Public Petitions Committee, 15 Sep 2004

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Official Report 243KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Home Safety Officers (PE758)

The first new petition is PE758 by Jim Black on behalf of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to place a statutory requirement on all local authorities to employ home safety officers and to provide the necessary funding for that. Jim Black is chair of the home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council and together with his vice-chair, Brian Topping, he is present to give evidence in support of the petition. Welcome to the committee. You have three minutes to make your opening statement and we will then ask questions.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to our petition. As the convener said, I am chair of the home safety committee of the Scottish Accident Prevention Council, and Brian Topping is the vice-chair.

I start with some hard facts. Every year in Scotland, as a result of an accident in the home, about 250 people die, about 17,600 people are admitted to hospital, and about 346,000 people seek medical attention. Nearly 1,000 people every day of every year seek medical attention after having an accident in the home, which is where people consider themselves to be at their safest. In addition to the pain and suffering that such accidents cause—not only to the victims, but to their families—there are other consequences. Businesses lose production due to accidents, many days at work are lost, there are direct and indirect financial losses to the victims and their families, and that does not include the massive burden that is placed on the national health service.

The Scottish Accident Prevention Council, and other organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, think that those figures are unacceptably high and we are working hard on ways to reduce them. We think that it will help for home safety officers, with the necessary funding, to be employed by every local authority in Scotland, hence our petition. There are currently six full-time home safety officers in Scotland and a further seven part-time officers. Home safety officers alone will not change the world, but they can highlight to the public the dangers in the home environment. They can also liaise with other agencies and develop networks and multi-agency approaches to tackle the problem.

The petition that is before the committee today has not come out of nowhere. A few years ago, the Scottish Accident Prevention Council canvassed the opinions of all local authorities, health boards, fire brigades and health councils on the subject of home safety. Of those who replied, 78 per cent supported our idea of making home safety officers a statutory function. Home safety affects everyone living in Scotland today. Statistics show that people are more likely to have a home accident if they live in an area of social deprivation. Home safety officers in each local authority area could identify the people thought to be most at risk and such officers could ensure that education, training and resources are targeted to raise awareness of the dangers to be found in the home and the steps that can be taken to reduce the risk.

If 1,000 people per day were to seek medical attention due to any other single issue there would be an outcry, but because accidents happen in the privacy of the home the scandal is often ignored. In asking the committee to consider our petition, I hope that we take another step forward in reducing the scale of the problem.

Thank you, Mr Black. Stewart Stevenson is with us this morning—does he wish to add a couple of comments before we move on to committee members' questions?

I will be brief. I attended the SAPC's conference in Crieff this year, as I did last year, where the subject was put to me in a sensible and well-articulated way. The conference material, which focuses on safety in its widest sense and not just in the home, makes it clear to me as an individual MSP that the subject could benefit from parliamentary scrutiny but, obviously, it is up to committee members to take their view.

It is important to note that in the deliberations so far the subject has attracted interest and support from across the political spectrum and from many agencies and bodies that are involved in safety. I am here simply to give the matter my support in the perhaps vain hope that that will help.

I notice that the petition has considerable support, including a letter about its value from Tom McCabe, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. Will you give us one or two examples of the worst accidents that occur in the home that could be prevented by your involvement in the way that you suggest?

There is a range of accidents. The worst are probably falls in the elderly, which can sometimes be avoided by simple interventions. If we do not know that people have problems and they do not know that they can seek help, the costs can be considerable, through pain and suffering or ending up in sheltered housing or in hospital with a broken hip. Simple interventions can prevent that.

Under-fives are also a highly vulnerable group. Falls affect them, as do burns and scalds from water from bath taps, for example. Simple interventions can save lives.

Having a home safety officer who could perform a safety check of an elderly person's home and give a few home tips would improve that elderly person's situation.

Good morning. It is obvious that much concern is felt about persistent accidents in the home, especially among the old and the young, as you said. If your proposal gained public support, from where would funding come to support it?

I am not an accountant, so I have not worked out the figures, but we have just to consider the burden that 1,000 people a day attending, 250 people a year dying and 17,500 people a year being admitted to hospital must place on the national health service. If those accidents did not happen, the burden on the national health service would reduce.

We hope that the Scottish Executive would find the money in its resources to fund the proposal in the petition. As Jim Black, the chairman of our home safety committee, said, the national health service would save money. We would spend money to save much money and misery.

Do you suggest that a percentage of the cost should be met by the budget for health services, or should it come from the Scottish Executive?

