Official Report 276KB pdf
Planning System (PE479)
The first new petition, PE479, in the name of Mr W E Campbell, on the planning system, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to allow local communities to become more involved in the planning process. I welcome Mr Campbell, who is here to speak to his petition, and his wife.
May I read from my script?
Of course.
The document that was presented to our community can only be described as disgraceful. At a public local inquiry, the Scottish Executive denied local people the right to express their views and unacceptably restricted the views of others. Fundamental freedom of expression and the right to a fair and public hearing were removed while an important breach of rules by a developer was condoned. The community was also denied the right of achieving fairness in representation and relevance, by the refusal to allow an expert witness to take part. It was not a reporters' inquiry and it was not an appellants' inquiry; it was a public local inquiry involving local people.
Thank you very much. That was an excellent introduction to a difficult subject.
I have a lot of sympathy with the community at Wester Lairgs. I have been quite involved in the case—watching the community's frustration is difficult.
You are talking about people with modest or meagre incomes, who will only be given legal aid. Going to the Court of Session would not achieve the aim of our petition. If we went to the Court of Session, we could only challenge on legal or procedural matters. We could not challenge on the unfairness or injustice of how the planning decisions were made.
The clerks might be able to help with my question, although, as a lawyer, I should perhaps know the answer to it. I am interested in what you said about the powers of the ombudsman. Is it within the ombudsman's powers to review a planning decision?
No, the ombudsman can only investigate any maladministration on the part of the council.
Do we know what would constitute maladministration in the planning process?
As I understand the matter, it is not for the ombudsman to decide the discretionary element of granting permission.
You referred to something Pictish. I am rather fond of the Picts. Would Historic Scotland be interested in preserving the site, as such sites are rather rare? Have you been in touch with Historic Scotland?
Yes, we have. I recently wrote a letter to the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland in response to a letter that caused us considerable concern. It was a Dr Fojut at Historic Scotland who first prompted us to believe that the site was a Pictish burial site. When Dr Fojut visited the site, a local archaeologist suggested to him that perhaps it was an iron age burial site, but Dr Fojut indicated that it was more likely to be Pictish. I had a conversation with Dr Fojut five or six weeks ago, in which he addressed that point again. He advised me that there was every possibility that Wester Lairgs was the site of a Pictish burial. In spite of that, Historic Scotland, the RCAHMS and the minister responsible will not pursue the matter. They will not carry out any investigations to establish what lies there.
The committee must be careful not to take up an individual planning case. We are limited to considering the general principles of the planning process. In the light of that restriction, perhaps you could state exactly what should have happened in relation to the local interest. Was the problem the lack of a chance to appear?
No, the problem was nothing to do with that. I will be blunt. The public local inquiry that took place was nothing more than a farce. One would find the answer if one were to compare the letter of intention with the critique that we prepared, which consists of 99 pages outlining the flaws of the local public inquiry. There is a strong supposition in the community that a determination was made before the public inquiry took place.
Was the 99-page critique that you mentioned submitted to the public inquiry and considered by the reporter?
No. The critique resulted from the letter of intention.
So it was prepared subsequent to the public inquiry.
Yes.
Can we be clear about this? Was information about all your objections, such as the Pictish building site, the impact on tourism and the inadequacy of the road into and out of the quarry, given to the public inquiry?
Absolutely.
Was that information given in writing?
Absolutely.
But you were not given the chance to give oral evidence at the public inquiry.
No, that is not the case. The community formed a representative joint group that was made up of the action group and the community council. The first part of our petition relates to the fact that individual members of the community were not given the opportunity to speak.
But they were represented at the public inquiry.
The community was represented at the public inquiry through the joint group.
We have received a number of petitions that complain about the planning process. On the question of monitoring the decisions that are taken by public inquiries, the Scottish Executive always says that such matters are for local decision and that it is not for the Scottish Executive to intervene in issues that should be determined locally. From my reading of the papers, the local authority refused planning permission.
Absolutely.
There is local opposition to planning permission being granted.
There were more than 601 objections. The community council objected and the Strathnairn Action Group, which was formed to fight the proposal, objected. Highland Council turned down the application by 21 votes to 11 or 12. Four MSPs—three at the local public inquiry—represented us. Our MP represented us—his representative spoke at the local public inquiry. Yet the reporter still went against the views of the local community.
Are you saying that the matter was not decided locally?
Yes.
Are you really calling for a method of defending local communities against decisions that are taken by reporters who come from outside the area?
The reporters have flown in the face of all the principles that are written down in documents such as NPPG 1 and our local plans. The Scottish Executive appears to be saying that there should be local public involvement in planning decisions, but as far as we are concerned, we were ignored.
The Executive has also told the Public Petitions Committee again and again that it is conducting a consultation into the planning system. That consultation has yet to be completed; in fact, people can respond to it until the end of the month. Have you done so?
The closing date has been extended to next month.
Has it been extended to the end of April?
Yes. I asked the civil servant who is dealing with the consultation whether I could e-mail my comments, because I was so involved in various bits and pieces such as writing my speech. I was advised that the consultation period would be extended.
