Judiciary (Register of Interests) (PE1458)
Our first current petition for consideration today is PE1458, by Peter Cherbi, on a register of interests for members of Scotland’s judiciary. Members have a note by the clerk, which is paper 4, and the submissions.
Members will know that we sought permission from the Conveners Group to get a date for a plenary debate on the subject. The Conveners Group looked at that request and a date will be allocated in due course. Once we have it, we will ensure that members are informed. Members will also know that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has supported the petition and that the petitioner urges us to ask Lord Gill for hysterical data on recusals, which we are still to follow up.
“Hysterical”?
“Historical”.
I meant “historical”.
You were probably right the first time. [Laughter.]
The next step is to consider how we will deal with the petition. I suggest that we continue the petition until we have had a full debate on the matter in the chamber. I invite members to comment.
We seem to be at an impasse in relation to the petition. However, the latest submission from Moi Ali opens up a number of issues. From her unique position as the Judicial Complaints Reviewer, she has certainly brought forward more evidence—in my view, anyway—with regard to the current situation.
We have had a response from the Lord President and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. However, I am keen that we get their current views in response to the latest information from Moi Ali. I hope that it will be more than the one-page, three-paragraph response that we seem to get from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary—it is almost as if it is scripted. The Lord President comments that neither he nor the cabinet secretary is minded to open the matter to review.
It would be useful, prior to the debate in the chamber, for the committee to ask the cabinet secretary and the Lord President for their detailed views on the issues that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has raised. Her submission raises a number of issues, in addition to those that she raised in oral evidence, that require more detailed scrutiny and a more detailed response from the Lord President and the cabinet secretary.
Do members agree with John Wilson’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I place on record that I am grateful for the additional information that the Judicial Complaints Reviewer has provided. It certainly presents us with some issues that we need to follow up, and I am happy to second John Wilson’s suggestion.
If there are no further comments, are members happy with the proposed course of action? We will continue the petition, and there will be a plenary debate, with the date to be resolved. We need to chase up a couple of other issues with Lord Gill, in addition to addressing the points that John Wilson raised. Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Is the letter from the Judicial Complaints Reviewer on the website?
Yes.
Co-location of General Medical Practices and Community Pharmacies (PE1492)
Our next current petition is PE1492, by Alan Kennedy, on co-location of general practitioner practices and community pharmacies. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions.
Members will be familiar with the crucial landmarks: the Wilson and Barber review, which was a first-class review of the issue, and a consultation by the Government. I understand that the consultation findings will be published shortly, and we expect amendments to be lodged prior to the summer recess.
There are a number of potential options for the petition. I suggest that we do not close the petition at this stage but instead defer consideration to a future meeting following the publication of the Scottish Government’s report on its control of entry consultation and its presentation of the draft regulations.
Do members agree to that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Confidentiality Clauses (NHS Scotland) (PE1495)
The next current petition is PE1495, by Rab Wilson, on the use of gagging clauses in agreements with national health service staff in Scotland. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Members will know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing said on 27 February that confidentiality clauses will be removed from standard NHS settlement agreements in Scotland and will be used
“only where there is explicit agreement between both the employer and the employee.”
It is up to members to decide how we deal with the petition. The two main options are to close it in the light of that information, or to continue it—as we are doing with the petition from Alan Kennedy—to allow us to analyse what happens in practice.
It is clear from the correspondence that the committee has received from the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary that there is a clear commitment to remove confidentiality clauses from standard NHS settlement agreements in Scotland. My concern about closing the petition is that we would not be able to continue our on-going scrutiny function with regard to the implementation of Government policy by health boards in Scotland. I ask the committee to pause and reflect on that point before taking a decision.
Do you wish to recommend that we continue the petition?
I think that we should consider the point that I have made before we take a decision to close the petition.
There is an issue. The convener highlighted the cabinet secretary’s wish that gagging clauses be removed from any settlements between an employer and an employee, and any agreement should be dealt with in that manner with regard to such clauses.
The difficulty is that many settlements between employers and employees are subject to employment legislation. As I think Jim Eadie alluded to—he can correct me if I am wrong—it might be difficult to get to the debate and discussion that takes place at meetings between employers and employees so that we can ascertain whether gagging clauses are actually enforced, in financial terms. Employers can do things in ways that do not involve directly stating that a settlement is subject to a gagging clause. The question is how we get information from the human resources departments of the health boards throughout the country on the individual discussions that take place between the employee and employer.
Jim Eadie is right that we should keep the petition open to allow further scrutiny of the practices that are put in place by HR departments and health boards throughout Scotland. We can then get an accurate reflection, and we will know whether they are reflecting what the cabinet secretary has indicated he wishes to happen rather than engaging in a back-door discussion that allows the practice to continue.
That is a useful point. One possibility would be for us to write again to Scotland’s health boards in six months’ time and ask them to confirm their actual practice, so that we get the information direct from the horse’s mouth.
Members may correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the cabinet secretary and/or the minister are now getting involved in signing off compromise agreements, although I cannot imagine that they will be signing off all of them. That in itself demands that we keep the petition open.
That will allow us to understand better the rationale behind what has been happening, notwithstanding the signing of compromise agreements. I know that the UK Secretary of State for Health believes that such agreements will not prevent people from speaking out but, as we heard two weeks ago, that has not been the case. It is important that, as Jim Eadie said, we continue to have the ability to scrutinise the issue.
Do members agree to continue the petition? We will set a date in future and write to health boards.
Chic Brodie is right. The petitioner has been good at submitting evidence to the committee and highlighting cases in which compromise agreements are being forced on employees. If we agree to keep the petition open for six months, I am sure that, if there are any cases out there, they will come back to the committee and we will be made aware of any difficulties that exist in particular health boards.
I thank the committee for its consideration of that petition.
Additional Support for Learning (Funding) (PE1507)
The final current petition is PE1507, by Alex Orr and Sophie Pilgrim, on behalf of the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition and Kindred, on funding for additional support for learning in Scotland. Again, members have some notes, as well as paper 7 and the submissions.
One possible action is to close the petition under rule 15.7, given that the Scottish Government is liaising with local authorities on the provision of ASL and the petitioners have withdrawn their request. In doing so, the committee may wish to ask the Scottish Government to keep the petitioners informed of its work in this policy area.
Are members agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 11:54.Previous
New Petitions