New Petitions

The next petition is PE739, by Hugh Sinclair, on behalf of the movement for a register of freemasons. The petition calls for the Parliament to take the necessary steps to ensure that Scottish solicitors are required to declare membership of the freemasons in a register of declarations, to which members of the public have access, and that jurors are required to make similar declarations.The issue of membership of the freemasons by the judiciary has been considered within the context of five previous petitions and was the subject of an inquiry by the Justice 2 Committee, in relation to PE306, by Thomas Minogue, between November 2000 and January 2003.The petitioner suggests in PE739 that solicitors and jurors should be required to declare masonic membership—that was not considered in any detail by the Justice 2 Committee in its inquiry.Do members have any opinions?

No. PE731 was the most recent such petition that we discussed and it came after the Justice 2 Committee's report. We are still waiting on a reply to PE731.

But the Justice 2 Committee has not examined the issue of solicitors and jurors being required to declare their membership of the freemasons.

That is similar to the reason why we sent the previous petition to the Justice 2 Committee. There was an inquiry into freemasonry in the justice system, but not specifically on the issues raised in PE731 and PE739. PE731 specified judges and PE739 specifies solicitors and jurors. As we understand it, those issues were not specifically addressed in the Justice 2 Committee's report.

Have we referred PE731 to the Justice 2 Committee?

Yes.

Could we ask it also to consider the specific point raised in PE739? It could bracket the two together rather than have a fresh inquiry.

Good. Thank you.

Where does that leave us?

I was not on the Justice 2 Committee or the Public Petitions Committee when the inquiry was conducted, but my understanding is that the Justice 2 Committee in the previous Parliament conducted an extensive inquiry and arrived at a conclusion in respect of the justice system in Scotland as a whole, which clearly covers the separate issues of judges, solicitors and jurors raised within the petitions.My understanding of the briefing note is that the Justice 2 Committee did not consider those issues in great detail. Nevertheless, the issues would have been encompassed by the inquiry. Unless there is fresh information, I would be disinclined to pursue the matter. I know that we have had seven petitions on the same subject, but the Justice 2 Committee held a major inquiry into the issue and came to the conclusion that nothing further should be done.The only point that I remain unclear about relates to PE731. We have asked the Justice 2 Committee about PE731, which deals with a different issue, and we are awaiting a response on that, so PE731 is clearly out there and running.

Yes.

So what we do with PE739 does not have to bear any relationship to PE731.

That is right.

I cannot speak for the Justice 2 Committee, but given that it undertook an extensive inquiry into the issue in the previous parliamentary session, I cannot envisage either the Justice 1 Committee or the Justice 2 Committee investing a great deal of time in considering the matter further.

That is a fair point. We will await the outcome of the Justice 2 Committee's consideration of PE731. I am sure that we will bear it in mind that PE739 has also been before us when we receive that reply, and we can address that if necessary or appropriate when we get the reply on PE731.

No, we can leave the petition as it stands. We will do nothing with it, but will wait for the Justice 2 Committee's reply on PE731. Are members happy with that?Members indicated agreement.