Community Volunteers (PE447)
PE447 was lodged by Mr Gregor McIntyre. Members may remember that the petition concerns local community volunteers. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to put in place across Scotland all necessary structures and regulations to ensure that local community volunteers are able to develop or pursue local health and social inclusion projects in parallel with, or independently of, the strategic objectives of statutory agencies.
The petition was prompted by the petitioners' concern that successful projects that were being run by the West Dunbartonshire community health alliance broke down as a result of the strategic policies of the statutory agencies, including West Dunbartonshire health strategy group.
It is suggested that the committee send a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners and to Des McNulty, asking them for their views. We should ask specifically whether they consider that the Executive's suggested joint health improvement plan will prevent the situation that prompted the petition from occurring in future.
Why, on the letter from the health department's business management unit, dated 9 May, is there an indecipherable heading in some foreign language?
I am told that it is a fault with the e-mail.
It looks like Russian or Greek.
I am told that it is just the way it comes through the computer systems.
Are we saying that it is not Greek?
It is just the headed paper that is sent out all the time.
Well, I am sorry, but I am not happy with it. It is a letter; it is not an e-mail. Why on earth does part of our Scottish Executive use a heading in a foreign language? If it was Gaelic, I would not object.
I am told that, had a hard copy been sent, the legend would not be there. It has come out in such a fashion because it has been sent by e-mail. The hard copy does not have the legend. It is a glitch in the computer system.
It is because the Executive's computer system is set up differently from the Scottish Parliament's computer system. Our computer system reads the Scottish Executive's logo in the way that has appeared.
I am sorry, but I would like to know why the heading of the health department's business management unit is indecipherable. I hope that I am not being unreasonable.
You could ask the Executive, but the explanation will be that it is to do with the computer systems.
I am sorry, but that is not an answer to me.
I do not know how this could happen. How can the computer change the heading into a different alphabet?
I am not a computer expert, but I am informed that our computer system is different from the Executive's computer system. The legend on the actual—
I will write to the Executive myself, convener—I do not want to put you to any trouble. I am just irritated by this.
Okay—but apart from that, do members agree with the suggested actions?
Members indicated agreement.
Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Special Protection Areas (Arran, Barra and Yell) (PE462, PE463 and PE464)
We now have a series of petitions, which members will remember are on Scottish Natural Heritage. PE462, from Mrs Margie Currie, calls into question the science on which SNH bases its decisions in relation to sites of special scientific interest; PE463, from Councillor Donald Manford, calls into question the consultation that SNH carried out on the Sound of Barra; and PE464, from Mr Robert Cunyngham Brown, calls into question the scientific justification for SNH's list of rain goose special protection areas.
Members will remember that we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the issues that were raised in the petitions. We have received detailed responses from all three bodies. The Scottish Executive's response deals with the difference between sites of special scientific interest, special areas of conservation and special protection areas. It also explains the consultation that is done on behalf of the Executive. The SNH response refutes in detail the allegations that were made by the different petitioners on the way in which SNH conducts its business. The advisory committee sets out its role in respect of all these matters.
It is important to point out to members that the clerks and I have received several e-mails from councillors and individuals who represent community groups on Barra. They say that, although they object to the proposed SAC designation for the Sound of Barra, they do not support PE463, which questions SNH's handling of the consultation process and the actions of local SNH staff. They say that their support for the petition was included without their permission and they have asked that it be removed. It has been suggested that that is also true of other groups of individuals on Barra.
We have received a letter from Councillor David Buckland who was, I think, referred to by one of the petitioners. Councillor Buckland says that PE463
"concerns a press release issued after the consultation meetings. The verbal submission given on 26th February 2002, supposedly on behalf of all the petitioners goes a significant step further than the written petition with the accusations: ‘…our representations which it [SNH] undertook to pass to the Parliament and the Executive, were totally misrepresented'.. and…‘SNH undoubtedly lied about the results of the consultation-that is clear'. I am concerned that these serious accusations call into question the integrity of those local SNH employees whose job it was to draw up the Local Consultation Report for the Scottish Executive. These SNH employees are highly respected in the local community and no one that I have talked to here (which includes the majority of the named petitioners) feels that accusations of lying are justifiable. The fact that these accusations are unjustified can be established if the members of the Public Petitions Committee -and if possible the public- are given access by the Scottish Executive to the Local Consultation Report so that they can see that the objections raised at each of the consultation meetings are detailed therein."
