Official Report 287KB pdf
I welcome everyone to the 15th meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee. I also welcome members back after the recess and hope that it was as good as it could have been, given the dramatic and tragic events of that period. I hope that if members are not rested after the two-week break, they are at least determined that we should get on with the work of the committee as best we can.
Thank you for having me here today. Kirkcaldy Area Abuse Survivors Project—KAASP—was established in 1995. We are a group of former health and social care workers who are also qualified counsellors, working primarily with adult male and female survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
No, it was a mistake.
We believe that a range of specialist services and care pathways is required, in addition to recognition of the effects that criminal sexual acts have had on survivors. Through that, we could change the climate of fear and shame and the public myths about the whole subject of childhood sexual abuse. That would benefit survivors and send a clear message to perpetrators that they can no longer hide behind the silence of their victims.
That was the signal for thirty seconds. Have you finished?
Yes.
I apologise—apparently the earlier sound was due to the batteries running low in our timer, which was playing up.
It threw me a bit.
Thank you very much for the presentation. Members of the committee may now ask questions.
Thank you for that comprehensive introduction. The project was established in 1995: are there similar projects elsewhere?
Yes, there are approximately 25 such projects throughout Scotland. Their sizes differ from that of KAASP. We have those projects' backing for our petition, and their representatives have signed it.
Do you act in a co-ordinated fashion, or do you act fairly independently and simply liaise with each other?
We have an umbrella group, in which we meet regularly, but because of financial and geographical constraints, we cannot always meet up as often as we would like.
What is your status? Is the group a registered charity?
Yes.
What funding do you have in the current financial year from the local authority?
We have £22,500 from Fife Council.
And what do you get from the lottery?
We get £65,000. Those two sums make up our overall budget.
Just for this one year?
Yes.
What do you think is the scale of the problem?
The current statistics say that one in three girls and one in five boys have experienced some form of sexual abuse by the time they reach the age of 18. The abuse ranges from flashing and inappropriate touch to full rape and assault.
Is the funding from the national lottery for three years?
Yes.
Is this the first year?
We have just ended our first year.
So you have two years of that funding left?
Yes, we have two years to run.
I assume that the funding from Fife Council is not guaranteed.
No, it is not guaranteed. Like many voluntary organisations, we had been on urban programme funding. When that ended, the local authority was recommended to provide funding, but it said that its budget could not meet the needs of the project, although it valued the service. We believe, as do the other similar organisations and statutory organisations that work with survivors, that there must be secure funding for our group, as we are slowly becoming aware of the mammoth scale of sexual abuse. That is why we are also appealing for a national strategy to unpack the whole issue, and why we implore the Scottish Parliament to take a lead. Scotland has a golden opportunity to take a lead in having a pragmatic debate on this issue and on how we deal with the long-term consequences of sexual assaults on children.
Did this year's £22,500 from Fife Council represent a cut on previous years?
Yes. Our work was done through a programme that was administered by the council. We were then on a £72,000 annual budget, but, obviously, costs increase.
Has any direct approach been made to the Scottish Executive?
The only approach has been through the petition. We have had meeting after meeting with the local authority.
I have two questions. We have all noticed the increasing number of press reports about sexual abuse survivors. As those reports have become more prevalent, have more people approached you, and can you give us an idea of the number?
Every time that there is press coverage, we receive more calls for our support. We have 1,500 clients, and ours is only a small project in Fife. There are other similar projects, for example in Falkirk.
My second question is about core funding. I hope that your organisation will receive decent funding from the council. If that happens, would you like that money to be ring-fenced for the purpose that you described?
Yes.
You talked about statutory bodies that provide similar services. Who assesses the success or otherwise of your project? How are you supervised?
We work with the British Association for Counselling, which is a recognised body. We are all qualified counsellors. It is mandatory that we are insured and that our practice is supervised externally by accredited practitioners. As with psychiatry and psychology, it is difficult to monitor the outcomes, which statisticians call soft outcomes. We receive internal evaluations from the survivors who use the project and the professionals such as general practitioners and psychiatrists who make referrals to us. For our funding, it is mandatory to have annual external evaluations, but we see that as good practice. They are conducted by an agency that is recognised as an authority on external evaluations in the voluntary sector.
I asked about that because it is useful to have that information in the Official Report.
I thank Anne Macdonald for her evidence. We will now consider the petition.
I did not ask any questions, because I have joined the cross-party group on survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I agree with you, convener—it is important to try to obtain information on the strategy. The number of people coming forward with information is growing, so it is imperative that we have in place the support systems, such as those provided by Anne Macdonald and others. [Interruption.] Was that beeping giving me 30 seconds? I know about the problems because a lady in my constituency who needed such support approached me. Fergus Ewing has also done some related work. There is a need to consider the support agency and the legislation on compensation; some victims have argued for retrospective compensation.
It would be useful if the additional information that Anne Macdonald provided about other organisations, and other matters such as how the organisations are reviewed, was handed to the Executive. I say that now so that the petitioner hears the proposal. Do we have all the papers that were submitted?
Yes.
If we send the petition to the Executive, the additional background information will be quite useful.
