Nuisance Hedges (PE497)
I welcome everyone to the ninth meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received no apologies, so we will move straight to item 1 on the agenda, which is new petitions. The first petition, PE497, is from James and Pamala McDougall, on the subject of nuisance caused by hedges. Mr and Mrs McDougall are here to make a presentation to the committee. Good morning. You have three minutes in which to make an opening statement, after which it will be open to members to ask questions.
The Scottish Executive is aware that nuisance hedges are a problem that blights the lives of many people. Following a survey that took place in January 2001, Jim Wallace stated that there was a need for legislation but that time could not be found for that. We are here, 16 months later, to ask the Public Petitions Committee's assistance in expediting the matter. We represent the Scottish section of Hedgeline, a UK-wide organisation that was set up to highlight the problem and to press for a change in the law. Some committee members will be aware of the problem, through letters from their constituents or through being lobbied by Scothedge members in February.
We do not exaggerate the results of high hedges on the victims. Our experiences and those of other people are testimony. Those results include depression and anxiety due to a lack of light in homes and gardens and to the stress that is caused by rows with neighbours or through their not speaking to us at all. Believe me, if mediation worked, we would not be here today. Taking the sunshine from people's lives can damage their health. It causes disharmony and distress in families as they try to deal with the problems. With another hat on, I am a relationship counsellor.
Thank you very much for keeping to time, which makes my job much easier.
What is the solution to the problem? Do you think that legislation should insist on planning permission for leylandii hedges, or do you think that it should allow for hedges to be only 2m high? What would be the better result?
We would like the growing of hedges to be treated in a similar way to the putting up of a wall or a fence. A hedge that was more than 2m high would have to be discussed by the local authority's planning committee. That committee might agree to have the hedge 8ft or 10ft high because of its distance from someone's home. If the trees were treated in a similar manner, that would be okay.
So the planning permission would stipulate the maximum height of the hedge.
Yes. It would stipulate a reasonable height.
What solution would you propose if someone had planning permission for a 6ft hedge, planted it and became unable to look after it? I am thinking in particular of elderly people who may have planted the hedge but are subsequently unable to keep it to a certain height.
I would hope that the neighbours, if they are good neighbours, would help them maintain it. This is what local government is for—to help elderly people who have such difficulties, through citizens advice bureaux, social work departments and so on.
I congratulate you on bringing forward a case about something that I know affects many people. I am aware of a number of people who live in quite distressing situations. In the instance that I have in mind, the trees are located across a roadway but, standing 30ft to 40ft in height, block off all the light. Do you feel that such trees create not only a depressive but an intimidatory atmosphere?
Scothedge, which is the branch—if you will forgive the pun—of Hedgeline UK, has more than 100 paid-up members. We receive telephone calls from people in quite distressed states every day, asking for our advice following years of problems. Sadly, the only advice that we can give is that people lop the trees standing over their boundaries and offer the branches back to the neighbours. That is about it. It causes a lot of distress.
Do local authorities implement the controls that exist? In many cases where leylandii trees form a boundary and grow over a footpath, for example, local authorities fail to address the problem.
In Dundee—I am not sure whether it is in your constituency, convener—there is such a pathway which people are unable to enjoy. There is an argument about who owns the trees and the local authority says that it has nothing to do with the issue. The owner of the trees cannot be found, but the whole area is ruined for the householders nearby.
You will be aware that Scott Barrie MSP is considering introducing a member's bill on the matter. Have you approached any MSPs about amending the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and putting something of use into it? Has anyone considered that option?
We have a pile of letters to and from various MSPs that would go up to my shoulder. There are also replies from Mr Jim Wallace's office. The Executive has apparently considered the route of legislation without going ahead, but that is the route that we have chosen. As James says, we hope that we will be consulted if legislation is proposed.
There is a bill that is being introduced right now, and Jim Wallace said that he would consider the matter at the earliest possible time. Has anybody looked at the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to ascertain whether there is any possibility of covering the issue in that bill?
The answer is no. I hope that, as a benefit of our appearing in front of you today, the committee might point the matter in the proper direction.
Thank you for providing on paper in advance your well-argued case. Most people would regard blockage of light as especially serious in our hemisphere, given that there is not much light for long periods of the year. Some of us might leap to the conclusion that the height of these hedges should be a planning matter, but it is not at the moment. Will you clarify whether you wish to go ahead entirely on nuisance hedges, or whether it would be acceptable to include the height of nuisance trees? We know that something can be done about a protruding branch. Do you think that it is logical that nuisance trees should be included in your argument or in any future legislative move?
