Public Petitions Committee, 19 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Official Report 319KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

The first set of petitions to which we have received a response includes PE31, PE34 and PE35. Members will remember that all those petitions asked the Parliament to review the legality of nuclear weapons in international law, consequent to the decision of Sheriff Gimblett at Greenock sheriff court in the trial of three women for malicious damage to the Trident nuclear weapons system. The Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice delayed their responses until the High Court had dealt with the Lord Advocate's reference to elucidate the law on the matter.

The High Court has ruled and held that, having regard to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the use of nuclear weapons, there was no basis for a contention that the general deployment of Trident in pursuit of a policy of deterrence constituted a threat of force of the kind that would be contrary to international law. The advice from the Scottish Parliament legal office is that we must tell the petitioners that as the court has said that the presence of Trident did not contradict the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion, it would be inappropriate for the Parliament to conduct a review of the legal position. It is therefore suggested that, on that basis, we take no further action on the petitions.

I accept that, but I seek your guidance on whether that is at odds with the position that we adopted on the first petition that we considered this morning—PE364.

It is not at odds with that position, because that petition concerned the Scottish Parliament's attitude to Trident's being in Scotland and the Parliament's opinion on whether the public and the environment are put at risk. It dealt not with Trident's legality, but its consequences.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept that position. The references to the High Court mask the fact that the matter was a referral from the Lord Advocate, which went to three judges for consideration in private. That is different from a proper High Court verdict, because the Lord Advocate is politically appointed.

We have a justice clash between the view and verdict of a totally independent member of the judiciary—a Scottish sheriff—and a later overturn by a politically appointed person's referral of the matter to High Court judges. That is most unfair. I cannot go along with saying that we should do nothing more.

The committee has been advised by the Scottish Parliament's legal advisers that it can do nothing more because Trident has been declared legal.

I am sorry, but I do not accept their word on the matter.

I have reservations about the procedures that are followed in Scots law, but, unfortunately, that is how it works.

Independent Scots law reached a verdict at Greenock, whatever is thought of the verdict. When the matter reached Edinburgh, it got into a political situation. We are going in the direction of a banana republic with this sort of decision. There was a reversal of a conclusion that a sheriff reached fairly after many days of evidence.

The not guilty verdict stands. The women are not affected by the ruling.

I understand that, but there was a reversal of the general principle on which the not guilty verdicts were delivered; that is, that Trident was illegal. We are dealing with a direct clash that affects the very basics of Scottish justice.

The only problem with Dorothy-Grace Elder's case is that she does not provide an alternative. The legal advisers of the Parliament have given a legal opinion. Dorothy-Grace has expressed her opinion, but we need something more to go on than that. I understand all the anxieties and concerns that people have expressed about Trident, but the matter is reserved and a legal opinion has been given. If there is widespread public concern, those at Westminster should focus on and direct their time to the issue.

I agree that we are weak about where we should go now. That is why I would like further consideration of what we could do. Should we reconsider the European dimension? I do not agree with Helen Eadie that the matter is Westminster's concern. If the matter did not concern Trident, but was another decision that had politics behind it, I could not tolerate that.

We are in a difficult position. I am as unhappy as Dorothy-Grace Elder with the High Court's ruling. I have declared my membership of Scottish CND and my opposition to the Trident nuclear weapon system is well known. However, as the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I am at a loss as to what we can do about the matter. The only thing that we could do would be to refer it to the Justice 1 Committee. However, that committee will not deal with it because a ruling has already been made in Scots law. The matter has been dealt with by the courts and the courts say that Trident is not illegal. The Justice 1 Committee would not accept a referral. The committee's legal advisers would tell it not to accept the petition.

Why was a referral made? Why did the Greenock case not end there?

That is a political matter.

Exactly.

You and I can pursue the matter through other mechanisms. However, we have come to the end of the line with the petitions. There is no room to refer them anywhere—they would simply be referred back to us. We are not in a position to carry out a review.

The matter has been dealt with by the precepts and the concepts of Scots law as it exists and at the highest level.

Scots law has been twisted.

That might be your opinion, but the verdict has been made.

It is still open to members who are opposed to the court's decisions to challenge those through Parliament, but we cannot send the petitions anywhere after the ruling.

Dorothy-Grace Elder and others might wish to raise a court action in the European Court of Justice. That would be a matter entirely for those members.

The matter could easily be the subject of a members' business debate, if the Parliamentary Bureau—which chooses the debates—agrees. As I know to my cost, it is not easy to get debates agreed to by the Bureau.