We will definitely include that information. Is it agreed that we send the petition to the Executive and, when we receive its response, consider further how to dispose of the petition?
Petition PE280 is from Judy Wilkinson, on behalf of the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society. It calls for the Scottish Parliament to recognise the importance and popularity of allotments, and to establish an allotments working group that would protect and promote allotment provision in Scotland. The petitioners, Judy Wilkinson, Ray Nixon and Eddie Docherty, will speak in support of the petition. Since submission, a further 146 signatures have been received in support of the petition, which takes the total number of signatures to 646. Robin Harper, too, will speak in support of the petition.
You have received our petition and an additional information paper, which lists the committees that may have an interest in allotments and outlines the reasons why they may have such an interest. Today, I want to deal with just one issue: social inclusion. In urban areas—Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee—and in rural housing developments, many people have no opportunity to grow their own food.
She wrote to say that looking after her child is physically and mentally exhausting, that an allotment would be an ideal stress and tension reliever, and that it would be extremely beneficial because her daughter does not eat meat. She said that they find buying vegetables a chore, whereas, with a little time and effort, they could cultivate a plot and grow some of their own.
Unfortunately, of the two sites near her, one has a three-year waiting list and the other is under threat of development. We ask you to set up a working party to consider how allotments can be preserved and promoted, because we think that they are of great value to the community.
We are looking for a workable strategy to ensure the future of allotments. The allotment site of which I am secretary is fortunate because we bought it to be held in trust for future generations. We would like sound legislation on this. Also, we want to set targets for opening new sites or reopening old sites that have simply been left because they have not been built on—that is a sad state of affairs.
You have 30 seconds left.
Thank you.
Please carry on, as you still have 30 seconds left—I do not seem to be getting my message across today.
In 1998, in a report on the parks and open spaces vision for Glasgow, John Conway suggested that there would be support for allotment provision where there was an identified local demand. Yet councils do not advertise allotments. One cannot go into a library and find a list of allotment sites or the names of the secretaries of sites. That is a shame. I suggest that we should advertise in libraries, council offices, police stations, doctors' and dentists' waiting rooms, and perhaps even supermarkets—that would not be against their interests, as allotment holders would still go to the supermarket to buy food.
Can you wind up?
We would like you to pass the petition on so that we can receive some positive feedback.
As a serial plant buyer and gardener, I am very sympathetic to this petition. Who owns the land on which allotments are sited? Is it usually the local authority?
There is a mixture of owners. The owner can be a local authority, but there are some private sites. Bellahouston bought its site from Scottish Enterprise.
Have you collated that information?
We have some information. Edinburgh—
I do not need to know just now, but if the petition is passed elsewhere in the Parliament it may be useful to have that information.
We can give you limited information about the sites.
How many allotments are there?
We think that there are about 4,500 plots in Scotland, and about 500 sites.
Is there a queue?
Yes. In Edinburgh, there are 1,200 plots and the same number of people on the waiting list. Those are people who have found out about allotments and signed up for the waiting list, but if there were publicity we think that many more people would be interested.
What is the turnover of plots?
The site of which I am secretary has 100 plots and a turnover of 10 sites a year—10 per cent. The waiting time is about three years, as people move away or give up. Between 10 and 12 plots become free every year.
At the moment, we have eight plots that we could let. Winter is a difficult time of year to let plots, because people tend to think of working in allotments as a spring and summer activity. We have no problem letting allotments.
I thank the petitioners for presenting their case. For too long, people who work on allotments have been happy just to tend their allotments, and have made a bit of noise only when allotments have disappeared.
Each council manages its plots differently. For example, in Glasgow there is devolved management, so the individual sites manage themselves and the council retains only an overarching responsibility. In Edinburgh, sites are managed centrally by the recreation department. There is the Federation of Edinburgh and District Gardens and Allotments Associations. In a sense, that is a better arrangement because it means that sites know each other in Edinburgh. In Glasgow, we are all separate and do not meet. I do not know about the management in other cities.
Why has the number of allotment sites decreased so markedly over the past 20 years?
Sites such as ours are very much under threat from building and development. A current example of that is Hawkhill, which is a lovely little site in the middle of high-rise flats. It is a pocket of open space on an industrial site and, because a transportation company next door wants to expand and has said that it will provide 100 jobs, the allotment site has come under threat of being sold. The matter is being considered under the planning process.
Are you saying that local authorities or other owners are resuming those allotments against the wishes of the people who held plots previously?
Yes.
Absolutely. It appears that the local council stands to make £2 million on the Craigentinny site from developers. The council would sell the site to the plot holders for £175,000, but where would 70 plot holders find £175,000? Those are the figures that we are up against—allotment plot holders have been up against such figures for the past 20 years.
Is there no protection in law?
The position is very vague. The Allotments (Scotland) Act 1892 provides that a suitable site should be found, but plot holders who have held a plot for 40 years or so do not tend to want to move.
The Hawkhill site will be removed from the centre of the high-rise flats where it is located at present. The issue is really to do with gardens. If you live in the leafy suburbs, you will have a garden, but if you live in a high-rise flat, there is little opportunity for gardening. In some areas, such as Drumchapel, it appears that provision could have been made for allotments, but they were never considered.
