Public Petitions Committee, 29 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Official Report 314KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Divorce (Exploitation of Men and Children) (PE593)<br />Expert Witness System (PE625)

---

Sale of Heritable Property<br />(Conflicts of Interest) (PE632)<br />Child Deaths (PE633)

---

Child Witnesses (Cross-examination) (PE635)<br />Justice 1 Committee Inquiry (PE672)

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee's sixth meeting in session 2. We have a full agenda, as usual.

The first six petitions to be considered today are PE593, PE625, PE632, PE633, PE635 and PE672, from Mr Duncan Shields on behalf of the International Men's Organisation and Fathers Fighting Injustice. Each of the six petitions raises specific issues relating to certain aspects of the judicial system and, in particular, to alleged discrimination against fathers in divorce actions. The petitioner is present to give a 10-minute presentation to the committee in support of his six petitions. Mr Shields has decided to spend seven to eight minutes on his first five petitions before being joined by Ms Ann Mallaby and Mr George Farqhuar, who will support him in giving evidence on the final petition, PE672, for the remaining two or three minutes.

At the end of the presentation, I will invite members to go through each petition individually and seek a resolution before moving to the next petition. Although Mr Shields will speak about the petitions collectively, we will take each petition individually. I remind the petitioners and members of the committee that the Parliament is unable to intervene in individual situations or in matters that have been subject to court proceedings, which may be referred to in the presentation.

Mr Shields, you are welcome to the committee. You have 10 minutes in which to make your presentation.

We thank the committee for hearing the petitions, which were submitted by our organisations over a period of a year. However, we believe that trying to compress discussion of them into such a short time scale does not do justice to what are very serious issues. The petitions are all, in part, connected with discrimination against men.

Scottish social services have been shown to be not only incompetent but, we believe, riddled with fraud, corruption, gender discrimination and a strong Illuminati influence undermining the welfare of vulnerable children. That is at its worst during separation, mainly due to the large public moneys that the Legal Aid Board is freely allocating to opposing lawyers—in my child's case, for more than nine years—which leads one to believe that legal fraudsters assume that they are better at protecting children than the children's fathers are. Any suggestion from sources that are abusing those moneys that that practice is being curtailed is a blatant lie. Fathers do not require money to protect their children—their protection is free at source, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, that protection is unlawfully and criminally taken from the children, at the expense of their biological fathers.

Until that financial link is severed, children's safety will continue to be undermined, as any separated father knows who has tried to protect his children from the appalling gender fascism that is being perpetrated by lawyers, sheriffs, police court officials, the Legal Aid Board, social workers, doctors, teachers and myriad publicly funded hangers-on who exert a drain on public funds that makes the cost of the new Scottish Parliament building pale by comparison.

I am talking about a multibillion-pound fraud, on which the Scottish Executive has failed to put a lid. Many child deaths have occurred due to extreme prejudices while more public money is used to promote that prejudice. Those vast sums are being consumed by a lawless legal fraternity, supposedly to protect children. The way in which they use children in family courts leads to one of the most shameful experiences that men and children have to endure, the persecution of separated fathers being the main daily ritual of incompetent, corrupt and publicly funded legal practitioners. There are many females in the fathers' extended families who also suffer from the loss of contact with their loved ones.

Philip Yelland, the director of the Law Society of Scotland's investigations, states that the society has no remit to discipline lawyers for human rights abuses, despite his personal responsibilities under article 17 of the European convention on human rights. The legal profession inquiry, the legal aid inquiry and the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Act 2003 do not have and will not have any effect on the system and may make matters worse. Scottish children and parents will continue to face severe psychological trauma and, potentially, more deaths until the issues that we raise are taken seriously and the Scottish Executive takes immediate emergency measures to address them before any more tragedies occur.

We have provided evidence of child deaths where fathers have been separated from their children due to a system that compares to the race hatred that was promoted during apartheid in South Africa. In Scotland, however, it is gender apartheid that is largely responsible for the deaths of children who received no protection from incompetent agencies while they were separated from their biological fathers.

Our children are being robbed of their future inheritance by the wheeling and dealing of a corrupt system that is condoned by the upper echelons of the political and legal establishment, despite widespread evidence presented in the inquiries. We demand immediate action to ensure that rights under the ECHR are being upheld in Scottish civil courts. On many occasions, fathers and children face actions without legal representation or funding. There are no audio recordings of those hearings, despite the fact that the equipment is in place to record them. In many cases, there is a need for jury hearings, when large, fraudulent land and property transactions are being perpetrated, leading to the bankruptcy of fathers who face the injustices that flow from major failures within what is a despicable system.

Our organisations can state from evidence that has been gathered worldwide that Scotland's civil legal system is one of the most appalling anywhere in the world. Any suggestion by the legal or political fraternity that that is not the case is a blatant lie. The issue is not that family courts need more powers; it is that the abuse of those powers is oppressing and enslaving men. That oppression has reached unprecedented levels—marriage licences can be purchased for very little but there seems to be no upper limit on the legal costs of their removal.

The failure to cap the cost of the new Scottish Parliament building poses exactly the same dilemma that is posed to men by uncapped costs imposed by family courts, except that the sums in the latter are many times greater and are a major blight on Scottish society. There is grave concern over the impartiality or otherwise of the Legal Aid Board as a tribunal. The majority of its members are members of the Law Society of Scotland and working sheriffs with potential links to the Illuminati, and they are wholly responsible for publicly funding large-scale male asset stripping while undermining children's human rights. The gender imbalance makes men easy pickings for the criminals operating within the system; there is no legal protection, because of the collusion between the Law Society and the Legal Aid Board.

Last month, Bob Geldof stated:

"Family law … does not work."

He said that family law is absurd, blunt and outdated and stated:

"So many of us are hurting and yet the law will treat the man in court (if my case is typical) with contempt, suspicion, disdain and hostility."

He added that the law is

"unjustly weighted in favour of women."

Bizarrely, on the rare occasions when the situation is reversed, it is when the woman is married to a fighter pilot or the ex-husband is classed as landed gentry or is in the same Illuminati lodges as the judge who is hearing the case. That is why there is an urgent need for juries in cases involving expensive land and property divorce divisions. Juries are needed to ensure the impartiality that is required under article 6 of the ECHR and to ensure that justice is seen to be done. A separated man entering the Scottish court system feels like a Christian must have felt when they stepped into the Coliseum in Rome: unarmed, outnumbered and waiting to be eaten alive.

Sigmund Freud stated:

"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection."

Why is the devolved Scottish Parliament massively and publicly funding a system that leads to the exact opposite situation? The answer is that that is financially beneficial to all those who gain from the psychological torture and abuse of the children who are separated from the protection of their biological fathers by the ruthless use of outdated Scottish civil law. The situation is entirely incompatible with the rights that fathers and children have and demand under the ECHR—those rights are being undermined daily in our Scottish courts. Ultimately, any legal system that harms a father harms the children. When fathers are robbed, their children are robbed of their inheritance.

We have an Auschwitz on our doorstep where appalling human rights abuses of vulnerable children take place. I am talking about the Dungavel concentration camp. How long will it be before the gas chambers are moved in? Our society has been cajoled into accepting human rights abuses as the norm, but they will never be the norm. As six supporters who are at the committee meeting today witnessed, one of our members is being forcibly injected with antipsychotic drugs without due process of the law being followed. The legal and political systems in Scotland are acting more like the fascism that led to the Holocaust. That situation is totally unacceptable.

The integrity and dignity of the judiciary are paramount in any society. The Scottish judiciary must be made to serve the interests of the people of Scotland. A flawed judiciary promotes insecurity and economic instability and ceases to serve the country's citizenry. The magnitude of the corruption in the Scottish legal system is now alarming. Separation of powers has never given courts an arbitrary and unaccountable authority.

The legal system is a corrupt monopoly, which needs to be broken up. It is holding the county to ransom. John Swinney MSP recently stated that, if this is the way in which everyone gets treated by the legal complaints system, there is a need for enormous change of practice and attitude. The separation of powers in the Scottish legal system of jurisprudence has never been an excuse for the Executive or legislators to ignore their constitutional and conscientious duties.

