Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petition
- New Petition
- Continued Petitions
Continued Petitions
Alzheimer’s and Dementia Awareness (PE1480)
Social Care (Charges) (PE1533)
The third item on today’s agenda is further consideration of continued petitions. I alert the committee to the fact that my sense is that we will not be able to get through the substantial number of petitions before us by 20 to 12. Rather than rattle through them, I would like us to take the time to consider each petition on its own merits. We will deal with any petitions that we do not manage to deal with today at our next meeting.
I intend to deviate slightly from the order of consideration in the agenda and take PE1591 last, so that Kate Forbes can attend the discussion on the petition, in which she has taken an interest. She must attend the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, which is meeting this morning, but it is hoped that she will be able to join us later, if we manage to get to that petition.
We turn to consideration of PE1480, on Alzheimer’s and dementia awareness, and PE1533, on the abolition of non-residential social care charges for older and disabled people, which were previously joined together for consideration. At our most recent consideration of the petitions in May, members agreed to write to the Scottish Government for details of a feasibility study relating to the extension of free personal care to people under the age of 65. The committee also asked the Scottish Government to meet both petitioners to discuss their views on the study. The Scottish Government responses on the two petitions are provided in our meeting papers.
The petitioner for PE1480, Amanda Kopel, highlighted in her written submission to the committee the value of considering both petitions together. She recognised that, at the time of writing, work had begun to explore the extension of free personal care to under-65s, but she said that that would not address other services that people with dementia and other long-term conditions rely on, such as day services.
The Scottish Government’s programme for government for 2017-18, which was published in September, outlines plans to implement Frank’s law, which will provide free personal care to people under 65 who need it. Members will note that the Government provided a further update earlier this week, along with a link to the feasibility study and information about the planned implementation of free personal care for under-65s.
Do members have any thoughts or suggestions for further action on the petitions?
I am certainly pleased that the Scottish Government has engaged with and met Amanda Kopel on a number of occasions, and I am delighted that the programme for government includes a commitment to implement Frank’s law. The work of the petitioner and the recent media interest in the issue have secured an end result that is welcomed by everyone. However, there is still the issue of the extension of provision to other services, such as day services, which do not currently come under the definition of free personal care, so I think that there are still aspects of the petition that need to be pursued.
The Government’s feasibility study was due to be completed by the summer of this year. We do not know what the outcome of that is, so I think that we should write to the Government to ask it to give us an update.
We have a link to that, which we could have a look at. The Government has given us an update.
There is another question that we could ask, which relates to PE1533. We should commend the petitioners on the fact that significant progress has been made, but although the Government is responding, there are issues to do with conditions other than dementia. There is anxiety about what the position is for other people who rely on such services. The scrap the care tax campaign is predicated on the idea that access to such services is a human rights issue and that people are being denied the opportunity to achieve their potential because they cannot access services. We could ask the Government what its intention is with regard to conditions other than dementia that have such an impact on people’s lives.
11:00
I agree that we should go back to the Government. As Angus MacDonald has said, we should commend the Government for its decision to support Frank’s law, but we should probe the matter further. There are a number of conditions other than Alzheimer’s that are in the same position, and I would like to know what the Government’s thoughts on that are.
It is my understanding that the provision will extend beyond under-65s with dementia, but to what extent I am not sure. We ought to ask about that.
Okay. We recognise that progress has been made, but we will write to the Scottish Government to clarify what its plans are beyond the feasibility study. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Abuse (Mandatory Reporting) (PE1551)
The next continued petition for consideration is PE1551, by Scott Pattinson, on mandatory reporting of child abuse. When we last considered the petition in June, we considered the Scottish Government’s reason for not consulting on mandatory reporting. Members will recall that the Government’s position was that, although it would be entirely within the Parliament’s competence to take its own approach on the issue, it would be “prudent” to await the outcome of the UK Government’s consultation.
The committee considered that the submissions from children’s organisations on the petition demonstrated that there were people and organisations that wanted to engage in a discussion on the issue. We agreed that any discussion of the matter should take place in the context of the child protection system in Scotland, and we invited the Scottish Government to provide a response to those points once it had reflected on the committee’s consideration.
An update had not been provided by the time our meeting papers were issued, but an update was provided on Tuesday of this week and has been circulated to members. In that response, the Scottish Government acknowledges that
“the context around matters of child protection in Scotland differs in a number of ways to that in England and Wales”
and recognises that any analysis of responses to the UK Government’s consultation would require to be considered in a Scottish context.