We have received an e-mail from David C Houston, who is the professor of zoology in the division of environmental and evolutionary biology at the institute of biomedical and life sciences in the University of Glasgow. Members may remember that he was referred to in the evidence that was given to us. It was said:
"In the consultation on the white paper ‘The Nature of Scotland', Professor David Houston of the University of Glasgow said that there is an anti-science culture in SNH. He is very worried about that. He said that there should be more contact with the universities. His evidence is probably the best evidence that I can produce to support the argument that there is an anti-science culture in SNH."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 26 February 2002; c 1679.]
Professor Houston has written to say:
"I would like to make it clear that this statement is completely untrue. I have never said this, they are definitely not my views, and I have never commented on the consultation paper ‘The Nature of Scotland'. I have absolutely no idea where"
the petitioner
"Mr. Mitchell obtained this quote. I have never, to my knowledge, met Mr. Mitchell or corresponded with him, and he did not consult me on this matter. I would be very grateful if you could please report to the Committee that the statements attributed to me by Mr. Mitchell are totally incorrect."
It is a pity, in a way, that we must consider all the separate issues together—rain geese, seals and everything—because each merits special attention. Paragraph 6 of SNH's response says:
"Case law in Europe and the UK has established that the selection of sites, and the setting of their boundaries, must be done on scientific criteria".
How can I get hold of justification for that statement? I am prepared to read through case law from Europe and the UK. I have a willing partner in Professor Neil MacCormick, who is an expert on European law.
The whole situation has been unpopular in many quarters from the beginning. It is always said that only scientific evidence is used and that no socioeconomic factors are involved. It has now been conceded that socioeconomic factors will be considered after a designation order is made, but I question the validity of excluding normal considerations. However, SNH's response says that case law in Europe and the UK has established that scientific criteria must be used. Please could I have a note, even just for my legal satisfaction? I would like to know the basis for that statement, even if the paper is long.
I understand that Scottish Natural Heritage is prepared to give the committee further information, so we can obtain that information.
In paragraph 8 of its response, SNH pats itself on the back for extending consultation to community councils. You would think that that was obvious. Community councils are elected. Although SNH is happy to list all the unelected bodies that it will consult, it pats itself on the back for extending consultation to community councils. Of course community councils should be consulted. It is rather sinister that SNH did not consult them before, when many such orders were made.
I give a considerable pat on the back to the Advisory Committee on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, whose membership is impressive. Its document amounts to a critique of the way in which SNH and the SSSIs have failed to deal adequately with public perceptions, opposition, distaste and demand for information, and the public's feeling that they are not consulted.
I do not know whether members have time to go into it, but the document from the advisory committee is magnificent. It tries not to be too severe in its criticism of SNH—it is very polite—but that is what it is all about. It is as if the advisory committee is saying, "We know that democracy is dangerous and that SNH recognises that, but nevertheless, should not SNH try a different approach." The document is very impressive. It suggests total dissatisfaction with the way that SNH has been—and is—behaving.
The advisory committee suggests that perhaps it should be regarded as an appeal body and that that might reinforce its independence. It also suggests that perhaps it should operate from a different address from SNH. The advisory committee is aware that it is being sucked into the general disapproval that is meted out to SNH for the way in which it has behaved on SSSIs over many years.
As far as the birds are concerned, there is no doubt in the minds of the people of Yell that there was more protection for the birds before the SSSI designation, and people kept going to look for them. That has happened in other places, too. It has happened elsewhere in Shetland and in other places. The SSSI designations do not always protect what they seek to protect. The number of the birds that the order was trying to protect has diminished considerably in Yell. Local people are concerned about that. We should seek a meeting with the excellent people from the advisory committee. We should ask them to come before us so that we can have a general discussion on their paper, because it is magnificent.
Following on from Winnie Ewing's point on paragraph 6 in SNH's response, on the background to the designation process, there is a political question to be asked. What could the Scottish Parliament do, if it wished, about that? I presume that that is why Winnie Ewing asked for an explanation of the case law in Europe and the UK.