Is that not the proper approach to take to the situation? Most of the petitions on planning that we have referred to the Transport and the Environment Committee, which is responsible for that area, have not been acted upon because that committee says that it is awaiting the outcome of the consultation before it decides issues such as third-party appeals.
The planning consultation document does not specifically address some of the issues that we raise in our petition.
The consultation offers you the opportunity to get your ideas into the process so that the Executive can begin to address them.
In view of what has happened and the discord that exists in our community, we must make use of every means available to bring the situation to people's attention.
When one hears the long list of local people and elected representatives who objected to the application, one must say to oneself that the reporters were far removed from the position adopted by elected representatives of every description. Perhaps we could take a look at how reporters are appointed. The situation seems strange to me. I have never known of a case in which the position of all those elected tiers, including the council, has been totally refuted.
Can I clarify that the Executive called in the planning application because it was of national significance?
No. The developer submitted the appeal.
Are you saying that the developer appealed against the council's decision?
Yes.
Is that why the public inquiry was called?
Yes.
Is the Executive saying that there is no national significance to the development?
The Executive is saying that there is no issue of national importance. However, our argument is that it is an issue of national importance, because if the reporters could release a document that was so flawed, similar documents in relation to many other communities could be released. If that is not an issue of national importance, I do not know what is.
There seems to be a contradiction here. The Executive is saying that the development has no national significance and that it is a matter for local decision. The local decision was to refuse the development, yet the Executive seems likely to overturn it, but is also saying that it cannot intervene because it is a matter for local decision. The Executive seems to be contradicting itself at every turn.
I have one point on the national interest. In the Highlands there are other cases of developers seeking to create new quarries. There are problems in Sutherland and Lingerbay—the problem there goes on and on.
I was reading about that in The Herald earlier this week.
Is there an issue about the impact of quarries all over Scotland? It seems to be not one site, but many sites. They do not seem to provide local jobs or advantages to the local community. I am well versed in the issue, because I have been involved with the quarry development outside Oban and the continuing saga at Lingerbay. One could argue that it is a national issue.
Before we discuss what to do with the petition, do members have any more questions for the petitioners?
It would be useful if the petitioners could put on record that there are other quarries in the area and that they are not making a not-in-my-back-yard objection.
Yes. We are not against quarrying. That point must be established. However, we have two major quarries that have supplied the growth of Inverness for more than 50 years—that adds up to more than 100 years between the two of them. Both quarries are substantial, but are situated at the head of the glen. They do not interfere radically with people's daily lives or with the amenities and environment of the local communities. The proposed quarry will do all that. The existing sand and gravel quarry applied for an increase to 6.4 million tonnes in February 2001 and a public inquiry took place in August 2001. Little or no cognisance was taken of the fact that the existing quarry could meet easily any shortfall in reserve, which is likely to be minimal.
We will move on to discuss the petition. Thank you for your evidence, which was very effective. You are welcome to stay for the discussion of the petition.
The quarry goes against the planning guidelines and the local plan, which seems crazy. Usually, planning applications are turned down if they do not fit with the local plan. It seems strange that not only has local opinion been overruled, but the guidelines and the local plan, which are the usual standards against which planning developments are measured, have been ignored.
Am I picking up members' views correctly? Should our first step be to write to the Executive to ask it to clarify why local opinion was overridden in respect of this application, why planning guidelines and the local plan were ignored and why it felt that it was necessary to go against the decision that was made by locally elected people?
Could we write to Historic Scotland to seek its view on the question of the Pictish burial site?
It has been suggested to me that we are getting involved in an individual case.
Are we?
Yes.
Has Historic Scotland got a policy for dealing with planning applications that affect precious sites?
We could ask the Executive to comment on the historical significance of the Pictish burial site and on the advice that it received from Historic Scotland. I should have said at the beginning of our discussion that Fergus Ewing, the constituency member, was keen to attend this meeting but could not make it along. He wanted the Official Report of the meeting to record his support for the petitioners.
I thank William Campbell again for his evidence. When we receive the Executive's reply, we will reconsider the petition and will keep the petitioners informed about what happens to it.
Scottish Agricultural College Auchincruive (PE480)
Petition PE480, from Mr William R Campbell, is on the proposed closure of the Scottish Agricultural College at Auchincruive. The petition has more than 3,500 signatures. Jamie McGrigor, Adam Ingram and Alex Neil are present to support the petitioner.
Thank you. The petition requests the Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review urgently the current situation at the Scottish Agricultural College at Auchincruive.
Thank you. Would the three members who are here in support of the petition like to make short contributions?
I am here today because I could not speak in Adam Ingram's debate in support of the petition. I am reacting to Mike Rumbles's suggestion that all the supporters come from the south-west of Scotland. As an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, and a farmer who has spent most of his time farming in the hills of Argyll, I know the importance of Auchincruive.
As Jamie McGrigor intimated, we had a members' business debate on this issue last week. Ross Finnie responded to the concerns that were expressed during the debate. Mr Finnie said that he has called a halt to the Scottish Agricultural College's plans and has requested that it present some detailed alternatives and a preferred option. The petitioners and others are concerned that the current board has clearly set out its stall. As Willie Campbell indicated, the SAC board wants downsizing and the eventual removal of the Auchincruive campus.
