Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
I suggest that the petition remain open, pending introduction of the legislation.
I agree. Could we also record that it is unfortunate that the Government has been unable to give us a date for introduction? On a number of occasions, I have offered to introduce a member’s bill, if that would make it easier for Government business. The introduction of the legislation is a matter of some import.
Across the committee, we all want the matter to be accelerated. We will keep the petition open and we have put it on the record that we want the Government to get a move on, as my mother used to say.
I am happy to move on to petitions, of which we have five to consider. It is important that petitions be given time in Parliament because people make efforts to lodge them.
I am happy to move on to petitions, of which we have five to consider. It is important that petitions be given time in Parliament because people make efforts to lodge them.
I suggest that the petition remain open, pending introduction of the legislation.
I agree. Could we also record that it is unfortunate that the Government has been unable to give us a date for introduction? On a number of occasions, I have offered to introduce a member’s bill, if that would make it easier for Government business. The introduction of the legislation is a matter of some import.
Across the committee, we all want the matter to be accelerated. We will keep the petition open and we have put it on the record that we want the Government to get a move on, as my mother used to say.
Fatal Accident Inquiries (PE1280)
I suggest that the petition remain open, pending introduction of the legislation.
I agree. Could we also record that it is unfortunate that the Government has been unable to give us a date for introduction? On a number of occasions, I have offered to introduce a member’s bill, if that would make it easier for Government business. The introduction of the legislation is a matter of some import.
Across the committee, we all want the matter to be accelerated. We will keep the petition open and we have put it on the record that we want the Government to get a move on, as my mother used to say.
I am happy to move on to petitions, of which we have five to consider. It is important that petitions be given time in Parliament because people make efforts to lodge them.
I am happy to move on to petitions, of which we have five to consider. It is important that petitions be given time in Parliament because people make efforts to lodge them.
I suggest that the petition remain open, pending introduction of the legislation.
I agree. Could we also record that it is unfortunate that the Government has been unable to give us a date for introduction? On a number of occasions, I have offered to introduce a member’s bill, if that would make it easier for Government business. The introduction of the legislation is a matter of some import.
Across the committee, we all want the matter to be accelerated. We will keep the petition open and we have put it on the record that we want the Government to get a move on, as my mother used to say.
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
We have had the statement of reasons from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. An appeal was activated and was then placed in limbo. It was open to Megrahi to continue that appeal, and I understand that it is still open to his relatives, or perhaps to relatives of those who were affected by the Lockerbie disaster, to continue that. If those who can directly progress an appeal process chose to do so, would that be a more effective way of proceeding?
I will touch on what other members have said. A comparatively short time has passed since Megrahi died, and we have no information about his family’s intentions on a possible appeal. The proper course is in the criminal courts. Until we are satisfied that no further criminal proceedings will be forthcoming, it would be inappropriate to support an inquiry. However, that does not mean that the petition should be closed.
I agree with a lot of what has been said. The additional information that we have received highlights the pressures on citizens in Libya and says, for example, that
Do members agree to keep the petition open until we receive a response, if any, from the cabinet secretary to the letter of complaint and until the letter itself is published, after which we can reconsider our position?
PE1370 calls for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. Since the petition was referred to us in September last year, a number of developments have taken place, not least of which have been publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons on the case, and Megrahi’s death in May. The committee heard evidence from the petitioners in relation to the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which has now been enacted, and it considered recommendations from Lord Carloway on appeals in relation to SCCRC references. The petitioners have helpfully provided further information, which is in the annex to the paper for members.
I echo Sandra White’s comments. It is not long since al-Megrahi passed away and it takes some time to put legal ducks in a row. I agree that we should keep the petition open.
I declare an interest, as I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when it considered the petition. We must all be aware that the issue is in the public interest. I would like to keep the petition open. The question to ask is whether an independent inquiry would be helpful or should be proposed. Keeping the petition open would be in the public interest.
