Justice 1 Committee, 04 Feb 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 4, 2003

Official Report 263KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Carbeth Hutters (PE14)

I reconvene the meeting—if that is the right phrase. Let us turn to item 5, on petitions, and try to keep within our schedule. I refer members to paper J1/03/3/12, which gives the background to the petition from the hutters. Some of us visited the issue almost four years ago. Members are asked to consider the options that are outlined in the paper or to come up with others of their own.

We have received responses from the Executive and the minister. It is a bit rich of the minister to say:

"there was very little contribution from respondents as to the content of the legislation."

That is not what ordinary people are supposed to come up with.

I was surprised to find that the issue is still being considered. I thought that it had been resolved. I am sure that it was the subject of one of the first members' business debates that we had in the Parliament. The issue has now been going on for almost four years. Apart from the fact that local negotiations have taken place, we do not seem to be any further forward.

I think—I hope that I am not incorrect—that the minister advised us that the matter might be addressed in the land reform legislation, but that has come to nothing.

Members have the minister's response and some options for consideration. Can I take the views of the committee?

I appreciate the fact that

"legislation to protect hutters would be contrary to the fundamental principles of Scots law".

In Scots law, when land is owned by someone, whatever is built on it belongs to the owner of the land. Nonetheless, in its initial report, the former Justice and Home Affairs Committee took the view that, back in the 1930s, the number of huts was restricted and it was clear which properties would come under the definition of huts. We decided that it was not beyond the wit of anyone to come up with legislation to protect those very special things.

Let me float something. If we write to the Executive, it will perhaps eat a wee bit of humble pie, but it is still a stand-off at the end of the day. I recall trying to deal with the matter when I was the minister with responsibility for housing, but it was batted backwards and forwards between the committee and the Executive. Of course, for reasons of natural justice, I thought that it was a disgrace that people were being thrown off their land. Members can imagine me throwing my weight around, trying to do something about it. The response that I received was that there were going to be four major bills on land and housing, whereas the petition concerned an anomaly that affected one community, and that I should remember that this is a Parliament.

If we were Westminster—I say this with respect—how would we handle the matter so as to have it resolved in the next session? Could we explore the possibility of a member's bill for which we could seek the Executive's support?

I was going to suggest that the committee might consider introducing a committee bill on the subject. The committee report fully supports the introduction of legislation for the hutters, and the former Justice and Home Affairs Committee's bill on domestic abuse, which became the Protection from Abuse (Scotland) Act 2001, has set a precedent. We may want to put that suggestion in our legacy paper.

I agree completely with that. Irrespective of the individual case, as a national Parliament, legislating for the nation—not a souped-up regional council—we should start setting the terms of what is appropriate for members' bills and committee bills and what is appropriate for the Executive. Our legacy paper might make reference to that.

We would have access to the non-Executive bills unit to draft a committee bill, whereas a member's bill might struggle.

It might help a future Justice 1 Committee to consider the matter if it had a response from the Executive on the specific problems that exist. Therefore, we should write to the Executive and put in the legacy paper what Wendy Alexander has suggested.

Are we agreed that we will not bother going into all the issues, as we have been at this for such a long time, but will ask the Executive what principles make legislation for the hutters impossible and what legislative solutions it can suggest? We can then recommend a committee bill on the subject, given that the former Justice and Home Affairs Committee was unanimous in its initial report.

Members indicated agreement.

I declare an interest that is contained in the parliamentary register of members' interests.

You are not a hutter, James, are you?

No. I have no direct interest in the Carbeth hutters. However, the small company of which I am an unpaid director has a property that has a ground rent.

I was being mischievous. Of course there are other hutters besides the Carbeth hutters. We have a paper on the subject and we know our way round it. Let us go for the suggested option.

---

Road Traffic Deaths (PE29)<br />Dangerous Driving Deaths <br />(PE55, PE299, PE331)

Petition PE29 is from Mrs and Mrs Dekker. Petitions PE55, PE299 and PE331 are from Ms Donegan and Mr Frank Harvey. I refer members to committee paper J1/03/3/13, which sets out the background to the petitions and related correspondence. Dangerous driving and the law is another issue that has been around for quite a while. The most recent letter from the Lord Advocate is dated 31 January. We seem to have made a little progress. I give members a moment to read the paper and to consider the proposals that it contains.

The last paragraph on the first page of the letter from Colin Boyd QC explains:

"SCID have argued that all cases of causing death by dangerous driving should be heard in the High Court of the Justiciary. Having regard to the range of sentences currently being imposed by courts in Scotland for such offences, the Home Office's proposals to increase the maximum penalty from 10 years to 14 years imprisonment, and the public concern about such cases, I have decided that there should now be a presumption that offences under Sections 1 and 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 will be prosecuted in the High Court. Prosecutions in the Sheriff Court will take place only where there are particular circumstances which appear to mitigate the offence."

