John Finnie MSP

No area of Scotland’s public services is immune from the effects of the massive cuts in Scotland’s settlement from the UK Government, started by the Labour Party, and continued under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition.

Scottish Court Service (SCS) faces a real terms reduction of 20% in its running costs by 2014-15 whilst its capital budget will reduce from £20 to £4m.

The Justice Committee has thoroughly scrutinised the proposals contained in ‘Shaping Scotland’s Court Services’, the SCS’s response to the consultation and recommendations for a future court structure in Scotland.

In advance of the consultation on court reforms John asked for dedicated Highland Domestic Abuse Court to be set up in Dingwall, a point he reiterated, with other issues, in his response to court closures consultation.

Following a series of meetings with Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, and the Chief Executive of the SCS; John secured an assurance that, working with local authority partners, SCS will provide remote facilities for vulnerable witness in Dingwall, a commitment now extended to all areas facing court closures such as Dornoch, where business will transfer the short distance to Tain, and Rothesay where business will transfer to Greenock.

The forthcoming Victims and Witnesses Bill seeks to enhance the services provided to those important users of the courts and such facilities, in conjunction with a risk assessment of witnesses, will go a long way to ensuring concerns about victims sharing public transport with the accused.

Following this agreement, John met with Ross-shire Woman’s Aid (RWA) to hear again about their concerns about implications of move to Inverness for their clients where trials may be required.

RWA outlined benefit they saw of ‘clustering domestic violence cases’ on same day at Inverness Sheriff Court, an appropriate number of fixed days per month being dedicated ‘Domestic Violence Days’.

John agreed with RWA that the benefit of clustering cases at Inverness would ensure all support services can be present on the same day, with a consistency of treatment as expertise in domestic violence cases is built up by individual sheriff, in line with the move to have ‘specialist sheriff’ under the revised structure.

John held a further meeting with Cabinet Secretary for Justice last week and was delighted he confirmed that this approach should be adopted by all the agencies involved in dealing with domestic abuse cases where speed of processing is of the essence.

John has written to the Sheriff Principal, Derrick Pyle, asking for his assistance in putting in place this sensible approach as soon as possible and understand this good practice will be commended for action elsewhere.

Speaking after the vote taken to agree the SCS’s proposals John said:

“Whilst no-one would have wanted court closures, the level of cuts from the UK Government meant the status quo was never an option.

I am delighted that there has been some good come out of this process in the form of additional support for vulnerable witnesses and an undertaking to deal with domestic violence cases in this dedicated way now extended beyond the Highlands and Islands.”

John appeared on BBC Scotland’s ‘Good Morning Scotland’ programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01slsk5, at 2 hours 10 minutes) to discuss his request, since agreed to, that the Lord Advocate undertake a criminal inquiry into recent academic research indicating Scotland’s airports, including Inverness and Wick, were used by CIA operatives.

Here’s recent comment from Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK Director, on “The UK’s mounting problem over torture”;

Last week, with very little fanfare, the UN Committee against Torture published its concluding observationsfrom its review of the UK’s record on preventing, punishing and remedying torture and other ill-treatment. It was a quietly devastating report and will make forsobering reading among UK politicians and officials.

It’s a tale of things half done, put off entirely, or in some cases made worse by what was done.

One of the UN committee’s central themes is the UK’s failure to ensure that where there have been allegedhuman rights abuses, these are fully investigated, people are held to account, the truth made known and the victims or their families compensated. Indeed, this has been a systemic failure. Be it in the context of allegations arising from armed forces’ operations in Iraq; allegations of complicity in torture in the context of counter-terrorism operations overseas; cases of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland; or past abuses and violations perpetrated by all sides in the conflict in Northern Ireland; the message from the committee is clear - that the UK must do considerably better.

To take the allegations of UK complicity in torture abroad in the context of counter-terrorism operations.The committee says this gives rise to deep concern. It’s an issue that’s been festering for a long time. In 2010 David Cameron, then recently elected as prime minister, acknowledged that allegations that UK officials had“colluded” in the rendition, secret detentions and torture of detainees in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan risked tarnishing the UK’s reputation “as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law”. It needed to be addressed, he said, in order to “restore Britain’s moral leadership in the world.” Three years have passed – more than half a term in political office - and the stain remains, if anythingdeepening over time.