The submission indicates that UK Government officials have confirmed with Scottish Government officials that responses to the UK Government consultation are currently being reviewed and that there is no indication of when the findings will be published. The Scottish Government indicates that it
“has had informal engagement with key stakeholders on the matter of mandatory reporting”,
which it expects to continue. It indicates that it will provide the committee with an update on any outcomes from that informal engagement in February 2018.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?
I am not sure that we can do anything until we get that feedback. We have no idea when the UK Government is going to report, but we need to wait until we have the feedback from the Scottish Government on its informal engagement. I am not sure what we could do in the interim.
I think that it would be sensible to write to the Minister for Childcare and Early Years to ask her to request information about the timeframe from the UK Government, as that would give us a steer.
I am still at a loss to understand why that has anything to do with the petition. It has been accepted that there is a different regime in Scotland, as there is for many things. The child protection landscape is quite different, although many of the issues to do with child abuse and the reporting of child abuse are no respecters of boundaries or borders or anything else—I understand that.
I am sure that the Scottish Government just wants information on what direction the UK consultation is going in.
The issue is the imposition of mandatory reporting and what the implications of that would be. Given that a proper study is being done, it would be useful to see what it finds. Ultimately, there might not be a natural fit, but we could certainly ask about that.
Some progress has been made, in the sense that the Scottish Government is carrying out informal engagement, which it says that it will report back on in February. We could reflect on the matter further once it has done that. We could indicate to the Government that we are keen that that work is done. Although the delay is understandable, we feel that it is not grappling with the issues that the petitioner has identified.
Although I have every sympathy with the petitioner, I do not think that mandatory reporting is something that we can rush, because it could have huge implications. It needs to be looked at carefully.
Do members agree to get an update from the Scottish Government in February and to urge it to engage on the matter?
Members indicated agreement.
Adult Cerebral Palsy Services (PE1577)
The next continued petition is PE1577, on adult cerebral palsy services. The committee last considered the petition in May, when it agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek details on a pilot programme and a mapping exercise and to ask whether, based on that work, it would be minded to develop national guidance on adults with cerebral palsy.
In its response, the Scottish Government stated that the clinical standards for neurological health services are currently under review by Healthcare Improvement Scotland and that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is developing guidance for the management and treatment of cerebral palsy in adults, which will be published in 2019. As such, the Scottish Government is not minded to develop separate guidance on adults with cerebral palsy.
In her submission, the petitioner welcomed the fact that guidelines are being developed but thought that there was an opportunity for the Scottish Government to provide leadership instead of waiting for guidelines to be developed. She also expressed concern that the Scottish Government had not contacted her, despite making a commitment to work with her.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that we should take seriously the petitioner’s request that we write to the minister to ask why there has not been any further engagement with her when it was specifically stated that there would be. There is obviously a gap in the system, but the first step is to ask why that further engagement has not taken place.
That is an important question, because there seems to be a mismatch in the discussion.
There is.
The Government is saying, “You can do this,” but the petitioner is saying that the transition to adult services does not apply. There are quite a number of examples in the briefing where it feels as if the dialogue is missing the point.
The Government’s response looks like a standard response as opposed to a response to a specific question. I think that that is the issue.
Is there anything else that we could be doing?
Should we not write to NICE to clarify whether there might be an opportunity for the petitioner to contribute to the work on developing the guidance?
That would make sense. If there is a sense that the lived experience is not shaping the guidance, we need to ask how people who have such concerns can contribute to the development of the guidance. I think that that would be useful.
I presume that NICE is engaging with people with cerebral palsy, if not the petitioner. It would be worth asking whether that is the case.
Do members agree to write to the Scottish Government to ask it to ensure that it fulfils its commitment to the petitioner, because that would give confidence that the concerns are recognised?
Members indicated agreement.
School Libraries (PE1581)
Our next petition is PE1581, which was lodged by Duncan Wright on behalf of Save Scotland’s School Libraries. When we last considered the petition on 25 May, we agreed to ask the Deputy First Minister to respond to the petitioner’s request for clarification of the development and delivery of the national strategy, and of when it would be in place.
