Official Report 119KB pdf
Public Bodies (Complainers' Rights) (PE578)
The second item on the agenda is consideration of petition PE578, from Mr Donald MacKinnon. Members will recall that the committee has considered this petition previously. The clerks have circulated some background information, which includes a letter from the Deputy Minister for Justice, Mr Hugh Henry, and a letter from Mr MacKinnon as petitioner. The committee has to decide what further action to take on the petition.
Like other members, I have read the letters from the deputy minister and the petitioner very carefully. I am not convinced that any change in the law is necessary or desirable and indeed concur with the position of the deputy minister and the Executive that extending absolute privilege risks non-compliance with the European convention on human rights. As the deputy minister says,
I have considerable sympathy with the petitioner. The particular case that the petition uses as an example is a difficult one. I appreciate absolutely Bill Butler's comments, which were sincerely made. What he says may indeed be the case but I would regret it if we were to close the petition at this point as I think that there is still work that can be done within the area. Although I am a relatively new member, I am aware that this matter has been discussed in a number of committees and has been raised with a number of departments. I take on board the deputy minister's position but we should not just close the petition and recommend that there be no further consideration of it. The deputy minister said that on-going work was being done in the Justice Department and the Education Department, and it might be possible to come back to this area, perhaps in relation to the education field.
I am not unsympathetic to the petitioner—quite the reverse; I sympathise with the petition. I understand what Jeremy Purvis says, but the deputy minister's letter of 28 August 2005 says that the Executive will
I should say that, in fairness to any petitioner, we should continue a petition only if we have a clear idea why are doing so. It is unhelpful to petitioners if we cannot come to a clear view as to our specific objective in continuing our consideration of a petition. I say that by way of general guidance. I am not clear about the basis on which you would seek to continue the petition, Mr Purvis.
We have two options. We can decide, by means of a vote or whatever, that we think that what the petition is asking for—which is a change in approach—is valid and therefore ask the deputy minister to seek an opportunity to make that change when a legislative opportunity arises. Alternatively, as Bill Butler said, given that the deputy minister has said that the Executive is continuing to consider the matter in the wider context of child protection, we could ask him to report to us at some point on the progress that he is making in that area. That might be a compromise position.
For the sake of clarity, I should point out that the deputy minister does not say that the Executive is continuing investigatory work in relation to the petition; he says that he will ensure that the Executive will
I acknowledge that. The deputy minister has said, in clear terms, that he does not agree with the petition. It is for this committee to decide, perhaps by means of a vote, whether it agrees with the petition.
I assume that it would still be competent for the committee to do that off its own bat without having to continue the petition. I know that there is a genuine interest in the issues that Mr MacKinnon has raised. It is a perplexing area that rightly concerns us all. However, I am anxious that the committee should avoid straying into areas of complete uncertainty about what we are doing and what a petitioner might think that we are doing.
I hear what Jeremy Purvis says but we have to deal with the item before us as it appears on the agenda, and we are dealing with a specific petition. I will not rehearse everything that I said before, but there is nothing that we can usefully do to continue the petition. It would be kinder to say that and end any further speculation that consideration of the petition's content is going to be continued in any way by the committee in the hope that the Executive will accede to the petitioner's requests. The Executive will not accede, and it is right to take that approach. That does not mean to say that the wider ramifications of putting the child at the centre of our concerns will be disregarded. That is a more general matter and a valid and important one, but we have to deal with the item as it appears before us today.
Are there any other comments?
I agree with Bill Butler. The Executive has made clear its position on the petition and I am not sure what we can add to the response from the deputy minister. In all fairness, he has made it clear that the Executive will carry on working with other organisations to make sure that where there are genuine complaints children will not be deterred from making them. The Executive made a commitment to do that and that brings the issue to a natural conclusion. The petitioner might not be entirely satisfied with that, but the committee should take the Executive at its word and accept what the deputy minister said.
It seems to me that two views have emerged. The first is that the committee should make a decision to close its consideration of the petition on the basis of the Executive's response, and the other view, as expressed by Mr Purvis, seems to be that the committee should continue the petition.
No.
There will be a division.
For
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 1, Abstentions 0.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation