Official Report 267KB pdf
Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to the second meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2004. We have received apologies from Sandra White; Carolyn Leckie has advised that she will be a bit late.
Minority Sports (Funding) (PE699)
Petition PE699, in the name of Philip Sutherland, calls on the Parliament to review sportscotland's vision world class policy and to ensure the equal treatment of world-class athletes by sportscotland and the national lottery. Philip Sutherland, Jim Greig and Ron Aikman are here in support of the petition. They have three minutes in which to make a presentation; after that, we will ask questions.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I submitted the petition because I feel that sportscotland's policy has changed. I and others received talented athlete awards and met the criteria that sportscotland had set down, but the organisation has withdrawn such awards. I feel that there is no longer a level playing field. My sport of field archery will suffer, as will other small sports with small governing bodies.
I have had the same problem with sportscotland as Philip Sutherland has had. The problem is mainly to do with communication—sportscotland has revamped its system and we have been allocated partnership managers. However, the new system is rather strange; it is a bit like a waltz in which everybody changes partners when the music stops. We are now on to our third partner, but we have been notified of that only by telephone conversation. Our initial partnership manager suddenly disappeared and got another job in sportscotland and we were given a second manager. Apparently, we are now to get a third one—we have a list of names of people whom we have never met or dealt with. We find that confusing.
I was involved in establishing the matrix for the criteria that talented athletes had to achieve, which took a considerable amount of time and a lot of bother. The system was established around 1999, but since then the magical Olympics has taken over. For years, sportscotland's mantra was "sport for all". I wrote to your Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport through Jeremy Purvis to ask when or if the Scottish Executive and members of the Scottish Parliament had decided to drop the idea of sport for all in favour of the idea of sport for all as long as it is an Olympic sport. With great skill, the minister answered two thirds of the letter and ignored that particular part; I asked Jeremy Purvis to go back and ask why it was ignored.
We are joined by Jeremy Purvis MSP and Fiona Hyslop MSP. Do you have anything to add in support of the petition?
Philip Sutherland first contacted me as a constituent and raised the issue of target archery. Since then, I have been contacted by a number of other Scottish, European and world champions in a number of sports including ice skating, karate and tug of war. The petition is not just about one particular sport; it raises the issue of how we support minority sports, particularly those that represent Scotland and achieve for Scotland. The issue that we are discussing is a window to a wider issue about how sportscotland has decided on the 10 sports that it plans to support financially.
One quick question comes to mind. I see that a consultation document has been sent out by sportscotland, and that responses must be returned by the end of February. What input have you had into that? Have the minority sports people been lobbied to respond to that consultation?
We have not heard about it. As I said, communication between sportscotland and our governing body is rare.
Does that go for Jim Greig as well?
If the document exists it will have been passed on to our coaching director, whom we will contact and ask about that.
So as sportsmen you are unaware of the consultation document.
One point that is striking is the general lack of communication. The consultation was a surprise to many of the people who contacted me and Philip Sutherland. They had not even been warned about it. Individual sportsmen and sportswomen have been treated quite shabbily; they had no idea that there had been a change, let alone a consultation, and all of a sudden they received notification that their funding was being withdrawn. That is another aspect to consider.
Have there been any meetings with representatives from sportscotland?
Since I submitted the petition, no.
How about prior to then? When was your last meeting with sportscotland?
The last communication that I had—
Sorry, but when was your last meeting? Have you met sportscotland?
Not in the past year.
Have any of the MSPs who represent you arranged meetings with sportscotland?
The last official meeting took place a year past January, when we were introduced to the new partner. As a result of the KPMG report, which was particularly scathing, sportscotland came up with a new system that was going to work wonders. There was a meeting in November and we were supposed to have a follow-up meeting with the new partner in January, but that never came about. Subsequently, we found that there had been a change of partner. We received nothing in writing. We discovered in a phone call to Jim Greig that someone else was handling us. In the document "Achieving Excellence", there is another name that we have never heard of—Fraser Walker, who is supposedly in charge of archery. I have not read the KPMG report, but it was totally scathing about the administrative side. There has been no improvement whatever as far as the minority sports are concerned. If anything, the situation is even worse.
In a previous incarnation as sports minister, I remember visiting the field archery group at Gilmorehill in March last year, just after they had returned from the world championships with a number of gold medals.
The logistics of field archery preclude it from being included in the Olympics. Each field archery course needs about 20 acres of land and will take only 110 or 112 people. Target archery, for modern safety rules, needs an area that is a little bit bigger than a rugby field and can be done in a single field. Olympic archery is different from normal target archery, because target archers do not normally shoot on a knockout competition basis—that was introduced to cater for television coverage and to maintain interest for spectators. Therefore, Olympic target archery has adjusted its rules slightly to cater for televised coverage.
