Public Petitions Committee, 25 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 25, 2002

Official Report 259KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Scottish Judiciary (Public Register of Interests) (PE519)

I welcome everyone to the 12th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2002, which is the final meeting before the recess. We have apologies from Helen Eadie.

The first petition, PE519, is from Duncan Shields, who is petitioning on behalf of Fathers Fighting Injustice. His petition calls on the Parliament to give consideration to the creation of a register of interests for the Scottish judiciary. I welcome Duncan Shields to the committee. You have three minutes to make a brief introduction.

Before I start, I would like to congratulate you on your speech during last week's debate on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill. I thought it was excellent and I loved the uproar after the debate. It is a pity that more people were not there to listen.

The petition on behalf of Fathers Fighting Injustice addresses the fact that, on 5 February, the Justice 1 Committee changed the remit of its inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession by agreeing not to consider the judiciary. That decision was made at a time when the committee was top-heavy with lawyers. The petition also seeks to raise on a public platform the issue that many people, in particular separated fathers, are being forced into bankruptcy by the Scottish court process. That has long-term repercussions for their relationships with their children and is in breach of the European convention on human rights as it imposes massive burdens on fathers.

Fathers Fighting Injustice has information that, in many cases, land and properties owned by those forced into bankruptcy by the actions of lawyers and the decisions of sheriffs end up in the hands of those who forced those fathers into bankruptcy. That is utterly barbaric. It is a form of tyranny in the courts process that has gone on unabated in the courts system. It was hoped that a public inquiry would resolve such serious issues, but that has not been the case.

The ever-changing remit of the Justice 1 Committee allows those decision makers to be dropped from the very inquiry that was supposed to investigate the massive persecutive actions of Scottish courts. In some cases, those actions are killing men who face enormous pressures and who are burdened with debts when publicly funded legal aid is used to drag out court actions for many years. The Scottish Legal Aid Board, which has lawyers who are assigned solely to the decision-making process, ensures that the appalling system is fed public funds to allow asset stripping to continue unabated.

If it is right and fitting that the First Minister of Scotland requires to have a public record of interests, individuals who make grave decisions, which in many cases destroy lives and family relationships, should be open to rigorous scrutiny. That would ensure that judgments never reward financially those who make the decisions and that there are no conflicts of interest.

From the massive amount of evidence from the inquiry and elsewhere there is clearly serious concern about how judicial decisions are ensuring justice for all Scottish citizens.

Thanks very much. Before I open up the meeting to questions from members, will you give us some information about Fathers Fighting Injustice? I believe that the group has been formed from groups that have petitioned us previously.

That is correct. There has been a change of name.

What were the other groups that amalgamated?

Our previous name was Live Beat Dads Scotland.

Did the group merge with another group?

Yes, it merged with the International Men's Network.

Is that anything to do with the UK Men's Movement under George McAulay, or is it different?

Fathers Fighting Injustice is part and parcel of a number of groups that work with each other, but it is not related directly to the UK Men's Movement. It is an international group.

I was not clear from your introduction just what you want, apart from the creation of a register of interests for the Scottish judiciary. Am I right that that is the subject of the petition?

Yes.

So all the other things are nothing to do with your petition.

Do you mean what I spoke about this morning?

Yes.

They are all connected with the fact that the evidence shows that there is a need for some sort of public record of interests for the judiciary that is similar to that for the First Minister.

That is what you are looking for.

That is what the group is asking for.

What evidence do you have that judges are involved in asset stripping? Give us some examples.

I am not prepared to give individual examples.

So you do not have any evidence.

There is plenty of evidence on the Scottish Parliament's website.

I am not prepared to leave the meeting to look at the website. I am listening to you.

Sufficient evidence has been produced in the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry into the legal profession to warrant—

That is another question. The inquiry into the legal profession is separate from your asking for a register of interests for Scottish judges, which is a clear request.

Regardless of whether there is evidence, what argument is there for not having a register of interests for the judiciary if the First Minister needs to have one?

That is one point—

If the leader of the Scottish Parliament needs a register of interests, what argument is there that anybody of a lesser position should not have a register of interests, if they are making serious decisions in the court process?

I am not saying—

What is the reason for the First Minister of Scotland needing such a register of interests? If we go into detail and if you want to discuss Mr McLeish's affair—

I do not want to discuss Mr McLeish's affair, because that is not the subject of your petition.

The First Minister of Scotland lost his position because of sinister goings-on within the legal process.

You are not petitioning us about the First Minister; you are petitioning us about the Scottish judiciary.

You are asking me to give you evidence. I have just given you it and now you do not want it.

I want evidence, but you are not giving me any evidence of asset stripping.

You are a lawyer, are you not, Mrs Ewing?

I am.

Yes, you are a lawyer. The normal process with lawyers is that when anybody makes a decent argument, they interrupt them and that is exactly what you are doing now. Either you are asking for evidence, which I am trying to provide—

It would be helpful if tempers were lowered a degree.

I will leave it at that, because there is no evidence.

I am sorry, there is evidence within the Justice 1 Committee inquiry for anybody—

Mr Shields. The petition calls for a register of the interests of the Scottish judiciary, which, with respect, has got nothing to do with Henry McLeish or anyone else.

I know the background to the McLeish affair. I was part of a group that was responsible for—

That is a separate issue.

We must call the meeting to order.

We are dealing with a petition that asks for a register of interests of members of the Scottish judiciary. Let us stick to the subject of the petition.

I am sticking to it. The interests of the judiciary and the lawyers involved could be responsible for a situation where the First Minister's position could be put at risk. I have background evidence, which I will not provide today.

We are dealing with the courts system. You are suggesting that there should be a public register of interests of members of the judiciary.