Our papers refer to a “letter of complaint” that has been sent to the cabinet secretary,
PE1370 calls for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. Since the petition was referred to us in September last year, a number of developments have taken place, not least of which have been publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons on the case, and Megrahi’s death in May. The committee heard evidence from the petitioners in relation to the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which has now been enacted, and it considered recommendations from Lord Carloway on appeals in relation to SCCRC references. The petitioners have helpfully provided further information, which is in the annex to the paper for members.
We have had the statement of reasons from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. An appeal was activated and was then placed in limbo. It was open to Megrahi to continue that appeal, and I understand that it is still open to his relatives, or perhaps to relatives of those who were affected by the Lockerbie disaster, to continue that. If those who can directly progress an appeal process chose to do so, would that be a more effective way of proceeding?
I declare an interest, as I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when it considered the petition. We must all be aware that the issue is in the public interest. I would like to keep the petition open. The question to ask is whether an independent inquiry would be helpful or should be proposed. Keeping the petition open would be in the public interest.
I echo Sandra White’s comments. It is not long since al-Megrahi passed away and it takes some time to put legal ducks in a row. I agree that we should keep the petition open.
I will touch on what other members have said. A comparatively short time has passed since Megrahi died, and we have no information about his family’s intentions on a possible appeal. The proper course is in the criminal courts. Until we are satisfied that no further criminal proceedings will be forthcoming, it would be inappropriate to support an inquiry. However, that does not mean that the petition should be closed.
I agree with a lot of what has been said. The additional information that we have received highlights the pressures on citizens in Libya and says, for example, that
Our papers refer to a “letter of complaint” that has been sent to the cabinet secretary,
Do members agree to keep the petition open until we receive a response, if any, from the cabinet secretary to the letter of complaint and until the letter itself is published, after which we can reconsider our position?
Justice for Megrahi (PE1370)
We have had the statement of reasons from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. An appeal was activated and was then placed in limbo. It was open to Megrahi to continue that appeal, and I understand that it is still open to his relatives, or perhaps to relatives of those who were affected by the Lockerbie disaster, to continue that. If those who can directly progress an appeal process chose to do so, would that be a more effective way of proceeding?
I will touch on what other members have said. A comparatively short time has passed since Megrahi died, and we have no information about his family’s intentions on a possible appeal. The proper course is in the criminal courts. Until we are satisfied that no further criminal proceedings will be forthcoming, it would be inappropriate to support an inquiry. However, that does not mean that the petition should be closed.
I agree with a lot of what has been said. The additional information that we have received highlights the pressures on citizens in Libya and says, for example, that
Do members agree to keep the petition open until we receive a response, if any, from the cabinet secretary to the letter of complaint and until the letter itself is published, after which we can reconsider our position?
PE1370 calls for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. Since the petition was referred to us in September last year, a number of developments have taken place, not least of which have been publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons on the case, and Megrahi’s death in May. The committee heard evidence from the petitioners in relation to the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which has now been enacted, and it considered recommendations from Lord Carloway on appeals in relation to SCCRC references. The petitioners have helpfully provided further information, which is in the annex to the paper for members.
I echo Sandra White’s comments. It is not long since al-Megrahi passed away and it takes some time to put legal ducks in a row. I agree that we should keep the petition open.
I declare an interest, as I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when it considered the petition. We must all be aware that the issue is in the public interest. I would like to keep the petition open. The question to ask is whether an independent inquiry would be helpful or should be proposed. Keeping the petition open would be in the public interest.
Our papers refer to a “letter of complaint” that has been sent to the cabinet secretary,
PE1370 calls for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. Since the petition was referred to us in September last year, a number of developments have taken place, not least of which have been publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons on the case, and Megrahi’s death in May. The committee heard evidence from the petitioners in relation to the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, which has now been enacted, and it considered recommendations from Lord Carloway on appeals in relation to SCCRC references. The petitioners have helpfully provided further information, which is in the annex to the paper for members.
We have had the statement of reasons from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. An appeal was activated and was then placed in limbo. It was open to Megrahi to continue that appeal, and I understand that it is still open to his relatives, or perhaps to relatives of those who were affected by the Lockerbie disaster, to continue that. If those who can directly progress an appeal process chose to do so, would that be a more effective way of proceeding?