Do any archers participate in both forms of the sport?
Yes.
That includes members of your organisation.
Yes.
So sportscotland might support one form of archery but not the other.
Yes. We expected the criteria for being considered a talented athlete to be based on a level playing field in terms of qualifications. Everything seems to have been removed from the websites. Information about records and people's current positions in world rankings have suddenly disappeared.
That is worrying because there are opportunities for field archery, which has a recognised world championship. The criterion that is used to decide whether a sport should be supported should be whether we can measure the success of Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen against those from other nations in an international setting.
Executive consultations usually last for 12 weeks, whereas sportscotland's consultation will last for only about eight weeks. We should ask that the consultation period be extended, given the evident communication difficulties that have been outlined to us.
The biggest query over funding support is that we are advised, through newspapers and so on, that sportscotland is sitting on something like £13 million. That is nice. Sportscotland is chopping support to blokes who only get it to the tune of £2,000 or £3,000, while its latest statement is that it is keeping money for a rainy day—as far as minority sports are concerned, there is a deluge. I have been involved in national negotiations for my sport for 30-odd years and the situation has never been as bad as it is now. The previous sportscotland people dealt far better with more limited resources.
Is that a general picture? Have you been in touch with other minority sports? There is an issue about ice hockey in my constituency. I know that there is an inability to get adequate support from sportscotland for ice hockey, too.
We have nothing in writing, but we have spoken to people and we have become aware of the problem via the media. We heard about the problems in ice skating when someone told us about the brother and sister who were going to have to abandon Scotland because they had been dropped. They are not the first and they will probably not be the last. There has to be a better system.
Are you suggesting that the money should be used not necessarily just to create medal winners, but to support a wider social agenda?
Yes.
I agree that that is necessary.
It is very dangerous for someone to think that their vision can create 148 medals. Where are they coming from? The centre at Stirling supports only around 137 athletes at the moment.
It covers only 10 sports.
Yes, and yet it has had millions of pounds invested in it. In the value-for-money society in which we live, that does not look like value for money to me.
So, you would rather see the money spread more thinly than see it concentrated on those 10 sports?
There is an awful lot of benefit to Scotland from all the smaller sports that will never get into the Olympics. Archery is a choice sport. If the United Kingdom bid wins, the next Olympic games will be held in London. If it does not, the games could go to another nation that might say, "We don't have many archers. We are not interested in archery." If that happens, archery could be dropped again, as it has been in the past. Archery was dropped for decades before it came back in Germany. As I said, it is not one of the sports that is chosen automatically; it is a sport of choice. We are being asked to revolve around a thing that might or might not happen.
I will take points from Jeremy Purvis and Mike Watson before we discuss the recommendations for PE699.
I started to take an interest in the petition when the national championships were held in my constituency. My point follows on from those that were made by John Scott and Helen Eadie. Rather than ask for a meeting, I discussed the matter with the chief executive of sportscotland. The discussion was founded on the Executive's direction to sportscotland. The funding of large participative sports meets many other targets, especially those for health and fitness, instead of the focus being solely on sporting excellence for Scotland. A policy issue is involved in the subject of the petition.
Mr Aikman talked about sport 21, which is a five-year strategy; its second phase started last year. The strategy was widely consulted on. One issue is that the witnesses' organisation falls into a void, as it was not on the list of consultees. We should also make a point about minority sports.
What do members think of that recommendation?
I support that recommendation. We should write not only to sportscotland, but to the minister, to raise concerns about the consultation's timescale and scope, because sportscotland is ultimately accountable to the minister. It would help the minister to know what is going on.
I am concerned about minority sport in general. I have learned a lot today, for which I thank the witnesses. I am worried that the thrust of sportscotland's work is an almost Soviet method of supporting just sports that will obtain us medals and world kudos. I am not a sporty person, but to me, sport is about inclusion, health and allowing people to participate at all levels, and not just about winning national glory.
When we write to the minister, we should ask whether he is content with the strategy on minority sports that sportscotland is pursuing. Fiona Hyslop mentioned many such sports. I know about ice hockey and ice skating in my constituency. The social inclusion agenda is important, as is the obesity agenda. Is the money that sportscotland receives from the lottery being spent to the minister's satisfaction?
Do we agree to write to sportscotland to ask how long the consultation lasted and what level of information it contained and to write to the minister to ask whether he is happy with sportscotland's consultation and overall agenda? We could wait for those responses before deciding whether to refer the petition to a committee, as Linda Fabiani suggested.
We should avail ourselves of the information that Jeremy Purvis has.
It would be helpful if Jeremy Purvis would provide that information.
I, too, have information that I can supply to the committee.
Once we have received information from the minister, sportscotland, Jeremy Purvis and Fiona Hyslop we will reconsider the petition. Is that agreed?
