Petition
The first agenda item is petition PE29 on road traffic deaths, which we have received from the Dekker family. Most members of the committee will be only too familiar with the issues that are raised in this petition and with the tragic circumstances that gave rise to it.
We must discuss how we intend to progress this matter, rather than trying to deal with the petition this morning. In fairness, it would be almost impossible to do this petition justice with a brief discussion. We must decide what we ought to do with the petition and how best to manage that work within the constraints on the committee, given our heavy work load. This is more about timetabling than about the substance of the petition.
I ask whether there are brief comments on how we should handle this petition, to help the clerks with timetabling discussion on it into future meetings. Such discussion will now require to be held after the Christmas and new year recess. This is a substantive petition, which raises an enormous number of key issues. I do not think that we can investigate it in just one or two meetings.
I do not think that we should let this matter slip without putting down some markers, which should be in the form of contact with the Crown Office. We should look for details on the number of occasions that police have charged people with causing death by dangerous driving and on how many occasions those charges have been altered to the charge of careless driving. It might be worth while to consider the reverse process as well.
We should also express concern to the Crown Office about its apparent refusal to give reasons for altering charges to the families of people who have been killed in such accidents. Ultimately, I see no option but to invite the Lord Advocate to come before the committee to answer questions on the range of issues that surrounds the charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
While in no way belittling the seriousness of both this case and the petition—we have all had some involvement with the Dekker family at some point—I think that the case is the tip of a big iceberg. This is not the only time that we have been approached about this subject and therefore it is a matter that the committee would be justified in investigating. I take your point, Roseanna, about our heavy work load. We have discussed that on many occasions and will do a stocktake in spring next year to plan the rest of our work. However, we should consider seriously this petition during that stocktake and, although I do not know how we will attach priority to issues, I think that we should flag up that this is one subject that we should return to.
One of the saddest aspects of cases such as this one is that the families feel let down by the system. As a committee, we need to do what we can to address that and to address some of the pain that families suffer. There seems to be little statistical information available from the Crown Office about the number of people who have been charged with careless driving. Before we can make informed decisions, we need the evidence before us of the Lord Advocate's charging policies. I agree that we should consider this matter and that we should flag up our interest in it. We should progress it when the work load is a bit lighter than it is at present.
I agree with the comments that have been made so far. The starting point in this matter is the statement that the Lord Advocate gave us when he attended a committee meeting with Angus MacKay. He used the word accountability and the word transparency, which is the key word. We owe it to the Dekker family and to other families who have written to us to get to the bottom of what the Crown Office means when it says that it wants to provide a service that is seen to be transparent. That would go a long way towards establishing principles about what we can, or cannot, expect from the Crown Office. It would also contribute towards addressing the views that we probably all share on victim support.
We should tackle this subject—I will leave it to others to comment on how we should go about that. I agree with Tricia Marwick and Scott Barrie that the petition is worthy of further examination, but we will probably have to leave that until we have more time. I am happy for us to kick off by writing letters to the Lord Advocate now, pressing him on what he means by accountability and transparency.
I apologise for missing the early part of the meeting. I support what Tricia said about the lack of statistical information. I would like to know whether statistical information is available on how many times charges are reduced—when a charge is made out and then diminished—and on the circumstances in which that happens. Further, we should set in train the timetable, by writing to the Lord Advocate. I would also like the committee to pursue with the Lord Advocate the idea of a victims charter, which would entitle victims and families of victims to all the information, all along the line, on matters such as those that are raised in this case.
I appreciate our timetabling problems. Perhaps we could highlight the matter to the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice, with a view to making progress in the spring.
One of the difficulties with this petition is that it raises a number of different issues, each of which could be the subject of separate and quite long investigations, such as handling victims, which is just one aspect of the petition. That is why I am concerned that we discuss how best to progress the petition. I suggest that, in the first instance, as with all new potential investigations, this will require to be deferred until the meeting after the Easter recess. It will join the process by which we will decide our priorities once we have dealt with the legislation that we are still handling.
However, between now and then, it would be useful to write to the Lord Advocate, to ask for his specific comments on each of the areas raised by this petition. Separately, it might also be appropriate to ask the researchers in the Scottish Parliament information centre to collate what information is available—that would also give them time. I know that a number of members have asked parliamentary questions on this subject and there are various pieces of information that are on—or off—the record. If, prior to the Easter meeting, we can get SPICe to collate all the relevant information that is on the record, we will have information that is easier to handle when we come to consider how to proceed with this petition at that meeting. Are members happy with that approach?
I must also tell members that I understand that we have now lost the meeting of the morning of Wednesday 15 December. I believe that it has been decided that that Wednesday morning will be parliamentary time. The standing orders state that committees will not be able to meet when the Parliament meets, and, as we were scheduled to meet that Wednesday morning, that means that, willy-nilly, we have lost a meeting, which is unfortunate. I intend to take that matter further, as we will have two bills returned to us for stage 2 and we are in the process of trying to timetable that for the January and February meetings.
The gathering of background information on this petition will mean that, when we come to deal with the matter more substantively, we will be in a better position to understand what work will be required in order to progress it. Potentially, there are two or three different investigations subsumed in this petition.
I recognise the pressures and that we are talking about deferring this matter until Easter. We have had similar discussions before. I have particular concerns about this petition, as it will take longer to sort out. However, it seems to me to be totally wrong that, when someone is killed in an accident, there is no reference to that death when the accused is subsequently charged with careless driving. I do not know whether we can make representations to the Lord Advocate, as his hands would be tied in any case.
On the cancellation of the 15 December meeting, I guard as jealously as any other member my Mondays and Fridays, which I spend in the constituency areas. However, we are moving into a position where we cannot afford to lose that meeting.
We are in the process of trying to organise something else, as other items were slotted in also. One of the difficulties with losing that meeting is that we are potentially going to lose the opportunity to speak to the Minister for Justice about prison issues. There are complications arising out of the loss of that meeting and, behind the scenes, we are trying to arrange an alternative slot that week. However, that will not be a Monday or a Friday, as, apart from anything else, ministers have indicated that they do not wish to be invited to meetings on Mondays and Fridays as well as on Tuesdays.
Although the details are not finalised, I can indicate to members that we hope to be able to fit in a slot on the afternoon of Tuesday, 14 December. However, that is not confirmed, and all I ask is that members pencil that date into their diaries. We are giving members the maximum possible notice. I was going to raise this matter later, under the item on the Scottish Prison Service.
We are having difficulties trying to rearrange meetings and trying to find the time to undertake work. The best way in which we can progress this petition is to write to the Lord Advocate, to ask him to address the specific issues, one by one, that the petition raises, not simply to gloss over them. I also suggest that we ask SPICe to pull together the available information that is germane to the issues raised by the petition, by way of on-the-record replies to parliamentary questions and debates.
This is a formal petition, therefore we must make some pronouncement on it. I do not think that it is the sort of petition that we can merely note. We must try to address the substantive matters of this petition, either in totality or in part, and we need some background information. I ask the committee to leave the matter with the clerk and me, and we will ensure that those two things are set in train. We will report back at another meeting on what we have received. When SPICe gives us that information, the committee will be able to read it.
The difficulty is the timetabling, as I have already mentioned. If members are happy with that at this stage, the matter will be addressed. We will try to allocate time on a future agenda, even if it is only five minutes, to report back on progress so far, before the committee enters into a bigger discussion, in a couple of months' time, at which it can decide whether to take up every item in the petition or to focus on a couple of the key issues. Are all members happy with that?
Members indicated agreement.