Funding could come from a range of places. If we reduced the number of accidents, we would reduce burdens on social work services, occupational therapy, the NHS, doctors and housing associations that need to make adaptations after accidents. If simple interventions can be made before the event, everyone will benefit.

If the scheme were implemented and various officers visited households up and down the country, the officers' suggestions would be advisory. Could the situation develop so that officers returned to households because their advice had not been implemented and created a problem for householders?

No. I am a full-time home safety officer and the suggestions that I make are advisory. I am not telling people how to live; I am giving them advice about a safer way to live. It is up to them whether to take that advice. I could never see there being an enforcement issue; the officers would have an advisory role.

So it would never become a statutory requirement.

The implementation of the advice?

Yes.

No. That would be taking things a step too far. People can live in their own homes as they wish. I am just giving them advice on how to do so more safely.

I was quite alarmed by the figures in your submission. The figure for the on-going treatment and care for a child who had suffered a body scald was almost like a misprint at £250,000. Do you see the funding for the officers as better economics in that regard?

Yes. If we could reduce the number of such accidents, we would be saving children from a lifetime of misery and operations and the money that we would save the NHS could be put into other prevention initiatives.

I would like clarity about what your job entails. What would you do in somebody's house? Would you help the household access safety appliances and equipment?

Yes. I do not want to take up the rest of the day talking about what I do, but if I were working with an older person, for example, I would give them advice, refer them to Care and Repair Forum Scotland if they needed a small repair done, put them in touch with social services to see whether they were missing out on benefits that could help them buy a piece of safety equipment and contact a social worker or doctor if they needed one. If there was a gas or electricity problem, I would refer it to the relevant agency. Many older people—my dad is a perfect example of this—say, "I don't want to bother them", so I would take up the problem on their behalf.

Would you be able to help people access grants or finance if they were entitled to them?

Yes. If the problem was severe we could refer them to local authority grant schemes.

Is there any evidence on how successful the programme has been so far?

I have been working full time only since April.

Can you give us anecdotal evidence?

Yes. We might go into a house and see a stair tread that is an accident waiting to happen. Under the small repairs scheme, which is run by Care and Repair, we can get someone to come round and tack it down. We do not know whether we have saved someone from breaking a hip, but we sleep a bit better at night knowing that we have done something to help them.

I want to ask two questions. First, from the statistics with which you have provided us, it appears that accidents and death rates had been falling until 1996 when, strangely, they started to go up again. Can you think of a reason for that? Is it just through chance?

I have no idea. Although death rates have been falling, the number of people seeking medical attention has been rising significantly. There might be more accidents, but people are not dying from them.

My second question is whether, where home safety officers have been in place, there has been a reduction in the number of accidents. Have you any way of measuring that?

It is difficult to measure that, because of the lack of useful statistics that we can gather. There could be a whole new petition on the gathering of statistical evidence. The full-time home safety officers have anecdotal evidence, but, unfortunately, there are no firm statistics to back it up.

You are probably aware of the home accident surveillance system and the leisure accident surveillance system. Sadly, the collection of those statistics has been stopped. Our committee has been pushing for the proper gathering of statistics throughout the health service. I am sure that MSPs would want to measure the success of anything that they were going to help fund. We support the fact that there are road safety officers, and that they have targets to reduce the number of accidents on the roads, but three times more accidents happen in the home than on the roads. That is why we feel that it is important that we reduce pain and suffering and that it is cost-effective to do so.

If I read the statistics right, there has been an increase in the number of men who are injured at home—previously the figure was higher for women. I suspect that that might have something to do with the DIY craze, because people are building and making things more.

That is entirely true.

So far, the Scottish Executive appears to be resisting your request and has said that placing such a responsibility on a local authority would be unfair given that the health service and the fire service also have a role to play. Are you asking for this job to be given to local authorities because they seem to be the most logical candidate to play a co-ordinating role? For example, they could liaise with the fire service and the health boards. I wonder why the Executive is resisting such a logical step. Will you clarify exactly why you are asking for that responsibility to be placed on local authorities?

I see it as a role for the local authority. After all, it is partly responsible for the fire brigade and is involved in formulating, for example, health improvement plans with health boards, health councils and so on. It also has access to all the corporate bodies that might be involved and could even bring in other areas such as housing and social work. Moreover, it could liaise with other agencies and have a better chance of getting the job done.

