Chamber and committees

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, of which we have only one this morning. I highlight—as I always do—that, in advance of the committee considering new petitions, we do two things. First, we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to offer us a view on the issues that have been raised in the petition. That information is submitted to members of the committee in advance, with the papers that we receive. We also invite the Scottish Government to give us a preliminary view. We do those two things because, historically, they were the first two things that the committee used to recommend doing, which only delayed the progress and consideration of the petition. So, we come to the petition with those bits of information in front of us.

PE2147, lodged by Laura Jones on behalf of the Scottish Tenants Organisation, seeks to create more women-only homeless accommodation that protects and meets the specific needs of women. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform homeless services in Scotland, and to ensure that services protect women from sexual assault and exploitation, by increasing funding and supporting the creation of more women-only homeless accommodation.

The petitioner tells us that increasing numbers of women are being placed in unsuitable hotel and bed-and-breakfast emergency accommodation, with little consideration for the specific challenges and risks that that poses for women. The petitioner is concerned in particular about the risk of sexual assault and exploitation that women face when placed in temporary emergency accommodation.

As the SPICe briefing notes, although local authorities have a duty to assess anyone in their area who is applying as homeless and to provide temporary accommodation in certain circumstances, the Scottish Government has a policy to reduce the use of temporary accommodation. The briefing also highlights Scottish Government homelessness statistics for the period between April and September 2024, which indicate that hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation accounted for 24 per cent of temporary homeless accommodation.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government recognises that women’s experiences of homelessness are very different to men’s experiences, and the response to women’s housing needs should therefore also be different. The response draws our attention to the temporary accommodation standards framework, which was published in April 2023 and aims

“to ensure that any time spent in temporary accommodation causes minimal harm.”

To achieve that, it aims to ensure that the accommodation is of good quality, safe, warm and affordable, and that standards are consistent across Scotland. The framework includes standards on support to access different types of accommodation, which are allocated based on gender, and provision of single-gender accommodation for households that are experiencing domestic abuse. The Scottish Government response also references the implementation of the equally safe strategy, which is aimed at preventing violence against women and girls and supporting survivors who have experienced such abuse. In the year ahead, the Government will invest £21.6 million in delivering the equally safe funding programme.

Members will also have noted from our papers that issues related to the petition have been raised as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s inquiry on financial considerations when leaving an abusive relationship.

This is the first time that we have considered the petition and I can see that we are joined in the gallery by those who might have an interest in it. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I felt, in reading the Scottish Sentencing Council’s submission, that it had about it a terrible whiff of, “How can we get rid of this annoying inquiry by not really responding to it and doing so in the shortest possible way?” I did not feel that it was an adequate response whatsoever. It may not be possible to summarise matters, as the SSC suggests, but I think that it could have gone a little further in giving some examples that it may be aware of from its own experience in order to illuminate the issue further for the committee. I do not think that the SSC’s response did the committee’s inquiry justice at all. I am, therefore, very much of the view that Mr Ewing’s suggestions have merit.

Do colleagues wish to add anything, or are we content to keep the petition open and pursue these matters with the Government and in particular with the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs?

We come to PE2102, which is our final continued petition this morning. The petition was lodged by Anna-Cristina Seaver and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the option of an absolute discharge in cases in which the accused is found guilty of rape or sexual assault, and to introduce a statutory minimum sentence for those offences, including the convicted person being registered as a sex offender.

We previously considered the petition on 25 September 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Scottish Sentencing Council. The Scottish Government’s response states that it supports discretion for the criminal court when sentencing in individual cases, including imposing an absolute discharge for rape and sexual assault, if the judge considers that to be appropriate. The submission states that the Scottish Government does not have any current plans to adjust the powers of the court to impose absolute discharges in criminal cases.

The committee asked the Scottish Sentencing Council for details on circumstances in which an absolute discharge might be given; we were curious to understand why that would happen if someone had been found guilty of rape or sexual assault. Its response states that, as each case is unique and turns on its own facts and circumstances, it is not possible for the council to be more specific about what exceptional circumstances might amount to in respect of any offence, which does not advance us terribly much.

Victim Support Scotland supports the aims of the petition and states in its response that there is no evidence to support a view that there are cases sufficiently exceptional to warrant an absolute discharge for sexual crimes. Given the seriousness of rape and sexual assault, Victim Support Scotland believes that there should always be some form of punishment and safeguarding for the public as the result of a guilty verdict. Its submission states that abolishing the absolute discharge for sexual crimes would validate the experience of survivors, show a clear outcome from the trial and demonstrate that justice has been carried out.

Rape Crisis Scotland’s response states that it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which an absolute discharge would be appropriate for a crime as serious as rape.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you. As there are no other comments or observations, are we content to support Mr Golden’s proposed action?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Torrance proposes switching the lights off on this particular petition.

Welcome to the eighth meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our rather dry order of business ensures that our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Agenda items 4 and 5 relate to the consideration of a draft report on public participation and a paper on how the committee might consider requests from individuals to remove their names from active petitions. Does the committee agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Petition PE2082, on improving the support that is provided to families affected by cot death, was lodged by Kevin McIver. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop promoting the Lullaby Trust to Scottish families for cot death support, as that charity provides support only to families who live in England and Wales, and instead to improve the practical support that is available to families by prioritising the promotion of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, which has been supporting families since 1985.

When we previously considered the petition on 29 May 2024, we agreed to write to the Scottish Cot Death Trust. We have received a response from the trust that states that a fundamental difference on the final messaging on bed sharing meant that it took a decision not to support the Scottish Government resource on safer sleep for babies. Although the trust aligns with and supports most of the Government’s safer sleep messaging, its view is that the safest place for a baby under three months to sleep is one that is

“flat, firm, clear and separate.”

The response goes on to highlight international studies on sudden unexpected death in infancy, which, taken collectively, suggest that there is a fivefold increased risk of a baby dying if the child shares a bed with their parents. The response also notes that the Scottish Government has plans to update the safer sleep guidance and it asks that that be used as an opportunity to re-engage with the trust on the messaging around the risks of bed sharing. As our papers note, the Scottish Government has published updated guidance for professionals on safe sleep for babies, which includes strengthening messaging on bed sharing.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues agreed? I think that the committee wants to bring the minister in to give evidence on this area, because we felt that we had received pretty compelling testimony, and there is now the example from elsewhere in the country. Scotland seems to be uniquely taking the view that we should not be providing defibrillators. I do not think that they are terribly complicated to utilise. There are one or two in my constituency, and the committee has heard from people whose lives have been saved by their provision. Therefore, I think that we will hold the petition open. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Both petitions will be kept open, and we will be able to examine the issues in detail with the minister when she is available to give evidence.

We will write to the minister in the first instance, but we will seek to take the petition to a chamber debate before the end of the session—hopefully later in the year—given that there is an opportunity for the committee to take issues to the chamber. We have two or three issues that we are considering, but we might be able to address a couple of them in a single debate.