Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, May 3, 2023
Official Report 546KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
Continued Petitions
Unborn Victims of Violence (PE1887)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which, PE1887, was lodged by Nicola Murray and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.
At our previous consideration of the petition, on 23 November 2022, we heard evidence from the petitioner, Nicola Murray, and key stakeholders. The committee agreed to recommend that the Scottish Government creates a specific statutory offence and/or aggravator for causing miscarriage through acts of domestic violence. We also recommended that, in its forthcoming report on the provisions of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, the Scottish Government should include a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current legal framework in bringing forward and prosecuting charges where miscarriage is caused.
The committee also wrote to the Scottish Sentencing Council, requesting that the evidence gathered be taken into account as part of the council’s development of sentencing guidelines. We have since had confirmation from the SSC that it will consider the committee’s evidence as part of its work.
The response from the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans was that he would take time to fully consider the implications of any proposed changes before considering any next steps, including the potential for wider consultation. He said that officials were already exploring potential policy options and that he would welcome meeting the petitioner once that work is concluded. The cabinet secretary’s response refers to a recent report on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 but notes that it
“does not include a review of the effectiveness of the current framework in bringing forward and prosecuting charges where miscarriage is caused.”
A little bit of work has taken place and been forthcoming in the wake of the evidence that we took from Nicola Murray. Do members have any questions, comments or suggestions that we might consider in relation to that?
Would the committee agree to seek a debate in the chamber, if we can find time in the busy parliamentary schedule, to raise the issues that were raised in the petition?
Do we agree with that suggestion? Having investigated that speculatively, I understand that it could be later in the autumn before the opportunity arises, which I suppose would allow us to pursue any outcomes that might be forthcoming from the on-going investigations, so that we have all that information before us at the time of the debate. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Free Rail Travel (Disabled People) (PE1928)
PE1928, which was lodged by David Gallant, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. We last considered the petition on 21 December 2022, when we heard evidence from the petitioner and Sight Scotland, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.
At the time, we agreed to wait until responses had been received from the local authorities that offer discount fares for companion travel before writing to the Scottish Government. I am pleased to say that we have now received responses from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, West Lothian Council and Fife Council. Those responses highlight the financial pressures that are faced in operating the existing concessionary fares travel scheme, with West Lothian Council actually removing its rail concession scheme as part of its budget-saving measures.
Previously, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration it is giving to introducing a national policy for companion rail travel—you may recall that there were issues depending on where people accessed and alighted from trains—and to ask it to confirm that the fair fares review would consider free travel for companions and people with disabilities.
We have received a submission from the petitioner ahead of this morning’s meeting. He does not feel that the local authorities’ responses were relevant to the aims of his petition and has suggested that free rail travel for disabled people could be restricted to specific routes or localities in order to benefit those who live in more rural areas.
In the light of the comments that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions relating to the petition that we might consider for further action?
I suggest that the committee writes to the Scottish Government, as previously agreed, to ask what consideration has been given to the introduction of a national policy for companion rail travel and to seek confirmation that the fair fares review will consider the option of extending the national entitlement card scheme to provide free rail travel as well as bus travel for people with disabilities.
We got information from some councils, which was useful. In that correspondence, the committee might also want to highlight the responses that we received from West Lothian Council and Fife Council, because they had an impact. I am content with David Torrance’s suggestion.
Are members generally content with the proposals that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Redress Scheme (Fornethy House Residential School) (PE1933)
PE1933, which is an important petition for the committee, was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.
We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 23 November 2022. We agreed to write to the Scottish Government, setting out the evidence that we had gathered and specifically recommending that action be taken to widen the current eligibility criteria of Scotland’s redress scheme to ensure that victims of the same type of crime, committed over shorter periods and in different care settings, are eligible for redress under the scheme.
The committee received a response from the then Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, which indicated that work was under way to test the existing eligibility criteria and guidance in relation to Fornethy and that we would receive a further update when that analysis was completed.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who is concerned that the matter might disappear into the long grass as a result of the recent changes in Government. The petitioner’s submission also requests clarification on the cut-off date for a person who was in care and who seeks to access the redress scheme.