It is very important that you hear this. In the same week as Mr McLeish lost his position a number of things were, under that cloud, put on the Parliament website, including the final conclusion of the legal aid inquiry.

We must refrain from making comments of that nature.

It is important.

You cannot use this petition to make allegations about members who have nothing to do with the petition.

I am not making allegations.

Please listen to me.

You are stopping me putting forward my case.

We are not stopping you doing that. We are trying to consider your petition seriously. You are here to speak to the petition.

That is what I am doing.

You are not here to talk about anybody else or anything else.

It is important.

It is not important. It is important that you understand the basis on which you are before the committee.

The Justice 1 Committee published the submissions to its inquiry on the regulation of the legal profession in the very week that Mr McLeish resigned.

That is a matter for the Justice 1 Committee; it has nothing to do with this petition.

I am moving on, because we have had enough of this.

Mr Shields, could we concentrate on the central issue? I think that you have a point. Perhaps anybody who has been appointed to a public position should always declare specific interests. In your comments, and I thought that this related to the issue, you mentioned the European convention on human rights. Do you feel that the failure of people in the judicial process to declare interests creates a prejudice and, as a result, a situation where their position might be challenged under the ECHR?

Yes. Their position could be compromised. That is the point.

Do you think that in your own mind you could clear away all the peripheral issues and concentrate on that one special issue? I recognise that you have many reasons for thinking in a parallel way, but that issue is the crux of your petition. Would you put your case again to the Public Petitions Committee to ask it to consider that point specifically?

That is the main issue that has been raised. Anything else is, to be honest with you, a web of deceit.

You are right. Anything else is a bit of a red herring. I am very happy with that response. Thanks very much.

Are there any other questions?

You mentioned the register of interests for MSPs. We register matters such as trade union membership and gifts. I am not sure what you want a member of the judiciary to register that would influence the judgments that they make in a court case. I would have thought that if, for instance, they were a member of a trade union and it was involved in a court case, they would not take part in the case. I cannot understand what else you hope to get from the register. They could register an interest and they could even say that they had an interest, but where are you going with this?

We have been investigating the situation in relation to title deeds in Scotland. I raised in a previous submission the fact that in a number of court cases predatory title deed submissions have gone on to the register without the title deed holder being informed. There is serious concern about the manner in which the title deeds register works. Anyone who wants to find out about properties and land in Scotland will find it difficult to pin down such information on title deeds.

I see that Dr Ewing is not happy with that comment.

I do not see how title deed information is relevant.

Mr Shields, if you do not mind, you should try to answer the question.

We are trying to establish a public platform that makes land and property information available. We already know of several cases in which property and assets have returned to the very people who have bankrupted individuals. We are concerned about lawyers who are executors of wills placing a predatory name on a title deed and sitting on it for 10 years while they fail to wind up a person's estate. After 10 years, they can take over that person's property and assets.

You are talking about lawyers, but your petition is about the judiciary.

The simple fact is that, even if some lawyers are acting in that manner, sheriffs' decisions are still allowing those actions to continue. As my petition points out, I am quite sure that the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry report contains sufficient evidence that such situations can arise not only through lawyers' actions but through decisions that are ultimately made by sheriffs and judges.

Even if I accept your claims, I do not understand how establishing a register of interests would change the situation.

The fact that the First Minister has to register his interests should act as a starting point for establishing a public register, or some other form of input, that would—as Mr Gallie pointed out—allow those who hold public office to demonstrate that there is no conflict of interest in the decisions that they make. The potential for such conflicts of interest form the current focus of concern about the judicial process, but the matter cannot be fully investigated without some form of public register.

Through searching the title deeds at the Registers of Scotland, we have discovered that people have entered predatory title deeds. Because lawyers' actions and sheriffs' decisions have created that situation, we should consider creating a public profile that enables individuals to find out information. Although the Registers of Scotland website has a search facility, it is not open to enough public scrutiny.

I just do not understand how a register of interests would help. You have not explained how it would work. You are actually alleging that the judiciary are rubber stamping bad practice by lawyers. However, unless you are claiming that the judiciary is making an income from such activity that would have to appear in a register of interests, I cannot see—

No, you are twisting my words. Each member of the judiciary has assets, by which I mean land and property, and we want to ensure that such assets are not obtained by bankrupting individuals. The situation is similar to that of warrant sales, where televisions worth £300 are sold for £1. For example, we have evidence through the court process that land worth £10 million that was lost by a bankrupted individual was purchased for £5,000 by a member of the judiciary.

I think that that is called murmuring a judge.

I am not mentioning anyone's name; I am just saying that we have certain evidence. Just now, many people are going bankrupt in Scotland and their assets are returning to the individuals who bankrupted them. We need some public recognition of that fact to ensure that individuals and groups can make thorough investigations and find out whether those individuals are gaining from those decisions. If the committee is so certain that that is not the case, what is wrong with making the system open and honest?

That is not for us to decide.

I know.

I am glad that you did not mention names, because the allegations that you made were very serious.

I know. If we return to the affair of Mr McLeish—

I do not want to return to that.

Lawyers, sheriffs' decisions and property worth £1.5 million were involved in that case.

We are back to Mr McLeish.

I see the point that the witness is making. If there are allegations that lawyers have acted corruptly to gain very cheaply title deeds to which they are not entitled, that is a matter of great concern, particularly if the judiciary is involved. However, PE519 calls for members of the judiciary to declare any interest in land and other assets.

They should declare any interest that is related to decisions that they make.

That is clear. Thank you for your colourful contribution. You are free to stay to listen to the committee's discussion of what to do with your petition.

It is suggested that we write to the Lord Advocate to seek his comments on the issues raised in the petition. In particular, we should request an indication of whether there are any plans to consider creating a register of interests of the Scottish judiciary, along the lines proposed by the petitioner.