You talked about the community needing allotments. Do the people who have allotments tend to be those who live nearby? Is this a community issue?
Yes, it is very much a community issue. An allotment site is like a village—it is absolutely lovely. We have young people with children, old people who are retired, Asians and disabled people, and they all work together.
I am trying to get at whether people who have allotments live round about the area in which the site is located.
Some people come from places outside the area, such as Glasgow, because the site is owned by the local authority, but most people live within walking distance.
That is interesting.
Robin, do you have a question?
No.
I will bring in Robin when we come to our discussion of the petition, but I want to finish our questions first.
I know what you mean, but I have heard nothing about that.
If the people who are balloted vote for a transfer, everything on a housing estate that belongs to Glasgow City Council would be transferred to new owners. Plots on that land would transfer to new owners, who would probably seek to develop the land in new ways.
We had not considered that.
It might be a good idea if you did.
Yes. The Allotments (Scotland) Act was passed in 1892 and amended in 1922.
I think it was amended again in 1950.
So the most important step that the Parliament could take would be to review the law and modernise it by bringing it up to date.
That would be fine, but we would like the Parliament to be aware of allotments, which link to social inclusion, health and biodiversity. Gardening on green spaces in our city is productive and necessary.
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses.
Over the past 40 years, the general drift in Edinburgh has been towards a steady loss of allotments, with very few, if any, new allotment spaces created during that period. Fifty per cent of the total area covered by allotments has been lost in Edinburgh over that period alone.
As a first step, it is suggested that we consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to obtain its views on the issues that are raised in the petition. In particular, we should find out whether COSLA finds the present legislative position confusing and whether it would welcome a review. We should do that in any event, but it is suggested that, in the meantime, we could pass the petition to the Local Government Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee. It strikes me that, given the petitioners' comments, the petition should also be passed to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
The Rural Affairs Committee may not be an appropriate committee to which to refer the petition, as allotments are usually found in towns—that is the whole point of allotments.
The Rural Affairs Committee covers rural towns and villages.
But we are talking about cities.
I agree with Christine Grahame—allotments should be considered alongside the land reform proposals. Even if those proposals were not coming forward, allotments should be considered anyway.
I agree with John Scott and Christine Grahame, but I am also concerned about the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act 1919.
I think you are right to send this petition to COSLA, convener. My limited reading of the proposed land reform legislation suggests to me that it offers the scope for the proposals in this petition to be considered. We will want to consider community ownership and community benefit. I think it was you, convener, who raised issues about stock transfer. We should be aware of those issues, because once stock and the land surrounding it is transferred, all kinds of implications arise, for which we would require reassurances. I have never worked on allotments—I have always had the privilege of having a garden—but I know how badly many people who do not have gardens want to have allotments. I would fight for their right to have them.
Members seem to agree that we should write to COSLA for its views on the petition and that we should pass it to the Executive and ask whether it intends to include the petition's proposals in its proposals for land reform. We could also ask the Executive whether it has considered the implications of stock transfers in cities for plots and so on. Members also seem to agree that we should send the petition to the Local Government Committee, the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee, for their information, and that we should tell them that once we have heard from the Executive and COSLA we will make a final decision.
I suggest that we draw the issues relating to the housing stock transfer not just to the attention of the Executive but to the attention of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee. That committee may wonder why we are sending the petition to it, so we should point out the value that the petition puts on social inclusion.
Do members agree with all the actions that I proposed?
The third petition is from Mrs Isobel Brydie, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to take action to ensure that all Scottish prosecutions following contraventions of section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that cause death by dangerous driving be heard in the High Court. Mrs Brydie will speak in support of the petition. You have three minutes, Mrs Brydie—if this timer works. I will tell you when you have 30 seconds left.
The information is fairly detailed so, for anyone who requires them, I have prepared some papers that I have given to the clerk. I will be able only to scratch the surface of the subject in three minutes.
You have thirty seconds to go.
Oh, right—I knew this would take some time. We want parity with our English and Welsh counterparts. The law states that a 10-year maximum sentence is available, but that cannot happen unless cases go to the High Court rather than the sheriff court.
Thank you.
This question is perhaps slightly at a tangent to the points raised in your petition. In the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, we have dealt with matters such as these. During proceedings, how much contact did the procurator fiscal service have with you with regard to what was happening with cases?
That is something about which I will be writing to MSPs. I was made aware only two weeks ago that the Crown Office is, at this moment, carrying out a quality review. The issue that you raise will be covered by that. I have just had a three-and-a-half-hour meeting with the Crown Office. The subject is different from the one in our petition, but we have brought to light the importance of contact, information and guidelines from the Crown Office, and contact by fiscals with families. However, even if that were improved, families would have no input to decisions on where cases would go: those decisions are made by the Crown Office.
I appreciate that; and I tend to think that it has to be a matter for the Crown Office. Sometimes—not often, but sometimes—confusion can arise because of non-communication with victims and families.
Absolutely. Things have improved slightly. When it happened to me in 1995, I was told, "It is nothing to do with you."
That is dreadful.
