We had intended to consider PE1250 next, but I understand that the petitioner has transport difficulties, so I propose that we delay consideration until later in the meeting. I know that Christine Grahame has expressed a particular interest in the petition. We will notify your office of the broad timeframe in which we will deal with it, Christine. We will deal with the other two new petitions first. We might then have to deal with the current petitions before we deal with PE1250, depending on the petitioner's travel arrangements. Do members agree to delay consideration of the petition until the petitioner arrives?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, convener. I felt like giving evidence during the previous item, given the number of petitions in which I have been interested.
I saw you bobbing about, but I was concentrating on the members of the committee. We will notify you of when we expect to consider the petition.
Scottish Prisoners (Microchip Implants) (PE1251)
The next new petition is PE1251, by Raymond Bell, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue a clear statement that it will not introduce, for tracking, surveillance or identification purposes, the implanting of prisoners with microchips. Do members have any comments or observations on how we should handle the petition?
The petition is extremely interesting, but I noticed that the Scottish Government said that it has no intention of implanting prisoners with microchips. I cannot remember how the Government put it, because I cannot find the relevant paper—I think that it was an e-mail to the clerk.
As the clerk has been named, he might want to respond.
At the end of April, the Scottish Government intimated to us:
We also have an additional submission from the petitioner, which committee members might not have seen.
If the petitioner wants the petition to remain open, I will not suggest closing it, but the Government has given a pretty clear steer that it has no intention of even considering implanting microchips in prisoners, which is what the petitioner is looking for.
Our briefing papers refer to a response from Scottish Government spokespeople on the microchipping of prisoners, but for the benefit of the petitioner and the committee, it might be worth our while writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to formalise that response. Instead of relying on a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing to establish the Government's position, we should obtain a clear statement of intent from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the effect that, for as long as he can commit, it will be the view of the Government that prisoners who are on remand or in other relevant circumstances should not be microchipped.
My suggestion is the same—that we write to the Government for confirmation of its position.
We agree to follow that course of action. We will try to obtain an immediate response for our next meeting or the one after.
It might be worth while writing to other organisations to get their views on the issue. We will write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to get the Government's view, but it would be worth having on record for future reference the views of human rights organisations on the idea of microchipping prisoners.
I suggest that we write to the Howard League for Penal Reform to ask its position on the matter. It is clear that the petitioner has raised the issue because of decisions that have been made south of the border. An organisation such as the Howard League for Penal Reform might have a particular viewpoint on the microchipping of prisoners who are on remand, so it would be useful to write to it, too.
Thanks for those recommendations, which we will act on.
Police Officers (Convictions) (PE1252)
PE1252, by Angus Grant, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review all legislation and guidelines that give chief constables the discretion to retain police officers who have convictions. Do members have any comments? The issue has been raised in parliamentary questions.
We should write to the Scottish Government to ask it directly whether it plans to review all the relevant legislation and guidelines, and if not, why not? More specifically, we should ask whether a zero-tolerance approach should be adopted with police officers who have a criminal conviction.
We should ask similar questions of the police organisations, such as the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the police complaints commissioner and the chief inspector of constabulary.
I seek clarification. The petition refers to convictions but not to criminal convictions. When we write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, it might be worth while seeking clarification on the distinction that could be made between convictions and criminal convictions. It might also be worth while writing to the police complaints commissioner to find out his views on what types of convictions may warrant a chief constable removing the warrant card of a police officer.
Do we agree to keep the petition open and to seek the views of the cabinet secretary and a variety of representative organisations?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Petitions Process InquiryNext
Current Petitions