That seems reasonable. The petition asks a question that should be answered. The suggested action addresses that issue to some extent. Perhaps we should draw David Steel's attention to the ECHR issues that the petition raises with respect not only to the judiciary but to all people in public positions. I am not sure whether the judiciary includes sheriffs or temporary sheriffs.

The term judiciary probably covers everyone on the bench.

We may want to clarify that.

What point are you making about the ECHR?

I am happy to listen to other members' comments on this issue. I wonder whether there is truth in the suggestion that there has been a breach in the ECHR. We may want to clarify the position not just for judges, but for sheriffs and temporary sheriffs. Initially I thought that we should address our query to David Steel, but on reflection I think that it might be best for us to seek an answer to the question from the Lord Advocate.

Are you suggesting that the creation of a register of interests for the judiciary might contravene the ECHR?

No, I am saying the opposite. The fact that such a register does not exist may contravene the convention.

Should the register cover all positions?

It should cover sheriffs, temporary sheriffs and judges.

It has been suggested that, rather than write to the Presiding Officer—because it is not his responsibility—we should write to the Minister for Justice along the lines suggested. We could ask him to comment on the proposition that, under the European convention on human rights, there should be a register of the type suggested.

That would make more sense than our writing to the Presiding Officer.

We have a land registry system that is open and that allows people to determine who owns what land and when they acquired it. That is a matter of public record. The land registry system in Scotland is very efficient. It has long been ahead of the system in England. The suggested action is one thing, but the petition refers to the ownership of land by the judiciary. That information is contained in the land register. I would rather we followed the suggested action than did what the petition suggests.

The suggestion is that we write to the Lord Advocate to ask him to comment on the issue that the petition raises.

I support that.

We could ask the Lord Advocate to respond to the point that Dr Ewing makes about the role of the land registry system.

The register is meant to be open to all on payment of an inspection fee.

We will write to the Lord Advocate along the lines suggested and ask the Minister for Justice to comment on whether the lack of a register of interests for justices, sheriffs and temporary sheriffs has ECHR implications. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Land (Equestrian Access) (PE521)

PE521 is from Zoe Woods, on the subject of equestrian access to land. I invite Zoe Woods to take a seat at the table. The usual rules apply. The petitioner will have three minutes to make an opening statement. After that, members will ask questions.

I must take off my glasses. I cannot see you without them but I cannot read with them.

I am in the same position.

This is the first time that I have made such a presentation.

I live on the edge of what will be Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. I have lived there for five years, and for 10 years before I moved to Scotland, I was a tourist in that area with my family. Before I moved to Scotland, I was the manager of an M4 casualty unit.

I have two interests: access and road safety for horse riders. The two must go hand in hand. In the UK, 45 per cent of horse owners do not own horse transport. Narrow, winding, rural roads are the most dangerous for the ridden horse, because blind bends and blind summits reduce sight lines and traffic can travel at 60mph.

Five years ago, the British Horse Society was motivated to produce a road safety video, following the appalling death of a horse on a rural road. A motorist piled into the back of the horse and rider. The horse and rider were carried 20yd on the roof of the car. The horse's back legs and back were broken, and it lay on the road for 45 minutes before slaughtermen could be found to put it out of its misery.

Scotland has the highest rate of horse ownership per head of population outside south-east England. I have recently conducted an audit of our area and counted 400 riding horses between Drymen and Balquhidder. The national cycle path provides safe off-road access into and out of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. Great chunks of that are inaccessible to us, even though, once upon a time, parts of that path were used by local horse riders. That is curious when we consider that the big three equestrian organisations have two and a half times the number of supporters of Sustrans.

Equestrian recreation is important for Scotland's tourism economy. Of people who seek an activity holiday in Scotland, 54 per cent would like to ride a horse and 59 per cent would like to play golf. Imagine the Trossachs without a golf course. Six million Britons would like to ride when they are on holiday. That equates to the number who want to walk.

We are weeks away from opening Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park and there is no pony trekking in the Queen Elizabeth or Achray forests. No network of rides and accommodation offers bed-and-breakfast holidays for horses and riders and not a single metre of path has been laid with horse riders' interests at heart. The petitioners whom I have met have two frequent requests: safe off-road access into the park for us and our horses and soft paths on which we can canter.

That last request is consistently opposed by Forest Enterprise and all those people who will manage the path, on the basis that if we canter, we will trample pedestrians. Ninety per cent of the members of the British Horse Society are female and 60 per cent of us are over 45, so I ask people to disperse from their minds any vision of a Thelwell cartoon.

If members have ever seen the film "Gandhi", they may remember that moving scene in which Gandhi and his Hindu followers are charged by a British cavalry regiment. Gandhi tells his people to lie on the road. They lie on the road in front of galloping horses, and the horses refuse to go forward—they throw their riders. Horses are reluctant to step on people and we are a responsible group of people.

We ask for safe access to the forest. When we are there, we girls just want to have fun with our horses. Thank you for listening.

There are two problems. One is inside the park. You just told us that Forest Enterprise objects to soft paths for cantering. However, the main problem is entering the park.

Forest Enterprise recently received £1.4 million from the European Commission for access. For horse riders, it is increasing car parking areas for lorries and horse transport. I speak to the organisation regularly and say that 45 per cent of horse owners do not own horse transport. Many of the access points to rides in the forest are quite a long way from where the horse population is located, which is why I undertook the audit, to show where the horses are.

Sometimes, we want simple things. Some tree felling and cutting of low branches would give us all that we need. We do not have special requirements. We do not need tarmac or hard-core. We just need some trees to be clipped.

I will tell the committee about two other problem areas, if it has time to listen.

Over recent times, we have created a national cycle track system. Can people on horseback use cycle tracks?

