Public Petitions Committee, 14 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003

Official Report 319KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

Telecommunications Developments (Planning) (PE425)

The first current petition for consideration is PE425, from Anne-Marie Glashan. The petition calls for revised guidelines for the siting of mobile phone masts. The committee undertook to seek the views of the Transport and the Environment Committee on the petition. That committee has indicated that it intends to carry out a brief review of developments since the new permitted development rights for telecommunications were introduced in July 2001, and that it would welcome referral of the petition, so that the petition can be taken into account in that inquiry. It is suggested that we refer the petition formally to the Transport and the Environment Committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Gaelic Language (PE437)<br />“A Fresh Start for Gaelic” (PE540)

The next two petitions concern "A Fresh Start for Gaelic" and the passing of a Gaelic language act. Mike Russell has introduced the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, which is being considered by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. We have received a response to the bill from the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. From that response and from the written evidence that the Executive has submitted to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, it is clear that the minister will not support the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. Although the bill is being considered at stage 1, there is not much chance that it will be approved by the Parliament. In his written evidence, the minister sets out his reasons for not supporting the bill.

We could agree to refer the petitions to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and ask it to take them into account as part of the consideration of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill. However, because the petitions would then form part of the evidence gathered on the bill, it is likely that they would be disposed of at the end of the evidence-taking process. It is suggested that that would be an unsatisfactory outcome for both sets of petitioners.

It is suggested that we agree that I write to the convener of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to ask that the existence of the petitions and their terms be acknowledged as part of the committee's consideration of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill, even though the petitions have not been referred formally. We should also ask the minister to keep the Public Petitions Committee informed of progress in consideration of the bill by the ministerial advisory group on Gaelic and in the development of bòrd Gàidhlig na h-Alba. Finally, we should keep the petitions open to allow us to monitor progress on the bill and the issues that I have outlined, and to consider whether further action should be taken at a later stage to address the petitioner's concerns.

The other day I read that if the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Bill is passed it will impose an obligation on every local authority in Scotland to have Gaelic taught in all local schools. I am not sure that I would be representing the views of my constituents if I accepted that as appropriate. I had sympathy with the views that were expressed to the committee by the petitioners, who argued that Gaelic should be available in parts of Scotland where people choose to have it. However, imposing Gaelic as a statutory obligation would not reflect the views of the people of my constituency, whom I represent.

In the evidence that they have given to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, local authorities have indicated that they oppose that aspect of the bill. That is one reason why the bill is not likely to receive the support of the committee or the Parliament. That is why we are suggesting an alternative way of dealing with the petitions. We should not refer them formally to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, but should monitor progress on the bill and the steps that the Executive is taking to promote the Gaelic language. That would allow us to keep the petitions open and to hold them in reserve, so that we can intervene at a later stage if we regard that as justified.

We should accept the recommendations that were outlined earlier.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Police Assaults (PE482)

The next petition is PE482, on the compulsory blood testing of suspects. Members will recall that the petition was submitted by the Scottish Police Federation, which wants suspects or assailants who may have exposed police officers to a risk of infection to be required to submit to a blood test or tests that would also be made available to the police officer, should he so wish.

We have received a number of responses to the petition—from the Scottish Executive, from the Scottish Human Rights Centre and from the Association of British Insurers. The Executive indicates that ministers would need to consult on the complex issues that the petition raises before committing themselves to introducing compulsory testing of suspects. In its response, the Scottish Human Rights Centre adopts a different position from that of the petitioners. The SHRC believes that the proposal does not strike a proportionate balance between the protection of the police and the individual's rights to privacy and non-discrimination.

It is suggested that a consultation by the Executive would allow a range of views on these matters to be taken into account. It is suggested that we agree to write back to the Executive with a strong recommendation that it carry out the proposed consultation. We should also suggest to the Executive that it keep the committee regularly updated on progress in relation to the time scale, scope and outcome of the consultation. We could defer any further action on the petition until the consultation process has been concluded. In the meantime, a copy of the petition and the responses to it should be sent to the clerks of the justice committees, and a copy of the responses should be sent to the petitioners.

I remind committee members that when this petition came to our attention, we were all particularly concerned following the presentation that was given and we all felt that action should be taken fairly urgently, as a real problem had been identified.

I find the input from the Scottish Human Rights Centre somewhat confusing. It says that there is no real need to look after the interests of the policeman. However, at the same time it suggests that there is a serious risk to the public if that policeman continues to carry out his everyday duties. If the SHRC thinks that there is a risk to the public if the guy continues in his work yet believes that he does not have any right to know what is wrong with him, that is a serious failure to recognise the seriousness of the issue.

