Official Report 335KB pdf
Mental Health Services (Deaf and<br />Deafblind People) (PE808)
Under agenda item 2, the first new petition is PE808, by Lilian Lawson, on behalf of the Scottish Council on Deafness, calling for the establishment of a specialist in-patient mental health unit and provision of resources for mainstream services for deaf and deafblind people. Lilian Lawson is here to make a brief statement to the committee in support of her petition, and she is accompanied by Drena O'Malley and Michael Davis. Welcome to the committee. You have three minutes to make your opening remarks and we shall then open up the debate. Andrew Dewey and Shaurna Dickson will provide an interpretation; we also welcome them to the committee.
I would like to ask Michael Davis, the convener of the Scottish Council on Deafness, to make the presentation on our behalf. He is one of only two deaf counsellors in the whole of Scotland.
I have a copy of the presentation, which I shall circulate to all members later. First of all, I shall speak briefly on the statistics on deafness in the United Kingdom. There are 8.7 million people who have some form of hearing loss. Around 8.5 million are hard of hearing, 6.2 million of whom are over 65. Around 120,000 are deafened—that means that they have become severely deaf later in life. There are between 50,000 and 70,000 people who are born severely deaf and whose first language is British Sign Language. There are 23,000 deafblind people. The numbers in Scotland are about 10 per cent of those figures.
Members of the committee will now ask questions. To assist the interpreters, I ask members to speak as deliberately as possible to make clear the questions that we are asking.
I declare an interest: I am a member of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on deafness. I also shared a taxi with Lilian Lawson and the other witnesses this morning because my train was late.
That is one difficulty that we face. In the past four years, Drena O'Malley and I have tried to persuade the Scottish Executive to consider identifying funding possibilities so that we can conduct research and collate information and evidence to find out how many deaf people suffer from mental health problems. A person named Dr Black was commissioned, who at that time worked for the national services division of the national health service. He wrote a draft paper entitled "Developing Specialist Mental Health Services for Deaf People in Scotland", which considered a strategic plan for the development of mental health services in Scotland. The paper was produced and approved, but the difficulty, as the member mentioned, was the lack of statistics about the number of people who are involved. Dr Black came back to us and we set up a task group and approached the Scottish Executive to seek funding. We were given one or two costings, which we pursued. We filled in forms and received approval, but it took us about three years to get to the end of the process, by which time people had changed posts and the goalposts had moved, which meant that we were unable to get funding to carry out the research. That is one main reason why we are in the present situation.
In relation to deafblind people only, 10 per cent of 23,000 would be 2,300. According to the statistics that the Scottish Executive collects on blindness and partially sighted people, 2,280 people in Scotland are registered with a dual sensory loss. However, we reckon that the number is nearer 5,000, as the Executive's figure refers only to people coming from the blind first perspective. That information is logged and is available to you in the Scottish Executive's figures.
Thank you for that. It is obvious that we need some form of audit and perhaps we can follow that up.
One of the difficulties with the new act is the fact that the assessment has to be done within 14 days. That is fine if an interpreter can be booked at short notice, but that can be difficult because, as you know, there is a national shortage of interpreters. In addition, it is necessary to find an interpreter who is appropriately experienced and trained to work in that field. However, very few interpreters can cope with working in a mental health situation with deaf people. Deaf people have been sectioned and taken to hospital without interpreters being provided; they have then stayed in hospital for several months and have been unable to source an interpreter.
Yes, that is absolutely correct. It is important to realise that the issue is not only the availability of interpreters; it is people's knowledge about deafness. My only expertise is in deafblindness. Getting the communication wrong can make a patient respond in a really odd way. I see that every day. For example, this week I met a man who was devastated because he thought that his dogs were going to be put to sleep. He has one retired guide dog and one working guide dog. The truth was that the dogs were going to be given an anaesthetic prior to having their teeth pulled; however, that did not change the distress that he suffered. The confusion was between the phrases "put to sleep" and "go to sleep". I do not know how the interpreters would be skilled enough to be sure that the right information was always being given. We need people who are steeped in the culture of communication cut-off that deaf and deafblind people have suffered. Such people would be able to tell the difference between someone having the wrong concept and their having a certifiable mental illness.
If a deaf person needs in-patient medical treatment, they have the choice of going either to a mainstream hospital in Scotland, where they are more likely to be isolated because of the communication problems, or to Manchester, where there is a specialist in-patient unit but where they would be away from family and friends for stretches of time, which would not help. That is the problem that we face in Scotland.
Good morning. When I read the committee papers, I was struck both by the figures, which you have spoken about this morning, that potentially 15 per cent of the Scottish population suffers from issues related to being deaf or deafblind and by the fact that no specific provision is available for them in this country. Frankly, I am surprised that we have not heard more about such a major issue. Nevertheless, I appreciate your bringing it to our attention.
I would say both.
Oh, definitely. Some deaf people are trained to work in psychiatric hospitals. However, as far as we know, there are none in Scotland.
So there are no CPNs in Scotland who are able to deal with the conditions that you have highlighted today.
There might be one or two CPNs who can communicate with deaf people.
It would be worth while pointing out that one of them is in Shetland.
Are they based in Shetland?
They live in Shetland.
That is correct. Someone who previously worked in Glasgow is now based in Shetland. She tried actively to set up a service for deaf people with mental health difficulties in Glasgow, but she received no funding or support from management. At the end, she became so frustrated that she simply gave up and moved to Shetland. She no longer works with deaf people; she works only as a mainstream nurse. She was very self-motivated; after all, she paid out of her own pocket to learn sign language. However, the systems in Scotland did not allow people such as her to provide services.
I have one or two questions about the current service. On page 2 of your submission, you say:
In one month, the clinic is held in Edinburgh, and in the following month, it is held in Glasgow. The service rotates. In other words, the unit comes to Glasgow or Edinburgh once every two months.
So the clinic might not be held even on one day a month in Scotland. I take that point.
Yes. At the moment, a number of patients attend the clinics that are held once a month alternately in Glasgow and Edinburgh. However, they receive no support. They might receive an assessment, but if they need treatment and care they need to go to Salford. I think that I am correct in saying that each of the Scottish health boards has had no problem with paying for patients to go to Salford. However, treatment can be delayed because places are not always available and there is a waiting list. As a result, people become more ill and severely mentally impaired. As I said, the outreach service that comes up to Scotland may be cut. We are concerned about what will happen to deaf people if that is the case.
The outreach service has been in place for nine years on a temporary basis. The people in the John Denmark unit are committed to starting something in Scotland. Our worry is about the temporary basis of the unit. It is no longer helpful for us to have a temporary service; we need a proper service for deaf and deafblind people.
Thank you. The Scottish Association of Sign Language Interpreters submission sets out the situation that you have just described. It says that the measure was meant to be a stop-gap, but, as you said, it has been in place for nine years. Who decided that it would be a stop-gap measure? Was that decision made by the then Scottish Office or was it a health board decision?