I declare an interest, as I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when it considered the petition. We must all be aware that the issue is in the public interest. I would like to keep the petition open. The question to ask is whether an independent inquiry would be helpful or should be proposed. Keeping the petition open would be in the public interest.
I echo Sandra White’s comments. It is not long since al-Megrahi passed away and it takes some time to put legal ducks in a row. I agree that we should keep the petition open.
I will touch on what other members have said. A comparatively short time has passed since Megrahi died, and we have no information about his family’s intentions on a possible appeal. The proper course is in the criminal courts. Until we are satisfied that no further criminal proceedings will be forthcoming, it would be inappropriate to support an inquiry. However, that does not mean that the petition should be closed.
I agree with a lot of what has been said. The additional information that we have received highlights the pressures on citizens in Libya and says, for example, that
Our papers refer to a “letter of complaint” that has been sent to the cabinet secretary,
Do members agree to keep the petition open until we receive a response, if any, from the cabinet secretary to the letter of complaint and until the letter itself is published, after which we can reconsider our position?
Access to Justice (Non-corporate Multi-party Actions) (PE1427)
Option (a) is to
The first of the new petitions for consideration is PE1427, which calls for recommendations on multi-party actions, that were made by Lord Gill in his Scottish civil courts review, to be introduced through changes to existing protocols. In correspondence to the Public Petitions Committee on the petition, the Scottish Government has indicated that it agrees with Lord Gill’s recommendations that a multi-party action procedure should be introduced, and that it will introduce legislation on the matter in the lifetime of this Parliament. The petition is the petitioners’ attempt to allow multi-party actions to be introduced at an earlier date by existing means, before legislation is enacted.
I favour option (a) as set out in our papers.
What is that option?
Does the committee agree?
The first of the new petitions for consideration is PE1427, which calls for recommendations on multi-party actions, that were made by Lord Gill in his Scottish civil courts review, to be introduced through changes to existing protocols. In correspondence to the Public Petitions Committee on the petition, the Scottish Government has indicated that it agrees with Lord Gill’s recommendations that a multi-party action procedure should be introduced, and that it will introduce legislation on the matter in the lifetime of this Parliament. The petition is the petitioners’ attempt to allow multi-party actions to be introduced at an earlier date by existing means, before legislation is enacted.
I favour option (a) as set out in our papers.
What is that option?
Option (a) is to
Does the committee agree?
Access to Justice (Non-corporate Multi-party Actions) (PE1427)
Option (a) is to
The first of the new petitions for consideration is PE1427, which calls for recommendations on multi-party actions, that were made by Lord Gill in his Scottish civil courts review, to be introduced through changes to existing protocols. In correspondence to the Public Petitions Committee on the petition, the Scottish Government has indicated that it agrees with Lord Gill’s recommendations that a multi-party action procedure should be introduced, and that it will introduce legislation on the matter in the lifetime of this Parliament. The petition is the petitioners’ attempt to allow multi-party actions to be introduced at an earlier date by existing means, before legislation is enacted.
I favour option (a) as set out in our papers.
What is that option?
Does the committee agree?
The first of the new petitions for consideration is PE1427, which calls for recommendations on multi-party actions, that were made by Lord Gill in his Scottish civil courts review, to be introduced through changes to existing protocols. In correspondence to the Public Petitions Committee on the petition, the Scottish Government has indicated that it agrees with Lord Gill’s recommendations that a multi-party action procedure should be introduced, and that it will introduce legislation on the matter in the lifetime of this Parliament. The petition is the petitioners’ attempt to allow multi-party actions to be introduced at an earlier date by existing means, before legislation is enacted.
I favour option (a) as set out in our papers.
What is that option?
Option (a) is to
Does the committee agree?
Corroboration (PE1436)
Obviously it is open to members to trail the issue in this afternoon’s debate. In any case, I have huge problems with making legislation retrospective. Do members agree simply to keep the petition open for now?
Given that additional information might arise in this afternoon’s debate that might well have a bearing on the matter, I think that it is difficult to make a decision at this stage.