After a lot of pressure and work from Robin Cook and myself, things improved—they are better, but they are certainly far from right. In dealings with the Crown Office, I am asking that guidelines be issued to fiscals on the information that families are entitled to receive and at what stage that information should be given. I hope—I am a born optimist—that the quality review may clarify the situation and that things will improve.
I have a short question, but I always like to let the lawyers go first—I am usually contradicted because I am just a layperson. I like to look at things from a layperson's point of view but to hear the lawyers' opinions.
No—I would say that it is left too much in the hands of the Crown Office. If sheriffs get a section 1 case in front of them, they obviously know that that is because the Crown Office has sent the case to them. I would say that the Crown Office is almost acting as judge and jury: it is saying, "We consider that this case should go to the sheriff court; we do not consider that the culpability requires more of a sentence than the three years available." That was never the intention of Parliament when it doubled the maximum sentence available. Parliament was putting out a loud message that it did not consider a five-year maximum sentence appropriate to the severity of the offence. Parliament upped the maximum to encourage stiffer sentences. That has not happened.
Thank you—I take your points and you have clarified things completely.
Do you have figures for the number of cases that sheriffs felt ought to have been in the High Court and remitted?
I do not have those figures. As far as I am aware, none has been remitted in the past four or five years. I could be wrong, because that information is not in the statistical bulletins that I have seen. However, it would certainly be a very rare occurrence.
Has any work been done to find out why England and Wales send section 1 and section 3 cases to the Crown court?
I assume that it is because the Crown Prosecution Service considers the seriousness of both offences equal. That is not the perception of the Crown Office in Scotland. It seems to consider—and this is why I spoke of political with a small p—careless driving causing death while unfit through drink and drugs a more serious offence than dangerous driving endangering life when someone's brain is not dulled, but clear. That is not what Parliament intended: it regarded the two offences as equally serious. That is not the view of the Crown Office in Scotland.
You are talking about United Kingdom legislation that applies in Scotland, England and Wales.
Yes. The petition does not ask for any alteration or amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988. We are concerned only with the implementation of the current legislation.
And the interpretation of the Crown Office is different from that of the Crown Prosecution Service south of the border?
I would say so. In Scotland, we have three tiers of courts—the district courts, the sheriff courts and the High Court. In England, they have the magistrates court and the Crown court.
Am I right in understanding that you said that very few maximum sentences for death by dangerous driving are handed down?
No maximum sentences are handed down.
Is the maximum sentence three years?
The maximum sentence is 10 years.
But you said that the maximum sentence for cases in the sheriff court is three years.
Yes, but that is not in the legislation. It happens because the sheriff cannot sentence anybody to longer than three years. It used to be only two years. If the sheriff thought the case serious enough to warrant a sentence of more than three years, he could remit the case to the High Court. That never happens because, as the Crown Office sends the case to the sheriff court, the sheriff accepts that that is the level that has been deemed appropriate.
When the sheriff is sent cases involving death by dangerous driving, do they give people three years every time?
If that happened every time, it would be some way towards what we want.
Is the maximum handed down in one case in five or one case in 10, for example?
I can give you figures for 1996, when there were 19 proven cases. Of those, five resulted in a sentence of less than one year, two resulted in a sentence of between one and two years and five resulted in a sentence of between two and four years. No one was sentenced to more than four years. In 1998, 14 cases were proven. Eight of those resulted in a sentence of less than two years and one resulted in a sentence of between two and four years.
Given what you have said, it seems that the procurators fiscal are right in allocating the cases to the sheriff courts. If the sheriffs felt that they should be handing down heavier charges, they would be handing down the full term in every occasion. However, both the procurators fiscal and the sheriff courts say that the levels of the sentences are about right.
I would contradict that, but doing so would lead me into areas that I was trying to avoid but which have to be addressed. One of the reasons why we would like the cases to go to the High Court is that, at the moment, unfortunately, cases can be dealt with by a deputy procurator fiscal. I would contend that, in many instances, such a person does not have the experience to deal with what I would call cases of homicide—we must remember that we are talking about homicide. In sheriff courts, 77,000 cases are dealt with but only 1,000 cases go to the High Court. What other homicide cases are not being dealt with in the High Court? We all know the pressure that sheriff courts and procurators fiscal are under. In the High Court, cases involving death by dangerous driving are now being prosecuted by solicitor advocates—until 1990, they were being prosecuted by advocates—who have extensive training beyond that of procurators fiscal. From the point of view of investigation and the presentation of evidence, it is our contention that—to ensure that the scales of justice are equal and that the prosecution lawyers are trained to the same degree as the defence lawyers—the right place for dealing with homicide cases is the High Court. I am not blaming procurators fiscal, who are under pressure and are not sufficiently trained to deal with some of the evidence that should be introduced by crash investigation officers, but, having sat through hearings of these cases for the past 15 years, I can say that the use of more highly trained solicitor advocates in the High Court would ensure that the scales of justice would be more balanced.
Thanks for answering our questions.
This is a beezer of an opinion. Unfortunately, we cannot touch road traffic legislation—I wish we could—but I was not aware that we cannot amend legislation governing criminal procedure in Scotland. I need to check that for myself. The issue here is exclusive jurisdiction. I thought that we were in a position to amend criminal procedure acts and civil procedure acts. We are amending family law, for God's sake. Criminal law has been independent in Scotland since before the union. I am rather surprised by the opinion that has been given. It would be interesting to let the Justice and Home Affairs Committee see it and to see what it says about what we can and cannot do.
