New Petitions
Fluoride (PE1358)
We return to consideration of new petitions. The second new petition is PE1358, by Lillian Gun, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to disseminate correct and accurate information regarding the uses of sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride to national health service boards and other bodies as appropriate.
I believe that Frank McAveety wants to speak about the petition.
Thank you for doing me the courtesy of allowing me to make a brief contribution.
The petitioner is a constituent of mine who has raised matters with me on a few occasions in the past year. Members will see from the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on the petition the kind of inquiries that I have made on her behalf. The fundamental issues in Lillian Gun’s petition are self-explanatory. One is a concern about legislation at UK level that could have, if I mix my metaphors properly, an overspill into the Scottish Parliament. The petition seeks reassurance on that.
A second issue is about the process of informing the public. Members will see from the briefing that, on fluoridation, probably uniquely among policy issues, 97 per cent of the public are opposed and 93 per cent of professionals are in favour. We would be hard pushed to find another policy issue on which the opinions are so diametrically opposed. That reveals either a major gulf in understanding or a genuine fear among the public about fluoridation. I know that professionals consistently raise matters with elected members on the effectiveness or otherwise of fluoridation, but we need to be aware of the public’s concerns. Another big issue that is raised in the petition and that is worth exploring is about the nature of the information and the distinction between sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride.
The petitioner seeks help from the committee to tease out and explore the issues. I know that there are differing opinions on the subject in the Parliament and in the wider public. It would be helpful if the committee reassured the petitioner that we can explore her concerns as much as possible.
How do members think we should take forward the petition?
We should take it forward by writing to the Scottish Government to ask the basic question that the petitioner asks. Basically, we should ask the Scottish Government whether there is a need to disseminate accurate information regarding the use of sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride to NHS boards and other bodies as requested. We should also ask the Scottish Government what information, if any, it has disseminated. We could at least pursue that, but I do not know how colleagues are minded.
Are colleagues happy with that suggestion from Bill Butler and that we write to a selection of NHS boards?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition will be continued.
Legislative Process (Judicial Involvement) (PE1361)
The next new petition is PE1361, by Thomas Muirhead, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the involvement of the Scottish judiciary in the legislative process. Do members have any views on how to take forward the petition?
The petition raises an interesting point, although it is one that students of law have been aware of for centuries. It is about the notion of the separation of powers. The idea is that we legislate and judges make decisions on the basis of that and, in principle, the two do not meet. In practice, most of the concerns that are expressed in the information that I have seen so far are probably unjustified, to the extent that the Parliament can ask the advice of anybody, including of course the judiciary, but it is the Parliament that makes the decisions. As long as we make an independent decision, it does not matter where we get our advice from.
However, if we stray and find ourselves being—shall I say—influenced by the judiciary rather than merely given advice by them, there is a point. If the judiciary have expressed the view that we have come up with the wrong answer, against their advice, that tends to raise eyebrows about who makes decisions and where the power lies.
If we wrote to ask the Government for its view on the petition, I suspect that it would also be sensible to write to ask the courts for their view. It might be appropriate to write to ask the Crown Office and the Scottish Court Service for their views. The interesting problem is that we will probably receive only two replies. The Scottish Government’s view will probably come from the Lord Advocate, who is of course a law officer, and the Court Service is now run by the Lord President. In theory, we should receive only two responses—one from the Lord Advocate and one from the Lord President.
We should see what happens. An important question has been raised and it needs to be considered. I am interested in those bodies’ views.
If we are opening up the discussion on who to write to, I suggest that we write to ask the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland for their views. The difficulty with the petition is that we will tend to write to ask lawyers—people who have come through the legal profession—to comment. It is difficult to find someone who is outwith the profession who would want to comment. Academics at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Glasgow or the University of Strathclyde who are not in practice might have a view on the petition. It might be worth while to seek their views on the issues that the petition raises and on whether the concerns are valid.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 (Post-legislative Scrutiny) (PE1362)
PE1362, by Brian McKerrow Jnr, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to demonstrate clearly how the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 complies with the European convention on human rights, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the key tenets of Scots law and to publish the documents and evidence that show such compliance. What are members’ views on how to take the petition forward?
I understand that the background to the petition is that mothers have automatic parental responsibilities and rights, as do fathers who were registered on children’s birth certificates after May 2006, whereas fathers who were not married to their child’s mother before that date do not have automatic parental responsibilities and rights. The petitioner believes that that does not comply with the European convention on human rights, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and other requirements.
The petitioner wrote to the Government, which replied that the law complies but that it would not publish the evidence of that. I do not remember the reason for that, but the Government does not have to publish that evidence, and Kevin Dunion agreed with the Government.
I am quite sympathetic to the suggestion that we are discriminating against parents who happen to be male and not married to their child’s mother. In this day and age, a substantial number of children are born outwith wedlock, so we must consider the rights not just of the unmarried father but of the child to access their unmarried father. I am interested in the subject.
