Public Petitions Committee, 15 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 15, 2000

Official Report 185KB pdf

---

New Petitions

We have several new petitions to consider, but before we do so we must return to the issue of Mr Frank Harvey. As members will know, there are four petitions from Mr Harvey on today's agenda. However, there are a further four petitions from Mr Harvey on the provisional agenda for our next meeting on 29 February. In addition, Mr Harvey has submitted a further six petitions, which have not yet been formally lodged with the committee. To date, Mr Harvey is responsible for 20 per cent of all petitions submitted to the Scottish Parliament. In most cases, it appears that Mr Harvey is simply responding to press articles on issues that he thinks merit the Parliament's attention. Many of those are high-profile issues on which the Executive, a local authority, the Parliament or some other body has already taken action.

No one doubts Mr Harvey's sincerity, but it is clearly not a good use of the resources of this committee or the other committees to consider petitions on the scale of those submitted by Mr Harvey as a normal part of committee work. As I have reminded committee members before, we can decide to take no further action in respect of any petition that we receive. We might decide that action cannot be justified in terms of parliamentary time or, if action is being taken outwith the Parliament, that that action is likely to be sufficient to address the concerns of the petitioner.

I suggest that the clerk write to Mr Harvey, setting out the committee's views and suggesting that he be more selective in the petitions that he submits. There is a danger that if he continues to submit petitions at the current rate, committees may consider that his petitions carry less weight than those from other petitioners. That would be unfortunate, but understandable.

We might also suggest to Mr Harvey that he consider approaching the organisational body that is directly involved with the issue about which he is concerned before he petitions the Parliament. We must write to him and tell him that he is danger of not being taken seriously by the committee, simply because of the number of petitions that he is submitting. If every member of the Scottish public were to do that, the Parliament would not be able to operate.

Are there any views on that? Is it agreed that we ask the clerk to write to him along those lines?

Members indicated agreement.

Having said that, the first petition we consider today comes from Mr Harvey. PE79 is on the subject of the use of unemployed people by Glasgow City Council. Mr Harvey is concerned about the operation by Partick Housing Association of the WestWorks scheme, which offers training opportunities to local unemployed people. He is concerned that the unemployed people may be doing work that is the responsibility of Glasgow City Council cleansing department. Mr Harvey requests that the Parliament stop all housing associations from using unemployed young people to do the work of that council's cleansing department.

We could deal with the petition by passing it on to the appropriate committee—the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee—to note. We could suggest that the committee take no further action on that petition, but that the clerk of the Public Petitions Committee write back to Mr Harvey to explain our position.

I would agree with that, but with the caveat that we state why we are taking such action. The explanatory papers suggest that there is no problem, as the work that is being done by the scheme is not work that is being done by Glasgow City Council. If we make that clear, I am happy to support the convener's suggestion.

Apparently, Mr Harvey is aware that that is the case. WestWorks has already written to him along those lines.

Yes.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition 80 is also from Mr Harvey; it calls for a public inquiry into the national health service. That is a daily concern of the Scottish Parliament and its committees. Once again, we should pass the petition to the appropriate committee—in this case the Health and Community Care Committee—and suggest that it note the petition but take no further action. We should also write to Mr Harvey to explain the action that we have taken. Is that agreed?

Yes.

The next petition, which again is from Mr Harvey, concerns violence in Scotland. It calls for a change to the law in relation to the sentencing of those convicted of violent crime; steps to reduce violence and bullying in schools; and a ban on professional and amateur boxing. It is a hybrid, three-in-one petition. Again, we will pass the petition to the appropriate committees—the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Education, Culture and Sport Committee—and suggest that they note it but take no further action, unless they feel that further action is justified.

I propose that we take no further action on this petition, which is far too wide. Banning professional and amateur boxing is not a matter for us, as it involves the Queensberry rules.

Does anyone disagree with that?

I agree with Pauline McNeill that the call for a ban on boxing relates to a reserved matter. The petition's other concerns—violent crime and bullying in schools—are being dealt with by the committee, so we should take no further action.

The clerk will write to Mr Harvey to explain the committee's decision.

Petition PE82 is from Comann nam Pàrant (Nàiseanta), which seems to be

"the national parental support organisation which acts as an ‘umbrella' group to represent the interests of parents who choose Gaelic-medium education for their children."

It calls on the Scottish Parliament to take active steps

"to recognise the validity and educational benefits of Gaelic-medium education".

The petition wants the Parliament to introduce legislation to require local authorities to make provision for Gaelic-medium education where there is reasonable demand for it. Gaelic-medium education is supported through the specific grants scheme, but local authorities do not have a statutory obligation to provide Gaelic-medium education where there is demand for it. The petition suggests that measures should be included in the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill, which is at stage 1 and is being considered by the Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I suggest that we pass the petition to that committee so that it can take the petition into account in its consideration of the bill. Is that agreed?

Yes.

Petition PE83 is from the group Concern for Justice. Initially, the group called for one thing, but it has now written to the clerk to call for stronger action. It wants the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the condemnation by sheriffs or judges in Scottish courts of named persons who are not present as witnesses and are not represented in court, because such condemnation can result in injustice and possible public humiliation in the media.

The issue arose in the aftermath of the 1996 sheriff court case, Crown v Donald Macleod, which resulted in the acquittal of the defendant, who had been charged with the sexual assault of five women. It seems that the sheriff named the people concerned during the trial, even though they did not appear as witnesses and could not defend themselves at the trial. Copies of a booklet that gives further background are available from Concern for Justice. This is a matter for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

This is a very complex case. Without reading the sheriff's judgment, it is hard to see what the group wants. I understand from the supporting document that the Moorov doctrine does not require every witness to be in court when crimes of a similar nature have taken place, and that the sheriff has the right of absolute privilege. It strikes me that the remedy here is for the prosecution to appeal, as the case was heard by the sheriff court. I have reservations about referring the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, because it is not clear what that committee's remit would be—is it being asked to examine the privilege of sheriffs, or the law of defamation?