In its submission at the end of June, the Scottish Government advised that the Scottish Library and Information Council will lead on the development of the strategy, but that it will engage with key stakeholders, including the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland. It added that development and engagement would begin following publication of the fourth edition of “How good is our school?”, with the aim of agreeing and publishing the strategy ahead of the 2018-19 school year. The clerk’s note indicates that the guidance on school libraries has been published and refers to the Deputy First Minister’s recent announcement of the school library improvement fund.
The petitioner considers that “significant progress” has been made, as there is a clear plan for development and delivery of the strategy to an appropriate timescale.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I suggest that we close the petition. The petitioner seems quite happy—he thanks the committee. There does not seem to be any further work to do.
Yes, I think that we can welcome the progress that has been made.
We can. The petition has been successful.
It is good to recognise that the petition has achieved what the petitioner wanted, that the Government has responded to it and that there seems to be a clear line of action. On that basis, do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Excellent.
We will take the petition on health services later.
Pathological Demand Avoidance Syndrome (PE1625)
The next petition is PE1625, by Patricia Hewitt and Mary Black, on wider awareness, acceptance and recognition of pathological demand avoidance syndrome. Submissions from the Scottish Government, integration joint boards and the petitioners are included in our papers.
At our meeting on 15 June we agreed to ask the Scottish Government whether it would look at policies, research or approaches elsewhere in the world. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it is
“already committed to international standards of best practice”
in the form of ICD-10 and DSM-IV—“International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems”, 10th revision, and “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, fourth edition. It adds that the relevant national guidance, “SIGN 145—Assessment, diagnosis and interventions for autism spectrum disorders”, was published as recently as 2016 and reflects the most recent evidence covering children and young people following a systematic review and critical appraisal of the current scientific literature. As such, the Scottish Government is clear that it does not intend to look at policies, research or practice elsewhere.
The Scottish Government also addressed our question about how consistency in diagnosis and support can be delivered by local authorities. It notes that, under the Scottish strategy for autism, each local authority is required to have a published autism strategy and autism plan. The submission also refers to the availability and accessibility of a range of support tools and learning resources, including the autism training framework, an online learning space, and a guidance document entitled “Key Considerations in Promoting Positive Practice for Autism Spectrum Disorders”. That document advises all staff to be
“sensitive to differences in how individuals and their families or carers wish to view themselves and how they wish to describe their autism.”
The submissions from integration joint boards also refer to the national and international guidance as being the gold standard. They appear to indicate that they will adhere to this guidance but update any practices in the event of any changes being put in place based on any emerging evidence. The IJBs, particularly those in Orkney and Shetland, highlight the importance of developing individualised strategies, with child-centred and solution-oriented interventions, as part of a positive behaviour support plan for the individual rather than as a label.
The petitioners consider that the Scottish Government has
“no willingness to address new developments”
and that the submissions from the IJBs reflect the varied handling of PDA across the country, where only those professionals with an awareness of the condition will respond accordingly. The petitioners present some proposals for further consideration.
Do members have any views on action to take on this petition?
I was particularly struck by the evidence that we took about the apparent postcode lottery around treatment being offered, with one council area recognising and treating the condition and another council area perhaps even sending people to good-parenting classes. I am still not convinced that we have a response that addresses that issue satisfactorily. I am not quite sure how we take that forward, but I am slightly disquieted by the fact that we have not got to where I hoped that we would get to.
I felt a bit encouraged by some of the evidence that said that, regardless of what term is used, the focus must be on the child and on how they behave and how they are living. Even though people might not be prepared to give the condition the title that the petitioners use, the practice is that people’s focus should be on how the condition presents itself. I do not know whether that is of some comfort to people. It is quite difficult for us to adjudicate on the professional understanding of these conditions.
Exactly. I think that that is true.
I absolutely accept that. I am just voicing the fact that I am not convinced that we have addressed what was most disquieting to me, which is the fact that they are suggesting that some people are being sent to good-parenting classes rather than being able to access treatment for their child. I want reassurance that there is a child-centred focus on the condition, whether you call it PDA or whatever.
I think that the complexity of the autism spectrum and the complexity of behaviours that you see on it makes the issue challenging. There is an emerging conversation around PDA, so you will see it in clinical notes in some places and, in other places, it will be denied as an existing condition on the autism spectrum.
