We move on to item 4. We have agreed to consider petitions on a quarterly basis, and we have a number of petitions before us. The first petition, PE29, is from Alex and Margaret Dekker; PE55, PE299 and PE331 are from Ms Tricia Donegan; and PE111 is from Frank Harvey. I refer members to the various lengthy papers on the petitions.I ask whether members are content to consider the petition from Frank Harvey separately, as it raises separate traffic issues in relation to police attending 999 calls. Is that agreed?
The Justice 1 Committee has been pursuing this issue for some time, but we still have not got to the bottom of some of the matters that we have been trying to address. I am broadly in favour of what is proposed in option 9 of the paper. We should probably pursue all three of those objectives.I note that the papers contain a copy of a letter of 30 January 2003 from the Lord Advocate to Christine Grahame, in which the Lord Advocate undertakes to keep the committee updated. I do not have a copy of any further correspondence from the Lord Advocate. Has he kept us up to date on the issue?
There are several loose ends that need to be tied up. Option 9 and the three objectives that it contains will address those issues. I am keen for us to continue to pursue the matter, as we have not got to the bottom of the issues that we are trying to consider.
Thank you, Michael. The petitioner has helpfully attached several press articles that we have probably all read. Seeing them all together highlights the fact that there is a particular issue to address. Interruption. Sorry, are you talking about the Dekker petition, Michael—PE29?
Members might be aware of a report on that issue, which has been out for several months. I do not know whether members have had a chance to look at that. Does anyone dissent from Michael Matheson's view that we need to keep the issue live?
I do not want to dissent from Michael Matheson's view. I concur with what he said. However, I seek some clarification. As well as the three suggested actions under option 9a), there is also a suggested option 9b). Are we talking about all those suggested actions? I think that we should take all those actions, not just the three suggested actions in option 9a).
Okay. We will write to the Executive, asking for an update on when the steering group will have reached its conclusions on the decisions in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions report. We will also ask whether the ISCJS—what is that? Could somebody please clarify what those initials stand for? Interruption. I am advised that it is the integration of Scottish criminal justice information systems—what a mouthful. We will ask when the ISCJS will hold data on serious injuries caused by dangerous driving. We will also ask about the time scale and outcome of the survey of convicted careless and dangerous drivers. We can also write to the Lord Advocate to request an update on progress with a report that contains 80 recommendations. Is that agreed?
I am sorry, but I would like to return to petition PE29. The Lord Advocate's letter of 30 January says:"I have decided that there should now be a presumption that offences under Sections 1 and 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 will be prosecuted in the High Court".That is one measure that people have called for. However, our papers said that a problem in the past was that sheriffs had not referred cases to the High Court. Can we ask the Lord Advocate to clarify that comment in his letter? Do fiscals now send such cases to the High Court and not to the sheriff court as a matter of course, so that making that judgment is not in the hands of sheriffs?
Two separate issues are involved. Procurators fiscal are meant to take offences under sections 1 and 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to the High Court. It is worth checking that that is happening. It must also be ensured that cases that have been tried in a sheriff court but for which referral to the High Court is thought to be appropriate for sentencing are being referred to the High Court. I understand that several cases that should have been referred to the High Court for sentencing after being tried in a sheriff court have not been so referred, although an undertaking to do that was given.
We have returned to petition PE29 by Alex and Margaret Dekker. You would like the Lord Advocate to clarify whether the presumption that offences under sections 1 and 3A of the 1988 act should be referred to the High Court is in operation.
That relates to paragraph 5 of the Lord Advocate's letter of 30 January, which says:"there should now be a presumption that"those offences"will be prosecuted in the High Court."
We will leave petition PE29 now.Petition PE111 by Frank Harvey concerns police officers and road traffic accidents. I presume that police officers who drive dangerously are dealt with in the same way as everybody else is. The question is whether, in emergency blue-light situations in which the police can legally operate outwith the speed limit, any additional measures should be taken to prevent such incidents as we have read about.
The question could be applied equally to the fire service and the Scottish Ambulance Service. Why has the police service been singled out? We have newspaper clippings about cases that have involved the police, but firefighters have been involved, too. It may help to consider whether an on-going issue exists. Sadly, incidents will occur, but I do not know whether they have a pattern or whether there is a problem. It may help to have a statistical background and some information, as paragraph 7a) in our briefing paper suggests. We need to find out whether there is an issue that needs to be addressed before we go off and try to find out what the Executive and the Lord Advocate are doing about it. We should ask about all three emergency services rather than just the one.
I agree with Michael Matheson that we should go for the option that is given in paragraph 7a). There is no point in proceeding with the other options unless we establish that there is a troubling statistical pattern. After that, we could consider the options that are given in paragraphs 7b) and 7c).
No, but we should adopt option 7a) only with the proviso, which Michael Matheson mentioned, that we should ask about all the emergency services and not just the police. The same law applies to all the emergency services.
We are clear that we are talking about all the emergency services.It might be worth asking all the emergency services about their guidelines for blue-light emergencies. Obviously, the emergency services can operate outwith the speed limit when they judge that a blue light has to be used, but I am interested to know what guidance they are given for situations in which, for example, they are chasing a criminal. We need to know a bit more about what guidelines police officers have. I presume that the ambulance service guidelines deal with life-or-death situations, but the police service guidelines might be a lot wider than that.
The police sometimes operate only with blue lights rather than with, as they put it, blues and twos. They do not always use both siren and lights. I understand that the fire service always responds to a 999 call with blues and twos, whereas that is not the case for the police. For the police, it depends on the nature of the call.
From personal experience in the fire service, I would say that Michael Matheson is right. Under fire service legislation, there is a statutory obligation to treat all 999 calls in that way, but the situation for the police and ambulance services is different. Perhaps we need proper clarification from all the services before we can debate the issue properly.
For example, the fire brigade will turn up even to a street bin fire with the full monty, whereas the police would probably put just the blue lights on to get there. That is the difference. I have heard the police say that that issue needs to be addressed.
Perhaps we can debate that a bit further during this afternoon's debate on the fire service.Does the committee agree that we should write separately to the emergency services to ask for any information that they can give us on what guidance they give to their drivers?
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.
link