who experienced domestic abuse was 3,260; I argue that there is also likely to be under-reporting by men. The figures for same-sex domestic abuse are unclear. We know that there is under-reporting of all kinds of homophobic crime and that LGBT people have a history of under-reporting. We have not been able to do much research into the extent to which LGBT people experience domestic abuse other than to look at the figures—international comparisons suggest that levels are similar to those in heterosexual relationships.

You mentioned research that was done in England; there is obviously funding there for that. How much would it cost to set up that research?

I do not have those figures with me because I was not expecting to go into much detail at today's meeting. We are not looking for the Executive to fund lots of refuges and so on for people who experience domestic abuse. The abuse that women and their children experience will be different from the domestic abuse that men experience, although domestic abuse is experienced by men all over Scotland, no matter who the abuser is. All we are saying is that the domestic abuse strategy and the Scottish Executive's definition of domestic abuse need to be wider then they are.

In having a cross-party group on men's violence against women and children, the Scottish Parliament is taking the approach that we favour. It is saying not that domestic abuse is only men's violence against women, but that although there is men's violence against women, other violence takes place in domestic settings. That is the approach that we favour.

I have a follow-up question to Sandra White's question. I am still trying to get a handle on the number of people who are involved. Can you estimate the scale of the problem? Are we talking about 50, 500 or 2,000 to 3,000 people in a year?

The statistical bulletin for 2001, to which Keith Cowan referred earlier, shows that there were 229 male victims of male perpetrators who reported to the police that they had been victims. There were 133 female victims of female perpetrators who took the trouble to report to the police. That is about 350 people, and I understand that the numbers have been fairly consistent over the years. We may be talking about a relatively small number of cases. If 350 gay men, lesbians and people in same-sex relationships have gone to the police, we may be talking about as few as 600 to 1,000 people in a year.

We do not know how many of those couples have children, although some will, but those adults and children are excluded from some of the protections in law. A child who is living with mixed-sex parents receives greater protection from domestic abuse than a child who is living with same-sex parents, which seems to be unreasonable. I cannot speak for those people, but there is anecdotal evidence from groups in Scotland that there is a problem. Even if the number of victims is between 500 and 1,000 people a year, those people are still suffering to the extent that they report to the police. It may be a small number, but it is not a minuscule number.

You say that children who live with adults who are in same-sex relationships might not enjoy the same protection in law that children who live with people in mixed relationships enjoy. Why should that be? Why should they not enjoy the same protection under the law?

Are you asking what the justification is or what the factual basis is?

Both.

I do not think that there is any justification whatever for telling a child that, because their mother lives with another woman, they are going to be treated differently from a child who lives with mixed-sex parents. I see that some members are shaking their heads. However, I am doing a PhD on family law so I have some knowledge of the matter, although I am not an expert. The Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981—I think in section 18—excludes same-sex couples and their children from the protections in that act. That is primary legislation that treats the children of same-sex couples less favourably than it does the children of either married or cohabiting mixed-sex couples.

I am sympathetic to the aims of your petition and to your trying to identify a strategy and resources to tackle the problem. You want those aims to be included in the domestic abuse strategy. I am sure that you know that the political definition of gender-based domestic abuse was fought for vigorously so that there was recognition that there was a power relationship in society between men and women. That is really important for people who have campaigned for women. There are other issues: violence and abuse of elderly people, for example. Are you keen, for political reasons, to have the aims included in the domestic abuse strategy? Alternatively, do you wish simply to attract resources, draw attention, raise awareness and ensure that rights are protected, but not necessarily under the domestic abuse umbrella?

You mentioned the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on men's violence against women and children. Is there an argument for a specific strategy? You said that some people who experience abuse might have different needs and might not require the same approach, involving Women's Aid. Are more specific strategies needed to deal with abuse of elderly people in the community? What is the emphasis? What is really important to you?

Both aspects are important, but it is difficult to say what comes first. We want all victims of domestic abuse to be included in awareness-raising campaigns, education and training for people who work in the national health service or local authorities so that they get recognition and support. We want people to have the recognition, support and services that they need. It should not be an abstract thing; we should not say, "We recognise you, but we don't give you services."

There are ambiguities in the definition that the Executive has come up with and in how it is applied. All victims should be included in the domestic abuse strategy. We do not know terribly much about this area, but I know that in some discussions some Asian groups have said that the focus on individual male power over the woman does not necessarily reflect their life experiences, in particular those of young women, where the family is important. They sometimes feel excluded by the specific definition.

I would like there to be an inclusive domestic abuse strategy that includes explicitly all victims of domestic abuse. Within that, the biggest and perhaps most important tranche or aspect would be a vigorous, gender-based understanding of the power of men and women in society. I would not equate that with the overall domestic abuse strategy. We have to have an inclusive overall strategy, within which the biggest aspect is men's violence against women, because that reflects the reality of society. It does violence not to include that in the overall strategy.

I know Keith Cowan from an earlier existence, but I have not met Brian Dempsey before.

I have a number of questions. First, although what you said about the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 was accurate, it has nothing to do with the way in which children are treated in the first instance as a consequence of domestic abuse. Naturally, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is the act under which children are given the primary focus. We should be careful not to talk at cross purposes. However, I note what you said. I am pleased that the Executive is to introduce a family law bill during the second session of Parliament—you might need to relearn what you have learned already.

The issue of scale is involved. I recognise the difficulty that you expressed about the figures' being imprecise—we are all troubled by that. The statistics to which you referred were collected for the first time. I understand that the research indicated and underlined that, in something over 90 per cent of cases, we are talking about males perpetrating violence against women.

The remaining 10 per cent covered a variety of cases including those in which women perpetrated violence against men or against other women and in which men perpetrated violence against other men. We have rightly to pay attention to the scale of the problem. I am not saying that your problem does not matter because it is small, but acknowledgement needs to be made of where resources should be concentrated. Is the evidence base satisfactory or does more work need to be done?

My second question is about definitions. You will be aware of the Executive's booklet "Domestic Abuse—There is no excuse", which has been reprinted several times. I would like your comment on the definition of domestic abuse that is included in the booklet:

"It includes all kinds of physical, sexual and emotional abuse within all kinds of intimate relationships. Usually women are abused by men, but it also occurs in same sex relationships and in some cases men are abused by women partners.

Is not that what you are asking for or have I got it wrong?

On the last point about the definition, with respect, I think that you have got it wrong. I understand that most violence is done by men against women and that some men suffer violence at the hands of women. As a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organisation, we are looking for recognition of the fact that women can be abused by women and that men can be abused by men. The definition that you read out is not acceptable to us.

As this part of the definition is critical, I will repeat it:

"Usually women are abused by men, but it also occurs in same sex relationships and in some"—

Right. I beg your pardon. In that case, the definition appears to be acceptable. There has been a change in Scottish Executive documents over the past few years and perhaps lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organisations can take some credit for that. A few years ago, the subject of domestic abuse was seen as being about what men do to women. Nowadays the Executive's position is that it accepts—perhaps reluctantly, I do not know—that domestic violence comes in other forms. The Executive tends to say that before immediately moving on. One example is "Preventing Domestic Abuse: A National Strategy", in which an oblique and somewhat cynical reference is made to other forms of abuse in one paragraph while the rest of the document talks about domestic abuse in terms of abuse by men against women. Such recognition needs to be more than a token. That said, I accept that the definition that Jackie Baillie gave sounds useful.