My final point on petition PE593 is that the judiciary and all who report to the courts on child custody issues should be properly accountable. There should be accurate audio recordings of hearings and social work interviews, as that would curb the widespread discrimination within the system. Fathers and children should have proper access to legal representation. That would ensure that a child's human rights are not undermined by lack of representation or of funding.

On petition PE625, I believe that there should be a full inquiry into the legal aid funding of expert witnesses to ensure that corruption is not tainting the evidence that is being provided to the courts. We raised that issue in March 2001 in petition PE352, but it was ignored. If that petition had been acted on, lives could have been saved.

On petition PE632, no lawyer who refuses to act for a client should be given authority through the courts to act to sell a client's heritable property. An investigation should be instigated into collusion in the legal fraternity and there should be laws to prevent fraud by those monopoly powers.

On petition PE633, biological fathers should not be prevented by bias and discrimination in divorce actions from protecting their children. The legal system acts like a jackboot brigade in preventing that protection and causing the deaths of children who do not have that protection.

On petition PE635, judges have an appalling record of dealing with children. They cause children psychological trauma. My children faced the judges' wrath. Serious steps should be taken to prevent children from being traumatised by insensitive and bullying judges who are not fit to deal with child cases.

Finally, petition PE672 deals with the Justice 1 Committee's inquiry into the legal profession. That committee is wholly responsible for the due process of law being seriously undermined in a case concerning one of our members. The outcome was the forcible injection of antipsychotic drugs, against his human rights. The committee failed to ensure that the judiciary is fully accountable in our supposedly civilised society. Can the Justice 1 Committee convener, Christine Grahame, tell us whether any lawyer or judge was disciplined or struck off or whether any compensation was paid for the appalling damage that was done to people's lives by a corrupt legal system?

I am sorry, but I am having to squeeze everything that I want to say into a very short space of time.

I will give you a bit more leeway, Mr Shields. You have a couple of minutes before you bring in your colleagues.

The last thing that I want to say, convener, is in respect of individual cases. We read in the Parliament's business bulletin about the motion that Frances Curran lodged on the case of Layla Zana, a Kurdish MP. If the Scottish Parliament can spend its time and energies on the human rights abuses of a non-United Kingdom resident, it is appropriate that it should take steps to address human rights issues on its doorstep. I thank the committee for its patience.

Do you want your colleagues to join you at this point?

If that is okay.

You have a further three minutes, Mr Shields.

Mr Farquhar would like to speak.

My name is George Farquhar. I am the founder of Project Freedom—Child Rights Watch. I am an investigator, researcher and campaigner, dedicated to the mass public exposure of secret societies' child abuse networks and paedophile rings. For more than five years, I have been researching organised child abuse by certain high-profile members of our social services, who hide behind their secret-society-backed positions of power within the police and justice system, child care and social services and the mass media and medical industries.

I have numerous examples of those networks of abuse and of the individuals involved, some of whom are publicly exposed on my website. Since I have been non-violently campaigning in and around Edinburgh against those crimes over the past two years, I have been arrested about eight times by Lothian and Borders police. Although I have been charged with breach of the peace and with failing to give a DNA sample on each of those arrests, I have been found guilty on only one charge of breach of the peace, about which I was later admonished.

The circumstances surrounding my last arrest were a little different. I was arrested for taking video footage of a corrupt police officer who had falsified criminal charges and blatantly lied in court in relation to my possible conviction and imprisonment. Having been arrested by the police officer for that action, I was remanded in jail before being taken in front of Procurator Fiscal Smith at Edinburgh sheriff court. Procurator Fiscal Smith immediately lied to the court by stating that I had a history of similar offences, conveniently omitting the fact that I had been found not guilty on all charges bar one. Then, the procurator fiscal, while mumbling under his breath so that I would not be able to hear him, suggested that, because of my history, I should be detained for psychiatric reports.

In addition to my trial, which was a kangaroo court, and that corrupt act to veil the truth, I am currently being detained in the Royal Edinburgh hospital, in a clinic for the criminally insane. Since my three months' incarceration as a political prisoner, I have been forcibly injected nine times against my will with high doses of antipsychotic drugs while being held down by numerous hospital staff. That major abuse of human rights for taking video footage of a corrupt police officer is just one of the numerous cover-ups directed against my dedication to expose Government child abuse. I should be out in the street, non-violently campaigning, not incarcerated and drugged up like an insane criminal. Please do whatever you can to rectify the matter—not for my sake, but for all the children, who deserve safety and justice for the crimes perpetrated against them.

Thank you for that evidence. We will start with petition PE593, on which I invite any comments, questions or recommendations from members. I remind members that, in this instance, the petitioner is calling on the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to take emergency actions to address the alleged discrimination shown by the judicial system in Scotland against fathers and their children in relation to divorce actions.

I would be interested to hear if the petitioner can provide any evidence of such cases and thereby demonstrate the need for carrying out an investigation as he suggests.

I refer you to my evidence and statements. We have already provided numerous petitions with evidence and statements and we would not want to comment any further.

I will explain why Helen Eadie asked that question. You suggested in your introductory comments that you had submitted evidence. The committee has to have some indication of what that evidence is before it can take a decision.

I refer you to our evidence and statements. We have proved today, in relation to a criminal charge, that the due process of law was undermined with respect to Mr Farquhar. We have six witnesses here today, and that is a common—

With all due respect, Mr Shields—

Well, if they do it with a criminal charge—

Could we stick specifically to—

You have asked me for evidence. It is evidence enough that the due process of law has been undermined.

Mr Shields, you have made some claims; you have not provided any evidence, and I think that the committee—

I am sorry—I do not want to comment further. I refer you to our statements and evidence. I have given you notice of circumstances that are potentially leading to the abuse and deaths of children. I do not want to make any further comment other than what has been provided in our statements and in the petitions.

Welcome to the committee, Mr Shields. I have listened very carefully to what you have said. I have read the papers that you presented—and, indeed, the previous petitions—very carefully. You obviously have strongly held views. A number of things that you have said today need amplification if the committee is to do you and the petitions that you have submitted justice. For example, you have talked about gender discrimination, gender fascism, fraud and corruption. Those are highly emotive terms. I have no doubt that you believe what you have said to be true, but we are looking for evidence beyond your individual case and what is in the papers to show that the problem exists throughout the system. We are looking for that additional information with a view to trying to assist you in coming to a conclusion.

This is not only about me. I speak on behalf of organisations. The suggestion that we are talking just about an individual is common practice when we come to the Public Petitions Committee, but we are not. The problem is widespread. I refer you to the evidence and statements. I do not want to be pursued on that. We have given you sufficient evidence, including evidence that due process of law has been undermined.

The crux of the matter is the simple fact that, as clearly stated in the Justice 1 Committee's reports on its inquiries into legal aid and the regulation of the legal profession, due process of law has been undermined, particularly by the Council of the Law Society of Scotland Act 2003. That is where the discrimination stems from. We have shown, evidenced and proven to you today that due process of law has been undermined in Scots law.

That is sufficient evidence, as far as we are concerned, to show that an investigation is needed into how court staff, judges, lawyers and everybody connected with the courts conduct themselves in relation to the court process to the point where our member has been forcibly injected with antipsychotic drugs because of due process. We are all witnesses to the failures of the kangaroo court no more than 100yd away from this room.

I am looking at petition PE593. The issue for me is the sufficiency of evidence that you say exists. That evidence is not necessarily sufficient in my or the committee's view to take matters further. What we are saying—at least, what I am saying—is that it would be helpful if you could provide us with more evidence that the problem mentioned in petition PE593 is systemic. As I understand it, the system as it is currently set up, which was outlined in the Executive's white paper on parents and children, makes explicit the fact that the principle that the courts have adopted is that the welfare of the child, rather than any consideration for the male or female parent, must be put at the forefront of their considerations. I would think that that is something to which we would all sign up.

Unfortunately, you still have to give us information as to why due process of law was undermined in our member's case, as in the cases of many fathers in civil actions. That is sufficient. We proved today that due process has been undermined. That has been shown to be widespread in Scottish courts. To us, that is sufficient evidence. We are giving you notice that human rights are being undermined. It is up to the Scottish Parliament and its MSPs to rectify the situation.

