Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 8, 2023
Official Report 525KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Courts (Transparency and Accountability) (PE1983)
As always when we consider new petitions for the first time, it is important to say to anybody who might be tuning in because we are considering their petition that, prior to our consideration, we do a certain amount of background work in relation to the petition. Often, we seek the Scottish Government’s view, although any position that we might take thereafter is not conditional on that. I assure petitioners that we will have begun the process even before our first consideration in public.
The first of the new petitions is PE1983, lodged by Daniel Osula and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system by ensuring that clear information is provided to members of the public about how their case will be considered and that information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff.
In the petition’s background information, Mr Osula raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of court staff when cases are being prepared and allocated to judges. He notes that he has pursued complaints about the issue directly with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. In a response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it considers both matters raised by the petition to be operational matters falling under the statutory responsibility of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Criminal Courts Rules Council. The Scottish Government also highlights that the operation of the courts is the responsibility of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service under the leadership of its independent board, headed by the most senior judge in Scotland and the head of the Scottish judiciary, the Lord President.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee can write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to ask what steps it is taking to ensure that the procedural rules and practices of the courts and their complaints procedures are transparent and accessible to members of the public.
Colleagues, are we content to keep the petition open and to write as recommended by Mr Torrance?
Members indicated agreement.
Raw Sewage Discharge (PE1988)
PE1988, lodged by Sue Wallis, calls on the Scottish Government to review the process for allowing raw sewage discharge from homes into Scottish coastal waters; provide additional funding to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for enforcement; and introduce legislation to ban households from discharging raw sewage.
The SPICe briefing states that financial responsibility for the provision of private sewage treatment rests with the individual home owner or community. The Scottish Government response states that there are no plans to provide additional funds to Scottish Water to provide connections to households with private sewerage arrangements during the current investment period but households have the option to connect to the public network at their own expense and Scottish Water will make a reasonable contribution towards the costs of that project, should a new main be required. The submission states that the current register of septic tanks held by SEPA is incomplete and the number of unauthorised discharges is likely to be high. The Scottish Government notes that SEPA is reviewing its regulation of private sewerage systems.
The petitioner highlights the difference in approach to unauthorised disposals compared with that to dog fouling, where fines are issued to those who do not clear up after their dogs. She shares her experience of reporting issues to SEPA in 2019 and expresses concern that nothing has changed in almost four years. The petitioner questions the method of registering private water discharge with SEPA at the point of house sale: in her experience, several of the properties have been sold, but no change has happened as a result.
Do members have comments or suggestions for action?
The petitioner makes some valid points. It is apparent that things have not really changed in that time. It would be useful to write to SEPA to highlight the issues that have been raised by the petitioner, seek information about the review of the regulation of private sewerage systems and ask whether consideration has been given to alternative approaches for identifying and authorising private sewage discharges. As I said, the petition makes some valid points, and I would keep it open in order to ask SEPA to clarify those issues.
Are there any other comments? I have to say that, because the dog fouling issue was before the public eye, it led to a change in practice. I cannot help but feel that, if every member of the public was similarly subjected to the voiding of raw sewage into water, there would be much more public concern and engagement on the issue. The parallel that has been drawn is certainly valid. It is quite a visual parallel, and it leads me to believe that we should pursue the issue quite a bit further to see where we get with it.
I agree with what both you and Mr Stewart have advocated. I add that I am slightly puzzled about how properties without a connection to either the main sewerage system or to a private septic tank can be sold. In house conveyancing in Scotland, it is standard for there to be a series of conditions about this without which it is difficult to see how anyone can purchase a house or, indeed, get a mortgage over a house. That might be of concern to lenders because there may not be a valid security.
I wonder whether, in addition to writing to SEPA, we could write to the Law Society to ask for its guidance about how, in practice, properties in this category are dealt with. I would be interested to see what is happening out there. If houses have no access to a sewage facility, I am not sure how they can be transacted on the market. I think that the petitioner refers to some properties having been sold.
Yes.
That point is ancillary to the petition, but it is part of the overall issue.
That is helpful. Thank you for the suggestion. Having seen that concern, I was not sure where we would write to to resolve it, but that is a good suggestion.