I support strongly what Christine Grahame has said. I hope that the Lord Advocate will provide guidelines. I cannot imagine that any MSP would not strongly support the petitioner's view of the seriousness of issues such as this one. I hope that before the convener departs from the Westminster scene, he and his other colleagues from this Parliament who are still MPs will do what they can to ensure that the necessary amendments are made to the relevant legislation at Westminster. I agree that we should not let this go.
I have every sympathy with the petitioner. We should also ask the Law Society to express an opinion on this issue. I have difficulty with the fact that it does not appear that sheriffs or fiscals feel that the law as it stands is inadequate. There is no clamour for change. The petitioner makes the perfectly valid point that stiffer sentences should be handed down. However, if I have understood correctly what Isobel Brydie has said, at the moment it does not appear that sheriffs or fiscals believe the current law to be inadequate.
I would like to challenge that.
That is fine.
It is all very well trying to blind people with science, but the public is making a fundamental appeal to us to tighten up the law in this area. This is the first time we have been informed of the technicalities of any change. It is not easy to work one's way through that minefield. However, we must do it because there is a public will that it should be done.
I, too, would like to challenge John Scott, but I will speak to him afterwards.
So it is a case of, "I'll see you outside, John."
Is it on a separate matter?
As has been said, there is a lot for us to do. The petitioner made her case very well and, like most members present—including John Scott, who may simply have some questions that he would like answered—I support her.
Convener, I would like you to seek clarification of the legal advice that you read out, which I have not read myself. You may know the answer to this question, but what is the basis in the Scotland Act 1998 for the suggestion that we cannot alter criminal procedure rules and jurisdictional rules? The petitioner is seeking exclusive jurisdiction for the High Court. I thought that it was within the remit of the Parliament to grant that. I would like to know exactly why we cannot do that.
I have the advice in front of me, which gives me an advantage over everyone else. It lumps together the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995.
That is not right.
In the next paragraph, the note states:
I would like to hear the technical arguments.
According to our current understanding of section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, the advice is that an amendment to make the provision that is being proposed would be likely to fall outwith the Parliament's competence. The view of legal advisers is that legislation of this sort would need to be introduced at Westminster. That is their view, but it is not necessarily the law. The legal advice is open to challenge.
Are we entitled to ask him for his views on the petitioner's request that jurisdiction in matters relating to section 1 should be exclusive to the High Court?
We can certainly ask him to comment on that. As Christine Grahame knows, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee has a heavy programme and would, I think, appreciate it if this committee took some of the burden by raising the issues with the Lord Advocate before we pass the question in its entirety to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for its consideration. We will do the groundwork with the Lord Advocate and report back to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on what we receive from him.
I would like to request the highly technical stuff, which was thought to be too much for us. I would like to read it.
Absolutely.
Can we all have it?
All the members want it.
They can all have it.
So did I.
I suspect that a number of committee members may have signed it.
Good afternoon. I begin by thanking the committee for taking the time to consider the petition. My name is Geraldine MacDonald. I am the mother of a child whose organs were removed, without my knowledge or consent, following his death at Yorkhill hospital. I am also the chairperson of the Scottish Organisation Relating to the Retention of Organs, which represents around 60 parents whose children's organs have been retained without consent.
Thank you. That was excellent. The discussion is open to members of the committee to ask questions.
I always seem to start. I have every sympathy. This is a dreadful situation. Many of us on the committee are parents. What happened is beyond words. My questions, however, are quite matter of fact. What contact has the Executive had with you about the independent review group? Will you have any input?
We have had no formal word from the Executive, but we have put our cards on the table and have said that we do not want to take part in the group, because it will not be independent.
You have therefore made it clear that the structure of the group is wrong from the start.
Yes.
Are you corresponding with the Executive and, in that correspondence, have you said why you consider that the group is not independent?
Yes. When we contacted the Executive, we gave the reasons why we believe that the review will not be independent, which I read out.
Have you had a response?
No.
When did you write?
On 5 September.
Have you had an acknowledgement?
I am sorry. I tell a lie. We notified the Executive on 22 October.
So it is fairly recent.
We contacted the Executive following the press release, when the minister announced what she planned to do.
I wanted to see whether the Executive had responded. Thank you.
Thank you, Geraldine. I have a question for you and a question for the clerk. Our papers say that the information requested from the Executive will be available. Did you want to say something, convener?
I was going to reply.
So we have had a reply.
We have not had a reply, but I have some information.
I just wanted to clarify the situation for Geraldine, who said that the reason Susan Deacon had refused the public inquiry was that some parents did not want the public inquiry to take place. I wondered whether we had received much the same answer. I take it that the information will be read out to Geraldine.
We hope that the truth will come out about what exactly went on in Scottish hospitals. We want to know who was involved and who is accountable—we want someone to be held accountable for what has happened. We know that it was common practice for organs to be retained, but that does not make it right by any manner of means. At the end of the day, we want our questions answered. The only way that we will get that is through a public inquiry.