I am sure that we would include nuisance trees, because there is an argument about what is a hedge and what is not a hedge. A hedge might not have been a hedge five years ago, but it is now. Hedges are all made up of nuisance trees. We would be happy to include an individual nuisance tree or three individual nuisance trees.
The question is height rather than spread, which current legislation can cope with. Is it the case that the type of hedge in question has outgrown past rules and that you are mainly talking about leylandii, because privet is a slow-growing hedging material? Is not leylandii the main nuisance?
Yes. That perhaps reflects on the type of people who plant leylandii. The sorts of people who plant privet hedges are quite happy to tend them for a period of time. Leylandii just shoot up. They are here today and up there tomorrow.
Leylandii was not common in Britain until 20 or 30 years ago.
On "Gardeners' Question Time" on the radio a few months ago the guy from Northern Ireland said that the worst thing that has happened in gardening in the past 30 years is the introduction of leylandii hedges.
People sought them for privacy at the time and knew that they were fast growing, but now they are taking over much of the country.
They get out of hand.
(Highlands and Islands) (SNP): The background note that I have says that the UK Government's leylandii working group agreed a voluntary code of practice to be provided on hedges and plants at the point of sale. Do you have any information on whether that happens?
We have been informed that a working group has been set up in London. It is extremely complicated and there is a lot of disagreement. It would appear that the Hedgeline people down south do not want anything to do with it, because there are a lot of vested interests.
As far as you know the working group is not helping. Does the group go to big firms such as Dobbies Garden Centres and tell them not to sell the stuff?
It would be great if the group told Dobbies not to sell leylandii, but it would be better if Dobbies told people that they have to trim the hedges twice a year.
Does Dobbies do that?
No. I am sure that it does not.
Have you tried to find that out? I do not mean just Dobbies but other garden centres.
I get dragged around many garden centres and I have never heard them tell people to trim the hedges.
We love trees and bushes. I am a keen gardener.
Leylandii is not even a Scottish tree.
The note says that the UK Government has published guidelines. Have you seen a copy of them?
Yes, but the guidelines are voluntary and do not work. We are talking about selfish neighbours who do not read guidelines and are not interested at all.
Are you aware that in common law you have a remedy against anyone who excludes your light, but that involves court action? Does anyone ever go to court?
One of our members went to court a couple of years ago and it cost him over £5,000. People cannot afford to do that.
Did he win?
No, he lost. The cost of the chairman of Hedgeline's case down south ran into £30,000. Ordinary people do not have that sort of money.
That is true.
I think that that would be the solution. People who allow trees to grow that high are usually unreasonable people. Most mediation would fail and the situation could be resolved only by arbitration.
Everyone understands that a hedge is something that is cultivated and tended from time to time. However, the pictures that are attached to the petition seem to show a forest of trees overhanging someone's garden fence, which is quite a different issue. If there were legislation to restrict the height of a hedge to 2ft, how would it apply to the sort of situation that the photographs depict, which is more of a tree culture than a hedge culture?
We hope that, if there were a change in the law, people would recognise that and come to an arrangement with their neighbours about trimming the hedges back voluntarily. If the law came into effect and people still did not trim their hedges, the local authority could try to mediate, but that period of mediation should be limited to three months or so. If that mediation fails, the hedges should be trimmed to help improve the quality of life of people who deserve a decent quality of life and are not harming anyone else.
There is no dispute about the fact that some sort of action is required. You mentioned that you had a big file that contained correspondence from Jim Wallace. Does the minister accept that some legal action of last resort should be introduced in law?
Yes.
Is the problem simply one of a shortage of parliamentary time?
Yes. He stated that in January last year.
I know that Scott Barrie is lodging his member's bill today, but I lodged one about six months ago and have been told that the chances of mine being dealt with before the end of this session of the Scottish Parliament are minimal. It is therefore unlikely that Scott Barrie's bill will be successful. I do not think that the member's bill route will be helpful to the cause of the petition. Would you urge this committee to try to impress on the Executive the need for it to act in this respect?
That is definitely why we are here today.
The Executive has made a statement that legislation is required to deal with the unfair situation. Since then, we have waited 16 months and we suspect that we might have to wait many more months, each of which might be a month of misery for some people. The Executive should find the time.