The petitioners have pushed one little door open at least. There is now a presumption, which must be rebutted, that serious cases will go to the High Court.

That will take place from 13 January 2003.

Yes.

Let us consider what the committee wants to do further on this.

I am in favour of the options that are set out in paragraph 16 of paper J1/03/3/13. I would also like us to include the suggestion from Scotland's Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers, which is set out in paragraph 9 of the paper, that there should also be a new offence of

"causing death by gross carelessness".

I note from the minister's response that he has asked the steering group to consider the possibility of separating major and minor offences. We may want to forward SCID's suggestion to the minister, asking him to feed it into the working group for its consideration.

Do members agree with the suggestion?

I do not necessarily agree with the use of the term "gross carelessness", but Michael Matheson rightly says that, if the Executive is considering a redefinition of the categories of offence, we ought to ensure that each side knows what the other is proposing. I agree that we should pursue the options that are set out in paragraph 16 of the paper. I am not sure that SCID has been sent all of the correspondence that we have received. If not, I suggest that we copy all of it to SCID and the petitioners as a matter of course.

I think that SCID has everything, including the last letter that we received from the Lord Advocate. I delivered a copy of that letter into the hands of one of the petitioners today—it arrived just a short while ago. I ask the committee for a summary of what we should do in respect of the petitions on dangerous driving.

We should pursue the options that are set out in paragraph 16 of the paper. Although some of the subject matter involved is reserved, its practical applications are devolved. We should be seen to be taking a direct interest.

We will want to include something about the petitions in the legacy paper. It has been a hard-fought battle for the petitioners to drive change in the policing of and policy on dangerous driving.

Which options do we want to pursue?

All three.

Thank you. We will include in our legacy paper our wish that the matter be pursued.

---

Clydesdale Horses (Couping) (PE347)

Petition PE347 is on the couping of Clydesdale horses. Members will note the options that are set out in paper J1/03/3/14.

Does the committee agree that existing guidelines are sufficient? Are members content with the responses that we have received so far? If not, should we write to the minister asking him to introduce legislation to order the banning of the practice of couping? The alternative is for us to ask the Scottish Executive to extend the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 to include the Highlands and Skye, as requested by the Farriers Registration Council, which wants all farriers in Scotland to be registered. I ask the committee for its views.

Submissions to the committee included evidence from veterinary experts that suggested that couping was harmful to Clydesdale horses. Although I was persuaded by the evidence, I do not feel that I have been able to go into the issue in sufficient detail.

I do not feel that the responses that we received from the farriers and the Clydesdale Horse Society were very helpful. There is a need for us to examine the matter in greater detail. If anything, I am inclined to suggest that, before we recommend the need to introduce legislation, this or another committee should consider the matter in greater detail.

I am of the same mind. We have not taken oral evidence on a subject that is niggling away at us. There seems to be truth in the petition's request, but we have not yet tested the evidence.

I raised the wider issue of animal neglect. I appreciate the fact that the petitioners feel strongly about couping—I share their concerns—but if we are to examine the specifics of couping, other aspects of the showing of animals need to be raised.

Perhaps we should say to the Executive that a wider range of consultations is required on the practices that are involved in the exhibiting of animals. Substantial legislation could be required. If we were to include elements other than couping, that would leave the door open to deal with other practices. We definitely cannot deal with the matter in isolation. The Executive will have to consider a wide range of issues concerning the showing of animals.

I share some of Paul Martin and Michael Matheson's concerns. My concern is that there are a million good causes out there. A Parliament should not be measured by when we say no and when we say yes. The fact that something is a good cause does not necessarily make it right for us to deal with it on the time scale or in the way that petitioners demand. I agree with Paul Martin that we should write to the relevant parliamentary committee or to the Executive to say that, the next time they are considering animal welfare issues, they might want to consider this issue.

For every piece of business that we offload on to another committee, there is something else that it cannot do. This is an animal welfare issue. It should be addressed the next time animal welfare is considered. We should not put an obligation on another committee or on the Executive to deal with the matter in isolation. It should be discussed in the wider context of animal welfare.

All the elements must be assessed objectively. We do not have time to do that through oral evidence between now and 1 May. The issue should be discussed in the next parliamentary session in the context of animal welfare legislation.

I am mindful of what you say about animal welfare. It is right to write to the Executive to ask whether it will consider the issue and others that Paul Martin and Lord James have raised, particularly on the showing or breeding of animals involving alleged cruelty. However, it might consult on the matter for four years. We might want to give it a fillip. Michael Matheson said that a member who reads the Official Report of the meeting might consider introducing a member's bill to put a foot on the accelerator pedal for the Executive.