I know Dr Davidson of the John Denmark unit quite well. He was just trying to be helpful by putting a clinic in Scotland. He did so because organisations such as the Scottish Council on Deafness, Deafblind Scotland and others were saying, "Please bring your expertise here, even if it is only once a month or once every two months." There has never been anything particularly official about the arrangement; we have just been trying to get the expertise where we can.
So the unit made the decision. Do you know whether the unit pays for its staff to come to Scotland or does the NHS in Scotland make a contribution?
I am sure that the health boards in the places where patients live pay for the services. That is the case for deafblind people and I am sure that it is the same for deaf people.
Right. You continue to regard the measure as a stop-gap measure.
If I may, I will come in on that point. Five years ago, in 2000, Dr Davidson, who is a consultant psychiatrist at the John Denmark unit gave a presentation to a conference here in Edinburgh. He made it clear that he was happy to continue to provide the service on a temporary basis, but he reinforced the point by saying that in no way would the arrangement carry on for ever. The service has some negative impacts: its infrequency means that, if patients become ill in between times, there is no intervention for them. Dr Davidson has recommended that a similar unit to the John Denmark unit be set up in Scotland.
By definition, a stop-gap service can be stopped at any time. I take the point.
Good morning. Much of what I was going to ask has been covered by my colleague Mr Watson. However, I would like to clarify the difficulties that the deafblind experience in Scotland. We have heard about referrals that can be made to a monthly clinic in either Edinburgh or Glasgow. We also heard that the alternative is the clinic at the John Denmark unit in Salford. How does the deafblind patient arrive at Salford? How long does the assessment take? Is it a day or a week?
If a deafblind patient is going to Salford, a guide communicator from Deafblind Scotland will normally take them there. If they were sent any other way, who would be able to communicate with them? Assessment as an in-patient at the John Denmark unit usually takes between two and three weeks.
If the assessment is made by professionals and they recommend that the individual must have treatment in Scotland, is the patient just admitted to a general hospital or is special provision made for their accommodation?
Deafblind people are admitted to a generic psychiatric ward. Recently, however, we had a patient in Glasgow at midnight on a Saturday night with a skilled guide communicator who could communicate with him. Obviously, going to the John Denmark unit and the monthly clinic were not options at that point. He was offered beds in Edinburgh or Dumfries without communication support, because that is where the beds were. With a great deal of consultation at midnight, he was admitted to another hospital in Glasgow. The generic psychiatric services are not set up to cope with that.
On occasion, therefore, it could take long enough to place the individual in appropriate accommodation and, even after accommodation has been secured, there may be no appropriate staff to minister to their needs.
That is the problem. Even with all the difficulties of going to John Denmark, at least all the staff there, including psychiatrists, are able to sign—if not quite at the level of an interpreter, they are almost at that level. Every conversation takes place in sign language. That is what we need, but with all due respect to our good NHS staff, that cannot happen in the Southern general or Parkhead hospital or any of the psychiatric hospitals in Scotland. Even if the specialist unit was in Edinburgh, the staff at the Southern general could phone the unit at midnight on a Saturday night and say, "We have a man here with special problems. If you can't take him tonight, could you take him tomorrow?" We want support and expertise from a specialist unit.
However, as you can appreciate, if that decision were to be taken by a particular health board, the onus and costs of establishing the service would fall directly on that health board, which might be difficult. The suggestion is that the Scottish Executive should introduce legislation or encourage the health service to provide such facilities.
I am stepping outside my area of expertise but, with all due respect, I think that we set up specialist units for other reasons, such as for heart transplants. This is another area in which such provision should be made. That has been done in England and Wales, and it would be really good to have a similar small, expert facility in Scotland.
The submissions mention that there is an application from the Royal National Institute for Deaf People to the Scottish Executive's futurebuilders Scotland programme. Has there been any success with that initiative? It is suggested that something like £18 million should be invested in the facilities that you promote.
I do not know about that.
I am not aware of that application.
Some of the information that the committee has received indicates that the Scottish Executive does not have any plans to set up the sort of unit that you are asking for. In your communications with the Scottish Executive, have you been given any reason why the Executive would not set up the sort of unit that you are seeking?
I know nothing of the RNID's plans but perhaps there is some confusion over the fact that the RNID has recently had a lot of discussion with the Scottish Executive about the modernisation of audiology services. The RNID has been heavily involved with that.
I serve on the same committees as Lilian Lawson and we have had meetings with Dr Ian Pullen—he is a very nice gentleman but I have forgotten his job title. He said that there are no plans to set up this kind of unit. We have been asking, negotiating and speaking for five years. This is a little group of profoundly deaf and deafblind people who have been in a cupboard for far too long. We are coming out now and I think that you are going to be astounded at what has been going on.
In all your communication with the Executive over the years, has it ever refuted the level of the problem that you have identified? Has it said that there is no medical reason to establish such a unit, or does it have a financial reason for not doing so?
Five years ago, when I became director of the Scottish Council on Deafness, we agreed that mental health was a priority, so we arranged a meeting with the principal medical officer, who was Dr John Loudon. He was supportive and was already aware of the needs, because he had been involved in working with stop-gap services. Unfortunately, he retired and was replaced by Dr Ian Pullen, who knew nothing about the matter and was surprised by everything he was told, so he had a steep learning curve. He agreed that the issue was serious and said that we would meet again, but for two years we were in a wilderness of no meetings because of other work and pressures. Dr Pullen's eventual response was lukewarm and the proposal was not taken anywhere.
I will ask about the availability of signers. Am I right in thinking that all health boards have signers as part of their staff, or do they contract them when necessary? Whatever the arrangement, how common is it for a person who is deaf and who goes into hospital with a common-or-garden illness that anybody would go to hospital with not to have someone at that hospital to interpret for them?
No health board has its own interpreters or interpreting service. Some health boards have service agreements with a sign language agency, similar to those that some local authorities have. A health board may have an agreement to use a local social work department's interpreters from time to time or may have an agreement with an interpreting agency. A health board will have a list of interpreters to call when one is required at the last minute, but that is very ad hoc. In an ideal world, each health board would have an interpreter on standby whom it could call and bring in. That would be wonderful.
Two weeks ago, an ambulance in Glasgow went to collect a deafblind patient. When the ambulance personnel found that she was deafblind and knew that they could not communicate with her, they left her. From a health and safety perspective, they did not want to touch her when they could not communicate with her. We sent a guide communicator within about 40 minutes.
Having read our briefing papers and heard your evidence, I think that your petition would achieve a desirable outcome. However, regardless of the outcome of the petition, it is vital to address the lack of information, which was mentioned in the briefing papers, because that could remain an issue after the establishment of a special unit.
There have been several attempts to make resources accessible. A DVD called "Listen Up" has been developed, which is a deaf awareness training package to inform medical staff about the problems of deafness and how they can address them. However, such developments are few and far between. Many resources are not accessible to deaf and deafblind people. That is one of the problems that we face and it is partly to do with the lack of funding to develop new resources.
