Contents
- Attendance
- New Petitions
- Continued Petitions
New Petitions
Parental and Familial Alienation (PE1790)
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 11th meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2020. The meeting is being held virtually.
The first item today is consideration of new petitions. The first petition for consideration is PE1790, on parental and familial alienation, which was lodged by Samantha Kerr. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to recognise parental and familial alienation as a specific and serious form of pathological psychological child abuse. We have received 10 submissions from the petitioner, one from the Scottish Government and one from Paul Anderson on behalf of Forever Fathers and Alienated Parents Support Ireland. The submissions are summarised in the clerk’s note. Since our meeting papers were published, further submissions have been provided: two from the petitioner and one from Paul Anderson. They were sent to us separately.
The Scottish Government submission confirms that there is no provision in the Children (Scotland) Bill, which was passed last week, imposing a requirement on the court to consider in every case the possibility of one parent deliberately turning a child against the other parent. However, section 8 includes the establishment of a register of child welfare reporters, and it is envisaged that their training will include recognising situations in which a child has been turned against a parent. Training requirements will be set by regulations and there will be a full public consultation on the criteria in due course.
My view—and my experience—is that there is an issue for families in a parent feeling that they have been denied access to their child or that, over a period of time, the child has been alienated from them in some way so that contact does not happen. I am aware that it is a difficult issue for some parents and families. I am interested to hear committee members’ views on the petition, but my view is that Parliament has considered the issue previously and that the Children (Scotland) Bill allows for an understanding of such complex issues in families and relationships. I cannot imagine that there is anything more difficult for a parent than feeling that they have been systematically alienated from their child. However, I have some confidence that the provisions in the Children (Scotland) Bill will provide a means of addressing the concerns that the petitioner has raised.
What are committee members’ views on the petition?
This is obviously a difficult and concerning petition. I welcome the petitioner’s submissions and comments, and the other submissions. It is a sad situation when there is parental alienation. However, the Scottish Government recognises the situation and some of that is reflected in the Children (Scotland) Bill, and we know that the Scottish Parliament has previously considered the issue in the petition. On that basis, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. The Scottish Government is well aware of the issue, recognises that parental alienation might occur and will ensure that child welfare reporters are trained to identify such situations.
I back what Maurice Corry has said. The Scottish Government has recognised the concerns that are raised in the petition and is willing to put in place training, so I am happy to close the petition.
I do not have much more to add. It is obvious that the Scottish Government recognises the situation and that it is possible for training to take place. The Children (Scotland) Bill has been passed and we will have to see what transpires from it. If gaps in provision are found in the future, they can be addressed after we have got to grips with the present situation. I agree with the recommendation to close the petition.
I concur with everything that other members have said. The subject is an extremely distressing and emotional one, and I certainly have full sympathy with what the petitioner is asking for. We have had a lot of information, so I thank the petitioner for everything that she has given us to facilitate our consideration of the issue.
I agree that the crux of the situation is around child welfare reporters. Our papers note that
“there will be a full public consultation”
on the criteria for their training requirements. I am confident that that will cover the issues that have been brought up in the petition, and I am content to close the petition on that basis.
My sense is that committee members are very sympathetic to the issues that have been highlighted. There are complex issues around how to identify that somebody has been systematically behaving in a way that alienates a child from their parents, and around the difficulties that that presents to the parents and to the child. I would echo Gail Ross’s comments, in that we are very appreciative of all the work that has been done by the petitioner, which has given us a lot of useful information about what has been happening, both here and elsewhere.
I think that members agree that the Parliament has closely examined the matter, recognising that there is an issue and that child welfare reporters will be critical. We would underline the importance of child welfare reporters being appropriately trained, and that involves having an understanding of what has happened within families.
I also echo Gail Ross’s point about the opportunities for the petitioner to engage with the full public consultation on the regulations. The petitioner clearly has strong views on the matter, and it would be important for them to be fed into the regulations, so that the training is appropriate.