Are members of the committee content to proceed on the basis of those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and write to the organisations accordingly.
Defibrillators (Public Spaces and Workplaces) (PE1989)
PE1989 is lodged by Mary Montague, who, I suddenly recognise, is the provost of East Renfrewshire Council and a constituent. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces.
The SPICe briefing states that people living in Scotland’s most deprived areas are twice as likely to experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest but that public spaces in those areas are significantly less likely to have defibrillators.
The Scottish Government’s response highlights the delivery of the initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy, noting that survival rates have risen from one in 20 to one in 10. The Scottish Government highlights the refreshed strategy for 2021 to 2026, in particular its aim of increasing the percentage of OHCAs that have a defibrillator applied before the ambulance service arrives from 8 to 20 per cent. The response also highlights work that is being undertaken by the University of Edinburgh resuscitation research group to analyse the placement of defibrillators across Scotland and map it against the areas that have the highest risk of cardiac arrests occurring.
I should note that Mary Montague is the Labour provost of East Renfrewshire, in case anybody thought that I was getting a bit cosy in that respect. She is well respected and regarded.
Do members have any comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?
10:00
It is an important issue. I used an accessible defibrillator for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and it makes a huge difference. It is important for defibrillators to be in the public domain. I would like us to keep the petition open and, in doing so, write to the Scottish Government to ask when the next report on the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy will be published and what percentage of OHCAs in 2023 had a defibrillator applied before the ambulance service arrived. I would also like to write to the British Heart Foundation to seek information about its grant funding of public access defibrillators and, specifically, about demand and the potential barriers and challenges that it faces.
I concur with Mr Torrance’s comments. It is vital that we find out where the defibrillators are and their background. I am aware that charitable organisations also do a lot of work on this; they fundraise for local areas and provide defibrillators. It might be useful to find out whether they are doing anything. I know, for example, that the Order of St John is doing a national campaign across Scotland to introduce defibrillators to churches, golf clubs and other appropriate locations. It would be useful to find out whether anything that they are doing could complement or supplement what will happen through Mr Torrance’s suggestions.
I support what members have said and I want to make the important point that, in the time that I have been in the Parliament, there have been a number of debates and committee discussions about the issue. Now, it is about us seeing what action is being taken. Getting that information from those organisations would be helpful and allow progression to the next stage, which is important for such urgent matters.
I agree. In fact, although this might be for a later stage in our consideration, I recall having a conversation recently about supermarket chains. One or two supermarkets have actively decided to provide defibrillators on their premises, and one or two have actively decided not to. It will be interesting to hear from the British Heart Foundation and others what the potential barriers are to any of this. Perhaps, through the committee, we will be able to acknowledge the good work of all those who provide them. As you said, Carol, it is certainly an issue that has come up in members’ business debates and in questions in the Chamber, not least because people have had direct experience of a defibrillator making a meaningful difference and leading to a successful outcome for someone who has been subject to an attack.
Young People (Question Session with First Minister and Cabinet) (PE1990)
PE1990, lodged by Jordon Anderson, calls on the Scottish Government to request the introduction of a monthly chamber session to allow young people to put questions to the First Minister and her—or, I suppose, in due course, his—Cabinet. The petitioner states that children and young people should not have to hide behind a third-party organisation to be heard.
The SPICe briefing provides details of the working in partnership agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament. That agreement includes a commitment from the Scottish Parliament to host a sitting of the Scottish Youth Parliament every two years, although the last such sitting was in 2018 and, regrettably, a sitting that was scheduled to take place in 2022 fell on the same weekend as the death of Her Majesty the Queen, which led to its postponement. The next session is scheduled for 2024.
The Scottish Government’s response outlines ways in which children and young people are engaged with, including an annual meeting with Cabinet ministers.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I am mindful that we are doing our own inquiry into deliberative democracy and citizen engagement. I am also aware that there is a Children’s Parliament and a Youth Parliament, which are elected bodies for which anybody who is eligible can stand. I feel that there are opportunities there. I wonder whether the committee, as part of our work, could consider whether, rather than the Youth Parliament just sitting in Holyrood every second year, something more formal, by way of a joint session, could take place between members of the Scottish Parliament and members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and be of benefit.