I back everything that Jamie McGrigor and Adam Ingram have said. It is noticeable that the campaign to save Auchincruive has all-party support. The only possible exception to that is the individual Mike Rumbles, who made a stupid speech on the issue in the chamber last week. The campaign to save the college has national support. As George Lyon pointed out, the college is of international renown, is a centre of excellence and could be the core of a substantial industrial development in the Auchincruive area. If the college goes, a threat will be posed to the future of the Hannah Research Institute, which is one of the foremost research institutes in the country—not just in agriculture but in general.
I now open up the meeting for questions from committee members.
I have a couple of questions. I was not at the members' business debate, but I have read what was said. In his response, one of the minister's main points concerned the lack of wider consultation with key stakeholders. Are arrangements being put in place to ensure that wider, meaningful consultation takes place?
I certainly hope so. I have not received any evidence to suggest that meaningful negotiations will take place, but I assume that that will happen. It would be foolish for the SAC to ignore what Ross Finnie said. The petitioners and campaigners have maintained an open mind and a positive attitude. We do not want to knock the SAC in any way. We will enter into discussions with it at any time and will put forward our suggestions. Although I do not know whether we are the people who are best qualified to do that, we have many years of knowledge and many ideas about how to turn around the present state of affairs in the SAC and again make Auchincruive a vibrant learning and research centre.
To someone who was not at the debate, there appears to be some sense in what Mike Rumbles said. It is evident that you disagree very strongly with his view. He said that the position of the SAC needs to be considered in the context of the continuing wider Scottish restructuring. What is your opinion on that?
Mike Rumbles indicated that all the people who spoke before him in the debate were representing a parochial Ayrshire interest. I would be the first to admit that a Mason-Dixon line separates Ayrshire from the rest of Scotland, particularly in the field of football—long may that continue. Jamie McGrigor's presence at this meeting proves that the matter that we are dealing with is of national—indeed, of international—importance. The college has an international reputation. In parts of Africa and Asia and in agricultural economies elsewhere around the world, Auchincruive's reputation stands high. The issue is not an Ayrshire issue—it is not even just a Scottish issue. We are considering the role of a highly placed institution in the future development of Scotland and Scottish agriculture, and the wider issues that go with that.
I wear many hats. I sit on the NFUS's national committee of milk producers. When I first got wind that the proposed move was afoot, I raised the matter at that committee, which represents producers from Orkney to the Borders. Without exception, everyone was appalled. Auchincruive is probably recognised as the premier centre in the United Kingdom for producing grassland managers, livestock husbandry experts and farm managers. To take that centre away would be to debilitate Scottish livestock farming to a degree that no one could imagine. I also made that point to the Scottish committee of the Milk Development Council.
I notice that the minister spoke about the £18 million of central funding that the college receives. Have you met the SAC board to discuss matters?
On several occasions we have met Professor McKelvey and the dean of the campus at Auchincruive, George Marshall, to put our concerns to them. We understand Professor McKelvey's main concern—the rising debt and the annual deficit, which runs at around £2 million. We differ with Professor McKelvey and Maitland Mackie, who is the chairman of SAC. They say that we need a £5 million per annum turnaround, to reach a positive figure of £3 million. At least in the short term, it would be far better to break even and to maintain the whole portfolio and the full capacity to educate and advise in the future, than to slash drastically in order to start making profit. To reach break-even and maintain viability would be far better for the Scottish rural industry.
I notice that Ross Finnie has called for a pause. Have you asked him how long the pause will be and what the procedure will be for people who want to make representations during the pause?
As yet, I have not had the opportunity to ask him those things. I am delighted that he has gone as far as he has. I note that he recommends that we prepare the SAC for the next 50 to 60 years. That involves looking well into the future. There will have to be a substantial pause to gain that level of stability. I have not had the opportunity to speak to Ross Finnie about that since last Thursday.
There has been much talk of Auchincruive's uniqueness, excellence and international reputation. Indeed, in his speech, Adam Ingram talked about the college's impact on food processing and other issues—he used the colourful phrase "from farm to fork". If Auchincruive were to close, is there any way that such excellence could be retained elsewhere?
That would be very difficult. We must bear in mind that Auchincruive is the product of 72 or 73 years of investment that has built on what was already there. What its educational or advisory capacity is worth to anyone else is a fraction of what it is worth to the industry. Auchincruive has immense possibilities. For example, it sits next to the Hannah Research Institute, which is primarily concerned with food technology, food safety, food innovation and other matters, as you say, "from farm to fork"—or, as others say, from conception to consumption. It is in a unique situation. Moreover, the campus has built around it a group of very dedicated people with great expertise who come not just from the college but from the surrounding rural community and businesses. There is almost a satellite situation. If we move the campus elsewhere, we will need 10 years to rebuild such links. Those are 10 vital years in which we could be expanding Scotland's reputation on the world food front.
I have one or two questions that I will try to get through as quickly as possible. Where would the students from Auchincruive be placed instead? Is there an opportunity to expand elsewhere, or would the courses that are available at the colleges just disappear?
I am afraid that some courses would disappear. However, your question hits the nail on the head. For example, at the moment, there is overcapacity on the Aberdeen campus. Given the number of students at that campus, far too much money has been spent there.
How would the closure of Auchincruive hamper research and development, especially in the light of the foot-and-mouth outbreak and the campus's proximity to badly hit areas such as Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders? Would the loss of the campus create problems for farmers who are seeking to restructure their businesses after what has happened to them?
It is interesting that you bring that up. Dumfries and Galloway farmers have indicated their support for the Auchincruive campaigners for the very reasons that you have mentioned. This is not a matter of knocking the SAC. The farmers greatly value the college's work in the Borders and in Dumfries and Galloway over what has been a very serious period. However, Auchincruive has been the hub of that activity, and moving the campus outwith the area, which is densely populated with stock, would be detrimental to the SAC's overall balance and to agriculture as a whole.
Have you been in touch with Scottish Enterprise about this? I listened to what you said about the various institutes all feeding off each other. Scottish Enterprise seems keen on the cluster approach, whereby several bodies in one area can support each other. Have you had any contact from Scottish Enterprise about this?
Indeed I have. I spoke to Evelyn McCann, chief executive of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire. She is very much behind our campaign. In the past six months, we have, with the help of Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire, set up Auchincruive enterprise learning centre, which is just starting to take off. We have 24-hour learning facilities there for computer training, which is particularly suitable for the rural environment, where people's time is scarce. It is an excellent facility. As far as I can gather, Scottish Enterprise is very keen for the Scottish Agricultural College to remain at Auchincruive.
I sympathise with the petitioners. I have long heard of Auchincruive and the excellent work undertaken there over the years. It would seem remiss that there is now a suggestion that the facility will close. The petition should be supported enthusiastically by the Scottish Parliament. That argument has already been well made, and the committee will deliberate on what to do with the petition.
We have looked into that. As I think I stated in my covering letter, the family who gave the bequest are distraught that such a thing might happen. It seems that it would be possible, with the permission of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to dispose of the assets. Because of the changes that took place when the three previous colleges amalgamated, who exactly owns the facility is a grey area. Is it the SAC or the secretary of state? However, it appears at first sight that that the only stipulation made is that any proceeds made from the sale of the assets be put towards the development of agriculture in the west of Scotland. Those are very vague terms. It could even be argued that ridding the SAC of the debt would be to the betterment of agriculture in the west of Scotland.
In last week's debate, John Scott, the MSP for Ayr, said that the college is running with a £9 million debt. Is that a £9 million annual debt, or is it an accrued figure?
I am told that it is the accrued debt. Some say it is £9 million; some say it is £11 million—I do not know. It is a tragedy that it is only now that the debt has accumulated to such a level that we are discussing it. I am sure that, with a little tinkering around the edges, we could have prevented the situation from ever arising. There is a £49 million turnover and a £2 million deficit. Speaking as a businessman, I think that if that was my business, rather than sell off 30 per cent of my assets to alleviate the situation, I would be looking to trim some costs and do things a little bit more efficiently so as to allow the main core of the business to remain and to progress. We are in danger throwing the baby out with the bath water.
That is why we need an independent assessment. There is an accumulated debt of £9 million and there is an operating deficit of about £2 million every year. That is why, in our view, it does not make sense to move to a high-cost site adjacent to the University of Aberdeen.
I have to say that £9 million sounds positively modest against the £900 million that Glasgow City Council owes. The Executive solved that situation, so it should not be beyond the Executive's imagination to come up with a solution to this situation either. Are there any final comments?
The debt is the SAC's debt, not Auchincruive's debt.
I thank the witnesses for their contribution this morning. We will now discuss what to do with the petition. You are welcome to stay and listen. Members will see from the suggested action that the Executive has asked the SAC to pause in preparing its business plan to allow people to make representations to the SAC before a final decision goes to ministers.
I could not go to the debate on the SAC because I was at a meeting at the same time about Barmac, but I notice that Ross Finnie said that he is not in favour of an independent audit. He is quite clear that he will consider the matter, which means that there will be a pause, but we do not know what will happen during that pause. We do not know what he is obliged to consider, what procedures will exist for people to make representations, or how long the pause will last. Having read the papers, I have a nasty suspicion that the SAC board has made up its mind and that this is a dressing-up process.
Once again, I have been remiss. Phil Gallie, who cannot be here this morning, sent us his comments on the petition and asked me to read them into the record. He says that if we agree to write to the SAC, we should ask it to take into account what the Minister for Environment and Rural Development said about pausing to consider the objectives of its business plan and the role of Auchincruive, and that we should seek an assurance that there will be no further downsizing of Auchincruive while further consideration takes place. Phil Gallie's preference is for the petition to go to the Rural Development Committee.
I am not opposed to the petition going to the Rural Development Committee, but I suggest that this committee should write immediately to the SAC, because the quicker that people work on this issue the better. We do not want a delay, as we are going off for two weeks for the Easter recess.
Given the onset of the Easter recess, it may be advisable for the committee to write immediately to the SAC to get its response to the questions that have been asked. For example, we could ask why it is not seeking an independent audit of the problems that it faces and what steps have been taken to allow objectors and campaigners to become involved in consideration of the business plan. We could also write to Ross Finnie suggesting that the proposal appears to contravene Executive policies, such as the policy on jobs dispersal, and asking him to comment on that.