Violent Crime (Sentencing) (PE696)
Now that Linda Fabiani has turned the meeting into "Emergency Ward 10", we will carry on with the next petition.
I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to back up my petition and I will set out the reasons for it. Young people lack the protection that they need in Scotland and I would like to see more done about that. There is not a lot of consultation with young people about the law and there needs to be more. There also needs to be a review of sentencing to bring about appropriate punishments. The punishment should fit the crime, but it is also important that more places are provided for people who are mentally ill to get treatment and help.
The school is proud that the youngsters here today have taken up the issue, which shows the social conscience that many youngsters in modern Scotland have. Young people are not all neds and hooligans; they have an awareness of what goes on in our communities. The youngsters were motivated by a sense of outrage at what they saw as leniency on the part of our judiciary. I know that there has to be a separation between the legislators and the judges, but perhaps firmer guidance needs to be given to our judiciary as to what is appropriate. That is especially true given that we know that the cases that we have seen so far of children being abused in the home are only the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps we should consult our youngsters more about the legal and legislative processes.
We are joined by Scott Barrie, who supports the petition. Do you wish to add anything before we go to questions?
I echo Mr Thomas's comments that the petition is a result of the initiative of pupils at St Columba's, who should be commended for the way in which they have pursued it vigorously and raised the issue locally and nationally, as it affects young people throughout Scotland. It is excellent to see what has happened today, with young people taking up an issue and bringing it to the Parliament.
It is gratifying to see that the school pupils are engaging with the Scottish Parliament on an important issue. There are important lessons for many people in that. Yesterday, the Justice 2 Committee considered another case in relation to sentencing policy. I wonder whether the clerks have any information on what the committee decided to do, because that might assist us in deciding how to proceed with the petition.
We have some information on that. Jackie Baillie could perhaps give us a briefing.
As a member of the Justice 2 committee, I can enlighten the committee. We considered a similar petition; it was from different people, but on a similar subject. We decided, on the basis that the Executive has already set up the Sentencing Commission to look at the whole area, that it would be appropriate to pass the petition on to the commission so that it can reflect on the incidents that the petition describes and reflect on the desire for, if you like, the punishment to fit the crime—with exceptions that we noted. Given that the Justice 2 Committee has done that, I recommend that that would be a useful route to go down on this petition.
I know that the commission is doing its work as a rolling programme and that it is reporting on an on-going basis, but when is that work expected to be completed with a view to legislation? Does anybody know?
The information that I have is that, although the chairperson of the commission has been appointed, its full membership has not yet been determined, so I think that we are a good bit away from seeing the outcome of the commission's work.
Given that the commission is not quite set up yet, perhaps we could suggest that one of its members should be a representative of youth. The position might be co-opted rather than full, but the representative would inform the process.
Perhaps the convener could bring the issue to the attention of the Scottish Youth Parliament, which could make representations to the Sentencing Commission, given that the commission seems to be some way off arriving at a conclusion to its deliberations.
That is exactly the point that I was going to make.
My first point is about the Scottish Youth Parliament, which John Scott mentioned. I hope that pupils from St Columba's might find out, if they have not already done so, how they can participate in those activities.
I do not want to sound a discordant note, but my experience is that it would let us and the Sentencing Commission off the hook simply to have one young person involved. That could be tokenistic. I would much prefer us to send a signal about engaging with young people, whether that is through the Scottish Youth Parliament or through young people in their communities, to ensure that the issue is dealt with far more systematically than it would be by having one young person on the commission. I hate to sound a discordant note, but I get desperately worried when we put one young person in such a position.
My information is that the full commission will be appointed shortly. Its remit is expected to be divided into stages and it will report to ministers on a rolling basis its recommendations for improvements to the sentencing system in Scotland. There might be occasions when people can go on and off the commission. We could make the point that, at some stage, young people should have their voice heard in whatever way the Sentencing Commission sees fit. Committee members seem to be suggesting that we recommend that the commission seriously considers the voice of young people with regard to sentencing policy.
Perhaps instead of placing a great weight of responsibility on one person's shoulders, the committee might wish to seek the views of the Scottish Youth Parliament. That would be a useful piece of work for both parties to undertake.
I apologise for being late and for missing the start of the presentation on the petition. As usual, it was because of the trains.
I remind members that the Scottish Youth Parliament has a justice committee, which engaged with the previous Justice 2 Committee in shaping the bill that became the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. It would be useful to seek that justice committee's views, given that young people in civic Scotland are already involved in this area. The issue would certainly be on the agenda.
Do the witnesses have any comments before we conclude this discussion?
I just want to thank the committee for its considerations. We will certainly take up the matter with our school-link MSP. I want to put it on record that Scott Barrie has been very helpful in this whole process. We will no doubt consult him with a view to making a submission to the Scottish Youth Parliament.
