Chamber and committees

One of the parents said that they were slightly aghast that the remedy was to put in place a series of actions to support the perpetrator of the violence, to try to take them out of the culture of violence, but that the victim of the violence had received virtually no remedial support whatsoever. David Torrance, sorry—I interrupted you.

I was going to ask whether that was a reflection or a question, Mr Ewing, but we got to a question in the end.

I feel that I have a duty to the petitioner and to the witnesses from whom I heard to ask this question. They understand that the police operate within guidelines, issued by the Lord Advocate, that deal with the circumstances in which alleged offences committed by children should be reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. What impact do those guidelines have on police who have to deal with allegations of violence? Does more need to be done to explain to victims what action is and is not being taken?

The experience of those witnesses was not abstract; it was real. They were told by the police, “They are under 25. There’s nothing we can do. It’s not worth it. The procurator won’t act.” As a consequence, in both cases, the families felt unable to leave their homes, because they had come into contact with the perpetrators, who provoked them further, mocked them and made their lives difficult in their community because they felt that they were immune. Bizarrely, their parents seemed to be part of the posse of those abusing the victims. Gone are the days when some parents would have felt that they had a duty to act in respect of their children; they now seem to feel that they have to defend their children in front of the people who were abused.

What would you say to those people? They listened in some despair to our academic discussion at our previous evidence session, and they tried to relate that to their absolutely appalling experiences and the lack of any response.

Mr Ewing has a final quick follow-up question.

That is a fair point and I am happy that we seek to accommodate that. That was not the suggestion that I had expected from Mr Torrance.

PE1916, lodged by Councillors Douglas Philand and Donald Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which is due to provide a permanent solution for the route.

We last considered the petition on 17 May 2023, after which we wrote to the Minister for Transport. However, since our previous considerations, Transport Scotland has announced the preferred route for a long-term solution. The then minister, who is now Cabinet Secretary for Transport, provided details of the preferred route in her response. The response also notes that the proposed medium-term solution is a temporary solution that is intended to add resilience and operational benefits while the permanent solution is constructed.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner raising concerns about whether the preferred route option is the right choice, and how the solution will be funded, particularly if a new government has different spending priorities.

There will always be a view as to what the right choice would be. The important thing here is that we now have a preferred option for both temporary and long-term solutions. I wonder how we might take the matter forward. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Thank you very much. That was an interesting petition. We will keep it open and we will undertake the inquiries that we have just set out.

PE2058, on requiring all dog boarding kennels to install smoke detectors, smoke alarms and sprinkler systems, was lodged by Julie Louden. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve fire safety in dog boarding kennels by mandating the installation of smoke detectors, smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

The SPICe briefing explains that animal boarding establishments in Scotland must be licensed by local authorities under the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963. That act requires that, in determining whether to grant a licence, a local authority shall have regard to the need for securing that appropriate steps will be taken for the protection of the animals in case of fire or another emergency. Conditions set at a local authority level can include more detailed requirements. However, I very much doubt that sprinkler systems were too widely applied or even available in 1963.

The Scottish Government recently consulted on proposals to revoke the Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 and instead regulate animal boarding under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. Its response to the petition states that that approach is being considered and that it could provide a more cohesive and robust framework for ensuring the wellbeing of animals that are being cared for.

The issue and the petition are important.

Those suggestions seem to be very worth while.

PE2059, on ensuring that pedestrian crossings cannot be disabled without an equivalent safety measure being in place, was lodged by Lachlan McDowall. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that requires that, during road works or at any other point where a pedestrian crossing is disabled or otherwise bypassed, measures to allow alternative pedestrian traffic flow are put in place, and any broken-down or otherwise disabled crossing is rectified or has an alternative in place within 24 hours of being reported. The petition was prompted by experience of a pedestrian crossing on a busy road outside a primary school being deactivated.

The SPICe briefing and the Scottish Government’s response note that “Safety at Street Works and Road Works: A Code of Practice” requires anyone who is undertaking works that require a pedestrian crossing to be suspended to agree with the roads authority what, if any, alternative arrangements will be provided for users of the crossing prior to its suspension. It is also noted that those who are undertaking works are required to take specific consideration of the needs of pedestrians, particularly the needs of those with small children and pushchairs and those with reduced mobility. That includes visually impaired people and people who use wheelchairs or mobility scooters.

Do members have any suggestions?