11:15Part of the problem is that some of the behaviours that are displayed under PDA can seem like poor behaviour in a child and, therefore, are often determined to be just that and to be related to a parent’s unwillingness to set boundaries and demand better behaviours, which is where some of the complexity comes in. That determination depends very much on the individuals who are making the assessment. That can be very challenging for parents and it can raise anxiety to quite a high level.
I think that the petitioners are asking for a conversation about this issue. It is quite important that there is such a conversation, particularly in a situation in which there is an emerging clinical diagnosis and there are disputes among clinicians about the existence of the condition. However, the condition is disputed only in the sense that we are still at an early stage of the learning curve and the evidence base is not universally accepted. That is going to be challenging and it is not something that we can push everybody on. We are perhaps asking for an open-minded approach to looking at the issue and to how we treat parents and individuals.
The issue here is about not slamming the door. There needs to be an on-going review of what this means for children and for families, because it is not just about parents; it is about siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles who are trying to cope with what can be quite extreme behaviour in some cases.
The question that we have to ask is whether we, as the Public Petitions Committee can help that process by continuing to consider the petition. I would have thought that, because we have raised it with the integration joint boards, it is now an issue that they have had to respond to and that they are more aware of. I am comforted by what we have read about the focus on the child and the fact that there has been an airing of the condition, which is something that we can usefully do.
However, we have insufficient expertise or detailed understanding to be able to influence how practice develops to a great extent. I would argue that we have already influenced practice in what we have done. The judgment that we have to make now is whether our continuing to consider the petition adds anything or whether we have done our job in the sense that we have highlighted the issue and said that that conversation should be continuing. Certainly, if we were to close it, the petitioners could lodge another petition if they felt that there has not been progress.
We obviously cannot change or influence directly the DSM-5 or ICD-10 diagnostics, but I suppose that we can make a recommendation, if we feel it appropriate, that professionals have an awareness of the issue and continue to look at where PDA sits on the autism spectrum. In my professional life, I have seen awareness growing in that area. However, like all these things, it takes time, as well as research and so on that can confirm or deny the existence of the condition.
If people have other suggestions, they can share them, but my suggestion is that, in closing the petition, we confirm to the Scottish Government that we believe there is an issue here; that we have received responses; that we believe that this conversation needs to continue; and that, because of the way in which autism and other conditions express themselves, it is essential that there is a focus on the child. I appreciate that we are talking to people who understand far more than us about this. I am not trying to teach somebody how to do their job when they clearly know an awful lot more of the detail than I do. Do members agree that, in closing the petition, we should make those points to the Scottish Government?
Brian Whittle’s comments about the patchiness of approaches from different local authorities are particularly relevant. I do not know whether local authorities have been made sufficiently aware of the issue. Perhaps we could include that in our communication with the Scottish Government, as the petitioners want local authorities to be encouraged to provide training and education to social professionals, or at least to make them aware of the issue. If we close the petition, we should make that request. I do not know whether we have done that enough. If they are aware of the issue, why is there such a patchy response?
Because of the small number of cases.
I suggest that, in closing the petition, we flag up to the Scottish Government that the condition is something that it should be aware of in developing the Scottish strategy for autism, and say that it should be aware of the developing thinking around the condition. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioners very much for bringing the issue to the attention of the committee and, through us, the integration joint boards and for highlighting the specific concerns about a situation that is possibly ending up in people getting all sorts of varied recommendations on how the matter should be treated, because we would not want that to be the case.
Private Criminal Prosecutions (PE1633)
The next petition is PE1633, on private criminal prosecution in Scotland, which we last considered at our meeting in June 2017. At that meeting, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland to ask for their views on whether they considered there to be an accountability gap in relation to health and safety investigations in Scotland.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service stated that it does not have the statutory authority to instruct the Health and Safety Executive in relation to its work. It went on to confirm that that relationship was no different from the relationship between it and all other agencies that report suspected criminality to the procurator fiscal.
The petitioner’s written submission set out concerns in relation to the existing Health and Safety Executive guidelines, in the context of sports-related injuries. He stated that, as the guidelines currently stand, unless someone is killed at a sporting event, it is very unlikely that there will ever be an independent investigation into an injury. The petitioner’s view is that there is a failure by the Health and Safety Executive and he identified three alternative options to address that perceived failure, as set out in our meeting papers.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?
This petitioner is a constituent of mine. There is a very real issue here. The petition highlights a really important anomaly in the system. However, I am not sure that we can take it any further because I think that we have exhausted all avenues of inquiry on this one and we seem to be hitting a brick wall.
Is there a case for referring it to another committee?
Which one?
Not the Health and Sport Committee—do not give it back to me. I am trying to give it to somebody else.
I thought that there was a really interesting argument. Obviously, if there is a fatality, there is an inquiry. However, if somebody is seriously injured at a sporting event and there might be culpability—you will know more about this than me, Brian, but I was thinking of, for example, a gymnastics competition where someone has failed to ensure that the equipment is safe—that is not investigated. I was quite surprised by that.
I think that it is a legal issue. I am not sure that we can do anything.
That is why I do not know where we can go with it. There is an undoubted issue.
When we—I mean the Labour Party—looked at which powers we would devolve to the Scottish Government, there was an interesting issue about how the Health and Safety Executive in Scotland sits in relation to the UK body and in relation to accountability in Scotland. I am not sure that that is something that we could address but I am quite attracted by the idea of referring the petition to another committee. I know that that routinely happened in the past, but we rarely do it now.
I think that the issue merits further discussion and investigation, but I am just not sure that this is the vehicle for that.
We would not want to mislead the petitioner that referring it to the Justice Committee would necessarily lead to the issue being addressed, as I know that that committee has a significant workload and might not be able to do anything with the petition.
I agree that this is not the place for it to be addressed. That leaves us the option of referring it to the Justice Committee.
Do members have any other views?
I am on the Justice Committee. I am happy for it to go there.
If anyone gives me a row about it, I will refer all concerns to you, Rona.
You have just dug a hole for yourself.
Exactly.
I do not think that we want to create the impression that this is something that is easily solved. We think that the petition raises an interesting area but we do not feel the Petitions Committee can take it further.
Do we agree to refer the petition to the Justice Committee?
Members indicated agreement.
In doing so, we thank the petitioner for highlighting the issue.
Business Rates (Nurseries) (PE1648)
The next petition is PE1648, on nursery business rates, which calls for business rates for nurseries to be abolished or frozen. The committee last considered the petition in June and agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Government, Voice Union, the parenting across Scotland partnership and local authorities.
A number of submissions have been received, which have provided the committee with useful information. However, this appears to be an instance where consideration of the petition has been overtaken by events. Since we last considered the petition, the report of the Barclay review of the non-domestic rates system has been published, and the Scottish Government has announced that childcare nurseries should benefit from a new 100 per cent rate relief from 2018-19, which will be subject to review after three years.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?
I am absolutely delighted that the decision has been made and that we can close the petition.
And take credit for the decision.
That might be a stretch.
It is sensible to close it.
The petitioners have clearly been active, and not just with the Public Petitions Committee. There has been a campaign on the issue and the Scottish Government has responded to that.
Do we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has agreed that childcare nurseries should benefit from a new 100 per cent rate relief from 2018-19?
Members indicated agreement.
Council Tax Bands (PE1649)
Our next petition is PE1649, on council tax bands. The committee last considered this petition in June and agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek their views on the petition.
The Scottish Government stated that although it recognised the concerns that the petitioner raised, it has no plans to undertake a revaluation exercise for council tax purposes during the current parliamentary session. In contrast, COSLA is of the view that a wholesale revaluation of council tax bands is required, as part of a wider strategic review of the council tax system in Scotland to make it a fair and locally democratically accountable tax.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?
I took part in COSLA’s review of local government taxation and we spent an awful lot of time on it.
It is a difficult issue. To some degree, we are where we are. The recommendations have been made and the Scottish Government made it clear that it is not going to look again at the issue at the moment. I am not sure where we can go at this stage, because there has been such a huge amount of conversation about the issue already.
Given Michelle Ballantyne’s comments and the position in which we find ourselves—the Scottish Government has stated that it has no plans to undertake a revaluation exercise—I do not think that there is any option but to close the petition. If we were to ask the Scottish Government to comment on COSLA’s submission we would get the same response. Rather than prolong the agony, we are probably better closing the petition, regretfully.
It would be worth saying to the petitioner that it will be an on-going conversation between local government, COSLA and political parties. Just because we close the petition, it does not mean that the conversation dies. It is not a dead subject.
It is not going away.