Yes, although tarmac is not ideal for trotting on. As horses get older, they get arthritis and tarmac is not good for them. Nonetheless, we take them on the roads and it is safer to be on a cycle path than on the roads.

In some circumstances, a cycle path could be an additional means of access to a place for you to take your horses.

Yes.

So, there is a use there.

One of the young ladies who signed my petition is 20 years old. When she started work, she saved up and bought her first horse. She keeps it in a field in Callander that is crossed by the national cycle network. There is a gate there, but it is locked to her and she is not allowed to go on the cycle path, so her parents have bought her a horse box. That is sheer insanity. There are 7 miles of cycle path between Strathyre and Callander, and there are barriers at both ends that can be accessed by cyclists—they can wiggle round them—and pedestrians, but not horses. That is forcing the people in Strathyre back on to the A84(T).

We may have some difficulty with the specific instance of the national park, as there is now another authority to deal with that. However, the issue that you raise goes much further. Other national parks could be created in future, and it would be a shame if your experiences and information were lost to those who set them up. An order is proceeding through Parliament to establish a national park. Is your aim to underline the continuing implications of that?

Yes. I also submitted the petition to raise awareness. An awful lot of folk think that horse riding is a minority interest or the preserve of the affluent. However, one of the big growth areas in equestrian recreation is among ladies of my age who return to the sport when our children are grown up. We are the people who want to access the countryside. We are not into show jumping, dressage or eventing; we just want to enjoy the countryside with our horses.

I am slightly surprised that people in the tourism industry have not made more of the issue. Pony trekking must be an important feature of the tourism industry.

It should be. Pony trekking in the UK started in Aberfoyle. In the 1950s, a film called "Rob Roy" was made, for which a local Highland pony breeder provided the ponies. When the crew had finished filming, he did not know what to do with the ponies, so he set up pony trekking. That was the first pony trekking centre in the whole of the United Kingdom. In the 1950s, 70 to 100 riders might have been seen out each day. It was a very popular sport then and we are seeing a resurgence of it now.

The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is currently proceeding through the Parliament. What contact have you and your group had with your local MSPs in reference to achieving your objectives through that bill?

I have talked to Sylvia Jackson, who recently supported a tramp the Trossachs campaign. When I rang the organisers of that campaign and said, "You have addressed boating, walking and cycling. What about horse riding?" they said, "Pass." That is why I contacted Sylvia Jackson. I am assured by the British Horse Society that when the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is passed, paths will be for all—that is, barriers will be removed. However, I am not altogether convinced. Nobody in my area realised that there were 400 horses around the edge of the park. There are 150 in Drymen alone. If no one knows how many of us there are, the importance of the issue could be underestimated.

Finally, do you occasionally find that people who access the land by foot take exception to horses and cyclists using the same facilities?

They do in Scotland, but that is exceptional. In England, we have bridleways. When I rode on bridleways, I used to see walkers, dog walkers and cyclists and thought nothing of it. The ridgeway is a perfect example. It is a long-distance walking path that runs from Wiltshire up into Buckinghamshire. On that path, someone can take a toddler in a baby buggy, ride a bicycle, walk, ride a horse, ride a motorbike or take a four-wheel drive vehicle. I have taken part in a sponsored ride on the ridgeway path and people were engaged in such activities there. People were used to each other, so there was no problem. There is more of a problem when there are separate paths and people come together, as they do not know how to behave towards each other. Does that answer your question?

Yes. Thank you.

What has changed with the establishment of the national parks, particularly in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs? Has access for equestrian pursuits changed?

No. More parking is being introduced and about six or eight particular areas where horse riders can ride are being publicised. Surfaces have not been introduced for us—they already existed for cyclists or walkers or were originally built for logging lorries. There are problems relating to access and how gates are planned, although those are outwith the scope of this meeting. One gate has a spring, which is fine for pedestrians, but a horse cannot get through unless somebody holds the gate open—the gate would spring back on to the horse's flanks. There are many small, local issues that I think I can resolve—I have already discussed practicalities with Forest Enterprise. However, we do not think that more facilities will be made available with us in mind. There are already grace-and-favour paths that we can go on. Have I answered your question?

Yes. However, your petition suggests that the problem relates to pony trekking rather than the other equestrian pursuits.

No. Two aspects of the matter need to be considered. First, there is the local community. There are 400 riding horses in our local community that do not have appropriate access or are being denied access. Secondly, there is tourism. To date, I do not believe that people have appreciated the importance of tourism or have looked at the numbers. Our figures came from VisitScotland's website.

How should the issue be addressed in the local communities that you are concerned about?

The local community would like three projects to be advanced. One is Coiuhallan woods outside Callander. In 1997, it was minuted at the community council meeting with Forest Enterprise that Forest Enterprise would bring in a landscape architect to consider putting a circular path as an equestrian trail into the Coiuhallan woods, but nothing has happened about that. Callander community council is discussing with the Scottish Land Fund whether it will fund the path. People in Callander have nowhere to ride. There are 50 horses in Callander and if someone wants to ride, they must put their horse on a lorry and take it somewhere else. That is one project.

The second project relates to the pony trekking centre that there used to be at Easterhill farm, which is south of Aberfoyle. The centre used an old railway line that had a perfect riding surface—clinker covered with grass. Two years ago, Forest Enterprise decided that it would develop the forest, so it moved in and dumped hard core on the path. The pony trekking centre paid £500 a year to Forest Enterprise for a permit and knew nothing about the matter until the lorries moved in. There is no pony trekking there now. The riders from that farm still have livery, but they must ride for 45 minutes to get to the forest and must cross the A81. That is unsuitable for novice riders. The riders want the path to be reinstated. It was also used by about 20 riders in Buchlyvie, which is at the other end of the path.

