Current Petitions
We shall now consider the responses that we have received to current petitions, the first of which is a response to petition PE205 from Fred and Maureen Collie about sentencing for murder and other crimes. New committee members will not remember the petition, which related to a particularly foul murder of a relative of Mr and Mrs Collie. The petition asked for a number of steps to be taken to toughen up the law on the handling of murders and murderers.
We have received a detailed response from the Executive to the petition. The petition raised four different points; I will take each in turn.
The petitioners' first point was a request for an increase in the minimum sentence that murderers must serve as well as a minimum amount of time before murderers could qualify for parole. The response is that it is not for the Executive to lay down such things, that it believes in the independence of the judiciary and that, although it sets the limits for sentencing, judges are entirely free to make the decision within those limits in each case, since each case is unique, which is something that the court must take into consideration.
The Executive also points out that the way in which adult mandatory life prisoners—that is, those who commit murder when aged 18 or more—are dealt with for parole will be brought into line with the treatment of other life prisoners, in that Scottish ministers will no longer have a role in recommending when a prisoner should be allowed parole. Once the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill is passed, ministers will not have that role, since it will be entirely for the judge to decide.
The suggestion is that we take no further action on the petitioners' first point, other than to inform the petitioners of the Executive's position. Do members have any other views on that specific point, which was about increasing the minimum sentences that are set for those who are convicted of murder and increasing the minimum amount of time that must be served before qualifying for parole?
Are we happy to pass on the Executive's position to the petitioners?
Members indicated agreement.
I, too, recall that this case was particularly horrific. However, as the Executive points out, the independence of the judiciary is fundamental to Scots law and, as such, we must respect that.
The petitioners' second point was a request that automatic consecutive sentences be imposed for serious crimes that were committed at the same time as the murder.
Again, the Executive's response points out that the matter is for the court to decide. The court considers each case on its merits. In the case of a person who is serving a life sentence for murder, or a discretionary life sentence for another serious offence, a further sentence running consecutively would be redundant, since there is a mandatory life sentence in such cases.
Again, the suggestion is that we pass that information back to the petitioner. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The petitioners' third point was that, when the parole board considers the release of prisoners who have been convicted of murder, increased information—particularly the views of the victims' families—should be made available to the parole board.
The Executive's response points out that by statute the parole board may take into account a wide range of issues, including the views of victims' relatives. The problem with this part of the Executive's response is that it is not made clear whether the victims' relatives are told automatically that they have the right to put forward their views to the parole board, or whether it is left to the families to take the initiative and ask.
On that point, the Executive makes clear that its policy is not to initiate contact with the victim's family, because those concerned may not wish to be reminded of the crime or may not want to know what is happening to the person who was convicted. Unless the family have let the parole board know, or have indicated at the time that they wish to be kept informed, there is no mechanism to allow them any input to the decision-making process, or even to be notified.
In my constituency, I am involved with the case of a victim—of something that happened not in Scotland but south of the border—who is kept informed by an active victim support unit, which contacts victims as a matter of course. It even advises the victim when the person who was convicted is coming up for parole and when the convicted person is moving from a closed prison to an open-prison system. The victim support unit allows for the victim's views on those things to be fed in. Would it be worth our while raising that issue with the Executive?
The suggested action on this point is that we write to the Executive to ask whether there is an established procedure to make known to victims' families the arrangements that are in place to allow notification to them of the review of cases and to allow their involvement. It is not clear from the Executive's response whether the arrangements are made known.
The way it reads to me is that, unless the families have indicated at the time of the court case that they wish to be kept informed, they are not informed at all. In the case with which I am involved, the fact that the convicted person is being shifted around is causing huge distress, but at least that family have some input into the process and their views are being taken into account.
It would be wiser to inform families through Victim Support Scotland. When I read in the Executive's response that the parole board informs only those people who have said that they want to be informed, I imagined a letter arriving out of the blue on somebody's doormat to tell them something about the crime. If they had gone on with their lives, such an event would bring the crime back to them in an awful way. That would be horrible. Having a contact in Victim Support Scotland, with whom the connection could be personal, might be better than receiving a letter, which could be horrific.
We need to treat the matter delicately. There may be many people who, as Rhoda Grant said, do not want to be reminded of the crime. I am not sure what the best procedure would be. Two separate issues are involved.
The issues are the manner in which the convictions are dealt with and whether the victims' families have the right to be notified and their views fed into the system before any final decisions are taken. Rhoda Grant's point was about how that contact should be handled. That issue is serious, as it can cause great distress to the families.
The main issue is whether victims' families have the right to be notified and their views taken into account when decisions are taken. I certainly support that principle.
It is not clear from the Executive's response whether victims' families have that right. We need to write to the Executive and ask it to clarify how victims' families are made aware of their rights.
And if indeed they have such rights.
Yes.
It is not clear whether they do.
Was the petitioner seeking rights?
The third part of the petition requests that the Parliament
"Allow parole boards to consider all information, including all police case notes, held on serious offenders of previous offences and receive personal submissions from victims or, in the case of murder/manslaughter, their relatives at hearings".
So the petitioners want victims' families to have the right to go to a parole board to make a case when a prisoner comes up for release. It is not clear that the families have that right or, if they do, how that right is communicated to them. The Executive has to clarify that.
I agree.
Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the Justice 1 Committee considering the petition?
We sent the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for information. Perhaps we could send the Executive's response to the Justice 1 Committee for information, which is the action suggested in the briefing paper.
