Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 6, 2024
Official Report 711KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Hire of Public Land (Ministerial Intervention) (PE2056)
Item 3 is the consideration of new petitions. For those who might be joining our proceedings online this morning, having heard that a petition that they had submitted was to be considered, I note that, in advance of so doing, we ask the Scottish Government for comment and the Scottish Parliament’s independent research unit, the Scottish Parliament information centre, for a briefing on the petition. We do that because, historically, in previous sessions, if we did not do so, that was the first thing that the committee recommended that we do, which often led to an extended delay in our consideration of the issues raised.
The first of the new petitions is PE2056, which was lodged by Stephen Gauld. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that provides ministers with the power to call in and, potentially, override council decisions on the hire of public land for large-scale events. Mr Gauld tells us that, over a number of years, his business has tried to hire public land for large-scale events but that the requests have been refused by local authorities. He suggests that his is not the only business that has been impacted.
As the SPICe briefing notes, although the Parliament has legislative competence to enact primary and secondary legislation that impacts local authorities, it is generally up to local authorities to determine how they use their land and property. The Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning advises that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government to intervene on and refers to the Verity house agreement, which includes a commitment for local and national government to respect each other’s democratic mandates.
We have received a response from the petitioner, Mr Gauld, commenting on the minister’s response, emphasising the call for a change in the law and noting that the Verity house agreement is not legally binding. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Ewing, are you thinking of contributing here?
I was thinking that the specific action that the petitioner seeks from us is not one that can readily be accommodated. Nonetheless, general questions are raised about the circumstances in which an events body that seeks to hire land gets a blank refusal from local authorities. Why is that? What is the rationale behind it? More information, therefore, would be useful. I appreciate that we do not wish to trespass on the Verity house agreement and local authorities’ responsibilities, but I think that reasonable questions have been asked by the petitioner. I would be reluctant at this fairly early stage to close the petition without at least doing justice to the petitioner by trying to pursue the queries.
Therefore, we should write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association for Public Service Excellence and EventScotland—the VisitScotland directorate that supports Scotland’s events industry—seeking their views on the petition and the action that it calls for, including any guidance that they provide to local authorities about developing policies for the hire of public land. In addition to that, it would be useful to see whether there are any private sector tourism bodies that could assist us in providing useful information—I am not quite sure from whom we might obtain that, but possibly the Scottish Tourism Alliance.
We all want events to be displayed on public land. Local authorities are under a lot of pressure in various ways with funding and so on, but the petitioner raises a reasonable question. Therefore, I would be reluctant to just close down the petition without making some effort to get closer to understanding whether there is a problem with reasonable requests routinely being turned down peremptorily by local authorities.
Perhaps we could consider writing to the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain to see what difficulties it has had, because it is probably the organisation that hires land from local authorities more than anybody else in Scotland.
Part of me wonders whether some local authorities—perhaps smaller local authorities, which are in locations where such permissions might be being sought—feel that their own resource is such that it is easier to say no than it is to say yes, because saying yes involves them in the administration of certain matters for which they feel that they currently do not have the capacity to take forward. That might be, in part, what underpins their views. I would be interested to know whether COSLA felt that there was any substance to that consideration.
Therefore, with the various suggestions that have been made, we will keep the petition open. Although we accept some of the evidence that we have received, and the comment from the Scottish Government, there are issues here that it would be useful for us to explore.
Rape Charges (Under-16s) (PE2064)
The second of our new petitions, on which colleagues will note that they have a late submission on the table before them, is PE2064, which has been lodged by Julie Mitchell. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that under-16s who are charged with rape are treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The SPICe briefing explains that certain offences for children over the age of 12 and under the age of 16 must be jointly reported by the police to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal. Rape is considered to be an offence that requires joint reporting, and the procurator fiscal decides whether prosecution will proceed in the adult justice system.
10:45Regarding the sex offenders register, where a case proceeds in the adult criminal justice system and results in a conviction for rape, the notification requirements apply regardless of age. However, the length of the notification period is reduced for those under the age of 18. The Lord Advocate is reviewing diversion from prosecution as it relates to sexual offences, to consider whether it is being used appropriately. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that its policy position is to keep children out of the criminal justice system wherever possible and appropriate. However, it recognises
“the need to strike a balance between supporting children who come into conflict with the law and ensuring that our communities are safe and that victims are supported.”
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Perhaps the committee would like to write to the Lord Advocate seeking an update on the review of diversion from prosecution for sexual offences and make reference to issues raised in this petition as part of any letter to the Minister for Community Safety on PE1947.
Are we content to take forward Mr Torrance’s recommendation and to combine that with the issues that are raised in PE1947?
Although I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation, I note that we might, in addition, when writing to the Lord Advocate, seek from her such data evidence as is available, without going into names, of cases that have arisen over the past few years. Legislation was passed in this area fairly recently, I think.
There is no doubt whatever that it is an area of huge public concern, for the reasons that the petitioner sets out in their supplementary submission.
As well as the review of diversion, which I think was instructed last July so might not yet have been completed, it would be useful to find out how many cases there have been of rape by under-16s, how serious the situation is, how many instances there have been each year and any further information about that. That would help to provide a bit more background. It is plain that any case can have tragic consequences for the victim, which is what the petitioner has emphasised in the supplementary submission.
That is reasonable. I will try to find wording that would allow us to establish that. We will keep the petition open and pursue as recommended the issues that are raised.
