Chamber and committees

Our principal item of business is the continuation of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project, on the back of the petition that was lodged by Laura Hansler, who I see joins us in the public gallery for this morning’s evidence. This meeting follows on from evidence that we have heard along the way from representatives of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association; current and former senior leaders at Transport Scotland; and Màiri McAllan MSP, who was transport secretary when she gave evidence, before Fiona Hyslop resumed her responsibility in that direction.

We are joined this morning by Edward Mountain, who is here as a reporter for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in relation to the inquiry. Thank you, Edward, for joining us again. Edward is moving amendments to a bill at stage 2 elsewhere this morning, so if he gets a jab from a knitting needle to tell him that his amendment is about to be called, he will have to leave our proceedings.

Those of you who have been following the progress of the inquiry will know that we are primarily focused on what action needs to be taken to get the project back on track. That is what the petitioner and all those who are interested in the A9 project are looking for us to achieve. Along the way, we have heard evidence about the major capital infrastructure projects that are likely to unfold over the next five years and decade. The access to, and ability to capitalise on, those projects would be compromised by not having the infrastructure eventually in place.

In this inquiry, we also want to look back to understand why we are where we are, what led to the delays and at what point those delays became apparent.

This week in Parliament has felt like a very retro week, if I can put it that way, with John Swinney re-emerging as the leader of the Scottish National Party and our First Minister; with a retro look back into the affairs of the A9; and with evidence this morning from Alex Salmond, who is the former First Minister of Scotland and whom I am very pleased to welcome. I recall that one former leader revisiting events said that the Mummy had returned; I do not know what epitaph Mr Salmond would wish to offer for his own evidence this morning.

I am not sure that it would.

I can empathise with that—I have had a similar experience. I do not think that there can be many people who have travelled on that road and have not, from a distance, seen a manoeuvre on the road and thought, “Crikey!”, because the driver was running a risk in what they were trying to achieve. We understand how people can lose sight of how fast things are moving on some sections of that road and think that they have more capacity to move than they do.

The other thing that you touched on, which we will come back to, was the fact that the dualling was just one of the infrastructure projects that the Government was looking at. I know that because I was the convener of the ad hoc committee that was set up to look into the Queensferry crossing route and the way in which the Parliament engaged with the planning of that process. We had some interesting exchanges with the Government about whether there might be more oversight of the project and whether parliamentary oversight helped to generate and sustain momentum. I will perhaps come back to that later, as well.

During the pre-planning phase in the initial period, to what extent did you leave that work to Alex Neil and other ministers? To what extent did it continue to be something around which the Government was having a more general discussion and which you, as First Minister, might have been involved in or apprised of?

I have a final question for you before we move on, and I will come back to some of those other points later on.

In the Government that you led, you represented the north-east and came from a background in economics; John Swinney was the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and represented Perthshire and mid-Scotland; and Jim Mather was very much a man who had an understanding of business and economics, as well. That was the economic team that was driving matters forward. I have often wondered whether, when you left office, the Government became more central belt-centric. Do you think that, as we moved forward from your time as First Minister, it became less of a priority to look at infrastructure development from the perspective of the spine of the whole of Scotland?

It is an absolute delight to be able to bring a petition to the chamber for debate. I say that because, when the Parliament convened and I found that it fell to the Scottish Conservatives to convene the public petitions committee for the first time in the Parliament’s history, I fought very hard to have that opportunity. That is because I happen to believe that we have one of the finest petitions committee systems of any Parliament anywhere. That is not just because important issues such as free personal care for the elderly, the scandal of mesh and the extension of care to those who suffer from dementia at the age of 50 came to the Parliament through the committee, but because of the various people whom the committee hears from.