I believe that the Government's policy is to ensure that health boards and local authorities interact. Interestingly, Tom McCabe, who was the key speaker at the Scottish accident prevention conference in Crieff, told us that he would like local authorities to explain to him why they did not have home safety officers. The answer is quite simple: it is a matter of money. Councils will quite rightly do what they have to do in education and so on. No matter whether the Executive provides all the funding or whether some of it comes from the health boards, we need a co-ordinated approach on this matter. I am sure that many ministers want to shorten hospital waiting lists and investing in this very worthwhile project could reduce the incidence of accidents and save a lot of money.

Has the Health and Safety Executive expressed any view on your proposals?

The Health and Safety Executive is really only interested in occupational health and safety.

I would have thought that, given the level of accidents shown in the statistics, it would have been worth while for you to seek the HSE's endorsement.

I have certainly tried to do that. However, after discussions on the matter, it appears that the HSE is busy with occupational health and safety.

Can we move on to recommendations about what to do with the petition?

Before I make any suggestions, I want to pick up on the point about how statistics are gathered. I notice that, in his response to us dated 5 September, Tom McCabe points out that a project involving the information and statistics division of the national health service is seeking to develop a system by which accident and emergency departments will provide information to allow the recording of accident and other data. I think that we would all welcome such an approach.

Before we take any further action we should also ask the Scottish Executive Health Department and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for their comments. Perhaps once we receive their views we can then decide how to progress the petition.

Are members happy to take up the matter with the Scottish Executive Health Department and await its response before we give the petition any further consideration?

Perhaps we should also write to COSLA.

Sorry. I meant to say that. When we receive responses from those two organisations, we will consider the matter further.

I thank the petitioners for speaking to the petition this morning. Obviously, we will keep you informed of how we progress the matter.

---

Judicial Proceedings (PE759)

The next petition is PE759, by Robbie the Pict, on behalf of the Scottish Peoples Mission. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that the names of judges serving on a judicial bench are displayed and that a full tape recording or shorthand record is kept of court proceedings, which will be available to any party involved. I welcome to the meeting Robbie the Pict, who will give evidence in support of the petition. He has three minutes, after which members will ask questions.

Thank you, but I must make preliminary points about competency. I want to declare an interest in a sense. I reserve my recognition of the constitutional legitimacy of the Scottish Parliament and see it as but a franchise. As such, it is constitutionally dubious. I simply want to record my personal perspective in the Official Report, but I have a duty to the people of Skye and must play along with the system that is available to us to try to express ourselves.

I find that unacceptable. First, I challenge the legitimacy of what has been said. Secondly, if that is the gentleman's view, why on earth is he here?

There is currently no alternative. We must make use of the available channels. I do not see any problem in saying that a person can reserve judgment about the matter.

The Parliament was established on the basis of a mandate from the people of Scotland. Therefore, I cannot see how it can possibly lack legitimacy.

I agree. However, we should try to progress the petition. The petitioner has said what he has said, which has been recorded. We should now move on.

My second objection relating to competency is only an inquiry.

I point out that you are eating into your three minutes by making such points. Dealing with the issue would be preferable.

I am dealing with preliminary matters.

Whether or not you think that you are dealing with preliminary matters, you are still taking up your three minutes. You have been given three minutes and if you wish to take them up by discussing preliminary matters, you will have no time to discuss the petition. I am being practical. Addressing the petition would be better.

I reserve the right not to be horsed into doing so and the right to raise preliminary matters.

I am sorry, but as convener I give the same opportunity to every petitioner who comes to meetings. You have three minutes to address the content of your petition. Will you please address the issue that you have brought before the committee and not make statements of opinion that are irrelevant to the workings of the committee.

They are not statements. It is legitimate to ask whether the Parliament recognises its obligations in respect of the European convention on human rights. Does it—yes or no?

Of course it does.

So you would say that you are, or attempt to be, convention compliant.

The Parliament must be convention compliant—that is a statement of fact. Will you now proceed to the petition?

I am happy to do so. However, it is important to establish that you are prepared to be convention compliant. That is all.

I am glad that you have established that for us. I think that we were all aware of that.

As far as I know, nobody has been aware of it in Scotland.

Okay. We will not get into a debate. Will you please address the petition?

The Executive may have recognised its obligations, but the Public Petitions Committee—

You now have around 30 seconds to address the petition.

You too have used up a lot of time talking. I would like my say.