Could we refer the matter to the lawyers of the European Court of Justice?

The petitioners would have to do that, rather than the committee. We have taken the petitions as far as we can, using the mechanisms that are available to the committee. The legal advice is that the matter has been dealt with and that we can take the petitions nowhere else at this stage.

Could we refer the matter to the Sheriffs Association? If a sheriff makes at Greenock, Haddington or wherever a decision that politicians do not like, the politicians cannot simply get it out of the road somehow.

I have a lot of sympathy with Dorothy-Grace Elder's view, but those who took the decision are not politicians—they are High Court judges who were appointed by a political appointee, who is also a judge and is several times removed. The Public Petitions Committee is made up of politicians—that is obvious. I am sympathetic to the petitions and would like the matter to go further, but I accept the legal advice that the petitions can go no further. I recommend that we take no further action and that we write to the petitioners to explain why.

I support that. As you rightly say, there are other tactics and strategies that can be used to handle the problem and it is right that we follow the advice that we have been given. However, that does not close the door to being creative in other directions.

I agree.

I am listening to members whom I respect very much and I feel that I must go along with the majority view. Nevertheless, I still think that a letter should be sent to the appropriate European Union committee, which should deal with the matter legally.

It is not for us to do that, although the petitioners could.

The petitioners hope that we carry a bit more clout. Could we send a letter?

You and I could send a joint letter outside the committee, if you wish, but we cannot use the committee to do so. That would be asking members to support unanimously something that they do not support and that would be wrong.

Members indicated agreement.

PE118 is from Dr Ronald Crawford and asks the Parliament to reverse the decision to increase North of Scotland Water Authority charges to domestic customers. The committee may remember that the letter was passed to the Executive more than a year ago and the Executive has now responded. The Executive has excused the delay in replying by saying that a member of staff in the department was on long-term sick leave.

The Executive's response is virtually the same as those to earlier petitions on the topic, which we referred to the Executive. It is suggested that we simply copy the response to the petitioner and that we take no further action.

I want to make a small point. I welcome the decision prior to the election to release charities from water charges. I am sure that the election had no bearing whatever on the decision. Nonetheless, that decision is welcome and I hope that the relief—which means that charities will not pay any water charges in the next financial year—is subsequently extended to the most deserving cases.

That was well put. The only problem is that there is no election next year.

That was well put, too.

Do members agree to pass a copy of the response to the petitioner and to take no further action?

Members indicated agreement.

PE245 is from Keith Cowan for Outright Scotland and calls on the Parliament to change Scottish public sector pension schemes to ensure that they provide survivor benefits to interdependent unmarried partners of scheme members. We have received a response from the Scottish Executive. It states:

"In its Pensions Green Paper (Cm. 4179) published in December 1998, the Government indicated that if the general membership of a public sector pension scheme wanted it to provide survivor pensions for unmarried partners, and were prepared to meet the associated costs, the Government would consider how this could be achieved."

I think that that relates to Westminster. Scottish ministers intend to make provision for unmarried partners in the new pension scheme for civil servants, which is expected to be introduced in spring, 2002. They have also indicated that they intend to make similar provision in the reviews of the police, fire and NHS pension schemes, which are in progress. It seems, therefore, that the Executive is addressing the issues that have been raised by the petitioner and it is suggested that we agree to pass the response to the petitioner and take no further action. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE343 is from Mrs Thea Rae and concerns a review of contract law. The committee will remember that it considered responses from the Scottish Executive and the Law Society of Scotland and agreed to copy those to the petitioner. The responses said that Mrs Rae might wish to pursue her case with her local trading standards office and the Director General of Fair Trading. The committee also agreed to copy Fife Council's charter for house buyers to the Scottish Executive for comments and to copy the petition and associated correspondence to the Secretary of State for Scotland for information in relation to the consumer protection issues that were raised. We have received a response from the Executive, from which it is clear that the introduction of legislation to prescribe the content of missives would not be appropriate. The response states:

"While the Executive would certainly encourage developers to draft their missives more responsibly",

it is a matter for

"purchasers and their legal advisers to scrutinise and reject one-sided conditions".

It is therefore suggested that we should pass a copy of the Scottish Executive's response to the petitioner. It is also suggested that we pass a copy to the Scottish Consumer Council, the Law Society of Scotland and the National House Builders Council and that we urge those bodies to consider the Executive's point about developing a model contract. We could also write to the Executive to thank it for its response and ask it to facilitate discussions to take the matter forward. It is suggested that we then agree to take no further action.

