Community Volunteers (PE447)

Petition PE483 is from Mr Duncan Shields and we dealt with it at our previous meeting. The petition concerns a review of the membership of the Justice 1 Committee. Members will remember that Mr Shields considered that some members of that committee were not impartial during the committee's inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession. We agreed to raise the matter with the convener of the Justice 1 Committee. In her response, she makes it clear that the majority of the large number of responses to its inquiry have been published on the Parliament's website and the public can view them at the public information desk. Following legal advice, the remainder of the responses are being edited to ensure that they do not raise concerns about defamation and data protection. The intention is that the majority of them will be put on the website in due course. The response also makes it clear that all evidence-taking sessions for the inquiry have been held in public and any private sessions have been to discuss the draft remit of the inquiry prior to the publication of the report, lines of questioning for witnesses or how the committee should proceed with the inquiry. The response also states that the private sessions were attended only by Justice 1 Committee members and, on occasion, by an adviser to the inquiry. The convener has stated quite clearly that there has been no attempt to restrict publication of material that was submitted in relation to the inquiry, although publication of some material has been delayed because of the need to consider legal advice on defamation and data protection issues. She has also made it clear that all evidence-taking sessions were held in public. The information that she has provided appears to address the issues that the petitioner raised. On that basis, it is suggested that the committee agrees to copy the response to the petitioner for information and take no further action.

The Parliament's legal advisers, rather than the legal profession, will give advice to the Justice 1 Committee.

They are solicitors. Individuals can publish anything that they want to publish, but they must suffer the consequences. If the Parliament publishes the statements, it takes on responsibility for them, so the committee must take legal advice before it takes the risk, because the statements will be published in its name. The petitioners can publish what they like, but they will suffer the legal consequences of publication. The Parliament cannot do that without taking legal advice, because it becomes responsible for publishing them.

I think that that is why the Parliament is going through the process, to see whether there is any way that the submissions can be put on the website. We can certainly find out what proportion of the submissions has been published and what proportion has not. That is easily done.

We would have to check that out, as we do not know the answer.

So the two matters that you want checked out are the majority and the question of disclaimers. You do not want consideration of the petition to continue. Can we close consideration of the petition, as is recommended?

I am a wee bit concerned about what Phil Gallie has said. Any committee could publish defamatory information with a disclaimer attached. We must realise that we are dealing with individuals and that we cannot just be a sounding board for anybody to say what they want about anybody else. We must be careful. I would not be keen for things to be published with disclaimers attached if they were going to cause somebody damage and there was no basis for the allegation.

I have been reminded that if we consider the issues in each petition that we have dealt with this morning, we see that a series of disclaimers came in subsequent to the committee hearing the evidence, to say that the evidence was not accurate or true. We and the Parliament must be careful. I do not have any problem with seeking legal advice on the matter and passing on that advice to the committee—I am happy to do that. We can conclude the petition once we receive that advice.

We must be firm. Anybody who submits information to a parliamentary committee should do so in the knowledge that the information is correct. They cannot simply say what they like about people—the earlier petition shows that—otherwise we will end up as a sounding board, which folk will use to say what they like about people. They will be cleared of any responsibility because the information will be published in the Parliament's name.

That is a fair point. The advice that we seek will address that point and make the position clear to the committee for the future. Do members agree with the suggested course of action?Members indicated agreement.