My sense is that we want to thank the petitioner for highlighting this very important issue, which can cause a great deal of heartache for families. We acknowledge that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have understood that there is an issue and believe that the training of child welfare reporters is the best way to progress the matter.
I think that, on that basis, we want to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. As no one is indicating otherwise, that is agreed. We emphasise our gratitude to the petitioner for bringing the issue forward. We recognise that there has been action although, as in all such cases, if the petitioner feels that there has not been progress in a year’s time, there is an opportunity to resubmit the petition to the committee.
Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (PE1791)
The second new petition for consideration today is PE1791, on the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, which was lodged by Mike Fenwick. The petitioner calls on the Scottish Government to recognise and respond to concerns that section 39 of the 2020 act establishes a legal challenge, namely that it breaches protections afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998. We have received submissions from the Scottish Government and the petitioner, which have been summarised in the clerk’s note.
The Scottish Government believes that section 39, like the rest of the 2020 act, is compatible with convention rights, noting that
“restrictions on timescales for bringing legal challenges are commonplace in legislation ... for legitimate reasons of legal certainty and finality which are recognised in Convention jurisprudence”.
The petitioner notes that the 2020 act is the foundation for all future referenda, and its importance therefore cannot be understated. The petition requests that the Scottish Parliament reconsider one element of the act, section 39, to ensure with absolute certainty that the provisions do not in any way undermine that foundation.
I invite members to comment. My understanding is that, when the Referendums (Scotland) Bill was going through the Parliament, there was a debate on the question of timescales, and an amendment lodged by Jackie Baillie extended the timescale to eight weeks. That parliamentary consideration is in the very recent past. My sense is that the question has been interrogated and tested, and I think that the right balance has been secured in the bill. It is not something that the Finance and Constitution Committee did not consider at all; it was something that the committee looked at.
The Scottish Government’s submission states:
“The petitioner does not provide details of what rights he thinks are breached by the restricted period for legal challenge set by section 39”
and
“does not identify any specific beach of Convention rights on which the Scottish Government can express a specific view.”
I do not think that the Government will change its mind. I am therefore minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not agree to the action called for in the petition, which states that section 39 of the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 breaches protections afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Constituents of mine have also raised that issue, in as much as they were not convinced that the legislation that has recently been passed is comprehensive in that respect. I value the information that the committee has received from the Law Society of Scotland. I would like the committee to write to the society, seeking its opinion, and allow the Scottish Government to come back and comment. At this stage, I am not convinced that we should close the petition.
I am not sure that we can hear Gail Ross just now, so we will hear from Maurice Corry and come back to Gail once we can restart her connection.
I agree with Tom Mason that we should get the verdict of the Law Society of Scotland, seek its views on the action that is called for in the petition and see where it stands on that. I would be more comfortable with taking that approach, rather than closing the petition at this stage, as one of our members has already recommended.
Thank you very much for that. I think that we have lost Gail Ross for the moment.
The committee is ambivalent on the matter—we are not really sure whether there is an issue here—but two members have said that it would do no harm to test it by asking the Law Society of Scotland for its views. I do not know whether any other member wants to come back in, and I am conscious that Gail Ross has not had an opportunity to say anything. However, if we were to decide not to close the petition, at least that would give her an opportunity to comment in future. Does everyone agree? It is not ideal that Gail has not been here for that discussion. [Interruption.] I think that Gail is now back with us.
Can you hear me, convener?
Yes. I do not know whether you heard what we were saying. There was an ambivalence about whether there really is an issue here, because the Parliament has previously considered the matter. However, both Maurice Corry and Tom Mason thought that it might be worth while for the committee to write to the Law Society of Scotland to test the argument to our satisfaction before we close the petition completely. Do you have a view on that?