I thank you for your helpful presentation this morning. We will now discuss what to do with the petition and keep you informed of the petition's progress.
I had better have a look at Mr Barrie's bill once he has lodged it. However, my solution to the problem would be to give the planning departments power to make orders in relation to hedges that cut out the light. The bill could be quite short, unless Mr Barrie wants to go further. Do we have a copy of it?
No, it will be lodged today.
I would like a copy of the guidelines that the Government published, as I would quite like to read them.
We can arrange for that.
In the light of what the petitioner said, it seems that it would not be worth while asking the leylandii working group for information.
As well as asking the Executive to set out people's present options, we could ask it to be specific about what legislative changes it intends to introduce.
It would be a two-line act.
The Executive must have a fair idea of its intentions. I well recall, in the early days of the Scottish Parliament, the Executive putting out a consultation paper to which it received a considerable number of responses, so it must have some idea of how to overcome the problem of high hedges.
Yes, we could do that, to bring in the kind of change that everybody agrees is necessary. Matters may arise to do with the short title and the long title—we have to be very careful.
I appreciate that. It will depend on what comes up during the committee stages of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill—I cannot recall what stage we are at.
We should ask the Executive to confirm whether it would be possible to amend the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.
I would appreciate that. There is another possibility. Statutory instruments are always a questionable means of bringing about change but, if the Executive were to consider local government legislation, there might be a way of introducing a statutory instrument on the matter. From the views that have been expressed by members from different parties, I think that any change is unlikely to be controversial. In fact, it would be welcomed.
We can certainly ask the Executive whether it would be possible to introduce a statutory instrument that would give legal effect to such a change.
I have been looking at some of the photographs that came with the petition and I would like to make a point about what John Farquhar Munro said. If someone buys or builds a house adjacent to a forest, they know what they are doing; that is not the same as being adjacent to someone who deliberately plants a very tall hedge.
That is the kind of point that any legislation would have to consider.
Could we also stress to the Executive that the public would like word as soon as possible. We are coming into the worst period of the problem—the summer—and people will still be suffering. Like a good number of people, I know once-sunny streets in Glasgow that are now dim or quite dark. There is also physical danger because of the amount of leaves falling on to pavements—even when it is not autumn.
We will certainly impress on the Executive the need for early action.
I will make one point, which does not contradict the points that Dorothy-Grace Elder made, but lays down a warning. If we start talking about trees, we will get into all kinds of difficulty. It would be much better if we concentrate on the high hedge, to which the petition refers.
It might be logical to put the two together, but if we can get through on leylandii and the high hedge problem, we could move on to the trees afterwards.
We cannot solve all the problems at one time. I am sure that the petitioners will be very pleased if we can deal with leylandii.
Stone of Scone (PE505)
The second petition is PE505, from Robbie the Pict, on behalf of the Scottish Peoples Mission, on the return and restoration of the stone of Scone to the community of Scone. Robbie the Pict has been to the committee before, so he knows the routine. Good morning.
Good morning. I will try for double time as it has been a round trip of more than 500 miles to get here. It is a difficult exercise to meet the time limit of three minutes.
That is an interesting amendment, which we will consider.
The petition aims to return the tethering stone of Scone to Scone. Previously, the Scottish offices of the UK Executive stated that the preference of the Secretary of State for Scotland was to house what they call the stone of destiny in Edinburgh Castle. The 29 people who replied to a consultation exercise in agreement with that supposedly outnumbered an unstated number of signatories to the petition organised by Perth and Kinross Council, which is surely more reflective of the wishes of the local owners. The statement adds:
What do you want the final result to be? If the stone were returned to Scone—and Scone accepted it—would that be the end of the matter as far as you are concerned?
I would support the wish of Perth museum to house the stone.
On behalf of Scone?
Yes. The museum has wonderful facilities. The stone would stimulate visitor numbers to Perth. It is expensive to see the stone in Edinburgh and it is also difficult to access, from the point of view of parking and so on. If the stone helped to take visitors from Edinburgh to Perth that would be all the better, as Edinburgh is saturated with visitors.
My second question relates to security at Perth museum. Is the museum happy to accept the security problem involved in looking after such a precious thing?
I have had discussions with Mike Taylor and he is perfectly happy with that. Indeed, he was almost insulted when I suggested that his 10 guards could not take care of the tethering stone of Scone.
If the stone were returned to Perth museum for some reason and everyone was satisfied about its security, would you consider that to be the end of your petition?