Are members happy to take forward the recommendations to the Sentencing Commission?
On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for bringing the matter to our attention. I hope that their actions send out a signal to many more young people that the Public Petitions Committee is here for them as well, that we listen to young people and that we take seriously the issues that they raise with us.
Shop Workers (Christmas Day and New Year's Day Working) (PE700)
Petition PE700, in the name of Bruce Fraser on behalf of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, concerns the closure of shops on Christmas day and new year's day and calls on the Parliament to support statutory protection of both days in order to prevent shops that are larger than 280m2 from opening. Bruce Fraser, who is accompanied by Lawrence Wason, has three minutes to make a brief statement to the committee in support of the petition, after which we will ask questions.
USDAW is the United Kingdom's fifth largest trade union and the largest in the retail sector. In Scotland, we represent 36,000 members, of which 70 per cent are shop workers.
We are joined by Karen Whitefield MSP, who has proposed the aforementioned bill. Karen, do you wish to add anything to Bruce Fraser's comments?
I am pleased to be here and that USDAW has been given the opportunity to present its petition to the committee. The issue has been raised with me by my constituents and by many people throughout Scotland since I lodged the proposal for the bill; there seems to be considerable support in Scotland for the proposal. There will obviously need to be a period of consultation, which will, I hope, start shortly, but so far indications are that there is wide support for ensuring that shop workers are guaranteed those two special days off. There is also support for allowing many other workers in Scotland those days off. If shops were to open on Christmas day and new year's day, many bus workers would have to work, so that we did not have reduced services, as would emergency service workers and many other workers throughout Scotland who are currently able to spend Christmas day and new year's day with their families.
I have some points of clarification. My first, which is for Bruce Fraser, concerns the 280m2—I am glad that you said how big that is, because I am hopeless at picturing such things. How did you arrive at that criterion? Did you consider the number of workers in a shop, exempting family businesses? I also seek clarification from Karen Whitefield as to whether her bill would exempt shops of a certain size or with a certain number of workers.
The figure of 280m2—or 3,000ft2—comes from the Sunday trading legislation. We were advised that it would be easier to stick to that than to try to introduce something new. Equally, we have no desire to prevent family-owned shops or small corner shops, many of which are owned by ethnic minorities that do not hold Christmas and new year as holidays, from opening on those days.
I will obviously consult on the proposal, but I am minded to take USDAW's advice and to use the Sunday trading legislation as the starting point for the consultation. I will have to await the views of people from throughout Scotland on the matter.
I warmly congratulate USDAW on being one of the best campaigning unions in Scotland. That is not a declaration of interest—I am not a member of USDAW, but I have observed from its publications and activities that the profile of the union has been raised in the past few years. My question is about wider support for USDAW. Does the union have the support of the Scottish Retail Consortium on the issue?
My understanding is that the Scottish Retail Consortium has no problem with our proposal for Christmas day, but that it has reservations about that for new year's day. You would be best to put that question to the consortium.
I thank USDAW for its presentation. I have already indicated my support for Karen Whitefield's proposed member's bill. My question follows on from Linda Fabiani's. I want to tease out the results of the consultation. What is your view on petrol stations that also serve groceries and which, as they are quite large, might meet the criteria? My other question concerns groceries that are owned by ethnic minorities—by the Asian community and so on—as some of them might cross the floor-space threshold. Had you thought about that?
Most petrol stations would not be caught by the legislation. At large supermarkets, the petrol station tends to stand alone. I do not know how the proposed legislation would tackle that, but normal petrol stations would not be caught by the 3,000ft2 criterion; there are few that are the size of tennis courts. I have already mentioned shops owned by the ethnic community, which we have no desire to close. Such shops tend to be smaller corner shops, so they would not be caught by the proposed legislation. At the moment, all retailers in Scotland can trade 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. We do not think that it is asking much to have legislation that requires them to close their doors for two days a year.
Like Karen Whitefield and one or two others, I was at a reception given recently by the Scottish Retail Consortium. The consortium listed a number of issues of concern, one of which was the proposed Christmas and new year's day trading in Scotland bill. I am aware of its position on that—I have no doubt that that will come out during the consultation.
I cannot give you an answer about Debenhams because we do not negotiate with the store.
Are the staff organised by another union?
No. We have a few members in Debenhams but we have been unable to attract sufficient members to gain recognition with the store.
Are you in any way concerned that the protection for shop workers that you are suggesting might be unfair, given that hospital workers, firemen, ambulancemen, policemen and people in the food production industry will have to work on those days? Do you not think that you are seeking an unfair advantage?
I do not think so. No one would deny that there are essential services that have to remain open. I do not think large retail stores can be classed as providing an essential service, especially given the number of hours during which stores are allowed to trade in the run-up to Christmas and new year. There is ample time for customers to get in all the supplies that they want. Besides, we have already said that the smaller stores would be open.