I do not have any illusions about the judicial system. I am well aware that the law is not equal for poorer people, particularly women. You made serious allegations about cases in which children died. If you allege that those deaths are directly linked to civil proceedings on divorce and custody, there should be specific evidence on that. I ask you to provide it if you have it. I have seen the newspaper article that you have provided.

There are umpteen instances. In petition PE633, we have cited 10 cases of child deaths when fathers have been separated from their children. There was a recent case in Aberdeen—

To be frank, what I have read does not demonstrate that any inquiries found that any of the deaths were linked to custodial arrangements, so that allegation—

I am sorry, I disagree with you.

Will you let me finish, please? On that particular allegation, I would like you to provide specific evidence beyond what you have put in front of us today. I also have a factual question. How many members does your organisation have and how many people are you referring to when you say that the problem is widespread?

I do not want to get into that. As I said, we have already given sufficient evidence and statements, but you are trying to undermine that by what you are saying today. We have shown that at least 10 children, and potentially 15, have lost their lives because of separation from their biological fathers. That is from the national papers. If you are not prepared to take national newspapers as sufficient evidence of widespread deaths due to children being separated from their biological fathers, you should not be sitting as an MSP. You are trying to undermine—

Mr Shields, the MSPs are asking you questions to try—

She is undermining evidence that there are widespread deaths of children due to separation from their biological fathers. What more evidence do you need than national papers? I do not understand why you are asking for more—

Mr Shields, you have come before the committee this morning to ask for your views to be taken seriously and for the petitions to be resolved in your favour. In order to allow the committee to do that, it is legitimate that members should ask questions on statements that you have made. You have made claims that require examination. It is only fair that members be allowed to ask questions. You may provide the answers as you see fit—that is your prerogative—but it is not permissible to challenge committee members in the manner that you have done so far this morning. If you continue to do that, I will curtail the process.

I am sorry, but I do not want to take any further part in the process if that is the concern. We are talking about widespread deaths of children—

Mr Shields, if you believe that you will be allowed to sit here this morning and make the kinds of statements that you have to Ms Leckie, I can assure you that I will not permit that—

I am not prepared to sit here and allow MSPs to undermine important evidence about child fatality and psychological abuse—

Mr Shields, the matter could be resolved if you allowed us to continue to ask you questions. If you want to continue with that attitude, you are free to leave at this moment.

I will do, given the attitude towards the petitions. We have been given 10 minutes to address six important petitions on very serious issues.

Mr Shields, we have a busy agenda this morning and we want to get to the core of the issues. We are asking questions on those issues. If you provide answers in the way that you have done, that is your prerogative, but I will not allow you to challenge MSPs on the committee in the way that you have done this morning. If you are prepared to sit a bit longer and answer our queries, Sandra White will ask a question.

We refer you to the evidence and statements, but I am not prepared to say any more on the matter. Ann Mallaby and George Farquhar might want to answer your questions.

If that is the case, we have no option other than to take a decision on the matter as it stands. Before I ask for recommendations from members, I ask Mr Shields to clarify that he is saying that he will not answer any more questions on the petitions this morning.

I would prefer to provide more evidence at a later date, given the manner in which I have been questioned this morning. That is no surprise, because since the devolved Parliament—

Can I say—

Let me finish.

Excuse me—

You are controlling this committee—

Exactly. I am controlling the committee and I ask you please to leave the table. You are refusing to answer questions, so I ask you please to leave the table so that committee members can discuss the petitions.

I am sorry, but the situation is that Mr Shields is the petitioner behind all the petitions. He has refused to answer any more questions, so I cannot take any further evidence from the other two witnesses here this morning. I ask them also to vacate the chairs.

I am here to say—

Mr Shields is the petitioner and he has said that he is not prepared to answer any more questions. You were here to assist him but he has refused to answer questions. I am sorry, but I must ask you to vacate the chairs.

I am quite willing to answer any questions.

I am sorry, but we need to resolve the petitions. Mr Shields is the petitioner and he has refused to answer questions. We cannot discuss the issue further with Mr Shields. I ask you to vacate the chairs.

I intend to go through each petition and ask members for recommendations on how to proceed.

The petitions raise some valid points about legal aid on which I would have liked to ask questions. I am sorry that Mr Shields feels that he has to vacate the chair.

Convener, I think that you handled the meeting properly and well. Given that we cannot ask any further questions on the other petitions, we have no option but to take no further action on any of them.

How do members feel about that recommendation?

I place on record my regret at not being able to elicit any more information about some of the allegations that have been made. If an inquiry has found evidence of a direct association between separation or divorce and child abuse or deaths, the Parliament should investigate the matter. As I said, I regret not being able to pursue that line of questioning. However, because we cannot get to the bottom of the matter, we are not in a position to take any action on the petitions.

I share Carolyn Leckie's view and regret that the petitioner called her abilities as an MSP into question. No member of the Parliament deserves to be challenged in that way.

I also regret the situation because one or two issues deeper inside some of the petitions are worthy of the committee's attention. Indeed, I have highlighted some of them in the past. However, I sincerely regret that we have reached the point this morning where the petitioner does not feel able to carry on.

Helen Eadie and Sandra White have made the point that the petitioners have submitted certain information in support of their petitions. As a result, it would be appropriate to go through each petition under discussion to show that the committee takes seriously any petitions that come before it. It is unfortunate that Mr Shields does not want to answer any more questions, but that does not prevent us from considering each petition on the basis of the information that has been provided. That would allow Sandra White and Helen Eadie to make the points that they want to make about the petitions.

With the committee's approval, I ask for recommendations on petition PE593. However, I suggest that, given that the petition is on a very specific topic and that no information has been provided on it, there is really nothing more that we can do about it. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask for members' views on petition PE625, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the use of the expert witness system in Scottish courts.

I was particularly interested in this petition. After all, everyone who has to go through court procedures should get some kind of help, whether it be financial help from lawyers—which is perhaps what Mr Shields wanted—facts and figures and so on. I feel that it would be wrong simply to dismiss this petition and that perhaps we should write to the Executive and the Law Society of Scotland to seek their comments on the issues that it raises. It might be possible to facilitate voluntary training or something of that ilk. The petition is very good and I wonder whether the petitioner can supply any further evidence in support of it. In any case, I recommend that we take the petition further, if the committee agrees.

Sandra White has made most of the points that I wanted to make. I simply add that we should ask the Executive whether it thinks that the current system of registration for expert witnesses is adequate.

Are members happy with those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE632 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take the necessary steps to ensure that lawyers cannot sell heritable property when authorised to do so by the courts if they have previously refused to act on behalf of the owners of such property; and to investigate whether the refusal of lawyers to act on behalf of individuals in such cases breaches article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

It would have been very helpful if the petitioner had submitted additional information in support of this petition. From what I can see, the petition relates to the petitioner's own case, and it would have been helpful if we had been provided with other examples that indicated a wider problem in this respect. In the absence of such evidence, I feel that we can take no further action at this stage.

Do members agree to that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to petition PE633, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take the necessary steps to eliminate alleged discrimination against fathers by the courts, social services and others in relation to decisions that result in children being separated from their fathers. I welcome members' comments on this petition.

This is another petition in which the petitioner has failed to give details about the steps that he wants the Executive to take to eliminate alleged discrimination against fathers by the specified professionals. He has also failed to provide evidence to support his claim that the Scottish Women's Aid organisation fabricates statistics. It would have been helpful to substantiate that claim. I propose that we take no further action on the petition.

I agree. Do members agree to that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE635 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate and take action on alleged widespread perjury in child custody cases in Scottish courts. I invite comments.

I suggest that the aims of the petition are covered in the Executive's Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill. As a new member of the Justice 2 Committee, I know that that committee has taken evidence on the bill, which covers many of the comments that the petitioner has expressed. I suggest that we take no action, as action is already being taken.

I agree with Jackie Baillie. I had wanted to ask whether the petitioners were aware of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill and what they thought of it, but we cannot take evidence on that.

