Official Report 696KB pdf
I will suspend consideration of item 1 for a while as we move to item 2, which is the consideration of new petitions.
I highlight to those who are following today’s proceedings that a considerable amount of work is done in advance of the consideration of each petition. We invariably invite the independent research service in the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer a briefing in relation to the issues that are raised by each petition, and we get an initial view from the Scottish Government. We do both those things because it has historically been the case that the committee would initiate them as its first actions upon the first consideration of a petition, so we simply get to the point of being better informed at an earlier stage.
Child Custody Cases (Standardised Timeframe for Civil Proceedings) (PE2166)
The first of the new petitions is PE2166, which was lodged by John Watson McMaster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a standardised timeframe for civil proceedings that relate to child custody cases, including a 14-day timeframe for proof hearings. The SPICe briefing explains that section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives courts various powers to decide an issue in a dispute about parental responsibilities and rights.
The briefing states that relatively few section 11 cases tend to get as far as a proof hearing. Instead, they are typically settled during child welfare hearings, which are relatively informal, private proceedings. The briefing also notes that there have been long-standing policy concerns about delays in cases that affect children, including in section 11 cases, and inconsistencies in how such cases are managed. To address that, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will, when in force, require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings would negatively affect a child’s welfare. The length of delay is not specified in the legislation, with the explanatory notes for the bill stating that the length
“would vary from case to case.”
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the specific asks of the petition to be practical or achievable. Its submission notes that a standardised timetable would not recognise the different complexities in individual cases. The submission also highlights the case management rules that are in place for family actions, which includes a key aim of bringing greater judicial case management to resolve cases more quickly.
The petitioner has provided a written submission calling for the committee to reconsider the timeframe that was set out in the petition. Following a meeting with the Scottish Government, he is now calling for a considered timeframe of four to six weeks rather than 14 days for a proof hearing. He states that that timeframe is pragmatic, because it aligns with the operational realities of the courts while still drastically accelerating the process. He also states that the timeframe would protect child welfare by prioritising swift resolution and improve system efficiency by reducing opportunistic and malicious litigation.
The petitioner’s submission states that the core issue is not a lack of rules but a systemic failure to enforce them consistently. He believes that the social damage that is caused by those procedural failures is measurable not only in the immense emotional toll on families but in the long-term costs to public services, including mental health support and social work intervention.
Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of what we have received?
I used to be involved in family actions as a solicitor. It is an area that is not only about child welfare but often about broken-down relations between the husband and wife. Therefore, such cases are often ancillary to divorce proceedings. They can be extremely difficult and fraught with emotional intensity and strong feelings on either side, so many of the delays that result come not from the courts but from the reluctance of the parties to come to a deal. I do not make any judgments on anybody in saying that. That is just how it works—or does not work.
It would be interesting to know when the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will come into force and what the plans are. The advice that we have had from the clerks is that the act will require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings could negatively affect a child’s welfare, which seems to be a very useful power. In other words, if there were to be an inordinate delay that went on for years and years and the child’s welfare was—understandably—suffering as a result, it seems sensible that that law, as passed in 2020, should come into play. It would be good, at the very least, to ask the Scottish Government when the 2020 act will come into force. If it is saying that the 2020 act is something that should be taken account of, we are entitled to know when it will become the law.
The Scottish Government should also be asked for its views on the petitioner’s revised deadline of four to six weeks as opposed to 14 days. I suspect that the answer will be much the same and I suspect that there are good practical reasons to consider that any deadline of this nature may be arbitrary in some cases and therefore potentially produce adverse anomalies and consequences. However, it would be useful to get a bit more detail from the Government about that.
At the end of the day, I am sure that the petitioner has got a point that these actions can take years and years, and that the victims—the sufferers—are very often the children.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. This is the first consideration of the petition, and you have made specific recommendations. Are committee members content to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries that Mr Ewing has detailed?
Members indicated agreement.
Pavement Parking Ban (PE2167)
The next petition is PE2167, which was lodged by Donna Inglis and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pause the pavement parking ban for all roads that were built before 2019 and to require all local authorities to carry out an assessment and consultation on any other road for which they want to introduce a ban, with a presumption that bans will not be agreed for roads under 6m wide.
The Scotland-wide prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles on the pavement was introduced in part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and came into force in December 2023.?The SPICe briefing explains that exemptions to the prohibition apply to certain categories of vehicle in particular circumstances, and that exemption decisions are a matter for each local authority.
The Scottish Government’s response indicates that the option to allow local authorities to only designate specific roads for pavement parking bans was considered when it designed the policy but that that option was ultimately deemed potentially confusing for drivers.?Thus, limiting the ban to roads that were constructed after 2019 would fail to provide consistent protection for all pavement users.
The Government also points out that funding and guidance were allocated to local authorities in advance of the ban to support road assessments and identify potential pavement exemptions. The initial consultation was promoted through a number of channels and a nationwide campaign was run ahead of the ban coming into force.
Finally, the Government indicates that the parking standards group, which comprises various stakeholders and includes representatives of the local authorities, can address any concerns or clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.
In an additional submission, the petitioner lists several further issues that she believes are having an impact on local authorities and communities following the introduction of the ban.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The ways in which the legislation is applied by local authorities vary considerably. Anecdotally, I have experienced that, in many cases, it is not enforced at all. Nonetheless, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, although the Scottish Government had considered designating specific roads for pavement parking bans, as the petition highlights, it decided that that would cause confusion and put pavement users at risk. Furthermore, the decision to allow exemptions for narrower roads is one for local authorities. Finally, the parking standards group can address further concerns and clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.
Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Continued PetitionsNext
Continued Petitions