Petition PE1436 calls for the retrospective abolition of the corroboration requirement. As we know, Lord Carloway has recommended after his review of criminal law and practice that corroboration be abolished, and the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation on Lord Carloway’s recommendations next year.
Petition PE1436 calls for the retrospective abolition of the corroboration requirement. As we know, Lord Carloway has recommended after his review of criminal law and practice that corroboration be abolished, and the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation on Lord Carloway’s recommendations next year.
Given that additional information might arise in this afternoon’s debate that might well have a bearing on the matter, I think that it is difficult to make a decision at this stage.
Obviously it is open to members to trail the issue in this afternoon’s debate. In any case, I have huge problems with making legislation retrospective. Do members agree simply to keep the petition open for now?
Corroboration (PE1436)
Obviously it is open to members to trail the issue in this afternoon’s debate. In any case, I have huge problems with making legislation retrospective. Do members agree simply to keep the petition open for now?
Given that additional information might arise in this afternoon’s debate that might well have a bearing on the matter, I think that it is difficult to make a decision at this stage.
Petition PE1436 calls for the retrospective abolition of the corroboration requirement. As we know, Lord Carloway has recommended after his review of criminal law and practice that corroboration be abolished, and the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation on Lord Carloway’s recommendations next year.
Petition PE1436 calls for the retrospective abolition of the corroboration requirement. As we know, Lord Carloway has recommended after his review of criminal law and practice that corroboration be abolished, and the Scottish Government intends to introduce legislation on Lord Carloway’s recommendations next year.
Given that additional information might arise in this afternoon’s debate that might well have a bearing on the matter, I think that it is difficult to make a decision at this stage.
Obviously it is open to members to trail the issue in this afternoon’s debate. In any case, I have huge problems with making legislation retrospective. Do members agree simply to keep the petition open for now?
Administrative Justice (PE1449)
I am not sure that I agree with Sandra White. I think that we could ask for a few more details of what will be involved in the non-statutory advisory committee, for a timetable and for general further information from the Government. I appreciate that it is a moving feast, however, and that, in some respects, the Government is responding to events in another place.
We will leave the petition open.
I bow to the superior knowledge of my colleague.
It would certainly be useful to keep the petition open until the bill is introduced.
PE1449 calls for an independent Scottish administrative justice council to be preserved after the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and, with it, the council’s Scottish committee. The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs copied the committee into correspondence on 4 September. in which she outlined her intention to set up a non-statutory advisory committee to carry out many of the functions of the Scottish committee after its abolition. We also learned from the AJTC’s—I cannot tell you how happy I am to use just the initials—Scottish committee during our consideration of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill about the possibility that it may take on administrative justice functions at a later stage. The petitioners have provided further information. Do members have any comments?
There are a number of options, but I propose that we close the petition on the basis that, since the petition was lodged, the minister has outlined new proposals for a non-statutory advisory committee and is considering longer-term options. I am sure that Mr Hinton, the petitioner, can feed into that.
You bow to his superior knowledge? Do not grow his part.
I am happy to do that. We can also encourage the petitioners to feed into the consultation and to submit any comments on the bill at stage 1.
Rod Campbell is right. I was left with the impression that we are not yet on solid ground regarding what the future might look like. Therefore, it might be too soon to close the petition.
We could ask the Scottish Government for more details when it is able to produce them. I suspect that it will say that it cannot give us very much at the moment.
PE1449 calls for an independent Scottish administrative justice council to be preserved after the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and, with it, the council’s Scottish committee. The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs copied the committee into correspondence on 4 September. in which she outlined her intention to set up a non-statutory advisory committee to carry out many of the functions of the Scottish committee after its abolition. We also learned from the AJTC’s—I cannot tell you how happy I am to use just the initials—Scottish committee during our consideration of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill about the possibility that it may take on administrative justice functions at a later stage. The petitioners have provided further information. Do members have any comments?
There are a number of options, but I propose that we close the petition on the basis that, since the petition was lodged, the minister has outlined new proposals for a non-statutory advisory committee and is considering longer-term options. I am sure that Mr Hinton, the petitioner, can feed into that.