You say that organ retention was common practice, but it did not seem to most people that this sort of thing went on. It was only once the story came out that people realised the scale of the practice. Would you want the public inquiry to go back a certain number of years? Would you stipulate a time scale?
I will answer that. My name is Jim McKinnon. I am vice-chairman of SORRO. We have members whose case dates from 1963; the most recent case dates from February this year. That is a span of 37 years. It would be unwise to go back and cold call people to tell them what had happened—that would not solve anything. However, the health service, the pathologists and the Crown must come together and come clean to say, "Yes, it was a mistake. We carried out a bad procedure." At the moment, all we have is a sympathetic apology from the British Medical Association.
As a parent, I too would like to place on record my concern and support for the parents concerned. My impression is that the independent review would be a much speedier process than a public inquiry would be. Is that speedier process not to the benefit of everyone?
I agree that speed is of the essence. Every family wants the matter to be—as we put it—put to bed as quickly as possible so that we can get on with our lives. However, the overriding factor is trust. We do not have a problem with the retention of organs for medical science or with people donating organs. The fundamental issue is that people took organs from our children without consent. They have yet to explain what the purpose was or what has been done with the organs. A speedy review may save time and money, but I am convinced that only a full, independent, public inquiry will give families the opportunity to ask prominent people the questions to which we need answers. I do not think that the review will get us the answers that we require.
Would you accept that a sensible way forward might be to allow the independent review group to go ahead with your full co-operation and involvement, if that is on offer? If the review group is not open and accountable to you as parents, and if things do not work out as you think they should, you would have a clear position of going on to a public inquiry.
We balloted our members on whether they wanted an independent review or a full public inquiry. They were unanimous in wanting a full, independent public inquiry.
This is about the truth. The review will take at least three years. I do not see it being done in two years; the membership of the group was supposed to be announced two weeks ago, but that has not yet happened. A public inquiry would not take that long. If a public inquiry had been announced at the outset—parents who did not want to be involved would not have to be—we would have been well on the way with it by now. Parents want trust and the truth. That is what is lacking, but they will not get it from a review.
I would also like to place on record my horror at what you have told us today and my support. You have said that you would not go to a review, but would you go to a public inquiry?
Of course.
Do you think that that would be the view of the other parents who are refusing to go to a review?
The parents in our group who want a public inquiry would go to it.
On the point that Helen Eadie made, I feel that it may be more important to get the right answer than an expeditious answer.
That is what we are trying to explain—
If Helen Eadie's proposal was taken up, you might have to go through the process twice. It might be better to have a public inquiry in the first place.
It is my understanding that the main aim of the independent review will be to uphold the name of the NHS and to get the pathologists back on track. I do not think that the main aim of the review will be to satisfy the parents concerned in the scandal. We need a judge to sit in a full, independent public inquiry so that not just the parents involved in our group but all of Scotland will see that the Scottish Parliament will not tolerate a cover-up.
Sheila McLean is the only name you mentioned in connection with the independent review. You said that you thought she might not be independent as she may have taught the doctors concerned. Have you raised that with her? It is only fair to Professor McLean that that issue is raised with the Executive so that she can address it.
The group is writing to her.
I raise the issue because people are entitled to respond to something that has been said about them in public. You should address either the professor directly or the Executive to give her the opportunity to reply. That would also apply to other members of the review body, if it goes ahead.
When Sheila McLean's involvement was announced, I faxed her, giving the group's reasons why we did not want to be involved with the review group, including the fact that we did not think that she would be independent.
You raised the specific point that she may have taught people—
Yes. I have that fax.
You say that, because she had taught doctors, she was aware that the practice was occurring. She may not have been—I do not know. It is important that the issue is put properly, for her sake.
I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy made by all members of the committee for the plight and predicament in which you find yourselves. We will now consider how best to progress the petition. You are welcome to stay to listen to the discussion. Thank you for attending.
When did we write to the Executive?
Four weeks ago.
I am not happy about the fact that we wrote a month ago and have not yet had a reply.
To be fair, that is because the Executive is trying to agree on a reply. It is not because the Executive is not concerned—it is. Discussions are going on within the Executive, which wants to get its reply right before coming back to the committee. It appreciates the seriousness of the issue.
The Executive obviously has to get its reply right, as the reply that it gives to us is the reply that it will give to the various groups concerned. However, given that we are four weeks down the line, the length of time that it will take the Executive to set up the review does not bear thinking about.
We are told that we will have the reply in time for the next committee meeting.
It might be appropriate for us to ask about the matter raised by the petitioners on the potential conflict of interest with the chair of the review group.
We could report to the Executive on the issue after our discussion today, saying that we would be grateful if it could comment.
That would be fair.
From my recollection of the minister's response to the matter when it was raised in the Parliament, the reason for not having a public inquiry was that many parents did not want to take part, which could make the inquiry invalid. The point that Ms MacDonald made was that, if people still did not want to take part, there would be no obligation on them to do so. The fact that so many of them appear unwilling to take part in a review and would prefer to take part in an inquiry makes the case for an inquiry strong.