Yes. That is the proper place for it. It is not the stone of Edinburgh—it is the stone of Scone.
The petition is very like the earlier petition that you submitted to the committee. At that time, you thought that the Public Petitions Committee had misinterpreted the petition as being about returning the stone to Scone, whereas your main concern was to establish ownership of the stone.
I consider this a matter of justice and law and order. That aspect was not taken on in the consideration of the previous petition. I mean no disrespect to the committee, but there is a significant point of law relating to ownership, proprietorship, deed and title and what is proper. I admit that that puts the committee in a slightly embarrassing situation because it must decide which master it should best serve. The Scottish Parliament is an extension and an agency of the Westminster Parliament, but it is also hoping to get on its feet as a persona in law that reflects the interests of the Scottish people.
Is the litmus test to which you refer the fact that ownership of the stone should be decided under Scots law?
Yes. However, the police have clearly refused to act, as they consider this to be a political matter. The letter from the chief superintendent states:
Is there not a distinction between the police conducting a criminal inquiry and the constitutional issue of where ownership of the stone lies?
This does not need to be a constitutional matter—it has been made a constitutional matter by the thieves. They have made this into a special case, when in fact we are talking about the theft of a stone from the front of the palace at Scone. This is an ordinary criminal inquiry that the police have decided is of a political nature. The people do not agree.
Will you confirm that, ultimately, you want the stone to be in Scone?
Yes. The stone of Scone should be returned to Scone.
In that case, why are you clouding the issues with legal argument? We all know how frustrating the justice system can be and the high costs that are involved in it. The Scottish Executive has the power to place the stone in Scone. The arguments that you make about visitors and the attractions that exist in Edinburgh are very well made. The Executive wishes to spread throughout Scotland the benefits brought by the Scottish Parliament. Rather than emphasising a legal technicality, it might be far better for you to plead directly with the Scottish Executive for the return of the stone to Scone.
The technicality to which Phil Gallie refers is a very radical technicality—it is called the law of the land. The previous submissions that were made concerning the location of the stone in Edinburgh Castle were repelled on the basis that the authorities were very happy with the increase in the number of visitors to the castle. Why should Edinburgh be able to exploit that? Perth should enjoy the benefit of the increased number of visitors, because it is the stone's home town.
I am inclined to agree with Phil Gallie that, if we continue to emphasise the issue of ownership, we will end up being told that the stone belongs to the people of Scotland, rather than the Crown, but that it should stay in Edinburgh.
The stone belongs to the people of Scone.
The strongest point that you make relates to the presence of the stone in Edinburgh. This could be regarded as a case of war theft. After wars, it is normal for stolen goods to be returned to precisely the town or village from which they came—although such goods are not always returned. The source of the stone was Scone. If we regard this as a war theft, logically the stone should return to Scone. Is that not a better line of argument than the one that you are taking? Is it not more important for the stone to go to Scone than for us to continue making a legalistic argument, perhaps for many years?
The legalistic argument relates to a straight case of theft. The treaty of Edinburgh of 1328 is also important. In that treaty, Edward III asserts that the stone that was taken from Scone should be returned. Let the treaty be honoured. I am very suspicious of having the issue made subject to economic surveys and to consideration of the merits of tourism traffic movement. If we take that route, the stone could stay in Edinburgh Castle for the next 100 years. The authorities have shown their hand on previous occasions, when they did not take seriously factors such as those that I have just mentioned. There is an overwhelming argument for stimulating interest in Perth museum, which is an efficient, well-run museum that should receive support. If that support could be provided by returning the stone, why is the Executive resisting the measure?
Edinburgh Castle is rather overloaded with treasures.
Where would the stone be moved from? Edinburgh Castle is a British army station—it looks as though there is oppressive retention of that imagined palladium. The truth is that that is absurd. Let Perth and Kinross enjoy its wee chuckle. Let it have the stone on view locally—it will still be an attraction for everyone in Scotland. If a person can get to Edinburgh, they can get to Perth. That is where the stone properly and justly belongs. It is a matter of law and order.
I am inclined to agree with other members. We could debate the ownership of the stone for many years. Nobody knows better than you do the difficulties in trying to convince the law courts that they have made an error or a misjudgment in interpreting legislation. One need only look at what happened in respect of the Skye bridge.
With respect, I do not want to send the petition to the law courts. An order should come from the Parliament.