I think that John Scott's concern about essential workers might well be misplaced. I must declare an interest: I am a member of Unison and, as such, I am familiar with the concerns of people who work within the health service. Do you agree that if Sunday working and Christmas and new year holiday working were normalised, that might impinge on the terms and conditions of workers who already have to work at Christmas and new year on a rotation basis? Such a proposal could put at risk the premium rates that working on those days attracts.
That is a valid point. In the past, we have found that, generally speaking, all the retailers with whom we have had agreements have made double-time payments for Sunday working, for example. However, although the same has applied to working on the other customary holidays that I mentioned, such as Easter, Sunday very quickly became a normal working day, as you suggest. Particularly in the past two years, we have seen more and more pressure from retailers to do away with premium payments. In many cases, people have to work on Sundays for what we call straight time.
Good morning. I am sure that many people present will remember that, not too many years ago, Christmas day was just another working day. That is history—things are changing. I am interested in looking at the petition from two points of view. You suggest that big stores should not open on Christmas day and new year's day, which I accept is fine; on the other hand, you say that you want to protect the welfare and conditions of the work force. I just wonder whether your priority is to protect Christmas day and new year's day or to protect the conditions of the work force. I know that the two issues are related, but one must be the priority for you, as a union representative.
Obviously, the priority for us is to protect the terms and conditions of our members. We also believe that Christmas day and new year's day are important holidays for society in general. I was involved in retailing for 22 years. I started working in shops when I was 16 years old and I am 57 now. In all that time, Christmas day and new year's day were traditional holidays, and there was no question of our working on Christmas day. Indeed, until fairly recently, it was traditional for Christmas day, boxing day, 1 January and 2 January to be holidays. Our members and retailing staff in general have been very co-operative with the retailing companies, and shops are now open on boxing day—they have given that away. They have also given away 2 January, to a great extent. Along with others, we are simply saying that enough is enough. We have to protect those holidays and protect the staff.
So, if we were able to establish the principle that Christmas day and new year's day were official holidays, that would be sufficient to support your argument. I support the concept that nobody should be forced to work on Christmas day or new year's day.
As I understand the question, if we get Christmas day and new year's day defined in law as holidays, with the proviso that stores over a certain size cannot open, that would satisfy the terms of our petition.
Do members have any recommendations on the petition?
There seems to be general agreement with USDAW, and Karen Whitefield has lodged a proposal for a member's bill on the subject. Not an awful lot can be done until we can look at the results of the consultation. I do not know whether there is much merit in passing the petition on to another committee. The initiative has been taken.
We could ask the Scottish Executive whether it is going to support Karen Whitefield's proposed member's bill. It would be good if the committee received clarification on that point.
I was just going to suggest that. It would be worth while for us to forward the views of USDAW to the Executive before the consultation results are known, if we are interested in the success of the proposed bill. We could do that now.
I have two suggestions. The first, which is a slightly stronger course of action, would be for us to say that the committee supports the proposed bill and to seek the Executive's view on the issue. My second suggestion is to ask Karen Whitefield to give us an idea of when she thinks that her proposed bill might be introduced.
I am in the process of drawing up the consultation document, which I am discussing with the non-Executive bills unit. I hope that the consultation process—which has to last a minimum of three months—will start by the end of February. Once the consultation process is finished and the legislation has been drafted, I will then need to get a legislative slot if we are to go any further.
I disagree with Mike Watson's suggestion. I do not think that it is our role to say that we support anything prior to the public consultation.
I am afraid that I, too, disagree with Mike Watson's suggestion. I would not feel easy about supporting Karen Whitefield's proposed bill at this time.
What has happened in the past?
There have been occasions on which the committee has given a clear signal of its support for a specific issue.
I would not have any problem with that.
As a member of the previous Public Petitions Committee, I can confirm that that is the case. I support Mike Watson's proposal. I know that that might place other members, such as John Scott, in a difficult position, but I would have no problem in supporting Karen Whitefield's proposed bill. In fact, I am a signatory to it.
This issue might fall into a different category because Karen Whitefield already has a proposal for a bill, which any individual MSP can sign up to. I have signed Karen's proposal and I support it. There is no difficulty in that. However, we are caught between two stools. Clearly, the Public Petitions Committee has previously supported other petitions, but I do not know that it has ever been asked to support a petition that coincides with a bill. Each member could indicate their support for the issue by supporting the proposed bill.
Given that Linda Fabiani has suggested that it would be inappropriate for the committee to support a member's bill, I suggest that we write to the Executive to say that we support the petition and that we ask the Executive for its views on Karen Whitefield's proposed bill.
I am not yet sure whether I support the petition.
We should write to the Executive only to seek its views on the petition. That would not commit us to anything.