I do not see that there would be harm in our writing to anyone. However, as you said, convener, the matter has been tested at committee stage. An amendment from Jackie Baillie was supported by everyone at the Finance and Constitution Committee’s meeting, including the cabinet secretary. The bill was then considered by the whole Parliament, where it was supported and the Presiding Officer agreed that it was competent. Further, the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the Scottish courts the right to challenge any action that it thinks contravenes that legislation, but I note that no such action has been taken so far.
I really do not see that there is an issue here, but I will not disagree with the committee’s writing to anyone. If that is the view of the majority of the committee’s members, that is fine by me.
09:45
I am not sure whether that is the majority view. My sense is that nobody seems to be terribly convinced that there is an issue, but two members feel that it would be worth testing the argument. In the interests of not having a division, I wonder whether that would be acceptable to the committee. If members are strongly against it, they can indicate to me now.
No member has indicated disagreement. In that case, we will write to the Law Society of Scotland to seek its views on the action for which the petition calls. However, I highlight that we are aware that the argument was tested quite strongly as the Referendums (Scotland) Bill went through committee. We will await a response from the Law Society.
Additional Dwelling Supplement (Eligibility Criteria) (PE1798)
PE1798 has been lodged by Marcus Tait. It calls on the Scottish Government to review the additional dwelling supplement eligibility and relief criteria. The petitioner believes that the supplement is too sweeping in its current form, and that the eligibility for exemption is too narrow, and that, as a result, there is an unfair impact on smaller developers.
In its submission, the Scottish Government explains that the issue was raised in 2019, during committee scrutiny of the operation of the additional dwelling supplement. Stakeholder organisations were encouraged to provide further evidence; however, no additional examples were provided.
This is an interesting petition in respect of how the criteria have impacted on one person. Nevertheless, I am conscious that it appears from the evidence that there have been no examples other than the one that the petitioner identifies. It seems that the issue will be looked at anyway, and the argument will be tested. Nevertheless, I am interested to hear members’ views. We will start with Tom Mason.
I am interested to hear what other members think about the petition. At the moment, I think that closure is the best solution, because it seems that no further examples have been submitted. I have an open mind, however, and will listen to other members’ comments.
In its submission, the Scottish Government says that it is already working with Homes for Scotland to try to understand the issues. I take the point that the issue that the petitioner raises does not seem have been an issue for anyone else.
I was interested to read about the relevant court case, P N Bewley Ltd v HMRC, in which it was ruled that the stamp duty land tax did not apply to derelict buildings. I was interested to know whether there was any crossover with the petition. The Scottish Government is considering the points that the petition raises, and I am satisfied with its response, so I suggest that we close the petition.
[Temporary loss of sound.]
Members, I think that we have lost our connection with the convener. I ask Maurice Corry to come in with his comments.
Can you hear me all right?
Yes.
I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that no further evidence has come to the Scottish Government of other instances of the specific issue arising. I believe that the Scottish Government has oversight of the matter. If further evidence were to come forward and the petitioner were to lodge a petition again in a year, I would see no problem with that. At the moment, however, I am minded to close the petition.
Like other members, I am happy to close the petition.
Closing the petition is the right thing to do at this moment.
Thank you. No member has indicated that they disagree with the committee closing the petition under standing orders rule 15.7, because we agree that the Scottish Government is considering the points in the petition. We thank the petitioner. As always, they have the opportunity to come back again in a year’s time, if they feel that their points have not been addressed.
Court Reporting (Publication of Addresses) (PE1799)
PE1799 was lodged by Sarah McHardy on behalf of Families Outside, and calls on the Scottish Government to make it illegal for any press or media outlet to publish a defendant’s address.
We have received a written submission from the Scottish Government that states that there is no requirement in law to publish prosecuted persons’ home addresses and that the media can access a personal address via certain court documentation, provided that doing so does not breach data protection or contempt of court rules. Media access to personal information is also subject to a professional code of conduct, with the intention being to restrict access to situations in which it is deemed necessary, and it is also subject to legislation that is intended to protect the individual. The courts also have the power to restrict information, if necessary.