The argument is protracted and on-going. I fear that we would be frustrated at the end of such a discussion.
Basically, I do not care what shenanigans and manoeuvring need to happen in the world of politics or of law to get it there. If the stone is properly returned to the community to which it belongs, I and the people who support the petition would be satisfied.
What does it cost to get into Perth museum, if anything? What does it cost to see the stone in Edinburgh Castle?
Admission to the former is free, but it is £4.50 to see the stone, as far as I know.
And there will be a queue.
There will be a queue and car parking costs. It is a couple of hundred pounds to get a car back if a ticket has expired by the time a person gets back from the queue.
You referred to a straightforward theft. Matters of theft are for the Procurator Fiscal Service and the Crown Office. Edward I has long gone from the scene and the prosecution service has said that it is unlikely to pursue the matter as a straightforward theft. Is that not a realistic point of view? It is not for the Scottish Parliament to interfere with decisions about prosecutions.
That is why I have emphasised to the committee that it can act in a transcendent manner. It is clear that the police did not act without fear or favour. I was told privately that the issue is a political red-hot potato. If that is the case, it will take an organisation such as the Parliament to take an Alexandrine sword through this Gordian knot and say, "If the issue is political and involves law and order, we should defend the people's interests and take a decision over the heads of Chief Superintendent MacKay and the procurator fiscal." The procurator fiscal, to whom I wrote, also said that and referred me to the Scottish Office. That is how a private prosecution started that lasted for three years. We began to get action only the night before John Major announced that he was returning the stone. I sent a list of 13 legal challenges to the constitutional unit of the Home Office the night before. They recognise that there is a question of theft and are trying to deal with it without losing face.
You acknowledge that interfering in individual decisions by the Crown Office, the Lord Advocate or the procurators fiscal is a problem for any parliamentary committee and, indeed, for the Parliament as a whole.
Do not be scared of those people.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that under Scots law we are not allowed to interfere in such decisions—they are completely independent of any political pressure.
You need not ask them to act at this point.
It is a matter of moving the stone.
It is a matter of public record in common law that the king of England ordered the stone to be removed. The treaty of Edinburgh and Northampton, another matter of public record, promises it back.
What would you say to people such as Phil Gallie who would argue that, as we operate under a devolved Administration within the United Kingdom, it is up to the Westminster Parliament, which is sovereign, to decide on whether the best place for the stone is Edinburgh Castle?
I would say that the United Kingdom is a notional treaty between the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England. No document to that effect has been signed and there has been no visible consent by the sovereign people of Scotland. The basis for the use of the term United Kingdom is quite shaky and the basis for calling the country Great Britain was shaky up until 1800. The terms of the Act of Union 1707 still contain reference to the rights of the kingdom of Scotland, so the arrangement, which has been in existence for only 300 years, is temporal. Sumaria was in existence for 3,000 years.
That is a nice reminder.
Some of us do not agree that the Westminster Parliament should be sovereign. On a practical level, do you not think that the reluctance of the constabulary and the legal authorities to get involved in the question of whose property the stone is might be based on the fact that, if they went down the road of determining specific ownership, they would need to investigate the Koh-i-noor diamond and much of the royal collection?
In Scotland, we are not obliged simply to follow established practice. It is a particularly English concept that if one gets off with something for long enough, it becomes an imperialistic right. The example of child abuse counters that argument: the fact that a case of child abuse has been going on for 18 years, say, does not make it right. That is the short answer.
Do you accept that if the stolen stone of Scone were investigated in such a way, quite a large proportion of the goods that have been seized for kings over many centuries would have to be gone through?
That is a problem for guilty imperialists, not for the present petitioner. I will not press them on where the Koh-i-noor diamond came from. Perhaps a Robbie the Pict in India might want to take that up. That is an issue for the guilty imperialists and whomever they robbed in the course of their imperialism.
Are there any other questions? It seems that there are not. You are free to stay to listen to the discussion about what to do with the petition.
I am very much obliged.
Sorry, I have a final question, which I forgot to ask you. The Scottish Peoples Mission obviously supports the return of the stone to Scone, as does Perth and Kinross Council. Is there any indication of wider support for that position?
The System 3 survey in The Herald, which was carried out when the stone was about to be returned in 1997, is indicative of the will of the people on that; it is much more indicative than the phone-round that was organised by Michael Forsyth. It is worth remembering that only 29 people in the country voted to put the stone in Edinburgh Castle. That view was considered to outweigh a petition that Perth and Kinross Council raised, the number of signatories to which the Scottish Office would not admit. The jemmying in of the stone to Edinburgh Castle needs to be re-examined. The people should have more say on that.