Before we come to that, we will deal with the final part of the petition, which asks for automatic restitution of any money stolen in the commission of a murder or any other serious crime. Such a theft, of course, was part of the case with which Mr and Mrs Collie were involved. The response points out that compensation payments are available, but not in cases of murder, because the victim has been killed. However, in such cases, compensation may be payable in the form of a fatal award that is granted under the provisions of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The petitioners may also have the right to pursue compensation by the civil route. That would be a matter for them and their legal advisers.
We do not need to take any further action on that point, because that is the law, but we need to inform the petitioners of the law in that regard. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I suggest that we pass the Executive's responses—other than on the third point—to the petitioners. On the third point, we will write to the Executive seeking clarification on the issues that have been raised. We will also pass a copy of the petition, and of the Executive's response, to the Justice 1 Committee. That committee will shortly consider the Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 and the bill may have an affect on what the petitioners are looking for. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is PE270, which was submitted by Andrew Baker on behalf of the A1 East Linton steering group. The petition called on the Parliament to review proposals for the A1 expressway between Haddington and Dunbar, to ensure that the expressway provides a direct access to and from East Linton in both directions.
That was subject to the strategic roads review, and we have now received a response from the Minister for Transport indicating that she will accept the proposals for the A1 expressway but, now that she has decided to include that within the Executive's proposals, she is under obligation to consider representations from the public about those proposals. The minister suggests that we remit the petition to her for consideration and discharge, in line with the procedures that are set out in schedule 1 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
In other words, the minister will deal with the petition on access to East Linton as part of her consideration for the A1 expressway. I propose that we pass the petition to the minister, asking her to take the views of the petitioners into account. I further propose that we pass a copy of the Scottish Executive response to the petitioner, and take no further action. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The next response relates to a series of petitions that we have received from Tricia Donegan concerning the inadequacies of the law in respect of prosecutions for dangerous driving. Petition PE331 called on the Parliament to investigate why drivers who have made deliberate decisions when driving, which caused risk to the lives of others, are classed as careless drivers when prosecuted, even in the event of a fatality.
We passed a copy of the petition to the Lord Advocate for his comments, and a response was received from him. That was copied to the petitioner and to the former Justice and Home Affairs Committee for further consideration. The committee was waiting for a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions inquiry into the application of road traffic legislation, which has now been published but which the committee has not had time to consider. We agreed to defer consideration of Tricia Donegan's petition PE331 until today's meeting, and to consider it along with the Lord Advocate's response to her petition PE299. Members have copies of both petitions, which are attached to committee paper PE/01/02/2.
The Lord Advocate's response indicates that specific separate offences exist for driving without a licence, driving without insurance and driving without an MOT certificate. If the accused is found guilty of such offences, the court will necessarily take those offences into account. The Lord Advocate makes clear that his responsibility is for the prosecution of offences and not the formulation of the substantive law in that area which, in any case, is reserved.
The Lord Advocate is of the view that a new offence of causing death by dangerous driving without a licence might be regarded as unnecessary reorganisation of existing statutory offences.
The suggestion is that we pass a copy of the Lord Advocate's response to the petitioner and take no further action in relation to either of the petitions from Tricia Donegan. It is clear from the response that current prosecution procedures are considered to be adequate and that there is no gap in the law in relation to these offences.
If members are so minded, we could refer both petitions and the Lord Advocate's response to the Justice 1 Committee, so that they can be linked with Tricia Donegan's previous petition and other related petitions, which are being considered by that committee.
In fairness to the petitioner, I would have thought that that would be the least we could do.
The petitions would be passed to the Justice 1 Committee for information only. That would allow them to be seen in the light of the other petitions on the same issue that we have referred to that committee, and which are under consideration. All those petitions, which ask for substantive changes in the law, have not yet received a proper response.
I agree with that action.
Members indicated agreement.
The next petition is Mr Hugh Devine's petition PE313, on a dispute about land maintenance. At the time that it was submitted, a number of members took a particular interest in the petition, as the land in question is in Glasgow. Pauline McNeill, Sandra White and Kenny Gibson attended a meeting of this committee, and all three members felt that some action should be taken in respect of the dispute between the petitioners and Barratt Homes, which concerns 27 acres of common land in Glasgow.
We passed the petition to the Executive for comments. The Executive's response states that it is not appropriate for it to become involved in the dispute. The Executive points out that it is carrying out a consultation exercise in the spring, on the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission's report on real burdens, which has annexed to it a draft bill and title conditions.
The response suggests that the petitioners' legal advisers consider the relevance of the commission's recommendations to the problems that exist at the land in question at Deaconsbank. The Executive's response indicates that, following the consultation process, it will consider the generality of issues relating to the enforcement of real burdens within housing estates. The Executive will introduce proposals for legislation in due course.
As agreed at a previous meeting, the suggestion is that we pass a copy of the Executive's response to the petitioners and that we take no further action. I also suggest that pass a copy of the response to the Justice 1 Committee for information.
The convener's comments are fair, and, from my recollection at the time, it seems that the dispute needs to be tested in a court of law. That is the bottom line. We are not in a position to interfere; it is for the courts to decide.
Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
The last part of agenda item 2 is consideration of changes to progress on petitions since our previous meeting. Three petitions are listed in the committee paper. Do members want to make points on any of those petitions?
I welcome the establishment of an inquiry as a result of PE96. There are a number of matters that require to be looked at with regard to fish farming and I hope that the inquiry will be wide ranging.
It is good to see the petitions process operating as it should in the Parliament.