Public Petitions Committee, 23 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Official Report 233KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We move now to current petitions, which are petitions for which we have received responses.

The first petition is PE244, from Mr Graeme Brown, on behalf of Holyrood View Residents Association. It asks the Parliament to reduce illegal parking by reintroducing wheel clamping with a charge for release. Members will remember that we wrote to City of Edinburgh Council, which suggested that properly controlled wheel clamping could provide an answer to the residents' problems. However, that suggestion conflicted with advice from the Scottish Parliament information centre that wheel clamping has been illegal in Scotland since a court ruling in 1992.

The committee agreed to seek the Scottish Executive's views on whether wheel clamping is illegal. The Executive has written to say that wheel clamping on private land has been illegal in Scotland since 1992, despite Donald Gorrie's attempt to change that position when the Transport (Scotland) Bill progressed through Parliament. Parliament decided not to change the situation. It is suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the Executive's letter to the petitioners and take no further action, as the Parliament has already discussed wheel clamping and it is clear that no further action can be taken. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE246 came from several community councils and councillors. It concerns the designation of special areas of conservation and asks the Parliament to persuade Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Executive not to proceed with the designation of the south-east Islay Skerries special area of conservation. A copy of the petition was sent to the then Minister for Transport and the Environment and we asked for it to be considered as part of the consultation process. The committee considered a letter that it received from SNH, which countered the petitioner's claims that the consultation had been inadequate. SNH's letter also provided background information on the designation of an SAC.

The committee agreed to ask the Scottish Executive for its views on whether the recent designation of several sites around Scotland was fully justified or whether it was an exercise that was designed purely to meet the requirements of the European Union's habitats directive. The Executive has written to say that the EU asked the United Kingdom to review its list of SACs because it was dissatisfied with it.

That response also points out that the UK's response is vital, because Scotland and the rest of the UK could face severe penalties if the UK does not fulfil its EU responsibilities under the habitats directive. Action against the UK Government in the European Court of Justice is possible, as is the imposition of daily fines on the Government. If any criticisms related to the Scottish element of the UK list, a portion of the fines that were imposed would be passed to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the justification for the proposed SACs in Scotland is to meet the requirements of the habitats directive and the Scottish ministers' commitment to protecting Scotland's biodiversity.

We passed the petition to the Scottish Executive to be taken into account as part of its consultation process. It is suggested that we agree to pass a copy of the Executive's letter to the petitioners and take no further action other than awaiting the outcome.

Have we received many petitions on the same line or is PE246 the first?

We have received two such petitions.

The description of what Europe would do seems a bit of a scare story. I do not believe for a minute that immediate court action and daily fines would happen. I assure members that if we are fined, so will be all the other countries that break the law much more than we do. Countries such as Ireland and Italy spring to mind. I have doubts about the paragraph in the Executive's letter that makes those suggestions.

Many members will have received much correspondence about the subject. In designating SACs, those involved must deal only with scientific evidence and ignore all social and economic considerations. That is the flaw, and new legislation would probably be the only way of dealing with that. I say that simply to alert members to the preposterous situation. For instance, the whole of Berneray was recently made an SAC, against all the information that the islanders could give. That designation will enormously restrict what has been quite a successful crofting island.

I wonder whether we should get in touch with the European Committee and ask it to find out whether it is true that the European legislation does not allow social and economic considerations to be taken into account when designating SACs.

I would like some clarification. I have been involved with some of the community groups, as I represent Islay. Ian Mitchell and I, and one or two others, have met the relevant minister to discuss the issue. The Executive's letter is rather disingenuous, to say the least. The comments in the letter are true, but it is not made clear that several sites could be considered for designation. More than one site is available for designation in the south-east Skerries. As I recall from conversations with the minister and the lady who sent the response to the committee, a choice of six or seven sites was available.

The local community was hostile to the designation of the chosen site, and that should have weighed in ministers' minds when choosing the site to propose to meet the requirements under the habitats directive. The Executive's letter is truthful, but it is disingenuous in not pointing out that choices are available. Ministers choose which sites to propose. I suggest that we write back to the Executive and say that ministers have choices when selecting the number of SACs that they propose. Hostility in the local community should be taken into consideration at least before final decisions are taken.