The proposal is also contrary to the policies of creating centres of excellence and encouraging diversification.
I think that the petition should be referred to the Rural Development Committee.
It will be. We are simply trying to save time. We will send a copy of the petition to the Rural Development Committee in any case, for its information. As soon as the responses come in, we will pass them to the Rural Development Committee. We will not be able to consider the responses until after the Easter recess, but we can do something now.
I suggest that when the response from the SAC is received, the clerks should transfer it automatically to the Rural Development Committee. That might mean that the response is available for consideration at the next meeting of the Rural Development Committee.
I have been told that we are referring the petition formally to the Rural Development Committee. In the meantime, we will seek responses from the SAC and from the minister, and pass those on automatically to the Rural Development Committee. That saves time. Is that agreed?
Miscarriages of Justice (Aftercare) (PE477)
The next petition for consideration is PE477, from John McManus, which seeks the establishment of an aftercare programme for people who have been wrongly incarcerated. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to provide assistance in setting up an aftercare programme in the form of a halfway home for people who have been wrongfully incarcerated and have served long terms of imprisonment, or whose conviction has been annulled at the appeal court.
It is said that a mark of a society is how it treats its prisoners. Another mark of a society is how it treats people when it has made mistakes—in this case, by wrongfully convicting people of crimes that they did not commit. Unfortunately, in the past 10 years in England, nothing has been done to help such people when they are released from jail, either before or after their release.
I should have declared an interest at the beginning of discussion of the petition, because I support the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, which John McManus represents.
I am concerned by what Mr McManus says. He says that someone who is in a position to appeal can be released without any back-up such as help with resettlement or housing assistance. Does that apply to everybody?
At the Labour party conference a couple of years ago, we raised that matter with Alistair Darling and Derry Irvine. I believe that the situation has started to change for people who are being released now. They receive benefits, their stamps will be paid up and they can get sickness benefit. Tommy Campbell, who is one of the Glasgow two who have been released pending appeal, wanted to come to today's meeting, but he has had to go to Cadogan Street in Glasgow to prove to the Benefits Agency doctors that he is not fit for work.
Could prison social workers have a role? I am astounded by the situation. Surely someone can do something. If a person who has been in prison for several years does not have family to return to, he or she is sent out homeless and without any back-up.
That is exactly the way it is. One minute, you are in a maximum security, category-A prison. Suddenly, the door opens and people come in, drag you out, put you in a van and take you to the Court of Appeal, where your conviction is quashed, and that is it. You are shown the door and left on the street. There is no help and no back-up—there is nothing. You are left to fend for yourself.
I am honoured to meet Paddy Hill because I fought for the Birmingham six. We had a special event at my party conference and I went to watch the appeals in the English courts. There were many members of the Irish Parliament there and I said, "They will walk free because the evidence was so flawed." They shook their heads wisely and said, "No, they will not." That was at the first appeal and, indeed, the prisoners did not walk free at that point, even though the evidence against them was pathetic. I think that they might have had an earlier release in Scotland.
No help is given with that. In fact, even though I was released 11 years and 2 weeks ago, I still live on £75 a week income support and have done for years. I am still fighting for compensation.
I think that the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation's funding application has already been submitted. Is it well costed?
We are seeking the Parliament's help to secure funding.
So you have not yet submitted an application.
That is what we are discussing today. I want to draw the committee's attention to a recent psychiatric report on Paddy Hill by Dr Adrian Grounds, who was initially approached by the Home Office in 1991-92 to assess the psychological problems that Paddy faced. Since then, Dr Grounds has examined another 13 guys who have been released and he has drawn some very damaging conclusions.
I have to say that I stumbled on the petition by mistake. I came to discuss another petition but, as convener of the Justice 1 Committee, I am shocked by some of the evidence that I have heard. I am shocked that Paddy's Hill civil damages case has not been resolved, because like most people I had thought that he would have received compensation by now. Furthermore, the fact that there was no pre-release programme is disgraceful. I hope that, subject to the Public Petitions Committee's recommendations, the Justice 1 Committee will address the issue of innocent parties who are released with nothing. After all, that committee is already considering the criminal justice system and issues such as sentencing and custody; indeed, we have looked at prisons and the prospects for rehabilitation of prisoners. I find it horrific that Mr Hill had to fight for his medical records so that he could be admitted into the benefits system.
That's the way it is.
With the Public Petitions Committee's leave, I will take the matter to the Justice 1 Committee to find out what we can do to change the system and ministers' attitudes, and to progress matters. Is the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission helping? It has been going only for a wee while, but I had thought that it was fairly robust. Is it?
It is too early to say.
Davie Hutchison, who is here today, had his case knocked back last year. His lawyer, Alastair Duff, believes in his innocence. I also gave the case to John Scott and Alan Miller, who calls it the case from hell. They say that there is no new evidence, but basically they do not want to look at the corruption that convicted Davie Hutchison, who was obviously fitted up. The police used the wrong procedure for the identity parade, and the way in which they brought in the Moorov doctrine should never have been allowed in court. Despite those reasons, they say that there is no new evidence. We face that problem all the time.
I am advised that, because some of the cases that have been mentioned might go back to court, it is important that we do not discuss them in detail.