We should seek the Executive's views on the proposed bill rather than on the petition, although they are the same thing—
Mike, you almost got away with it there.
I see no reason why we should not state that a majority of committee members are in favour of the proposal.
There might be a majority, but the committee would not be unanimous. Personally, I am not yet convinced about the proposal. I would be interested to see the results of the consultation on Karen Whitefield's proposed bill. At the same time, I would not say that I do not support the proposal; I just have an open mind on it.
I cannot say either way, so I want to reserve my position.
We could send notice to the Executive that although the petition had support from members, it did not have the support of the committee. Would that satisfy people?
It would be particularly sad if we were to do that. Apart from John Scott, members have expressed their clear support for the petition. If we were to follow the convener's suggestion, it might dilute the perception that the proposed bill has received our support. I would be cautious about using that wording.
That is why I suggested that we should seek the Executive's views. The committee need not express a view at this point. We could do that subsequently, once the consultation has taken place, if that is the desire of the committee at that time.
Let me try a classic compromise by suggesting that the committee should support the principles that underlie the petition and seek the Executive's view. Naturally, John Scott has suggested that the devil will be in the detail, but we will not know that until the consultation process is under way and the results emerge. I have no problem with supporting the underlying principles—I do not think that anyone around the table would have.
I am not entirely sure that I can commit myself to supporting the underlying principles.
Convener, it is the majority view.
Is there a willingness in the committee—
This is a completely unnecessary conversation. We have a proposal for a member's bill and we have a petition, on which we should ask for the Executive's views. Why do we need to support either of them just now?
I would rather that we had an agreement that we could all sign up to.
I move that we support Jackie Baillie's proposition—
And what a wonderful woman Jackie Baillie is.
Jackie Baillie is absolutely right. We should vote on it. I am looking for a seconder for my proposal.
I second it.
The difficulty is that John Scott has already said that he does not support the principle.
Convener, this could set a precedent.
We should vote on it.
I do not want to bring the matter to a vote. I would rather not have the committee take a position that not all of us are signed up to before we have even had a chance to hear the Executive's view.
We have had votes before.
We have divided on issues before, but we try to avoid that where possible. It would be helpful if we could find a position that the whole committee could agree to and that did not tie us down to one position or another.
I am slightly uneasy with that proposal. That would mean that, on any issue, one member could prevent the committee from taking a position. That would not be right. I am happy to go along with Jackie Baillie's proposal. I do not want to put the matter to a vote, but it is clear from the discussion that a majority are in favour of the principles behind both the petition and the proposed bill. On that basis, we should ask for the Executive's comments. We need not state the matter more strongly than that. It will be clear to anyone who reads the Official Report which members were not behind that position. People are perfectly entitled to take a view.
The majority view of the committee is clear, but I need to try to achieve a position on which there is consensus. If we cannot do that, I would certainly sign up to Jackie Baillie's proposal and I would have absolutely no difficulty in supporting Mike Watson's recommendation. I have tried to get a consensus, but that has not been possible.
In the interest of promoting a consensus, I point out that we have often sought the Executive's views on issues that we have agreed with or disagreed with without necessarily expressing a position on the petitioner's proposal. I see no reason why we cannot all agree that we should write to the Executive to ask for its views and leave the matter at that.
I would not be happy to do that.
The Executive's views will not change my views.
We will need to have a vote to find out who supports the proposal and who does not.
I want to record in the Official Report that I will vote on the general principle of what we should do rather than on the issue itself. The way in which we are talking round the issue is becoming a bit ridiculous.
There is a difficulty. Helen Eadie has suggested that the Public Petitions Committee should write to the Executive to support the underlying principles of the petition. Are members happy with her proposal, rather than with saying that we support the proposed bill? I think that the majority of members agree to the proposal. Members should not worry—they have expressed their views and there will be a show of hands. I am sorry, Karen, but I am trying to sort things out among ourselves.
On a point of information, convener. It would be more appropriate for the committee to write to the Executive to support the underlying principles, as there is no bill yet. Consultation has not begun, so there is only a proposal, which amounts to two lines. It would be more appropriate and correct for the committee to say that it supports the underlying principles of the proposed bill.
Helen Eadie proposed that we should support the petition. Apparently, I must ask for a show of hands to determine the majority position.
I thought that we were going to discuss a nice, uncontroversial petition.
I know, but the committee tends to divide on non-contentious issues.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Secret Societies (Membership) (PE693)
The next petition is PE693, in the name of Sidney McKechnie Gallagher, on the membership of secret societies such as the freemasons. The petition calls on the Parliament to introduce legislation that requires anyone who is involved in legal proceedings to declare membership of secret societies such as the freemasons. The petitioner claims that he experienced a miscarriage of justice as a result of masonic bias by the police, lawyers, court officials and witnesses. His experiences are detailed in his submission. I remind members that the committee cannot become involved in the petitioner's individual case and that the issue has been considered recently. A few months ago, we considered a petition that raised the issue of secret societies, so we have already considered some aspects of the matter. However, I welcome comments from members.