When we write to the Executive, explaining the comments about Professor Sheila McLean, we could mention the fact that the petitioners have responded to the original reasons that were given for the decision. That is why we are asking not just for the official response, but for the background that led the Executive to make its decision. Is that suggestion agreed to?
Petition PE284 is from Mr Fraser MacKenzie. The petition has been brought forward to this point in the meeting because Linda Fabiani has been waiting patiently to discuss it. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the proposed sale of land in the area of East Mains, East Kilbride, by South Lanarkshire Council. Photographs relating to the petition were submitted today and have now been circulated.
Fraser MacKenzie is present and it is unfortunate that he has not been allowed to speak today. I understand that that is because of the committee's new procedures—you felt that you had enough information.
Those were clearly very serious allegations against South Lanarkshire Council. I am conscious that councils have been attacked before at meetings of this committee. Those councils were not given forewarning of those attacks and were not here to represent their points of view. I suggest that we send a minute of this meeting and the petition to the council, asking for a response, before we consider the matter further.
Before I heard Linda Fabiani, I wrote down that our recommendation that no further action should be taken should be changed and that, instead, we should ask South Lanarkshire Council to give its reasons for taking the action, contrary to its own local structure plans.
This is now out in the open. I think that the council should be given the chance to respond before we consider the matter further.
I take it, convener, that you meant the record of the meeting, not the minute.
Yes: the record—the minute—no, the record. [Members: "The Official Report."] The Official Report, sorry.
I know that it was a hard Monday for you, convener.
We obviously have to be seen to be fair. Everyone has to have their say. You have mentioned that you intend to send the record of this meeting to South Lanarkshire Council, to which we hope that it will reply. I take it that this petition will be held over and that no decision will be taken on it.
Yes—that is what I am saying. We are not taking a decision on this until we hear from the council.
I am quite happy with that. If you give South Lanarkshire Council the opportunity to read the record, will the petitioners also receive a copy?
Yes. Are you referring to Mr Fraser MacKenzie?
Yes. He will receive a copy too.
The account of what happened in today's meeting will be in the Official Report.
I cannot ask Mr MacKenzie, as he is not here, but—
Yes he is.
Is he? Is he allowed to—
That is part of our agreed procedures. We have allowed four sets of petitioners to—
Perhaps I can ask Linda Fabiani, then. John Scott mentioned the council's local plan. If the proposals are against the local plan, there are surely other courses of action that the petitioners could take. Have they tried complaining to the local government ombudsman?
That is also on the cards. Residents, not just of the East Mains area, but of other parts of South Lanarkshire, may be expected to submit petitions fairly soon on similar subjects. The residents are organising themselves and are considering all options.
If there is enough opposition from residents and if the petitions are big enough—there are 1,040 signatures to this one—the residents could in any case attempt to instigate a public inquiry, with a reporter. Is that also happening?
I would have to go back to the residents association to answer that point. I am not quite sure.
It has just been pointed out to me that the local government ombudsman exists to deal with situations where councils are not meeting their legal responsibility to consult local residents.
I want to ask about the time scale. At what stage is the proposed sale of land? Is it on offer?
That is the worry. The closing date for the receipt of tenders from developers is 17 November. I hope that the committee will write to the council and request a very quick response. Although 17 November is only the date for tender return and it would normally take some time for tenders to be considered, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the land could be sold by the end of November.
You said that it is on the cards that the residents will approach the ombudsman. Does that mean that letters have been written to the ombudsman?
The people who are addressing the issue in East Kilbride—through community councils and residents associations—are perfectly able to deal with matters such as writing to the ombudsman themselves. I have taken a back seat on the issue, although I have clear opinions, because I do not want to be accused of party-politicking—it has not mattered that I have not done it; I have still been accused of it. I am here today to speak to the Public Petitions Committee on behalf of the residents.
Did you, as an elected member, write to the ombudsman on the residents' behalf?
No. I have written to the council on behalf of the residents.
Have you asked for a meeting with the council?
No. It took a long time for me to get a reply from the council. There have been refusals to meet residents and local councillors representing different political parties on this issue.
Has the council refused to meet you to discuss this issue?
No. I have not requested a meeting. As I said, the petitioners are very capable of acting for themselves. I am providing back-up where required. They also have councillors who are acting on their behalf.
Did you suggest to the petitioners that the first line of action might be a direct meeting with the council and that if they were refused a meeting, it might be appropriate to send a petition—
Can I say, again, that the petitioners do not need advice at that level from me. They attend community council meetings and have dealt with their local councillors. They have done all those things already.
The petition cannot be progressed until we hear from South Lanarkshire Council. We take the point about 17 November being the date on which tenders must be returned. We will include that in our letter to the council and ask for a speedy response so that we can consider the petition again.
Can I just clarify what we are asking it to comment on? Is it the Official Report of the meeting and the breach of the district plan?
Yes, and the petition.
The next petition is PE274 from Mrs Patricia Drysdale on the supervision of inmates at Jessiefield prison. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to ensure that there is an inquiry into the safety and welfare practices in operation at Jessiefield prison in Dumfries.
I suggest that a copy be sent to the Minister for Justice or the Deputy Minister for Justice, simply for noting. They are engaged in reviewing how drugs are dealt with in prisons and this petition should be brought to their attention.