Do members agree to the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE672 calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate whether the Justice 1 Committee's decision not to consider the judiciary as part of its inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession in the first session of Parliament contravened the Human Rights Act 1998.

It is regrettable that we could not ask the petitioner further questions this morning, because I would have liked to ask him to clarify his reasons for believing that the Justice 1 Committee's decision contravened the 1998 act. It would have been helpful to know those reasons. As the Justice 1 Committee may examine issues that relate to the judiciary at some stage, I propose that we take no further action on the petition.

How do members feel? Is that agreed?

It is a great shame that we have not been able to hear from additional witnesses.

Committee members and I take our jobs seriously. We want to do our best to enhance the reputation of the committee and the Parliament, but we cannot allow petitioners to make unsubstantiated comments then criticise the committee for not acting when the petitioners have provided no evidence on which we can base any action. I want to put that on the record, because I see no value in considering petitions from petitioners who have provided no evidence but who expect the committee to act purely because they have submitted a petition that makes allegations and claims that they cannot substantiate.

---

Cullen Inquiry (100-year Closure Order) (PE652)

Petition PE652 is from Mr William Burns, who is present. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider a range of issues, including initiating a new inquiry into events that relate to the Dunblane massacre; the 100-year closure order on some files that relate to the Cullen inquiry; and membership by the Scottish judiciary of the freemasons, the Speculative Society and other similar organisations. Mr Burns has supplied a considerable amount of material with his petition, with the specific request that it be made available in full to all members of the committee. Accordingly, a copy of all the material provided has been issued to each member with their meeting papers.

Before we begin, I make clear that the committee has been advised by the Parliament's legal office that it would not be within the competence of the Parliament to overturn a court order, and that those sections of the full petition that call for such action are therefore inadmissible. The petitioner has been advised of that and has indicated to the clerks that he disagrees with the advice, which he has the right to do.

For legal reasons, the full text of the petition was removed temporarily from the Parliament's website. The clerks were advised that it could be argued that certain statements made in the petition are defamatory and that, because the petition has not yet been considered as part of the proceedings of the Parliament, the publication of the petition on the website could leave the Parliament open to defamation action. Guidance on the submission of petitions states clearly that petitions should not

"include language which is intemperate, inflammatory, sarcastic or provocative".

The petitioner has been advised of the reasons for the temporary removal of his petition and that it will be reinstated on the website immediately after the meeting.

I do not think that anyone in Scotland now believes that the Cullen inquiry into the Dunblane massacre was anything other than a masonic whitewash. The 100-year gagging order on my correspondence with the inquiry confirms that. The committee has been provided with copies of my documents, so it cannot now ignore the solid evidence that exists.

At the time of the inquiry, Lord Cullen claimed that there was no evidence of child sex abuse in relation to Thomas Hamilton and his connections, but seven years later Lord Cullen uses the fact that there was such evidence to place a gagging order on the files, claiming that it was imposed to protect the names of victims, although most of the files that have been buried do not mention victims' names. My files fall into that category. It must be clear to the committee that my letters to Cullen were gagged only to keep the masonic implication of their content out of the equation and out of the public eye.

The Lord Advocate has stated:

"There is no statutory basis for the closure of records created by Scottish public bodies."

Those are his words, not mine. They were published in a news release of 18 March 2003, under the heading "Dunblane police reports released". That disclosure alone makes a mockery of the view of the clerk to the committee, Steve Farrell, that it is not within the competence of the Parliament to overturn or interfere with the terms of such an order. The Scottish Parliament is the only body with the power to create a framework for imposing closure orders, but it must do so in the public interest, not in the interest of collaborators in secret societies.

The Lord Advocate goes on to say:

"The Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 … makes provision for the preservation, care and custody of the public records of Scotland. The terms of the legislation are permissive."

That means that they are lenient, tolerant or liberal, reflecting a belief that there should be as few restraints as possible. Preservation, custody and care of records do not mean the exact opposite—smothering, stashing and snaring of public records.

The report continues:

"By contrast, in England and Wales the Public Records Act 1958 (as amended by the Public Records Act 1967) sets a statutory ‘closure period' of 30 years after which records must, with limited exceptions, be made available to the public. The 1937 Act does not impose similar obligations on Executive departments, but in practice those procedures are followed in Scotland."

The phrase "in practice" means nothing and could be replaced with the words convenience, habit, obsession, fixation, weakness or a number of other meaningless slogans. Even tradition has no authority in law. The fact that something is widespread practice does not create a power that Parliament has denied or for which it has not legislated.

Because there is no framework for closure orders in Scotland, I call on Parliament to enact unequivocal legislation to prevent people with a vested interest from burying evidence and diverting the onus on to everyone from judges to procurators fiscal, the police, clerks and every Tom, Dick and Harry chosen for the purpose, so that the real culprits can distance themselves from their illicit undertakings. This closure order was enforced not to protect the names of the children concerned, who are now adults, but to protect the names of very high-profile masons and paedophiles.

In January 2003, the Justice 2 Committee agreed to take no further action on a similar petition, with the proviso that it would consider revisiting the issue if there were evidence of specific cases in which difficulties had arisen over judicial membership of the freemasons or the Speculative Society. The Public Petitions Committee believes that it is one thing to make statements and allegations, but another to provide evidence. Do you have evidence that we could refer to the justice committees?

The committee has my initial letters asking Lord Cullen whether he was a freemason, on which a 100-year closure order was placed. I know for a fact that it is a masonic ruse to get someone else to deny that you are a mason. It is another ruse that someone who is asked whether they are a freemason can say that they are not—they have to be asked whether they have ever taken the oath of an entered apprentice. Lord Cullen used the ruse of getting someone else to deny that he had been a mason when he got Glynis McKeand, the secretary to the Cullen inquiry, to telephone me to deny it. To my everlasting regret, I took that as read at the time. Later I found out that he is an extraordinary member of the Speculative Society, numbered at 1702. The Speculative Society is an offshoot of freemasonry; it was formed by masons in the Canongate Kilwinning lodge in Edinburgh. That is a fact; it is a masonic set-up.

I will press this issue a little bit further because it is one thing for you to give us hearsay, allegations and statements, but it is quite another to provide substantive evidence. I ask you again, do you have substantive evidence that can be referred to the Justice 2 Committee, which said that it would consider revisiting the matter if substantive evidence was provided?

Are you asking for evidence of the Speculative Society?

Either.

I have the list of members of the Speculative Society and Cullen is on it.

I do not doubt that the list exists, Mr Burns. Helen Eadie is asking whether you have any evidence that connects members of that society to any decision that has been made and the impact of that decision, so that we can take the petition further.

It was widely reported that Thomas Hamilton was in the freemasons. While evidence was being given, I was reading the papers on a daily basis and I asked Cullen to ask every witness whether they were in the freemasons. It looks as if there was a cover-up to protect Thomas Hamilton over many years. The evidence is in my submission and in the embargoed documents that have been put under the 100-year closure order. Why else would those documents have been put under a 100-year closure order? They do not mention one name of a child victim. I do not know the names of any of the child victims. The only thing I referred to was freemasonry and Cullen has embargoed my letters to protect freemasonry. That is obvious if you read the letters—there is no other reason. It is the masonic implication that has been buried, as far as my letters are concerned. I am asking you why else Cullen would have buried the documents. He has done it because they expose the masonic connections.

In your view, that is critical to the wider issue. From what the Lord Advocate has said about this matter, I understand that evidence of any child's name had been removed from police reports and they were ready to be released. The National Archives of Scotland is producing a full catalogue of all the material and submissions. As you will appreciate, there is a huge volume of material. The Lord Advocate has gone on record as saying that when that catalogue is complete, he will consider what material can be released and whether all the material should stay under the 100-year closure order. I would have thought that that would go some way to satisfying your concerns. Am I misreading the situation?

You are not misreading it; I see where you are coming from, but it could take another 99 years to release material.

I would hope not.

So many high-profile people are involved that that could be another ruse to put the public off. It is the Parliament's duty to insist on having another inquiry so that we can be done with all this nonsense. It is just another stalling tactic. My correspondence with Cullen should be accessible right now because there is nothing in it about any children; it is about the masonic implication and that is the only reason why my correspondence has been buried.