Jackie Baillie dealt with one of the areas that I wanted to speak about, which is the question of the scale of the problem. The figures that you quoted of 229 male-on-male victims of violence and 133 female-on-female victims might seem to be relatively minor. How much of the country do the figures cover? Is it Scotland as a whole or one part of the country?

They cover incidents that were reported to the police in Scotland as a whole in one year.

So you have done a trawl of Scottish police forces to find out what incidents were reported.

No. The figures are taken from an Executive criminal justice series statistical bulletin. I can read out the reference number if you would like that on the record.

No—as long as the figures are Scotland-wide. I missed that point when you gave the figures. We should draw that point to the attention of the Executive.

I am aware of what the Executive has said. The petition asks for other forms of abuse to be included and I think that the Executive can say that it has done so. Jackie Baillie has demonstrated that by reading from the booklet on domestic abuse. I support what Keith Cowan said: this is not about displacing any current spending. However, there is clearly a need for additional spending. That is the hurdle that has to be cleared when making a case to the Executive.

The Executive is doing work on children and vulnerable adults but this seems to be an area where the Executive is not doing any work. If figures are available for forms of domestic abuse other than male on female, we could make a case that the Executive should reconsider the issue. The Executive will be able to read the official report of the evidence that Brian Dempsey and Keith Cowan have given and we could ask it to comment.

I will take that as a recommendation.

I have read the petition and listened to your evidence, and they seem to be two different things. The petition is wide and not at all precise or focused; but when I listen to you talk it is quite clear—although you must correct me if I am wrong—that your main concern is a justified concern about LGBT relationships. Your petition does not specify that, so what exactly do you want to achieve?

In the first instance, through this committee, we would like there to be a short period of focus on the forms of domestic abuse that are not covered by the definition of domestic abuse as being gender-specific abuse. Our specific interest is in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We argue that those people are being marginalised and made invisible, and we ask that some time, energy and resources be spent on the problem to discover its extent and to identify the awareness, training and services that are required.

We do not come with a list of demands, saying that each local authority housing department must have this particular definition, or that the national health service must take that particular approach. What we are looking for is the support of this committee to find a way for Parliament and perhaps the Executive to spend some time—perhaps only a short time—considering the issue in consultation with LGBT groups and legal authorities such as Professor Norrie. That is what we are asking for today; as to what we will ask for further down the line—I do not know.

That answer reinforces what I was saying: your petition does not ask for specific things. If we were to send the petition to the Executive without any of the back-up information that we have learned today, it would not be at all clear what the Executive was being asked to do.

Mike Watson has recommended that we ask the Executive to consider the points that the petitioners have made this morning.

Mike Watson's suggestion is helpful; the petitioners have been helpful, too. I am aware that the whole area is imprecise. The petitioners refer to a national strategy on domestic abuse, but that idea is quite old and predates the domestic abuse policy. The Executive's thinking has, I know, moved on. We need to be clear about which documents we are referring to and when they came out.

I pick up from what people have said that the subject is imprecise and that we need an accurate evidence base on which to formulate any kind of policy. It would be legitimate to return to the Executive to ask it whether it intends to follow up the research that it has conducted and which suggests that it should do more. That would develop the evidence base and allow us to decide whether, if a problem exists, something needs to be done about it. However, if the scale of the problem is not significant, at least we will know that. That would build on Mike Watson's suggestion.

I agree with the thrust of what Mike Watson and Jackie Baillie said—we must write to the minister. I understand from what has been said that the available funding is targeted at male-on-female domestic abuse. Therefore, there is a problem—although it is not huge—that I do not see being addressed, although others will correct me if I am wrong. That problem means that we should write to ask for the minister's views and to ask whether new funding might be made available to tackle the problem. Is that reasonable?

I invite members to comment. I think that the suggestion is reasonable.

I agree with Mike Watson that the problem exists no matter how small is, but I want the Executive's reply to include women's violence against men. It seems from cases that I have dealt with in surgeries and elsewhere that that is becoming more prevalent. I do not want the subject to be narrowed to include only same-sex couples. As Linda Fabiani was right to say, that is not what the petition asks for. I am concerned about the issues that have been raised, but also about women's violence against men within and outwith marriage. I want that to be included in any correspondence with the Executive and I back Mike Watson's recommendation.

All that I will add to what John Scott said is that the question is not only about resources. We need to develop policy on what is necessary. What resources are needed, and for what? For example, employment policy should ensure that people who are abused have the right to time off work to seek housing and it should ensure that they can transfer their employment. Development of such policies would help, although the needs are complicated and have to be explored.

Is everyone happy with the recommendation that, on behalf of the petitioners, we ask those questions of the minister, which we hope will progress the issue?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioners for giving us their time.

---

Containerisation of Waste (PE661)

Petition PE661 is on the containerisation of waste and is in the name of Mr Iain MacPhail. He calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure effective and detailed consultation by and public accountability of local authorities in implementing containerisation-of-waste programmes. Mr MacPhail is here to make a brief presentation in support of his petition.

I welcome Mr MacPhail. You have three minutes to speak before we ask questions.

I thank the convener and the committee for hearing our petition. I will not read out the petition; I will just outline why we submitted it and what we hope to achieve.

Our petition centres on effective consultation of voters by local authorities. Effective consultation is an important part of modern politics. In this time of supposed voter apathy and a remote policy process, effective consultation provides a good link between policy makers and voters and between service providers and service users. It is the means by which good, relevant and appropriate decisions are made and by which bad decisions are avoided.

As major service providers, local authorities need to consult effectively. By that we mean seeking information or advice from service users and from those who are affected by their policies with a view to providing services that best meet the needs of the communities that they serve. That is achieved by getting out there and finding out people's wants and needs through listening to their input. That should be done in a structured manner that homes in on the most relevant issues. Local authorities should find out the extent to which service users' expectations can be met, given the limited resources that are at their disposal, and go out and provide the service. Local authorities should also reflect on how the consultation process went and act on any areas for improvement.

That is a model of open government that fits with the principles of the Scottish Parliament, which we think should be applied in local politics as well. The open government approach, combined with effective consultation, did not happen in Edinburgh with regard to the policy of the containerisation of waste. Our concern is that some local authorities are unwilling or incapable of ensuring the effectiveness of their consultation procedures in the absence of guidelines from the Scottish Parliament. We ask members to consider that with a view to ensuring that the experience that we had is not repeated elsewhere in Scotland.

The containerisation of waste is a fairly mundane, universal and straightforward issue; it is not complex. We all produce waste and need it to be taken away and some of us want some of it to be recycled. Those are the only issues involved. As such, the issue is a useful benchmark for assessing whether local authorities are indeed committed to effective and proper consultation and accountability. If they cannot get this right, heaven help us when they try to deal with more complex issues.

We can list a number of issues that we raised with the council that the council did not listen to and we could outline flaws in the consultation procedures. However, perhaps it is sufficient to say that the council concluded from its consultation process that the main issue was whether to containerise or not although, if it had listened to us, it would have learned that the issue was how best to containerise, taking into account the needs of the elderly, the infirm, the frail and the disabled, parking considerations, recycling considerations, road traffic considerations, other planning permission considerations and so on. We outlined many such aspects, but the council did not listen. We are concerned that none of that registered.

