We now go back to agenda item 2. Members have been circulated with copies of the four petitions with which we will deal. We will take them in the chronological order in which they appear on the agenda.
Scottish Legal Aid Board (PE200)
Petition PE200, which is from Andrew Watt, calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the working methods of the Scottish Legal Aid Board, particularly in relation to the collection and disbursement of compensation moneys. The clerks have given us a lot of helpful background information about the petition and its progress since it first appeared in the Parliament.
I have no questions about the petition. The clerks have made a helpful suggestion, and that is the course of action that the committee should take.
Does the committee agree that the options detailed in paragraph 18 of the clerk's note on the petition should be followed?
Criminal Injuries Compensation (PE375)
Next is petition PE375 from Mrs Elaine Crawford, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to carry out a review of criminal injuries compensation procedure and policy, and a review of sentencing policy on violent crime. It emerged during the previous parliamentary session that criminal injuries compensation is a reserved matter—it is not one over which the Parliament has competence. The Parliament has competence over sentencing.
The previous Justice 1 Committee carried out considerable work on sentencing—the other aspect of Mrs Crawford's petition—and the Scottish Executive has recently established the sentencing commission. Therefore, one of the options is that the committee may wish to note Mrs Crawford's concerns on sentencing and pass her petition to the sentencing commission for information. Would that be an acceptable means of dealing with the petition?
Clydesdale Horses (Couping) (PE347)
Petition PE347 from Mr Kenneth Mitchell calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the practice of show shoeing Clydesdale horses and to introduce legislation to make such a style of shoeing illegal unless sanctioned for medical reasons by a veterinary surgeon. This petition is also accompanied by extensive background information, some of which has been provided by the clerks and some of which is evidence from other bodies and organisations.
As I understand it, we still do not have any indication from the Executive as to when it will introduce its Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill. Is that still the case?
I think that that is the case. There is a statement in "A Partnership for a Better Scotland: The partnership agreement." We have no more specific information than is contained in the clerk's background note. You will see from that note that there is an option for a member's bill to be introduced to cover the practice. Dr Sylvia Jackson has been interested in the issue throughout the petition's progress.
I give Dr Jackson's apologies. She had hoped to attend the meeting, but she is at another committee this afternoon.
Thank you.
The issue is important. The previous Justice 1 Committee spent a lot of time on it. I hope that it is included in the Executive's Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill when it is introduced. However, there is not much that the committee can do now to further the matter. We must wait to see what legislative proposals are introduced by the Executive or in a member's bill.
Although I agree with most of that, I do not think that we should conclude our consideration of the petition absolutely. Although the Executive intends to introduce the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill, we are unclear as to what the bill's content will be. If we keep the petition alive for the time being, that may have some extra influence over the Executive. Our consideration of the petition should not be concluded at this stage, although I realise that the petitioners will get what they want, whether through the Executive's legislation or through Sylvia Jackson introducing a member's bill.
I echo Maureen Macmillan's point. The issue is clearly substantive and merits serious consideration. I suggest that another way of dealing with the petition would be to write formally to the Scottish Executive. We could say that the petition has been placed before us and that our attitude to it depends to some extent on the clarity of the legislative proposals, and ask whether the Executive is in a position to guide us on that. Depending on the response, we can then determine how to deal with the petition. On that basis, we would continue the petition as part of our work.
Scottish Law (Protection of Minors) (PE565)
The final petition is from a Miss Jacqueline Shields. Petition PE565 calls on the Scottish Parliament to take the necessary steps to provide a protective mechanism to ensure that the welfare concerns of minors are paramount in Scottish law. The committee will see that Miss Shields is still a young lady—she was 12 in December 2002—so she is to be commended for having the resolve to bring the matter to the Parliament's attention.
We are not quite ready to take a decision on the petition, but if we wrote to the Executive, as recommended in paragraph 9 of the clerk's note, and to the Law Society of Scotland, as recommended in paragraph 10, to seek their views, we would quickly be able to reach a conclusion on the matter and respond to the petitioner.
I have a lot of sympathy with that view, because I feel that we are slightly lacking in information about the situation. The third body to which it is suggested that we write is the Scottish Legal Aid Board. That is relevant.
Thank you. That brings us to item 5, which is to be taken in private.
Meeting suspended until 15:43 and thereafter continued in private until 16:20.
Previous
Subordinate Legislation