It is worth while pointing out that public bodies such as SNH control almost all Islay, because the island hosts huge amounts of endangered geese. The people on the island put up with 50,000 geese every year, and stringent controls are placed on what people can do there. The conservation agencies regulate the area heavily. The feeling in the local community is that the SAC is one step too far. I have a great deal of sympathy for what the community says. We should point out their comments to the minister.

I agree with and reinforce what George Lyon said. All the representative bodies in that area unanimously oppose the proposal, which raises a wider issue. We spoke about ECHR considerations. The implementation of the habitats directive must cut across human rights. The ECHR and the directive are almost contradictory. The imposition of the SACs as a result of the habitats directive is often an infringement of people's human rights, and that point should be made. I welcome Winnie Ewing's comments.

Does anyone disagree with the comments that have been made?

Are you talking about the suggestion to refer the petition to the European Committee?

No, I mean the general comments. I want to check whether the whole committee backs the comments that have been made.

I support Mr Lyon's points, but I add that the geese that he mentioned are no longer endangered. That is a matter of fact. I met a head of one of SNH's predecessor bodies, who said that the unoccupied swards around Islay could have been used for the geese if the right plants had been put there. Instead, however, land was unnecessarily taken from the crofters of Islay. We should not have too much sympathy with those who are trying to impose the SAC on the good people who have petitioned us.

The petition has been passed to the Scottish Executive for consideration as part of its consultation. We can now ensure that the committee's unanimous view is also passed to the Executive in support of the petition.

The crucial point to make is that the ministers have a choice. They are required to nominate sites, but they can consider several other sites.

We can send the Executive the Official Report of the committee's discussion of the petition to ensure that the committee's view is clear.

I have another point for clarification. The announcement about the SAC was due to be made in September, so it is obvious that the petition and the lobbying that has taken place have had some effect and created some further delay.

That is good news. If we approach the European Union, should we contact the European Commission?

We have a European Committee. Surely it can investigate the matter for us.

We could refer it to that committee too.

We need to ascertain whether it is necessary to ignore the social and economic consequences of a site of special scientific interest.

Is an SSSI the same as a special area of conservation?

Whatever they call it.

I think that they are all the same thing.

We are talking about SACs, not SSSIs.

We could ask the European Committee for information.

Arguments that are based only on scientific grounds ignore people.

We want to know whether only scientific grounds are considered, or whether social and economic issues are brought into consideration.

That is what causes much of the agitation.

The fundamental issue here is the right of individuals, farmers and landowners to do what they want with their land. Between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of Scotland's landmass is covered by these sites, all of which are enormously restrictive. People are no longer able to do what they want with their land.

It has been suggested to me that the European Committee might not be in a position to give us the information we need, and that it might be better to get it from the Executive. The Executive wrote to us to indicate its position. We could write back to say that what it outlined in its letter is unlikely to happen and to ask for the information that Winnie Ewing wanted on why social and economic factors are not taken into consideration when the areas are designated.

Might it be an idea to refer this to the Transport and the Environment Committee, to consider the wider issue of SSSIs and SACs? There are aspects to the way in which they are designated that are totally stupid, which is why there is so much mistrust. You hear stories of people having been told to take action to protect something, then a few years later being told to reverse it because the action is not having the result that was hoped for. That makes people very wary of SACs and SSSIs. Someone may need to consider the issue, to establish whether we need to work with local communities more, to ensure that the aims of SACs are adhered to. Rather than riding roughshod over what people need, it is better that people are involved.

There are two problems with that. First, we have already passed the petition to the Executive for consideration as part of the consultation. Secondly, you would not know about this, Rhoda, but there was a clash with the Transport and the Environment Committee some time ago because it resents the number of petitions that we are sending to it. We should not send petitions to the Transport and the Environment Committee unnecessarily, because of the nippy response from it in the past. It is an important issue, but we should not use the petition to broaden the issue out to the Transport and the Environment Committee when that committee would probably not respond anyway, but would put the issue on the back burner.

I did some work last year for the Transport and the Environment Committee on the raptor working group, in relation to a petition from the Scottish Homing Union. One issue that arose was the EU habitats directive. The men and women who participate in pigeon racing were concerned that there was no clarification in information from Rebecca Badger in the Scottish Parliament information centre on whether the EU directive included recreational aspects. Apparently the EU directive contains a qualification relating to recreation; the detail of the directive seems to allow for social, economic and recreational use. It might be worth highlighting to the minister that we are aware that a qualification in the EU directive takes account of the wider issues. What other members are saying is that we must aim not only to meet the full requirements of the EU directive but to balance that with the other aspects of life in Scotland. George Lyon is right—the EU directive allows for that, and we must ask the minister to take that into consideration.