I do not want to hear about further consultation on this matter. The Executive has a job to do in looking after our policemen, who are in the front line. They have to face problems daily and there is a growing problem in the community with respect to HIV. We should write back strongly to the Executive, asking for a raft of proposals to lead towards giving the policemen the right to have the information.

I accept that. However, your concerns highlight the dilemma in which the Executive finds itself. It would have to ensure that any legislation that it introduced was watertight, but there are contradictory views on such legislation out there in society. You might not agree with the Scottish Human Rights Centre, but it represents a body of opinion, and other groups will have different opinions from yours.

How can it say that it is okay for the policeman to face up to the problems but that he should be stopped from doing his job because he is a risk to the public?

I am not defending that position; I am saying that the Executive—which has not said that it will not introduce legislation—would argue that, to get the bill right it would have to carry out the proper consultation process. If it did not do that, we would be the first to complain that we were whistling through legislation without listening to all the different points of view. Our role is to ensure that the Executive introduces legislation, but we must also ensure that it does that properly. It is only right that it takes time to consult and listen to different people's views on the issue. I do not think that we could recommend that it should not carry out such consultation.

You are right about consultation—we had a big row in the chamber last week about that issue. Nevertheless, Phil Gallie's point is valid: there has to be a sense of urgency about the Executive's action. The police who attended our committee discussion came from Fife. We all saw etched on their faces the extreme anxiety, upset and worry that they and their families felt at the potential suffering to which they were exposing themselves. The people in the front line are at great risk and we would be selling them short if we did not say that legislation should be introduced urgently. The issue should not be put on a back burner somewhere, but should be a priority. Our police are at the sharp end, and we need to be sure that we are not exposing them and their families to serious risk.

I am happy to tell the Executive in the letter that we will write to it that it should carry out the consultation as a matter of urgency. We should also ask the Executive to provide us with a time scale for the completion of the consultation and its decision on the introduction of legislation.

I accept the fact that the Executive would not be doing its job if it did not ensure that everything that we did was absolutely in line with the law. If that is what consultation means, that is fine. However, consultation can also mean rounding up a whole raft of irrelevant bodies, waiting for three or four months until a response comes and then waiting for another three or four months while a report is put together on the consultation. That is what I want to avoid. However, given Helen Eadie's comment on the urgency of the matter, I accept that consultation is necessary simply to ensure that the Executive sticks within the law to produce something of value quickly, which will be upheld in our courts.

We will ask the Executive for details of the time scale that it is thinking about and stress that we think that the matter is urgent and needs to be addressed quickly, probably by the Executive. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Saltire (PE512)

PE512, which is from Mr George Reid, calls on the Parliament to endorse the Ministry of Defence's 1989 guidance that defines the blue of the saltire as azure, and urges the Executive to publish guidance on the matter.

We have received a response from the Deputy First Minister on behalf of the Executive, a further letter from the petitioner and a letter from the Heraldry Society of Scotland. Members can see from the responses that the minister restated the Executive's view that it is not convinced that guidance is necessary or would be helpful. The Executive feels that the current position, which allows flexibility, is appropriate and satisfactory. The petitioner has provided a copy of a draft code that was produced by the St Andrew Society and the Saltire Society, which defines the saltire's colour and dimensions.

We have several alternatives to consider. The first is to accept the minister's response as reasonable and take no further action on the petition. The second is to establish whether a subject committee would be willing to consider the petition further. Members will remember that the Education, Culture and Sport Committee declined to consider a similar petition but, at that time, it believed that the matter was reserved to Westminster. The Lord Lyon has made it clear that the matter is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so we could pass the petition to that committee, which might be prepared to reconsider the issue.

The third option is to suggest to the petitioner that the most realistic way to make progress is for organisations such as the St Andrew Society, the Saltire Society and the Heraldry Society of Scotland to agree and promote a voluntary code along the lines of those that have been submitted to the committee. That is open for discussion. I see our good friend at the back. Would Gil Paterson like to speak?

I would not mind. I could help the committee somewhat by providing graphic illustrations of the problem with the Scottish flag's colour. From my business, I have gathered a small number of colours that are called azure. Mr Wallace suggests that the recommendation should remain that Scottish flag manufacturers should use azure. I will illustrate the problem of doing that if the colour is not given a reference number.

With the convener's indulgence, I will pass him a small number of colour references—I could have filled the place with them—which he can pass round. Members should take one colour reference—I have marked each azure with a small sticker—and put another colour reference on top of it, then see the difference. I have retained three reference guides to illustrate the problem. The first, light colour is called azure, as are the second and third colours. One colour is almost black, one is not quite white, but is very light, and one is right in the middle. We cannot ask a manufacturer to pick a colour by referring to azure.

