New Petitions

This is a petition on a legal matter on which the law in Scotland is grossly inadequate and in disarray. As the petition has been presented to the committee in full detail, I propose not to spend much time going into the detail. I have picked out two salient points that, although included in the detail, should convey to the committee what I have been up against for a long period. It is a dispute on the legal standing of boundary divisions. The Scottish Law Commission is highly involved, as is the Executive. First, I wrote to the committee clerk indicating that my objective—and that of the people who support my petition—was to have the petition referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for investigation. That is where the detail would most appropriately be put forward and considered fully. I understand that the Public Petitions Committee is a filtering committee; nevertheless, it is a first step in an important process. When I wrote to the clerk, I indicated that a flip-chart would explain diagrammatically some of the aspects on which the law is confused and unable to operate in a commonsense way. My MP, Mr Donohoe, wrote to the Scottish Law Commission, inviting its representatives to North Ayrshire to consider the aspects of a defined area that convey the utter inoperability of the law. The SLC did not have the courtesy to reply to his invitation. I busied myself preparing diagrams, which I took to the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, to confirm that I was technically correct. It okayed the diagrams, which is why I want to use a flip-chart to present the case in detail, if that is appropriate and if the committee agrees.The second point I wish to stress relates to appendix 4 of my petition: a letter from Mr Donohoe to the then Secretary of State for Scotland. There are a number of legal points in that letter that have never been disputed by the Scottish Law Commission, the Executive or anyone else. I commend anyone investigating the issue in detail to look at that letter and to digest the legal points made therein. I presume that the points cannot be refuted, otherwise that would have been done. In the letter, you can see the part played by a Mr Reid, who opposed the SLC, which at that time was supporting my line in the law. The trouble has arisen because a second, different, SLC has, by its own admission, changed its opinion on what the real law in Scotland on property divisions is. The first commission supported it; the other commission overturned what the first commission said. That is accepted by the second law commission and by the Executive. There is no dispute on that now. Mr Reid organised the opposition from outside the Scottish Law Commission in relation to the first commission. In due course, the said Mr Reid became a member of the Scottish Law Commission; an influential member who was the prime mover in the property committee, or something similar to a property committee, operating within the SLC.

I will stop there. Those are the two points. It is clear that the dispute is difficult and tricky. It has reached the stage where I feel that there is—I will use my words carefully—some lack of intent to examine this properly and attempts to defend the indefensible. This is a dispute where I think that I am right and the opposition to what I have been purporting has been caught out very badly, but it has refused to admit to that fact.That is why the petition is here today and that is why I ask for it to be passed on.

That is correct.

I honestly do not think so. We have pursued this for more than 10 years. The Law Society has shown itself to be quite frankly unreliable in many aspects of its actions, its work, its declarations and its writings. We have pursued this through the Executive, but have made no progress. The petition asks for an independent inquiry into this matter, because we are up against—I, my supporting MPs and the Royal Incorporation of Architects—a well-entrenched establishment. It will not give ground, in spite of the fact that it has been led into all sorts of indiscretions, many of which are pinpointed in the petition. Some are ridiculous, but there you have it.Either an independent inquiry should be appointed or we must get to the crux of the matter through the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, perhaps asking the Executive to reopen the matter.

The Scottish Campaign for Public Angling has been campaigning against the exclusion order—as it is known to anglers—since it was introduced in 1986. It has been renewed several times and in 1996, prior to the general election, it was renewed by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth, without a time limit. Since 1986, there has been a reduction in the participation in angling on the Tay. The figures that were released recently by Perth and Kinross Council show a decrease in resident permits sold from more than 1,000 in 1984 to just over 200. The number of visitor permits sold has also fallen, from just under 1,000 in 1984 to 25 last year. Most of the Tay system is closed to the public. Almost all the burns and small lochs, much of the main Tay and much of Loch Tay are completely closed to the public. When he granted the order in 1986, the former Secretary of State did so on the condition that the river would be opened up to the public. That has not happened, and there has been a complete collapse in the participation in angling. Many demonstrations have been staged by anglers on the Tay, which have achieved a lot of publicity in the media. This campaign—SCaPA—has visited the House of Commons and met politicians of various political parties in an attempt to bring this matter to their notice.We believe that, following the setting up of a Scottish Parliament, there is a chance—at long last—for consideration to be given to the scandal of what has happened on the Tay. We do not underestimate the strength of the opposition that we are up against: we are up against some of the richest and most powerful landowners in Britain, who have contacts in the House of Lords, industry, commerce, farming and political parties. We are a grass-roots organisation, and we take our support from wherever we find it. We do not receive support or funding from people who have a vested interest in the Tay or in Scotland's fishing rights. We would like the Public Petitions Committee and the Scottish Parliament to send out a message to the landowners and to those who deny the people of Scotland access to our own land that enough is enough: access must be granted, starting with the largest river system in Scotland. We ask that the River Tay exclusion order be revoked.