This information will be passed to the Executive, to be included in its consideration of the petition. We will challenge the line the Executive has given us about European penalties being imposed and ask it to respond to the issue of taking social and economic considerations into account. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE266, from Mr and Mrs Currie, on switching off vehicles after two minutes' rest. We agreed to request comments from the UK Minister for Transport. In November, we considered the response to that, which indicated that a number of steps had been taken and that a trial scheme was under way in selected areas of the UK, including Glasgow.

We agreed to send a copy of the DETR response to the petitioners and to take no further action, as the DETR's response had addressed the petitioners' concerns. However, the committee also agreed to seek further information from the Scottish Executive on the trial scheme that was under way in Glasgow. It appears that, due to a lack of staff resources, Glasgow City Council did not participate in the trial scheme. The Scottish Executive is awaiting the trial results from the DETR.

All that we can do is to note the response and to take no further action, as the petition on the issue has been disposed of. However, we could request a copy of the results of the trial scheme from the Scottish Executive, once it has received that information.

I support the second suggestion.

We will pass the information to the petitioner anyway, but we will also ask the Scottish Executive for a copy of the results of the scheme.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE271, is from Mr Andy Gibb, on behalf of Westfield community council. It asks the Parliament to investigate and make recommendations on the upgrading and completion of the A801. It is clear from the responses that we have received that the Executive has no plans to include the road in its trunk road programme but that the local authorities have agreed to give it priority. They jointly funded a feasibility study, which reported in August 2000. The councils are now believed to be proceeding to a full transportation study. There is extra money for local authorities as part of the transport spending review. It is suggested that the committee should agree to pass a copy of the Scottish Executive response to the petitioners and that we take no further action, as the Parliament cannot take the actions that the petitioners are calling for while the councils are progressing with plans to improve the road.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE274, from Mrs Patricia Drysdale, asking the Parliament to ensure that there is an inquiry into the safety and welfare practices in operation at Jessiefield prison, Dumfries. A number of members of the committee would not have been here when we first considered the petition, which was prompted by the circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs Drysdale's son, Graham, while he was in custody in the prison. The petitioner questions whether the practices in place at the prison to combat drugs use are effective. She is also of the view that inconsistencies between the timings in the autopsy report of her son's death and in the standard sequence of checks on inmates in their cells points to a problem with such procedures.

At our meeting on 24 October last year we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Prison Service on the issues raised in the petition and to copy the petition to the Deputy Minister for Justice, for information only. We agreed to keep him informed of the subsequent progress of the petition. We now have a response from the SPS, which details the actions taken by prison officers during the incident, responds to the points raised in the petition about the inconsistencies in the recorded time of death and provides information on the steps taken by the SPS to combat drug misuse. It also indicates that routines at the prison and the young offenders institution in Dumfries have been subsequently amended to ensure that, at the 7 am cell check, all prisoners are awake.

This is a serious petition—we should take time to consider it. The SPS has taken steps to ensure that similar tragedies do not occur again at Dumfries. It is suggested that a copy of the SPS response should be passed to the petitioner and that no further action be taken, although the petitioner may wish to respond to the information from the SPS.

It would be sensible to ensure that the SPS action with regard to Dumfries is circulated throughout the Prison Service in Scotland, so that similar incidents do not occur elsewhere.

Anyone would wish to commend the mother in this tragic case for pursuing the matter. However, I wonder whether conditions have improved overall. We have an assurance from the SPS that prison officers will not only check the cells, but that the person in it is all right. In this case, the prison officers had checked the cells twice, but because everyone appeared to be sleeping they did not do anything. When it was eventually suspected that something was seriously wrong, the prison doctor was quickly called for. Within about three minutes the doctor had certified that the chap was dead.

At Christmas, I was involved in an emergency situation regarding prison doctors. The assurance from the SPS was written at Christmas time. I was told that three doctors had walked out of Dumfries prison alone and that others were contemplating resignation. The prison doctors service has come up against great difficulties since it was privatised on 1 November 2000. We need to check what the situation is for doctors. The situation in Dumfries has been righted, and there are now checks, including touching someone who looks as though they are sleeping to confirm that they are still alive.