16:15
At the very least, we should write to the Government and ask it to demonstrate how it is doing what the petitioner says it is not doing. We should ask how it can demonstrate that the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 is compliant with the European convention on human rights, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the key tenets of Scots law. We should also ask the Government whether it will publish the document that it said it does not have to publish—I am interested to know why it believes it does not have to do that—and for its general views on the petition. That would be a starting point. I am interested in the issue and I would be interested to hear what the Government has to say on it.
I agree with Anne McLaughlin. We should also write to Mr Tam Baillie, Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, in that regard. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say.
I confess that I do not know why the Government has decided that the evidence should not be put in the public domain. I therefore have no idea how to ask any question to get at that information. If the Government is not prepared to release the evidence for any reason, I wonder whether we could ask it to prepare—out of the goodness of its heart, shall we say—a short document that explains a rationale for the legislation. It would not necessarily have to go back to the original documents, but presumably it is not beyond some Government lawyer to write what would, in a sense, be like the answer to an exam question to say, “This is why we regard this legislation as compliant.”
I suggest that we also write to the Scottish Human Rights Commission to ask for its opinion on the matter. As other members said, the Government has sought and received a legal opinion but is not prepared to release it. As Nigel Don said, it would be useful to find out exactly how it made the decision and what opinions were received that influenced the Government’s thinking on the matter.
Do members agree to continue the petition and seek those responses?
Members indicated agreement.
Gypsy/Traveller Encampments (Guidance) (PE1364)
PE1364, by Phyllis M McBain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review all guidelines relating to trespass and encampments for Gypsies and Travellers to ensure that their intent is clear and that they are being applied.
We have been joined by Mike Rumbles and Alex Johnstone. I ask you to say literally a few words each.
Thank you, convener. The issue that is raised in the petition is a continuing problem in my constituency. It has been going on for 10 years, but it has now reached a pitch where it is causing real problems. I have to say that the solution is a simple one in theory but an extremely difficult one in practice.
If I can just explain, I think that what happens is this. If you or I turned up at a public place with a caravan and parked overnight where we were not supposed to park, the police would soon come round and move us on because we have somewhere to go. They would say, “Move on home,” or that sort of thing. When Travellers pitch up, the police will not take action because, if the matter is taken to court, the sheriff will not take action against the Travellers because they have nowhere to move to.
The solution is simple, in my view. It is for Aberdeenshire Council to establish an authorised site somewhere in the Stonehaven area where Travellers could be moved to. If they did not move to that authorised site, they could then be removed by the police. That is the theory. However, it has proved practically impossible to get local agreement on where such a site should be located.
I very much support the petition. We have a situation where unauthorised camping is taking place. The rules and guidelines need to be examined and new guidelines set so that the authorities have the power, when Travellers arrive on a completely inappropriate site, to move them on. That is the short-term solution, but in the long term we need the council to provide an authorised site.
I declare an interest, as I live right in the heart of Mike Rumbles’s constituency in the town of Stonehaven, where the petitioner comes from.
In the north east—and, I am sure, in other places—we have a long tradition, particularly in Stonehaven, of embracing the Traveller community. There has been a tradition of seasonal labourers moving in and out of the area, and that has by and large worked very well since time immemorial.
However, during recent years there has been a slight change in the economic drivers behind the Traveller community and, I think it is fair to say, a heating up of the issues that surround the relationship between the Travellers and the settled community. That has come to a head on a number of occasions during the past four or five years in Stonehaven and elsewhere in the north east. One notable example is the incident that concerns the petitioner and the land that belongs to her family.
The situation relates to changes in the way in which those who are in positions of official responsibility act with regard to the law, and how they enforce it. I am sympathetic towards the police and the local authorities, and in particular towards the individuals who are responsible for policing issues that concern the Traveller community. They often feel that they can be threatened if they are perceived to have taken action that can be judged to have infringed in any way the rights of the individuals involved.
For that reason, I believe that there is a tendency to give any controversial issue a wide berth, which is why it is extremely important that we take the necessary action to ensure that we clarify the guidelines on Gypsy Traveller encampments. I suspect that the law as it exists is perfectly adequate, but I believe that some unfortunate people within the structure are afraid to implement it effectively at present.
I believe that the broadminded and sympathetic attitude of the petitioner, despite the experience that she and her family have had, makes her an extremely valuable and reliable witness if this committee or any other committee of the Parliament should wish to progress the matter.
The issue is also pretty local to me, and I am grateful to my colleagues for presenting it in a cross-party way. That is hugely important and I hope that we maintain such an approach.
I echo Alex Johnstone’s comments about Phyllis McBain, who is with us today. Her moderation on the issue is exemplary, and I hope that we can build on it. I hope that the media will build on it too, if I may say so kindly. We need to consider the issue dispassionately; some people can get very exercised on the matter, which does not help. We must try and attack it sensibly as a matter of policy.
I do not think that any of us is criticising the local officers, whether they are from the police, local authorities or any other public body. We have all been pretty well involved in the matter, and we are quite clear that it is to do with policy—possibly law, but certainly policy—at the highest level. We need to address those policies and strategies rather than pointing fingers at the local officers, who are simply trying to do their best in circumstances that may not be what they would want.
