Official Report 623KB pdf
Fertility Treatment (Single Women) (PE2020)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. With just less than a year of the parliamentary session left, the committee’s ability to extend its work on petitions is now slightly more circumscribed, because, by the time we get responses, we could be short of time to fully consider them. We are considering petitions as sensibly as we can so that we can advance their aims as best we can. I hope that those who have lodged petitions will understand that.
Our first petition is PE2020, lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered to couples on the national health service for the chance to have a family. We last considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to Public Health Scotland and the national fertility group.
The national fertility group’s response highlighted that access to NHS in vitro fertilisation treatment in Scotland is the most generous in the United Kingdom and it noted that, in 2021, Scotland had the highest rate of NHS-funded IVF cycles in the UK at 58 per cent, compared to 30 per cent in Wales and just 24 per cent in England.
Last April, Public Health Scotland presented its modelling work, which aimed to increase understanding of the eligibility, demand and cost implications for changes to national access criteria for NHS fertility treatment, including IVF treatment and intrauterine insemination for single people.
The national fertility group’s submission stated that further work is still to be done in order to understand capacity implications. The group will then discuss the modelling implications and consider whether a change recommendation could be supported in the medium to long term.
There is quite a lot of work going on. In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
I note that our two responses are from the national fertility group, dated 4 July 2024; and from Public Health Scotland, dated 8 May, which was barely two weeks ago. I also understand that we have not heard from the petitioner and I am keen that she should have a proper opportunity to respond to the latest comment from Public Health Scotland.
As you alluded to, Scotland has a better record on IVF than elsewhere in the UK, which is commendable and a matter of some satisfaction. However, according to the petitioner, the elapse of time makes the whole objective of achieving and giving life much more challenging, particularly for single women. Time has passed—a couple of years—since the petition was submitted.
Last week, we spent a lot of time talking about the ending of life. The gift of life is the biggest gift that there can possibly be. Therefore, I think that, first, the petitioner should have an opportunity to comment, if she wishes to do so. Secondly, the replies from the national fertility group and particularly from Public Health Scotland were somewhat vague and talked solely about process. They gave no idea of when the various items of work that they alluded to were to begin or finish, and that is surely not satisfactory.
I suggest that we also write to the minister, simply to ask whether clarity can be provided as to when all that work will come to an end. While congratulating the NHS and all who are involved in the good things that are being achieved, we should also urge that much more be done to help women, particularly single women, who the petitioner believes and perceives are not able to access services as they should—although that point is contested. That would be a full response to the petition, which is a very important one.
We could do two tightly focused pieces of work with a view to bringing the petition back sooner rather than later. We could ask the petitioner for their response and write a straightforward letter to the minister to draw their attention to the work that we have done and ask for an urgent ministerial response so that we can determine what more we can do with the petition. Are colleagues content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Victims of Domestic Violence (PE2025)
PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of possessions and furniture left in the property; and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.
When we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. The minister’s response states:
“where a Non-Harassment Order ... is made by a civil court following an application by the person at risk, they will ... be notified of any application to revoke or vary the NHO and will be entitled to oppose the application in court.”
The response notes that, when an NHO has been made against an offender as part of their sentencing and they then apply to vary or revoke the order, they are required to serve a copy of the application upon anyone who is named in the NHO, including the victim. In such cases, it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to oppose the application.
The minister’s letter also informs us that, although the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service proactively seeks the views of the person at risk, it does not expressly impart those in open court in order to minimise safety risks to the victim. The minister states that a move from that approach might
“create opportunities for perpetrators to use the court process to further abuse the victim.”
In relation to progress on the implementation of part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, the minister highlights that work on that
“continues to take some time”
and that it has brought up new challenges but is on-going. The minister stated that she would look to provide a detailed update to the committee in the coming months but, in fact, no update has been provided since July last year.