It can be a massive issue for families if a family member has been remanded to prison and their address is published, but it seems that that is done only for identification purposes and that many rules, requirements and standards are in place, in particular the code of conduct. What are members’ views?
I am minded to close the petition under standing orders rule 15.7, on the basis that there are clear rules and standards in the prosecuting and courts systems whereby personal information and data are not published unless that is specifically required under a judicial judgment by a judge or a person in that position.
In addition, legal provision exists to prevent, where that is considered necessary, disclosure of material such as addresses. I am therefore happy that there is a solid system in place that prevents from happening what the petition highlights. If that should happen, obviously the hand of the law should come down on the matter. As I said, I would be content to close the position.
I back Maurice Corry’s view that we should close the petition, because a professional code of conduct and legislation that can deal with the issue that the petition raises are in place. There are measures in place to protect individuals, when needed. I am happy to close the petition.
I am of the same view: there are sufficient measures in place to prevent unnecessary exposure of addresses. There are occasions when such exposure is necessary, but the right weight has been given to the existing measures. Closure of the petition under standing orders rule 15.7 is appropriate.
Based on that discussion, we are therefore proposing to close the petition, under standing orders rule 15.7, on the following bases: that there is an established professional code of conduct, along with standards and underlying legislation that are intended to ensure that journalists do not publish personal information such as addresses unless that is necessary to identify someone; and that provision exists to prevent the disclosure of material such as addresses by law, where that is considered necessary. No members have indicated that they disagree with closing the petition. Thank you, members.
I believe that we now have the convener back. Welcome, convener.
I just want to say that I agree with the decision that was made on the last petition, and that Mary Fee MSP had indicated her support for the petition but has been unable to attend today as she has another committee meeting.
Lands Tribunal for Scotland (Remit) (PE1800)
PE1800 is on expanding the remit of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. It was lodged by Siobhan Samson on behalf of Bo’ness Community Council and Grangemouth Community Council, including Skinflats. It calls on the Scottish Government to expand the remit of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to include consideration of planning decisions, which are currently called in by Scottish ministers.
In her written submission, the petitioners explain that although they do not object to Scottish ministers being able to call in planning applications, they do not believe that they should then be able to subsequently decide on those applications.
In its submission, the Scottish Government states that planning is established as a process in which decisions are appropriately made by elected representatives, usually at local level, and in some cases by Scottish ministers. It also explains that the role of Scottish ministers in the planning process was recently considered during the passage of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019.
My view is that a balance is struck between individuals and communities. One of the issues is that people who have not managed to persuade others of their view feel that the process can be unfair and not independent. It is difficult to see how we could give people confidence in the system.
The other issue is that when Scottish ministers make a determination, they have to do so on the basis of planning legislation. They cannot override it, and their explanation has to fit with planning law and all the guidance around it.
I am minded to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that we have three stages in our planning process. First, there is application to the local council then, if that is not satisfactory to the applicant, there is due process to take the matter to ministers via a Scottish reporter, and beyond that there is the opportunity for judicial review. The petitioner said that the Scottish Government is aware of the issue and understands it. I think that there are enough checks and balances in our planning procedures. Therefore, I seek to close the petition.
I agree that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. The issue was recently visited during passage of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Consequently, the Scottish Government is not minded to seek any further changes in the area. Therefore, I do not think that the Government will change the process and I am quite happy to close the petition.
The matter has been considered very recently, and there is ample opportunity for communities to participate in the planning process. The problem is—I have said this before on other matters—that participation early in the planning process is, unfortunately, not widely taken up. That means that people wake up too late to make objections.
Although the process is semi-judicial—certainly on planning and regulations—the input of some political activity is important. Otherwise, there is no accountability. It becomes entirely an issue of detailed facts that are inflexible.
I think that closing the petition is the appropriate action.