I will add one factual point—at least, I think it is a factual point. The evidence that has come to me shows that the number of sites available to Travellers in the north east is thought to have reduced over recent years. The Travellers may feel that they do not have quite so many places to go, which is why they are coming to some of the other sites. That is not necessarily fact, but it is what I am hearing.
We need to write to the Government and the appropriate local authorities, although I am not sure how long that list should be. We should also write to COSLA and ACPOS at the very least to ask them to review their policies, strategies and guidance documents in the light of Phyllis McBain’s—and, crucially, her mother’s—experience to see whether those are joined up and consistent, and whether the procedures are implemented. That is what we are being asked to do. When we get those responses, we will be able to see where we go from there.
I suggest that we also write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to find out where Gypsy Travellers stand in relation to the legislation. If my memory serves me correctly, petitions have been brought to the committee by Gypsy Travellers complaining about the harassment that they have suffered. It would be useful to get alternative views about how we should deal with the petition.
I also suggest that we write to some of the Gypsy Traveller organisations in Scotland to find out from the other side what the issues are that they are experiencing under the current legislation, and what they face when they try to establish campsites or go on to the official campsites, the numbers of which are reducing throughout Scotland, as Nigel Don indicated.
I was involved in this issue when I was a councillor and trying to get sites for some of these people was a big issue even then.
There is a genuine sympathy for Gypsy Travellers, who are an important ethnic minority, and we must respect their rights. However, I wonder whether some of the people that we are having difficulty with nowadays are genuine Gypsy Travellers or just occupational travellers, whatever we choose to call them. Is there any way of knowing who is who? Should the rights that are given to Gypsy Travellers apply to those who are not and who are, frankly, behaving unacceptably?
It is a shame that we do not have the time to do what we did this morning with the school buses, and get everyone around the table to talk about the issue. That was very useful.
John Wilson is right that we have a petition before us that says that the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 is used only against Gypsy Travellers, but it seems to be suggesting that the police are too scared to use it. I want to draw attention to some of the petitioner’s words that struck me. She ends by saying:
“All citizens have the right to feel safe in their own homes and on their own property and any impediments to this feels like assault.”
She also says:
“We did not care who it was – It was everybody else who was concerned that it was gypsies/travellers. We had trespassers making a mess. The fact that they call themselves gypsies/travellers is immaterial. Our concerns is the trespassing ... and the distress, expense and anxiety that it caused us”
and she mentions her elderly mother. My mother is 70 and if she went through what the petitioner’s mother had to go through, I would feel exactly the same. The petitioner’s language is tempered and we ought to take the petition seriously.
There is a suggestion that we include Gypsy Traveller groups in the discussion, and they will also take it seriously. We need to get together people from different sides of the argument, who have had different experiences, and ask them for their opinions. That will be useful to the petition.
I just want to add that, as members can imagine, the issue has been around for a while, and the petition has only just reached the committee. I took the opportunity of writing to the Solicitor General for Scotland and asking for his advice on whether there are different types of Gypsy Traveller in law. I have a letter here that relates directly to the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and asserts that, in that context, there are not different types of Traveller. I ought to share that letter with colleagues and the committee.
Do we agree to write in the suggested terms?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the MSPs and Phyllis McBain for attending. I have experienced similar problems in my constituency; many members will probably have had those experiences. We think that the issue is important, and it is a pity that we do not have time to hear from everyone in person.
The petition will be continued on the lines agreed by members of the committee.
General Teaching Council for Scotland (Church Appointments) (PE1366)
The final new petition today is PE1366, by James Forbes. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the seats reserved for the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church from the General Teaching Council for Scotland. Do members have views on how to progress the petition?
It would be worth writing to the Government and various other bodies to ask whether they support the removal of those seats from the General Teaching Council for Scotland. In other words, we should ask them what their responses are to the points that are made in the petition. We should ask for responses from the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the Scottish Catholic Education Service, the Church of Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland and other unions. As I am a member of the EIS I usually refer to “other unions”, but they are important too.
Is that a declaration of interests?
If you wish, yes. I am still a member of the EIS, but I am no longer registered with the GTC. After seven years—
Do you get expelled?
No. The person has to pay money but is no longer liable to be registered. I gave up paying money when I was no longer liable to be registered. I hope that that makes things clearer for Ms McLaughlin.
It probably does not.
I thank SPICe for its briefing on the petition. I am particularly intrigued by the quotation from the Church of Scotland that is included in the briefing; it has said that it and the Roman Catholic Church
“represent over 20% of the population of Scotland.”
That means that almost 80 per cent of the population is unrepresented in the General Teaching Council for Scotland.
I suggest that, as well as the organisations Bill Butler mentioned, we write to the Scottish Interfaith Council, which attempts to represent all religious groups in Scotland, to ask for its opinion on the historic but important matter that the petition raises in order to get a view that is wider than the views of the two established churches in Scotland on future religious representation on the GTC.
I would like to clarify something. Patrick Harvie and I were written to, but we were away. I will leave it to Patrick Harvie to respond, as it is not appropriate for members of the committee to respond individually to requests for their opinions on petitions. I believe that that is a general feeling.
Okay. So members agree that the petition will be continued and that letters will be sent to the organisations that have been mentioned.