For the reasons that you have given, I suggest that we simply write to the petitioner enclosing all the Official Reports of meetings of the Public Petitions Committee and Justice 2 Committee in which there have been discussions about the issue and say that the Parliament is not minded to take the issue any further.
I support the suggestion that we write to the petitioner with that information, but I do not see that there would be anything wrong with copying the content of it to the Justice 2 Committee in relation to its consideration of the previous petition on this subject, PE652.
As a member of the Justice 2 Committee, I suggest that we do not do what Carolyn Leckie has suggested, for the simple reason that that committee decided to take no further action on the petition until we had more substantive evidence from people about the main issue of the petition, which is the membership of masonic societies. The only aspect of PE652 that was taken forward by the Justice 2 Committee relates to the 100-year closure order on some of the material that was part of the Dunblane inquiry. As PE693 deals mainly with membership of the freemasons, I suggest that we do what we did with PE306 and take no further action until we have much more substantive information.
We are still considering PE652. It is not a dead petition. However, we have to deal with the specifics of PE693, which calls for the membership of secret societies to no longer be secret. We have to discuss whether we want to pursue the petition and ask for legislation on that to be considered, as requested.
Some of the references in the petition relate to court records and transcripts. To be honest, without having those, I do not know whether the version that we have been presented with is accurate. It is therefore a shame that the petitioner is not here. If some of the references to what happened in court and to the lodge membership of the police and others are proven to be substantiated—and I would not rule that out—that would constitute substantial evidence and I would therefore be concerned about just binning the petition.
If we start to go through court transcripts and so on to determine whether a petition is valid, there is a danger that we will get into a serious situation. It is not our job to do that; it is for the petitioner to provide that evidence. If the petitioner feels that they have not had a fair trial, they can seek legal redress. It is not for us to sit as a sort of court of appeal in respect of that person's case. I have read the petition and have every sympathy for the person if they suffered a miscarriage of justice. However, it is not for us to decide whether they suffered a miscarriage of justice and whether that was a result of freemasonry. The petition asks us to ask the Scottish Parliament to consider passing legislation that will force membership of secret societies to no longer be secret. That is the essence of the petition, not whether the person's trial was fair.
I understand that but, on the question of legislation, obviously the Justice 2 Committee has had some sort of discussion about the need for substantive evidence.
I will explain why the petitioner is not here. I have to make a judgment on whether the information that has been provided would allow us to make a decision without the petitioner coming before us. Some of the petitioners who come before us have provided lengthy submissions, but it has been decided that it would be useful for members to have the chance to ask them about the wider aspects of the petition. I did not think that there was anything in the petition that we could not discuss without the petitioner being here. We know what the petition is about and what the petitioner is asking for. I do not think that any questioning of the petitioner would have helped us to get a clearer picture of what they were asking for. That is why his request to speak was not granted.
In addition, has the petitioner not already appeared before the Public Petitions Committee?
A petitioner has appeared to talk about the same issue, but it was a different person.
Does the new Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 stop membership of secret societies being secret? Could the clerk clarify that?
I do not know off the top of my head, but obviously I could find out.
It will not have any impact on the situation.
I would not have thought so.
I have it in the back of my mind that a colleague considered the issue before through the Standards Committee. I am confident that such societies are not affected by that act.
Presumably then, such societies must have been considered when the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill was drafted and the committee considering that bill must have decided not to stop those societies being secret. Is that a fair comment?
I do not know. Like Carolyn Leckie, I understand what you are saying about the individual case, convener, but it would be worth sending the petition to the Justice 2 Committee, even if that is just for information rather than to ask that committee to consider the case. This is yet another case in which there is a suspicion of goings-on in the background that should not have happened, and that suspicion should be recorded. The same basic complaint lies behind this complaint as lay behind previous complaints. We should at least send the petition to the convener of the Justice 2 Committee.
The point that concerns me about the petition is that, although the petitioner may have been able to identify that the individual whom he was charged with assaulting was a freemason, he provided no evidence whatever that the other people involved, such as the procurator fiscal, the police and the sheriff, were freemasons.
Maybe he is scared.
He wants the legislation to be changed on the basis of a suspicion.
I also put it on the record that I am not a member of the freemasons.
Can I put it on the record that I am not a member?
This is silly.
The point that I was making was that, after the Public Petitions Committee made its recommendation, I was challenged about whether I had influenced the committee because of my membership of the freemasons.
There are a lot of theories and suspicions around the subject.