10:00
I agree with everything that has been said on the planning process and the individual’s rights in the several stages of appeal. It is also important to note that the Scottish Government’s submission says that it is
“conducting a consultation on the future of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland”,
which proposes that they be merged. One of the questions is whether that merged body should take on more functions. That consultation could—I would like this to be on the record—be an avenue through which the petitioners could feed in their views. Because of that and the comments that have been made by other members, I am also content to close the petition.
There is consensus that there are concerns about people’s confidence in the system, that there needs to be early engagement, as Tom Mason indicated, and that Parliament has looked at the issue recently and concluded that there has to be balance in decisions. Gail Ross’s suggestion about the consultation on the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and so on is one that the petitioner might want to take up.
I think we that we are agreeing to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the role of Scottish ministers in the planning process was recently explored during passage of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and that, consequently, the Scottish Government is not minded to seek further changes in that area.
Planning is always a live subject, and there is no doubt that MSPs will continue to receive representations on the matter, so it will continue to be something that people pay attention to.
No member is indicating that they disagree, so we agree to close the petition.
We thank the petitioners for taking the time and effort to contact us on these important matters.
European Union Withdrawal Agreement (Powers of Economic and Industrial Intervention) (PE1801)
PE1801 was lodged by Vincent Mills, on behalf of Radical Options for Scotland and Europe.
The petition calls on the Scottish Government to negotiate with the UK Government to ensure that in any future EU withdrawal agreement, Scotland retains the powers to provide state aid to workplaces that are threatened with closure; to take public utilities such as rail, bus and power fully back into public ownership; and to require public sector contractors to recognise trade unions and collective bargaining on wages.
We have received written submissions from the Scottish Government and Unite Scotland. The submissions are summarised in our clerk’s note.
Since the meeting papers were published, the clerks have been alerted to an email from the petitioners that strongly advocates that the committee contact the Scottish Trades Union Congress for its view on the issue.
I think that there is an issue here. There is an interesting argument that I was alive to during the debate on leaving the European Union, on how state aid is constrained and how procurement is sometimes a lengthy, complicated and expensive process—for example, a local housing association must make sure that the Official Journal of the European Union has notice of what it is doing. We have examples of our own, around ferry procurement and so on.
I would like a procurement policy that allows for more than looking at cost—on which looks also at employment standards and so on. I am mindful that the petitioners are keen that we at least flag the issue to the Scottish Trades Union Congress and get a response, because the matter is one that it will have looked at in more detail than the committee has.
I am quite happy for the committee to write to the Scottish Trades Union Congress seeking its view on what the petitioner is calling for, and to the Scottish Government to see its commitment to the issue. It would be interesting to hear those views. I know that the Scottish Government has said in its submission that it is committed to retaining the current powers. Like the convener, I would be happy to see procurement in which other factors are taken into account when contracts are being bid for.
I am open to persuasion. I would have thought that the situation is clear in terms of what is being negotiated and what is available, and I do not think that the various standards are going to be lowered because of the withdrawal negotiations, but if the committee thinks that it is necessary to have more information from the STUC, I would be quite happy to receive that.
I, too, would like to seek the views of the STUC. The petitioner argued his case very well in the additional email that he sent. I think that the Scottish Government is alert to what is going on. It has told us on numerous occasions in relation to the petition, and has made it obvious in the chamber in debates, that it is extremely committed to retaining the powers. I agree with the points that the convener and David Torrance made, and that we should write to the STUC for its views.
I am minded to agree with members that we need to get information and views from the STUC. I will be happier, having sought its views and heard what actions it thinks would be appropriate. It is a fairly contentious subject, so we need to get it right.
In that case, I think that there is agreement that the issue is worth exploring—[Inaudible.] Members should say if they disagree that we should write to the STUC seeking its views on the action that is called for in the petition. No member disagrees, so I take that as agreement.
10:06 Meeting suspended.10:15 On resuming—
Previous
AttendanceNext
Continued Petitions