I am not sure that I agree with Sandra White. I think that we could ask for a few more details of what will be involved in the non-statutory advisory committee, for a timetable and for general further information from the Government. I appreciate that it is a moving feast, however, and that, in some respects, the Government is responding to events in another place.
Rod Campbell is right. I was left with the impression that we are not yet on solid ground regarding what the future might look like. Therefore, it might be too soon to close the petition.
We will leave the petition open.
I bow to the superior knowledge of my colleague.
You bow to his superior knowledge? Do not grow his part.
We could ask the Scottish Government for more details when it is able to produce them. I suspect that it will say that it cannot give us very much at the moment.
It would certainly be useful to keep the petition open until the bill is introduced.
I am happy to do that. We can also encourage the petitioners to feed into the consultation and to submit any comments on the bill at stage 1.
Administrative Justice (PE1449)
I am not sure that I agree with Sandra White. I think that we could ask for a few more details of what will be involved in the non-statutory advisory committee, for a timetable and for general further information from the Government. I appreciate that it is a moving feast, however, and that, in some respects, the Government is responding to events in another place.
We will leave the petition open.
I bow to the superior knowledge of my colleague.
It would certainly be useful to keep the petition open until the bill is introduced.
PE1449 calls for an independent Scottish administrative justice council to be preserved after the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and, with it, the council’s Scottish committee. The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs copied the committee into correspondence on 4 September. in which she outlined her intention to set up a non-statutory advisory committee to carry out many of the functions of the Scottish committee after its abolition. We also learned from the AJTC’s—I cannot tell you how happy I am to use just the initials—Scottish committee during our consideration of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill about the possibility that it may take on administrative justice functions at a later stage. The petitioners have provided further information. Do members have any comments?
There are a number of options, but I propose that we close the petition on the basis that, since the petition was lodged, the minister has outlined new proposals for a non-statutory advisory committee and is considering longer-term options. I am sure that Mr Hinton, the petitioner, can feed into that.
You bow to his superior knowledge? Do not grow his part.
I am happy to do that. We can also encourage the petitioners to feed into the consultation and to submit any comments on the bill at stage 1.
Rod Campbell is right. I was left with the impression that we are not yet on solid ground regarding what the future might look like. Therefore, it might be too soon to close the petition.
We could ask the Scottish Government for more details when it is able to produce them. I suspect that it will say that it cannot give us very much at the moment.
PE1449 calls for an independent Scottish administrative justice council to be preserved after the abolition of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council and, with it, the council’s Scottish committee. The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs copied the committee into correspondence on 4 September. in which she outlined her intention to set up a non-statutory advisory committee to carry out many of the functions of the Scottish committee after its abolition. We also learned from the AJTC’s—I cannot tell you how happy I am to use just the initials—Scottish committee during our consideration of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill about the possibility that it may take on administrative justice functions at a later stage. The petitioners have provided further information. Do members have any comments?
There are a number of options, but I propose that we close the petition on the basis that, since the petition was lodged, the minister has outlined new proposals for a non-statutory advisory committee and is considering longer-term options. I am sure that Mr Hinton, the petitioner, can feed into that.
I am not sure that I agree with Sandra White. I think that we could ask for a few more details of what will be involved in the non-statutory advisory committee, for a timetable and for general further information from the Government. I appreciate that it is a moving feast, however, and that, in some respects, the Government is responding to events in another place.
Rod Campbell is right. I was left with the impression that we are not yet on solid ground regarding what the future might look like. Therefore, it might be too soon to close the petition.
We will leave the petition open.
I bow to the superior knowledge of my colleague.
You bow to his superior knowledge? Do not grow his part.
We could ask the Scottish Government for more details when it is able to produce them. I suspect that it will say that it cannot give us very much at the moment.
It would certainly be useful to keep the petition open until the bill is introduced.
I am happy to do that. We can also encourage the petitioners to feed into the consultation and to submit any comments on the bill at stage 1.
Air ais
PetitionsAir adhart
Decisions on Taking Business in Private