Donald Macleod's defence was that certain people were conducting a conspiracy against him. Those people were named during the trial, and their names were reported in the media. They feel that they have been defamed without having the chance to defend themselves. They want the Scottish Parliament to

"enact legislation which will provide opportunity for people who find themselves in such circumstances to seek legal remedy."

At the moment, they cannot seek legal remedy.

We are all familiar with this particular case, but I am concerned that the situation raised in the petition could happen to anybody—to you, me, kids, a stranger on the street, or anybody.

I am not a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and I am not a lawyer, but I am very interested in what goes on round about us. None of us is an expert, but the problem raised clearly shows an anomaly. If such things are happening, there is an injustice, and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee should have a look at it. Whether the petition concerns the sheriff's privilege, somebody else's privilege, or people not having the privilege, it should be looked at and brought to the public's attention. The only way that that can happen is for the Public Petitions Committee to send the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which is the best place for it. Anyone who reads the petition would be concerned.

I will go with the flow, but I want to put on record that I am reluctant to do so. I still feel that this is a back-door way of getting Donald Macleod's case aired in this committee, and I am not happy about that. I am not happy about focusing on individual cases, and I can see what the petitioners are trying to do.

If the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is being asked to consider the general issue of the absolute privilege enjoyed by sheriffs, I would agree to that. Do not get me wrong; I too am concerned about the issue, and would be happy to consider it in my role as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. However, this case is on the borderline.

It had not occurred to me until Pauline mentioned it that this could be a back-door method of reopening and drawing attention to a case that has already been dealt with by the courts. Perhaps we should take legal advice to find out whether there are legal remedies available to people. I do not know whether there are.

Could we ask for a legal opinion for clarification? I can see what Pauline is driving at.

Yes—Pauline has raised a good point.

There is a danger when any political process intervenes in an individual case, and I think that that is when the generality issue would come up.

Shall we delay a decision on this until we have taken legal advice?

I do not know Mr Macleod or anything about the case. Everyone has read about it in the papers, but that is not my concern. Mr Macleod's case has highlighted the problem, but the same thing may have happened to thousands of people who would not write to us. I am frightened that if we decide not to take up the case because of our opinion on the case of one individual, that will set a precedent.

No such decision has been taken. The issue will stay on the table until our next meeting and, in the meantime, we will take legal advice.

I am happy to go along with legal advice because we cannot come to a decision, but I am worried that—by not proceeding simply because of our opinion of the person who has presented the case to us—we will set a precedent.

We have not decided not to proceed. After taking legal advice, we will deal with it at our next meeting.

I take on board what you are saying, but I am worried about what has been said. I would not like the committee to set such a precedent.

We are not setting a precedent; we are leaving it on the table until the next meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from Mr Frank Harvey, again. It is on door-to-door sales techniques, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to order a public inquiry into the door-to-door sales techniques of Scottish Power and Scottish Gas and to ban all door-to-door salesmen in Scotland.

Convener, a member of my family is employed by Scottish Power. Do I have to declare an interest?

You have just done it.

I understand that Scottish Power is investigating this issue. It has been suggested that we pass the petition to Scottish Power and ask it to write to Mr Harvey about the action that it is taking, to see whether that satisfies him. If it does, I hope that we will not hear from him again. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is from the Aberdeenshire Federation of Tenants and Residents Association. There are a further four petitions—from South Lanarkshire Tenants Confederation, Hamilton Federation of Tenants, Carbrain Residents Association and North Lanarkshire Tenants and Residents Federation. All the petitions call for a moratorium to be placed on stock transfers until such time as the Scottish Parliament has addressed the concerns that have been raised about stock transfers.

We have already passed similar petitions to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, which is undertaking an investigation into stock transfer. I suggest that we do the same with these.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE88, is from the Northern College Christian Union and has 519 signatures. It calls on the Scottish Parliament:

"To reject the Government's proposal, out lined in the Ethical Standards in Public Life Bill, to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. To consider other alternatives of ridding Scotland from prejudice and discrimination."

A number of the Parliament's committees are considering the repeal of section 2A, but the lead committee is the Local Government Committee, to whom it has been suggested that we pass this petition. That committee's consideration of the reform of local government legislation will include section 28 or 2A.

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE89, is from Mrs Eileen A McBride. It concerns enhanced criminal record certificates and calls on the Scottish Parliament to repeal the legislation that allows non-conviction information to be included on enhanced criminal record certificates. Mrs McBride is concerned that the inclusion of such information

"negates a person's right to be presumed innocent until . . . proven guilty in a court of law."

That seems to be a matter for the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

Mrs McBride has written to me and I have written back. I know that she has also written to other members. I think that the subject is worthy of consideration; she makes a valid point and I would be happy to refer her petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

Are members agreed that we refer PE89 to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

The final petition, PE90, from Aberdeenshire Council, concerns the funding of public services. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to take a range of steps

"to provide Aberdeenshire Council with the means to continue to provide the high quality public services",

and

"to implement an independent review of the way local government is funded".

Once it has finished its inquiry into the McIntosh commission, the Local Government Committee will embark on an inquiry into local government funding. It seems that we should refer this petition to that committee.

Mike Rumbles raised the matter in a debate last week, when he and Jack McConnell had an exchange on this very issue. Extracts from the Official Report are available if members want to read them. However, I suggest that we refer the petition to the Local Government Committee, as it will be handling the issue. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.