Thank you very much.
Some time has passed since the stone went to Edinburgh Castle and it would be reasonable for the committee to say that the time has come to review whether that is the best place for it. We should bear in mind the enormous access restrictions that apply to the castle, especially for visitors who have a car. The fact that one has to pay must also be taken into account.
I remind members that, when we dealt with the matter before, we agreed to take no further action on the basis of the response that we got from the Executive at the time.
Now that we have VisitScotland in place of the Scottish Tourist Board, is the time not right to consider the matter again? VisitScotland has shown that it wants to be active in all kinds of ways and to do things that the Scottish Tourist Board was not good enough at doing. I think that we should say that enough time has passed and that the matter should now be reconsidered.
Before we discuss that, I would like to deal with the action suggested in the papers before us. The paper says that the petitioners have tried every avenue to establish the legal ownership of the stone and to try to secure its return to Scone. So far, however, they have been unable to persuade anyone of their case, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Office, which confirmed that ownership of the stone lies with the Crown. The question of ownership appears to be a constitutional issue. It is not for the Parliament to interpret constitutional law, and it is the courts that must decide on such constitutional matters. Given that the majority of respondents—although that was only 29 people—said that they wanted the stone to be in Edinburgh Castle, it is suggested that we should respond to the petitioners by saying that we cannot take any further action, and advise them to pursue the matter through the courts.
Robbie the Pict's evidence was very positive on one particular issue—he wanted the stone to go back to Scone. We would do him a disservice to consider any other aspect above that main objective. On that issue, there is unity in the committee, as you suggest.
Is it agreed that we should write to the Scottish Executive in the terms suggested by Winnie Ewing?
Could we write to VisitScotland as well?
We could do that.
Dr Ewing mentioned that there is a £4.50 charge for Edinburgh Castle but that the Perth museum is free. That could perhaps be incorporated in our letter.
Yes, that is what Winnie Ewing suggested.
Thank you for confirming that. Perhaps reference should also be made to the severe problems of agricultural areas in the past year or so, as Perth is in the centre of an agricultural area, and to the justice of the case, in modern terms. It is pretty obvious that the stone belongs to Scone and that, for all the reasons that we have listed, it should be returned. I do not accept the security reason that has been quoted several times. My goodness—the stone has had only one theft in hundreds of years and one recovery, on Christmas eve 1950, when it split in half outside Harrods through the unfortunate accident of dropping out of the back of a car.
It was already split.
Anyway, it does not have too chequered a history in security terms over hundreds of years.
We said that we would go for unity and I do not want to cloud the issue. If we concentrate on getting the stone back to Scone—never mind all the historical details—I will be quite happy.
We could quite easily make the case that, since we last considered the petition, we have reconsidered the matter in the light of a successor petition and that we are now of the view that it is time to review the decision to keep the stone in Edinburgh. We will write stating all the reasons that Winnie Ewing gave and hope that that will have an effect. Is that agreed?
Domestic Abuse (Advertising Strategy) (PE496)
The next petition is PE496, from Mr George McAulay, on the Scottish Executive's recent domestic abuse advertising strategy. Mr McAulay, the usual rules will apply.
Yes—break when you say break, and no hitting in the clinches.
You have three minutes to address the committee, then the meeting will be opened to questions.
Before I start, a number of correspondents have asked what action the Executive is taking on our previous petitions on parental alienation, which committee members will remember.
We are still waiting for responses from the Scottish Executive. We will bring them together when we receive them and deal with them as a package.
So they are still in abeyance.
Yes. We are waiting for the Scottish Executive to respond, but you will be told as soon as we get a response.
I thought that I was going to have the most contentious petition today, but after hearing the Queen being accused of reset, I see that I do not. Unfortunately, and with considerable regret, I have to accuse the Executive and, I am afraid, the Parliament of profound hypocrisy and double standards, and of having acted illegally under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, with respect to the provisions that they made for domestic abuse advertising campaigns, and also because of the manner in which they address the entire subject of domestic abuse.
I open the meeting to questions.
You talked about violence in the street, but that is irrelevant, because we are talking about domestic abuse. What happens to young men on the streets is totally irrelevant, is it not?
No. I was discussing the hypocrisy of the Executive.