Thirdly, in the early 1990s, when I was a tourist here, there were plans to bridge the upper reaches of the River Forth above that railway line so that horse riders could ride up from Buchlyvie into what will be the national park. However, the landowner would not give permission for the bridge. When permission was granted, the funding was gone, so there was no development. That was a perfect off-road route for riders into the park and it does not now exist.

I have a question that relates to national rather than local issues. One of the biggest barriers to horse riding is gates, as you explained. Erecting stiles, for example, is easy. They ensure that livestock cannot escape and people can cross over them and carry bikes over them. Moreover, there is no problem with gates being left open. Many landowners would be afraid that, if they had unlocked gates without a spring, people would come and leave the gates open and stock would disappear. How do you get over that problem? Is there a way that that could be dealt with?

There is the very expensive solution to the problem that is used by Windsor great park, where there are buttons that one presses to automatically open and close the gates. However, there are also special horse gates that have a less powerful spring and a long handle. The gate can be opened easily from the saddle; one does not have to lean down. The horse can spin around, the rider lets the gate go and the spring is strong enough to close the gate. Those gates are not a problem.

Bear in mind the fact that horse riders are the least likely to leave gates open because we have stock too. We are putting our horses in a field, closing the gate and making sure that they are secure.

I am not suggesting that you would leave gates open. However, I think that many farmers would say that if there is a gate, other people will use it and might leave it open.

I understand that. Horse gates would be one solution; their design is slightly different.

You have concentrated on the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park today. However, your petition is concerned with the national situation and not just that local situation. The focus of the petition is on access to the countryside as a whole.

We are particularly concerned about old railway lines being incorporated into the national cycle network. Barriers are being put in to stop vehicles going on to the network. However, those barriers cannot be used by horses.

I have one other area of access to mention. Members will have heard of riding for the disabled, but they might not know that there is also driving for the disabled. I am an able-bodied whip for that. A cart is specially adapted to take a wheelchair. The pony has two sets of reins so it works in the same way as dual control. The able-bodied whip has one set of reins and the disabled client has the other set and drives unless there is a problem, when the able-bodied whip takes over. We can take a wheelchair for miles in the countryside with a pony and trap and take it to places that it could not go to if the chair were being pushed. In the south of England, special concrete bollards are being put in on the by-ways because the width of the horse trap is different from that of a vehicle. There is enough of a gap for the wheels of the cart to go through the bollards but cars cannot use it. It is a fantastic experience for disabled people.

Thank you for that information. I had certainly not heard about that before.

As members have no further questions, I thank you for your very able presentation. You are free to sit and listen to our discussion about what to do with the petition.

Members will see that it is suggested that it is not appropriate for the Parliament to intervene in the specific points raised about horse trails in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. However, as we heard from the petitioner, her main concern is about access to the whole countryside. With regard to the more general issues of equestrian access, it is suggested that we refer the petition to the Justice 2 Committee for further examination within the context of its consideration of stage 2 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill.

I suggest that we pass the evidence that we have heard today to VisitScotland. Clearly, the issue has huge potential for the tourism industry all over Scotland, not just in the Trossachs. We do not need to add to the evidence but there is the point about Forest Enterprise not wanting horses to canter, which is rather an inhibition to horse riding. VisitScotland should be interested in the evidence.

If we do that, would we then be expecting VisitScotland to reply to us?

Yes.

If that was the case, we could not refer the petition to the Justice 2 Committee, unless we sent the evidence to VisitScotland for information only.

It is a big tourism question for everyone.

It would hold up referring the petition to the Justice 2 Committee.

I suggest that we send the evidence to VisitScotland for information only because the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is coming up to stage 2 and it is important that the committee gets the evidence immediately.

We will formally refer the petition to the Justice 2 Committee and send the evidence to VisitScotland for information.

VisitScotland might like to reply with some comments.

It would be for the interest of the Public Petitions Committee and for no other reason.

I suggest that we also send it to the board of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park for information. It would be discourteous of us not to do that.

I agree with that. Perhaps the board will do something off the cuff. I query the value of sending the petition to the Justice 2 Committee at the moment. Before I came to the Public Petitions Committee this morning, I dropped into the Justice 2 Committee meeting. That committee has just begun the stage 2 process and has a raft of amendments to consider. Without examining the bill in detail, I think it is hard to see where it could be modified to accommodate the objectives of the petitioner. It might be that, as we speak, the Justice 2 Committee is agreeing to those sections of the bill where amendments could be made.

I am concerned about the timetable. The petitioner mentioned Sylvia Jackson. I do not know whether Sylvia has attempted to introduce appropriate amendments. If she has, that would be fine—the petition could provide additional information for the Justice 2 Committee. However, to be honest, I feel that we have missed the boat in relation to action by the Justice 2 Committee.

The first thing to say is that the timing is not in our control—we can deal with the petition only when it arrives and we do not control the agenda of the Justice 2 Committee. In any case, such issues can be raised at stage 3 consideration of the bill by the whole Parliament. If we send the petition to the Justice 2 Committee, it will have to send some response even before it completes stage 2.

We could also copy it to the Scottish Executive for information. The Executive might consider lodging an amendment at stage 3.

That is a good idea. We have four points. We are going to refer the petition to the Justice 2 Committee and send it for information to VisitScotland, the board of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park and the Scottish Executive. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Postal Delivery Service (PE513)

The third new petition comes from Phil Gallie MSP and is on the future of rural sub-post offices. I will hand over to Phil to make a presentation.

It is somewhat unusual for a member of the committee to submit a petition—I do not know whether another MSP has submitted a petition in their own right.

George Lyon has done so.

I am not claiming to have submitted this in my own right. I was persuaded to do so by a rural sub-postmaster who challenged me to identify the feelings in the community about the issue. The fact that I did that in Ayrshire does not mean that the feelings are not shared around Scotland. I suspect that other members from the north of Scotland would have received an even greater response.