Sorry?

No, sir. It is purely voluntary. Prior to the 1986 order, it was not a criminal offence to fish for trout and other freshwater fish—that is, everything apart from salmon and sea trout—anywhere on the Tay system without permission. In return for bringing the law into the criminal arena, landowners and certain clubs promised to give access to ordinary anglers. By and large, those promises have never been kept—most have just been torn up.

That is right.

No.

I understand that the proposed access to land legislation has specifically ruled out dealing with access to water and fishing rights.

The Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, John Home Robertson, has introduced a consultation document on freshwater fisheries. It was referred to in an excellent article in The Herald last week by Dennis Canavan. We will respond to that document which, although it does not specifically mention the Tay, mentions the exclusion orders. We do not think that it is a radical document and would like it to be much more radical. We would like all fishing rights to be brought into public ownership under a Scottish anglers trust.

The Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976, which was passed by the previous Labour Government, stated that permits were to be made available in exchange for criminal protection, but only on the voluntary principle. Most of the Tay system is totally closed; even the people who run it would not disagree with that. If the land changes hands, people can tear up any agreements, tell fishermen to get lost and still keep the criminal protection.

No, sir. It is unfinished business from the 19th century. It is just another way to keep people off. It is not to protect fish but to protect the property rights of landowners.

The Rural Affairs Committee.

I am, in fact, the past president of Dundee and Tayside Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I am also a practising solicitor in Dundee, but I shall preface my comments by saying that I am not an expert in planning by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps members can bear that in mind if they have any questions for me. Our petition relates to section 46 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which deals with the power of the Secretary of the State—now the First Minister—to call in planning applications. This is not just a Dundee issue, but it is particularly relevant for Dundee, which is the smallest local authority area in Scotland and is only 40 per cent of the size of the next smallest. A number of Dundee's former suburbs and development land have found their way into neighbouring local authority areas.Before local government reorganisation, regional councils were in a position to ensure that significant planning decisions could be taken with due regard to their regional impact by calling them in where appropriate. Under section 46 of the 1997 act, the power to call in now rests solely with the First Minister. The section gives the First Minister the power to issue directions, so specific planning applications, or planning applications of a particular type, are referred to and determined by him.Our concern is that the former—or what you might call the interim—stage, in which the regional council called in a planning application, is no longer available. We feel that that could be a retrograde step. As we state in our petition, it means that one local authority—albeit with the benefit of representations from the neighbouring local authority—can determine a planning application that has a significant impact on the residents and businesses in the neighbouring area.I hesitate to suggest answers to the problem that we have brought before the committee, but I would direct members' attention to the power under section 43(1)(c) of the 1997 act by which regulations can be made that require local authorities to consult prescribed authorities or persons. Under section 46, the First Minister can also give directions for a regional impact assessment to be carried out in appropriate cases and require local authorities to have regard to that assessment. The failure of a local authority to do so might be relevant if there were an appeal against a decision made by that authority.I appreciate that by using the expression "significant social and/or economic impact" in the petition we are begging the question how that would be defined. Concerns have arisen over applications that have been dealt with by Dundee City Council—concerns from outwith the council, I hasten to say. The concerns were that if applications were not granted, developers might boundary-hop into Angus and get a more satisfactory outturn there. Equally, on a smaller scale, an application relating to a village post office that was just on one side of a boundary could have a direct impact on the residents in the neighbouring local authority area. Trying to define "significant social and/or economic impact" might be difficult; as a lawyer, I would say that that might be best left to the courts to deal with.That is as much as I want to say in support of the petition; I will do my best to answer any questions.

I have to say that I am not clear about the criteria under which the First Minister can call in a planning application. All I can do is direct members to section 46, which gives him the power to do so. We are concerned that—even though a neighbouring local authority is concerned about it—there is no guarantee that something with significant social and/or economic impact will be called in. That decision is left to the discretion of the First Minister.

One way of dealing with the problem would be to have statutory protection against boundary-hopping. Another intermediate step might be for the First Minister to issue directions to planning authorities requiring them, as I said, to carry out a regional impact assessment in appropriate cases, which might lead to an appeal if the local authority had disregarded the result of that assessment. As I understand it, taking that step could be done within existing legislation, without the need for fresh legislation.