Without a willing listening ear, a consultation process is rendered useless, pointless and redundant. It seems that some local authorities require guidelines from the Scottish Executive to ensure that their consultation procedures are effective.

Will you clarify for us whether you are opposed to the policy of containerisation?

Far from it.

Therefore, the issue is the siting of the containers and the fact that the local authority did not appear to take on board your views. Is that correct?

This is not a personal issue. Our community called a public meeting at short notice at which there was standing room only. The discussion was about not only where to site the containers but what kind of container would best fit with the area. A lot of elderly, frail and disabled people find it difficult to use the massive containers that eventually arrived. We thought that there were smaller and better alternatives that would also have the effect of encouraging recycling, so we thought that there was room for discussion. We were trying to make constructive points, but we were not listened to.

How often did the council meet members of the community? There is a suggestion that consultation exercises were held in the Dean ward between April and June 2003.

That depends on your definition of effective consultation. A public meeting was called by the Liberal Democrat councillor for the Dean ward but the council executive decided that it did not want to send anyone to the meeting. After some pressure, it sent someone, but the issues that were raised were never taken forward. At the meeting, we were promised that there would be street-by-street consultation, but that never took place. There was no effective consultation as the council did not actually listen to what we were saying.

The points that were raised at the meeting were all fairly relevant and the opinions that were expressed were all constructive. People wanted to play a positive part in the rolling out of a straightforward policy. However, our suspicion is that the raw materials had already been bought by that stage and that there was no room for the council to change its plans if it had listened to us.

Are you saying that there were no public meetings apart from that one?

There was one visit from a council official in May, but I would argue that that was not consultation at all. The visit was not about asking local people's advice or gaining local knowledge, but was basically to say, "We are going to come round in about five weeks' time and put a big black bin at the spot on the road where an X has been written." That is not consultation. There was contact, but not consultation.

Your petition describes the consultation procedures as "incompetent". You then said that there was one public meeting and a visit from an official. If, after that meeting, the City of Edinburgh Council had reversed its decision, would you still have regarded the procedure as incompetent?

We were not seeking to reverse the decision; we were seeking to have the containerisation done in the best possible way for the community. If the council had come to that meeting, listened to us and taken on board what was coming from the people, who just turned up—there was no great amount of organisation—I would have considered that to be a good start. I have said it already today, but I hoped that consultation would be carried out in a structured manner. The consultation process—if you can call it that—was haphazard at best. It was not planned or structured in the way that consultations should be. Consultations should go from A to B to C to D and come up with a conclusion.

My point is that people judge procedures in terms of their efficacy. If they get the result that they want from them, the procedures tend to be acceptable. What would you and the other campaigners in the Dean area have regarded as an acceptable outcome?

We could have gone with green wheelie bins and so on, but that is not important. I would have considered the procedure to have been a success if the council had taken on board what was said, had acknowledged that its processes were flawed and that the process was not properly structured and had been haphazard, and had said that it did not want to repeat that in future consultations. That was the main issue.

Perhaps I am missing something. The petition says that 300 people turned up at a meeting. My impression was that they turned up at that meeting to say that they did not want the black bins, not "We don't mind the black bins but your procedures are flawed." People do not tend to turn up to meetings to say that. Did they not turn up to oppose the bins being placed there in the first place?

I cannot speak for everyone but—

Well, there were 300 people there, Mr MacPhail. They must have come to a view.

Absolutely. With respect, you are going down a blind alley. People turned up to the meeting to talk about bins and containers, but the point is that they had to turn up because they had not been properly consulted. If they had been, we would have needed no meeting; we would have just had a proper consultation. Most people who signed the petition would accept that decisions have to be made, and we live with them. However, the council says that it consulted widely and for a longer period of time than it ever had before. We did not see any evidence of that and that is what got us quite irate. We were quite happy to accept the decision and we support containerisation but we cannot accept what the council says about it having done it as a result of a lengthy consultation process, because that is wrong.

At the end of the petition I notice that you have listed several individuals whom you say you approached. I presume that Tom Ponton is a local councillor.

That is right.

If you are complaining about the process rather than the issue, what has come of those various representations?

Delegations from Dean, Marchmont, Stockbridge and one other ward—I have forgotten the name—were invited to attend the city chambers for a meeting. That was encouraging and went above and beyond my expectations.

When we got there—and I am sure that the minutes will bear this out—I made all the constructive points that I have listed, and some others. Unfortunately, the council's conclusion was that the issue was about choosing whether to containerise or not. It had not listened to us, which is why I would say that that was not consultation either; it was just a sop and we came away thinking, "What was the point of that?"

We would rather not have had the meeting if the intention was to make us think that the council was to take our ideas on board, for it then to bin them. The meeting was haphazard; it was not planned. We turned up that day for no apparent reason. There was never going to be any change by that stage. That was not good consultation and it does not give me confidence in future consultation procedures by that body.

I am not asking the committee to have a go at the City of Edinburgh Council. I just hope to ensure that the Parliament can put something in place that will ensure that such haphazard consultation is not repeated by local authorities throughout Scotland. I hope that councils have more effective, structured and planned consultation procedures.

Are you saying that absolutely no cognisance was taken of the views expressed by the 300 people who turned up at the meeting? I would have thought that that in itself was pretty good and formed part of a relevant consultation.

It is not bad, but it would have been good if the City of Edinburgh Council had organised the meeting. Instead, the local Liberal Democrat councillor organised it off his own bat. After the council sent out a letter saying that residents would get the bins in five weeks' time, people started to get in touch with the councillor to tell him that they had not heard anything about such a decision. Then he—not the council—organised the meeting. Indeed, the council did not even seek to use the meeting as a useful sounding board for public opinion. It was entirely up to the local community. In the end, the council rather reluctantly sent someone along who did not really take our views on board and offered us things such as the street-by-street consultation, which never materialised. I do not find that impressive.

Do you have examples of better practice elsewhere, where you feel that the consultation process has been more thorough?

I do not have any such examples as far as politics and waste containerisation are concerned. However, I have expectations that I think are shared by the whole community. I consult people in my day-to-day work and have to do it a darn sight better than the council has managed to do.

Today, we came up with a list of about 10 issues that will affect the community because of containerisation. The issues are not particularly complex and it would have been easy to find a process that homed in on the relevant matters. Once it was clear that we had all accepted containerisation as a policy per se, the question then should have been about how best to containerise waste instead of simply imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. The solution does not fit all because disabled people cannot reach the bins; frail people find them difficult to use; the bins take up parking space needlessly and so on. Those issues could easily have been overcome with a proper consultation process. We feel that we are on safe ground in making such a contention.

I find it interesting that you say that the bins take up parking space needlessly. Where would you put them?

We could have had different types of bins that fitted the type of housing in our area. For example, we could easily have had the rolled-out green wheelie bins that they have in many other parts of the city and in the country. Those bins can be kept in the back green and do not take up parking space, apart from on collection days. On the other six days, they are not on the street or taking up parking space. Although we made those points at the hastily arranged public meeting and at the meeting in the council chambers, they were never really acknowledged or explored to any level.

