Chamber and committees

PE2060, which is to review existing legislation and legal remedies against trespassers, has been lodged by Daithi Broad. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. The SPICe briefing outlines the circumstances in which the public have the right to roam, noting that exceptions to that include domestic houses and gardens.

The briefing also notes that many people incorrectly—I was quite surprised by the briefing, I have to say—believe that the law of trespass does not exist in Scotland. Police Scotland has highlighted difficulties in applying the law in practice. Notably, the police have no jurisdiction, as trespass to land is a civil matter and they cannot assist in the removal of trespassers. Police Scotland’s comments on trespass state that the best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which, if breached, may then turn into a criminal matter.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition also outlined information about the current law on trespassing. In response to the petition’s ask regarding responsibility for injuries on the land, the Scottish Government stated that the duty of care is the same regardless of whether an individual has permission to be on the occupier’s land, but factors such as the foreseeability of unauthorised entry and any steps taken to prevent unauthorised entry and to warn of dangers may be of relevance in determining whether reasonable care has been taken in the particular circumstances. The response also notes that the evidential burden to prove trespass would depend on whether the individual was pursuing a criminal or civil law case.

For my own part, having read the briefing, I think that it is saying that there is little that you could risk doing, particularly in the current climate in which it seems to me that your interests are secondary to those of the people who want to trespass on your property. That is basically how it reads to me. Although we pretend otherwise, the reality is that that is how it will be if you seek to do anything. It is also very difficult, because the briefing does not define what “force” is; I imagine that, if you were to escort somebody off, “force” would now include even laying hands upon somebody, however gently that was done. I found the briefing quite dispiriting. Do colleagues have any suggestions on what we might do?

Are we content to pursue it on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much, cabinet secretary.

I do not want to lose sight of the fact that we are advancing the interests of a petitioner and a petition, the ambition of which is to have the A9 completed and to ensure that consideration is given to a national memorial. As a result of your statement to Parliament, a programme has now been identified that will ultimately deliver on the petition’s aims, which is why we now want to talk about how that will be achieved and whether there are risks associated with that in the current marketplace.

Looking back, I would just say that the committee was grateful—probably less grateful than we expected, though, given that it all arrived just before Christmas—for the voluminous response that we received to our requests for information. The pile was about a foot thick at the end of the day. Are you aware of all the stuff that we have received, cabinet secretary? Have you been briefed on past experience instead of having read through all of it yourself?

We will stick to what has happened before. I know that Mr Torrance was keen to raise that particular question.

Is it on how we got here?

Thank you. Let us switch to where we go from here and how we manage things going forward.

Thank you—it is important that that has been stated.

I will bring in Mr Ewing. Quite a large part of our evidence about the future of the programme has been about not so much whether people want to do it or even whether the money might be there to do it but whether, in fact, there will be troops on the ground who can deliver it.

I am not so young that I cannot remember it being considerably higher than that.

Thank you for that, and thank you, minister, for the comments on scrutiny. To hark back to the exchange with Mr Ewing on the capital projects that will potentially be vital for development in the north of Scotland, this is a national infrastructure project that is of importance to the country and to all parties combined.

Welcome back to the committee’s second meeting in 2024. Our second evidence session is on PE1979, to establish an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies.

The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council Scotland, and that there are gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which we have discussed. The petition also calls for the establishment of an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries in future.

The petition was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, three of whom are with us this morning.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 4 October 2023. At that stage, we decided that we would like to hold a round-table discussion on the issues raised and to welcome the petitioners to join us, if they were available. Unfortunately, Christine Scott is unable to be with us today, but I welcome Brendan Barnett, who joins us in Christine’s place.

Neil McLennan is a former teacher who has written on the topic of safeguarding gaps. Alison Dickie is a teacher and former Edinburgh councillor. As vice convener of the council’s education, children and families committee, she raised the concerns of whistleblowers who came to her for support. Bill Cook is also a former Edinburgh councillor. The petitioners’ submission to the committee describes him as the political lead on the introduction of Edinburgh’s new whistleblower system in 2014.

Before we begin the discussion on the issues raised by the petition, I understand that, as participants, you have prepared brief statements and that you would like to share them with the committee today.