Recently, the health rights information Scotland project set up training through the Scottish Consumer Council. It tried to develop information leaflets for the general public on their rights regarding health. It produced standards that set out how each health board should produce information to make it accessible to deaf and deafblind people, to people with learning disabilities and other disabilities and to people from ethnic minorities. Recently, it produced two leaflets on confidentiality and access to health records. Those leaflets are easy to read. I have seen them and I thought that they were excellent and clear. A signed, subtitled DVD version is also available. That is a good example of how each health board can produce information on health that is accessible, rather than relying on deaf and deafblind charities to produce it. The responsibility should lie with the health boards.
Recently, the Scottish Executive collaborated with NHS Education for Scotland about communication with deaf people. It has produced a deaf awareness communication tactics pack, which will be used to train medical staff on deaf awareness. That is one of the positive moves that NHS Education for Scotland has made.
I reiterate that if we want information to be made accessible to deafblind people, we have to underline three times that we need to make special arrangements to do so by providing a guide communicator service, which people in every other country in Europe and, I am ashamed to say, in England and Wales have by right, but in Scotland they do not. That is the subject of a parliamentary motion and of another petition. Without such a special arrangement, we help to close the cupboard door on information. All the things that Michael Davis and Lilian Lawson talked about exist: if we fund them properly, accessible information can be provided. The political will exists, but funding has to be put in.
I ask members for recommendations. Mike Watson indicated that he had some.
Yes. I am concerned to note that, although a working group in NHS Scotland last year identified that specialised mental health services for deaf, deafblind and hard-of-hearing people were a key gap in service provision, the Executive has no plans to set up the unit that that working group recommended. We should certainly write to the Executive to ask for an explanation of why that is the case—other than that it is for individual health boards to decide their priorities. The issue is not one for individual health boards; it is a question of Scotland-wide provision.
I agree entirely. Mike Watson has picked up on the report from NHS Scotland, to which the Executive has made no reference. We have to find out why it is not taking those recommendations on board. Campbell Martin will probably mention the RNID proposal, which is also a good idea. I would also like to write to the John Denmark unit to get some information on how it proceeds. Such units seem a great idea. It is a pity that they exist in England but not in Scotland. If we are writing to the Executive about the NHS working group and the figures for the number of deaf and hard-of-hearing people in Scotland, we should also ask it to comment on everything that we have heard from the petitioners.
I ask that we contact the RNID and ask whether and how its proposal, if it were awarded the funding it seeks, would address the problems that have been highlighted today. When we contact the Scottish Executive, we should ask whether it accepts the level of the problem that the petitioners have identified and, if it does, why it considers that it would be inappropriate to set up the type of unit for which they are asking.
That is a good question, Campbell. As we have agreed to write to the Executive, I would like to know what sort of funding it thinks it is providing or expects to provide for the programmes of accessible information that we have discussed. There is a series of questions to ask a lot of people. Are members happy with that action?
We should have some clarification on the futurebuilders programme. Mention has been made of a cost of £18 million to set up a centre in Scotland. There might be useful information in that programme.
We will have to get a lot of information so that we can address the petition properly.
We thank you for your time as well. We know that you are busy, so we appreciate our petition being heard.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Angling (Border Esk Rod Licence System) (PE810)
Our next petition, PE810, by Aeneas Nicolson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to reject proposals by the Environment Agency to introduce a rod licence system on the Border Esk river.
We seek your assistance on a Scottish issue regarding a Scottish river and a Scottish custom. The Border Esk river originates in Scotland and, for two thirds of its length, flows through Scotland; it goes into the Solway firth in England. By an accident of history, the management of the river is now the Environment Agency's responsibility. That English body has done little or nothing for the management of the river to date. The practical management of the river has been in the hands of the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association, which is based in Langholm, although its members come from north and south of the border. The association has carried out electrofishing tests and conservation work in conjunction with the Galloway Fisheries Trust; in the past five years, that work has cost £62,000. Education projects in local schools have also been carried out, and the association has agreed to work in partnership with the Environment Agency to the best advantage of the river and for its protection.
Thank you for bringing the petition to us this morning. I invite members to ask questions on the issue.
Could you comment on the prosecution process, Mr Nicolson? It seems a strange situation for an English agency to have to police areas in Scotland, where the judicial system is totally different. Have you made any inquiries to find out whether the Scottish police will be involved in that policing?
At present, the Environment Agency has authority to control the river. However, there was an incident last year when poaching was taking place on the river. A chap was using a snare behind my house, as it turned out. The police were called, and the bailiff who came was the Buccleuch Estates bailiff, who acted immediately and brought the police on to the scene.
I think that things changed to some degree with the introduction of licensing, on the basis that substantial fixed fines—or at least maximum fines—now apply. That suggests that the position is almost an impossible one for both the Environment Agency and the—
We are trying to ascertain whether charges can be brought or prosecutions sought under the licensing system in a Scottish court. We have not had an answer to that question yet. Dumfries and Galloway Council is working on our behalf; it is seeking legal views on how everything will come out in the wash.
Have you approached the Scottish Executive on the matter? The Executive is deeply involved and has had communications on the matter, and questions have been asked in Parliament. Has it come up with any comments on the judicial process?
We have had a bit of correspondence over the past 12 months. May I bring Mr Mundell in at this point?
Yes.
The designated area of the Esk goes quite a bit out into the Solway estuary. There was an issue around some netting activity near Powfoot, on the Scottish side, in which the Environment Agency became involved. It confiscated some nets, which were taken to Penrith, and it was suggested that there would be court action. However, the six-month deadline has expired and an opportunity to explore, in the courts in England, whether somebody can be prosecuted for activity in Scotland has been lost. I have my suspicions that that was not accidental. Obviously, it is for prosecutors in England to decide which cases to proceed with.
Mr Nicolson suggested that the Scottish Executive has not replied to the Environment Agency on the issue.
There has been correspondence with MSPs, but not with the Executive.
Lewis Macdonald, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, has said that the Executive supports the introduction of the fisheries management plan. That suggests that the Executive has responded.
We understand that the Environment Agency has put forward a draft proposal but that it has not received a response. We can only go on the basis of that information, which we got from the Environment Agency.
I think that that is well worth investigating.
A rod licence system is just one of a large number of options that were presented. Although everybody accepts the general concept that there should be a fisheries management plan for the Border Esk and other rivers, that does not necessarily mean that there is support for rod licences.
I accept that, but I suggest that the proposed rod licence system is the one thing that will create serious divisions and perhaps confrontation. On that basis, the matter must be addressed.
There were 17 points on the action plan. The other 16 went through without debate, but the proposed rod licence system was slipped in through the back door.
I have never had the pleasure of fishing on the Border Esk, although I have fished on many other rivers in Scotland. For clarification, will you confirm whether the Scottish section of the river is in community or private ownership?
It is virtually all in private ownership, but there is accessible fishing from the Buccleuch estates for locals and visitors. There is a scheme whereby youngsters up to the age of 15 and pensioners get free fishing within the town boundaries and discounted fishing elsewhere, but now they will have to pay a rod licence, which will negate the benefit of that.