Pedestrian Safety (PE2065)
PE2065, which was lodged by Shauna Rafferty, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to improve and prioritise safety for pedestrians by widening pavements and reducing street clutter; introducing a mechanism to report pavement parking; and improving visibility of pedestrian crossings. The SPICe briefing notes that responsibility for the maintenance, management and development of most of Scotland’s streets, including footways and crossings, rests with councils.
Transport Scotland’s response to the petition points to “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030”, which created targets for key priority groups, including pedestrians. Investments are highlighted in the submission, including funds for new and improved pavements, safer junctions, improved place design and projects for casualty and risk reduction. Transport Scotland is working closely with local authorities to assist them in preparing for the enforcement of the pavement parking ban. Do members have any comments or suggestions?
Would the committee consider writing to Transport Scotland to ask how Scotland’s active travel vision to 2030, the national transport strategy and the road safety improvement fund will work to directly address street clutter, and to ask whether it has considered a national approach to improving the visibility of pedestrian crossings? Perhaps the committee could also consider writing to COSLA to seek information about the capacity of local authorities to widen pavements, reduce street clutter, improve the visibility of pedestrian crossings, enforce the pavement parking ban and implement safe system measures through the road safety improvement fund, and ask how it intends to share best practice on measures to improve pedestrian safety across local authorities.
I support that, but in doing so I am aware from my own constituency that the pavement parking ban has caused practical issues for residents in residential areas where the street is narrow and there are usually cars on each side of the road and where, if there is some abuttal of the pavement, unless a car can mount the pavement to an extent, it becomes impossible for people to have a car. That in turn means that some people are effectively isolated, particularly elderly people, those with impaired mobility and those with disability. It is an issue that has been raised with me, and it has quite severe consequences.
The safety of pedestrians is very important, but there is another side to it. In taking up Mr Torrance’s suggestion, could we ask whether that aspect has been considered and whether local authorities in other parts of Scotland have received complaints such as those that have been raised with me? If not, perhaps some further work might need to be done, because I suspect that the issue will come back, and we will probably receive a petition on the topic before too much longer.
That has been my experience with constituents, as well, although the parking ban has not yet been enforced in my constituency, despite the excited interventions of Mr Greer, who is continually invoking the local authority to proceed. There are a number of streets where the application of the law means that emergency service vehicles are not able to access the street, which is a clear issue that could have been foreseen.
The other issue that makes this all the more difficult is the continual increase in the size of motor vehicles. I think, Mr Ewing, of the cars with wing mirrors in which you and I passed our driving test, and I think back, as a Ford dealer in those days, to the Ford Capri, the Ford Cortina, the Ford Escort and the Ford Fiesta—they would occupy half the space of a modern vehicle, both in length and width. It is not a surprise that, when vehicles park in the streets, there is no road left in the middle for anybody to drive through. Vehicles have certainly got a lot bigger—unnecessarily so, in my view—with a consequent impact on the road network and infrastructure that has to support them.
Having got that out of my system, we will proceed. Mr Choudhury, were you trying to come in? Do you drive a particularly big vehicle?
No, I do not—not one with those big mirrors. If you watch the old cowboy movies, you can see the big wing mirrors sticking out.
Some people are even driving camper vans these days.
That is one thing that I have been asking you guys to organise for me, but I have not been in a camper van yet.
I have a constituent who wrote to me on the pavement parking issue that we were talking about earlier. Some local authorities have already banned parking on pavements, and there have been a lot of issues. Is there any data on the councils that have banned pavement parking? If so, can we request it?
I suspect that there is no data yet, because it is very early. However, Mr Ewing is probably correct to suggest that we might anticipate a petition at some point in relation to the unintended—or, in some cases, intended—consequences of the legislation that has been imposed.
I would be very happy if we could organise a camper van. [Laughter.]
Child Welfare Reports (PE2069)
PE2069 is the final new petition today. The petition, which was lodged by Nicole MacDonald, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the accuracy of evidence gathered by child welfare reporters by introducing a requirement that statements that are provided as part of their report are signed as a true account.
Ms MacDonald raises concerns that, where child welfare reports contain inaccurate or misleading information, individuals rely on their solicitor to challenge inaccuracies and, if the solicitor does not, there is the potential for the court to be misled when making its decision. The SPICe briefing highlights the Scottish Government’s 2016 guide to the child welfare report, which notes that the reporter should only ask for information that is relevant to the remit that the court sets. However, as the briefing also notes, if someone does not agree with something in the report, their solicitor should raise that with the court. It notes that the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 provides for a system of statutory regulation of child welfare reporters, although the detail of the regulatory regime is still to be determined, having been delayed, in the minister’s words, “by budgetary pressure”.
The Minister for Victims and Community Safety tells us that a working group on child welfare reports will be set up to inform any changes to current practice and the long-term policy on child welfare reporters. Although a previous working group rejected the suggestion that interviews with child welfare reporters should be recorded, the minister will ask the new working group to consider that point and make recommendations.
It is an interesting series of issues with interesting comments in response. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Perhaps the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government is setting up a working group on child welfare reports to inform any changes to current practice and longer-term policy on child welfare reporters. However—this is key—we will ask the working group to consider the petitioner’s ask in relation to the recording of interviews.
We might also request that the group engages with the petitioner, if possible. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. That concludes the public aspect of our business. We look forward to those who follow our proceedings joining us again on 20 March.
10:56 Meeting continued in private until 11:01.Previous
Continued Petitions