I will deal with the identification of judges. On 2 October 2002, the people of Scotland were given a direct statutory right. In the determination of their civil rights or of any criminal charge against them, they now have the right to

"a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"

established by law. Previously, they had to appeal to Strasbourg when that was denied. A court of law falls under the definition of "tribunal". There is therefore now a legal obligation on persons sitting as a court of law to deliver human rights.

Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 states:

"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right."

Unfortunately, the current United Kingdom Crown administration of the non-self-governing territory of Scotland has not yet seen fit to establish constitutionally independent courts. With a failure to be convention compliant in that first legal duty, there thus arises an extra need to ensure that the best possible effort is made to fulfil the second obligation—that of impartiality. Impartiality essentially addresses emotional potential: the possibility of a conflicting duty of sympathy or preference. The citizen, in having his rights determined, now has the right to a reasoned judgment from an impartial judge with no possible or perceivable conflict of interest. It is unlawful to deliver an unreasonable or no judgment in a biased manner.

The obvious first step in providing a proper legal service is to publicly identify all judges by name. We need to know exactly who sits in judgment before any procedure begins so that reasonable objections to perceived conflict can be made immediately.

At present, there is no public record of proceedings for summary criminal proceedings in the district or sheriff courts or for solemn proceedings before one High Court judge. If a finding is appealed, the appeal is subject to a dubious private sifting process by one judge, to which the appellant is not invited. The appellant may appeal any refusal to a second secret hearing, which is presided over by two judges. During the sifting process, there is no requirement for the production of a public transcript of earlier proceedings. There is no public record of what may transpire in the appeal court itself. That makes Scotland sub-third world in a field in which we vainly claim excellence.

There can be no possibility of a fair and equitable hearing when the court hears the stated case as recounted by only the sheriff or magistrate or only the High Court interlocutor. In a case of bad judgment, human nature dictates that a judge will defend his decision. There is no public check against that being distorted to the point of injustice, even in the appeal court. That results in the wrongly convicted becoming angrily determined to seek justice. That clogs up the courts and it costs public money. The bulk purchase of cassette tapes would produce a huge saving.

I am obliged to the committee.

Before we proceed to questions from members, I point out that the petitioner was allowed to go beyond his three minutes.

Will you clarify your suggestion for the naming of judges? Is that for the sheriff and district courts? My understanding is that that already happens in the High Court and in the Court of Session.

That may happen in the Court of Session, but it seems to be haphazard. It certainly does not happen in the High Court of Justiciary, whereas it should happen throughout the system. If the Court of Session has already moved in that direction, I welcome that. Even in this committee, we have name plates. In the High Court and in the sheriff courts of the land, the judges should have name plates. Judges already arrive partially covered in a theatrical wig and full gown, and all we can see is their coupon?

An interesting term. I understood that judges in the High Court and in the Court of Session have, or should have, name badges to identify which judge is sitting on the bench, but it is clear that sheriff and district courts do not. Thank you for that helpful clarification.

Will you also clarify your suggestion for a recording of proceedings? Would that be for summary cause and small claims and for summary procedure in criminal cases, for which no transcript or recording is currently provided? If the Executive accepted that as a good idea and changed court procedures to accommodate that, would you support the retention of the current practice whereby a small administration fee is demanded for a public transcript?

I would abolish any attempt by the authorities to claw back money from members of the public who want to find out what transpired and what the legitimate record of events is. For persons who are convicted under criminal procedure at the High Court of Justiciary, the fee for transcripts can run into hundreds of pounds. I have experience of how expensive it can be to request the transcript of a three-day procedure. No hindrance should be put in the way of proper justice in Scotland.

If members have no further questions, are there any suggestions about what should be done with the petition?

As a first step, we should write to the Executive and to the Law Society of Scotland to get their view on the matter. Clearly, my understanding of when names should be displayed is different from the petitioner's. It is important that we clear that up, as well as the more substantive points that the petition raises.

Are members happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will let you know what response we receive from the Law Society and the Scottish Executive.

I am obliged, but 600 miles for 180 seconds is not great.

---

Legal Profession (Regulation) (PE763)

Our next petition is PE763, from Julia Clarke on behalf of the Consumers Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to implement urgently the findings of the Parliament's Justice 1 Committee's inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession. Julia Clarke and Ajay Patel are here to give evidence in support of the petition. Welcome to the committee. You have three minutes, after which we will ask questions.