So the fishery is fairly well managed.
It is very well managed.
When an individual goes along for a day's fishing, he gets a permit locally.
Correct.
There is a suggestion that that system should be extended to include rod licences. What is the difference?
There are set charges for fishing, which vary between different parts of the river. Local residents fish for half the full rate, or if they are a pensioner they may fish for a quarter of the rate and children may fish for free. A local resident may fish for the season for £22, or for £11 if he or she is a pensioner. The Environment Agency proposes that, in addition to paying that charge, people will need to go to a local post office or write to Warrington to obtain a rod licence. The fee for that, depending on one's age, ranges from £62.50 downwards.
Is the rod licence that one eventually acquires for the day or for the season?
Licences can be purchased for the day or for the week, but most people would buy a licence for the season. The system is administered separately; it is not administered by the owners of local fisheries. The licence is required by the English Environment Agency.
But, in the past, you have had a very successful fishery in the Scottish section of the Esk, so what is the problem? Why is an additional burden being put on the angler?
Precisely. The management of the river has been carried out by the Esk and Liddle Improvement Association. For example, it has provided funding of £62,000 over the past five years. That is money from the riparian owners and from grants that we have applied for. In addition—this may simply have been coincidence—we received £3,500 from the Environment Agency last year, after it mentioned the introduction of rod licences. Surely that was just a coincidence, but it was the first time that the agency has been involved financially. It has grandiose plans for the river but there are no dates and no specifics.
That could create all sorts of complications. I see from our papers that salmon and migratory sea trout are affected. If I go along there and am fishing for brown trout, do I still need to have a rod licence?
You require a rod licence for any fishing—even for eel—on a river for which there is a licensing system.
I can fish all over Scotland where there is not a managed fishery for brown trout and I would not be committing an offence. Why should it be an offence on the Esk?
We would like to know that as well.
The suggestion that there should be a rod licence is ridiculous and I would be opposed to any additional licence being required in order to enjoy a day's fishing on any river.
As you will know, the Tweed is controlled by a Scottish authority and there are no rod licences on either the English or the Scottish sections of the river.
At the request of the ELIA, the Environment Agency reluctantly agreed to enter into consultation with us. We support the EA 100 per cent in 16 out of the 17 areas in the plan that it produced, because the ELIA is about conservation, the management of the river and education.
I have been in correspondence with the Environment Agency to ask the very question that John Farquhar Munro asked. The agency says that the Esk is the only river for which it is responsible that does not have rod licences. I wrote back to say that I thought that the situation was unique because the river was in Scotland whereas the other rivers for which the agency is responsible are not. However, I am afraid that it does not see that point. I have therefore come to the inevitable conclusion that this is a tick-box or tidying-up approach. All the other rivers are governed in a certain way and the agency wants to govern the Esk in the same way, despite the fact that it is inappropriate to do so.
John Farquhar Munro has asked some questions that I was going to ask and I agree with everything that he said. However, I think that things are much more complicated than they have been made out to be, as David Mundell has said. There is the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 and the Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999. The exercise is a money-making exercise as well as a tick-box exercise for the Environment Agency.
I do not see how raising £5,000 by doing something that costs £50,000 can be a money-making exercise. The agency has confirmed in writing that it cannot guarantee that £1 of any income raised will be spent on the Border Esk system.
You mentioned the £62.50 that people will have to pay that they do not need to pay now. That is what I was referring to. Where would that money go? It would certainly not be spent on the two thirds of the river that belongs to Scotland.
The agency has stated that that money will not be ring fenced. It could go anywhere—to south-east England or to anywhere in England.
That was the point that I was trying to make. We cannot even follow where the extra money will go. When I mentioned that the exercise was a money-raising exercise for the Environment Agency—
The income that is raised would go to Bristol, which is where the headquarters of the Environment Agency are and from where it is administered.
That was the point that I was trying to make. The exercise is a money-raising exercise.
I can give a small example. Two or three seasons ago, I met one of the agency's bailiffs, who are great chaps. He was sitting next to the stretch of water that I look after and said that he should not have been there because his petrol allowance did not allow him to come past Longtown. He was poaching in my water, although I did not say anything about that. He had not been given the authority to go as far as he had.
There is further evidence. The Environment Agency says that it has had control of the water since 1975. There is a telephone hotline in all English telephone directories to report poaching incidents, but despite numerous requests, there has never been an Environment Agency hotline number in any directory in the area that we are discussing. To this day, there is no such number in local directories.
The issue is a real enigma and the papers that we have been given do not help much to clarify matters. I wonder whether any of the witnesses could explain the press release from the Environment Agency, which says that the agency
There have been proposals, but the agency has certainly not interpreted the case as a fixed case until now. It has now decided that the system will go through.
I think that I heard you say that two thirds of the Esk is in Scotland and one third is in England. How long has licensing applied to the third of the river that is in England?
Rod licences have been on the go in England for quite a long time, although I cannot say exactly how long.
They have existed for more than 25 years. The question raises a salient point because if such a scheme is statutory, why are rod licences only an option in the management plan?
Yes; and why is it called a proposal?
There are gentlemen sitting in the back of the room who fought against the introduction of similar measures 50 years ago. The proposals were thrown out then because it was accepted that the situation was an anomaly that should be left as it was.
If one looks at Hansard reports on the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 and at subsequent correspondence, one sees that Lord Sewel took the view that nobody would want to open up the issue because it is too complicated. Rod licences have never been used on the river and he did not anticipate that anyone would introduce a proposal for licences. Therefore, during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, rather than open up the issue, he gave an undertaking that the situation would carry on as it had done. It appears that, more than anything, a change of personnel in the Environment Agency has led to the issue arising. Mike Watson is right that there is a contradiction: on the one hand people are saying that the measure is a statutory requirement, while on the other hand they are consulting on whether the measure should be taken.
The Environment Agency is in a difficult situation. It has issued a press release that states that the licensing system is a statutory requirement. If it pulls back from that, somebody, for whatever reason, could claim that the agency is contravening the law in not implementing the system. I do not expect you to comment on that, but that seems to me to be the situation that the agency is in, having stated in writing that the proposals are simply to meet the legal requirements.
I will answer your final question first. I do not regard the assurance as being retracted. Allan Wilson indicated in a parliamentary answer that the Executive would have to approve byelaws. I subsequently sought to discuss the issue with the Executive, but, during the period in which the court case to which I referred was pending, the Executive was understandably reluctant to discuss the issues. I do not believe that Lewis Macdonald's subsequent answer and correspondence contradicts that, because he focused primarily on the legislation, not on the nature of the byelaws. My view is that the Scottish Executive will have to approve the content of the byelaws.
So that is still officially the Executive's view.
That is my understanding, although Lewis Macdonald did not specifically say that in his answer.
To be clear, was Allan Wilson's assurance to you given in a parliamentary answer?