You mentioned that objections were raised at the public meeting. What was the subsequent process by which you could submit proposals for alternatives to the black bins? Did you submit any such proposals? What, if any, forums were there for discussing such alternatives with the council? What response did you receive from the council on those alternatives? You say that green wheelie bins are an alternative; however, you have also pointed out that one of the problems with the black bins is the difficulty of access for elderly, frail and disabled people. I am not so sure that green wheelie bins are necessarily the solution for those people either.

After the public meeting, we expected a street-by-street consultation to be carried out. Indeed, we were given a date by which the papers would be sent out. I hasten to say that I do not think that any minutes were taken of the public meeting, so it might be difficult to corroborate that statement. While we waited for the consultation to begin, we got in touch with various council members and the council's environmental department through e-mails and letters—we have submitted that written evidence with the petition—and contacted the local MSP and councillors to try to take the matter forward. We should bear in mind that, by that stage, the time scale for introducing the bins and the particular type of bin that was to be introduced had been decided, which meant that our room for manoeuvre was quite restricted.

We were given the chance to have the four delegations present at the city chambers. The points were made about concerns over recycling and certain members of the community finding the black bins difficult to use. A host of issues was addressed; however, we were not listened to and a conclusion was reached very quickly. A vote was taken and—surprise, surprise—the ruling administration said that, no, the decision was clearly about whether to have containerisation or not. They had not listened.

We tried to pursue the issue in every constructive way with the local council, the environmental and consumer services department and various political groups. However, we did not get anywhere because the decisions had already been made and the raw materials had probably already been bought. There was no listening going on.

I agree with your point about the green wheelie bins. I do not think that they are the world's best thing; however, they are better for most people than the black bins. There are probably ways of finding specific methods of waste disposal for those people in the community who find wheelie bins difficult to use, including the frail and the elderly. Particularly small people find the large bins difficult to use. There must be ways to get round that, but such issues were never explored because, by that stage, it was simply too late.

We tried to go down every possible route before submitting a petition. Some people considered pursuing a class action through the courts. I did not support that idea personally, but they did and that is fine. However, in the end they decided against it for a number of reasons, of which finance was probably one. We came to the Public Petitions Committee because we had explored almost every other avenue that was open to us. To that end, we have included quite a large amount of paperwork with the petition.

As I say, the issue is not the eventual decision. We all appreciate the fact that a decision needed to be made, and black bins have been chosen—that is fine. I can live with the fact that green bins, which I would have preferred, were not chosen. I am able bodied and 6ft tall, so I can use the black bins quite well. What narks us is the process by which that decision was arrived at, which was flawed and haphazard. We do not feel that we were listened to at all.

That aspect of the decision about containerisation has been controversial. Following the making of the decision, have you continued to pressurise the City of Edinburgh Council on the consultation and have there been any follow-up discussions with anyone in the council on the issue?

We have not taken any further action since we submitted the petition.

But between the decision being made and submitting the petition did you have any other meetings with the City of Edinburgh Council to talk about the principal issue of consultation, as opposed to the issue of containerisation?

No, we did not. However, the issue of consultation was a central theme of the meeting in the city chambers as well as of the public meeting that preceded it in the local area. Our displeasure was made keenly known and local councillors have taken the issue forward, as far as I am aware. A number of consultations are presently on the go in Edinburgh and we have expressed our concern to local councillors that we want to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated. In the absence of a public acknowledgement that the process did not go well this time, we do not have confidence that the mistakes will not be repeated—we think that they might well be repeated.

Have you pursued the issue with the chief executive of the council through the formal complaints procedure of the City of Edinburgh Council?

I, personally, have not, although that was made known as a form of action that we could take. I believe that some people have done that, although I could not supply you with their names as I do not know for sure. I have not done that. We have asked our councillors to take forward the issue. It was made pretty clear—directly to the full council meeting when we were invited to the city chambers—that we were unhappy with the consultation procedures. It is not as though we have shied away from making that point; we have made it strongly and more than once. However, I have not pursued the matter through the formal complaints procedure of the City of Edinburgh Council.

When you were invited to the city chambers, whom did you have that meeting with?

The meeting was with the full council. As part of the council meeting, we were invited to make our representations known, so they should have been minuted. As far as I recall, all councillors were in attendance. There were four delegations from the areas in which the policy was being rolled out at that stage.

Do you accept that, as part of the process of trying to work its way towards a new policy, a council can determine a pilot scheme in a particular area? A pilot scheme was undertaken in Polwarth and Merchiston. Are you aware of the outcome of the survey results from those areas? The survey, which was undertaken by Queen Margaret University College, seems to have been very full.

Indeed, but that is not the issue. If I was asked whether I like the black bins, I would say that I do. I am 6ft tall, so I have no difficulty with them whatever. If I have large amounts of waste, I could probably bin it all without anyone knowing—although perhaps I should not say that on the record. I actually find the black bins okay. What I do not like about them is the fact that there is a feeling that they were imposed when they need not have been.

The policy could have been rolled out better in a number of ways. We could have had the best containerisation possible for our area. Along with most others, I do not think that the black bins are the best option. They leave certain issues outstanding, one of which is the recycling agenda. The bigger the bin, the less recycling goes on. We made that point clearly to the council, but we never received an adequate answer, if any answer at all, to that point.

Do you accept that the pilot evaluation, which was carried out as part of the consultation procedure, showed that 93 per cent of the survey respondents saw the new scheme as a major improvement? Perhaps that was part of how the council considered the issue.

Also, although I am not an Edinburgh MSP, from visiting people in Edinburgh regularly I know that the green bins would not be workable in many areas, as they could not be wheeled straight out from the back green. If people need to go down a flight of many steps and then up some more steps to get to the back green, the green bins would just not be feasible.

They would have been feasible in our case. That is exactly the kind of thing that we hoped for. We had hoped to have a good two-way discussion about the pros and cons of different types of solutions and about which would be most appropriate for our area. In our case, that would have been the green bins, but you are right that they would not have been appropriate in many other areas. The council should have explored the options rather than adopting the one-size-fits-all approach.

Our one concern about the Queen Margaret University College survey was that respondents were offered, I think, £10 to respond. We thought that that might have influenced their decision to be extremely positive about the bins. We might be wrong in that respect, although I doubt it. Again, when we went to the city chambers, we made the point that we were not sure about the reliability of the statistics for that reason.

Either way, the point is not about whether the policy has been implemented well or badly elsewhere. The point is that, before a policy is rolled out, there should be proper consultation that is relevant to those people whom it will affect in the near future. That did not happen. I do not necessarily have a problem with the fact that other people like the bins or with how the policy was rolled out. If people like them, that is great and that is how it should be. However, when a new policy is being introduced in different areas, the people who will be directly affected need to be consulted. Part of that consultation might be to show that the proposal has worked out fine elsewhere, but the council did not even do that. There was no two-way consultation. There was no listening and no exchange of ideas.

I want to get an exchange of ideas now on exactly what the committee should do with the petition. I want to move this forward.

Convener, thank you for allowing me to ask all those questions. Perhaps in the first instance we could write to City of Edinburgh Council to ask for its perspective on the claims that have been made against it this morning. We need to hear the council's view.

What do members think?

We should also ask the council whether its procedures are the same as those used by other local authorities, particularly urban local authorities.

