Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- Mental Health Support for Young People (Inquiry)
Continued Petitions
Speed Awareness Courses (PE1600)
I welcome everyone to the fourth meeting of the Public Petitions Committee in 2019. The first petition is PE1600, on speed awareness courses, which was lodged by John Chapman in February 2016. At our most recent consideration of the petition, in September 2018, we acknowledged the petitioner’s frustration with the time that it has taken for any progress to be made on the issue and agreed that it would be helpful to take oral evidence from Police Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity or his officials.
In advance of agreeing a date for that evidence session, we have received an update from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That update is included in our meeting papers, and confirms that the Lord Advocate has agreed in principle to the use of speed awareness courses as an alternative to prosecution in appropriate cases. It adds that a multi-agency working group will work together to devise the necessary infrastructure and guidance to support the introduction of speed awareness courses. Members may be aware that that development has been quite widely reported in the media this week. The petitioner welcomes the update but wants to understand whether the multi-agency working group will be working to an agreed timescale.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
It is welcome that the proposal in the petition has been considered and I think that Mr Chapman will be very pleased that the Lord Advocate has agreed to it in principle. The multi-agency group, which includes quite a number of bodies, might want to provide evidence to the committee.
I agree with Rachael Hamilton. It would be good to know the timescale for the multi-agency working group. I can understand the petitioner’s frustration at the length of time that the process has taken and, if the group is going to take even longer, it would be unfortunate to say the least. We need to get an answer to that specific question, and the best way to do that is to get the group in front of the committee.
I have to say that, for something to do with speed awareness, things are moving exceptionally slowly. I recall that, in our last discussion on the petition, we asked how difficult it was to do this. If it is so difficult to do something this small, it makes you wonder about the normal timescales for implementing other bits of policy.
Following the suggestions made by Angus MacDonald and Rachael Hamilton, I think that we should bring the working group in front of us and have this conversation, as it might give us a bit of understanding about the complexities involved. After all, if the Lord Advocate has already agreed to it, how long can it possibly take to implement it? We all recognise the merits of the petition, and it would be worth while trying to establish a timescale for putting this in place. Indeed, as the petitioner has pointed out, we should also try to establish an end point; it should be not just about roughly how much time this is going to take but about whether the group can identify some point in time that it can work back from. That would be useful.
There have been courses for drunk drivers and to address other issues, so I do not think that it would be a matter of reinventing the wheel to get something like this up and running. The sooner it happens, the better.
It is probably a good idea to bring this to a close before we run out of puns. Do we agree to invite representatives of the multi-agency working group to provide oral evidence in advance of the summer recess and to get, as part of that, some sense of a timescale?
Members indicated agreement.
Fireworks Displays (Regulation) (PE1687)
The next petition is PE1687, which was lodged by Jane Erskine in March 2018, on the regulation of fireworks displays in Scotland. The petition is set in the context of rural locations in particular and takes an animal welfare perspective.
We last considered the petition in October 2018. In response to correspondence that was issued following that meeting, the Scottish Government advised that it was due to launch a consultation on the use and regulation of fireworks early this year. The clerk’s note confirms that the consultation was launched on 3 February and closes on 13 May and says that it includes a section on animal welfare and asks for examples of local practice.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that we should defer consideration of the petition until the Scottish Government publishes the results of the consultation. That should give us a better idea of where things are going.
Are there any other options?
I think that it is a great petition, but the Scottish Government is now looking at the issue. I have to say that I am not sure that I agree with David Torrance, because I think that we might be in a position to close the petition. We have to weigh up the benefits of the consultation and whether the Scottish Government will take it forward in a way that Jane Erskine would be happy with.
We have two options: hold on to the petition, while recognising that there is a consultation and waiting to see the responses to it; or encourage the petitioner to engage with the consultation in the recognition that if, at the end of that process, the Scottish Government did not respond in a way that she might have hoped or expected, particularly on the issue of animal welfare in rural areas, she would be free to submit a further petition with a focus on the bit that the Scottish Government had failed to address. There is a much broader question about the use of fireworks not just in rural areas but in urban areas, but the choice before us is between the two options that have been identified. I wonder whether Brian Whittle or Angus MacDonald has a view.
The petition has had a positive effect, in that the Scottish Government is now looking at the issue. The petition is quite broad, but my feeling is that it has probably achieved what it looked to achieve at the outset and, as the convener has said, the petitioner has an opportunity to come back with a more targeted petition, should the Government investigation not be to her satisfaction. I feel that we could close the petition just now, with the prospect of another coming down the line.
What is your view, Angus?
For the sake of consensus, I will withdraw my suggestion.
We have not heard from Angus MacDonald yet. You are causing more bother, Mr Torrance.
I agree with Rachael Hamilton and Brian Whittle. I think that we have an opportunity to close the petition, given that the petitioner can come back with another petition in future if she feels that the Government has not addressed an issue. She has to wait a year to do that but, as we have seen with consultations in the past, the Government could take an inordinate length of time to release the results and take further action. Obviously, we will have to wait and see but, in the meantime, we can close the petition and advise the petitioner that she can come back with another petition at a later date.
I am happy with that.
I think that there is a recognition that, whatever we do, we recognise the importance of the petition and that it has secured some movement. We hope that the petitioner and others engage with the consultation, which has been publicised. I would hope that the Scottish Government, as a consequence of the interest in the issue and a recognition that the issue is quite important, would ensure that the consultation does not just drift. However, as has been said, if the petitioner feels that the consultation does not lead to the action that she is looking for, she has an opportunity to come back to the committee on that basis.
Do we agree to close the petition, recognising what it has achieved and thanking the petitioner for bringing the issue to our attention and engaging with the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Attendance