Yes.
Like other members, I am trying to work out exactly what is going on. I suppose that my lack of knowledge of the geography of the river does not help. I assume that the river flows from Scotland to England. Is that correct?
Yes.
It rises in Scotland and runs two thirds of its way through Scotland and then forms the border between England and Scotland with the Liddle, which is a tributary that is also affected. However, the river goes into the Solway firth in England.
Historically, dating back to the 19th century, the river has been administered under English law.
That is correct. There was a trade-off with the Tweed—the Tweed was taken by the Scottish authorities and the English authorities took the Esk.
That is the crux of the issue—regardless of what the Scottish Executive might want to do, the river is, in effect, English and is bound by English legislation. To amend that, procedurally one would be required to amend legislation that goes back as far as the 19th century. I ask David Mundell whether that is his understanding of the situation.
I would not quite say that. However, as I said in my initial remarks, a number of pieces of legislation to do with the rivers do not necessarily gel together. When we try to examine the overall legal position we find that it is not necessarily consistent, hence the points that were being made at the start of the discussion by Phil Gallie about what the legal process is in relation to enforcement, for example.
We must get that clarified before we can start to address the issue. I wonder how complex the legalities are and how far back they stretch: it may be easier to bring in immigration laws and give the fish a passport. We could resolve the matter practically by looking at what a statutory body such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency can do, rather than look at legislation that affects how it can act. It is a complex matter and we must get to the bottom of it.
The 1999 order states that reference that used to be made to the Westminster minister must now be made to that minister in conjunction with his Scottish counterpart. Our interpretation is that a precedent has been set—the licensing system was not introduced before devolution and to do so now would require the agreement of the Westminster minister's Scottish counterpart.
We must get some legal expertise involved. The petition will be useful if it can get that point clarified. I look to members for recommendations as to who we should get some clarification from, but I think that the Executive will have to be asked for legal advice. Some organisations that are involved in angling and coarsing could perhaps help us with their knowledge of the law. I am sure that John Farquhar Munro will know of organisations that have had to deal with such legalities.
There is only a month left; we have only until April 2005.
We can put some pressure on quickly. We can get the paperwork done so that we get the questions asked fairly speedily.
Should we write to the Scottish Anglers National Association, the Association of Salmon Fishery Boards, the Salmon and Trout Association and the Scottish Federation for Coarse Angling? Would those be appropriate organisations for us to contact?
Those are the types of organisations that I was talking about. Given the timescale that we are working to, the Executive is the primary organisation.
Of course; I took that as read.
I presume that we are now at the discussion stage.
That is right.
Contacting the fishing organisations is very much a secondary issue. The current problem lies totally with the Scottish Executive. We have heard that it has not given a response to the Environment Agency. That is a weakness. We need to know the Scottish Executive's position at an early date. Given that we have heard that the rules governing the river go back to the 19th century, the fact that a decision is to be taken over the next month or two is an absolute nonsense. I suggest that perhaps Dumfries and Galloway Council has got it right: decisions should not be made when we do not have the facts. Without a doubt the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland and the Scottish Executive need to examine the whole situation very carefully.
Can we also write to the Environment Agency to ask the simple question why it is introducing rod licensing now and why it did not do so before? Some reasons are given in the letter, but the agency has not explained why it did not introduce rod licensing previously. We should ask what has suddenly changed.
There is no reason why we cannot ask it to suspend taking action for the moment.
I am not sure that we can ask the agency to do that—
We can always make the request.
Our letter will be worded such that the urgency of the situation is emphasised so that we receive a speedy response. However, to ask the agency not to implement what it considers to be the law would be to enter very dangerous territory. We will ask for clarification.
Will the committee also write to Dumfries and Galloway Council, which is currently considering the legal position? It might be useful to have the council's view on that.
That might be helpful and there is no harm in asking for the council's view.
High Voltage Transmission Lines (Potential Health Hazards) (PE812)
Our next petition is Caroline Paterson's PE812, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to acknowledge the potential health hazards associated with long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields from high-voltage transmission lines and to introduce, as a matter of urgency, effective planning regulations to protect public health.
We were alerted to the public health threat that is posed by electromagnetic fields when Scottish and Southern Energy issued its routing proposals for the proposed Beauly to Denny high-voltage power line, which will carry 400kV. Disregard for public health was apparent from the fact that it was proposed that the line should follow populated routes, virtually passing over people's roofs.
Do members wish to ask questions of the petitioners?
Good morning. The subject is controversial and important. The committee's briefing paper mentions high-voltage overhead power lines and says that there is no evidence that low-level electromagnetic fields from power lines are responsible for children's illnesses such as leukaemia. What do you say to that? Our paper says:
Although the initial conclusion of the UK CCS study was that there was not a link between childhood leukaemia and EMFs, in September 2000 the authors of that study came out and said, "Sorry, we got it wrong." The assertion that the UK CCS study did not show a link between childhood leukaemia and EMFs is regularly repeated, even though it showed such a link. In September 2000, the authors' apology was reported in The Lancet. As recently as March this year, the power companies were claiming in their literature that the UK CCS study did not demonstrate the link in question.
Thank you for clarifying that. It is important to reiterate that the authors of the report were wrong.
Unfortunately, it is still being reported that the CCS study did not prove a link.
You want the Executive to do something about the situation. Do you think that there should be a moratorium on the construction of high-voltage overhead power lines or are you arguing that a specific level should be set? What should the Executive do?
I would like there to be a moratorium on the building of high-voltage new installations, by which I mean 275kV to 400kV installations.
A number of other countries have taken regulatory planning measures. They considered the cost benefits of doing that and decided that it was a good way to go. They took action a number of years ago, long before the evidence was as strong as it is now. Those countries seem to be doing very nicely. I understand that Dr John Swanson is evaluating how they are getting on with such measures and how difficult or easy it has been to implement them. It is possible to word the regulations in a way that does not cripple industry but still gives protection to the public and saves children's lives.
A moratorium has been issued in Belgium. Instead of issuing precautionary guidelines, the Belgian Government has placed a moratorium on high-voltage overhead power lines of this scale.
I was just going to ask which countries have a moratorium.
I circulated a paper—
I am sorry, but I do not have the full set of committee papers. I should have asked for them.
The European countries that have regulations in place are Sweden and Switzerland. There are also regulations in some Italian regions, in six or more US states and in some Australian states. Those are the ones that I know of.
In part, you have answered one of the principal questions concerning what you consider to be high voltage—we are talking about 275kV to 400kV. Although you have petitioned the Scottish Parliament, I suspect that radiological limits and EMF limits would probably be a reserved matter. Have you inquired about that? I seek guidance from the clerks on the issue.
The matter had to be checked out because, as you say, the regulations of the National Radiological Protection Board are reserved to the UK Government. However, the petition has been lodged in respect of the Scottish health hazard and the Scottish Parliament has a right to consider the issue under its devolved responsibility for health. The petition is legitimate in that respect and the issue is not reserved if we approach it from a health perspective.