We are at an early stage. What further considerations or suggestions might colleagues have?
To be fully engaged with citizen participation, it would be good for the committee to see how we could engage with the youth of today and how we could do it more. As I see it, doing it every two years is a paper exercise, and I would like it if the Scottish Youth Parliament could meet with us far more regularly.
I will turn to the clerks: have we written to the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children’s Parliament in relation to our inquiry into deliberative democracy, and have we received any submissions from them?
We have engaged with the Scottish Youth Parliament quite extensively as part of the process, but we have not done that in writing—we have taken direct evidence.
Right. Have they come forward with any recommendations to us for anything that we might want to consider doing?
They have fed into the recent consultation on the panel’s recommendations, but I could not say which feedback was specifically related to the Youth Parliament.
All right. I am happy to keep the petition open for us to take it into account in our consideration.
Are we content to write to key stakeholders to seek their views on the action called for in the petition in order to generate a bit of further information? Are you content for the clerks to give some consideration to who those stakeholders might be and who we might want to hear from? On that recommendation, we will write to a broader body of people, rather than us trying to second-guess who all the organisations are at the moment. Are we content to do that?
Members indicated agreement.
Sexual Offence Cases (Trial Process and Evidence) (PE1994)
Our final petition is PE1994, which is lodged by Margaret Fagan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and the handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases. Ms Fagan tells us that, while reforms aimed at protecting victims of sexual offences are welcome, changes to the law are, in her view, unduly disadvantaging those accused of committing such offences. She is particularly concerned that evidence gathered by the defence, such as medical reports and witness statements, is being rejected on the grounds that it is irrelevant or inadmissible.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that reforms introduced through the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 amended the restrictions on evidence relating to sexual offences. The reforms were intended to prevent the leading of evidence that is of limited relevance to the particulars of the case or that unduly undermines the credibility of the complainer. The provisions were not intended to increase conviction rates, nor should they infringe on the accused’s right to a fair trial.
The Scottish Government response also notes that careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Lady Dorrian review, “Improving the Management of Sexual Offence Cases”, with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislative reform as part of the criminal justice reform bill. As noted in the SPICe briefing, it is anticipated that that bill will be introduced in the spring or summer of the current year.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Could we keep the petition open to gather more information? There are several stakeholders that I would like the committee to write to, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Support Scotland, seeking their views on what is raised in the petition.
Are we content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s recommendation? I believe that we are.
Yes, that should be done. I wonder whether, in addition, we could seek information—I do not know whether it would come from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service or the Crown Office. Annex C of paper 12 is the Scottish Government’s response to the petition and goes into the background of the reason behind the law reforms, which, essentially, as I understand it, was to prevent the raising of evidence about the complainer’s past sexual behaviour as being relevant to the charges. The point that I wanted to make, however, is that there is a provision under section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 whereby an accused person can at their trial apply to the court to lead evidence that is prohibited by the law that, generally speaking, prevents the raising of prior sexual behaviour and history. In other words, there is a provision whereby an accused can seek to bring in that evidence, if it can be established that it is pertinent to the specifics of the case.
My query, convener, is this: how frequently have such applications been made, how frequently have they been granted and how is it working out in practice? I am curious to see whether such applications are routine and whether they tend to be dismissed because the law tends to suggest that they should be dismissed. If that specific area of questioning could be included in our letters, please, it might help to shed some light on what is happening. The petitioner indicated that she approached Mr Torrance as her MSP, but the petition does not go into much detail, at least not in the papers that I have read, about her concerns. Be that as it may, could that query be added to the enquiries that we are making?
Yes. That is helpful, Mr Ewing. Let us face it: on numerous occasions during consideration of petitions in the past, the committee has received submissions in which it was suggested that there was already a route through which the aims of a petition could be realised, only for us to find, on investigation, that there were obstacles in place or that, in fact, the route was rarely exercised or understood. Given that that has been suggested to us as a remedy, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which it is one. I am happy to agree to that. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our public meeting. Thank you all. We meet again on 22 March. We will now consider item 4 in private.
10:12 Meeting continued in private until 10:20.Previous
Continued Petitions