I simply want to make it clear that my points are about the petition and the evidence that has been produced to sustain it. My concern is that we do not have the remit to consider the issue. The petition may well fit in with the work of one of the Parliament's committees—I do not rule that out—but I do not think that we have to look into the circumstances of the case.
I agree.
I would have appreciated the opportunity to question the petitioner and I am a wee bit concerned about the decision not to question him. It would have been worth while to do so. I support the principle of the petition; all those involved in public life, including those in the courts, should have to declare membership of secret societies. I would like the petition to go somewhere.
To clarify, the reason why the petitioner was not chosen to come before the committee was because the issue is not new. The petitioner is asking for something that has been asked for before. There may be special circumstances, but the individual is asking for legislation in respect of secret societies, which the committee has considered before. I must consider priorities. As we have only a certain amount of time for people to speak to us, we try to keep the number to three or four people in each meeting. The petitioners from whom we heard this morning all raised issues that had not been discussed previously by the committee. Although we have previously considered sentencing policy, we have not done so in respect of young people; we have not considered Christmas opening hours; and we have not considered the sportscotland consultation. Those were all new issues for us, but this petition does not raise a new issue. The petitioner is asking for something that has already been considered by the Justice 2 Committee. That is the basis on which we are considering the petition this morning. Do members have recommendations on what we should do with it?
I proposed at the outset that we should not pursue it any further. However, in view of what has been said, it might be best to send it to the Justice 2 Committee for information, as Linda Fabiani suggested.
Are members happy with that suggestion?
Census Forms (Legal Status) (PE697)
The next petition is PE697, on the legal standing of census forms. The petition is by Joyce Macdonald and calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that the information on a census form has the same legal standing as that on a birth certificate. The petition is prompted by the petitioner's own case, in which she tried unsuccessfully to establish a claim on a share of her uncle's estate since his death in 1998. Her claim rests on the contention that her late father was prevented through illegitimacy and the laws of succession, as they then stood, from inheriting any part of his father's estate. She argues that census records should have been sufficient evidence to establish inheritance rights. Her experiences are detailed in her submission, but members are reminded that the committee cannot become involved in the petitioner's own individual case.
We obviously cannot discuss the individual case, although I sympathise with it very much. I am sure that there have been other similar cases in which people may have felt that information contained in census forms could have helped. However, the reality is that individuals fill in census forms. Those forms have no legal standing and there is no proof that anything that is written in them is in fact true. That is the harsh reality. By their very nature, census forms have to be kept confidential, or the vast majority of people will stop telling the truth on them.
That is a good suggestion. Do members agree that we should do that?
School Closures and Mergers (Consultation) (PE701)
The next petition is PE701, by Frank Mullarkey, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to review the consultation arrangements regarding school closures and mergers to ensure that the concerns of local communities are fully taken into account, that proper risk assessments are conducted and that detailed costings are made available.
I would probably not have said much on this petition, but it has recently emerged that a school in my constituency is likely to be subject to closure. I think that a couple of points arise from looking at the legislation that underpins the requirement to consult. The consultation must happen over not less than 28 days in the period between arriving at the agreement to consult and coming to a conclusion. That is not a huge amount of time. It is actually a very short period of time in which parents have an opportunity to put their views, and they are not usually backed up by professional expertise in the way that local authorities are. On the time issue alone, there is something to be said for extending the period and looking again at the consultation procedures for closures and mergers.
Obviously, people know that Carolyn Leckie and I and many others have been involved in this particular case. I am shocked by what I have seen of the consultation. Real consultation should be about participation, but it would appear that that is not what happens. There are an awful lot of very disappointed people in South Lanarkshire—in East Kilbride and Hamilton. People feel very strongly about the outcome. They are angry that the consultation was completely inadequate and that the goalposts were changed many times.
Petition PE701 highlights huge issues about the consultations on school provision, particularly given that they were conducted by an elected local authority. The issues are similar to those that are confronted in respect of health service provision. I support the petitioners and I supported the campaigns throughout the consultation process. I want to place on the record that I have two daughters who are at high school in East Kilbride. As they are affected by the proposals, I also participated in the consultation as a parent.
What I intended to say has been said eloquently by others. I am surprised that the Executive appears to be dragging its feet on the issuing of guidance. The Executive has made a commitment to issue guidance. It would make a great difference if that were done. The sooner it gets on with it, the better.
I get the feeling that members support Linda Fabiani's suggestion that we ask the Executive where it is with the matter.
We should tell the Executive to hurry up.
I am not sure whether the committee would normally do this, but I wonder whether we could give the minister sight of the report that was submitted in support of PE701. The campaign may have put it into the minister's hands already, but is it possible for us to do that?
It would be okay for us to do that. The report is seen as supporting evidence and it can go to the minister with the letter that we are to send to him. Are members happy to proceed on that basis?
Next
Current Petitions