However, would the prison doctor appear as quickly nowadays? Under the terms of the contracts that a private company in Yorkshire is trying to impose on the prison doctors service, some doctors would have to serve several prisons and would be unable to meet their commitment to get to a prisoner in an emergency; they are supposed to be there within half an hour. Many doubt whether they could, for example, run from Greenock prison to Dumfries prison. Dumfries is especially highlighted as being of concern to prison doctors. At Christmas time, the peak time for suicides, there were two suicides in Barlinnie alone.

I read a report on Sunday night on visits by the moderator of the Church of Scotland to prisons throughout Scotland in the past year. I was impressed by a number of his points but the most important one for the Scottish Parliament to address is how we bridge the gap between ourselves and the Prison Service. It is clear from what the moderator says in his report that there are different practices in different prisons throughout Scotland. I have only ever been inside the walls of a prison; I have not seen a prison cell. I have not seen what it is like to be a prisoner—there but for the grace of God go each and every one of us.

The subject of the petition is one instance. We need to consider the wider policy issue of what we can do to ensure that there is a level standard of service across Scotland, so that we never again hear of something like this happening. I am not sure of the best way to go about that, but could we ask one of the justice committees to undertake an investigation into how we might regulate the Prison Service. I had representations at a meeting on Friday night and I have received letters about the issue of privatisation of prison services. The moderator is right—I agree with him 100 per cent that it is reprehensible that we should have to privatise prison services. It is a matter of serious concern that any individual or company should be able to benefit from another person's imprisonment. We, as parliamentarians, need to take on board those issues.

I have no problem with the recommendation that is stated here. We should ensure that the petitioner receives a note of it. I would have concern only if no further action were to be taken—that might be right for the specific petition, but I am concerned that we should address the wider policy issue.

I was impressed by the moderator's report. I have always taken the view that private prisons are illegal under Scots law—probably under English law too. Think back to childhood visits to castles with dungeons, when we realised that some individuals felt that they had the right to deprive others of their liberty. We thought that that was an extraordinary idea. What is the difference? The state alone should be able to deprive someone of their liberty. To follow up Helen Eadie's excellent point, no one should benefit from someone being in prison. There is a fundamental issue here about private prisons.

We must bring in what Dorothy-Grace Elder said. These private prisons apparently are applying a different standard—

No, I am sorry Winnie. That may apply to private prisons, but I meant that the privatisation of the prison doctor service happened in every prison in Scotland, including those that are still state prisons.

I am concerned by what Dorothy-Grace said about how the alert time is now impossible to achieve. That is part of the situation that the petitioner highlights, although in her case the doctor came quickly.

Yes, the doctor came when he or she was called. There has been a change in circumstances, and people will be properly checked, but that happens only in Dumfries prison. We need a national standard. If inmates are properly checked and one is found whose life has not ebbed away completely, even although it would still be possible to save that inmate, a prison doctor will not arrive in time in some areas because he or she is working at another prison and is not on the spot. That is because of privatisation and the fact that we are losing prison doctors because they will not accept the terrible contractual positions that they are being offered.

There are two parts to the suggested action. The first is that we send the petitioner a copy of the SPS's response and I suggest that we ask the petitioner for her comments. Secondly, we are supposed to send a copy of the response to the Minister for Justice. In doing that, we should ask him for assurances that the steps that have been taken at Dumfries young offenders institution are being applied nationally. We should also ask him to give the Executive's view on the implications of incidents of this kind on the privatisation of medical service in prisons. Thirdly, on Helen Eadie's point, we can ask the Minister for Justice how service standards are monitored in prisons and who is responsible for doing that. This might be an issue for the Parliament—I am not sure what democratic input there is into how prisons are run.

Is not Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons responsible? I do not know whether HMI reports to us.

I do not think that there is a democratic element. HMI does not report, for example, to either of the justice committees.

I think that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee held an inquiry into the prison service, and it examined privatisation. Perhaps we should get that information.

We could copy the letter to the Minister for Justice to the justice committees for their information only. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I presume that the SPS monitors the quality of service that it gets from the privatised prisons, and that it will in effect be the regulator in this instance.

