Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 (PE767)
Now that everybody is refuelled, the meeting will recommence.
I do not disagree with what has been recommended, but I would like to pick up on the points that were made about the petition in the Public Petitions Committee, which are included in paragraph 7 of the paper, and to put on the record my experience as a constituency member of dealing with families who have had to deal with the fatal accident inquiry system. Great strains are put on those families in all sorts of ways. A great deal of pressure is put on them one way or another in respect of timing when a loved one dies. They are often asked questions about whether they want to press for action, but they may be reluctant to do so, and officials may see them as being unable to cope with the strain. From my experience, such matters are brought to bear in considering whether inquiries should go ahead rather than just the question being asked whether an inquiry is judicially required. Our letter to the cabinet secretary should take on board the concerns and issues that the Public Petitions Committee has highlighted. From my experience, I think that the impact on families is important. In his response to the committee, I would like the cabinet secretary to address that issue as well as provide the more obvious legal answers to our questions.
When we discussed the matter informally, I got the impression that all committee members held a similar view. Let us see what the cabinet secretary's response is; thereafter, we can reconsider the matter. If it is necessary, we can, at a suitable point in our work programme, conduct a brief inquiry into the operation of the legislation, which is, after all, around 30 years old. Do members agree to that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Abusive Parents (PE997)
Petition PE997, from Peter Cox, on behalf of the Mothers for Justice Campaign, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to provide greater protection to the children and partners of abusive parents. I invite members to consider paper J/S3/07/4/5 and I draw members' attention to the recommendations in paragraphs 14 to 17 of that paper. Are there any comments?
I hope that the committee will want to consider family law at a later date and, therefore, I seek guidance from the clerks on the recommendation that we write to the Judicial Studies Committee and then close the petition. Is there a timescale for dealing with the petition, or can we leave it open?
There are no time constraints on the matter and the petition can remain open.
I feel strongly about the need for sheriffs to receive training in dealing with child custody cases. The situation is already sensitive for the children and, in a modern era, it should unequivocally be compulsory for all the staff who are involved in the process, not just the sheriffs, to have the appropriate training to ensure that we protect the children as best we can during the process.
I agree with the recommendation that we should write to the Judicial Studies Committee—I do not think that anybody disagrees with that—but I think that we should keep the petition open. If we close it, it will be difficult to reconsider it whereas, if we keep it open, we keep our options open. I suggest that we write to the Judicial Studies Committee and keep the petition open.
I do not disagree with anything that colleagues have said. I want to put on the record something that might be considered a side issue: in my experience, certain parents abuse the systems that are in place to try to provide access to children. That includes parents who have criminal records of abuse using the children's hearings system to make allegations about other parents and trying to make a case about how the other parent is treating a child. An abusive parent who has been charged and found guilty of abuse can use judicial or quasi-judicial organisations to continue the abuse of children and families who are going on with their lives. I am interested in whether there is any way in which we might take on board that issue with children's hearings and get a bit more information about it.
Forgive me for pushing the point, but I think that the general point about the need for mandatory training for legal staff and court staff should be pushed a fraction further. If keeping the petition open is one way of doing that, that is good. I can think of no other profession on the planet in which people would be allowed not to have mandatory training.
I think that when we consider the judiciary bill—as we are almost certainly bound to do—that aspect will be dealt with.
As Margaret Smith indicated, the training needs to be widened out. Therefore, our recommendation should be that the training should apply across the board rather than just to sheriffs. As the Justice Committee, we want to make that point not just by keeping the petition open but by asking the Judicial Studies Committee to require such training across the board rather than just for sheriffs.
Do you have in mind specific people to whom the training should apply?
No, I am not sure about that.
A number of different personnel are involved in dealing with children during the process. Therefore, as I pointed out, mandatory training needs to be put in place across the board to ensure that anyone in the process who comes into contact with children has the appropriate training and certification. It must be quality training—although I would take that as read.
Should the training apply, for example, to reporters to the children's hearings system?
Yes.
The point is well made. We will follow up that aspect.
Members indicated agreement.
Cheap Alcohol (Health) (PE1000)
Petition PE1000, from All Saints secondary school, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to investigate the public health implications of cheaply available alcohol. I refer members to paper J/S3/07/4/6 and the recommendations contained therein.
Members indicated agreement.
The next items will be taken in private, in accordance with what we agreed at the beginning of the meeting, so we have now reached the end of the public part of the committee's meeting. I thank the press and public for their attendance.
Meeting continued in private until 12:37.
Previous
Budget Review Group