I endorse the Executive's position and I encourage the Scottish Consumer Council, the Law Society and the National House Builders Council to work together to develop a model contract. I whole-heartedly endorse that position and I hope that the committee will also take that view. If we do that, Mrs Rae will feel that bringing the petition to the Parliament has been worth while.

I endorse that. Although it would have been good to go down the prescription route, I understand the reasons why we cannot. I warmly welcome the idea that all the parties should come together to create a model contract. That is a positive step. I am pleased with the Executive's response.

Is the suggested action agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE347, from Kenneth Mitchell, asked the Parliament to investigate the practice of couping Clydesdale horses and

"to introduce legislation to make such style of shoeing illegal unless for medical reasons sanctioned by a Veterinary Surgeon."

We have had a series of responses to the petition: from the Scottish Executive; from Sylvia Jackson MSP; from the British Equine Veterinary Association; and from the Clydesdale Horse Society. We have also received a late response from the cross-party animal welfare group, which concluded that welfare concerns are associated with the couping of Clydesdale horses. Although the cross-party group acknowledged that one way forward would be to introduce legislation, it thought that, before doing so, there would be merit in building on the progress that has been made to date by independent monitoring of the extent to which shoeing guidelines are observed.

Since receiving the cross-party group's response, we have received a letter from Kenneth Mitchell, which calls into question the quality of the witnesses who gave evidence to the cross-party group and the conclusions that they reached. The responses from the Executive, Dr Sylvia Jackson, the Equine Veterinary Association, the Clydesdale Horse Society and the cross-party group show that there is no agreement on the issue. There are widely differing views.

It should be placed on record that Mike Flynn of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals made a report to the cross-party group. As I understand it, Mr Flynn made the telling remark that on no occasion has he seen an animal that has been adversely affected by the practice. That quashed all the arguments against the practice.

Mike Flynn is one of the individuals who, the petitioner complains, is not qualified to comment on the issue.

Nonetheless, he is the SSPCA official who gave a report to the meeting of the cross-party group. His opinion must carry some weight.

The most important response was from the Executive, which advised that the SSPCA had formed a working group to consider the issue so that it could come to some kind of compromise position. I therefore suggest that we seek the SSPCA's comments on the progress of its working group and on any feedback that it has received in relation to the steps that have been taken. That would tie in with the cross-party group's suggestion that the best way forward would be through the SSPCA's working group to find out whether agreement can be reached.

Is that agreed?

I would be happy with that.

Members indicated agreement.

PE356 from Mr Hendry Williams, on behalf of Troqueer Homeowners Committee, asked the Parliament to establish

"a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between local authorities and home owners of former local authority homes".

We agreed to copy the petition to the Scottish Executive, to COSLA and to Dumfries and Galloway Council for comment. We also agreed to pass a copy of the petition to the Social Justice Committee and to the Local Government Committee for information only. We have received detailed responses from the Scottish Executive and from Dumfries and Galloway Council; we await a response from COSLA.

Members will see from the responses that a variety of avenues exist for the resolution of disputes between owner-occupiers of former local authority homes and local authorities. The Executive's response makes the important point that,

"As with any house purchase, the ultimate responsibility for repairs and maintenance work whether minor or major, lies with the owner."

The Executive's information leaflet on the right to buy recommends that a full survey of a property should be done prior to purchase. However, the Local Government Committee has informed us that it would like to give further consideration to the issues that the petition raises. It is therefore suggested that the committee should refer the petition formally to that committee and to pass—when it arrives—the COSLA response to that committee.

I welcome that. We should pass the petition to the Local Government Committee.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE357, submitted by Douglas Paterson on behalf of Aberdeen City Council, called on the Parliament to

"Support calls for the necessary investment in the transport infrastructure in the Aberdeen area to be provided as a matter of urgency."

We have received a response from the Scottish Executive and we have been informed that the Transport and the Environment Committee will take evidence on issues connected with integrated transport in Aberdeen and the surrounding areas. In the light of that, it is suggested that we pass a copy of the petition and of the Scottish Executive's response to the Transport and the Environment Committee and recommend that it consider the petition as part of its inquiry. A copy of the Scottish Executive's response could also be passed to the petitioners for their information. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE358, from Christopher Helson. He wanted a plot of land within the boundary of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood to be defined in law as

"a place where any one person has the right to lay down."

We decided to seek a response from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the issues contained in the petition. The SPCB's response states:

"the petition should not be in any way supported by the SPCB. It is understood from the petition that the proposed site for "lying down" is to be on a main footway. While this is in contradiction to the concept of defining the site by the size of the person, it does suggest the possibility that the proposition may be used as a justification for obstruction."

