Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of four petitions. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. The committee is asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take on the petitions. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I remind members that if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close a petition, they should give reasons. We will consider the petitions in turn as they appear in the paper.
PE1370, which calls for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction, is discussed on pages 2 and 3 of the clerk’s paper. I invite comments from members.
Agenda item 3 is consideration of four petitions. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. The committee is asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take on the petitions. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I remind members that if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close a petition, they should give reasons. We will consider the petitions in turn as they appear in the paper.
PE1370, which calls for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction, is discussed on pages 2 and 3 of the clerk’s paper. I invite comments from members.
Previously we agreed to keep the petition open on the basis that operation Sandwood had not yet been completed. That still seems to be the case. Simply on that basis, there does not seem to be any reason not to keep the petition open for the time being.
Previously we agreed to keep the petition open on the basis that operation Sandwood had not yet been completed. That still seems to be the case. Simply on that basis, there does not seem to be any reason not to keep the petition open for the time being.
That was certainly the case on 5 September. Are we agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of operation Sandwood?
Members indicated agreement.
That was certainly the case on 5 September. Are we agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of operation Sandwood?
Members indicated agreement.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of four petitions. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. The committee is asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take on the petitions. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I remind members that if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close a petition, they should give reasons. We will consider the petitions in turn as they appear in the paper.
PE1370, which calls for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction, is discussed on pages 2 and 3 of the clerk’s paper. I invite comments from members.
Agenda item 3 is consideration of four petitions. I refer members to paper 3, which is a note by the clerk. The committee is asked to consider and agree what action, if any, it wishes to take on the petitions. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I remind members that if they wish to keep a petition open, they should indicate how they would like the committee to take it forward. If they wish to close a petition, they should give reasons. We will consider the petitions in turn as they appear in the paper.
PE1370, which calls for an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction, is discussed on pages 2 and 3 of the clerk’s paper. I invite comments from members.
Previously we agreed to keep the petition open on the basis that operation Sandwood had not yet been completed. That still seems to be the case. Simply on that basis, there does not seem to be any reason not to keep the petition open for the time being.
Previously we agreed to keep the petition open on the basis that operation Sandwood had not yet been completed. That still seems to be the case. Simply on that basis, there does not seem to be any reason not to keep the petition open for the time being.
That was certainly the case on 5 September. Are we agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of operation Sandwood?
Members indicated agreement.
That was certainly the case on 5 September. Are we agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of operation Sandwood?
Members indicated agreement.
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Emergency and Non-emergency Services Call Centres (PE1510)
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
Petitions PE1510 and PE1511 are discussed on page 3 of the clerk’s paper. As set out in paragraph 13, during the committee’s last consideration of the petitions at its meeting on 5 September, we agreed to keep the petitions open to allow for a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to a letter on PE1511 from the petitioner. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the petitioner have responded. Members are invited to look at the correspondence and take a view on whether the petitioner’s concerns have been addressed. Prior to this meeting, no further communication on PE1510 has been received from the petitioner. I invite comments from members.
Petitions PE1510 and PE1511 are discussed on page 3 of the clerk’s paper. As set out in paragraph 13, during the committee’s last consideration of the petitions at its meeting on 5 September, we agreed to keep the petitions open to allow for a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to a letter on PE1511 from the petitioner. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the petitioner have responded. Members are invited to look at the correspondence and take a view on whether the petitioner’s concerns have been addressed. Prior to this meeting, no further communication on PE1510 has been received from the petitioner. I invite comments from members.
In relation to the first of the petitions, to be fair to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it produced a fairly detailed response, to which the petitioner has responded in kind. The substantive issue appears to be the reasons for a failure to respond to a freedom of information request. Pending that response, and any further response that the SFRS wishes to make on the back of the petitioner’s most recent response, it would be worth keeping the petition open for the time being.
I am less certain about the other petition on the basis that we are not apprised of the petitioner’s views.
In relation to the first of the petitions, to be fair to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it produced a fairly detailed response, to which the petitioner has responded in kind. The substantive issue appears to be the reasons for a failure to respond to a freedom of information request. Pending that response, and any further response that the SFRS wishes to make on the back of the petitioner’s most recent response, it would be worth keeping the petition open for the time being.
I am less certain about the other petition on the basis that we are not apprised of the petitioner’s views.
Can you clarify whether you want to keep both petitions open or to close one and not the other?
Can you clarify whether you want to keep both petitions open or to close one and not the other?
The position regarding the second petition seems less straightforward because we are not clear about any on-going concerns that the petitioner has on the back of the most recent responses that we have had.
I am clear that PE1510 should be kept open.
The position regarding the second petition seems less straightforward because we are not clear about any on-going concerns that the petitioner has on the back of the most recent responses that we have had.
I am clear that PE1510 should be kept open.
PE1511 concerns the SFRS. Is that the petition that you want to keep open?
PE1511 concerns the SFRS. Is that the petition that you want to keep open?
Yes. I am sorry, I got the numbers wrong.
Yes. I am sorry, I got the numbers wrong.
Does the committee agree to keep PE1511 open and close PE1510?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree to keep PE1511 open and close PE1510?