Following a survey carried out by our consumer magazine Which?, the Consumers Association believes that Scottish consumers are poorly served by the complaints system currently operated by solicitors. We have heard about complaints to do with unprofessional behaviour among solicitors, negligence, mistakes made, excessive delays and dishonesty—yet more than 40 per cent of the people who told us that they had received poor service did not complain. They said that there would have been no point or that it would have been too stressful an experience. Three quarters of those who complained to their solicitors said that their complaint was not resolved, and many people told us about their confusion, frustration and distrust, and about the lengthy misery that their experiences had caused them. Several gave up simply because the process made them ill.

The majority of people have cause to use the services of a solicitor at some point in their life—usually when buying or selling a house, for a divorce, or after a bereavement. Those are stressful experiences in their own right, and people have the right not just to high standards of legal care but to a decent, independent complaints process if things go wrong. The Consumers Association does not believe that that is happening in Scotland at the moment.

Last year, the Law Society received more than 2,000 letters of complaint, which it then investigated. It also received 923 letters that it termed "miscellaneous" and did not investigate. From the legal services ombudsman's own research, the Law Society took an average of 78 weeks to investigate complaints. The ombudsman found that a fifth—21 per cent—of the complaints that she looked into had taken the Law Society more than two years to investigate.

In her annual report this year, the ombudsman says that complaints to her rose by 61 per cent over the past year. She found that the Law Society had failed to investigate adequately 42 per cent of the cases that she had examined. Too many people are not having their complaints adequately heard at the moment. That is an obvious injustice.

After its inquiry into the regulation of legal services in November 2002, the Justice 1 Committee made a series of recommendations to the Executive. We believe that the implementation of those recommendations would greatly improve fairness for consumers who use legal services. They include a single gateway for all complaints against the legal profession and increased powers for the ombudsman to investigate decisions, prescribe timescales to cut down on delays and increase compensation to a decent and meaningful level. The maximum award of £1,000 has not been increased since 1990.

We are concerned that, although the Government is currently reviewing the legal profession in England and Wales, Scotland risks failing to move forward with a fairer and more modern legal services complaints procedure that is easily understood by people, independent, transparent and effective. The current system is mired in the past, is not user-friendly or transparent and needs urgent updating. We therefore seek the Public Petitions Committee's support for the implementation of the Justice 1 Committee's findings.

I have read your Which? report and considered the methodology used. Would I be correct in saying that, in your sample, 30 people from Scotland responded?

We had more than 700 responses from throughout the United Kingdom; half of those people came back and completed questionnaires, and 12 per cent of those were from Scotland. We had around 36 or 37 responses from Scotland.

I just wanted to put the information in context. When you talk about the "Law Society", are you talking about the Law Society of Scotland?

Yes. I am sorry; I did not make that clear.

I asked the question just to avoid confusion, because it is a UK study and there are obviously differences in law, and different bodies are involved.

Are you aware of what has been happening in the past six months to a year, since the Justice 1 Committee's report was published? There has been quite a bit of movement and what I would call welcome progress.

There has indeed. We welcome what the Law Society of Scotland has been doing. It has put lay people on some of its committees, which is a help in speeding up the process of dealing with complaints. It has also advised solicitors to send a letter of estimate, so that people know what they are in for when they hire a solicitor. That is a great help, but it goes nowhere near resolving all the issues—the complaints that are not properly dealt with by the Law Society of Scotland—that either fall by the wayside or pitch up at the ombudsman's office. There is a great deal to be done to make the service properly available to consumers.

I am interested in your petition. I notice from a letter that we received from the Law Society of Scotland that a memorandum of understanding has been entered into between it and the Faculty of Advocates, dealing with an improved procedure for complaints involving solicitors and advocates. If you are aware of that, could you comment on it? To what extent will it help to improve the situation?

I was not aware of the memorandum of understanding. While it is welcome, the primary problems are that there is no single gateway, the system is not independent and the Law Society of Scotland is investigating complaints about its own members, when its primary function is to represent those members. It is difficult for it to do both. It tries to, but the system does not work.

Many of the improvements have existed for some time in England, but I have been involved in the current Clementi review of the regulation of legal services, which has not produced significant improvements. The problem of poor handling of consumers' complaints about lawyers has existed for upwards of six to 10 years. A lot of changes have been implemented to improve the way in which complaints are handled and to speed up the complaints process, but unfortunately they have not yielded results. We need a more radical overhaul of the system.

Are you aware that the Law Society of Scotland fully supports the proposal that compensation for inadequate professional services should be uprated from the current maximum of £1,000 to take account of inflation since 1990?