On legal aid reform, the minister pointed to “The Vision for Justice in Scotland: Three Year Delivery Plan 2023/24 to 2025/26”, which provides for stakeholder engagement on future legislative proposals to reform the legal aid system. At the time when the minister wrote to the committee, it was intended that that work would commence “in early course”, but it is worth noting that the Scottish Government’s recently published legislative programme for 2025-26 does not include a proposed bill on legal aid reform and that stakeholder engagement is on-going.
In the light of all of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
This is the other petition that has received my detailed attention. The minister’s response was fairly positive, but it is now almost a year old. It stated that work was to commence in early course, but the programme for government contains no reference to that legislation, as the convener said, and it is not clear whether the work has commenced or is to be commenced.
I therefore suggest that we do two things. First, we should write to the minister to seek an update on the submission of 29 July 2024 and, in particular, clarity on whether the work that is referred to in the last paragraph of the letter has commenced. It stated that the Government intended
“to commence this engagement in early course.”
Secondly, the petitioner’s response of 30 July 2024 recognised the minister’s concern and thanked her for her helpfulness to the committee, but it raised a very interesting point about whether victims are able to apply for an extension of a non-harassment order.
I gather that non-harassment orders are normally granted for a specific period in time. It therefore seems to be an extension of natural justice that, if the victim feels that there is a reason why that time period should be extended, they should have the opportunity to apply to court for an extension thereof. I would therefore be grateful if, in writing to the minister, we could inquire of him whether it is the case that the current law—which I think is, from memory, the Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No 2) (Non-harassment order) 1997—allows the victim to make such an application, and, if not, whether that would be part of the legislation that the minister is considering bringing in and considering in early course.
Are colleagues content to pursue the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Cervical Cancer (Testing) (PE2088)
PE2088, lodged by Emma Keyes, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to eliminate cervical cancer in Scotland for women and those with a cervix by introducing at-home human papillomavirus self-sampling to enhance the smear testing programme, helping to increase the uptake and accessibility of smear testing.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the UK National Screening Committee and the Scottish Government. The response from the NSC highlights evidence on the use of HPV self-sampling within the NHS cervical screening programme, which it reviewed in 2019. Back then, the NSC recognised the value of self-sampling, but it indicated that further work was required to ensure its feasibility in the existing screening programme. Such work is under way, and the NSC has pointed to a variety of projects in the area which, once completed, will inform future recommendations to ministers across the UK.
The Scottish Government’s response states that, beyond engagement with the NSC on self-sampling, it continues to explore alternatives to increase the uptake of the cervical screening programme, including the improved use of digital technology, as well as more personalised communications with eligible participants. In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of that evidence, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the NSC, on which the Scottish Government relies for advice, has considered that further work is required to ensure the feasibility of self-sampling in the current screening programme, and has indicated that various projects that will inform future recommendations are under way.
In closing the petition, the committee might wish to draw the petitioner’s attention to the response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to a recent written question on a similar topic.
Are colleagues content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner, but in light of the information that we have, we will close the petition at this time and hope that the work progresses.
Scottish Ministerial Code (PE2093)
PE2093, lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code to: put the code under statute; enable independent advisers to initiate investigations, and if the First Minister decides to go against the independent adviser’s advice, they should make a statement to Parliament; set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament; allow independent advisers to make recommendations for changes to the code; rename the independent adviser position to make it clear that there is no judicial involvement; and require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the First Minister. The committee’s letter particularly sought clarification on what consideration the First Minister had given to updating the ministerial code since taking office, and it asked him to set out the process for appointing independent advisers on the ministerial code, including whether any consideration was given to how long they should remain in post.
The First Minister’s initial response confirmed his intention to publish an updated edition of the ministerial code, and it indicated that the length of service of independent advisers on the code was a matter that is agreed between the First Minister and the individual advisers.
The most recent correspondence from the First Minister confirms the publication of an updated ministerial code, following the appointment of three new independent advisers. The First Minister’s response states that, as per the updated code, those advisers can begin investigations into alleged breaches of the code without a referral from him, and that when a breach is established, the advisers can recommend appropriate sanctions.