I am sorry, but it is irrelevant to this petition. Am I right?
No. The petition asks for the situation to be monitored and for all future advertising campaigns—
You talk about domestic abuse in the petition, so there is no point bringing in what happens out on the street. Your particular complaint is about an advert that stated:
No, that is not my main complaint. If you read the petition, you will see that I would like
The Executive would claim that it already screens in the way that you suggest.
It is blatantly obvious that it does not. The advertisement has been condemned. I have with me a reply from Audit Scotland in which the Executive accepts the fact that its advertisement was untrue.
We do not have a copy of that letter. We might do well to get a copy of it.
It does not have a reference number, but it is dated 2 May 2002.
I understand that the Executive has made a public admission that it got it wrong.
Would you like to see the letter, Mrs Ewing?
I would rather that it went through the clerk.
We can distribute copies at the end of the meeting.
I worked in a poor legal practice that I owned for more than 20 years and regularly met people who were subjected to domestic abuse. In all those years, I was never approached by a man telling me that he had been assaulted by a woman. I was also a criminal practitioner in the courts for the same amount of time, and I never handled a case—
Does that mean that you disbelieve the "2000 Scottish Crime Survey"?
I am speaking. When I have finished, you can ask me a question about what I have said.
I have not expressed that view. I am saying that the research is incomplete and is tainted. You say that you have met only one victim of domestic abuse.
I did not say that. I said that only one man came before the select committee.
You met a 6ft 4in victim of domestic abuse at the previous committee meeting, which I attended. Physical size has very little to do with it. Men tend to under-report. That has been well documented—
I accept that. So do women.
Of course they do. Is it in the rules that Mrs Ewing can interrupt me?
We are trying our best to deal with the petition. If people can be reasonable to each other we will get on with that better. We should lower the temperature, as members are genuinely trying to treat the petition with the seriousness that it deserves.
I am well aware of the feminist bias that exists in the Parliament and of the refusal to admit reality. I can provide study after study for Dr Ewing, some of which are mentioned in the petition, including the "2000 Scottish Crime Survey". If we bear in mind the fact that men under-report far more than women do, for obvious reasons, it is quite clear that there is a significant number of male victims.
Give me a minute, Mr McAulay; I am convening the meeting. This is not a dispute between you and Dr Ewing. We are taking evidence on your petition, which is a matter for the Parliament. You have very strong views about individual members of the Parliament, but those are not up for discussion here. We are trying to get behind what the petition is calling for and to deal with it seriously.
Are we talking about Jackie Baillie?
We are talking about the minister's having said that research was being commissioned into the extent of abuse. I know men who have suffered abuse. I know that it is a real issue and most members of the Parliament acknowledge that and will treat it seriously. Raising the temperature and becoming personal does not help the matter. We are trying to deal with the issue cogently and coherently.
I apologise to Dr Ewing and I will attempt to focus.
The Executive has undertaken research into the extent of abuse against men. What is your response to that?
With respect, that research is flawed. It revisits the responses of the male respondents to the Scottish crime survey. I have been in contact with Dr Gadd of Keele University, who is charged with the research. It is merely a reprise of the responses of the male respondents to the crime survey; it does not reprise the responses of the female respondents. It revisits the responses of the males who said that they had been victims, but all that that will do is winnow some of them out. It is, from a scientific point of view, totally flawed to reprise only one half of a study.
If the study is into the extent of abuse against men—
No, it is not. It is a reprise of the "2000 Scottish Crime Survey". The other point that I make on all the studies is that there is a tendency for people to imagine that the studies are gospel, that people respond honestly and that the sample groups are representative of society. That is very often not the case.
The research has been commissioned, but it has not been published.
We exerted pressure, through the Audit Committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee—
The research cannot be condemned until it has been published and we know what it says. Let us wait to see what it says before we condemn it out of hand.
I have a pretty strong—
That is your view, but it is not a fact. We must wait for the research to be published.
I am saying that the research is flawed in its concept, because it approaches only one half of the matter.
We can certainly pursue that with the Executive.
I want to come back to the precise terms of the petition, which are about the reform of the domestic abuse advertising strategy. You lodged your petition because you were concerned about a false statement that was contained in a Scottish Executive advertising programme, which must have cost a considerable amount of money. Is that really what you want to get to the bottom of? Do you want to find out how the Executive made that mistake, how much it cost, and what it is doing to rectify it?