That is SNH's justification.
This matter seems to be relevant, particularly as rural communities are hard pressed. Winnie Ewing perhaps answered my question about paragraph 11 of SNH's response. I could not understand why SNH could not take account of social and economic aspects, but at the same time was talking with local enterprise companies and tourist boards about identifying possible economic opportunities. I presume from Winifred Ewing's comments that that discussion comes after the sites have been designated. I stand to be corrected on that.
The Scottish Executive response states that there have been 227 proposed special areas of conservation sites around Scotland. How does that compare with the number of sites that have been designated in other countries in Europe and the United Kingdom? How many designated SAC sites are there in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the other countries in the European Union? Is this again a case where somebody has got the bit between their teeth and is pressing ahead?
With respect to the comments that are coming in on the Barra petition, I despair. Many of us were fairly hard on SNH, based on the face value of comments that were made at the meeting. Given the comments that others are now making, it seems that some of our comments might have been unjustified. I do not know what could be done about that with respect to the petitioner. I presume that we will draw his attention to the fact that, if the complainants are to be believed, he misled the committee. We must lay down the line that that cannot be accepted.
I am informed that SNH has already offered to brief the committee on the petitions. It may well be that we should ask SNH and the advisory committee to give us a briefing. This is a difficult area. Several issues need to be clarified and it may be better to take evidence from both bodies.
Can we ask them specifically again—
We can ask them anything when they come here.
Could we ask them to come prepared with figures for the EU and the UK?
We will send them a copy of the Official Report of our discussion.
We could ask them what support is available to members of a community that faces designation. Any changes must be implemented on a scientific basis. The fact that ordinary people do not have access to scientific information is one of the things that most frustrates them. They do not have access to anyone who could help them to obtain that information. They know that a designation might not be totally correct, but they cannot prove it. Some sort of mechanism for getting assistance would be useful. Perhaps the advisory committee would be willing to look at the setting up of such a mechanism, which would allow people to obtain help and scientific back-up. Ordinary people cannot afford to employ a scientist to conduct a study.
That is a fair point. We will ask what access is available to people to enable them to make a scientific challenge to a designation.
SNH's view that decisions are made on a purely scientific basis is challenged in particular by the advisory committee on SSSIs, which states:
"nature conservation is surely an endeavour undertaken for more than scientific purposes."
From what the petitioners told us, the situation is shaping into one in which people definitely do not come first, even in limited areas. Some members will recall the case of the Arran farmer who just wanted a few extra hectares for a few extra cows, which would have made the difference between survival and failing to survive.
Although quite severe criticism has been made of some of the evidence, that does not invalidate the whole case. Too many areas and too many islands have complained about SNH. We should take the matter as far as we can. We should also refer it to the Transport and the Environment Committee, or have we done that already?
That is the problem. Either we try to obtain a briefing from SNH and the advisory committee on the issue, or we deal with the petition now. There is no point in asking for a briefing if we deal with the issue straight away.
I did not mean that we should deal with it right away. I hope that our material will be given to the Transport and the Environment Committee later.
I am instructed that there is a problem with seeking a briefing, in the sense that only one regular meeting of the committee remains before the recess, because of the shift to Aberdeen. In fact, two meetings are left. There is the regular meeting, as well as the meeting with the minister that we have agreed for Thursday 18 June. Both those meetings have full agendas. It might be better to hold an informal briefing session with SNH. We could perhaps fit that in.
I would no longer be satisfied with written briefings.
I meant an informal briefing, at which we would be present.
Could we not postpone dealing with the issue until September?
We could do that.
That would give us a proper chance to really get a grip of what SNH and the advisory committee are about.
If members would like the issue to be dealt with before the recess, we would need to hold an informal meeting to receive a private briefing from SNH and the advisory committee. To deal with the issue in a formal meeting of the committee, we would have to wait until September.
We have already got the advisory committee's briefing—it is excellent.
You want to question the advisory committee, with SNH present.
Why cannot we fit in another official meeting? Other committees do that—there is not a problem.
We could do that. Members should remember that that would mean having three meetings between now and the recess. Are members agreeable to that?
Members indicated agreement.
