Because people from Justice for Megrahi are travelling to hear consideration of their petition and I hear that they will not be here until about 11 o’clock, I will take the petitions that we are considering today in a different order from the agenda. If we have reached that petition before they arrive, I will just have a little break, if that is all right with the committee.
Members indicated agreement.
Administrative Justice (PE1449)
There are four public petitions and members have paper 5, which provides them with an update. We will take PE1449, which is on preserving an independent Scottish administrative justice council, first.
The convener of Accountability Scotland has advised the clerks that he has concerns about representation of the end user on the Scottish tribunals and administrative justice council advisory committee. He wishes to make a submission to the committee detailing those concerns. Does the committee wish to write to him asking for a formal submission with a specific deadline, such as Friday 1 August? Do members also wish to write to the chair of the advisory committee to ask about the extent to which the end user is represented in its deliberations before we do anything else?
Yes. That is sensible.
Do members wish to do both?
Members indicated agreement.
Solicitors (Complaints) (PE1479)
PE1479 is on the legal profession and the legal aid time bar and urges the Government to amend the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 to remove any references to complaints being made timeously. The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has recently advised the clerks that it proposes an extension to the time bar and will shortly consult stakeholders on the proposal. In light of that, do members wish to advise the petitioner of the SLCC’s decision and the forthcoming consultation? That person could also respond to the consultation.
Members indicated agreement.
Do members also wish to write to the SLCC to encourage it to consult the petitioner on the proposal to extend the time bar, so that it is interactive?
Members indicated agreement.
In the interim, we should keep the petition open.
Yes, obviously.
Supreme Court (Civil Appeals) (PE1504)
Paper 5 provides a fairly detailed narrative on the next petition, PE1504. The committee previously agreed to consider it as part of our consideration of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Bill. We wrote to the petitioner to ask what the point of general public importance was in her case, but she has not completely addressed the point in her submission. Do members wish to write again to the petitioner to ask what the point of general public importance was in her case and to ascertain the precise reasoning that solicitors gave her for not representing her?
Yes. It has never been clear to me what the point of general public importance is. The petitioner raises concerns about the procedural issues, which I understand and which we hope to address with the bill if it becomes law, but the point of general public importance has never been clear to me, so we need to ask her again.
Right, okay. I will suspend the meeting and we will have a little break—
Sorry, convener, can I go back to PE1479? You said that there may be an opportunity to interact with the consultation, but the paper says that the consultation closed on 21 March.
That is a different consultation. It is a new consultation. We have many consultations.
We will have a little break to allow the petitioners from Justice for Megrahi to arrive for their consideration of their petition. That seems fair.
How long is the break?
It is until 11 o’clock. You get a 12-minute break. You are not complaining.
10:48 Meeting suspended.Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
We turn to PE1370, on Justice for Megrahi. I declare an interest: I am a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.
Members have received a letter from Police Scotland that encloses minutes of a meeting with members of Justice for Megrahi. The minutes advise that a full investigation of JFM’s allegations is resuming and that Police Scotland and JFM will hold future liaison meetings. Following the issue of committee papers last week, members received a submission from Justice for Megrahi, which has been tabled. The submission makes clear that JFM believes that “constructive progress” is now being made between itself and Police Scotland. In addition, the committee was complimented, which was rather nice.
Do members have any general comments on the police response and the JFM submission?
Yes. There is useful information from both parties here. You alluded to JFM’s reference to “constructive progress”, and the word “progress” is significant, because clearly JFM is not there yet. It is very good that there is confidence in the police personnel who are engaged in the deliberations and that the liaison meetings are continuing.
It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway. A major crime investigation is being talked about, so it was important that after a significant complaint was made—I quote again from the JFM submission—
“Clear lines of communication have been established”.
Justice for Megrahi expresses a concern that we would all understand. All criminal inquiries take place at the behest of the Lord Advocate, and there is an important role for the Crown Office there. It is also important to note the three different strands: the call for a public inquiry; the significant criminal allegations; and the anticipated submission from Lockerbie relatives. As the paper says, those three things are inextricably linked; I agree whole-heartedly with that.
As you did, convener, I note the comment about the role that the Justice Committee has played in progressing things. The Justice Committee has articulated widely held public interest and concern about the issues. That has perhaps focused our minds and moved the issue on from the impasse that we saw previously.
JFM’s on-going concerns relate to some of the intemperate comments in the press last year, which, process-wise, were wholly inappropriate. It will surprise no one to hear that I agree with the view that there should be some political oversight. This is work in progress, not work that has been concluded, and I do not think that the public would in any way be fazed by us maintaining a watching brief on the issue. Quite the reverse is true, and were we to say that we were no longer interested, that would give entirely the wrong signal.
I hope that committee members will agree that there is a lot of merit in our maintaining a watching brief on this very important public issue and keeping the petition open.
I agree with what John Finnie said. We should keep the petition open.
I would be grateful for clarification on the position of the application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
I was going to say exactly the same as Roddy Campbell said.
I thank the petitioners for their submission. There is no doubt that everyone on the Justice Committee who has been involved has done a grand job—even before I was on the committee.
I seek some clarification. The Crown Office will look at Police Scotland’s report. A paragraph in JFM’s submission says:
“JFM continues to have little faith in any decision the Crown Office might make in respect of its allegations.”
The petition requested an investigation, so where does that leave the committee?
The petition asks for an independent public inquiry. Depending on what comes out of the police investigation into alleged quasi-criminal or criminal actions in the course of the whole matter, one might have to say that a public inquiry is necessary. We do not know, which is why it would be very relevant to keep the petition open.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has nothing to do with Justice for Megrahi. It is to do with parties that may have an interest in lodging an application to it for a further review of the matter. Although that is contingent and important, it is not part of the petition.
So the matter has been looked at by the police and there have been meetings, which have been very open. However, the matter will ultimately go to the Crown Office.
It will, yes.
If the petitioners deem the Crown Office’s deliberations to be unsatisfactory, could the committee have a watching brief and make its own deliberations? I want to know how the process goes.
We could do that, but the problem is that the Crown Office’s past actions might be implicated. If the police referred to a party that might somehow be implicated—depending on what comes out of all this—one might have to stop and say, “This is a big, big issue and might be the thing that requires a public inquiry into the actions of the Crown Office and the police”. I am not saying that that is the case; I am just surmising.
I am just asking for myself. I do not know the process.
If Sandra White’s concern is that by keeping the petition open she would be giving some personal endorsement of the views expressed, that is not how I see it.
I do not think that that is her concern.
I signed the petition, so that is not my concern. I just want to know—
The question is about process.
Yes, indeed. We have to assume that, given the re-engagement, things will progress in good faith and what will be, will be. However, there is an important role for us.
Do you agree that we should at least keep the petition open, see what comes out of all this and then return to it, as we have done with petitions in the past when the matter has not concluded?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open and keep a watching brief on it.
11:06 Meeting continued in private until 11:47.Previous
Subordinate Legislation