Members indicated agreement.
Inverness Fire Service Control Room (PE1511)
Petitions PE1510 and PE1511 are discussed on page 3 of the clerk’s paper. As set out in paragraph 13, during the committee’s last consideration of the petitions at its meeting on 5 September, we agreed to keep the petitions open to allow for a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to a letter on PE1511 from the petitioner. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the petitioner have responded. Members are invited to look at the correspondence and take a view on whether the petitioner’s concerns have been addressed. Prior to this meeting, no further communication on PE1510 has been received from the petitioner. I invite comments from members.
Petitions PE1510 and PE1511 are discussed on page 3 of the clerk’s paper. As set out in paragraph 13, during the committee’s last consideration of the petitions at its meeting on 5 September, we agreed to keep the petitions open to allow for a response from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to a letter on PE1511 from the petitioner. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the petitioner have responded. Members are invited to look at the correspondence and take a view on whether the petitioner’s concerns have been addressed. Prior to this meeting, no further communication on PE1510 has been received from the petitioner. I invite comments from members.
In relation to the first of the petitions, to be fair to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it produced a fairly detailed response, to which the petitioner has responded in kind. The substantive issue appears to be the reasons for a failure to respond to a freedom of information request. Pending that response, and any further response that the SFRS wishes to make on the back of the petitioner’s most recent response, it would be worth keeping the petition open for the time being.
I am less certain about the other petition on the basis that we are not apprised of the petitioner’s views.
In relation to the first of the petitions, to be fair to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it produced a fairly detailed response, to which the petitioner has responded in kind. The substantive issue appears to be the reasons for a failure to respond to a freedom of information request. Pending that response, and any further response that the SFRS wishes to make on the back of the petitioner’s most recent response, it would be worth keeping the petition open for the time being.
I am less certain about the other petition on the basis that we are not apprised of the petitioner’s views.
Can you clarify whether you want to keep both petitions open or to close one and not the other?
Can you clarify whether you want to keep both petitions open or to close one and not the other?
The position regarding the second petition seems less straightforward because we are not clear about any on-going concerns that the petitioner has on the back of the most recent responses that we have had.
I am clear that PE1510 should be kept open.
The position regarding the second petition seems less straightforward because we are not clear about any on-going concerns that the petitioner has on the back of the most recent responses that we have had.
I am clear that PE1510 should be kept open.
PE1511 concerns the SFRS. Is that the petition that you want to keep open?
PE1511 concerns the SFRS. Is that the petition that you want to keep open?
Yes. I am sorry, I got the numbers wrong.
Yes. I am sorry, I got the numbers wrong.
Does the committee agree to keep PE1511 open and close PE1510?
Members indicated agreement.
Does the committee agree to keep PE1511 open and close PE1510?
Members indicated agreement.
Private Criminal Prosecutions (PE1633)
This is the first time that the committee has considered PE1633, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to give the people of Scotland the same legal rights as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom by removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I invite comments from members.
This is the first time that the committee has considered PE1633, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to give the people of Scotland the same legal rights as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom by removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I invite comments from members.
I read the petition with great interest and, I have to say, lack of awareness. The fundamental flaw is perhaps not the one that the petitioner has identified. The Lord Advocate should be taking the lead regardless.
I am concerned that the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, which are a fundamental part of workplace health and safety, do not apply. That would certainly inform decision making on whether there should be a prosecution. I am keen that we look further into the petition. There are a number of issues that are worthy of consideration.
I read the petition with great interest and, I have to say, lack of awareness. The fundamental flaw is perhaps not the one that the petitioner has identified. The Lord Advocate should be taking the lead regardless.
I am concerned that the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, which are a fundamental part of workplace health and safety, do not apply. That would certainly inform decision making on whether there should be a prosecution. I am keen that we look further into the petition. There are a number of issues that are worthy of consideration.
I declare an interest: the petition was lodged by a constituent of mine.
The petition concerns a really interesting issue, which I had not really been aware of. It is to do with access to justice as well. The issue can almost be looked at as a loophole in the law; the Health and Safety Executive appears to have autonomy over matters and, in some cases, denies people access to justice. We need to take on the petition fully—we need to ask for submissions, contact the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and perhaps take oral evidence from the petitioner.
I declare an interest: the petition was lodged by a constituent of mine.
The petition concerns a really interesting issue, which I had not really been aware of. It is to do with access to justice as well. The issue can almost be looked at as a loophole in the law; the Health and Safety Executive appears to have autonomy over matters and, in some cases, denies people access to justice. We need to take on the petition fully—we need to ask for submissions, contact the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and perhaps take oral evidence from the petitioner.
Purely and simply, I agree with Rona Mackay. There is merit to what she has suggested.
Purely and simply, I agree with Rona Mackay. There is merit to what she has suggested.
Some worrying aspects are raised in the petition—not least, if the Health and Safety Executive decides not to provide a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on an accident at work, there is nothing that can be done. It also raises some of the barriers to challenging the Lord Advocate if he decides not to prosecute.