All right. Thanks for that clarification.
We would have concerns if the matter went to Westminster, as the urgency of the case might be missed. New 400kV lines will come through the planning system soon.
Most of the proposed new 400kV lines are being either upgraded or provided to meet the Scottish Executive's renewable energy targets. Do you recognise that, if you were to have your way and if the health arguments outweighed all other considerations, that could have a substantial effect on Scotland's plans for wind farms, for example?
There need not be a conflict. In the Stirling area, Scottish and Southern Energy picked the most populated route that it could choose, but there are less-populated routes. There is also the option of undergrounding, which would mitigate the health impacts. As a last resort, compensation packages could be offered if there were no alternative and the Scottish Executive deemed it an important issue.
At the moment, the power company says that the lines pose no problem with regard to health, so it has not made an effort to avoid dwellings. Its own guidance was originally to keep the lines about 100m from houses, but it threw that out fairly early on and, as Caroline says, its latest proposed route goes virtually over the top of some houses. No effort has been made on this, although the power company could make an effort without expending much money on it. The option of undergrounding would be far less difficult and less disruptive to the environment than the power companies have claimed, and a lot of work is being done by various groups, including Highland Council, to find out what the real cost would be of undergrounding sections of the line.
It would seem rather ironic to have a policy in place to prevent global warming and environmental damage if it created environmental health issues of major proportions. We are talking about not just a few people; if the limit of 0.2 microtesla is accepted—as it is by the international scientific community—thousands of people will come within this bracket.
If the figures that you propose are accurate, you are right to have concerns; however, those figures are disputed worldwide by people on both sides of the argument.
I do not think that they are disputed. The NRPB—which is the Government's advisory body—recognises the doubling of childhood leukaemia at levels above 0.4 microtesla. That is not disputed internationally.
Until recently, the NRPB was very dismissive of the idea that these lines might cause a health problem, but it is changing slightly. The language that is coming from the NRPB is changing and it is saying that the Government should consider further precautionary measures. Historically, it has not even entertained the precautionary principle. There is no reason why it cannot do so; other countries have done it and have survived perfectly well. There does not seem to be any moral or pragmatic reason why Scotland should not adopt precautionary measures similar to those adopted by some other countries. There are cost benefits of not having people dying of leukaemia or getting depression. Other countries have looked into those cost benefits. There are also visual cost benefits if you underground a section beside a tourist attraction, for example. There are lots of benefits that can be keyed in that have not been looked at because nobody has decided that it is necessary to do so.
The controversy seems to rage over the mechanism, not the epidemiological evidence.
Thank you. That is very helpful.
I would just like to mention something for the record, since Phil Gallie raised the issue. Section D1 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 reserves the
Thank you, convener.
I see that your petition specifically mentions the Beauly to Denny overhead transmission line. I am sure that you are aware that Beauly is right in the heart of my constituency. The proposal is to take the overhead line from further north, from areas such as Achiltibuie, down to Beauly. I have attended numerous public meetings with Scottish and Southern Energy and the local communities from Ullapool, Beauly and Fort Augustus. Whatever Scottish and Southern Energy is proposing, it has certainly been scrutinised to the nth degree. I am sure that, if and when that transmission line is eventually built, the developers will take account of all the submissions that have been made to them, particularly with regard to the problem of the overhead line being near communities. I know that the developers have, so far, agreed to alterations and modifications to their scheme.
There are currently no regulations that protect anybody from any level of meaningful EMF. At the moment, you can build a house directly under a 400kV power line. Nor are there any regulations to prevent a developer building a power line directly over somebody's house. There are no existing regulations to protect anybody from the biggest voltage power lines that we have.
I thank you for that answer. I am also aware that, since its initial proposal for running the line, Scottish and Southern Energy has diverted the line quite considerably away from human habitation, just to satisfy local opinion.
In our area, it has actually diverted the line closer to more people. Alterations have been made according to different principles, or not according to any principles at all.
According to your own information, what is the closest proximity to a habitation that is acceptable?
The recommendation that we got was 400m. That recommendation came from Denis Henshaw at Bristol University. A number of workers in Europe are saying similar things, recommending 350m to 400m as a prudent avoidance distance. The Draper study shows a doubling of child leukaemia. It echoes all the other pooled international studies, which show a doubling of leukaemia at 0.4 microtesla. However, it does not cut off abruptly at 0.4 microtesla, which is perhaps equivalent to 100m; it will extend out well beyond that. That is why researchers are suggesting 350m to 400m. In some cases, it will be possible to do that without any major economic expense or disruption. In other cases, it may cost some money to deviate the lines. People have to consider the cost benefits of that and decide whether compensation could be appropriate.
On the 400m limit, how far advanced is the development of the Beauly to Denny grid?
As we understand it, an application might be going into the Scottish ministers next month at the earliest.
Have you surveyed the route? Do you have any idea of how many houses would be within the 400m limit?
I do not have an accurate figure on that and we should get around to getting that.
We do not know what the route is. There have been two pre-consultation proposal groups and in some areas there are three or four options.
I see. The route is not definitely decided.
The latest proposed route came very close to several properties in the east of Stirling.
Would it be possible for the route to be constructed so that ScottishPower gets what it needs while maintaining that 400m distance from occupied houses?
As we understand it, routes could be found that would achieve that. Technical considerations might mean that undergrounding is necessary in some places, but we do not have the capacity to do a survey of the whole route. It is not our field.
As I said, that should be the line that we pursue. I do not see any point in trying to decide whether there is danger from such electricity generation because we will get only conflicting opinions. If the petitioners are saying that they would be satisfied with a 400m cordon, we should put our energies into urging the Executive, Scottish and Southern Energy and ScottishPower to observe that.
I just point out that the corridor would have to be 800m wide; 400m either side of the pylons.
Not everywhere. That would be true only in some places.
It might become an issue only in populated areas.
If it were to skirt a village or something, it would need only a 400m cordon, but I take your point.
The power companies have said that undergrounding does not give a great improvement with regard to health, which is not true. When a line is put underground, the electrical field that lies directly over it is strong, but it is the equivalent of standing next to a shaver or beside the microwave. The field drops away very rapidly to the sides of the line so there is not the effect of long-term exposure, particularly at night, which people think is a problem if they are living beside the lines.
I reiterate that the scientific community is united on the issue. Even the NRPB has a stakeholder discussion group, so it is not the controversial issue that it was in the 1970s. Things have moved on substantially since then and the health issue should not be ignored.
I was not saying that it should be ignored; I just do not think that there will be any profit in the committee pursuing who is right and who is wrong. It should deal with the petition's specific issue.
I have a couple of concerns, one of which relates to the fact that it is 36 years since we put someone on the moon and we now have the technological ability to put bombs through specific windows in specific buildings, but we do not seem to have a definitive answer on whether electromagnetic fields cause health problems in the general population. That might say that certain sections of the Government have their priorities wrong.