The Saltire Society, the St Andrew Society and the Heraldry Society have suggested Pantone 300 unglazed as azure.

I was about to come to that. The important aspect of colour is not the name that it is given. The colour can be called whatever we like—Scottish flag blue, azure blue, sky blue, egg blue or duck blue. What is important is attaching a number to the colour. I recommend that the committee should go along the lines of the draft code, which suggests Pantone 300. That is an internationally recognised standard. If you phone up a manufacturer in Brazil, India or any other country and say, "I want you to manufacture something in Pantone 300," they know exactly what you mean. We can attach a new name to it—we can call it Scottish flag blue or azure blue—but that is irrelevant. The important thing that the Executive must do is to attach a number. It is the Executive's responsibility. No one else has that responsibility.

I do not suggest that we take down and tear up flags because they do not match Pantone 300. I suggest that if anyone approaches the Scottish Executive and says, "We want to manufacture flags using the Scottish colours. What do we use?" the Executive should say, "Pantone 300." Whether it is called azure blue or sky blue is irrelevant. If we attach a number, we all win.

We all take the point that Gil Paterson makes. It is very well made, understandable and clear. It is also clear that the Executive is aware of the matter and still does not believe that it has the responsibility to do anything about it. We must decide whether to pass the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for its consideration or to suggest that the different organisations come together to set up a voluntary code and seek to get it recognised.

In my opinion, we should pass the petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. It should be given the opportunity to take the matter up. We would have to consult that committee. It previously declined the petition simply because it thought that the matter was reserved to Westminster. It clearly is not; it is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Education, Culture and Sport Committee is the appropriate committee for the petition.

We are always talking about passing on issues to other committees and the difficulties that they have in coping with our petitions. Far be it from me to support Labour and Liberal Democrat ministers, but I honestly think that we are as well leaving the matter alone.

I accept Gil Paterson's point and the technical argument to a degree. However, the matter is too complicated. We are talking about 400 years of history. Why should we suddenly put a number on the colour now? We seem to have got along fine without one. I remind members—Gil Paterson will not like this point so much—that we would have to ensure that our blue matched the union flag. I do not know what the number is for the union flag.

The colour of the union flag is a matter for the union Parliament, not this one. I suppose that we have no real views on that.

Perhaps I could help Phil Gallie. The colour of the saltire is irrelevant to the union flag. The union flag also has a standard. It has numbers attached to it. The union flag, the English flag, the American flag and every flag that I know have number references. We do not see different colours of American, English or union flags.

Does the union flag blue have a number?

Yes.

I suggest that we just take the union flag blue.

It is for the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to make the ultimate decision, as it deals with such matters. I suggest that we ask that committee if it is interested in taking the petition. If it is not, we can come to some kind of decision.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Kincardine Bridge (Transport Schemes) (PE550)

PE550 is the petition from Dennis Halligan on traffic management schemes for the eastern link road. We have various responses from the Executive. As the committee can see, the Executive responses, coupled with its recent announcement on the second river crossing at Kincardine, are positive. Genuine progress appears to be being made on the various transport development proposals. That will ultimately alleviate the problems that are highlighted in the petition.

In view of that, it is suggested that we agree to copy the Executive responses to the petitioner and take no further action, although we may wish to pass copies of the responses to the clerk to the Transport and the Environment Committee for information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Planning Process (PE554)

The next petition, from Mr Neil Henriksen, relates to improvements to the planning process. As the committee can see, we have a detailed response from the Executive. The petition is about how repeat planning applications are handled.

Although the Executive appears to be fairly content with the current statutory position with regard to repeat planning applications, it acknowledges that concerns exist. It also intends to determine the extent of the problem through discussions with planning authorities and consider what action, if any, is required to address it.

Although that proposal seems reasonable, the committee may wish to ask the Executive for details of the proposed time scale for its discussions with planning authorities. If the proposed time scale seems reasonable, the committee could consider deferring further action on the petition until the Executive has completed its discussions and reported back to the committee on any action that it intends to take. We can also pass a copy of the Executive response to the Transport and the Environment Committee for its information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Rail Transport (PE556)

The final petition is PE556, from Mr Tom Thorburn, which calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to encourage the relevant agencies to work together to extend rail commuter services on the east coast main line and to seek a review of opportunities to restore stations across Scotland in order to reduce traffic congestion in major towns and cities. We have received responses from the Executive, the Strategic Rail Authority, Great North Eastern Railway, Scottish Borders Council and the south-east Scotland transport partnership. We also have an additional letter from the petitioner, and Euan Robson is here.

I have not had a chance to read all the responses.