Before coming to a conclusion on the petitions, we will fit in a separate meeting at which we will take evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage and the advisory committee.
Perhaps the advisory committee should not be in the room when we are questioning SNH and vice versa.
We can deal with the witnesses separately. It is entirely up to us how we handle them. It will be a public meeting.
Miscarriages of Justice (Aftercare) (PE477)
Petition PE477, from John McManus, is on behalf of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation. It calls for an aftercare programme, in the form of a halfway home, to help people who have been wrongly imprisoned and have served long terms of imprisonment, or people whose convictions have been annulled in the appeal court. We have received the Executive's response to the petition, which details the role and remit of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which does not have anything to do with the petition as such.
The response makes it clear that, aside from the statutory supervision that is required for long-term prisoners after their release—which would not apply to those who are found innocent—in practice there is no distinction between the aftercare that is provided for prisoners who are released on completion of their sentences and that provided for those who are released after being wrongly incarcerated.
The response also states that aftercare services are currently provided by local authorities to any ex-prisoner who requests them within 12 months of release. The Executive provides 100 per cent funding for those aftercare services. The response offers no comment other than to give details of how an application can be made for Executive funding provided under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
The suggested action is that we agree to write to the petitioners suggesting that they apply for funding for an aftercare programme. If we think that the Executive response is insufficient, we can refer the petition to the relevant justice committee for further consideration. It might be helpful to ask the petitioners for their response to the Executive response, because I do not know enough about the matter.
That would be helpful because when the petitioners gave evidence to us they were concerned not so much about the aftercare but about the preparation for release that goes on within the prison. Their particular concern was that people who are released pending an appeal are given no information about where to seek help. The petitioners might want to raise that issue. I agree that we should ask them for their comments because I think that we have missed the point a little.
There is a most incredible statement in the briefing paper:
"Details of the aftercare services currently provided by local authorities to any ex-prisoner who requests them within 12 months of release are supplied."
How does someone who is suddenly told that there was a miscarriage of justice in their case apply within 12 months? Does he say, "In the hope that I will be acquitted of what I did, I will apply within 12 months on the off-chance"? The statement is ridiculous when one reads it carefully.
It seems to me inhuman that prisoners who serve their time and are duly released are treated the same as someone who has been found to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice. The ex-prisoners who gave evidence to the committee regarded their treatment as inhuman.
What is the time scale for applying for compensation and ex-gratia sums of money? How long do the ex-prisoners wait? They have no money when they come out.
That is why it is important to get the petitioners' response to the Executive response.
We must do that.
That is the first stage. Are we agreed that we will get the petitioners' response to the Executive's letter?
Members indicated agreement.
Cairngorms National Park (PE481)
Petition PE481 is from Mr Bill Wright. The petition concerns the powers of the Cairngorms national park authority. Members will remember that Mr Wright was concerned that the authority would not get the same planning authority status as other national parks such as the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. We now have the Scottish Executive's response, which says that the Executive has not yet completed its consideration of the Scottish Natural Heritage report on the proposal to establish a national park in the Cairngorms. The Executive hopes to complete that process shortly and move to the publication of a draft designation order in the near future. The order will include ministers' proposals on planning powers and will be subject to extensive consultation, allowing interested parties to comment on issues of concern.
We also asked for clarification of the balance of elected and non-elected board members. The response indicates that that issue will also be dealt with in the draft designation order, but the primary legislation sets an upper limit of 25 on the total number of members of a national park authority, with at least one fifth of the total number of members to be elected in a poll.
In view of the Executive's response, it is suggested that we agree to reply to the Executive asking it to ensure that the petitioners are sent a copy of the consultation document so that they can, if necessary, restate the concerns expressed in the petition and raise any additional points. It is also suggested that we agree to refer the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee with the recommendation that the petition be taken into account as part of the committee's consideration of the draft designation order.
Does the petitioner get a copy of what we are doing?
Yes, of course.
The Rural Development Committee considered the designation order for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
We will establish whether we should send our recommendation to the Rural Development Committee or the Transport and the Environment Committee and the appropriate committee will get the recommendation. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Justice 1 Committee (Membership) (PE483)
Petition PE483 is from Mr Duncan Shields and we dealt with it at our previous meeting. The petition concerns a review of the membership of the Justice 1 Committee. Members will remember that Mr Shields considered that some members of that committee were not impartial during the committee's inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession.