People are entitled to their views, but there we are. It is suggested that we simply agree to note the petition and take no further action.

Indeed. It would be inappropriate to run the risk of giving rise to any extra cost.

If we are looking for cuts during the debate on the Holyrood project on Thursday afternoon, the petitioner's proposal might immediately spring to mind.

The newspaper cartoonists would have wonderful fun with it.

Is not it accepted throughout Scotland that there is a public right to lie anywhere? Why does the petitioner want it enshrined in law?

Are we agreed that we shall take no further action on the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE361, from Mr Stuart Usher, on behalf of Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers, called on the Parliament to take action to deal with alleged corruption in the Scottish justice system. We agreed to seek the views of a range of bodies on different aspects of the petition. We sought the views of the Scottish Executive, the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and the Scottish Consumer Council. We have now received responses from them all, except the Faculty of Advocates.

Members may be aware that the Justice 1 Committee is conducting an inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession. It is suggested that we refer the petition and the associated correspondence to the Justice 1 Committee and request that it addresses the other issues that are raised in the petition. When we receive the Faculty of Advocates' response, we can pass it on. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE362, from Jane Sargeant on behalf of the People's Protest, called on the Parliament to

"address the establishment of a survival fund to which individuals and small businesses can apply for funding to alleviate the immediate cash flow problems which have been brought about by the outbreak of foot and mouth."

We agreed to seek an urgent response from the Scottish Executive on whether it intended to provide such support. We also agreed that a copy of the petition should be sent to the Rural Development Committee and to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. We further agreed to seek the petitioner's views on the responses that we received. She states that difficulties are still being experienced with the distribution of the £5 million that the Executive released to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. In particular, problems have been experienced in completing the application forms and in getting the application forms accepted. Practical difficulties are also being experienced in accessing the funds that the Executive allocated.

It is suggested that I write back to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, to urge her to ask Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to contact the petitioner to ensure that the issues raised concerning the processing of application forms are resolved and to ensure that the system for dealing with applications for financial support operates as smoothly as possible. Thereafter, it is suggested that we take no further action.

I agree. The application system is a real problem for the people who are affected. Every effort must be made to address the situation. If that means appointing a task force, a trouble-shooting force or even a tsar to get the disbursements made quickly, I suggest that that should be done.

Are we agreed that, as an initial step, I will write to the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and ask her to intervene with Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE363 from Mr Stan Gregory, on the appointment of independent consultants to examine and propose changes to the structure and operation of Scottish councils. We agreed to pass the petition to the Scottish Executive, to ask it to respond to the petition and to provide information on the progress of the leadership advisory panel and whether the panel's forthcoming report will address the issue.

The committee can see that the Executive has responded, saying that it has allocated additional money to deal with the concerns of council tax payers and that the leadership advisory panel has completed its deliberations and a copy of its report is available on the Scottish Executive's website. The panel assessed the new policy development and decision-making structures that are being introduced by Scottish councils. The Executive believes that the improvements that have arisen from the panel's assessment go some way towards responding to the petitioner's concerns.

It is suggested that we pass a copy of the Scottish Executive's response to the petitioner and take no further action, as it appears that the Executive has addressed his concerns.

I neglected to mention that the Local Government Committee is currently considering recommendations about the future form of local government finance.

Are we agreed to copy the response to the petitioner and take no further action?

Members indicated agreement.

The final current petition is PE365 from Mr Iain MacSween on behalf of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation Limited. The committee will remember that the petition concerns the review of fixed quota allocations. We took the matter up with the Executive and have received a response.

The Executive points out a number of things. The committee will remember that it was suggested that quotas should be allocated only to fishermen based in Scotland. The Executive points out that, under European Community law, it cannot discriminate against nationals from other European Union member states and prevent them from owning United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels. However, mechanisms are being put in place, which have been approved by the European Commission, that would

"require those fishing against UK quotas to maintain a genuine economic link with the coastal regions of the UK."

That link would take the form of landing at least 50 per cent of their catches of quota stocks into the UK or employing crew, at least 50 per cent of whom are resident in the UK.

The Executive also states that discussions continue with the industry on decommissioning and the treatment of fixed quota allocation units from decommissioned vessels.

I am afraid that I do not accept the Executive's view—I am doing a Dorothy-Grace on the matter. I believe that the UK Government should be able to insist that quota rights remain ring-fenced for Scotland or the UK. I want us to try to achieve that.

