Justice 2 Committee, 12 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 12, 2001

Official Report 202KB pdf

---

Petitions

We begin the second half of the meeting with item 5 on our agenda, which is consideration of two petitions that we have already dealt with at previous meetings. The first petition is PE324. Members should have a note from the clerks describing the progress that has been made on that petition. The second petition is PE333. The purpose of discussing these items today is to ask members whether they wish to seek further clarification or to take further action on the petitions.

PE324 invites the Scottish Executive to consider instituting a right of appeal in fatal accident inquiries. We requested evidence from the Scottish Law Commission and the criminal law committee of the Law Society of Scotland on that subject. Paper J2/01/21/6 lists possible options for the committee. Would any member like to comment on those?

When reconsidering this petition, it occurred to me that we could write to the Lord Advocate suggesting that he ask procurators fiscal to explain in more detail the reasons for their decisions. That issue is raised in a variety of situations; indeed, it was raised when we visited the procurator fiscal offices. We may want to return to the matter as part of our inquiry into the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, as it relates not only to fatal accident inquiries—although those are perhaps the most contentious cases—but to other aspects of the service. At the moment procurators fiscal either feel hamstrung when it comes to explaining their decisions or do not explain them at all.

Scott Barrie's suggestion is eminently sensible. Clearly, there is a degree of concern about this matter. We are dealing here with sensitive and evocative issues. It is much better if people are kept informed. They may not accept the reasons that are advanced, but they may understand them. That must be a good thing. We could consider this issue as part of our continuing inquiry into the running of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

There seems to be a consensus among members that we should pursue with the Lord Advocate the notion that people should be given fuller reasons for decisions, so that they can understand why no proceedings have been initiated.

There has been no suggestion that we explore further the issue of whether fatal accident inquiries should be mandatory or discretionary.

There is one further nagging doubt in my mind. At some point we received a letter on this subject from Michael McMahon MSP. He had concerns about a failure to follow the correct procedure in fatal accident inquiries. I would like to look into that before leaving the subject. I suppose that such cases would be subject to judicial review, which is an option whenever the correct procedure in a case has not been followed. With that proviso, are members happy to pursue only the issue of people being made aware of the reasons for a decision?

Members indicated agreement.

PE333 is from Charles Douglas, on behalf of the Humanist Society of Scotland. The committee considered the petition at a previous meeting, when we requested more information on it. A question had arisen in relation to the places where a civil marriage can take place. That matter is clarified in the correspondence that has been circulated to members. Last week Jim Wallace indicated that it would be dealt with in the Executive's legislative programme. Do members have any questions about or comments on the petition?

Generally we have some sympathy for the petition, but the Minister for Justice has dealt with the issues that it raises. It is hoped that the petitioner's requirements will be met in forthcoming legislation.

My house used to be a manse. Occasionally people chap the door as they want to visit the front room where they got married. It seems unreasonable that a minister can marry people in my front room whereas a representative of the Humanist Society cannot.

Do members want to pursue the matter further? You have received additional correspondence from the petitioner. There seems to be some overlap with the issue of people not being able to get married in the place and under the circumstances of their choice. The petition seems to relate to the work that the Executive intends to undertake. The petitioner refers to the restrictions on the number of people who are able to attend a civil ceremony and the cost that is involved in having two ceremonies. Hopefully, some of his concerns will be addressed in the forthcoming Executive bill. It may be useful for us to seek clarification from Jim Wallace on that point. That would go some way towards reassuring the petitioner that his concerns are being addressed.

I agree with the convener. I have a great deal of sympathy with aspects of the petition. Those members who have attended civil marriage ceremonies will know that some registry offices are not in good locations or particularly well designed. The number of people who can attend ceremonies is restricted. The petitioner makes the point in correspondence that marriages can take place only on certain days, which is a great inconvenience. I know that those points are not central to the petition itself, but they are interesting issues. Euan Robson's proposal, which has been taken up by the Executive, offers us a means for examining them further. For the moment, the Executive may have ruled out a further change to the law, but we should indicate to the Minister for Justice that there appear to be some anomalies that should be investigated.

In his letter, Jim Wallace indicates that the Executive is prepared to review the situation. However, we need to consider the impact of saying that the Humanist Society should have the right to conduct marriage ceremonies. Other groups might then express a desire to conduct civil marriage services. We have to consider what we might be opening up. The minister has said that he is prepared to review the position, and I think that that is good enough.