The UN has urged the UK to get on and establish a successor inquiry to replace the deeply-flawed Detainee Inquiry previously set up under Sir Peter Gibson. UK officials should ensure that alleged victims and NGOs are consulted over the conduct of the future inquiry to help avoid another inadequate outcome. Meanwhile, though troubled from the start and finally shelved, Gibson’s original inquiry nevertheless produced an “interim” report, but this – bafflingly – has itself been left unpublished for nearly a year. Quite rightly, the UN is also urging that this is published without further delay.

Likewise in relation to Iraq, the committee calls for a single, independent public inquiry to investigate allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, one that can ensure full accountability is secured. The UN also sends a strong warning to the UK over so-called “diplomatic assurances”, stating that they are “unreliable and ineffective”, urging the UK to refrain from relying on them to justify the deportation of people suspected of terrorism to countries where they would be in danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Meanwhile, the government’s Justice and Security Act – recently enacted despite a storm of controversy and opposition - also worries the UN committee. Just as campaigners like Amnesty had said, the extension of secret evidence to the civil justice system is seen as a possible obstacle to establishing state responsibility for human rights violations and ensuring accountability. The UN has called on the UK to listen to the concerns of “Special Advocates” (the practitioner lawyers who have to work within the new system) and ensure that the right to a fair trial is fully respected. Importantly, the Committee also reminds the UK that secret procedures cannot be used to permit evidence of human rights violations - including torture - to be concealed.

The moral of this story is that the UK seems to be letting problems pile up rather than deal with them. With over 40 recommendations from the UN Committee against Torture, the backlog is becoming acute. Mr Cameron was right about the UK’s reputation being tarnished over torture. It’s time to do something about it. 

Links

Committee report –http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/may/31/uk-human-rights-record-un-panel

NI abuse -http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20797

Collusion - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310222/UK-violated-human-rights-turned-blind-eye-torture-terror-suspects-says-damning-report.html

Detainee Inquiry - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16614514 

Diplomatic assurances -http://www.amnesty.org.uk/uploads/documents/doc_20299.pdf

Secret justice -http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20704

Special Advocates -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2285603/Scrap-dangerous-unnecessary-secret-justice-hundreds-lawyers-QC-urge-Government.html

Below is a transcript of John’s question during the Rural Affairs and Environment Questions slot. (05/06/2013)

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind): To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of the land reform review group.

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change (Paul Wheelhouse): The land reform review group’s interim report was given to ministers on 10 May and published on 20 May, which concluded phase 1 of the group’s work. A phase 2 planning meeting was held on 28 May, which identified a range of workstreams to take forward in phase 2. The review group is due to make its final report to ministers in April 2014, at the end of phase 3. The chair of the review group, Alison Elliot, will speak to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee on 26 June.

John Finnie: The day after the publication of the land reform review group’s interim report, the group’s chair, Dr Alison Elliot, addressed the annual general meeting of Scottish Land & Estates—the lairds. Professor Jim Hunter says that Scotland retains the “most concentrated, most inequitable, most unreformed and most undemocratic land ownership system in the entire developed world”, while Scottish Land & Estates tells us that it remains “disappointed at the persisting view that the pattern of land ownership in Scotland is unfair and unjust”. When tenant farmers still have no right to buy their farms and are reluctant to speak out for fear of repercussions from the very lairds to whom I referred, what can the Scottish Government do quickly to show the country that it has not abandoned its historical campaigning zeal on another important issue?

Paul Wheelhouse: I assure the member that, in the course of today’s debate, I will set out more clearly our intentions regarding the on-going work of the land reform review group and our continued ambition for bold and radical land reform.

The land reform review group has made a number of recommendations that aim to rectify some of the difficulties that we face in terms of existing community right-to-buy provisions, which, as I am sure that the member is aware, do not operate fully satisfactorily in many cases. Indeed, through the community empowerment and renewal bill, we will seek to extend the provisions in respect of urban right to buy.

I will, hopefully, provide the member with more detail later today.

UK Government cuts have affected all Scotland’s public sector and the challenge facing the Scottish Court Service, a £4.5 million reduction in its revenue budget, has brought forward a serious of proposed changes to Scotland’s court structure, including some closures.