There are some petitions that highlight an issue to which nobody is paying any attention and on which there is no focus. The reality is that, on council tax, everyone is wrestling with how to have fair local taxation that is locally accountable. All parties in the Parliament and beyond are wrestling with that.
I would agree with members that we recognise it is a really important issue. We also recognise that people are wrestling with it as we speak. The committee has probably done as much as we can at this stage and we would be agreeing to close the petition on that basis.
The Scottish Government has no plans to undertake a revaluation exercise during the current parliamentary session, but we would highlight the fact that the issue remains—
It is a live issue.
11:30
It is a very live issue and it remains to be resolved. We thank the petitioners for bringing it to the committee’s attention.
Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Postgraduate Degree Funding (Eligibility) (PE1650)
The next petition for consideration is PE1650, on the Student Awards Agency Scotland’s postgraduate eligibility criteria. We last considered the petition in June, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the National Union of Students Scotland, the Student Awards Agency Scotland and Universities Scotland. Responses have now been received, as well as a written submission from the petitioner, and that information is included in our meeting papers. The majority of written responses received do not support the action called for in the petition and argue that the current policies in place work well for the vast majority of students.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?
Given the lack of support for the petition, it would be difficult to justify continuing it.
I agree. What is the point? I think that the petition should be closed. We have had all the responses and they are quite unequivocal, so it should be closed.
The evidence is quite clear on this one. Although one might have empathy with what the petitioner is saying, the reality does support it.
It comes down to the fact that the only students in Europe who do not have access to the same conditions as students from Scotland are those from England. The fact is that the qualification that the petitioner was seeking is of benefit only in Scotland, so you can see why it would not be funded elsewhere. The issue is probably part of a broader mix of issues regarding will happen with student support in the longer term.
We are having the same conversation as the one that we had on the previous petition. The issue will be an on-going subject of debate. Closing the petition will not mean that it will never be discussed and looked at again, because it will be.
Do we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that there is not support for the action called for in the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We want to thank the petitioner and recognise their particular circumstances, which are clearly very frustrating. It is important to highlight the issue, but it should be seen in the broader context of student support.
Abusive and Threatening Communication (PE1652)
The next petition for consideration, which might be the last one today, is PE1652, on abusive and threatening communication. The committee last considered this petition in June and agreed to write to relevant stakeholders. Responses have now been received and are included in our meeting papers.
Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlighted that the main challenge that exists in enforcing abusive and threatening communication offences is proving “beyond reasonable doubt” who sent an abusive or threatening communication.
The petition suggests that it would be easier to enforce such offences if it is set out in law that the owner of a mobile phone is responsible for any communication sent using the device. The responses received highlighted a number of practical difficulties with that approach, which are outlined in our meeting papers.
The committee asked the Scottish Government what action it was taking to review the operation of corroboration in the context of hate crime. The Government said that it was in the process of commissioning jury research and that any future consideration of corroboration reform would need to await the findings of that research. The Government has also commissioned an independent review of laws covering hate crime offences in Scotland, to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The review’s recommendations are expected to be considered by the Scottish Government in early 2018.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?
I think that the petition should be deferred until Lord Bracadale’s review of hate crime is concluded. I see no merit in doing anything until that comes through. The issue will be included in that.
I agree with Rona Mackay. Is it possible to make a further attempt to get the petitioner’s views on the responses that we have received from the Scottish Government, Police Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Respect and Victim Support Scotland?
That would be worth while. We have a concern—I certainly have a concern, since I am able to lose my phone fairly regularly—about the idea that the owner would be responsible. I understand the point and I think that there is quite an interesting message there about liability and so on, but there is a concern. Do we agree to defer consideration of the petition and ask the petitioner for their comments on the responses that we have had so far?
Members indicated agreement.
Healthcare Services (Skye, Lochalsh and South-west Ross) (PE1591)
The last petition is on the major redesign of healthcare. We have Rhoda Grant and Kate Forbes here. However, we have only four minutes left and my sense is that, given the seriousness of the issue, we want to make sure that it is given a bit more time. I am in the hands of the committee.
Time is ticking by while we decide whether we have time or not. I will make a judgment. Do we agree to defer consideration of the petition to our next meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
There are some petitions that we could probably get through in four minutes, but I would not want the petitioners to think that we had not given this one due consideration.
I thank everybody for their attendance. We have got through a mighty amount of work and some very useful petitions today.
Meeting closed at 11:36.Previous
New Petition