I am particularly interested in the evidence that you provided to show the amendments that have been made to the archived references to your correspondence. It concerns me that they had to be amended. Your correspondence and some of the subjects that you raised were acknowledged as necessary for inclusion in the archive. If someone were to run a search relating to the material that you mentioned, your name would not be attached to them. I share some of your concerns about what evidence has already been placed in the public domain. Will you expand on any correspondence that you have had in relation to what is currently not in the public domain? What evidence do you believe is not already in the public domain?

I am a member of Unison, which asks in its application form, "Are you a member of the freemasons?" I agree that people have the right to ask that question. In the explanations that you have received, has it been explained why that question is not considered to be legitimate?

You have raised legitimate questions about the 100-year closure order and its relationship to the powers of the Parliament. I believe that the Parliament should consider investigating the matter and perhaps creating a framework to state how long a closure should last and what is acceptable and what goes a wee bit too far.

I believe that there is to be legislation to compel MSPs to declare whether they are members of the freemasons. Is that true?

I think that it is being discussed, but I do not know what stage it has reached.

I make it clear that I am not a mason—I am a woman and I would not be allowed anyway.

If no one has anything to hide, they should state that. Members of the judiciary should declare whether they are freemasons, especially when they are judging civil cases. Freemasons take an oath of allegiance to one another so, if the judge and the plaintiff are both in the freemasons, they will protect one another, as the fifth of the five points of fellowship states that members must support a brother in his absence as in his presence. If that is the most important oath that masons take, how can such a judge be impartial? Even if the judge tried to be impartial, non-freemasons will perceive that he will be partial. Public perception is all-important.

There are more than 3,000 pages in the transcript of the Cullen inquiry. Three people who gave evidence mentioned Queen Victoria boarding school. Thomas Hamilton had access to the gun club in that school, where he also got a job for a teacher. He had a van from Central Regional Council to use for transporting children at the Queen Victoria school. However, there was not one mention of Queen Victoria school in Cullen's report. I have the transcript of the pages that it appears in. Ian Steven Boal was referred to on page 1803. He was a teacher; Thomas Hamilton got him a job. On page 286, Grace Jones Ogilvie, a neighbour, said that Thomas Hamilton used to get a van from Central Region for camps at Loch Lomondside and Queen Victoria school. Robert Mark Ure, an ex-husband of a friend of Thomas Hamilton, said that his estranged wife had been to the rifle range at Queen Victoria school with Thomas Hamilton. Thomas Hamilton had all that access to Queen Victoria school, but there was not one mention of the school in Lord Cullen's report. A schoolmaster, Glenn Harrison, wanted to give evidence at the inquiry. This is ultra important in calling for a rerun. He saw—

I am trying to get—

He saw high-profile people coming into the school.

I fully appreciate that you want your statements to be factually accurate—

They took children away for the weekend.

What I am asking about is the relevance of the information to the petition and where it is taking us.

Dunblane was a terrible tragedy. Nobody wants anything like that to happen again. My concern about the decision at the time—it did not arise just from the petition—related to the 100-year rule. I do not want to indicate to the petitioner that any decision that the committee makes may lead to a witch hunt of people who he may have named or who may not have been named. I am concerned about the 100-year rule.

This may be a hurtful question to Mr Burns, but it has to be answered. Is the reason that you have brought the petition to the committee to get to the truth of what happened at Dunblane, or is it a witch hunt of people who are members of a freemasonry lodge? I am concerned by some of the language that you use. I am not a member of any such organisation, but I do not think that we should carry out a witch hunt of people who are members of a union or any other organisation. I want a simple yes or no answer. Have you brought the petition to the committee to get to the truth and to prevent another Dunblane or to have a witch hunt of people who are members of secular societies, the freemasons or whatever?

It is about the truth. It is not so much to get to the truth as to get the truth made public.

So it is the 100-year rule that you have the problem with and you are looking for a new inquiry.

Obviously I want the 100-year rule to be removed because that explains a lot on its own, but I want the truth about what happened in Dunblane. What is worse than the murders themselves is the cover-up after they took place. That is even worse because they could happen again and again.

Are you saying that the evidence that came out in the Cullen inquiry is untrue?

The truth was smothered. Not only was a gagging order put on the files, but a gagging order was put on witnesses. Glenn Harrison, a schoolmaster at Queen Victoria school, wanted to give evidence. He had been claiming for years that children were getting abused. He ended up getting moved away out. He is now living on an island away up in the north of Scotland—he got taken right out.

I am trying to keep the discussion focused on what the petition is asking for.

I am trying to focus on that. Mr Burns asks for a new inquiry that also investigates the reasons for the 100-year ruling. I am trying to establish whether a new inquiry would satisfy what he wants.

There is also the question of whether we can ask for such an inquiry.

We need a new open and honest inquiry.

Do members have any points or do they want to make recommendations on where we take the petition?

Perhaps we could write to the Lord Advocate to ask him to give an indication of the time scale for the publication of the catalogue that Jackie Baillie mentioned on the Cullen inquiry material and to inform us of any subsequent decisions on the release of material or any variations to the closure period. If we were to receive that information from the Lord Advocate I would be happy with that as a way forward on the petition.

There is an issue to do with the 100-year rule, although I am not sure whether we would get all that much further forward if we asked for it to be rescinded, because I understand that the normal rule in such a situation is 75 years. That would still not serve anybody who is currently in the room.

It might be useful to get some answers to the points that Mr Burns has made. We have been told that the 100-year rule was brought in to protect the children and the children's children. Although that argument may have some resonance, Mr Burns has made the point that some of the information that is retained has nothing to do with children and does not mention them. We should query that, regardless of whether the Lord Advocate is the appropriate person to ask.

I was not happy that Sandra White equated being a member of a trade union, which everyone at work should be, with being a member of the freemasons.

I was a bit concerned about one of the comments that Mr Burns made in his opening statement. He felt that the freemasons were harbouring paedophiles, which is an extremely serious allegation to make. I am prepared to believe that it is likely that freemasons would help one another to get jobs or promotions, but I have difficulty in getting my head round the idea that senior law officers, for example, would harbour paedophiles, who are among the most abhorred members of society. Unless Mr Burns has firmer evidence, that sort of allegation does not serve his case, but weakens it. The allegation that senior law officers would hide paedophiles simply because they were members of the masons or a similar organisation is so serious that very few ordinary people in the street would believe it. I do not want to sound patronising, but I do not believe that that allegation helps his case.

That point needs to be answered right away. I have friends who are freemasons. I am talking about high-profile people—law lords and politicians—who are paedophiles and are being covered up.

Mr Burns, you are again making allegations which, unless you substantiate them—

If there were another inquiry, that would all come out and my allegations would be proved to be true.

If you have evidence of that, you should not be talking to the Public Petitions Committee; you should be referring it to the police. To make such statements—

Glenn Harrison, who was a schoolmaster—

I counsel you not to use people's names unless you can back up your allegations with evidence. We are getting on to very dangerous ground. I am trying to be helpful to you.

I will drop that for the moment. I know that Lord Cullen became Lord President, but his boss at the time—Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk—was on the board of directors of Queen Victoria boarding school, as was Michael Forsyth.

I fail to see how that is relevant. You are answering Mike Watson's point.

Lord Ross is a member of the Speculative Society.

I do not think that we need to have a roll-call of who are members of what organisations. I do not see how that serves your petition in any way.

I am answering Mr Watson.

I fail to see how your line of argument does that.

Mr Watson said that he could not believe that freemasons would protect paedophiles. I know a prominent freemason whom members of the committee will probably all have met. He stands outside on the first Wednesday every month. He is behind the exposure of any freemason who is the subject of the kind of allegations that I am making.

I am asking you to be very careful. You are making allegations about a connection between an organisation and paedophilia. I am asking you not to go down that route. You are using people's names and accusing them—

I am talking about high-profile freemasons, as opposed to freemasonry as a whole.

Mike Watson made the point that it does not help for you to go on in the way in which you have done.

I think that I am helping the cause; I want to get a rerun of the inquiry.

We will have some more questions.