Dingwall’s relative proximity to Inverness meant that it’s Sheriff Court workload was an inevitable target

In advance of the consultation on court reforms, John Finnie, Independent MSP for the Highlands and Islands asked for dedicated Highland Domestic Abuse Court to be set up in Dingwall a point he reiterate in his response to court closures consultation

Following a series of meetings with Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, and the Chief Executive of the Scottish Court Service (SCS) Mr Finnie secured an assurance that, working with local authority partners, SCS will provide remote facilities for vulnerable witness in Dingwall, a commitment now extended to all areas facing court closures.

Following this agreement, Mr Finnie met with Ross-shire Woman’s Aid (RWA) to hear again about their concerns about implications of move to Inverness for their clients where trials may be required.

RWA outlined benefit they saw of ‘clustering domestic violence cases’ on same day at Inverness Sheriff Court, an appropriate number of fixed days per month being dedicated ‘Domestic Violence Days’.

Speaking following today’s Justice Committee meeting in the Scottish Parliament, Mr Finnie said:

“I agreed with Ross-shire Women’s’ Aid that the benefit of clustering cases at Inverness would ensure all support services can be present on the same day, with a consistency of treatment as expertise in domestic violence cases is built up by individual sheriff, in line with the move to have ‘specialist sheriff’ under the revised structure.

“I met again with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice last week and was delighted he confirmed that this approach should be adopted by all the agencies involved in dealing with domestic abuse cases where speed of processing is of the essence.

“I have written to the Sheriff Principal, Derrick Pyle, asking for his assistance in putting in place this sensible approach as soon as possible.

“Whilst no-one would have wanted the court closures, the level of cuts from the UK Government meant the status quo was never an option and I am delighted that there has been some good come out of this process in the form of additional support for vulnerable witnesses and an undertaking to deal with domestic violence cases in this dedicated way.”

Below you can find the Green/Independent Group’s contribution to the Rail debate in the Scottish Parliament 30/05/2013. At the bottom of the page is a briefing from Transform which was mentioned throughout the debate. 

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): I welcome the debate, and I see positive things to celebrate about the state of our railways, which is why the Green and Independent amendment does not seek to delete the whole of the Government’s motion. However, we part company with the Government on the issue of franchising. Although there may be benefits to the collaborative approach with the industry that the Government’s motion sets out, we see the possibility of greater benefits from another approach.

There is a need for the travelling public to be much more fully involved in future decisions about franchising. Current train operating companies may be private-sector profit-seeking businesses, but Scotland’s railways are public services, and the public should be centrally involved in setting the priorities.

I want all the options to be open for Scotland in restoring a public service ethos to our rail business. We on the Green side of the chamber hope that Scotland will soon take on the powers to change UK legislation and open up new possibilities, which would include Labour’s option of a mutual or not-for-profit franchisee. Such a bid could be made at the moment, but realistically it will not materialise out of thin air. That option needs Government support, which would at present be inhibited. Private-sector bidders would be able to oppose such Government support for a not-for-profit operator, but we could in future remove that barrier.

We could go further and look again at the whole concept of franchising or at least permit publicly owned bodies to bid against other competitors. Against a public subsidy of just over £300 million in 2011-12, more than £20 million was taken out as profit in the ScotRail franchise. As Alex Johnstone said, the Scottish Government is then beholden to a haggling process to see whether any of that money can be put back into reinvestment. That is a substantial proportion of the public subsidy that we are paying.

The ideological obsession with privatisation reveals itself in relation to the east coast franchise. We have seen two private sector failures, and we have seen public sector rescue followed by broadly successful public sector management. Punctuality levels are up, and customer satisfaction on the line is at its highest ever level. More than £800 million has been returned to the taxpayer. The state-run east coast rail service requires less public subsidy than any of the 15 privately run rail franchises in Britain. That is according to the rail regulator. In April this year, it reported that the net subsidy for the east coast line was 1 per cent of its income compared with an average of 32 per cent.

As far as we understand, the UK Government has invited bids without reference to the Scottish Government or the interests of the travelling public in Scotland. That is a damning indictment of the ideological obsession with what should be a public service being run for private profit.

I very much welcome the briefing paper from Transform Scotland and I welcome the Liberal Democrat amendment, which refers to it. If we want rail to continue to grow not as part of a more-of-everything approach but to reduce car use—which the minister’s motion claims as a priority—there is a real need to ensure that rail services are not only reliable and affordable in absolute terms but competitive with road journeys on cost and journey time.