I sent the petition to all rural post offices in the areas of East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire that are in the South of Scotland region. The response staggered me. Every post office returned the petition sheets that I sent out, some asked for more and every sheet contained a raft of names—totalling more than 5,000 signatures. That took just over a fortnight—I put a time limit on the petition. It brought it home to me that the sub-postmaster who had challenged me was not exaggerating the concerns in rural communities about the future of sub-post offices.

The issue is seen as a Westminster one, but Scotland's geography means that there is a particular need for rural post offices. We are different to the great mass of land south of the border and have more significant problems in that respect. Sub-post offices are not only post offices—in many areas they are the heart of the communities that they serve.

There is a move towards uniformity in postal services in the European Union. Other countries do not have the same level of postal service and post office structures that we have in the UK. If we are going to look across Europe, we should look at the best examples rather than the worst ones. The service in the UK and Scotland has probably been the best until now.

The petition, the comments that have been made in support of it and the response from the public speak for themselves. I ask my colleagues on the Public Petitions Committee to take the actions that are suggested in the covering note. I hope that Scottish ministers will be prepared to represent Scotland's special circumstances to their colleagues south of the border.

I draw members' attention to the fact that a further petition is to be lodged asking the Parliament to urge the Executive to put in place policies that actively promote the use of the post office network in Scotland. That petition is in the pipeline and will be before us shortly. Do members have any questions for Phil?

I have one point about exemptions. Is there room in the suggested actions for the consideration of exemptions. The Postal Services Commission—Postcomm—has said that it will tell us what the exemptions from the universal service obligation will be. I have written to ask for a list of the exemptions in my area, but they are not available. Postcomm says that it is open, but when I tried to find out about the exemptions, it did not know, or would not say—I do not know which.

That is a concern. At present, the situation with exemptions is not clear. Postcomm has remits; it has put a deadline on reaching uniformity by 2007. If issues such as exemptions are not sorted out in detail and if ministers are not fully acquainted or have not made representation to seek clarification on those issues, by 2007, it will be too late. That is five years away, but five years is a short time in politics. It is important that we get to grips with the issues now. I believe that Scottish ministers will have to examine the exemptions and sort out the details with their colleagues south of the border.

It appears that most of the exemptions will apply to remote and faraway places, which is a big worry for many people. It is clear that the petitioners are concerned.

I congratulate Mr Gallie on lodging the petition. As he said, the sentiments in the petition are repeated throughout the country. In the north and west of Scotland, similar cross-party petitions have been circulated and have received much the same response. Mr Gallie's petition is worthy of support.

One main point that Mr Gallie makes is about the uniform standard. Given the excellence of the postal service in Scotland over the years, Mr Gallie's point that there should be no diminution of that service is a good one. Other countries suggest that they wish to reduce the service, but we should insist that they match what is available in Scotland. I am delighted to support the petition.

Members will know from the cover note on the petition that Postcomm announced last month that it intends to delay full deregulation until April 2007 and that Consignia's Scottish spokesperson has put on record his concern that the competition might affect its ability to maintain the universal service, as Phil has described. More recently, Consignia announced that it is committed to keeping rural post offices open with Government help. The Executive has announced a £1.5 million funding package to help post offices in deprived urban areas.

The suggested action is that we agree to write to the Scottish Executive to seek its formal views on the issues that are raised in the petition and that we request comments on the likely impact of deregulation of postal services in Scotland. Given the Executive's interest in ensuring adequate service provision in rural areas, we should ask for comments on the Executive's proposed measures to protect the universal postal delivery service and rural sub-post offices from the potential impact of deregulation. Also, given Consignia's recent announcement, we should ask about details of any support package—such as that recently introduced for urban sub-post offices—that the Executive and Consignia plan to introduce for rural post offices that are struggling financially. Finally, we should ask whether the Executive intends to make representations to the Westminster Government on the way forward for rural sub-post offices and universal mail delivery.

I would like to make one marginal point. In the post office service it is accepted that there will be some reduction in the number of urban post offices. The financial packages for those post offices offer reasonable remuneration to those that give up their post office status. The situation in rural areas is totally different. There post offices provide a wider service and are at the heart of communities. In urban areas, there may be another post office a mile away from the one that has been closed. It is stipulated that there must be a post office every two miles. In rural areas, post offices may be 30, 40 or 50 miles apart from one another.

I accept the point that Phil Gallie makes. Do we agree the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

I welcome Sylvia Jackson to the committee. We have not yet reached the item in which she is interested and will not reach it for some time. She is welcome to sit in and listen to our discussions.

I may go away and come back.

---

Bankruptcy Procedures (PE511)

The next new petition for consideration is PE511, from Mr James Duff, which calls on the Parliament to investigate the alleged failure of the current bankruptcy statute. The petition was submitted following a lengthy dispute over the handling of the sequestration of Mr Duff's firm and estate. Mr Duff has submitted a number of petitions to the committee in connection with that sequestration. The most recent was PE501, which drew attention to the failure of judges and sheriffs to adhere to current bankruptcy procedures. We are awaiting a response from the Executive to that petition.

PE511 focuses on the responsibilities of the accountant in bankruptcy—in particular, the entitlement of bankrupted individuals to an investigation in cases where the bankruptcy statute has not been complied with. The petitioner claims that the accountant in bankruptcy refused to investigate his case because a trustee had previously been exonerated. The petitioner seeks changes to the bankruptcy law to allow the accountant in bankruptcy to investigate the conduct of trustees and commissioners even following exoneration, where there is documentary evidence to support allegations that statutory requirements were not met throughout the administration of an estate.