I was not going to discuss individual cases. I was just going to say that any consideration of the petition might include a look at the operation of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and issues such as pre-release and how the system treats innocent people who have been released. The Justice 1 Committee would have to consider the several branches to this matter. It is all quite extraordinary; I really did not know the petition was coming up.
I would love to find out what the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's remit is and how much investigative work it does. From what I see, any investigative work is left to lawyers, most of whom are doing the work pro bono, because they believe in a person's innocence. For example, Alastair Duff was involved with the Lockerbie trial while he was trying to help another guy.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission came to the then Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and I think that it also published a report. There might be an audit of what the commission is doing now. The issues that you have raised would be viewed as important by the Justice 1 Committee.
What an indictment it is of Scotland that we have such an uncaring society and that we leave people in the situation that Paddy Hill was left in when he came out of prison. I am on a learning curve. What is the scale of the problem?
How many of you have heard of a guy called Robert Brown? He is waiting for his case to go back to the Court of Appeal in England. He has been inside for 25 years. He is a Glaswegian, but nobody has ever heard of him. That is the scale of the problem.
I wish to be clear. You are saying that only one person has been released because they were wrongfully incarcerated in Scotland over the past how many years?
Only one person has been released since the SCCRC was set up three years ago. As I see it, Andrew Smith is the main lifer who has been released since Paddy Meehan.
That suggests that either everybody in jail is guilty or that the system is not working.
You can draw your own conclusions.
It is not only that people say that the system is all right, it is that they do not acknowledge that there are innocent people in prison. The best way to describe the situation is that if you go to prison today, it is a luxury to be guilty. That sounds stupid, but it is true: being guilty is a luxury. Robert Brown's case down south was mentioned. His tariff was 12 years, but he is now serving his 26th year. He could have been released 13 years ago. All he had to do was say to the parole committee, "I am guilty", and he would have been released within six months. Instead, he keeps telling the committee, "I am innocent", which is what he has done since day 1. He is now what is more commonly known in the south of England as an IDM—in denial of murder.
We have managed to persuade "Frontline Scotland" to do a documentary on the case of Robert Brown—that was another of the hard battles that we have had with the media—which will be broadcast on 9 April.
Two weeks today that programme on the cases of Robert Brown and others will be broadcast.
Are there any other questions?
I want to ask about funding applications.
I was just about to clarify that. Have you made a funding application?
Not at the moment, because we do not know where to apply to.
We understood that a funding application was currently with the Scottish Executive.
That is not the case.
For the record, there is no funding application.
We were given advice about that, but if you have not made an application, that advice falls. Are there any more questions before we discuss what to do with the petition?
I would like to say what we would like to happen. We are not asking for a lot. We are, along with Adrian Grounds, looking for start-up funding for a halfway home. I have spoken to Adrian and he has a couple of colleagues in Edinburgh who we hope to get involved. The matter is all about choices. Such people need to be given as many choices as possible because they have not had choices for the 20 years that they have been inside. The idea is that a part of the halfway house would look almost like a prison, because that is what those people have become accustomed to. We need buddies—people who will take them out.
Thank you. You have presented disturbing evidence to the committee this morning. You are welcome to listen to the discussion about what the committee will do with the petition.
Is there a need to write to the Scottish Prison Service, which seems to have let people fall into this extraordinary gap?
The ultimate authority for prisons lies with the Minister for Justice. It is his responsibility to ensure that something is done, and he has not done that. We must get a response from him.
This is an amazing situation. There is the lack of a roof, the lack of benefits and the lack of counselling for people's domestic and psychiatric situations. It is one of the worst things that I have heard. As a former criminal lawyer, I am ashamed, although I have often done pro bono cases over the years. I know that there are innocent people in prison, although there is no doubt that it is a small percentage.
People think that it is like a fairytale, and that everybody kisses and makes up, rides off into the sunset and lives happily ever after. I wish to hell that it was like that. Unfortunately, it is the complete and utter opposite. Guilty people who are in prison are assessed before they are released. Innocent people are not assessed—we are just dumped on the street. Nobody knows what the hell to do with us. Rather than do something with us, the system seems to turn its back, walk away and leave us. We should be assessed.
Thank you Paddy. Strictly speaking, your contribution was against standing orders, but it was well worth listening to.
One of my suggestions is that Paddy Hill should write a book because he is so eloquent.
He should stand for the Scottish Parliament. He would do very well.
I would not worry, Paddy. I have been on the outside all that time and I still do not know which buttons to press.
I am a little concerned that we are asking for the justice system and prisons to look into providing such aftercare. The people whom we are talking about have already been failed by that system. Perhaps the issue should go through another department.
I suggest that we write to the Minister for Justice and ask him to include in his response to the committee a response from those who are responsible for social work and support services in the community. That would cover Rhoda Grant's point.
Pre-release care should not be provided by the Prison Service because, when innocent people are released, they should not be involved with the Prison Service. Some one else should provide that aftercare.
We will make that point in our letter to the Minister for Justice. That is why it would be wrong to write to the Prison Service because the minister has wider responsibility.
Would it be appropriate to raise the issue of benefits with Westminster?
We could ask the minister to comment on issues relating to benefits and ask him to liaise with his Westminster counterpart.