I wonder whether we might invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence at a future meeting. MSPs from across the parties have expressed strong feelings on the issue. Time is marching on, and the petition is quite old. The sooner the Deputy First Minister can give evidence, the better, out of consideration of the additional pain that is being caused to those who are impacted by the continuing delay and uncertainty. I just add that caveat.
I suggest that, just in case the current Deputy First Minister is not familiar with all the issues for whatever reason, we restate some of what we said in the letter to the previous Deputy First Minister and the response that we received at that time, to underpin why we now seek to meet the Deputy First Minister herself.
David, do you want to add to that?
No.
Are we all content with those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Peat (Ban on Extraction and Use in Horticulture) (PE1945)
PE1945, lodged by Elizabeth Otway, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal ban on the extraction of peat and on peat imports, exports and sales in order to protect peatlands in Scotland and worldwide.
The Scottish Government’s submission from last November highlights the fact that the revised draft national planning framework 4 prohibits new commercial peat extraction except in limited circumstances. Since that submission was received, NPF4 has been approved.
In its submission, the Scottish Government said that it had been working with the industry to understand “transitional issues” and that a consultation to remove peat from Scottish horticulture was expected to begin in December 2022 but that it would not be possible to implement a sales ban by 2023. The submission said that a
“delivery plan and timetable for phasing out horticultural peat”
would be developed after the consultation responses had been analysed and discussions with industry and environmental non-governmental organisations had taken place. The Scottish Government consultation was launched in February, in fact, and it closes shortly, on 12 May.
The Scottish Crofting Federation’s submission urges the Scottish Government to restrict any ban on peat to horticultural sales and imports and the commercial extraction of peat for burning, while protecting the traditional rights of crofters to extract peat on a small scale for personal use.
Do members have any questions or comments?
09:45
It is important that we write to the Scottish Government seeking a summary of responses that it has had to date to its consultation and an update on when the delivery plan and timescale for phasing out horticultural peat will be developed and produced, in light of the consultation responses. We should also seek information on whether the Government supports a legal ban on the import, sale and use of horticultural peat and the commercial extraction of peat for burning, with the exception of crofters’ traditional and cultural use.
Do other colleagues want to comment?
I am pleased that the Scottish Crofting Federation emphasised the importance of exempting crofters from any ban of the traditional practice of burning peat for domestic use on a small scale, which is part of the history and culture of the Western Isles. I am sure that there would be threats of direct action were the ban to be extended to that practice, and I would certainly be there, manning the barricades, having recently developed a taste for direct action.
You would be ripping the sod, to extend your current penchant for ripping into things. Out of interest, Mr Ewing, in your experience, is peat traditionally extracted from the crofters’ own land? Where do crofters take the peat from for domestic use?
It is a community effort. It is usually done by more than one person in a particular way. I think that, by and large, community land is used rather than individual land. However, I am not sure—I am no expert on it.
Are members content with the suggestions that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Homeless Temporary Accommodation (Scottish Government Funding) (PE1946)
PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Clerkin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt that is owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities.
Since our previous consideration of the petition, the Scottish Government’s temporary accommodation task and finish group published its report on 30 March this year. The group made two recommendations about charges for temporary accommodation, and those are available in the clerk’s note. In response to our recent correspondence, the Scottish Government stated that
“provisions to prohibit local authorities from charging individuals for the provision of temporary accommodation have not been considered for inclusion”
in the housing bill, and that it has
“no plans to pay for homeless temporary accommodation nor waive the outstanding debt owed”.
Shelter Scotland’s written submission outlines a number of issues, including its view that a change in the financing of temporary accommodation is overdue. The petitioner’s recent submissions highlight concerns about the repossession of family homes resulting in record amounts of homelessness in Scotland, and his submission outlines information that has been received through a freedom of information request to Glasgow City Council. He states that the system is “unworkable and broken now” and that means that thousands of people need help immediately.
I invite colleagues to suggest any way in which we might proceed.
Should the committee write to the Scottish Government to seek confirmation of its planned work in response to the report of the temporary accommodation task and finish group? In particular, the committee should ask about recommendations 14 and 15, as they relate to temporary accommodation charges.
