Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Private Criminal Prosecutions (Legal Aid) (PE1766)
The first continued petition is PE1766. The petition, which was lodged by Andrew Buchan, calls on the Scottish Government to change the law to provide free legal aid to people who are unwaged and/or learning-disabled victims of abuse who wish to bring private criminal prosecutions.
The Government’s submission outlines the recent action that it has taken to review how legal aid operates in Scotland. The submission also outlines the process for seeking a private prosecution. Members may wish to note that the Government’s response concludes by stating that
“the system of public prosecution in Scotland works well, and we have no plans to”
change the ways
“by which private prosecution can be initiated.”
The petitioner’s written submission outlines his personal experience of trying to raise a private prosecution. He is of the view that he should have access to legal aid to challenge “Classism and corruption.”
The question of legal aid and access to justice is a difficult area of work. It always has been. I am not convinced that the main focus of the argument is about private prosecutions. I think that we would want to be confident that the public prosecution system is working fairly and that people have access to justice.
I will call members—first, Maurice Corry.
It is an interesting petition. I understand the Government’s position, which is that it has
“no plans to adjust the current process by which private prosecution can be initiated.”
However, there are questions to be asked. Rather than close the petition, I am minded to get more information from appropriate bodies, including the Law Society of Scotland and others that would be deemed to be sensible by the committee.
I would be quite happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. If the Scottish Government has no intentions of changing the law, the petition will not go anywhere. I am quite happy to shut it down.
[Temporary loss of sound.]
We seem to have lost the convener. I call Tom Mason.
We are on plan B, obviously.
This is a difficult one. Clearly, the petition has two parts. One part is about the private prosecution system and the other part is about legal aid generally.
There are huge problems across the board with the legal aid system. As a justice of the peace, I have seen legal aid problems. I have also represented a number of cases. It was incredibly difficult to sort out the problems.
As far as the petition goes, I do not think that we can make much progress unless we examine legal aid generally, which is a far bigger issue than that which the petition addresses.
I think that closing the petition is the only thing that we can do, at this stage. I think that a new petition about legal aid would be much more appropriate.
10:45
Certainly, the evidence that we have had suggests that the issue hinges on the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. We have no legislative powers to provide legal aid for representation in private prosecutions.
Maurice—are you happy to go along with the other two members and to close the petition on that basis?
I hear what the other members are saying, and I very much take on board their points. I also take on board the point about the Scottish Government’s position, as I said earlier. I just have a hunch that maybe we should tease something more out of the Law Society. However, as you rightly point out, the 1986 act is in place. On that basis, I agree that we should close the petition.
Thank you. I appreciate your coming back in.
We therefore agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans to adjust the current process by which private prosecutions can be initiated. We thank the petitioner, who can come back in a year’s time if they feel that their issues have not been addressed.
Children’s Hearings (Record of Proceedings) (PE1768)
The second continued petition for consideration is PE1768, which was lodged by James A Mackie. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all proceedings in children’s hearings be minuted or recorded.
We have received the Scottish Government’s response, which contains further information on the Children’s Hearings Improvement Partnership, including on why parents and children are not involved in it, as we requested. The Scottish Government has explained the background to the recording process for decisions, and it has highlighted the low number of appeals. It acknowledges that although there is no direct representation by children and families on CHIP, they are involved in the group’s work.
The petitioner’s response states that the Scottish Government’s response does not reflect the reality of experiences in the children’s hearings system, and it highlights the
“glaring gaps in procedures that could be amended now”.
He does not agree with the Scottish Government that there is sufficient input by families and children in CHIP and says that
“parents and families are demonized and ignored”.
He states that there are few appeals because the process is difficult and confusing and there is but little guidance on and difficulty in finding support from a solicitor.
In the evidence that we have been given, it has been explained to us quite clearly why children’s hearings are not minuted. I would like to hear members’ views on the petition, starting with David Torrance.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that what it calls for
“could undermine the ethos of the system, making exchanges more formal and possibly inhibiting young people when asked to give their views”,
and that it could reduce
“the current participative approach.”
That approach is crucial to getting young people to take part in hearings and give their views. If hearings were to be minuted, they would become very formal, so it could be difficult for some young people to give their views.
In the appeals system, the judge’s decision would not be based on what would be in the minutes, but on the decision that is made by the panel.
I am quite happy to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plans to change how children’s hearings are recorded.
This is a very difficult area, and I fully appreciate why such proceedings are not recorded at the moment. However, there is the great issue of how to know what has gone on before when carrying adjourned cases forward from one meeting to the next. It could be quite gruelling to have to go through the issues again. Decisions might change as a result of not knowing what has happened previously.
I would have thought that it would be perfectly possible to have a recording system that is not intrusive. Surely somebody taking minutes in the background would not impede what goes on.