That includes young Callum Isted, who, at the age of seven, was the youngest person ever to bring a petition before the Scottish Parliament. He left a little disappointed in one respect because, when Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister, she promised him a tour of Bute house, but, unfortunately, she left office before that promise could be fulfilled. I catch out of the corner of my eye a man who might be able to fix that sin of omission. I say to John Swinney that he will have the undying gratitude of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee if young Callum Isted finally has the opportunity to have that tour. We wait to see whether that promise can be fulfilled.

I always say that I bring petitions to the chamber not with the mandate of any party election manifesto but with the mandate of the petitioner themselves. That is what motivates the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, and that invariably unites us behind the aims of a petition. I speak today very much on behalf of the committee, but also on behalf of the petitioner, Nicola Murray, and all those affected by the issues that are raised in the petition.

I thank Mr Swinney for that observation. I also observe that we were able to take forward a petition to secure free transport for asylum seekers at the recent Conveners Group meeting with the sitting First Minister, who was able, at that time, to give a commitment and a promise to include that in the legislative programme. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is a committee that can achieve things.

I am pleased to discuss the petition that is before us. It was lodged in 2021 by Nicola Murray, who has, along with members of her family, joined us in the public gallery today. It calls for the creation of a specific offence that would enable courts to hand down longer sentences when miscarriage has been caused by acts of domestic violence.

In considering the issues that the petition raises, the committee was fortunate enough to hear directly from Nicola. I thank her for the courage and determination that she demonstrated back in 2022 in sharing with us her harrowing experience. It is no small matter to come to the Parliament to discuss these issues. [Applause.]

We must not underestimate how daunting it is for someone to share their personal experiences and present their case to a parliamentary committee. Nicola has also supported and campaigned on behalf of other women who have suffered pregnancy loss as a result of domestic abuse. Her resolve was instrumental in our decision to bring her petition to the chamber today.

In the current session of Parliament, we held a round-table discussion with Steven Tidy from Victim Support Scotland, Dr Mary Neal from the University of Strathclyde and Dr Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid, and I will refer to their evidence during my remarks.

There is currently a legal framework for responding to domestic abuse, and we recognise in particular the Scottish Government’s recent work through the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. The act created a new statutory offence of domestic abuse and, in particular, it allows for physical, psychological and controlling behaviour that is carried out over a sustained period to be prosecuted as a single course of conduct. The maximum penalty for an offence under the act is imprisonment for a term of up to 14 years.

A joint protocol exists between Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that outlines how domestic abuse cases should be handled. However, the current legal framework does not specifically recognise pregnancy loss as a result of domestic abuse. We heard about the impact on victims and the importance of having that specific type of abuse recognised in the justice system. We also heard that pregnancy can act as a trigger for the abuse beginning in the first place and that abuse can intensify during the pregnancy. We recognise that, at any time, pregnancy can be a very vulnerable time for any woman.

The evidence that we have gathered to date has been profoundly moving and extremely effective. In bringing the committee to a view on the issue, we made two recommendations to the Scottish Government following our evidence taking. The first was that the Scottish Government should undertake

“a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current legal framework in bringing forward prosecuting charges”

of this nature.

We heard that, in cases of domestic abuse, there are problems with the system, from initial contact with the police through to charging and prosecuting perpetrators. There have been positive steps, with additional Police Scotland funding to support training on the implementation of the 2018 act. However, despite that, it is clear that we can still do more to support survivors of domestic abuse.

Nicola Murray expressed the view that

“The justice system ... fails on many levels when it comes to domestic violence”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2.]

and that that deters women from even reporting in the first place.

Stakeholders warned us that the reported figures could be underrepresenting the scale of the problem because of the significant barriers to disclosure that women face. We heard that those barriers might be particularly acute in cases of coercive and controlling behaviour. Scottish Women’s Aid told us:

“coercive and controlling behaviour is the single variable that best predicts lethality, so it is critical that, if nothing else, police officers are able to identify whether coercive and controlling behaviours are being exhibited”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 9 November 2022; c 15.]

Scottish Women’s Aid also shared concerns that police risk assessments focus on physical abuse. We were told that women do not get the help and support that they need when they first reach out and that they will be deterred from seeking help in future.