We want those matters to be examined. I am concerned about the social effects of the campaign. As you can see from the evidence, I made a complaint about a teacher in my son's school, who repeated and exaggerated the lie that was put out. That was done in all innocence. The teacher is a nice woman who has the interests of the children at heart; however, in front of a class of youngsters that included my son, she said that one in four women lives in constant fear of domestic abuse. What sort of terror does that induce in children?
That is at the back of your mind. It brings us to your feeling that the advertising campaign could have an adverse effect on society. You have covered two points of the petition. We must consider wider issues of domestic abuse and start to go into elements of discrimination. I think that you referred to a paper that you have just received. Perhaps that came after the petition was submitted.
I went to the mail box today and picked up a number of papers.
That paper came after the petition and we should not cloud the issues; we should concentrate on the first two points in the petition. All members of the committee should be concerned when misinformation is spread in the names of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. Would you be satisfied if we took the petition forward on that basis?
I would be satisfied if the committee specifically addressed those points. My big concern is the effect that the campaign has on the minds of the young, particularly the girls in my son's class. How do they view the boys who will grow into men? Do they think that one in four of them will be an abuser?
You have made that point and to go back over it is pointless. That is all that I want to pick up on.
Might not Mr McAulay angle his complaint against the Executive more positively? He could ask the Executive to appeal at some stage for men who feel that they are being severely abused to come forward and to state that those men will have equal rights to be helped. That would increase the tiny number of help groups for men that exist.
I take that point, but we have tried the reasonable approach over the years. Unfortunately, only the Rottweiler approach tends to be successful—everything else is ignored. We have presented facts and statistics and we have presented witnesses. I emphasise that I have no interest in taking up any position with any groups that might be set up to assist men; I am not looking for a paid salary.
Of the very few such posts that exist, most are not paid and they are mainly in England.
I have no desire to follow the example of the women's refuge movement, which has a considerable body of well-paid advocates. However, I would like there to be facilities for men who are victims of abuse, such as those you suggest.
Those who work in women's groups are not well paid, I assure you.
In comparison to most of the work that I have done, I think that they are quite well paid.
That is outside the scope of the petition.
It would be helpful if the Executive were to encourage to come forward men who are victims of abuse. I mean serious abuse; something such as a shove should not be included. However, I have encountered a fair number of men who are victims. Abuse of men is mostly psychological abuse that develops into physical abuse. I am willing to provide the committee, for its information, with men who will talk to it about abuse.
I wonder whether Mo Mowlam has been correctly quoted—politicians are often misquoted.
I have been misquoted myself.
I am worried about the fact that we have brought Mo Mowlam into this.
I wrote to Dr Mowlam and she did not reply. I spoke to Donald Dewar, who gave one of his harrumphs and moved on to other things. I can supply the committee with my correspondence with Donald Dewar and Mr Blair.
I do not like to bring Mo Mowlam into this. She did not have to reply to your letter.
There is a reference to the Daily Mail of Saturday 19 July 1998 that can be checked.
Mo Mowlam did not reply to my letter.
It is very common for politicians to be misquoted.
The Daily Mail contained a huge interview and Dr Mowlam did not see fit to make any complaints to the newspaper about it.
If we were to make complaints to newspapers every time we were misquoted, we would have no time to come to the Public Petitions Committee.
I can vouch for that. Thank you, Mr McAulay. You are free to listen to our discussion on how we will deal with the petition.
That covers the terms of the petition.
We have to give the Executive a chance to respond.
Point 4 of the petition is the relevant bit.
We will keep you informed of the progress of the petition, Mr McAulay.
Perhaps you could inform all petitioners in a letter what the committee has agreed.
That is what we do.
I have had trouble with my mail box, so it might be that some letters have gone astray.
We will inform you of the outcome of your petition—we will not inform other people of the outcome of your petition.
Oh—right; that is what I meant. You should inform every petitioner what the committee has decided after the meeting.
The clerk tells me that that happens without fail in every case. Does the committee agree to deal with the petition as I suggested?
Bankruptcy Procedures (PE501)
The final new petition, PE501, comes from Mr James Duff. Mr Duff calls on the Parliament to investigate and propose changes to current bankruptcy procedures, based on problems that he experienced in relation to bankruptcy and sequestration. He argues that had the sheriff who was involved in Mr Duff's case been more exact in his examination of the specific details of the case, he would have been unable to grant sequestration under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913.
Next
Current Petitions