It seems to be very new territory. The line that we are talking about is of a magnitude that nobody has come across before. The planners seem to be scratching their heads and not knowing exactly what the situation will be. The councils are reluctant to discuss the situation with us much at the moment because they have not seen the pylon plan and they do not know where it will go, although we are pretty certain that we know the corridor where it will go.
However, it would seem foolish to rush ahead and give approval to the line when the NRPB is in discussions about safety levels. If the information is taken on board, the line would then have to be moved, which would be extremely expensive.
Will you expand on the underground aspect? What research has been undertaken? With today's new technology, I would think that there must be some way of getting the cables underground without digging massive trenches, in the same way that electricians fish through walls for wiring without having to drill into the walls. There must be a way of doing that underground and working in an appropriately near spot.
Absolutely. It is difficult to get independent accurate information on what it would cost to put the cables underground. The cabling companies have been approached by some of Mr Farquhar Munro's constituents, but the companies will not speak to the public to give them an accurate costing because they say that, as they are in conversation with the power companies, there would be a conflict of interest.
It is interesting that major studies have been done, but we have to be able to access some of that information. We need to know whether undergrounding is technically feasible. People would then have to do costings against feasibility.
We do not know of any that have been successful. I gather that there was a case in America in which a farmer successfully sued a power company over damaged animals, but I do not have the details of that.
The committee is joined this morning by other MSPs—Sylvia Jackson, Mark Ruskell, Andrew Arbuckle and Brian Monteith—who have indicated their interest in this matter. I will come to Sylvia Jackson first, as the local member.
Thank you. George Reid is sorry that he cannot be here as he is at a meeting of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. However, his sentiments are similar to mine, which means that the Ochil and Stirling areas are represented.
I have been pleased to support the petition. I should probably say from the outset that I am not against pylons, which I believe are a necessary evil. One of the proposed routes passes through villages quite close to where I stay. There are associated landscape impacts, but if we are serious about developing renewable onshore energy in Scotland and about upgrading the electricity grid, we need to get that electricity into the cities where it will be used. Pylons are a part of that, but we need to consider undergrounding.
I live in an area that 30 years ago was criss-crossed by oil pipelines being laid between the North sea oilfields and Mossmorran and Grangemouth. Although they were unsightly for a short time, few if any people know where the lines now run; we see only the occasional relief valve. For health reasons we should try to put new high-voltage lines underground when people are living in the vicinity. The health issue is difficult, because although evidence of health problems is growing it is not definite. Until it is, the lines should be put underground when people live within a 400m radius of them.
I am pleased to speak in support of the petition for a number of reasons. First, it is clear from what members have said that there is a concern about the relationship between devolved and reserved issues. The petition seeks to influence the Executive, through the Parliament, with regard to planning and acknowledging public health issues. The National Radiological Protection Board said that the Government should consider further precautionary measures and that has been initiated at Westminster. Given that that process is on-going, it has to be given due consideration in the same timescale as that for the development of the power line—the difficulty is that the timescale for the development of the power line is ahead of it. The Executive is likely to publish a planning bill in May, which might or might not cover the issue—we cannot tell. In the meantime it might be possible for the Executive to take action to enforce a moratorium or issue planning guidance for those who deal with planning to limit the introduction of any power line until a position is established in consultation with the NRPB. There is an interest in rearranging the planning process to ensure that it fits in with genuine public health concerns.
Do members have any recommendations about what we should do with the petition?
I am very sympathetic to what has been said, particularly on health. However, it is not up to the committee to engineer this process. Moreover, as far as undergrounding is concerned, people have mentioned digging a little trench alongside the motorway. We are talking about 400kV cables, three-phase supplies and oil-filled pressurised cables that could be affected by motorway traffic. I do not want to go into any more detail, but the process is not quite as easy as some have suggested.
We must consider the immediate issue of the power line going through this area and the overall issue of the planning process in Scotland, which the petitioners have highlighted. I hope that we deal with the immediate issue first. We have to write to the Executive, highlighting the petitioners' concerns about the timescale for works and the route of the power line. Because of the lack of feedback from power companies to the petitioners' correspondence, they do not know anything about the route. We should also write both to the local authorities that are involved to find out what they know and to Scottish and Southern Energy and ScottishPower. Once we receive those responses, we should refer the petition to the Communities Committee, which will consider the new planning bill when it is introduced in, I believe, the spring.
I know that you have raised two issues, Sandra, but the committee cannot sit in judgment on any specific planning application. We cannot consider the specific situation outlined in the petition. The petition asks us to address planning and health issues, and that is what we have to ask the Executive about. I take on board members' points that this specific case raises a whole range of environmental, health and planning issues. It is those overall issues that the committee must focus on. I realise that the specific issue in the petition is vital to the petitioners locally, but we have to address it in terms of wider legislation and the Parliament's powers and look at the bigger picture. That is what we have to ask about if we write to the Executive, because any changes to the planning process will affect the whole of Scotland, not just this particular case.
It would be a shame if there were no element of urgency.
I understand that. Your petition raises very vital concerns that have to be addressed, but we have to do that in the context of planning and health regulations that cover the whole of Scotland.
Would it be possible to get some independent expert opinion on undergrounding?
That is the point that I was just about to make.
The technology beside motorways that I was referring to was high temperature superconductor technology, which is in its relative infancy, but they say that in a few years it will be economic to lay it in a small trench. It would be great for the whole of Scotland if we did not have this eyesore marching from Ullapool to Beauly to Denny, degrading our tourism.
Convener, we should pursue that point vigorously, because I am keen on it. We should look at it from the university perspective and see what research has been undertaken on effective undergrounding. We should also write to the major cabling companies. We can get a cabling company directory from the internet that is as long as your arm. There must be an association for companies that specialise in cabling underground. If we can take the Channel tunnel between France and England, I am sure that we can find ways of getting cable underground at a reasonable cost. We should ask the power companies about the general issues that are raised in the petition, and about the specifics of underground cabling, such as the costs and the work that they have done on it. That would include Scottish and Southern Energy as well as ScottishPower.
I have examined the issue in my constituency. The University of Bristol has a research unit that looks into these issues—I think it is the human radiation effects group. It would be useful to get its perspective on this, as I know it has done a lot of work on the subject.
I stick by what I said originally about the importance of the issue and of getting early, swift answers from the Scottish Executive. I recognise that high technology moves on and that perhaps there will be other options, but, right now, the Scottish Executive should have considerable information on undergrounding of cables. In the late 1990s, when the 400kV Northern Ireland interconnector was proposed by ScottishPower, the Government suggested that sections should be put underground but, after a lot of controversy, it was decided to go for overhead cables, principally for cost reasons. It would be interesting if the costings that the Scottish Executive already has were provided to us. I hasten to add, convener, that that information is probably available under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.
We have a number of suggestions for the organisations and bodies that we should write to for information. Given the reason for the petition, there is a sense of urgency that we can emphasise in our communication with the Executive. We can request a speedy response. We will collect all the information and, if necessary, find an appropriate committee to send it to for proper consideration. We will not just punt it somewhere. Once we get the information back we will consider it. Obviously, we will try to get the information as speedily as possible.