I was not aware of that. Again, that is welcome, but apart from anything else there is still the problem that complaints are not properly heard. They are falling by the wayside, through the gap whereby the Law Society of Scotland chooses not to investigate complaints. Many complaints that, in the ombudsman's opinion, should have been investigated—42 per cent of those that she examined—turn up at her door, which is a great concern. No doubt there are many complaints that do not turn up at the ombudsman's door—people just go away without justice.

I understand that the ombudsman's caseload in Scotland has trebled over the past three years. That shows two things: first, consumers are more willing to complain and are more aware of their right to complain to the ombudsman; and, secondly, there is dissatisfaction with the way in which lawyers at the grass roots handle their clients and fail to resolve complaints in-house.

If so many people are complaining, why did so few take part in your survey?

You have to be extremely highly motivated to respond. We put adverts in the Scottish and UK press, but to respond in detail over an event that perhaps has been extremely stressful and upsetting takes a great deal of focus and determination. People are required to fill in a lengthy questionnaire about their experience—they have to be quite committed to follow up the situation.

I presume that it has been an issue of concern to your organisation for some time.

Yes.

Did you give evidence to the Justice 1 Committee inquiry when it took evidence on the matter?

The Consumers Association opened a Scottish office just after that time, so we were not here bodily to take part, which of course is a matter for regret.

Did you write to the Justice 1 Committee or make representations in any other way?

No, not at the time. As I said, we did not have a Scottish office in operation at that point.

Presumably you still represented Scottish consumers.

That is a fair point. It would be better if we could travel back in time and make the appropriate representations at that point. However, we are trying our best to address the situation as it stands and to help Scottish consumers. We are doing a piece of work that really needs done.

We are all trying our best in that regard.

In light of the recommendations that were made by the Justice 1 Committee, many of which have been implemented, what other recommendations would you now make?

The single gateway approach is still not clear to consumers, so we recommend that that be clarified. Further, the ombudsman could be given extra powers to investigate cases and carry out audits. There are failings in the system and they need to be addressed in a fairly radical way. It is good that incremental change is happening, but it will not be enough to address the problem.

I am trying to draw out of you what changes you think should be made other than those that were recommended by the Justice 1 Committee. In essence, are you recommending only that there be a single gateway?

There should be an independent single gateway.

We would like there to be a clearer separation between the representative roles of the professional bodies, particularly those of the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and their regulatory powers. Therein lies the key problem of the way in which complaints are handled, which leads to perceptions of bias by consumers who see a closed shop looking after its members. That does nothing to promote consumers' confidence in the profession.

On specific measures that we would recommend, a single gateway is important. I am not sure whether that is already on the agenda, but I will illustrate why it is important. A consumer does not know whether they are dealing with a solicitor or a barrister; they think that they are simply dealing with a lawyer. Often, they are purchasing a service that is carried out by non-lawyers. For example, a personal injury claim will be managed by a claims management company. Whether the element of the service that a consumer is purchasing is regulated depends on the status and qualification of the person who delivers that service. For instance, if a claims management company sells you a poor insurance policy, you may well have a complaint against that company but there is no regulatory back-up for that, whereas if a solicitor has made a mistake or has done something wrong, you have recourse to the Law Society. Such anomalies need to be dealt with. While having a single gateway will not resolve all of them, it will give consumers confidence that they are taking their complaints to the right place and will not be bounced between various regulators or have to face the complexities of a difficult regulatory system.

The issue is also to do with timescales. Some 21 per cent of the complaints that go to the legal services ombudsman take more than two years to be investigated by the Law Society. That is a long time for people to have to be dragged through the process and to have the matter hanging over them. People have described to me how the complaints process has taken over their lives and has ruined their health and relationships. The process is difficult for ordinary people to go through.

We would like the ombudsman to have powers to call for problems to be dealt with within a certain timescale so that people would know when matters would be properly investigated to the ombudsman's satisfaction and they would have an outcome. At the moment, investigations can drag on and on and people are often put off from embarking on the process because they know what can happen to them.

The Executive has taken forward some of the recommendations of the Justice 1 Committee. Do we know whether that committee has been made aware of the reasons why the Executive does not intend to take forward all the recommendations?

As far as we are aware, the Justice 1 Committee is still monitoring the situation.

Is the Justice 1 Committee in contact with the Executive and asking why it does not think that the recommendations are good ideas?

Yes. As you will see, one of the recommendations is that members of the Public Petitions Committee may wish to refer the petition to the Justice 1 Committee as part of its continuing monitoring of the report.