In asking that question, you have highlighted one of the difficulties that we have recognised—that of trying to identify which applications have significant social and/or economic impact. Clearly it would be unworkable if every planning application were called in. If the First Minister is to take any action, criteria will have to be laid down. In the examples that I gave, I was trying to highlight the difficulty in identifying criteria that might be relevant in one set of circumstances but irrelevant in another.

No.

That is an eminently sensible suggestion.

I am not aware of those cases, but I am aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has the power to call in planning applications. However, at the moment our concern is that there is a random element to that. There is no guarantee that the perception that there will be a significant social and economic impact on a local authority area will result in that particular application being called in. It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland. You may say that that is rightly so, but it creates uncertainty when one local authority area seeks to protect its own interests when an application is determined by a neighbouring local authority area.

The pensioners feel vulnerable and believe that they need the wardens to make them feel secure and safe. Some of the pensioners are frightened and feel that they need the presence of the wardens, particularly at night and at the weekends as that is when youths hang about and vandalise the buildings. The residents of the sheltered housing complex are happy in the knowledge that the wardens are there to provide assistance or call the police if necessary. The wardens are there for them if they take ill and need a doctor or ambulance. They not only call the emergency services, but sit and calm them until they arrive. The pensioners are deeply worried about bogus callers and unwanted guests. Some of the pensioners have bad eyesight and cannot see the caller's identification badge. Wardens, being concerned about the pensioners' well-being, take on the task of ensuring that callers are not bogus.Most pensioners have no family to call on, so the wardens are the only people who can give them support and comfort in their hour of need. All that the pensioners are asking for is the security, care and peace of mind that the wardens give them. They do not want that taken away from them.

There are 22 units in North Ayrshire, with 20 houses in each unit. I have had quite a few phone calls from people in other units asking to join our campaign. Many of them are feart of being put into a nursing home.

There is an elderly lady in our sheltered housing who cannot speak. With the alarm system, the resident presses a button and tells someone what is wrong. That lady would be unable to tell anybody what was wrong. I will give you a good quotation. One of our pensioners asked a councillor what she was supposed to do if she dropped dead of a heart attack and was told, "Press your button."

Wardens go in every morning and evening. If someone is not well, the warden will phone the doctor or the person's family. They might go in late at night to offer someone a wee cup of tea or something—to save the family having to come round at that time of night, because there are drug addicts and other people hanging about. If the warden has concerns, they might sit for an hour and calm the person down until the doctor comes. Last year, there was a wee man dying and the warden sat with him all night because she was afraid to leave him. It is the personal touch that the pensioners will lose out on.

There are 22 full-time wardens and there are relief wardens to cover days off and holidays. All the people who provide cover for holidays, overnight and weekends will lose their jobs.

I will do that.The petition that I have submitted is important, not because I have submitted it or because I want to denigrate the other petitions that have been submitted, which are clearly also important, but because of the principles that it relates to.The first is fairness. If our system is seen to be unfair, disillusionment sets in and democracy begins to die a little. I believe that we are already an uncomfortable distance down that road. If we require disclosure of one man's subsidy—whether it be the modest grant awarded to an old-age pensioner to pay for his loft insulation, or a top-flight advocate's legal aid payment—we must require disclosure of all subsidies. To do otherwise is unfair.The great strength of an active democracy is that it can bring to bear on its problems the full range of all its people's abilities. Dictatorships and other elite forms of government cannot do that, because they require the props and buttresses of secrecy to remain in power.Farming has problems. I can put that no more vividly than does Mr Brian Pack, the chief executive officer of Aberdeen and Northern Marts group, who said that, in the worst-case scenario, little of Scottish agriculture would remain. His more optimistic statement was:"However, I believe there will always be some farming in Scotland, but the industry is now in a very big hole, and it is very black. This year will see a large shakeout in our industry."That is despite the fact that farming received, in round terms, half a billion pounds last year—or so we think; we do not actually know. Scotland's 10 largest landowning charities, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust for Scotland, own more than 560,000 acres, including many farms, between them. How much subsidy did they receive last year in addition to concessions on income tax, value added tax and property tax? We have no idea. More than 400,000 acres are owned by foreign nationals. How many farms does that comprise? How much subsidy did they receive? How much stayed in Scotland? How much went in the farm office door and was remitted straight to Brussels, Liechtenstein, Germany or somewhere else in the world?Three quarters of a million acres of Scotland are owned by persons completely unknown, operating through offshore companies. I find it a disturbing thought that the secrecy of our land ownership system, combined with the secrecy of our subsidy system, may be, for all we know, providing the perfect cover for criminals not only to launder their ill-gotten gains, but to make a profit from doing so. We simply do not know where our money is going. All cats may be grey in the night, but Scotland's fat cats are positively spectral. Less dramatically, but nevertheless seriously, our villages, although they are surrounded by farms and estates into which we believe we have poured millions of pounds, are in decline. Again, we are ill informed. Until the destinations of those huge cash flows are known, we will not be able to bring to bear the talents of our people on the problems. Openness is essential if we are to put matters right. My last point may seem something of a long stride away from agricultural subsidies, but I believe it to be the heart of the matter. Too much of our public money is controlled by unelected quangos. Too many of the policies and strategies affecting our lives are determined by self-appointed, self-designating and self-rewarding elites. Too much of our Europe-based legislation is determined by unelected and unassailable Commissioners. Too much of our agricultural support funding is flowing into the hands of yet another elite—an unknown elite. There are those in farming who view the present process with satisfaction—who murmur smugly of the inevitability of 80 per cent of subsidy cash going to 20 per cent of farmers; of the inevitability, indeed, the desirability, of the creation of a publicly funded landed elite. It is, I suppose, possible, but it seems highly improbable, that they are unaware that the 80:20 relationship in economic affairs was the discovery of one Vilfredo Pareto, who provided to the fascist and Falangist movements of Europe the rationale that Nietzsche gave to national socialism. They all come from the same stable.