We will send the petition to the Deputy Minister for Justice for information. We will tell him that we will keep him informed of the committee's subsequent consideration of the petition.
This is a very serious issue. I am sorry that we cannot ask Mrs Drysdale any questions and I apologise to her for that.
Mrs Drysdale can apply to speak at a later meeting of the committee.
I want to clarify to Mrs Drysdale that we will return to the petition once we have obtained the necessary information from the Prison Service. She would then be more than welcome to speak.
The petition will return to the committee, but we need the information from the Prison Service. We will notify the petitioner of what is happening, so that she knows when the committee will next consider the petition. Is that okay?
The next petition is PE275 from Mr Brent Hodgson, on false reports held by the rural affairs department. Mr Hodgson is calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the rural affairs department of the Scottish Executive to abide by the rules of natural justice and the European convention on human rights in relation to public access to records held.
That is what he should do in the first instance.
Yes. Individual complaints should be directed to the Scottish parliamentary commissioner for administration before they come to the Parliament. Is that agreed?
We will inform the petitioner of that outcome.
The second paragraph of the members' briefing states:
Yes. That is a typing error—it led me up the garden path as well.
The briefing also states that the petitioners
We must wait until we hear the Scottish Executive's position. We do not know what the situation is.
Can we get evidence on that?
The purpose of writing to the Executive is to find out what provision is.
For the record, I would like to say that I find this a really interesting petition. I have been interested in this subject for a long time.
The petition is very well researched. After we have received a reply from the Executive we will consider it further.
The petitioner contends that the reduction was not passed on to other tenants. What other recourse does the petitioner have? He has been to court and a judgment has been passed in his favour, yet he has been unable to get that benefit for other people in the housing association.
The other recourse would be to go to the housing association ombudsman.
Has he done that?
The ombudsman says that the complaint is outwith his remit. This is one of the problems—the housing association movement that has grown up over the past 25 years has had piecemeal growth in Scotland. The legislative framework does not necessarily deal with all the different issues that have arisen over the years. There are gaps in provision, but that is what the housing bill is meant to address. It is meant to consider the new legislative framework in which housing associations will be monitored and, especially when Scottish Homes becomes an executive agency, who is responsible for monitoring. Those will be live issues in the housing bill.
I had no idea that there was a housing association ombudsman for Scotland until I read the paper from the Scottish Parliament information centre. I wonder how many other people know that there is such a commodity out there. The SPICe paper mentions the limits of his powers—there are some complaints on which you cannot go to him. I am glad that the paper was passed to me and to hear of his existence. I suspect that many other people are not aware that he exists. I see that we will have somebody with wider powers—I might take an interest in the housing bill now.
I too will be taking a detailed interest in the housing bill. This is a live issue and it will be interesting to see it being pursued by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee when it considers the housing bill. The Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee needs this information too so, as well as passing it to the Executive, I suggest that we pass it to members of that committee.
Yes.
It is an important issue, especially in Glasgow, with the massive housing stock transfer. People are asking what will happen. We still do not know a time scale for the winding up of Scottish Homes in its present form. Will that be included in the housing bill? Scottish Homes has a remit here, but it is in a sort of limbo land and we cannot get any answers from it.
At the moment, we are in the dark because the consultation document does not make any detailed suggestions. We are told that the draft housing bill will be published at the end of November or the beginning of December this year. It will be considered by the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee in the new year.
Will we know exactly what is happening with Scottish Homes then?
The detail should be in the bill.
Money goes to Scottish Homes from the Parliament. Scottish Homes should be accountable.
Yes, it is very much a matter for the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
Definitely.
As I am on the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, I will take a close interest in the bill. We will ensure that the petitioner is kept informed on the progress of the petition in that committee, as part of its consideration of the bill.
I wonder whether the minister commented on that on 25 September, or whether there was any rebuttal by the Executive.
I do not think that the Executive responds to every newspaper report.
It quite often does.
The next petition—PE282—is also from Mr Harvey and concerns body piercing and tattooing. It calls on the Parliament to ban both activities in Scotland, to protect young people from disfigurement or death.
The final petition, PE285, comes from Mr Charles Bell Thom and concerns property titles. It calls on the Parliament, through its Justice and Home Affairs Committee, to investigate his property title to clarify what he regards as a confusion in the law.
For the avoidance of doubt, we should add that it is not our recommendation that that committee act on the petition.
No. We will simply pass it to the committee for its consideration.
I am of the view that if Mr Thom, who is disputing the reply from the Minister for Justice, has further issues that he wants to raise, he should raise them directly with the Minister for Justice. We have dealt with his first petition and we received a response. He is now disputing that response, which was given officially. He should take the matter up directly with the minister, in correspondence. We took the view that, in some cases, it would be appropriate for petitioners to write to ministers first, before they submit a petition. This is such a case.
Mr Thom raised this matter with his local MP, but was not satisfied with the response that he received. The suggested action is that we pass the petition to the Executive officials for their consideration.
There would be no harm in that, as long as we do not say that it is our recommendation that the officials act on the petition.
I am not suggesting that we tell the officials that we support Mr Thom's position, simply that we pass the petition on to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Are we agreed?
Next
Current Petitions