If the committee wants to progress the matter, one possibility would be to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. That means that, when we return in January, we will have their submissions. On the back of that, we can decide what to do thereafter.
Some worrying aspects are raised in the petition—not least, if the Health and Safety Executive decides not to provide a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on an accident at work, there is nothing that can be done. It also raises some of the barriers to challenging the Lord Advocate if he decides not to prosecute.
If the committee wants to progress the matter, one possibility would be to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. That means that, when we return in January, we will have their submissions. On the back of that, we can decide what to do thereafter.
I wonder whether it would be beneficial to ask the Scottish Trades Union Congress for its comments on the petition.
I wonder whether it would be beneficial to ask the Scottish Trades Union Congress for its comments on the petition.
Absolutely. We will contact the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the STUC. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Absolutely. We will contact the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the STUC. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes our consideration of petitions. The committee’s next meeting will be on 9 January 2018, when we will consider a draft report on the Scottish Government’s 2018-19 draft budget and a draft stage 1 report on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill. I wish everyone a very happy and merry Christmas.
11:45 Meeting continued in private until 12:42.
That completes our consideration of petitions. The committee’s next meeting will be on 9 January 2018, when we will consider a draft report on the Scottish Government’s 2018-19 draft budget and a draft stage 1 report on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill. I wish everyone a very happy and merry Christmas.
11:45 Meeting continued in private until 12:42.Private Criminal Prosecutions (PE1633)
This is the first time that the committee has considered PE1633, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to give the people of Scotland the same legal rights as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom by removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I invite comments from members.
This is the first time that the committee has considered PE1633, which calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the law to give the people of Scotland the same legal rights as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom by removing the requirement that the Lord Advocate must first give permission before a private criminal prosecution can be commenced. Possible options are outlined in paragraph 5 of paper 3. I invite comments from members.
I read the petition with great interest and, I have to say, lack of awareness. The fundamental flaw is perhaps not the one that the petitioner has identified. The Lord Advocate should be taking the lead regardless.
I am concerned that the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, which are a fundamental part of workplace health and safety, do not apply. That would certainly inform decision making on whether there should be a prosecution. I am keen that we look further into the petition. There are a number of issues that are worthy of consideration.
I read the petition with great interest and, I have to say, lack of awareness. The fundamental flaw is perhaps not the one that the petitioner has identified. The Lord Advocate should be taking the lead regardless.
I am concerned that the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, which are a fundamental part of workplace health and safety, do not apply. That would certainly inform decision making on whether there should be a prosecution. I am keen that we look further into the petition. There are a number of issues that are worthy of consideration.
I declare an interest: the petition was lodged by a constituent of mine.
The petition concerns a really interesting issue, which I had not really been aware of. It is to do with access to justice as well. The issue can almost be looked at as a loophole in the law; the Health and Safety Executive appears to have autonomy over matters and, in some cases, denies people access to justice. We need to take on the petition fully—we need to ask for submissions, contact the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and perhaps take oral evidence from the petitioner.
I declare an interest: the petition was lodged by a constituent of mine.
The petition concerns a really interesting issue, which I had not really been aware of. It is to do with access to justice as well. The issue can almost be looked at as a loophole in the law; the Health and Safety Executive appears to have autonomy over matters and, in some cases, denies people access to justice. We need to take on the petition fully—we need to ask for submissions, contact the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, and perhaps take oral evidence from the petitioner.
Purely and simply, I agree with Rona Mackay. There is merit to what she has suggested.
Purely and simply, I agree with Rona Mackay. There is merit to what she has suggested.
Some worrying aspects are raised in the petition—not least, if the Health and Safety Executive decides not to provide a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on an accident at work, there is nothing that can be done. It also raises some of the barriers to challenging the Lord Advocate if he decides not to prosecute.
If the committee wants to progress the matter, one possibility would be to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. That means that, when we return in January, we will have their submissions. On the back of that, we can decide what to do thereafter.
Some worrying aspects are raised in the petition—not least, if the Health and Safety Executive decides not to provide a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on an accident at work, there is nothing that can be done. It also raises some of the barriers to challenging the Lord Advocate if he decides not to prosecute.
If the committee wants to progress the matter, one possibility would be to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. That means that, when we return in January, we will have their submissions. On the back of that, we can decide what to do thereafter.
I wonder whether it would be beneficial to ask the Scottish Trades Union Congress for its comments on the petition.
I wonder whether it would be beneficial to ask the Scottish Trades Union Congress for its comments on the petition.
Absolutely. We will contact the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the STUC. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Absolutely. We will contact the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the STUC. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That completes our consideration of petitions. The committee’s next meeting will be on 9 January 2018, when we will consider a draft report on the Scottish Government’s 2018-19 draft budget and a draft stage 1 report on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill. I wish everyone a very happy and merry Christmas.
11:45 Meeting continued in private until 12:42.
That completes our consideration of petitions. The committee’s next meeting will be on 9 January 2018, when we will consider a draft report on the Scottish Government’s 2018-19 draft budget and a draft stage 1 report on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Repeal) (Scotland) Bill. I wish everyone a very happy and merry Christmas.
11:45 Meeting continued in private until 12:42.