I think that there are sufficient grounds to be concerned about the consultation. The petition is obviously from an articulate and well-mobilised community but I am concerned about communities that are not so articulate and well mobilised. If the consultation process was flawed, that raises questions in my mind about how consultations are conducted in other communities. I do not mean any offence by that. We should seek answers to those questions—from the council, in the first instance.

Are members happy with the suggestion that we should write to City of Edinburgh Council to ask for information? Was Mike Watson's other suggestion that we write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities?

I do not know to whom we would write. We could ask City of Edinburgh Council whether, as far as it is aware, its procedures are the same as other—

Perhaps we could write to the Executive to ask for an overview of consultations.

I think that it would be appropriate to start with Edinburgh because, like any local authority, it will benchmark its processes against others. Asking Edinburgh is probably sufficient.

We will take it from there. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

European Union Constitutional Treaty (PE673)

Our next petition is PE673, which is in the name of Mr Alex Orr. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to hold a consultative referendum of the Scottish people on the finalised European Union constitutional treaty, prior to ratification by the Westminster Parliament. Mr Orr is here to make a presentation to the committee. He is joined by Phil Gallie MSP, who is present to support the petition.

Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me here today.

Petition PE673 is on another area of consultation. For many people, the proposed European Union constitutional treaty that is being debated at the intergovernmental conference spells an end to British sovereignty. Headlines signal the constitution as a blueprint for tyranny and the creation of a federal super-state but, for some, it is merely a tidying-up exercise.

The Prime Minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose country intends to hold a referendum on the matter, said:

"The EU's constitution is so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it."

The British Prime Minister has even said that the constitution would

"define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe and the prospects for the euro and would last for generations".

The purpose of my petition is to propose that the finalised constitution should be put to the Scottish people in a consultative referendum before ratification by Westminster. As it becomes clear that a United Kingdom referendum on the constitution will not take place, I believe that the Scottish Parliament and the Executive have a golden opportunity to address the democratic deficit that exists between the European Union and Scotland, to give the Union clearer democratic legitimacy and to make Scotland's views known to Westminster pre-ratification.

One of the purposes behind the drafting of the constitution by a convention was to bring the EU closer to its citizens. One way of re-engaging people with, and informing them about, the EU would be to involve them in a debate by giving them a real decision to make about the future of the EU—their Union. Do they favour the direction in which it is going, which involves the ceding of sovereignty in areas such as a common foreign and security policy, asylum, immigration and the extension of qualified majority voting in some areas?

Ultimately, the constitution is a founding document for the EU. It formulates a vision for Europe and, as with any constitution, that is something that should go to the people for approval. One cannot have a constitution without popular consent. Surely now—30 years after we joined—would be an appropriate moment to rehearse the benefits of membership of the EU with the Scottish people in a referendum. In fact, the first line of the draft constitution begins with the phrase:

"Reflecting the will of the citizens".

It would therefore be strange for politicians alone to take this country into a new constitutional arrangement that claims to reflect the will of the people without asking them first.

If we are also to accept that popular sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland—parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept—it is surely right to ask the people of Scotland whether they favour the further pooling or transfer of sovereignty that the treaty would bring, and the direction that the EU is taking, which I mentioned earlier.

The strong tradition of holding referendums in Scotland reflects the notion of popular sovereignty. In addition to the 1979 and 1997 referenda on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, there was the 1994 Strathclyde water referendum. Since the current Government came to power, more than 30 referenda have been held on subjects such as the appointment of mayors and the establishment of this Parliament. It is surely time to ask the people of Scotland—or, failing that, the people of the UK—their opinion on the EU constitution, which is a founding document for a new, enlarged European Union. I urge us to trust the people on that.

I congratulate Mr Orr on much of what he has said—I agree with probably around 80 per cent of it. However, perhaps we differ in that I think it futile to support a purely Scottish referendum and not to press the Executive to urge the UK Government to hold a wider UK referendum.

That said, everything that Mr Orr says about what the effects of the constitution would be is absolutely correct. We are talking about the total erosion of sovereignty and of powers—those of the UK and, in part, those of the Scottish Parliament. The constitution would directly affect economic and legal matters that are within the Scottish Parliament's powers. The committee should take what Mr Orr has said very much to heart and perhaps look back to the debate that was held in the Scottish Parliament just a few weeks ago in which the Executive was urged to make representations to the Westminster Parliament to hold a UK referendum on such an important issue.

I welcome Alex Orr, but wonder whether the petition is part of his bid to be a candidate for the European Parliament elections. I am sure that he will say that it is not, but I suspect that it is.

I ask Alex Orr to comment on the fact that the negotiations that have been taking place are essentially about tidying up the European treaties that have been developed over the past 30-odd years. The new nations that want to join the European Union need a clear document to refer to, rather than the vast mountains of tomes that are the treaties. Anyone who has seen the treaties that have been developed over many years will understand why we need a concise and clear document. The matter is not about entering into new constitutional arrangements, but about providing clarity on existing treaties that have been agreed.

There are two ways in which to answer such questions. I have the constitution document with me; it is not bedside reading, but I urge members to have a quick look at it. The exercise that we are discussing is not simply a tidying-up exercise—even the Prime Minister admitted that when he said that it is more important than issues such as Iraq and the euro. The document is a defining document—it will be a constitution for Europe. Extension of qualified majority voting is proposed in a substantial number of areas, including in respect of border controls, asylum, immigration and the development of a common foreign and security policy. We are talking about a founding document for a new, enlarged European Union. If the Danes, the Irish, the Spanish, the Portuguese and the people of the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for example, can hold referenda, it is time that we ask the UK Government—which has made it clear that it does not intend to hold a referendum—to do so, or hold a referendum on such an important document for the Scottish people, with whom sovereignty lies.

In 1974, I took part in the referendum campaign for a yes vote. Doing so was unpopular in my party, but I have never regretted it, as I am an international socialist as well as a Scottish socialist.

Are you sure?

Yes—I was long before you were around, Carolyn, and probably will still be when you are not around.

On the constitutional settlement, some issues that Alex Orr mentions—including issues relating to border controls—have been included in treaties, such as the Schengen agreement. He has not raised new issues apart from, perhaps, one that is part of the discussions and which relates to defence policy. However, it could be argued that that issue is not about a constitutional arrangement. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

A substantial extension of qualified majority voting has been proposed—I have a list of the areas that are being moved into. I am not saying that I have difficulty with those areas, although Phil Gallie will probably say that he has difficulties with them.

For the first time, we are putting into one concise document—a founding document—a constitution for the European Union. We, as the people, must decide whether we are happy with that constitution and with the direction in which the EU is moving. We have not had this debate since 1975. We need to re-engage people with Europe and with what the EU means to them. If we do not, we will lose generations of people who know what the EU stands for and how they are involved in it. The draft constitution could provide a fantastic catalyst for such a debate. If politicians showed leadership on the issue, we could do away with euroscepticism, put the facts on the table and have an open, frank and honest exchange of views.

I am conscious of the fact that this is a very political issue. We are not debating whether we support the draft EU constitution. We are here to discuss what we should do with the petition that Mr Orr has submitted. I would like members to concentrate on what we are here to discuss.

I declare that I know Alex Orr because of a shared political interest. However, I will not be political when dealing with the petition.