Nicola Murray told the committee that

“it is a lottery as to whether”

the responding police officers will be knowledgeable about domestic abuse and that some officers will advise women

“that reporting ... is a waste of time”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2.]

or even blame victims for what they have gone through.

We understand that Police Scotland is working to improve its response to domestic abuse and that it is time for the 2018 act to be fully effective. However, we heard that Scotland has an implementation disorder and that more needs to be done.

We were concerned to hear that victims do not feel informed and supported when they report domestic abuse. We were told that communication is lacking when cases are taken to court, particularly when charges are reduced, and that the process of seeking justice often traumatises victims. In one of Nicola’s cases, the perpetrator took a deal to lessen his charge. In the end, he was ordered to pay her just £300 in compensation for the loss of her unborn child. Nicola described that as deeply inappropriate, given the trauma that she was caused. We heard of another case in which the perpetrator was ordered to pay just £50 in compensation for his actions.

Although this is not a political point, it is worth noting that provisions in other parts of the United Kingdom are much stronger in relation to the statutory offence of child destruction as an aggravating factor. In February last year, the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans responded to our recommendations by highlighting research projects on the experiences of witnesses in domestic abuse cases. I look forward to hearing an update on that from the current cabinet secretary.

The committee’s second and more significant recommendation is that legislation should be introduced to create a specific statutory offence or a statutory aggravator of causing miscarriage through acts of violence. We heard from Nicola that the loss of her pregnancies impacted her entire family and that she was deeply traumatised and emotional. I will conclude by quoting Nicola:

“It is life impacting, not just for the victims but for their families. When I lost my pregnancies, I lost a child—I lost children—my children lost siblings and my parents lost grandchildren, so it impacts the entire family. Obviously, afterwards, it is deeply traumatising and emotional. It is not just that you have to deal with the loss itself; it is the circumstances of the loss and the fact that the perpetrator can get away with it so easily. It is often the case that they are not even charged at all. However, if they are ... the sentencing is inappropriate, which is like rubbing salt in the wounds of the victims. It is almost like saying to them that what happened meant nothing. That can add further trauma to the victims and their families, because they feel like they have not received justice.”

She said:

“I am very lucky that I have such an amazing family. My mum has been a tremendous support. I really do not know what I would have done without her. However, a lot of the women I engage with do not have family support, for whatever reason. They might have had to flee their homes and their support network of friends. They feel very vulnerable, very let down and, at times, almost hopeless. We need to change that, and we need to have an opportunity to do that.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 29 June 2022; c 2, 8-9.]

On behalf of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I hope that we can play a part in considering how we recognise, support and find justice for victims of that harrowing form of domestic abuse. I very much look forward to hearing the Government’s response and to the debate that will follow.

I move,

That the Parliament notes public petition PE1887 on creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences where miscarriage has been caused through acts of domestic violence.

Good morning, and welcome to the seventh meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—excuse my slightly hoarse voice. The first item on our agenda is a decision on taking items 4 and 5 in private. Item 4 relates to PE1975 and item 5 relates to the consideration of content for our annual report. Are members content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Given that that is the case, our questions might be quite focused and to the point. I do not think that we are pushing a stone up a hill, in the sense that the Government appears to have accepted the argument. However, it would be interesting to explore some of the issues underpinning the need for all of this.

That remains to be seen. Thank you, Mr Ewing.

Do any other colleagues wish to come in?

Thank you very much for that, Mr Ewing. I think that that is correct.

It is open to us to write to the Government to say that we are closing the petition on the basis of good faith, given that the Government has said that it will progress the issue. It would be helpful to try to tie it down to a more specific timeline.

I thank Mr Izatt very much for bringing an important petition before the committee. In the event that no progress is made, it would be open to him to lodge a fresh petition. As matters stand, the committee has taken the issue as far forward as we can, given the Government’s response and assurance. Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.