Yes, I expect that they will.

I am about to do that. Yes, the fascist movement made the trains in Italy run on time and, yes, 4,000 large farmers are undoubtedly more cost-effective—by one definition of cost-effectiveness––than 50,000 small ones, but cost-effectiveness is merely the mask for one aspect of a process of neo-fascism, which must be stopped so that democracy can be reasserted. For those reasons—fairness, openness and the assertion of democracy—I ask the committee to support the petition. Thank you.

That is correct, convener.

Yes.

Thank you, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am. Once the information is available, people can begin to tackle the problem logically and sensibly.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to come along to make representations in support of the petition. The petition deals with the increase in water and sewage charges in the North of Scotland Water Authority area; it deals specifically with the investment programme necessary to provide the service and with people's ability to pay. My colleague will make one or two points about that. We will be reasonably brief. In late February, the local press carried a report that the North of Scotland Water Authority was to increase water and sewage charges by a massive 35 per cent. It is fair to say that the report was met with dismay and a great deal of concern by the local community in Dundee and beyond and was the subject of a great deal of controversy in the press and on local radio talk shows. As an organisation that deals with the issues that affect people in poverty, the anti-poverty forum was very concerned and we felt that we had to take the matter forward. However, our concern turned to outrage when the increases were announced—46.4 per cent across all council tax bands. I will put that into historical perspective. Since the reorganisation of water and sewage services in 1996, the charges covering the north and north-east of Scotland have risen by 5 per cent in 1996-97, by 40.4 per cent in 1997-98, by 30.8 per cent in 1998-99, and by 37.5 per cent in 1999-2000. Now there is to be an increase of 46.4 per cent. That shows that there has been a dramatic increase over the past five years. We think that, in 2000, people should expect a safe, clean, efficient and—more important—affordable water and sewage service.We understand that what is necessary to provide that and to meet stringent EC anti-pollution regulations is a massive investment programme, which will cost more than £500 million. We believe that it is scandalous that the only mechanism that is available to NOSWA to pay for that investment programme is to levy costs from their customers. The public are paying for years of neglect and underinvestment. Representatives of our forum met the chairman of NOSWA some time ago to express our concerns. He highlighted the fact that much of the present system was built more than 140 years ago, in Victorian times. He accused us of frightening people with percentages—a criticism that we had to accept because in fact the percentages were frightening. We understand that tackling the problem is no easy task. We ask the committee to investigate other options for funding the investment programme that is needed to bring the water and sewerage infrastructure up to date. Although our organisation's main focus is to deal with people in poverty, it is clear from the broad support that the petition has received that the general public are less than happy with what is happening. The petition has been signed by people as far afield as Inverness, Peterhead, Elgin, Angus and Aberdeen. We were also told by the NOSWA chair that the investment programme will continue until 2007, so the massive increases that there have been over the past five years are set to continue. We believe that there is a strong case for the committee's intervention.

