Justice 2 Committee, 30 Sep 2003
Meeting date: Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Official Report 254KB pdf
Contents
- Scottish Parliament Justice 2 Committee Tuesday 30 September 2003 (Afternoon)
- Interests
- Item in Private
- Subordinate Legislation
- Criminal Justice Bill
- Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
- Petition
Petition
Public Bodies (Complainers' Rights) (PE578)
I reconvene the meeting. Agenda item 5 is on petition PE578, which emanates from Mr Donald MacKinnon. The petition is on public bodies and complainers' rights. We decided at last week's meeting to raise the petition's issues with the minister when he came before us today, which we managed to do.
Members will be familiar with the petition's content. I certainly got the impression from the minister that the Executive has no intention of changing the law in the way that the petition calls for. Equally, the Executive considers that it would be inappropriate to try to do so within the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Bill because the bill is concerned with other issues altogether.
Having considered the petition and listened to the minister, committee members must decide what they want to do. There are three options. First, we could seek further information from the Deputy Minister for Justice. However, given what he said today, I do not know whether that option would be particularly fruitful. Secondly, we could get further advice on the European convention on human rights aspects of matters that Mr MacKinnon's petition mentions. Thirdly, the committee may be minded to take no further action at this stage. I am happy for members to contribute their views.
In my previous existence on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, the issue came before us. I cannot recollect which bill passed before us—it seems such a long time ago—but we were told at that stage that it was not the appropriate legislative vehicle for what the petition wanted. We were clearly told the same today. I support that position, but there is an issue about the balance between protecting a vulnerable person's rights, particularly a child's, by granting them absolute privilege, and recognising that there could be malicious intentions towards people and that perhaps qualified privilege would be more appropriate.
I take from what the convener said earlier that we do not know the scale of the problem to which the petition refers. Given that the Executive answered a parliamentary question from me on the subject—I apologise for neglecting to bring it—it might—
Can you summarise that answer for the committee?
We ask so many PQs, I am unable to do so. Basically, what the minister said earlier summarised the answer to the PQ, which is that the Executive has no plans to afford the rights of absolute privilege to children or vulnerable people, as the petitioner wants. Therefore, we must consider whether we can test the Executive on anything. I wonder whether it would be appropriate, as a follow-up to today's session, to write to the Deputy Minister for Justice and ask him whether he can identify the scale of the problem.
Do other members care to comment on that suggestion?
It seems reasonable.
It is a reasonable suggestion. I have a great deal of sympathy with the petition and I believe that there is something to it. I have no idea whether the case to which the petition refers is a one-off case or whether there are many such cases, or whether people are being prohibited from making complaints or whatever. However, the petition merits further investigation. If we continue the petition, we should perhaps ask the appropriate person to give us an opinion on whether the ECHR is an issue. There is no reason for not continuing the petition.
We have two positive proposals. Jackie Baillie's is that, notwithstanding what the Deputy Minister for Justice said in evidence earlier, we should write to him and seek to probe further what information the Executive has on the issue. It might have information of which we are unaware. Mike Pringle's suggestion is that we take advice on the ECHR aspects of matters that the petition covers. The two suggestions are not mutually exclusive and seem to be perfectly capable of going forward in tandem. Depending on the responses to those two lines of inquiry, it might be possible to determine how we wish to respond to Mr MacKinnon. Do we agree to write to the Deputy Minister for Justice and to seek advice on the ECHR implications of the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We now move into private session for item 6.
Meeting continued in private until 17:22.