The petition appears to be prompted solely by the petitioner's individual case. No evidence of any other instances in which the accountant in bankruptcy failed to supervise properly trustees and commissioners has been supplied. The petitioner seems to have exhausted every avenue open to him in pursuit of his key aim, which is to prove that the legal profession at all levels was at fault in the handling of his sequestration.

The committee may want to write to the accountant in bankruptcy seeking comments on the issues raised in the petition. In particular, the committee may want to request clarification of the accountant in bankruptcy's role in supervising the sequestration process and the options open to them when taking appropriate action against people involved in the process who fail to carry out their responsibilities properly.

The committee may also agree to consider the accountant in bankruptcy's response to this petition alongside the response to PE501, which should provide full details of the future consultation on personal insolvency laws and procedures and an update on progress of the enterprise bill. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We must be conscious of the fact that people continually petition the committee on the same theme under different guises. At some point, we must devise a way of handling those who petition us repeatedly on one issue—in this case, a sequestration that happened a long time ago.

I intended to raise this issue under any other competent business, but as the convener has raised it now I will indicate that I support limiting the number of petitions that one person can submit to, say, two a year. Thousands of people are looking to submit justifiable petitions, so there must be a restriction on the quantity of petitions that one individual can submit.

I am not sure that that would be fair, particularly with regard to the point that the convener raised about what could be called the repeatability of petitions. Our clerk does so well in so many areas of our work. Would it possible for him to highlight to new petitioners solutions that have been given in response to other petitions? In some instances, all that might be needed in response to a petition is for the clerk to send a copy of the findings of a previous petition to the petitioner. Would that be a way forward?

As Phil Gallie was speaking in my right ear, the clerk was speaking in my left ear. He suggests that a paper could be brought forward to a future meeting to allow us to consider the ways in which we might be able to respond to Phil's suggestion.

It would not be possible to do what Phil Gallie proposed unless the petitions were written in the same terms.

It would be better to deal with the issue.

I agree. Come the autumn—

If petitioners are not successful with their first petition, they can come back to us with six or seven different petitions on one issue. We have to consider that situation and a paper would enable us to do that.

I agree.

In the meantime, we have agreed to write to the Office of the Accountant in Bankruptcy in response to PE511.

---

Police (Complaints) (PE520)

We move on to PE520, which was also lodged by Mr James Duff. The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation to allow a police force from another area to be brought in to deal with cases of alleged failure by the chief constable or his deputy to carry out investigations into complaints made by members of the public.

PE520 is based on Mr Duff's experience of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary in relation to complaints that were made following the collapse of his building firm and sequestration of his estates. The petitioner claims that the police force in question failed to either initiate or conclude all of the investigations into his allegations of fraud and conspiracy against the solicitors involved in his sequestration. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that his complaints were not fully investigated by the police force, as the individual solicitors and police involved in this case were members of the freemasons.

Members will be aware that the police complaints system in Scotland is under review. In 2001, the Executive launched a consultation paper containing proposals for strengthening the independence of the system and taking forward a number of recommendations on the handling of police complaints. Notably, the consultation, which was concluded in October 2001, proposed the establishment of a new independent police complaints body.

Two options are available to us: we can write to the Scottish Executive seeking its views on the issues raised in the petition and make a request for an update on progress of the review of the police complaints system in Scotland or, as the reforms are already under way, we can take no further action.

In the third paragraph of the paper I note that at present a police force can be brought into another area at the request of the chief constable. Is there a need for improvement on that situation?

That is a good question.

I did not quite catch what was said, as I was speaking to the clerk, but we are talking about the question of additional manpower.

It is also a question of jurisdiction. Chief constables are pretty responsible people and, if a chief constable thought that it was necessary to pass over a case, he would be happy to do so. At the moment, it is up to him. The question is whether that is enough. I think that that is the case.

I am sure that it is but, at the same time, the Executive is suggesting a change to the situation, which meets with what the petitioner is calling on the Parliament to do.

I suggest that we send a copy of PE520 to the Executive so that it can consider it as part of its review. That would allow the Executive to take account of the concerns of the petitioner.

Okay, we will do so. Apart from that, are we agreed to take no further action other than to inform the petitioner?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Saltire (PE512)

We move on to consideration of PE512, which was submitted by Mr George Reid on the subject of the saltire flag. The petitioner calls for the Scottish Parliament to endorse the 1989 guidance published by the Ministry of Defence, which defines the blue of the saltire as azure blue. Mr Reid also urges the Executive to publish guidance on the matter.

Members may recall that PE224 urged the Parliament to prescribe the exact colours and proportion of the saltire. In June 2000, we referred that petition to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and it agreed to take no further action on the basis that the issue raised was a reserved matter.

The petition has been submitted in the light of recent correspondence to the Saltire Society, in which the Lord Lyon King of Arms indicates that, in his view, the colour of the saltire is not a reserved matter. In his letter, Lord Lyon, the arbiter of all heraldic matters in Scotland, states that

"if anyone is to define a colour for the national flag, this would need to be the Scottish Parliament … and any decision to do so would not cause a conflict with the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction".

The petitioner argues that this assertion by the Lord Lyon provides an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to make a ruling on the shade of blue for the Scottish flag and for the Executive to issue guidance on the issue to remove confusion. However, the Lord Lyon suggested that, as there could be difficulties in enforcing a ruling on colour, not least because attempts at standardisation might be thwarted by the unpredictable Scottish weather, guidance may be the most appropriate way forward.

The petitioner believes that the saltire is the only national flag that is not governed by rules guaranteeing its design and presentation. He supports the MOD's requirement that the saltire be azure blue for military uses and claims that the use of darker shades of blue began only in the previous century, when dark blue dye was cheaper than azure or sky blue.

Responding to a parliamentary question, Jim Wallace, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, suggested that statutory regulation and enforcement in relation to displaying the correct background colour and proportion of the flag is impracticable as the colour and condition of flags is inevitably affected by exposure to weather and sunlight. He also reaffirmed the Executive's position that the dignity of the saltire is best maintained by continuing to ensure high standards of production on the part of flag makers.