I think that we should keep the petition open so that we can explore what is going on and to strike the best balance between the two opposing views. It is incredibly frustrating when children’s hearings cases are perceived not to be well understood and dealt with when it comes to appeals and the like. Some families become desperate as a result of the situation being perceived to be unfair.
I think that we need to investigate matters further and keep the petition open for the time being.
I agree entirely with Tom Mason. I do not think that we have got to the root of the matter. I am keen that we write to the Scottish Government to highlight the petitioner’s continued concern, and that we keep the petition open for now.
I have heard of cases in which things have slipped through the net and there has probably not been enough understanding. Do not get me wrong; I understand that such cases can be difficult. There should be a better way of recording key points, over and above the decisions that are taken, although that is a matter for the legal system and the Scottish Government.
I agree that we should keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government.
I will come back to David Torrance to find out whether he agrees that we should write to the Scottish Government to find out whether, as Maurice Corry suggests, there is a way in which key points could be recorded if there is a contentious issue, without that impinging on the willingness of the child and the other people involved to open up and be comfortable in the meeting. Would you be happy with us taking that course of action, David?
For the sake of consensus, I will agree with the other members of the committee.
That is very good of you. Thank you.
On the basis of the discussion that we have had and the comments that I have made, we agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether the proposal that specific pieces of information be recorded is being considered.
Higher Education (PE1769)
The next continued petition for consideration is PE1769, on higher education in Scotland, which was lodged by Marie Oldfield. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to review the way in which higher education is set up and delivered in Scotland, including how students’ rights are enforced and whether there is scope to allocate more power to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.
I welcome Jackie Baillie, who has joined us for consideration of the petition.
Since our most recent consideration of the petition in January of this year, we have received written submissions from the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, the Quality Assurance Agency Scotland, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the petitioner. The submissions are summarised in our papers.
Since the publication of our papers, the petitioner has provided a further submission that highlights that, as most people are not able to bring matters to court,
“there is no way to achieve a reasonable result on a complaint if the SPSO is not able to provide one.”
I invite Jackie Baillie to inform the committee by speaking about the petition.
I thank the committee for allowing me to take up some of its time this morning.
The petitioner, Marie Oldfield, is my constituent. She was engaged in a course of postgraduate study, which she funded herself, at the University of Glasgow. She is a former teacher and validator of university degree courses, so I hope that you will agree that she has a rounded perspective of university education. However, her experience at the University of Glasgow was not good. A number of lectures and tutorials were abandoned as a result of industrial action at the time.
I will not dwell on the specifics of Marie’s case, because the committee will not discuss individual cases. Instead, I will focus briefly on her experience of the complaints process, because it seems that it is not robust and that there are few external checks on it. As the committee knows, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman does not look at the substance of complaints; it looks at the process and appears rarely to uphold higher education complaints. However, I understand that, in the past, it has raised issues about the University of Glasgow’s complaints process.
The enhancement-led institutional review—that is quite a mouthful—which is carried out by the Quality Assurance Agency Scotland, looks at academic standards and the student experience. In 2014, it identified that there were issues at the University of Glasgow in relation to postgraduate students. Some five years later, in a 2019 technical report, the agency established that the same issues remained, so little had changed.
Ms Oldfield’s experience was that, while she was engaged in the complaints process, the university sent her threatening letters and refused her offer of mediation with a local law centre. There appears to be little accountability or external oversight. The reality of her experience is that universities appear to be left to their own devices.
Ultimately, the Scottish Funding Council might have a role in the matter, so I would be grateful if the committee could take it further.
Thank you. I ask members for their comments and suggestions.
I agree with Jackie Baillie. I was an academic for 27 years and I understand how these things can come about. I had a number of experiences in university in which bullying, in effect, took place. It was up to the academics to get solutions, and I managed to resolve most of those situations myself. I used to carry my resignation letter in my pocket; occasionally, I had to throw it on the desk, in order to make a point.
We should seek more information from the Scottish Founding Council, keep the petition open and press for a sensible solution. I am not for completely dominating the process from outside—that would not be constructive. However, we have to progress from where we are to something better, and the petition could be a vehicle for doing that.
I thank the petitioner for a detailed and highly interesting submission; I also thank Jackie Baillie for highlighting various points. I do not know the petitioner but she is from my region, too. I thank Tom Mason for his comments about his experience and for highlighting those points.
I am minded to keep the petition open; there is something there that we need to resolve, and I have heard of similar instances in my work. We should write to the Scottish Funding Council, as Tom Mason said, to seek its views, and to the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, because his submission does not give enough information that is to the point. Let us see what comes out of that.