There is an opportunity for the committee, or the new committee after the election, to consider animal exhibition. The petition relates to many other matters. The petitioner raises an important principle. It will not help other animals if we consider it in isolation. We tend to find that when people are prohibited from a particular practice, it creates a loophole elsewhere. I am not saying that that is the case here, but when you legislate for one case, you often leave something open in another area. Exhibition is an important issue, and the petitioners have rightly raised it. This could be the start of the process of dealing with the issue.

Are you saying that our letter to the Executive should be constrained to practices involved in the breeding and showing of animals? Perhaps we should do that, as animal welfare is an enormous issue. The petitioners might want to note that it would be possible for them to find a friendly MSP to introduce a member's bill and accelerate progress on the wider issue—not only Clydesdale horses. I agree that we have not had the chance to take proper evidence and, as Paul Martin says, one approach might open the matter up.

Those are two ways of dealing with the matter. Are we content with that? We will write a letter to the Executive and also perhaps write to the petitioners—someone else has picked up the petition on behalf of the original petitioner, who is deceased. They might want to find an MSP to introduce a member's bill—it might even be Sylvia Jackson.

I hear what you say, but I am concerned that that will take a long time. Is there nothing we can do in the interim? For example, paragraph 16 of the note from the clerk states that we could

"ask the Scottish Executive to extend the applicability of the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 to include the Highlands".

We could take steps in the interim. I do not want us to do nothing and think that, four years down the line, a member's bill might address the matter.

The suggestion in paragraph 16 is one of the things that could be done in the short term.

Yes. Do members also want to put the matter in the legacy paper, as unfinished business? We could note that the matter was on the agenda and note our recommendation. The point that I was making is that Sylvia Jackson, who has worked on the matter and has followed it through, might take the matter forward.

Yes, as a member's bill. However, I still think that we should write to the Executive to see whether anything can be done in the short term.

So the legacy paper will suggest to the new committee that it should get the Executive's response to a suggestion in paragraph 16.

Absolutely.

Is that all? Will we not consider the petition further? I do not think that we should hand the petition over to the next committee except to say that we have considered it and believe that the best way to deal with couping is through a member's bill, and to say that we have asked the Executive to extend the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 to the Highlands and Islands and Skye.

We will ask the Executive to consider consulting on the practices of breeding and showing animals that might be cruel.

Is that within the committee's remit? I do not think that we should be saying that.

Unfortunately, the petition has come to the committee because it seeks to create criminal offences. It was referred to us by the Scottish Executive justice department because it is responsible for criminal sanctions behind the protection of domestic and captive wild animals. The petition came to us because the committee shadows the minister. I originally thought of the Rural Development Committee—

You were talking about the wider issue of animal welfare.

No, I was talking about criminal sanctions.

No. Earlier on you were talking about asking the Executive to consider the general issue of animal welfare.

You must have misunderstood. I narrowed it down and said that we cannot just open up consideration because the issue of animal welfare is so large. Any involvement would be related to the breeding and showing of animals and whether cruel practices are being used—whether docking tails, couping or whatever. I narrowed it down to that. I was not talking about the whole issue of animal welfare because that would involve issues such as animal transportation.

We can do that because the remit of the justice department includes responsibility for criminal sanctions behind the protection of domestic and captive wild animals, so that covers domestic animals.

But all that the committee has considered is the couping of Clydesdale horses.

I am sorry. I am lost.

I do not understand where you are coming from. I am talking about what we are putting in the legacy paper. All we have to say is that we have asked the minister to consider the option given in paragraph 16 of the committee's paper, and that if couping is to be considered further, it would be best if that were done through a member's bill.

Yes, but the other point I thought we had agreed is that we would ask the Executive to consult and hold its own inquiry into the treatment of domestic animals for show purposes. It does not mean that we will do anything with it. We are not asking for anything to be done about the huge general issue of animal welfare, because it is enormous.

Exactly. I would not want to give the new committee the impression that that is what we want to happen.

No.

It certainly came across that way from what you were saying.

We will have to agree to differ because I thought that I had made it clear that we were talking about the breeding of animals for show purposes, which Paul Martin and Wendy Alexander raised. The bigger issue of animal welfare would be something for the Rural Development Committee to deal with.

Exactly.

Okay. Perhaps you missed that.

After that little debate, are we agreed that we should note in the legacy paper that we have written to the Executive and that we expect a specific response about the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975? Sylvia Jackson will note that we have recommended that the issue might be a matter for a member's bill, just to keep the foot on the accelerator pedal.

Members indicated agreement.

We have already agreed to take the next agenda item on the draft legacy paper in private.

Meeting continued in private until 16:15.