May I raise one point? I assume that we all agree that the evidence that is being produced points in the direction of following other countries in having a 400m minimum avoidance distance, although we have yet to see the Draper report. I would have thought that the Scottish ministers could liaise with their counterparts in Westminster to find out more about the progress of the Draper report. Obviously, the stakeholder group that Melanie Johnson is heading up is important and will be seen as a major move.
We will ask a specific question on that and collate all the information and address it soon. We will let you know the information that we get back.
No.
We will press on, because we are running behind schedule.
Planning Applications<br />(Third-party Right of Appeal) (PE809)
Petition PE809, on planning applications, is by Angela and William Flanagan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to legislate to provide third parties with a right of appeal regarding planning applications.
I declare an interest in that I proposed a member's bill on third-party right of appeal, which subsequently fell because the Executive brought forward its consultation. Because the Executive will supposedly produce a new proposal on planning in the spring, it would be advantageous for the committee to write and ask whether the Executive intends to introduce a third-party right of appeal.
Are members happy with that?
Planning Procedures (Playing Field Land) (PE813)
Petition PE813, on the loss of playing fields and recreational open space, is by Ronnie McNicol on behalf of Laighdykes residents group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament
I have a slight concern about linking the two petitions. Although they seek a similar outcome, they have been lodged for different reasons, given the effects that planning procedures have on playing field provision in certain areas. There is a big difference between—
I understand that, but we are looking at the petitions in terms of the outcome, which is the same. I will outline what PE771 asked for, then I will come straight to you.
Yes. First, I am delighted that so many people from North Ayrshire have battled through the snow to get to the meeting today. I commend them for doing so. I should probably declare an interest in that I have supported the petitioners and I live in the community that would be adversely affected if the development that the petition relates to goes ahead.
I appreciate the points that Campbell Martin makes. I understand that there are specific issues relating to PE813. The similarity with the other relevant petitions relates to exactly what Campbell was describing, with the conflict of interest within local authorities and their different departments. The related petition also asked that that be addressed.
You could perhaps clarify this for me. You have spoken about linking the two petitions concerned. Would that mean that a determination of the petition relating to Ayr would be exactly the same as for PE813?
No. If different issues came up, we would have to ask specific questions.
I will explain why I ask. I think it is written somewhere that, if sportscotland maintains an objection, ministers can call the application in. If sportscotland did not object in the case of Ayr but did object in the case of Saltcoats, would the petition concerning Saltcoats be considered on its own merits?
As with the petition that we considered earlier, we cannot look at the specific planning application. This committee cannot sit in judgment on whether the planning decision that was made by North Ayrshire Council was right or wrong. The council is the planning authority.
I accept that.
This is where the link with the other petitions comes in. I am not talking about only PE771, but about petitions that were considered during the previous parliamentary session, including PE454. They are linked: in each case, the question is whether enough guidance is given to local authorities on planning applications. Is stricter legislation required under planning regulations? What role does sportscotland have in relation to the protection of playing fields? The link lies in the outcomes and in what is required to address the matters that have arisen.
On that basis, I would be happy for a link to be made to PE813, as long as we make our position clear and ask the Executive about its position on changing the planning laws so that there might be a presumption against such developments if the required amount of space is not available for playing fields.
I thank Campbell Martin for the information that he has brought us, which has been very useful. I appreciate the fact that some members of the public have travelled a long way to hear the petition being addressed. We will want to give the matter proper consideration, rather than simply combining our consideration of the various petitions involved just for the sake of convenience. The issues raised in PE813 are specific, and will need to be addressed, but that petition relates to others that we are considering. As the desired outcome is the same, we can address more than one of the petitions at one time. We must focus on the matter of whether planning regulations in Scotland allow the protection that the petitioners are requesting. I would be happy to hear from other members about what we should do about the petition.
It is wise to link together the Ayr and Saltcoats petitions. They relate to needs in the respective areas as well as to a wider need.
As with the committee's discussion about the pylons, there is such an urgency, as the application is being processed at the moment. Outline planning permission has been granted for the school to be built on the site of the playing fields, and the development is being progressed by the local authority at the moment.
Obviously, that is a problem; we will need to get answers quickly. The Executive is looking at new planning legislation for playing fields. Although I cannot remember the exact date, I think that it is due in spring this year, along with the planning consultation. It is important that the Executive and the Communities Committee know that this is happening.
In terms of the consultation on the planning bill that Sandra White mentioned, I think that the timescale is for the white paper to be produced in the spring. I think that the bill is to be published in May. We should seek clarification on the review of NPPG 11.
Perhaps we could write to the Executive along those lines, asking it to respond to the issues and concerns that sportscotland has raised. The concerns that sportscotland has raised are legitimate: they address the principles that lie behind PE771 and PE813.
I would like to hear the Executive's response to sportscotland's concerns. The response would answer the specific issue that Campbell Martin raised.
First, like Campbell Martin, I have an interest to declare. I live in the vicinity of the playing field that is the subject of PE771. I also have knowledge of the area that is the subject of PE813, as I was a councillor there for a number of years. That said, it is far too long ago to be of relevance now. I have every sympathy with the points that Campbell Martin made on the subject.
I have a final point to make, which leads on from what Phil Gallie said. In answer to a parliamentary question on 5 May 2004, Frank McAveety stated:
That is a specific question and we would like the Executive to answer it. We also want to raise the question of the timescale for the review of NPPG 11. Are members happy that we take the issue forward to the Executive on that basis? Are members happy that we ask for those clarifications and for a response to the concerns that sportscotland raised?
Therapeutic Work Initiatives (Funding) (PE820)
Our next petition, which is by Graham Clark of Shamanic Studios, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that adequate funding is provided for therapeutic work initiatives to assist people who have psychotic psychiatric disabilities. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petitions site, where it attracted 34 signatures between 20 December 2004 and 7 February 2005.
Is not this a case of the lottery having to give funding to constituted organisations that have charitable status? In the submission from Shamanic Studios, Graham Clark makes that point. He says:
I am not sure that the committee can consider individual requests for funding. We have considered such petitions before and have found that to be very difficult.
I am talking about the generality of the principle. No matter who the person is or what the application is for—whether for disabled people or others—they are not allowed to benefit from individual funding in that way.
I am not sure.
It might be something—
You might be right, but the petition is not asking for that. I know that the information in the briefing raises that question, but it is not contained within the requirements of the petition.
So the petitioner seeks the Scottish Executive's having a pot of funding for such people.
That is right. The issue of how the petitioner would be able to access such funding would be a matter for the organisation. Do members agree to write to the Executive to ask for information?
We could also refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee for information.
Yes. We can do that and we could let the Equal Opportunities Committee know when we receive a reply from the Executive. It might be useful to contact—
The Disability Rights Commission, Capability Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health.
Are members happy with that?
Previous
Item in PrivateNext
Current Petitions