You are probably aware that there is much cross-party support for your idea. Phil Gallie may want Westminster to give us a referendum, but we know that it will not do so. As you know, Nicola Sturgeon is proposing to lodge a member's bill on the issue. On 9 September, Andy Kerr intimated that he might wish to engage the Scottish people in some form of dialogue on the constitution.

I want to ask you about the petition and your reasons for submitting it, some of which you have stated. You mentioned that we have not had a referendum on Europe since we entered the EU. Do you believe that engaging the people in a referendum on the issue for the first time in 30 years would encourage them to find out more about Europe and the EU? Would it encourage them to participate more in the electoral process? Obviously, you believe that people must have a say in the new constitution. However, would holding a referendum be beneficial to the Scottish people in other ways?

Absolutely. If we want the Parliament to be open, transparent and accessible, we must trust the people on certain fundamental issues. I judge this to be an issue of fundamental importance to the sovereignty of the nation state. As Sandra White says, a referendum would also re-engage people in the political process. It would inform them about the European Union and what it stands for.

As I have already said, it would allow us to have an open, honest and frank debate about the European Union and what it means, instead of the constant Euroscepticism of much of the media, which brushes the issues under the carpet and prevents us from having the debate that we, as a nation, need to have. If we do not have it, the polls will continue to show that we have the lowest level of knowledge and awareness of the European Union and a continual stream of scare stories will appear about issues ranging from the wearing of kilts to the requirement to have car headlights on during the day.

I want to ask a number of specific questions. First, I understand that all previous EU treaties have been subject to the constitutional process of a parliamentary vote at Westminster. Is that correct?

Yes.

Secondly, the UK's approach to the treaty is outlined in the white paper. Mindful of what the convener has said, I will try not to stray too much from the petition. However, does the white paper contain anything from which you dissent?

The white paper is hazy on a number of issues. For example, it makes no mention of exclusive competence over fisheries, control of which will passed to Brussels lock, stock and barrel under the common fisheries policy. Like a number of members of parties that are represented in the Scottish Parliament, I have serious concerns about that issue. There are also problems with the energy section of the draft constitution. I have serious concerns about the future of the Scottish energy sector and the development of the oil industry in Scotland. The white paper is also vague on issues relating to taxation, defence and social security. It is a very vague document. I am sure that Jackie Baillie has read it, but I invite her to do so again. There is a very large framework within which one can opt to exercise a veto or to move to qualified majority voting.

I would like to pursue the issue, but I am conscious of the convener's injunction. You talk about increased democratic legitimacy and reconnecting the European Parliament with the people by making it a bit more interesting. Are not the European Parliament elections the place to discuss the constitution?

Although the European parliamentary elections are an opportunity, they are not a debate about the constitution, but a debate about which party the public wants to represent them in Brussels. We must try to engage people in a broader debate about the European Union, which is where the constitution comes in. A referendum would not simply involve people voting for a parliamentary party out of tradition, without knowing fully what they are voting for, as happens at the European parliamentary elections. We should engage the public in a debate on a single document with which they can identify and which they can either commit to or vote against.

I am absolutely astonished by some members' comments and by their refusal to acknowledge that fundamental democratic issues are at stake in the discussion of the European constitution. I confess that I have not read the draft constitution, but I am aware of some of the issues that are at stake. I wonder why there is a fear of the people's verdict. I do not have a problem with the fact that Alex Orr will be a candidate in the European Parliament elections; that should not be a barrier to Mr Orr's presenting one, given that MSPs can present petitions.

A suggested alternative to a Scottish consultative referendum is to apply pressure on the UK Government to hold a UK-wide referendum. What would be the political difference between a referendum in Scotland and a UK-wide referendum? Do we need to separate out consultation in Scotland? Strong national interests are obviously involved. Can you envisage a scenario in which a consultative referendum in Scotland comes out as opposed to the constitution, whereas a UK-wide referendum comes out in favour of it? Is it necessary to explore that potential difference?

You raise a number of issues. Scotland has a strong tradition of referenda, because of the belief—which dates back to the declaration of Arbroath—that sovereignty lies with the people. Parliamentary sovereignty is really an English concept. As the constitution would clearly involve ceding or pooling sovereignty, the issue must be put to the Scottish people.

Representations were made to the UK Government before the production of the white paper, but the white paper makes no mention of the concerns that many Scottish parliamentarians have on issues such as exclusive competence over fisheries, which is a topical issue. I believe that the UK Government has not raised that issue at the intergovernmental conference. Because of the oil fields, there is a particular emphasis on energy matters in Scotland, but, again, such matters are not raised in the white paper, which is a vague document.

Specific Scottish issues must be identified and explored. I feel that the way in which to do that is to re-engage people through a consultative referendum to get their views. That referendum would not be binding; it would simply give to Westminster the Scottish people's views on the constitution. However, if the vote were overwhelmingly against the constitution, that would have resonance because a part of the UK would have expressed a strong opinion on the matter.

The UK Government has made it clear that the decision will be taken in the UK not by a referendum, but by the UK Parliament. We have a golden opportunity to engage people on the issue through a referendum of the Scottish people.

Like Sandra White, I know Alex Orr although, unlike Sandra, not through a political contact.

I am a bit puzzled by the proposal. Alex seems to overestimate the effect that such a vote in Scotland would have on those who make the decisions at Westminster or in Whitehall. I think that, if such a referendum were held, it would be ignored by the UK Government. I am certain that that would be announced even before it took place, irrespective of the result. I do not, therefore, see that a referendum will achieve anything.

I know that Alex Orr is a pro-European, unlike Phil Gallie. By and large, those who advocate a referendum on this issue or on the issue of the euro—although I understand that Alex is not in that camp—want a decision on whether we should stay in the European Union. There is a bit of dishonesty in the position of a lot of people who call for a referendum. Alex says that there is a tradition of referendums in Scotland but, although I have passed the golden age of 50, I can remember only two. One was the referendum that established the Scottish Parliament; the other was the Strathclyde water referendum in which I got to participate—although others did not—because I lived in Strathclyde. I do not, therefore, understand how Alex can claim that there is a tradition of referendums.

We have not had a tradition of referendums in this country since we joined the European Union. None of the major states is holding referendums, although some of the smaller states and accession states are doing so. I wonder why you feel that a referendum would be especially appropriate here, other than perhaps to cause a divide between the views of people in Scotland and the views of those in other parts of the UK, which would not serve the purposes of anyone except those who are in favour of having a separate Scotland.

You ask two questions. I would count nations such as Spain and the Netherlands as being fairly major European nations. It appears that a considerable number of the European nations—in fact, the vast majority—will hold referenda. It is proposed that France will hold one, and I would consider France a fairly major European nation.

Leadership is required on the issue of a referendum. In 1975, six months before the referendum there was a 2:1 majority in favour of withdrawal from the European Community; however, by the time that the referendum came, there was a 2:1 majority in favour of remaining in the European Community. The issue requires leadership and needs politicians to go out and put the arguments for our being in the EC or our withdrawing from the EC honestly, openly and transparently. That is an issue of leadership.

Of course, it is open to Westminster to disregard a referendum of the Scottish people. The UK Parliament is the parliament of the member state, and it is UK parliamentary sovereignty that will, ultimately, decide the future of the treaty. Nevertheless, a referendum could be undertaken as a consultative exercise for Westminster to take or leave. It would be simply another method of consultation, the results of which Westminster could act on or disregard, as it wanted.