Such suspicions are inevitable when a gagging order is placed on evidence. There are legitimate questions to be asked about why certain evidence has not yet been put into the public domain. The reason that was given for that—to protect children—has not been substantiated. Whether or not the suspicions are true, their existence is inevitable. I also think that there is enough concern in society about organised child abuse for legitimate questions to be asked. I am of the view that people who abuse children exist in every layer of society. When there is secrecy, there is bound to be suspicion. The specific recommendations before us do not mention the wider implications of the ability to have a 100-year rule.

One of the justice committees should consider and pursue that. If the committee wishes to write to the Lord Advocate as well, I am happy for us to do that. If we could exert some pressure and get answers to questions about some of the evidence from the Cullen inquiry that has not yet been put into the public domain, perhaps the information and evidence would support demand for an another inquiry. However, logically, getting to the bottom of what exists as a result of the original inquiry comes first.

The difficulty is that the petition does not ask for that. That is not to say that we cannot—

I am asking now.

We have to be careful about how petitions are dealt with. If we consider a petition, we have to know what its aim is. The aim of petition PE652 gives us a couple of options. It has been suggested that we take the matter up with the Lord Advocate. That does not—

The Lord Advocate has nothing to do with it.

Mr Burns, excuse me.

Carolyn, the recommendation is that questions be asked of the Lord Advocate. Responses will come back, which will allow us to decide what further action we want to take on the petition. However, to agree to write to the Lord Advocate seeking an indication of the time scale for the publication of the full catalogue is a starting point for taking the petition further before we ask anybody else to consider the petition.

The embargo is illegal. The Lord Advocate has nothing to do with it.

Mr Burns, I am sorry. We are trying to agree some recommendations to act on the petition.

There is no power to impose the 100-year closure rule.

Convener, you have summed up the views of other committee members. I would happily endorse your recommendation.

Do members agree?

Does that mean that we are delaying the question about the 100-year rule?

No, we are asking about it. We are asking for a time scale. If the Lord Advocate replies on the time scale for announcing publication of the full catalogue, we can ask for more information on the 100-year rule and its use. That would be a legitimate part of pursuing the petition. Does the committee agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much for attending, Mr Burns.

---

Elections (Qualifying Age for Voters) (PE658)

The next petition is PE658, on a proposal to reduce the qualifying age for voting in Scotland. The petition has been submitted by the Scottish Trades Union Congress youth committee and ratified by the STUC and the STUC youth conference. The petitioners call on the Scottish Parliament to take a view on the reduction of the qualifying age for all Scottish Parliament and local government elections from 18 to 16 years and to make representations to the United Kingdom Parliament on the issue as appropriate.

Mr Daniel Donaldson from the STUC youth committee is here to make a brief presentation in support of the petition. You have three minutes, Mr Donaldson, then we will ask questions.

I have timed it. I was sitting up last night doing that.

I will not be too strict. I should declare an interest as a former chair of the STUC youth committee, in case my leniency leads to an accusation against me.

Any bias will be welcomed, of course.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today. I am the current chair of the STUC youth committee, which has a long-standing policy on reducing the voting age to 16. Along with our colleagues in the Scottish Youth Parliament, we believe that 16 to 18-year-olds should not be excluded from the democratic process. Increasingly, young people are finding themselves subjected to political debate concerning, for example, the national minimum wage or youth crime. However, 16 to 18-year-olds are denied the very mechanism by which they can defend themselves or state their opinions at the ballot box. Without that important defence, young people, to whom I refer when I talk about 16 to 18-year-olds, can find themselves as easy targets—which I would place in inverted commas—as regards political statements at election time.

At 16, people can do many things: they can get married; they can enter into contracts; they can pay tax and national insurance; and they can even join the armed forces. The age of 16 signifies the end of formal education for many young people. Although we in the STUC welcome lifelong learning opportunities, I point out that 16 is the age at which the state believes that citizens are able to function in everyday life. Despite the fact that people may be released from formal education at 16, the right to vote is not afforded to them until the age of 18. Even then, in the majority of cases that right is unable to be exercised until the age of 20. Following a recent pilot scheme in part of Germany, which extended the voting franchise to 16 to 18-year-olds for local government elections, it was found that more 16 to 18-year-olds took an interest in voting than those aged between 18 and 24. As I understand it, that pilot is now being extended to other areas of Germany.

The United Kingdom has an aging population, and the voting-age population is aging ever faster. Encouragement of young people to get involved in the political process is vital to ensure a healthy democracy and active citizenship. It is vital that politicians from all parties represent all the age groups whom they represent. It is unacceptable that many young people do not get their first vote until they are 20. As members will be aware, there is an old adage that there should be no taxation without representation; I ask the committee to consider that. People aged between 16 and 18 are required to pay tax and national insurance, yet they do not have the right to decide how that money is spent. Does that sound fair to you?

Thank you, Mr Donaldson. I invite members to ask questions.

I, too, was a chair of the STUC's youth advisory committee, so I would like to voice my support for the petitioners in making their presentation. I think you did really well.

Have you been involved in any consultation processes with central Government? Are there any major consultation processes that you would like to highlight? I am thinking in particular of the research undertaken by the Electoral Commission. Were you involved in that?

I have only just taken up the chair of the youth committee. Previous chairs and other members of our organisation have been involved in such consultation. I believe that a submission was sent to the Electoral Commission. I cannot remember with certainty, but I think that the closing date was some time last week. I do not have the full text of our submission with me today, but I am confident that former members of the youth committee and our secretary would be happy to supply the Public Petitions Committee with such documents, if desired.

I thank you for your submission. My personal view is that, as a result of various duties and the ability to marry at the age of 16, for example, the logical position is that people should have the right to vote at that age. That is a bit of a Boston tea party approach—you mentioned the issue of taxation without representation.

I wish to probe you on a couple of points. First, you mentioned the German example of a pilot that extended the franchise to 16 for local government elections. I know that the Parliament's Local Government Committee recommended that that should happen in Scotland too, presumably as a first step. Would you find that acceptable as a first step, rather than our going the whole hog and allowing people to vote in Scottish, UK and European parliamentary elections?

Secondly, will you explain why lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 would engage more young people in the process? After all, I think that even though 18-year-olds have had the right to vote since the 1970s or so—I am not sure exactly when that was introduced—there is still evidence that young people between 18 and 24 are not heavily engaged in the political process or in voting. Why would reducing the voting age by a further two years engage 16 to 18-year-olds in the political process when that has not happened in the age bracket immediately above that?

Last night, I was thinking about all the possible scenarios that the Public Petitions Committee could raise and that was one of them.

I will take the second question first, because I feel more able to address it. A colleague suggested a solution to that very problem—it goes back to the question of active citizenship and involving and engaging young people in the political debate. I know that we now have the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, one of your colleagues who is no longer an MSP commented that even tabloid newspapers have filled up with political stories since the Parliament's creation. We in the STUC have discussed the matter with our colleagues in the Scottish Youth Parliament and think that there is a case for improving citizenship education in schools. Modern studies, which I did at standard and higher grade, is citizenship education in its basic form, and personal and social development classes can be taken as well.

The issue comes down to education. For example, everyone has seen how the programme "Newsround" runs mock elections at election time. Such initiatives should be encouraged in both primary and secondary education. If we want to ensure that young people and people who are not young—is "people who are not young" the correct way to describe people over the age of 25?

Most of us here think that people over the age of 25 are still young.

You caught me out on that one.

Education is very important in that respect and should start young. We have to remind people that world wars have been fought over people's ability to vote and that people have given their lives for that right. The obvious example of that is the campaign for women's right to vote. If such important aspects are taught early enough, they should hold until later life.

What about my first question about lowering the voting age for local government elections as a first step?

We appreciate that such a first step would provide an excellent opportunity to develop the policy.

That was a nice compromise. I am sure that you will make a fine politician later on if you are quite happy now to compromise on local government elections in that way.

My party and other parties believe in giving 16-year-olds the right to vote. In fact, I was a member of the Local Government Committee that recommended such a right and also met representatives of the Scottish Youth Parliament, who were very keen to lower the voting age.