I am the vice-chairman of Dundee Anti Poverty Forum. Representatives of the forum wish to make a plea on behalf of low-income households, which are hardest hit by charges for water and sewage services. Some of the worst-off households are single-parent households. Dundee has 50 per cent more single parents than the Scottish average. Pensioners, too, are among the worst-off households, as many of them live on benefits or have only a modest income. The £15 increase in the cold weather payment that was announced in the budget is immediately lost in the NOSWA area because of the requirement to pay—in band A—an additional £62.60 in water charges this year. Families who live on income support or who earn low wages are having to meet the increase in full, as there is no rebate system. People who are already poor will sink further into the poverty trap as they attempt to meet those charges. People who have a total income of less than £55 per week are being forced to shell out between 4 per cent and 8 per cent of their disposable income. Those charges are unfair. It is unacceptable that poor households should have to bear a vastly disproportionate burden.We ask the Parliament to acknowledge that the present system is unjust and that we should have a structure that takes into account people's ability to pay. We suggest that linking water and sewage charges with the council tax rebate system would be a simple and effective way of doing that. We realise that you do not have the power to change the benefit system, but you can discuss the matter and use your considerable influence to advocate the changes that we propose.

Yes.

We were not aware that she had said that.

Yes.

At times, I will read directly from some prepared notes, so that I truly represent my colleagues. I am not speaking solely for myself.For many years, the staff at Glasgow royal infirmary's accident and emergency department have been subjected to a high level of psychological and physical abuse from the general public who use the service. Those incidents have been reported to the powers that be with very little feedback or satisfactory solutions. Due to the lack of understanding or positive action from the trust, the staff within the department have reached breaking point. I ask the Public Petitions Committee to intervene on their behalf.I will make some points to support our case. Over the years the trust has carried out paper exercises each time an incident has been brought to its attention. Those have all been cost-saving measures as far as we can see, which gives us an impression of how the trust values us. The trust employed security people recently and was unaware that they were not in place in the department. It came as quite a shock to them when they realised that they were paying for a non-existent security system. The security people themselves, through no fault of their own, received the training that is afforded to security staff in department stores. They are not allowed to restrain; they frequently call on nursing staff to intervene to move or remove people. We have no faith in them at all. The security staff should be there to prevent people entering restricted clinical areas, but in those instances they call on nursing staff. We are constantly called away from the job that we should be doing to deal with matters that we believe should be in the hands of the security staff.The company involved is Sodexho, which covers portering, catering and domestic services in the hospital. A recent discussion with a trust member revealed that the trust was unaware that security staff had not been there all the time, although they had been told that they should be. Although alternatives were suggested, staff were told that the trust was looking for the least expensive way of dealing with security, such as code key pads in doorways. Restricting access to the clinical area would be an advantage, given the violence and aggression that our staff face, but it only shifts the problem elsewhere.We are requesting a 24-hour police presence. In the past, we had nothing at all, now we have the current security system, but we had a permanent police presence over the millennium, on hogmanay and on 1 and 2 January. The difference working under those conditions was incredible. Staff are suffering and we cannot provide a safe environment for patients and relatives. The nature of the people who come through the department adds greatly to the problem.A number of staff have been injured and they frequently have to appear in court to give evidence. We have been filling in incident forms for many years, but we never get any feedback on them. Recently, we heard that there were 97 violent incidents over the whole area of Glasgow royal infirmary. There were 94 violent incidents in the accident and emergency department. We have an awful lot to deal with. It is a stressful job. We are a highly trained and highly effective work force, if we are allowed to do our job. Far too much time is lost placating aggressive, nasty people and it is taking our time and expertise away from the people who really need us.I do not say that lightly. Over the years, we have tried all the official avenues. Recently, we made direct contact with the chief executive, but her response was that overt security often exacerbates the situation. That is why we have brought our petition to you today.

It is a social problem.

No. I do not believe so. We have tried everything else and we believe that the only answer is a 24-hour police presence. We have experienced the difference that having a police presence in the department can make.

As far as I know, yes.

Yes. The estate manager told me that he was not aware that they were not where they should be.

I do not know.

I believe that the incidents took place over a matter of weeks.

My name is Margaret Smith.

It certainly would, especially if there were no more than two people in attendance on any patient. We tend to get groups of six, seven or eight people hanging round each patient and blocking the corridors. Removing most of those people from the clinical area would be extremely helpful. It would move any violent incidents into another area.

They have gone to nurses working in the resuscitation rooms with critically ill patients and asked them to come outside to speak to someone. The main problem is that staff have no faith in them. We need to be working in an area where we feel safe.

That is the least expensive option.

I would like at least one police officer to be visibly present. There are community police in Glasgow royal infirmary, but they are based at the opposite end of the hospital from A and E. They use voice mail, which is of little use to us if we need an instant response.

I do not know.

She said that there is a school of thought that maintains that.

No. I have experienced the so-called security that we have in place and police being in attendance consistently, and there is no comparison between the two. We know what works and why.

I have been at Glasgow royal infirmary's accident and emergency department for seven years.