Carolyn Leckie talked about those of us who are not in favour of a referendum seeming to have a fear of the view of the population. I make it clear that that is not the case.

Alex Orr mentioned the referendum in 1975. Helen Eadie said that she was very pro-Europe in 1975, but I was anti-Europe in that referendum. My view has changed and I am now pro-Europe. I remember that the media played a huge part in that campaign in influencing the figures that you mentioned. However, it seems that the coin has now flipped. Could not the media—certainly the right-wing media—whip up a campaign that would get us into all sorts of political issues around the basic question of whether we should be in or out of Europe? I know that, if the question were decided on that basis, that would not meet with your personal views on Europe. How would that serve us? It would be divisive. For that reason, I am not in favour of such a referendum or of a referendum on the euro.

Sovereignty does not lie with the media in this country; it lies with—

Well, we ignore the media at our peril.

We cannot say that we do not want a referendum because the media are against the treaty.

But they distort the issue.

If we had taken that view on a number of things—for example, if the media had been against the Scottish Parliament—

Can we stick to the purpose of the petition, please?

We have to trust the people and the politicians. The politicians have to go out and put the case for a referendum. The fact that we are a wee bit feart of the media is no argument for our abrogating our responsibility in that department.

May I just clarify something? I am not going to ask another question.

It is not a question of being feart of the media; it is a question of being afraid of the arguments not being allowed to emerge in their own right, but being swamped by the whole question of whether we should be in or out of Europe.

We have to start to think about what we should do with the petition. People will have their views on whether referenda are good or not, but we should start to look at where we go from here. Linda Fabiani has not commented yet and Phil Gallie, as a supporter of the petition, wanted to make a comment. After that, I want to hear from members about what we should do with the petition.

I have a comment rather than a question. It strikes me that we do not have a written constitution in the UK, and I imagine that, once Scotland is independent, we will have a written constitution and a bill of rights that will be agreed by the people. I am interested in whether members feel that the UK or Scotland should have a constitution that cannot be voted on by the people. Why should we have a constitution, some elements of which directly impact on aspects of Scottish life, on which people are not given the right at least to express an opinion through a referendum?

Thank you. Phil Gallie is next. After that, I want to get suggestions about what we should do with the petition.

Before we decide the outcome of the petition, I remind the committee of a couple of things. First, Andy Kerr, a Scottish Executive minister, gave a commitment to finding a way of consulting the people of Scotland to sound out opinions on the matter. That is an important argument with respect to the point that Alex Orr made. The second point that I would like members to take aboard is that it is the responsibility of every politician to try to encourage participation in elections. At the previous European elections, there was a 25 per cent turnout in Scotland. I suggest that a referendum on the issue could well awaken interest once again and have a positive result with respect to increasing electoral responsibility.

I emphasise that my argument is not about whether we are in or out of Europe. The arguments based on what we have done before are questionable. Looking back, I think that it was great folly that the Conservative Government did not go for a referendum on the Single European Act and did not try to make people understand what was in that act. Had it done so, perhaps the outcome would have been different from a situation in which members of all the political parties appear to have signed on blindly.

I return to my point. If the committee decides not to go down the route of a Scottish referendum, I ask it to make further representation through Jack McConnell to the UK Government for pressure for a UK referendum on this extremely important issue.

I see that Carolyn Leckie has a comment to make, but I would like to get suggestions about what we should do.

I will make suggestions as to what we should do, but my astonishment has increased since Mike Watson's acknowledgment that Westminster and Whitehall would ignore an expression of opinion in Scotland and that there is therefore no point in having a referendum. That fits with my political analysis, but it is astonishing that a Labour MSP is willing to accept that, if the Scottish people express an opinion against the European constitution, Whitehall will ignore it. That is also my belief, but it is quite remarkable that that has been acknowledged.

The idea that we cannot trust the outcomes of a referendum because of media influence must surely apply to the Labour Party getting in at the most recent election.

That was not a referendum.

It is astonishing and paternalistic to say, "Don't ask the people because they're unduly influenced by the media. We'll just not bother asking them." That is so anti-democratic that it beggars belief.

We should move forward. It has been suggested that we ask Andy Kerr what he intends to do following his comments. I do not think that we should stop at that, but I am not exactly sure what the process would be. Would it be the European and External Relations Committee that would consider the matter and would it have the apparatus to be able to enact the petition in the event of the Executive not supporting a consultative referendum in Scotland? I need to understand that a bit better, but it is my view that the petition would certainly have to go to that committee in the absence of a positive response from the Executive.

I did not follow the debate in that committee but I can only assume—for the minister to have made the comments that he did—that that committee must have discussed the issue with him. The recommendation is that we ask the Scottish Executive for its views. Andy Kerr told the European and External Relations Committee that he wanted to engage in some form of dialogue; perhaps we could ask him to expand on that and tell us what he feels.

For the record, I have a very friendly relationship with Alex Orr. We work very closely together in the European Movement. As Mike Watson said, what distinguishes Alex Orr, Mike Watson and me from Phil Gallie is that we are trying to make progress, become more involved with Europe, and engage with European people.

I agree that we should write to the Minister for Finance and Public Services. However, it was wrong of Alex Orr to suggest that there had been no engagement on a number of issues at Commission level or among MEPs. Gisela Stuart came to Scotland and spoke at a meeting. I do not know whether Alex was there, but she went into detail on all the specific working groups that had been set up. She chaired one of the working groups—on local government. Politicians from other countries chaired the other working groups and they addressed many of the issues.

Alex Orr talked about a founding document. It is not a founding—

We do not really need a debate on points that have been raised. We need to come to a conclusion.

Okay.

I agree with your decision, convener, and we should take it on board. It is not right that MSPs are allowed to attack verbally the comments of a petitioner, whoever they are. We should not be allowed to do that.

I echo what Carolyn Leckie said about Mike Watson's comments. It is indicative of the views of Mike and perhaps the Labour Party that he should say that the Scottish people mean nothing.

We do not need any more political comments.

I am sorry, but, convener—

Please, I am trying not—

I know, but you allowed Mike Watson to say, basically, that we could not trust the Scottish people and you never came in on that.

No, I did not. I allowed him to make some personal comments but—

I think that you have to look at that. If Labour politicians are allowed to get away with saying, basically, that the Scottish people have no sovereignty—

Sandra, please.

We are allowed to stick up for the Scottish people and—

Sandra—

I would ask you to take that on board.

Sandra, you asked me to take on board the point about not scoring political points, but you proceeded to score political points.

I am sorry, but you should have said the same to your Labour colleague at the beginning.

Excuse me, but I do not think that anyone can ask me to take action against those who make political comments and then go on to make political comments themselves. To get some fairness in this, I ask members to agree that we should ask Andy Kerr to expand on his comments. We will then be able to consider his response and consider the petition further. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

We should ask him for his views on a consultative referendum as well.

Yes—I will take one more comment from the petitioner before we wrap this up.

I wrote to Jack McConnell and received a letter in response that I am quite happy to submit to the committee. The last sentences of the letter are:

"The Executive will continue to work to represent Scottish interests throughout the Intergovernmental Conference on the Draft Treaty which is currently underway. Following the conclusion of the IGC, the Treaty will be ratified according to UK procedures."