You mentioned the Scottish Youth Parliament and the youth committee of the STUC and you also talked about taking the issue into schools, including primary schools. If the voting age was reduced to 16, would the Scottish Parliament have a role in involving youth committees in taking the issue into schools? How do you envisage getting the message across to younger people?

Furthermore, you said that, in the German pilot scheme, more 16 to 18-year-olds than 18 to 25-year-olds voted. If we look at the situation in Germany in five, six or 10 years' time when 16-year-olds will be 24 or 25, will we find an upsurge in voting among 18 to 25-year-olds? After all, they will have been used to voting since they were 16 and will have had more years of practice at doing so.

As far as schools are concerned, one of the traditions in the STUC youth committee is to receive invitations from individual high schools to speak to modern studies or history classes. We also speak to the odd geography class where the teacher is confused about modern studies.

We are more than willing to work with education providers, policy makers and teachers on that. For example, I and my colleagues from the youth committee are doing a schools visit in Chryston on 7 November. There will also be a schools visit in South Lanarkshire towards the end of November, although I cannot remember the exact date. We pay such visits regularly and have had those sorts of issues flagged up.

As members will know, there are 16 and 18-year-olds who want to raise issues with politicians. When I was that age, the first thing that annoyed me and got me involved with politics was local government reorganisation because it meant the end of free music classes in schools. We all got charged up about that. That happens from time to time.

It is important that we recognise that people under 18 have opinions. They often express those opinions, but sometimes they might not know how to do that. Through active citizenship in schools, organisations such as the STUC or the Scottish Youth Parliament are invited into schools. By inviting into schools MSPs, MPs and members of the European Parliament—I suppose that I could go through the whole list, from councillors up to the top—we could ensure that young people understand that politics is for them as much as for anyone else.

Does that answer your question?

My only other question was about the German experience. Do you think that, in five or 10 years' time, a higher proportion of 18 to 25-year-olds will vote because they started voting a bit earlier at the age of 16?

This is a purely speculative opinion of my own, but I think that they would take voting more seriously. In 10 or 15 years' time, I am sure that those people would remember their first vote and would continue to exercise that right after it was granted.

I want to expand on Mike Watson's question, although this will probably respond more to what he said than ask any question. I am not aware of any proposals to remove the vote from people who do not use it, so there should be no argument about expecting 16 to 18-year-olds to demonstrate that they will use the vote before they are entitled to it—the question is about democracy. I remember that similar arguments were made during the women's fight for suffrage. It was said that women were not clever enough or responsible enough and that they would not know what they were doing. We are in the same scenario here.

To expand on Sandra White's point, there is an argument that could be explored—perhaps you could respond by letting me know whether you have considered this—that reducing the voting age to 16 would mean that many of those who would get the chance to vote for the first time would still be in full-time education. The experience of mock elections could be used directly to boost turnout among young people whenever that opportunity first comes around. It may be that the problem is that there is a gap between that first emergence of interest in political issues—I have two teenage daughters who are very opinionated—and the ability to express it. Perhaps the reduction of the voting age to 16 is necessary to harness that interest in political issues immediately. The gap itself may be a problem that leads to poorer turnout among the 18-to-25 age group. Will you expand on that?

Also, what plans do you have for your campaign to extend the voting age to 16 to 18-year-olds? Do you plan to take any historical tips on tactics from the women's suffrage movement?

Unfortunately, I am not a regular frequenter of racing tracks. I will be careful in saying that I would not advocate that any young person should break the law. If they were to do that to gain the vote, it would add to the calls against youth crime that see young people as trouble makers. It would only annoy the so-called grown-ups.

However, young people have the right to protest. It is a human right, and I encourage young people of over 18 or under 18—people of whatever age group—to take up that right, to organise their own local campaigns and to gauge the opinions of their local authorities. They can approach the full spectrum of elected representatives. There is nothing to stop them lobbying their councillors, MSPs, MPs or even MEPs about the issue. To bring the issue before the Public Petitions Committee is my first step. From this point, we will take the issue forward with our colleagues in the Scottish Youth Parliament with a view to getting real action taken on it.

I did something else the other day. Perhaps members recall that there was an item on "Newsnight Scotland"—it was part of the opt-out—in which bias in the Electoral Commission's survey was discussed. As chair of the youth committee and as someone who did not get their first vote until they were 20, I got worked up about that, because it showed one side of the argument. It advocated such views as 16-year-olds' being unsuitable to have the vote, for example. The next day, I phoned up "Newsnight" and asked for an explanation. A complaint has gone into the BBC about the bias in that coverage. That is one personal thing that I have done to ensure that our opinions get press—there will be others in future.

I agree absolutely with harnessing the interest of those who are in full-time education. Politics is being discussed and debated increasingly, whether young people are aware of it or not. They might not think whether some of the issues that they talk about in the pub are political in nature, but they might be. Interest should be encouraged in schools. Teachers should sometimes stimulate and allow debate as opposed to saying, "We're not having that discussion. We can't talk about those things. That's not allowed", just because somebody in the Education Department does not like it.

More MSPs, MPs, MEPs and councillors should engage with people who are not of voting age. They should go out and speak to under-18s and acknowledge that under-18s are as much citizens of the United Kingdom as anyone else and that they have the right to be represented. Perhaps, through further engagement, further interest will be created in the subject and we will be able to make progress and overcome the bias and the objections that have so far been mooted.

I draw the discussion to a conclusion. Can we get some recommendations about what to do with the petition?

I would like to know what the Local Government and Transport Committee and the Executive have done with the previous Local Government Committee's recommendations regarding lowering the voting age to 16. Are they going to take them on board? Daniel Donaldson has already said that the petitioners are happy to go along with lowering the voting age on the local government elections first. Perhaps we should ask about that.

Are there any other views? Perhaps we could write to the Electoral Commission to ask for its views.

I agree with that, but—perhaps I have picked something up wrong—I support lowering the voting age for all elections: did the Local Government Committee consider only local government elections?

Yes.

Can we make another recommendation to take the whole issue forward?

The Scottish Parliament can recommend only that there be a change in the voting age for local government elections; the Westminster Parliament would have to recommend any changes for the Scottish Parliament elections.

How ironic.

That is not to say that we could not take a view on it or that the Scottish Parliament could not take a view on it. The reason why Sandra White recommends that we ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing about the 16—

Can we also ask the Executive to express an opinion about all other elections?

There is no problem with that. We should certainly get a response. If we are asking it what it did about the Local Government Committee's recommendations on lowering the age for local government elections we can ask what its view is per se, but we cannot ask it to take any action on that because it is Westminster that would change the voting age for the Scottish Parliament elections.

It might also be worth writing to the Electoral Commission, as was suggested, for its views on the matter in relation to local government elections and we could see whether those views match its views on the Parliament elections.

The Electoral Commission could cover all elections in its response. If we take that action it will provide us with answers on local government elections and on Scottish Parliament elections. That is the recommendation. Is the committee happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Mr Donaldson for lightening the mood in the room this morning.

---

National Anthem (PE660)

The next petition is PE660, on a proposal for a competition to compose a national anthem for Scotland. The petition is in the name of Mr George Reid, who asks the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to organise a competition to compose an official national anthem for Scotland that reflects the character and aspirations of the Scottish people. The petitioner is at the committee to give a presentation in support of the petition. Mr Reid is welcome to speak for three minutes, after which we will ask questions.

Thank you. I will not need three minutes.

If members of the committee were among the millions who watched Scotland play France in the rugby world cup match that was televised on Saturday they would have heard, as part of the preliminaries, one of the world's great national anthems, "La Marseillaise", followed by a ditty that belongs—if it belongs anywhere—in places of public refreshment. Many Scots cringe when "Flower of Scotland" is sung. It is, as my petition states,

"ungrammatical, backward looking and vindictive"

It is an embarrassment. To be fair to its author, I do not think that he ever intended it as an anthem, but whatever the case may be, Scotland deserves better.

This country of ours has a long and distinguished history, rich traditions and a distinctive culture. We have much to be proud of and we need to have an anthem that will say so to others and remind ourselves of that. We need an anthem that can be sung with pride on important occasions.