09:45The petitioner’s response welcomes the changes that enable independent advisers to initiate investigations and to recommend sanctions and changes to the code, but highlights concerns that the code has not been put under statute and that there is no requirement on ministers to make a public commitment to abide by it. The petitioner also raises concerns that the designation of advisers as independent may cause confusion, with people believing that “independent” suggests a judicial role. However, I feel that a certain amount of progress—some might say that it is unexpected—has been made on the substance of the petition.
Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
Considering that a lot of the petitioner’s asks have been met, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish ministerial code has been reviewed and updated, taking into account the main asks of the petition.
I do not oppose that, because a lot of progress has been made and a lot of the points that the petitioner raised have been answered. However, I note the fact that, in the petitioner’s response of 5 May, which is hot off the press, he sets out very clearly his response on each point. Some of the points that he makes certainly have substance, and others may do. I do not think that we can do much more with the petition in the remaining time that is available to us this session.
I commend the petitioner for his forensic focus on the defects in the code. To be fair, the responses have been relevant, but the petitioner may wish to come back to the Parliament in the next session, after he has reflected further on the changes.
I have the petitioner’s response before me, and he has indeed come back on each individual point. From our perspective—the code having just been reviewed by the First Minister and republished—it is not likely that there will be a further review at this time, but it may well be that, next session, circumstances could be different and that the issues could once again be worth considering by whoever holds the office at that point.
I do not think that the issues will ever go away.
No. Are we agreed at this stage?
Members indicated agreement.
Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (PE2108)
PE2108, lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. The petition was last considered on 9 October 2024.
In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it is confident that one medical opinion is sufficient for the granting of a short-term detention certificate, because of the additional safeguards and patients’ rights that are provided for in the 2003 act.
The petitioner and his wife, Clair Muir, have provided a joint written submission, which details Mrs Muir’s personal experience of being under a short-term detention certificate. The petitioner explains that, during Mrs Muir’s treatment, further investigation by a new responsible medical officer resulted in that treatment being brought to a conclusion. He believes that their experience would have been better had a second medical opinion been available before detention started.
The issues in the petition are familiar to many of us, and the petitioners have drawn our attention to them on a number of occasions. Given the Scottish Government’s response, what might we do now?
In light of the Scottish Government’s response—and the fact that it will not, I think, be changing its mind on this—I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is confident that one medical opinion is sufficient to grant a short-term detention certificate, because of the additional safeguards and patients’ rights that are provided for in the 2003 act.
I read again the response from the petitioner and Mrs Muir—it was not a happy experience. However, the Scottish Government seems resolute in its view. Do colleagues accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation at this point?
Members indicated agreement.
With some regret, we feel that we can do nothing further, in the face of the Government’s response.
Early Learning and Childcare (Funding) (PE2111)
PE2111, lodged by Julie Fraser, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide families with financial support for early learning and childcare when their children reach nine months. The petition was last considered on 30 October 2024.
In its response, the Scottish Government highlights its work with local authorities on a national improvement project that will not only take focused action in five local authorities but seek out and promote good practice to increase uptake of such care for eligible two-year-olds.
The Scottish Government’s work on early adopter community projects has continued, too, with the aim of tackling poverty and helping families give their children the best start in life by expanding access to childcare services. The response confirms that some projects will directly support children from the age of nine months, but firm data will be available only through future grant reporting and evaluation activity.
In light of that response, do members have any suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is working to expand early years and childcare through early adopter community projects in six local authorities, some of which directly support children aged nine months. It is also working on a national improvement project that aims to seek out and promote good practice to increase uptake for eligible two-year-olds.
Is the committee minded to accept Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising the petition with us. I hope that the response is validated by experience, and that the petitioner keeps a note of whether all of that transpires. If not, she could bring the issue back in a future session of Parliament.
Next
New Petitions