Would you rather wait until you hear what the suggested action is?

Yes.

It is clear from the responses that the introduction of a new station at Reston would not be straightforward. The possible siting of a new freight loop at Reston by the Strategic Rail Authority does not appear to provide a suitable opportunity to build a new station, as the petitioners had hoped. In addition, there are real concerns that any new commuter services and stations on the east coast main line could have an adverse impact on existing passenger services. Several of the bodies that were consulted make the point that specific proposals such as those in the petition should be considered in the context of a wider review of rail provision.

The Executive makes it clear that it is for local authorities or the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority to identify opportunities for the re-opening of local railway stations and to proceed with any projects. Scottish Borders Council's willingness to move towards a feasibility study on a new station at Reston in partnership with other key stakeholders before the next ScotRail franchise seems to offer the most appropriate route for the petitioner.

It is suggested that we write to Scottish Borders Council to welcome its suggestion of conducting a feasibility study into the Reston proposal in advance of the next ScotRail franchise. We should urge the council to proceed with the study. We should also recommend to the petitioners that they develop contacts with Scottish Borders Council with a view to participating in the exercise. We should then take no further action on the petition.

It is understandable that there has been caution from the agencies, including the statutory ones. It is disappointing to hear that the Strategic Rail Authority has concerns about the passing loops providing an opportunity for a station, which is not what it said previously, although it is fine if the SRA has changed its position.

The way to proceed is for Scottish Borders Council to become more enthusiastic about the project. I know that the council has received considerable criticism from Berwickshire as a result of its response to the committee. I am not sure whether the committee has the replaced response—I understand from a meeting with the council yesterday that it intended to revise and update its outlook on the issue. The council should take a more enthusiastic line about the proposal, although perhaps it is distracted by the reopening of the railway line to the central Borders. That would be understandable because the council might think that it cannot handle both projects at once, although I do not think that that is the case.

Whatever happens, reopening a station such as Reston will involve the co-operation of a number of bodies. One of the factors behind the petition was the frustrating fact that each authority that was approached passed the issue on to the next one, which then passed it on to the next and so on until the issue returned to the original authority. The issue went round in circles and nobody seemed to want to pick it up. That is why I am particularly appreciative of the care and attention that the committee has given to the subject. The committee has helped enormously in making bodies concentrate on the issues, rather than just handing the ticking parcel on to the next public body.

I do not foresee a station opening at Reston in the next two to three years, but I would be disappointed if the extension of passenger and commuter services down the east coast main line to Berwick-upon-Tweed has not been advanced in five years. If there is to be congestion charging in Edinburgh, it will be doubly important that public transport is available as an alternative to people taking their cars into the city centre.

I have said enough. I thank the committee for its forbearance in allowing me to attend a couple of meetings. I am grateful to the committee for its efforts and I think that the proposed course of action is sensible. If there are further developments, perhaps the committee will consider the matter again, although that might have to be the successor committee in the new session of Parliament. The pressure that the committee applied has been beneficial and I am grateful for it.

As the convener of the cross-party group on strategic rail services for Scotland, I inform members that we are having Mr Richard Bowker, chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to our February meeting. Members might wish to make a note of that meeting and take the opportunity to come along and raise the matter if they wish.

The Labour party's business manager has raised a further important issue, which comes up frequently and is relevant throughout Scotland: that of one authority passing the buck on to another. We must recognise that Scotland must be organised in a way that enables one lead authority to bring together all the other agencies that are stakeholders in any project that comes up. That way, the authority would be given the powers to drive the project forward. I return to my idea of the mutual option in the context of care homes, and to the co-operative ideology whereby people, together with mutual stakeholders, can fund a proposal.

In the case of Reston, it would not simply be down to Network Rail, Scottish Borders Council, GNER or Virgin Trains to fund the station; every single stakeholder who uses that railway line would automatically become a stakeholder for that particular project. In my opinion, the matter should be in the hands of SESTRANS or of Scottish Borders Council. One of those bodies should become the project leader and get all the stakeholders signed up. The new station is a good idea, so let us find a solution. We do not know what the solution is yet—perhaps it is a loop—but the people want a station there and we want to encourage the use of railways, so let us try to put a station at Reston.

That almost sounds like the subject of a new petition. It has been suggested that, when we write to Scottish Borders Council, welcoming its suggestion to conduct a feasibility study, we make it clear that we think that that should be done in advance of the next ScotRail franchise renewal, and that we urge the council to take the matter forward. We could perhaps also ask the council to keep us informed of the progress made towards that feasibility study, which would at least keep this committee involved. We should remember to ask the council to ensure that the study involves all the key stakeholders, as Helen Eadie suggested. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.