I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that "God Save the Queen" should no longer be sung in Scotland. There would continue to be many occasions when that would be the appropriate anthem and there would be occasions when both anthems would be sung. They would not compete, just as "Land of My Fathers" in Wales does not compete. States in America, in Spain and in many other countries have anthems that take their place proudly alongside the national song of celebration.

The re-established Scottish Parliament is a focus for Scotland's heritage and aspirations. It would be fitting if the Parliament commissioned the composition of a Scottish anthem. I have suggested that a competition would be the appropriate way to bring that about.

I am grateful to the committee for successfully backing my earlier petition, which asked the Parliament to prescribe a background colour for the national flag. I now ask for that same support so that we may have a Scottish anthem that we can be proud of.

I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee that agreed that Pantone 300 should be the colour of the national flag, but I am not so sure that I can agree entirely with everything that George Reid suggests in this petition, unless he is suggesting that the national anthem could improve our sporting performance—I suspect that that might be a bit difficult.

My understanding of the position is that it is not a matter of according a national anthem official status. Unofficial anthems are sung and he has outlined some of those. Is the point that he wants there to be an official national anthem?

Yes, I do. I say in passing that the chief executive of the Scottish Football Association described "Flower of Scotland" as a dreary dirge and said that if there was a better anthem, the team would do better. We now have a national Parliament. I think that we should have an official Scottish national anthem.

I congratulated Mr Reid when he submitted his first petition PE512. I remember receiving letters from Mr Reid—

I am sorry, but I do not hear too well.

I congratulated you on managing to get the Education, Culture and Sport Committee's support for your proposal to use Pantone 300 for the saltire. I remember receiving many letters from you on the subject and I fully supported you. The point of your current petition PE660 is that there should be an official anthem.

As has been stated, the Parliament cannot ensure that. Even if we had the powers to do so, I think that you would find that pockets of people would sing their favourite song. For the record, I want to say that I like "Flower of Scotland"; it is a great song. When I watch people in kilts singing away to it at a football game, it certainly stirs my blood. Like a number of other people, I will probably continue to sing that song. You want to have an official anthem, but, as Jackie Baillie said, it is not possible to say officially that no other anthem can be sung.

If the Public Petitions Committee agrees to write to the Executive to ask for an official competition to be set up, what would you do if an official anthem was chosen, but "Flower of Scotland" or "God Save the Queen"—although I have not heard that sung much in Scotland—was also sung in other parts of a football ground? How could we stop people singing their preferred song rather than the song that has been given the so-called official recognition of the Parliament?

Scotland boasts many poets and composers. There is no reason why we could not have an anthem that catches the public's imagination and catches on.

The question that has to be asked is who is responsible for producing the anthem. If the Scottish Rugby Union wanted to have an anthem, it could commission one, as could the Scottish Football Association. If they did so, which one would be the official anthem? Regardless of what song might be chosen, the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to determine an official anthem. It is up to the individual organisations to say which anthem is used prior to a rugby or football match.

Scotland used to use "Scotland the Brave" and now uses "Flower of Scotland". Considering the number of times that the teams have been

"sent … homeward
To think again"

perhaps they should stop using it.

Given the difficulties involved, the committee must consider what it can practically do to progress your petition. We are struggling to find a way in which the Parliament could enforce an anthem and ensure that organisations would play it.

I am disappointed by the convener's statement that the Parliament has no powers to do so. I thought that the Scotland Act 1998 did not preclude the Parliament from commissioning an official anthem. The subject of the petition ties in with all of the things that the Scottish Parliament stands for. I would have thought that a resolution of the Scottish Parliament would be sufficient, but I will be guided by the convener on the matter.

The reality of the situation is that the Parliament does not have the power to give official status to an anthem.

I, too, liked the fact that the petitioner pressed the point about a Pantone colour for the saltire and got the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to support petition PE512. We have had other competitions in Scotland. The question is how to enforce the judges' decision. The Scottish public have grown to like particular songs. Does George Reid have a song that he suggests is forward-looking and fit for the new century that we are in? What anthem does he recommend?

I agree with the convener that, if the Parliament does not have the powers, the question needs to be directed elsewhere, to others in the United Kingdom Parliament. A song might be identified as a leading song, as happened in the case of "Land of Light", although that song did not capture the imagination of Scots. How would that scenario be dealt with?

In a number of ways. The schools would be quite important. In the United States of America, all school assemblies start with the singing of "The Star Spangled Banner". Scottish schools should have an appropriate anthem with which children start the day. Concert performances could start with the official anthem. I am thinking of what used to happen at picture houses when the national anthem was played. The idea of an official anthem has to be sold. It would have to be an anthem that had the quality to be sold and to catch on.

The case is subjective. We must try to agree some recommendations.

I have a final, serious comment. We know that the Parliament does not have the power to introduce a national anthem—that power is reserved to Westminster and the Home Office. Perhaps the committee should write to the Home Office and ask whether it would take on board the idea of an anthem for Scotland. That would be the legal way to do it. I have great sympathy with the petition, because, along with a Parliament, Scotland should have a national anthem. The only way forward would be through the Home Office because of the legalities. Perhaps the committee should write to the Home Office and ask whether it will commission a national anthem for Scotland.

I thought that Sandra White was going to say that the simple answer would be to have a Scottish republic, and then we could have an anthem. It is objectionable that Scotland is not able to declare an official anthem for itself. That goes to the heart of some bigger political questions.

What would happen if another competition was held and the petitioner did not like the winning anthem? Would he come back to the committee? Also, I would have serious objections to the idea of our children being forced to stand up and sing any anthem at the start of the school day, as happens in America.

I would hope for something a little more dignified than the Eurovision song contest.

You must remember that the British public voted for the British entry, which got no points.

We have a difficulty. The issue is serious and we have considered the petition seriously. It could have been ruled inadmissible because we do not have the power to deal with it, but we felt that it was important to take the opportunity to discuss it. However, I struggle to see what the Public Petitions Committee can do with it other than suggest that, as the powers that be on the matter are at Westminster, you take it up with your MP. I am sorry, but the committee does not seem able to make any other recommendation.

It is a matter of regret for the Scottish Parliament that it does not have power over something that should be well within its compass. However, I hear what you say.

Thank you for coming this morning, Mr Reid.

---

Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill (PE657)

Our next petition—PE657—is from Mr Maurice Frank, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that it takes into account all relevant evidence during its consideration of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill.

The petitioner expresses particular concern that some nationally promoted educational methods can harm children. He claims that his previous requests to have the Executive, MSPs and others take into account what he considers to be important evidence on the issue have been unsuccessful. He requests that his evidence be considered fully during the Parliament's consideration of the bill and in the consultation on proposals to change the current system for recording special educational needs, which began in May 2001 and continued when the draft bill was published for consultation in January 2003.

The bill proposes to move away from the traditional concept of special educational needs to a wider concept of additional support needs, which is defined as applying to all children or young people who, for whatever reason, are unable to benefit from school education without the provision of additional support. The Education Committee is likely to be designated as the lead committee for the bill, which was introduced to Parliament on 28 October 2003, and has initially agreed that any open call for written evidence will be supplemented by a number of formal evidence-taking sessions.

Do members have any views on the petition?

I suggest that we take no further action on the petition ourselves but advise the petitioner that, given that the call for evidence will be open to any member of the public, he should submit any written evidence that he has to the clerks to the Education Committee.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Violent Crime (Sentencing Policy) (PE659)

The final new petition, PE659, is in the name of Mr Graham Sturton, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to carry out a review of sentencing policy in relation to violent crime in Scotland. The lead petitioner's concerns regarding sentencing policy are promoted by his own experiences: the sentence given to the individual who was convicted of murdering his daughter has been the subject of various appeals over a four-year period and the matter is still not resolved. The petitioners are aware that the Parliament is unable to intervene in an individual case and have made it clear that they are not asking the committee to do so. However, they request that the petition be forwarded to the Justice 1 Committee as a demonstration of the strength of feeling on the general issue. Members will wish to note that 1,800 people signed the petition.

The Justice 1 Committee is to examine a related petition, PE347, in the context of its proposed consideration of sentencing policy. Do members agree to refer petition PE659 to the Justice 1 Committee?

Members indicated agreement.