The petition could go to one of the justice committees so that there could be a full hearing. For example, the psychiatrist that was mentioned could give evidence.
That has pre-empted what I was going to say. However, there is a role for the prison. There has to be a link with those people who were engaged with people like Paddy Hill over many years and people outside. There should be liaison between the SPS and outside agencies.
Yes.
Will it be on the website?
It will not appear on the website but we can copy you and the Justice 1 Committee in on any letter that you want to see.
It would be useful to have a copy of that letter.
All the material will be referred with the petition to the Justice 1 Committee for information until we get a response.
I thank you for your contribution this morning. It has been most valuable.
Aphasia (PE475)
The next petition is PE475 from Ms Cecilia Yardley, on the subject of recognition for aphasia. The petitioners call on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to recognise that aphasia is a life-disabling condition; to develop and produce accurate measures to recognise, treat and support aphasic people; to improve the quality of service available to aphasia sufferers; and to support service development based on accurate measures of need and performance. This morning, we are joined by Ms Cecilia Yardley, who is the director of services at Speakability; Alex Frederick, Claire McArthur and Joyce Seaward from Forth Valley Speakability; and Kim Hartley, from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Dr Sylvia Jackson is also attending the meeting in support of the petition.
Because of the nature of the problem, I would like two of us to make the presentation.
That is not a problem.
I was the convener of shop stewards at Imperial Chemical Industries, now Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, at Grangemouth for 11 years and was a trustee of the ICI and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals pension funds. Although it is rather strange to be sitting in front of a microphone again, it was a way of life at one time.
Yes. The full information pack was distributed to all members.
The definition of aphasia and statistics on the condition are included in the pack.
As Alex Frederick said, I used to be a member of Unison's national executive council, and I worked for a local authority as a senior social policy worker. I cannot do that now, because I had a stroke, and I am aphasic. Alex and I are lucky, because we are lightly aphasic. John McAllion met other members of our group at the launch three weeks ago. Some people cannot read at all. Some people can speak, but worse than we can. John also met a member called Andrew, who thinks that he can speak to people, but actually makes noises. He hears the words in his mind, but they do not come out. He is imprisoned in his mind.
That is as good an opening statement as I have heard since the Public Petitions Committee began. Thank you very much for your courage in making the statement.
I have little to say, because Alex Frederick and Claire McArthur made the points adequately. They have brought with them colleagues from Speakability and various professionals. They are looking for support.
The petitioners have brought back some painful memories, because my mother died following a stroke, so I know what they are talking about. I would be glad if the petitioners would clarify one matter for me. In my naivety, I used to wonder whether someone who has aphasia could convey messages by using a keyboard. Is that impossible?
Speech therapists try that regularly. I have seen people try that. Some can do it and some cannot.
The question is important. Aphasia affects not only the speech that we hear, but the processing at the highest level to choose the letters to make a word. Claire McArthur said that she had trouble writing, which involves our normal habits of choosing the letters to write a word. With a word such as "parliament", we might wonder where the "l" and the "r" go, but we know that if we write the word down we will sort it out. That process is affected by aphasia. If someone does not have the confidence or the skill to get the letters in the right order to make the word, they cannot use a pen to write that word or type the letters on a keyboard.
We should consider what the individual expresses and how the communication environment communicates with that individual. Claire McArthur and Alex Frederick talked about the strategies that health care people can use immediately to try to communicate choices or to explain the process of care and the decisions that people make in that process.
It is obvious that aphasia has a huge impact on people's lives. From what you said about symbols, it appears that aphasia must prevent people from doing basic tasks that most would take for granted, such as going shopping, because few symbols are used.
We could tell a hundred stories about people going shopping. In particular, the women in the group tell such stories. When I finish up at the till in a shop and am asked for an amount, I think of the highest denomination note and hand it over. If my wife ever found out, she would kill me.
You will get lots of change.
I am sorry to be flippant, but sometimes it is the only way that you get through life. Everybody says that by the end of the day they have a pocket full of change. I know that five 20p pieces make a pound, but do not ask me what three make, because I do not know. For some reason, I know that five make a pound, but I cannot split five up. These problems have to be explained when we go into shops. Symbols would be helpful.
If we had a community that truly understood the needs of aphasic people, we would have shop assistants who would see that people were struggling, and would step back and say, "Can I help?" They would not give too much information or too little information. They would not patronise, rush or be embarrassed. They would just wait and let the person with aphasia say what they needed. The assistant could say, "Write that down for me" or, "Say that again" and they could slow everything down a bit.
I am sorry to say that I did not know about aphasia. I have a great interest in people such as deaf people. The definition of aphasia in our papers refers to damage to the brain. Does that include dyslexia? Stroke is mentioned, which involves damage and possibly speaking paralysis, although I do not know enough about it.
The petition raises the concerns of adults with acquired aphasia who were once well but who have gone on to have a head injury, a haemorrhage in the brain or an interruption to the normal processing of the brain, so that the functioning of the language area of the brain is interrupted. Issues to do with childhood aphasia are not addressed by this petition, but for such children communication is also hard. The aphasic client group predominantly comprises people who have had a stroke, but a significant proportion have been injured in accidents, for example a blow to the head.