It is certainly the case that quota rights for animals—and headage payments; the situation is similar—can be ring-fenced for the UK. I believe that we should pursue a policy of ring-fencing the quota rights for the UK or Scotland

The European Committee has produced its report on the common fisheries policy and there was a debate on the topic last week. Had I had a chance to speak in the debate—unfortunately I did not get the chance—I would have spoken about the committee's recommendation that we support the creation of zonal management committees.

The benefit of that approach would be the ability to delegate policy making further down the line—rather than being centralised in Brussels, it would be delegated to a zonal area, for example the North sea. The North sea zonal area would embrace each of the countries that have coasts on the North sea and would involve fishermen, scientists, civil servants and other stakeholders in making decisions on a number of questions, including the issue raised by John Scott.

In general, the industry has been supportive of the recommendation, which would go a long way towards addressing issues such as the one that John Scott raised. The industry would feel much more involved in decision making. Up till now, decisions have been based on handed-down wisdom. If zonal management committees were adopted, the industry point of view would be embraced and industry would have an understanding of all the issues that are involved in the decisions as well as being able to present its worthwhile case.

If possible, I would like the petition to be referred to the European Committee. I take on board what Helen Eadie said.

There are three separate paragraphs under "Suggested Action" in the paper on the petition. The first paragraph suggests that we need to consider whether the current review of the fixed quota allocation system will provide an appropriate forum for fishing industry representatives to make the points that are raised in the petition. John Scott suggests that it will not.

I simply do not know enough about it. I would rather that the industry were able to express a view on the matter than that I sit here, saying whether such an approach would be adequate.

Do we wish, as the second paragraph suggests, to take a view on whether the Executive's preferred approach—that the transfer of licences should be a matter for individual owners, separate from the decommissioning scheme, with various options being available to owners—is the appropriate way to proceed?

I do not believe that. I believe that the Government should hold a national pool of quotas. If vessels were decommissioned, their quota would go back to the Government or to other owners, but—I cannot emphasise this enough—the quota would stay in the country.

Are you challenging the Executive's view that European Community law prohibits it from discriminating against nationals of other member states?

It is a bold thing for me to do. The Executive discriminates in other areas of Community law. It is up to the UK Government to make known the position that it wants to achieve.

I suggest that we take up the suggestion in the third paragraph. In that way, John Scott may get a clear response from the European Committee on the points that he raises. I think that he would find it informative to go through the exercise of the committee coming to a view.

For the record, Helen Eadie has suggested that we refer the petition to the European Committee with the recommendation that it seek the views of the Rural Development Committee as appropriate.

The big problem is that some fishing vessels have a surplus of quota licences. Those are extremely valuable. When a vessel owner disposes of such a quota licence, they are at liberty to dispose of it to whomever offers the best price. That is detrimental to our fishing fleet and fishing activity.

As Mr Scott was saying, there should be some control on the licensing and the quotas. I do not know whether the quotas could be held nationally, but they could be held in the locality where the fishing activity takes place. The harbour authority should hold, control and allocate the licences so that there is no trade in licences and quotas. There is currently a massive trade in licences and quotas. As I said, that trade is open to the best price, which could be offered by a foreign buyer.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against such trade between UK nationals, but I am against selling for the best price if the best price is offered—as has happened all too often—by foreign buyers, particularly Spanish buyers, so that we lose the quota and licence to them.

I suggest that, when we pass the petition to the European Committee, we pass it a copy of the Official Report of this meeting and ask it to address the points that John Scott and John Farquhar Munro have raised.

It is important to highlight that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development is working on the matter with the fisheries council this week. She will no doubt report to the Scottish Parliament within the next week on the outcome of the negotiations. The negotiations are a major challenge; she has to persuade all the other EU countries, so she has a difficult task.

Are we agreed that we pass the petition to the European Committee as suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The final paper is a résumé of the progress of the various petitions.

If members look at the remarks in relation to PE265, from George McAulay on behalf of the UK Men's Movement, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to protect innocent men against false rape allegations, they will see that we were awaiting a response from the Justice 1 Committee. A letter has now arrived. It says that the committee considered the petition at its meeting on 30 May 2001 and took evidence from Jim Wallace MSP, the Minister for Justice. The Justice 1 Committee agreed to write to me, as convener of the committee, to note that it has some sympathy with the petition's call for anonymity for the accused in rape cases, but on balance is not minded to recommend a change in the law. The Justice 1 Committee has therefore closed its consideration of the petition.

That is just for information. Does anyone want to respond? Does anyone want to raise anything about any of the other petitions in the paper? If not, we will move on.