I read that out simply to clarify the Scottish Executive's position.

The minister responsible has made his comments and we want to know whether he will expand on them. That has been agreed by the committee. I thank Alex Orr for his attendance this morning.

---

Wind Farms (Planning and Environmental Procedures) (PE664)

Christine Grahame MSP is here and we are in the part of the meeting where we take evidence from petitioners so, if members agree, we will go to petition PE664, on proposed wind farm developments. The petition was submitted by Christine Grahame on behalf of constituents in her area who are concerned about proposals to locate a wind farm at Minch moor, which they claim will involve the siting of 14 100m-high turbines close to the village of Walkerburn and the southern upland way.

The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the planning and environmental procedures for proposed wind farm developments in Scotland and the impact of such developments on valued areas of internationally recognised recreational countryside. The petitioner is aware that the committee is unable to become involved in local planning matters. Members will recall that the committee recently agreed formally to refer PE493 and PE559, which raise similar issues about wind farms, to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. That committee has agreed to consider them as part of its future inquiry into renewable energy in Scotland.

A members' business debate, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on planning issues relating to the siting of wind farms, was held in Parliament as recently as 6 November.

Would Christine Grahame like to comment?

It is very kind of you to allow me to comment. I will be brief, after such an exciting debate.

The members' business debate on 6 November was interesting. I will highlight a couple of points that were raised, as I do not think that committee members have the Official Report of the debate in front of them.

The main problem for the people in Walkerburn and for people elsewhere in Scotland who have raised similar petitions is that there does not appear to be a national framework for wind farms. We are having ribbon development. My understanding is that if developers go below 50MW—I may have got the energy level wrong—they do not have to come to the Scottish Executive with the plans. In his response to the debate, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning stated:

"Central to many speeches that were critical of the existing planning framework was the argument that central Government should lay down a strategic framework for where wind farm development should take place. In fact, existing planning policy allows councils to do precisely that."—[Official Report, 6 November 2003; c 3123.]

Therein lies the rub. It is the councils that are doing it. In the debate the minister gave examples of different practices in different councils throughout Scotland. That is what the petitioners were aiming their petition at. Wind farm development is becoming very expansive. I understand that there are 33 applications in the Borders; development is focused on that area because of the accessibility to the national grid. Many such developments are going on, not only in the Borders, but there does not seem to be a level playing field throughout Scotland. The minister did not address that issue in his speech in the debate. I draw that debate to members' attention, as I do not think that the Official Report of it is included in the papers that they will have before them when they consider their recommendation.

Thank you. I point out that all the points that Christine Grahame has made were the basis of the petitions that came forward previously. We referred all those petitions to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for its consideration as part of its forthcoming inquiry into renewable energy in Scotland. I do not want to prevent any members who have anything to say on the petition from speaking, but I am trying to make up some time as we have had extended debates on other petitions. Do members accept the recommendation that the petition should go, as did the other two petitions on the matter, to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for its consideration?

Members indicated agreement.

I add that the committee should draw attention to the minister's response, which did not deal with the issue at the heart of the matter—that there should be a national strategic framework rather than having councils set the strategy for their area. That is the main point.

One of the previous petitions raised that specific point.

Okay.

All the points have been addressed by the other petitions.

The argument that Christine Grahame is putting forward could be replicated throughout the country. The issue is exercising the minds of representatives of local authorities throughout the land.

Christine Grahame argues in the petition that the wind farm would be detrimental to an environmentally sensitive area. The same argument could put forward throughout most of Scotland. I am sure that the planning process would take into account the perceived impact that the proposed wind farms might have on wildlife in the area. There is not a great problem. The Executive and the Enterprise and Culture Committee are giving the matter due consideration and I am sure that a solution that is satisfactory to all will be arrived at.

We will wait and see what the Enterprise and Culture Committee does on the issue. We will send the petition to that committee as it is examining the issue anyway and the petition adds to the petitions that have previously come before the committee.

---

Children with Learning Difficulties (Support and Information) (PE663)

Petition PE663 is on support services for parents of children with learning or behavioural problems, and is in the name of James A Mackie, on behalf of Overload Network. The petitioners call on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the need for support and information services for parents of children with learning difficulties and behavioural problems is recognised by the Executive.

The petition was submitted on behalf of Overload Network, which is a UK charity that disseminates information on prescribed drugs and non-drug treatments to parents who have children with learning difficulties and/or behavioural problems. The petitioners are concerned that there has been a marked increase in the number of parents who are contacting the organisation to report that children as young as two years of age are being prescribed powerful psychotropic drugs, often to treat conditions for which there is no definitive medical or biological test.

The petitioners are particularly concerned that parents are being informed neither of the serious side effects of such drugs, nor of the availability of safe alternatives, thus undermining the principles of informed choice and consent. They therefore request that the Parliament urge the Executive to ensure that accurate information on any potential risk from drugs and on non-pharmaceutical alternatives is available to parents of children with learning difficulties and behavioural problems, and that administrative support is available to groups that seek to provide such information.

The Executive appears to have recognised that there is a gap in information services for people with learning difficulties, and is funding the Scottish accessible information forum to co-ordinate a national strategy to ensure that all information is accessible to people with disabilities and their carers. However, the current stage of that work is unclear, and it is unclear how it might link with other information services that are provided by the Scottish Consortium for Learning Disability, Update and Enquire.

Members will recall that the committee has considered a number of petitions submitted by Mr Mackie on related topics. I welcome members' comments.

Your last comment dictates what we should do, which is to link this petition with the other ones that have been submitted, and ask the Executive for a response. We should also ask the Executive to be fairly specific about the issue, rather than widen it out—as we have done in the past—to children with disabilities, carers and so on. I would like specific responses to the issues that Overload Network has raised. When we receive a response, we can consider it in the round.

Do other members have any comments or is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE665, in the name of George Lyon, has been withdrawn.

---

Dangerous Dogs (PE666)

We move to petition PE666—I do not want people to read too much about devil dogs into that. How sad it is that I noticed that.

It says something about you.

This petition is on dangerous drugs—

Dogs.

Sorry. I am getting confused. It is in the name of Mr Frank Harvey, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to protect people in Scotland from being attacked and savaged by dangerous dogs. The petitioner is concerned that despite considerable discussion on the topic among politicians, effective action to prevent the increasing number of attacks on the public by dangerous dogs has yet to be taken. The petitioner believes that all large dogs, particularly those that are bred for fighting or guard duties, should be muzzled at all times to protect the public from attack. He also argues that dog owners who fail to adhere to that should be prosecuted and have their dogs destroyed immediately after an attack.

The petitioner previously submitted two other petitions on this topic—PE59 and PE219. The Executive's responses to PE59 in September 2001 and to PE219 in November 2000 explained that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 makes it an offence for anyone in charge of a dog to allow it to be dangerously out of control in a public place. The Executive also confirmed that it considers the current legislation to be effective, and that it has no plans to introduce any new or amending legislation. Do members have any comments?

The Executive's view has been clarified absolutely in response to the two previous petitions. I do not think that there is anything to be achieved by taking the matter further. Therefore, I recommend that we do not take the petition anywhere, and that we consider the matter concluded.

There appear to be no additional views. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.