As members have no more suggestions, are we content to proceed with writing to the Scottish Government as Mr Torrance has suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Dual Mandate MSPs (PE1949)
PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding MSPs with a dual mandate and to legislate to bring the Scottish Parliament in line with the Senedd and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections.
We previously considered the petition on 9 November, when we agreed to write to the Welsh Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Electoral Reform Society. We also noted the Scottish Government’s view that the matter is one for the Parliament to consider.
We have now received responses from our colleagues in other devolved institutions. Members will have noted that the United Kingdom Government introduced legislation to prevent a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly from simultaneously being a member of the UK House of Commons or of the lower house of the Irish Parliament. Similar legislation in Wales was introduced by the Senedd Commission, which is the equivalent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. It appears that, if the Scottish Government has no appetite to pursue the matter, we should consider what options are available to allow the Parliament to give the matter further consideration.
I always observe that ministers hold a dual mandate, in that they have a second responsibility as well as that of being an MSP.
Do colleagues have any suggestions?
Under the circumstances, I think that it would be better if we referred the petition to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, because it will have more opportunity than this committee will to look into and investigate the matter, which might result in more information. Therefore, under rule 15.6 of standing orders, I suggest that we hand the petition to that committee and ask it to take further action on it.
Do members agree to that?
Members indicated agreement.
For the record, I state that I am a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, even though, in this instance, the recommendation is to send the petition to a different committee.
Motorcycle Theft (PE1971)
PE1971, on taking robust action to stop motorcycle theft, was lodged by Kenneth Clayton. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent and reduce motorcycle theft by empowering the police to pursue and tactically engage thieves, and by reviewing sentencing policy to allow the courts to implement tougher punishment for those convicted of motorcycle theft, including the use of mandatory custodial sentences for those carrying weapons or groups who threaten individuals with violence.
We most recently considered the petition on 21 December, when we agreed to seek information from Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Police Scotland has provided further detail on operation Soteria, which focused on tackling motorcycle theft and related antisocial behaviour across Edinburgh. Police Scotland also shared information on the work that its prevention, interventions and partnership team, in collaboration with others, is taking forward on the issue, which members will have read with interest.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service noted that there is no specific common-law offence of theft of a motorcycle but that it had used its database to identify 47 charges related to motorcycle theft over the past five years. Interestingly, it also noted that 32 per cent of the relevant police reports originated from the Edinburgh area, where operation Soteria was in place.
The Scottish Police Authority’s response mentions that recent reports highlight an overall increase in vehicle crime but that that is not specifically attributed to motorcycle theft. The SPA also noted that, in the past year, more than 1,800 motorcycle riders have been stopped in order to engage, educate and encourage what are described as appropriate attitudes and behaviours on the road.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to seek information on the outcomes of the 47 prosecutions that are referenced in the response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I make that recommendation because I noted in our papers a reference to the fact that the incidence of motorcycle theft in Edinburgh has led to advice being given to tourists not to visit Edinburgh. That is a particular concern, not to mention that theft is, of course, a serious matter—
Is that advice being given only to motorcyclists or to tourists in general?
Our notes indicate that some sort of tourist advisory group has given advice that riders should avoid travelling to Edinburgh. That is quite serious. None of us wishes people to be deterred from visiting Scotland for reasons of that nature. In deference to the petitioner and for the reasons that I have mentioned, I think that it would be worth making a further effort to explore the issue.
Are members content for the committee to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to establish what happened in relation to the prosecutions?
Foysol Choudhury wants to say something.
I apologise for coming in late. I was stuck in the car park.
Not on a motorcycle, I trust. [Laughter.]
No. I have had quite a lot of cases of motorcycle theft. Can we ask how many of those who have committed that crime are waiting to go to court and how long the waiting time is? A lot of the time, the same person comes back and carries out the same act.
What would be the best way to frame that question? Should we ask the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that question at the same time as we make the inquiry that Mr Ewing has suggested? Are we asking whether it can give any indication of the current volume of cases and the waiting times that are associated with such charges getting to court?
Do we agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
InterestsNext
New Petitions