We agreed to raise the matter with the convener of the Justice 1 Committee. In her response, she makes it clear that the majority of the large number of responses to its inquiry have been published on the Parliament's website and the public can view them at the public information desk. Following legal advice, the remainder of the responses are being edited to ensure that they do not raise concerns about defamation and data protection. The intention is that the majority of them will be put on the website in due course.
The response also makes it clear that all evidence-taking sessions for the inquiry have been held in public and any private sessions have been to discuss the draft remit of the inquiry prior to the publication of the report, lines of questioning for witnesses or how the committee should proceed with the inquiry. The response also states that the private sessions were attended only by Justice 1 Committee members and, on occasion, by an adviser to the inquiry.
The convener has stated quite clearly that there has been no attempt to restrict publication of material that was submitted in relation to the inquiry, although publication of some material has been delayed because of the need to consider legal advice on defamation and data protection issues. She has also made it clear that all evidence-taking sessions were held in public. The information that she has provided appears to address the issues that the petitioner raised. On that basis, it is suggested that the committee agrees to copy the response to the petitioner for information and take no further action.
It is obvious, but interesting to note, that the people who give the legal advice on whether statements are defamatory or are complicated by data protection issues are members of the legal profession. That is one of the ironies of the argument.
Christine Grahame said that a majority of submissions have been published. Given that a majority can be 51 per cent, I would like to know just how big the majority is.
If individuals make statements and submit them to a body such as the Justice 1 Committee, I would have thought that we should advise against publishing them, because the submissions might make defamatory statements. However, if the individual wants to make the statement in the belief that it is true, I do not see why that should not be published.
The Parliament's legal advisers, rather than the legal profession, will give advice to the Justice 1 Committee.
But they will be solicitors.
They are solicitors.
Individuals can publish anything that they want to publish, but they must suffer the consequences. If the Parliament publishes the statements, it takes on responsibility for them, so the committee must take legal advice before it takes the risk, because the statements will be published in its name. The petitioners can publish what they like, but they will suffer the legal consequences of publication. The Parliament cannot do that without taking legal advice, because it becomes responsible for publishing them.
Even if the Parliament has disclaimers?
I think that that is why the Parliament is going through the process, to see whether there is any way that the submissions can be put on the website.
We can certainly find out what proportion of the submissions has been published and what proportion has not. That is easily done.
Thanks, but I have a query about disclaimers. I know that it would be irresponsible for the Parliament to publish something that could lead to its being held to account, but if disclaimers could be used, publication would be up to individuals.
We would have to check that out, as we do not know the answer.
I would be obliged if we could check that out.
So the two matters that you want checked out are the majority and the question of disclaimers. You do not want consideration of the petition to continue. Can we close consideration of the petition, as is recommended?
I would like to wait for an answer to those two questions and then close consideration. If the answers are satisfactory, consideration can be closed.
I am a wee bit concerned about what Phil Gallie has said. Any committee could publish defamatory information with a disclaimer attached. We must realise that we are dealing with individuals and that we cannot just be a sounding board for anybody to say what they want about anybody else. We must be careful. I would not be keen for things to be published with disclaimers attached if they were going to cause somebody damage and there was no basis for the allegation.
I have been reminded that if we consider the issues in each petition that we have dealt with this morning, we see that a series of disclaimers came in subsequent to the committee hearing the evidence, to say that the evidence was not accurate or true. We and the Parliament must be careful.
I do not have any problem with seeking legal advice on the matter and passing on that advice to the committee—I am happy to do that. We can conclude the petition once we receive that advice.
We must be firm. Anybody who submits information to a parliamentary committee should do so in the knowledge that the information is correct. They cannot simply say what they like about people—the earlier petition shows that—otherwise we will end up as a sounding board, which folk will use to say what they like about people. They will be cleared of any responsibility because the information will be published in the Parliament's name.
That is a fair point. The advice that we seek will address that point and make the position clear to the committee for the future. Do members agree with the suggested course of action?
Members indicated agreement.