The Presiding Officer has been in correspondence with Mr Reid and with MSPs on the issue and has said that the question of legislation or guidance on the matter of the colour or proportions of the saltire is a matter for the Public Petitions Committee to pursue rather than the Presiding Officer.

It is suggested that, in view of recent statements by the Lord Lyon and Jim Wallace, which highlight the difficulties in enforcing legislation specifying the colour, it would be inadvisable for the Parliament to make such a ruling. It is also suggested, however, that it would be appropriate for the committee to agree to write to the Executive seeking its comments on the recent views that have been expressed by the Lord Lyon. We could also ask the Executive whether it has any plans to issue guidance on the background colour to be used on a saltire, perhaps using the MOD guidelines as a starting point.

I do not know whether any of you have come up against the Lord Lyon when he has been exercising his jurisdiction, but he has always struck me as being extremely proud of his jurisdiction and has issued great threats to anyone flying the wrong flag and has commanded immediate execution of his order. It is quite impressive. The previous Lord Lyon had a squeaky voice and announced his edict by saying "Lyon calling".

I do not think that the question of the colour of the saltire is a reserved matter and I do not believe that the colour of a good flag changes. I have flown a flag in Morayshire in all weathers for many years and the blue has not changed. I am not sure if the flag is the correct colour of blue, mind you, but I bought it in good faith. I do not want flag producers who have stocks of saltires to suffer but I do not accept the arguments. It would be appropriate for there to be one colour of blue for the saltire. It is very irritating to see our national flag in every sort of blue under the sun.

I go along with the suggested action. I do not think that the petitioner is being facetious as most countries know exactly what their flag should look like.

I failed to read out the fact that, in the correspondence between Jim Wallace and the Presiding Officer, the Executive made clear that there are no plans to introduce legislation or guidance on the matter. However, that is no reason why we cannot raise the matter with the Executive again.

The petitioner points out that the colours of all other national flags are prescribed. That is interesting.

It might be rather difficult to control the colours of all the saltires that are for sale in shops across the country, but that would not stop us having a prescribed colour that could be used for flags on national buildings and so on. I have some sympathy with that aspect. It is interesting to note that the MOD prescribes a certain colour.

Without wishing to be controversial, the fact that the petitioner talks about national flags makes me wonder whether the blue in the union jack—which, of course, is the blue of the saltire—is prescribed somewhere.

It varies too, which you can see if you look at various flags.

Do we agree to write to the Executive along the lines suggested and try to find out whether it is prepared to issue guidance on the matter, as the Ministry of Defence does?

Members indicated agreement.

---

MMR Vaccination (PE515)

PE515 is from Dorothy Wright, on behalf of Brae parent and toddler playgroup. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to make individual measles, mumps and rubella injections available without delay. The petition is prompted by the petitioners' concerns that a measles epidemic may be imminent in Shetland, as parents there remain unconvinced about the safety of MMR injections.

Members will be aware that we have already passed a petition on this subject, PE145, to the Health and Community Care Committee, which has not yet completed its consideration of the petition. It is therefore suggested that we agree to refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee with the recommendation that it consider the petition further within the context of its examination of the MMR expert group's report.

Members indicated agreement.

---

Museum Hall (Bridge of Allan) (PE518)

The next new petition is PE518 from Mr David Wilson. He calls on the Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to take responsibility for the failure of Historic Scotland to protect Museum Hall in Bridge of Allan from unlawful neglect and to set in motion an action plan to restore it.

The detail of Mr Wilson's complaint against Historic Scotland and Stirling Council, which is now responsible for the building, is listed. He alleges that they have neglected the building over the years, which has caused the potential repair bill to jump from £380,000 in 1985 to £2.5 million in 1991. He also claims that that contrasts with the work that Historic Scotland and Stirling Council have carried out on Lanrick Castle, which the same authorities look after much better.

Members are reminded that it would be inappropriate for the Parliament to comment on the actions of Historic Scotland regarding the specific issues surrounding the protection of Museum Hall. However, we may wish to write to Historic Scotland seeking general comments in relation to the issues that are raised in the petition and requesting details of how the Executive holds Historic Scotland to account on such issues, clarification of Historic Scotland's role and responsibilities in the protection of private and public listed buildings and further information on the eligibility criteria for Historic Scotland conservation area grants. We might also wish to pass a copy of the petition to the cross-party group on architecture and the built environment for information.

With the greatest of respect, I correct one aspect of what you have said: Historic Scotland and Stirling Council did not look after Lanrick Castle better—Lanrick Castle was demolished. Historic Scotland and Stirling Council could be said to have allowed that to happen, although the owners of the property carried out the demolition.

An element of hypocrisy is involved. Historic Scotland and Stirling Council have it in their power to do something about Museum Hall, but although they are prepared to prosecute someone who demolished an historic building, they are allowing Museum Hall to fall into a similar state. Those bodies must answer that charge of hypocrisy.

It has been drawn to my attention that we must be careful that we do not get involved in decisions about individual listed buildings in various parts of Scotland. If we do, the committee will become a court of appeal for every dispute that an individual has with their local authority or Historic Scotland. The suggested action is couched in general terms—that we ask for clarification of Historic Scotland's role, how it is accountable to the Executive and how its grant system works—so that we can brief ourselves about whether the policy is being applied successfully throughout Scotland.

I realise that that is the case. However, the fact is that the two sides of the argument are in opposition. I suggest not that we interfere, but that it would be right for the committee to ask for an explanation of how Historic Scotland and Stirling Council can move one way on one occasion and a different way on another.

We can include that in the letter that we send to Historic Scotland. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.