Julia Clarke does not know why some of the recommendations are considered to be good ideas and some are not.

Some of them will require primary legislation—that is the difficulty. I understand that, but a lot of people are suffering under the system at the moment. It has been nearly two years, and we are concerned that the matter will stay on the shelf. It really needs to come off the shelf and the recommendations need to be implemented, and that is what we seek.

I will attempt to be helpful. The representatives of the Consumers Association are right that it is hugely important to have confidence in the legal profession and we therefore need to avoid generalisations. I am conscious that, although we can produce horror stories from two years ago, the reality in the recent past is there is now 50 per cent lay representation on more of the Law Society's committees. That is welcome progress; the firewalls are starting to be put in place. You are absolutely right—it is a two-stage implementation process. One stage requires primary legislation, and finding a slot for that will be critical. I do not want to spoil the debate, but I will make a recommendation. Given that the Justice 1 Committee has said that it wants to monitor progress and ensure that its recommendations are implemented, we should refer the petition to that committee because that is its natural home.

I, too, would like the petition to go before the Justice 1 Committee. I presume that to empower and improve the system will improve the profession as a knock-on effect because expectations will be higher. Have you worked out how much the maximum award would be—

If it were brought up to date?

Yes.

I am not sure that we have; the figure is beginning to be lost in the mists of time. We have not worked how much it would be, but no doubt that could be done easily.

It has been £1,000 for more than 14 years.

Exactly.

Jackie Baillie recommended that we should refer the petition to the Justice 1 Committee as part of its monitoring of the situation. Do members agree that that is the right course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

We will remain in dialogue with the Justice 1 Committee and monitor the situation. We will get back to you when there is some progress.

Thank you.

---

Gypsy Traveller Sites (PE760)

The Consumers Association representatives were the final petitioners to attend this morning's meeting. Next, we will go through the other new petitions, the first of which is PE760, from Mhairi McKean on behalf of the Gypsy/Traveller Community Development Project and the Scottish Human Rights Centre. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament

"to investigate the provision and cost of electricity for Gypsy/Traveller sites and accessibility to the Central Heating and Warm Deal Programme for people in mobile homes."

The Equal Opportunities Committee conducted an inquiry into Gypsy Travellers and public sector policies in 2001. The Executive's response to the report notes:

"Local Travellers should be consulted about any new site provision."

An update on progress by the Executive in June 2004 states:

"Communities Scotland Regulation and Inspection Division are now … regulating the provision of sites and services by local authorities",

which are

"expected to assess the accommodation needs of Gypsies/Travellers in their Local Housing Strategies."

The eligibility criteria for central heating and warm deal programmes are summarised in the briefing that was sent out to members.

Before we discuss the matter, I mention that I am a member of the Gypsy/Traveller Community Development Project. That came out of my involvement as the reporter who took through the inquiry for the Equal Opportunities Committee in 2001. No remuneration is involved, but the project is something that I am heavily involved in. I will try to stay out of the debate as much as I can.

Perhaps we should consider asking the Scottish Executive to update us on any developments that emerge from what is obviously a problem. It would be good to hear from the Executive on that.

I am really concerned that no progress has been made on this issue. If I read the petition correctly, domestic fuel sometimes costs individuals £10 a day. They are being charged commercial rather than domestic rates, because that is all that some local authorities can deliver.

The initial paper from Mhairi McKean makes it clear that this is a matter of life and death in some cases and that discrimination is taking place. The convener probably knows more about this matter and could enlighten me on it; however, as I have said, I am very concerned about the whole issue. We need to stamp out such discrimination before it is winter again; after all, our climate can be dangerous.

We should also give the Eaga Partnership a chance to respond to the petition. I have to say that, in my dealings with Eaga, I have found its representatives enormously enthusiastic about providing heating for elderly people. If Gypsy Travellers meet the criteria, I would be surprised and dismayed if Eaga has not been as enthusiastic about providing heating to them as I would have thought it would. Perhaps there is some reason for that that we are not aware of. This is a matter of urgency because, as I understand it, this is the last year of the warm homes deal. Certainly it is the last year of the current funding.

I am not sure about how we could regulate the electricity charges. After all, as we have heard, two or three tariffs operate on the various sites around the country. However, as far as heating is concerned, we need to draw a distinction between mobile homes and static caravans. The Eaga Partnership has already installed heating systems in static caravans, so a precedent has been set in that respect. If the petitioner is referring to mobile homes, that is another quite difficult issue.