The Transform Scotland proposals are of direct relevance to that issue. For example, Transform Scotland’s proposals on the Highland main line cite the Edinburgh to Aberdeen comparison alongside the Edinburgh to Newcastle comparison. Those train journeys are of roughly the same distance—124 miles and 130 miles—and yet the one from Edinburgh to Aberdeen is 50 minutes slower than the one to Newcastle.

Transform Scotland said that it might have been a wee bit too conservative in the figures on the Perth to Inverness journey times in its briefing. The figures that it used, which are based on the AA’s figures, suggest that the leg from Perth to Inverness should take two hours and 33 minutes by car, but Transport Scotland’s figures suggest that the journey is typically 90 minutes to 110 minutes by car, which compares very poorly with the train service.

We need to prioritise the relatively modest investment that would be required to improve the Highland main line and make those services competitive for the future. Transform Scotland has also made proposals for the Edinburgh to Perth direct line. Reinstating that would not only give the chance for shorter intercity journeys within Scotland but free up capacity for improved local services in Fife.

Notwithstanding Tavish Scott’s assertions about the early days of devolution, for years we have seen a heavy emphasis on road investment. We need only to follow the money. Successive Scottish Administrations have prioritised road spending. The M74 was extended while Glasgow crossrail plans gathered dust on the shelf. The Aberdeen western peripheral route was pushed through on spurious cost projections while the Aberdeen crossrail suffers the same fate as its Glasgow comparator.

Current spending on the A9 and the additional Forth road bridge not only represent resources being diverted to road when they could have improved our rail infrastructure but could lead to a threat to the long-term competitiveness of rail services in the future.

I urge the Scottish Government to acknowledge not only what is good but what needs to be much better.
I move amendment S4M-06766.4.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Ind): The debate has been interesting. The minister mentioned Borders rail, and I think that all members recognise the benefits that are associated with such an expansion. There was mention of the introduction of two additional trains to the north at the tail end of 2011, which was very welcome, but that line is now at capacity, which is an issue to which I will return. Rail and cycle hubs were mentioned, but—as my colleague Dave Thompson said—we need to get the coach design right for that.

There has been a lot of talk about the Aberdeen to Inverness service and the Highland main line, and it would be helpful to hear some clarification on definitive timescales from the minister in his closing speech. However, enhancements to the Oban service—the Sunday services—are welcome.

A practical example that my colleague Dave Thompson also mentioned is the opening of the Conon rail link. It is a modest construction in which Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Highland Council and the Scottish Government were involved.

Two additional carriages were provided during the significant road works at the Kessock bridge. Elaine Murray and Claudia Beamish mentioned Wales. The principles that Claudia Beamish outlined are commendable. I certainly agree that more imagination is required.
The Independent/Green amendment talks about recognising the constraints that are placed on the ScotRail franchise. Those constraints come in the form of section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, which states that the public sector cannot be a franchisee. Of course, as the minister mentioned, there is no corresponding ban on foreign public sector bodies being able to bid for and operate UK franchises. That explains why there is a German state-owned Deutsche Bahn locomotive in Waverley now and again, courtesy of Deutsche Bahn’s involvement with Arriva.

The amendment also talks about the Scottish Government ensuring
“greater transparency in its franchise decisions”.

Stewart Stevenson (Intervention): Just for clarity, I think that the locomotive that John Finnie mentions is actually on lease to ScotRail rather than being directly used by Deutsche Bahn.

John Finnie: I think that Stewart Stevenson will find that Deutsche Bahn operates with Arriva. Whatever—the principle stands. Ken Macintosh and others mentioned greater transparency in franchise decisions. Section 30 of the 1993 act says:
“The Authority shall provide, or secure the provision of, services”.
Our amendment certainly talks about providing, rather than securing the provision of, services.

There is an obvious way to remove constraints. Our amendment also talks about
“better value for the public investment in Scotland’s railways”. In 2010, the dividends paid to ScotRail’s shareholders could have paid for a 7 per cent reduction in fares if the service had been under public ownership. I think that that would enjoy widespread public support.
On a number of occasions, I have asked the minister about nationalisation and received the reply that we heard today, and have heard many times, that it is for individual bidders to come forward. Indeed, he has mentioned the Strathclyde partnership for transport previously in that regard.

Like my colleague Patrick Harvie, I am interested in what Ken Macintosh said. I hope that the minister will listen to the proposal and engage in the detail, because we all want to ensure the best possible service, in which, to my mind, there is no room for profit.