Although aphasia is different from dyslexia, we could improve the communication environment in general. Kim Hartley talked about channels and the use of symbols. People are aware of deafness, blindness and mobility disabilities, and improvements are obviously needed in all those areas. If there were greater awareness about communication disabilities in general, and aphasia in particular, that would improve things for a wide range of people, including those who live with dyslexia, who have learning disabilities or whose first language is not English. Improving the communication environment will benefit a much wider group of people than the large number of people who live with aphasia.
Alex Frederick and Claire McArthur eloquently explained that we need more speech and language therapists to deliver direct therapy to people who are aphasic. At the moment, there is inadequate provision of speech and language therapy in Scotland, predominantly in primary and secondary care. When people are in hospital after having had a stroke, they see speech and language therapists, but even then not enough. The problem becomes an awful lot worse once people move into the community. Because aphasia is a lifelong condition, those people are abandoned and left without assistance to come to terms with a complete shift in their life capacities for the rest of their lives.
It seems that there is a range of problems. It is not just about a lack of speech therapists in hospitals. The clerk had difficulty in getting the information that he needed for his report in preparation for today's meeting. Fortunately, your briefing notes have been helpful in that regard. The issue is not simply about the provision of more speech therapists; it is also about how we can assure ourselves that people are being made more aware of the fact that help is available. We must be sure that they know where to go for help, so we must ask how such services might best be publicised. That is also covered in the committee papers. The Scottish Executive's treatment strategy deals with diseases and the hospital environment but, as you have said, speech therapy is also important after hospital treatment.
I am not sure whether that was a question or not.
I would like to ask about the wider strategy issues. It is not just about providing speech therapists. We must address all the other issues as well.
Both Claire McArthur and Alex Frederick belong to a local support group for people with aphasia that is affiliated to the national charity, Speakability. Joyce Seaward gives support to that group. On the wider view, someone who has a stroke or a head injury will be in an acute setting, followed by the rehabilitation process in which the voluntary sector has a role to play. Helen Eadie was right to recognise that the problem is not just medical and that it has much broader social implications.
Is your argument that the Scottish Executive's report on coronary heart disease and stroke does not address the problem of aphasia at all?
Some good and exciting work has been done on stroke in Scotland and on trying to establish a national data set so that we can understand how many people have strokes and how we look after them.
Are the people who are doing that work trying to find out how many people have aphasia as a result of a stroke?
The minimum data set does not include information about whether people have aphasia—it simply records, under the Glasgow coma scale, whether people can talk.
Is your argument that the Executive is not addressing the issue of aphasia?
I sometimes get a bit angry about that. Some of the people in our groups, including me, have suffered strokes. However, what is left? The other day, the convener saw Nicky, who is in a wheelchair. Everyone sees the wheelchair, but if Nicky were standing up straight, they would not see that he had aphasia. I once attended a meeting at which a chap went on about wheelchair access, incontinence and so on. I had to say to him, "Wait a minute. We're speaking about aphasia." People have problems—I have problems other than aphasia—but aphasia is the problem that I really want members to address today. There is a place for a discussion about chest, heart and stroke patients, but that discussion might not deal with aphasia. We need to concentrate on aphasia. Doctors and nurses should be educated about aphasia, as Claire McArthur suggested. It is not the fault of the wee girl in the shop, because few people know about aphasia. I try to understand that when I hand over my £2 or whatever. However, I cannot understand why general practitioners and nurses do not understand what is going through our minds. That is the big problem that I get excited about.
Alex Frederick summed it up beautifully—he did so much better than I could have done.
I agree with the suggested action.
Let me explain what the suggested action is, for people who do not know. It is suggested that we write to the Executive to seek its views on the issues that are raised in the petition. It is also suggested that we should make a specific request for an update on the coronary heart disease and stroke strategy and an indication whether that strategy will focus on the treatment of aphasia. It is clear that the strategy will not focus on that, but we must ask the Executive formally to respond to that point. At this stage, we will refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for information only while we await a response from the Scottish Executive. However, we intend to push the petition forward.
We must refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee. We should point out to that committee that we do not have data and that there is a need to examine whether there are enough speech therapists, as it seems that there are not.
When we write to the Executive, we should ask it what research has been carried out into aphasia and what data it holds on those who suffer from aphasia. If we do not have data on the extent of the suffering, how can we possibly have enough speech and language therapists to deal with aphasia?
When the committee receives an answer from the relevant minister, will it make more recommendations to the Health and Community Care Committee?
We will probably refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee, but we want to get more information first so that we can identify what needs to be done. That necessitates our asking the minister to respond to the petition first. We will then have a formal response as to what the minister is—or is not—doing about aphasia. Then we can refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee.
Excellent.
Is that agreed?
I thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony.
How do we find out about the outcome?
We keep you informed about the progress of the petition. Any response that we get from the minister will be passed on to you. It will be referred back to the committee in any case.
Council Tax (PE478)
There is one more new petition, for which there is no speaker. Petition PE478, from Mr Thomas Gardner, calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to replace the council tax with a local income tax. Mr Gardner raises some interesting points about whether the council tax breaches the European convention on human rights on the grounds of discriminating against people living in different types of property. That is an interesting idea.
Next
Current Petitions