It might help if I point out that the petitioners are probably referring to all on-site accommodation and support. Each home is allocated a block where residents can cook and wash; however, no standards have been set for the conditions of those blocks. They are usually made of breezeblocks, have inadequate heating and are freezing cold.

The Equal Opportunities Committee's report highlighted a host of similar issues. For example, there is no requirement to provide disabled access to the blocks, which do not have to meet the same standards or regulatory requirements that a home or public building would have to meet. One important issue is the cost of heating, because in most cases the card that Gypsy Travellers have to purchase from the site manager is set at a higher tariff than someone would normally pay for their electricity.

The petitioners are concerned about the progress of the matter. The Equal Opportunities Committee continually monitors the issues raised in its 2001 report and reviews what is being done about its recommendations. The petitioners have submitted the petition partly to ask for that monitoring to continue and for the issue of the cost of heating to be addressed. Obviously progress has been slow, if not non-existent.

I am trying to jog my memory, but as I recall the current minister Margaret Curran visited some Gypsy Traveller sites after the report was published to address some of the issues that it raised. As a result, I would think that it would be helpful to write in the first instance to the minister. Perhaps we should also write to COSLA to find out why some local authorities can manage to provide power cards that provide electricity at domestic rates while others seem unable to do so. We should raise that practice issue with COSLA and certain policy issues with the minister.

I believe that the power cards in question, no matter whether they provide electricity at commercial or domestic rates, are still not the same power cards that are available to domestic consumers who live in houses. I believe that, therefore, people cannot go to the local shops or garage to purchase the cards; there is a different, more difficult and sometimes out-of-hours way of getting them. It is not only about going from commercial rates to domestic rates; it also about the accessibility of the cards so that people can get power. Perhaps we should ensure that we take the matter to that extreme.

Are members happy that we write to the Executive and COSLA as Jackie Baillie suggested?

We have not yet suggested that we also write to Energywatch, the independent watchdog for gas and electricity consumers, so that we can get its observations too.

Will we take up John Scott's suggestion that we contact Eaga to get its perspective?

Did we mention the Travellers Site Managers Association?

We would contact it through COSLA, given that COSLA is responsible for it. COSLA might include a response from the association. We can assess that when we get a reply from COSLA. Are members happy with the suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Freemasons (Membership) (PE761)

Our next petition is PE761, from Hugh Sinclair. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that members of the Public Petitions Committee and clerks to the committee are required to declare membership of the freemasons and other secret societies. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's concerns that the previous two petitions on the subject of freemasonry—PE731 and PE739—have, in his view, been dismissed by the committee. He argues that it is an offence to natural justice if there are undisclosed masonic attachments within the committee.

The committee agreed to take no further action on PE731 and PE739 earlier this year on the basis that the general issues raised had been addressed within the context of the Justice 2 Committee's recent and full consideration of the matter.

The procedural mechanism for implementing the petitioner's request in relation to members would be for the Parliament to amend the code of conduct following a recommendation from the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee is consulting on proposals for legislation to replace the rules on the registration and declaration of MSPs' interests. Responses are requested to the consultation paper regarding those proposals, which includes a section on non-pecuniary interests, by 30 September 2004. It would be open to the Parliament to require that officials advising the Public Petitions Committee who are connected with freemasons or other secret societies register or disclose that connection, perhaps through amending the terms and conditions of their employment.

Given that that consultation is taking place, perhaps we could write to Hugh Sinclair and suggest that he might like to make a submission to the Standards Committee clerk and ask for the matter to be taken into consideration in the work that the committee is doing.

I declare my non-membership of the freemasons, but then, that is obvious, given that I am a woman.

You could be a member of the order of the eastern star.

I declare my non-membership of that as well.

Does everyone agree that what Helen Eadie suggested is the best course of action for us to take on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Once we have done as Helen Eadie suggested, the petition would in effect be closed, because we have considered it and decided a course of action from which there is no comeback. Once the matter goes to the Standards Committee, there would be nothing for it to feed back to us.

We could possibly refer the petition to the Standards Committee, not necessarily with any comment from us, and thereafter close it.

There is a wider principle in the petition, which it is appropriate that the Standards Committee considers. I recommend that we pass the petition to the Standards Committee because it is not just about the Public Petitions Committee; it goes wider than that. Members of the Standards Committee are the best people to deal with the petition. I propose that we close the petition now.

Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that we take a five-minute break before we consider our current petitions.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—