The Brown review was also touched on. In a previous reply to me, the minister said that the extent to which it would have an impact was not yet known. Perhaps he could let us know about any lessons that have been learned from that.

In our amendment, we condemn the UK Government’s plan to reprivatise the east coast line. As has been said, the east coast service requires less public subsidy than the 15 privately run franchises in Britain, according to a report from the rail regulator. I commend that report to my colleague Alex Johnstone, who rightly said that it is important that we do not make the same mistakes. It is clear that the UK Government is intent on making a mistake by returning the east coast line to private hands, with a new operator taking over by 2015.

The line has been in the control of the Department for Transport since 2009. My colleague Patrick Harvie has given members the figures: in the past three and a half years, £640 million has been returned to the taxpayer, and it is estimated that the figure will be £800 million by the end of the current year. As has been said, the operator is perfectly capable of providing fine fare for Mr Fraser and others. It was discourteous that reprivatisation was not mentioned to the Scottish Government.

In our amendment, we express concern about the road building programme. It is clear that vast sums for road building are available to take minutes off journeys and that the priority remains the motor car—the motor car is king.

Bruce Crawford (intervention): Given John Finnie’s comments on the road network, does he also object to the upgrading of the A9?

John Finnie: If Bruce Crawford reads the amendment, he will find out that it refers to that.

The Scottish Government is committing £3 billion to the dualling of the A9 to reduce journey times, and it is our view that that money could be better spent. Indeed, there are people who believe that it would be better spent on the A82.

Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con) (Intervention): Will John Finnie give way?

John Finnie: No. Sorry.

More freight being taken off the roads and put on to rail would mean less pressure on the roads.
In the short time that I have left, I will mention a few additional concerns, of which one is the carriage by rail of exotic nuclear fuels from Dounreay. Another is the fragmentation of ScotRail services, with a separate franchise for the Caledonian sleeper, which concerns many people. The clauses in the franchise that allow the reimbursement to private operators of revenue lost as a result of industrial action is also a matter of concern.
The First Minister was quoted in The Herald on 6 August 2008 as saying:
“Railways must at least compete with the roads”.

That is certainly not the case. The minister has been asked about the Railways Act 1993, but as yet there are no plans to remove profit from the public service that is Scotland’s rail network. That is not transformation; it is the status quo. The public must be central to the provision of public services.

Ends

Briefing: 2013-05-30 — Transforming Scotland’s Railways debate — Transform Scotland briefing

Below is a copy of John’s letter to the Lord Advocate on rendition, dated 23rd May 2013.

John’s Letter to Lord Advocate on Rendition. Dated 23rd May 2013

The link in the letter can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/uk-support-cia-rendition-flights

Below is a series of questions John put to the Scottish Government on Wednesday 22nd of May 2013.

Question S4W-15199: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-11963 by Nicola Sturgeon on 22 January 2013, whether it has had discussions with HM Revenue and Customs in relation to corporate tax avoidance or evasion and, if so, what the outcomes were.

Question S4W-15198: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it provides funding to any company involved in the research, development or manufacture of arms in Scotland and, if so, what companies and how much.

Question S4W-15197: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it maintains details of companies based in Scotland that are involved in research into, development or manufacture of armaments.

Question S4W-15196: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the possible environmental impact, what its position is on the Nuclear Decommission Authority’s statement in its letter to John Finnie dated 21 May 2013 regarding shipments of nuclear fuel by rail from Dounreay to Cumbria that “There are no plans to carry out a consultation exercise with specific communities along the route from Caithness to Cumbria.”

Question S4W-15195: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the possible environmental impact,  what discussions it has had since December 2012 with the UK Government regarding the transportation of nuclear fuel from Dounreay to Cumbria; who participated, and what the outcome was.

Question S4W-15194: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has provided any funding to Direct Rail Services Ltd since 1999.

Question S4W-15193: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the possible environmental impact, what discussions it has had with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) regarding material at Dounreay described as exotics in the NDA’s strategy document.

Question S4W-15192: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the possible environmental impact, what discussions it has had with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority since December 2012 regarding the transportation of nuclear fuel by rail; who participated, and what the outcome was.

Question S4W-15191: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the transportation of radioactive waste by rail.

Question S4W-15190: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 22/05/2013

To ask the Scottish Government whether it responds to questions posed to it via Twitter and other social media.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 07/06/2013