Chamber and committees

I understand what Paul Sweeney says. However, in relation to the request from Mr Rafferty and Unite the union to set up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives, I see that the Scottish Government confirmed in its submission that

“Transport Scotland will explore with trade unions and other stakeholders the best forum for engagement with the taxi trade.”

That sounds good to me although, as far as we know, it could take a considerable period. Perhaps we could find out whether there is a timescale attached to that so that we can give comfort to the taxi drivers and the taxi trade.

The petitioner has suffered a serious loss, in a family sense and financial sense, and I am very much in favour of trying to help out as much as possible. However, we do not know whether the failure of her legal representation has been raised with the Law Society of Scotland, or whatever. However, as I have said, I do not think that it would do any harm to try to help her out as much as possible.

I note that it is already possible for a court to override the principal limitation time limits where it is persuaded that it is equitable to the claimant and the defendant to do so. On that basis, the petitioner—or someone in her position—could engage legal representation to approach a court and ask for the principal limitation time limit to be overridden in their case.

I read the Scottish Government’s submission, which is comprehensive and looks to respond in a reasoned manner to the issues that the petitioner has raised, including the point about people at the very bottom of the economic pillar in society—those who are homeless. It is important that we look to make sure that that has been done. From what I can see, the Scottish Government’s replies have been reasoned.

I think that that is a reasonable approach, because it is a matter of long-standing concern that still resonates today in some parts of the world, and it resonates with people in Scotland on the basis that injustice was done to a large number of people. However, as has been suggested, if we are to take the proposal successfully to the Scottish Government, a specific case or set of cases would provide a focal point that we could work from, rather than trying to take on all the cases of the large number of people who were affected over a long time.

I have nothing in particular to say, except that we need to refer the regulations to the lead committee to ensure that we are not dealing with people dancing on the head of a pin. We have to put down what dancing is, and that is the end of it.

Welcome to the first meeting in session 6 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I am Bill Kidd, the MSP for Glasgow Anniesland. As I am, so I am told, the oldest member of the committee, I have the pleasure of convening the meeting for the first two items of business. I take this opportunity to welcome all members. I look forward to working with you on the committee.

Before I move to item 1, I remind everyone to switch mobile phones to silent mode, if you have not already done so.

No apologies have been received, and members are all on board.

Item 1 is our declarations of interests. Each of us should declare interests that are relevant to the work of the committee. Background information is provided in the declaration of interests paper that members have been issued with.

I will begin by stating that I have no relevant interests to declare.

I have great pleasure in nominating David Torrance.

David Torrance was chosen as deputy convener.

I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on his appointment and I now hand over to him.

Item 2 is the choice of convener. The procedure has been explained in paper 2.

Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party are eligible for nomination as convener of the committee. I understand that Jackson Carlaw is that party’s nominee. I ask Tess White to nominate Jackson Carlaw for the post.