The minister should be able to tell us what we want to know.

Indeed. The SPS must report directly to the Minister for Justice and the SPS chief executive—Tony Cameron—must report directly to the justice committees. None the less, we must make sure that an adequate standard is being provided.

Yes, we can ask who is responsible, whom they report to, and who monitors the private medical service.

The next petition is PE281 from Mrs Isobel Brydie—once again it is a petition about dangerous driving prosecutions. At one of our earlier meetings we agreed to pass the petition to the Lord Advocate, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Commission for their comments, and to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for information only. We have received replies. The Scottish Law Commission's response did not really say anything; it indicated merely that this is a matter for the Crown Office and the criminal justice division of the Scottish Executive justice department.

However, the Lord Advocate's response is fairly detailed. I think that it addresses some of the points that Winnie Ewing raised about an earlier petition. It points out various matters; for example, the fact that sheriffs do have the power, if they find that a sentence is not severe enough, to pass the case on to the High Court for more severe sentencing

As they do regularly.

Yes. The Lord Advocate's response also provides some information and statistics on the situation and clarifies the current position on the issues that were raised in the petition. There are no plans to take the action for which the petitioner called, which was automatically to refer all cases to the High Court. Previous legal advice from the Scottish Parliament legal team indicates that an amendment to the relevant act to make provision of the nature that is called for in the petition is outwith the Parliament's competence, as it is a reserved matter.

It is suggested that the committee should agree to pass copies of the responses to the Justice 1 Committee for its information, as it is considering the petition, and also to keep the petitioner informed of the responses, but to take no further action.

It is a cornerstone of our constitution that the judiciary is independent.

It is important to note, as I said when the petition was first considered, that sheriffs are not imposing the maximum sentences that are open to them, as is detailed in the Lord Advocate's letter. It is fundamentally important that sheriffs do not feel that they are unable to impose adequate sentences.

That is a fair point. We will pass the responses to the Justice 1 Committee and the petitioner.

The next petition is PE290, from Mr Frank Harvey, and is about the safety of amphibious vehicles on the Clyde. We wrote to Glasgow City Council, which has passed a response to us that clearly indicates that safety conditions are applied to the use of those vehicles on the Clyde. It is suggested that we pass the response to Mr Harvey, and that we take no further action, as the response answers the health and safety concerns that he raised in his petition. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE300, from Mr Andy Scott, on behalf of the Tay access group. He was concerned about wardens and warrant cards. He wanted to cancel the warrant cards of all wardens who were appointed under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, to protect women and children from convicted sex offenders. He was concerned about the unregulated nature of the way in which such wardens are appointed—mainly by landowners.

We have received a detailed response from the Scottish Executive, which points out that it is now open to anyone, including employers or landowners, to apply for a criminal conviction certificate. In any case, the Executive intends to apply full Scottish Criminal Record Office checks on people who are nominated as wardens. I do not know whether that is in response to the petition, or whether the Executive always intended to do that, but it goes some way towards addressing the petitioner's concerns. We should simply copy the Executive's response to us to the petitioner and take no further action. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE309 is from Mrs M Whitehead. It is about the Victoria infirmary, and calls on the Parliament to ask Greater Glasgow Health Board to produce detailed plans—as part of an investigation into the existing Victoria infirmary site and associated grounds—during consideration of the site for the proposed acute hospital in the south of Glasgow. There has been a debate in the Parliament on this, and a range of activities has taken place. An option appraisal is under way, which addresses many of the issues that the petitioners raise.

It is suggested that the issues in the petition are for GGHB, rather than the Parliament, and that it is not for us to intervene. The petition has been taken into account as part of the consultation on the matter, and the health board has agreed to carry out an option appraisal in recognition of local concerns. It is suggested that we pass to the petitioners a copy of the material that we received from the health board, that we take no further action, but await the outcome of the option appraisal. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That is the last petition.

Document PE/01/01/2 lists changes to the progress of petitions since the previous meeting of the Petitions Committee. For members who have just joined the committee, such a document will be made available regularly to members, and any member who wishes to check up on a particular petition should contact the clerks to find out about its progress. I do not know whether any member has issues that he or she wishes to raise on this group of petitions. The paper merely sets out the latest position of each petition. Normally, members should check the document before they come to the meeting, and they should indicate to the clerks whether they wish to raise an issue.