Like my colleagues, I would like to keep the petition open. We need to write to the Scottish Funding Council, and we definitely need to write to the minister to ask for his response to the points that the petition raises.
I thank Jackie Baillie, whose evidence has been extremely important. I also have a sense that we need to follow up the petition. I thank the petitioner for the substantial information provided.
11:00The committee agrees to write to the Scottish Funding Council to seek its views, and to the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science. We will get back to the issue at a later date. Again, I thank the petitioner and Jackie Baillie.
Rape Law (PE1773)
The next continued petition for our consideration is PE1773, on reforming rape law, which was brought by Sarah Takahashi. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to update the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 to include the offence of a man being raped by a woman.
Since our most recent consideration of the petition in January, the committee has received submissions from the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Law Society of Scotland and Police Scotland. The submissions are summarised in our meeting papers. The petitioner was invited to respond to the submissions, but a response has not been received.
I found the evidence, particularly from the Law Society, to be quite stark. The society said, of the offence of rape:
“The Petition would seem to seek removal of the distinctive elements of the crime”—
that is, penetration.
All our submissions pointed out that the conduct that the petitioner highlighted would be a criminal offence under sections 3 or 4 of the 2009 act, which the petitioner has asked to be updated.
I invite members’ views.
This is a complicated one, but I think that there are enough legal powers in place in Scotland at the moment. I am minded to recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the written submissions have explained why the offence of rape is confined to crimes of penile penetration. There is enough information in that evidence to enable us to recommend closing the petition.
I agree with Maurice Corry. We should close the petition under rule 15.7. The Law Society of Scotland does not agree with the call in the petition and says that the law is adequate to protect everybody.
I agree with my colleagues. We have had enough information to assure us that the law should not change, so it would be appropriate to close the petition under rule 15.7.
Okay. I thank the petitioner, who raised an extremely emotive issue. When emotion runs up against legislation, the situation is very difficult, but I think that the committee agrees that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that all the written submissions that we received explained why rape is confined to crimes of penile penetration; the conduct that was highlighted in the petition can currently be punishable to the same degree as rape; and the Law Society of Scotland states that it does not consider that there is
“any failure to prosecute offending sexual behaviour affecting male complainers”
under existing legislation.
Vaping-related Illnesses and Deaths (Recording) (PE1774)
The final continued petition for consideration today is PE1774, on formally recording vaping-related illness and death, which was brought by Craig Edward. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to collect data on vaping-related illness and vaping during pregnancy, to ensure that the best health interventions are provided to all.
Since we last considered the petition, we have received submissions from the Scottish Government and the UK Government. We requested a submission from the petitioner but did not receive one.
The UK Government advised that, in 2016:
“the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) launched Yellow Card reporting for nicotine containing e-cigarettes. The Scheme collects reports of suspected adverse reactions associated with e-cigarettes.”
The Scottish Government advised:
“The national Scottish Clinical Coding Review Group of National Services Scotland ... has recently approved the use of the ICD10 emergency code for coding vaping related disorder for hospital admissions across NHS Scotland”.
The petitioner’s point has been addressed in the submissions and is dealt with in Scottish and UK Government systems that are currently active. I would like to hear committee members’ views.
The matter has been addressed at UK Government level as well as Scottish Government level. I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that data on vaping-related illnesses and vaping during pregnancy is collected at both levels, through the yellow card scheme and clinical coding. There is a grasp of the issues.
I note that the petitioner commented that a report in the Daily Record on 29 September 2019 found that
“children are now being targeted and vaping oils were marketed at children and sold on online auction website E-Bay without any age checks.”
That concerns me. I hope that the point will be picked up by both Governments in the context of various checks and balances that are put in place. At this stage, although it would be sensible to close the petition, we should maybe write to the Government to ask for its reaction to that point and to ask how it proposes to mitigate the issue and prevent such marketing to young people.
Given that the data is being collected through the yellow card scheme and Scottish clinical coding, I am happy to agree with Maurice Corry that we should close the petition under rule 15.7.
I agree with my colleagues. The matter has the attention of both Governments, which have it well under control. However, it might be appropriate and a good idea to write to the Governments to remind them of the issues to do with children. The Governments are on the right lines, and we can close the petition under rule 15.7.
We thank the petitioner and we agree to close the petitioner under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that data on vaping-related illness and vaping during pregnancy is collected at both Scottish and UK Government levels, through the yellow card scheme and Scottish clinical coding. However, we will write to the relevant minister about the advertising and promotion of vaping products, if no member disagrees.
That concludes our meeting. I thank all the petitioners, I thank Rory Maclean for giving evidence at the start of the meeting, and I thank all members for their important contributions. I also thank the convener, who is somewhere watching us; I hope that she will be able to join us again next week.
Meeting closed at 11:09.Previous
New Petitions