Chamber and committees

The next petition is PE1990, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to request the introduction of a monthly chamber session to allow young people to put questions to the First Minister and the Cabinet.

In our previous consideration, we agreed to write to key stakeholders—we delegated authority to me, as convener, to agree who those stakeholders might be. The Scottish Parliament information centre has provided a list of possible stakeholders, which is in the clerk’s note. However, since the petition was last considered, the committee has published its report, “Embedding Public Participation in the Work of the Parliament”, which includes a response to the recommendations made by the citizens panel. Colleagues will recall that one of those recommendations is very similar to what the petition calls for. Recommendation 14 is to

“Schedule specific time in the debating Chamber for individual public questions to be asked.”

As members will recall, we concluded in our report that

“We do not support the recommendation for a question time which is part of formal Parliamentary business, as we think it raises too many difficulties both of practice and principle … Having said all that, we would be willing to see the idea further explored, if there is cross-party support for doing so.”

The petitioner has provided information that supports his view that young people are becoming increasingly engaged in politics and need greater representation in it. Authority was delegated to me previously, but I want to bring that back to the committee, given our inquiry into the subject matter. We could write to a number of stakeholders, as identified by the clerks: the Scottish Youth Parliament, the Children’s Parliament, the National Union of Students, Who Cares? Scotland, the Scottish Commissioner for People with Learning Disabilities, Intercultural Youth Scotland, Children in Scotland and YouthLink Scotland.

Are we content to get their views, ahead of what I understand will be a session of the Scottish Youth Parliament here, at Holyrood, potentially next year? If there is sufficient interest, that might well be a route that we could recommend as a way forward for the petition. Are we content to continue on that basis?

The next petition is PE1981, which has been lodged by Caroline Gourlay, and continues a theme that we have just been discussing. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to strengthen legislation to stop perpetrators of domestic abuse who have been excluded from the matrimonial home by a court order being able to cause further trauma and distress to their victims by trying to force the sale of the property.

We previously considered the petition on 8 February, and members will note from our papers that we have received responses from the Scottish Law Commission, which indicates that the issue is one of the topics being considered as it determines the scope of review of civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse, and from Shared Parenting Scotland, which suggests that the Scottish Government could provide better public information on what communications are covered by exclusion orders. The response goes on to note that, in the case of child contact arrangements, third-party contact is likely to be in the interests of the child so long as the person or agency issuing the communication is doing it in a professional and non-threatening manner.

The Law Society of Scotland response notes that interdicts can last for lengthy periods and that there is a difficult balance to strike between the rights of a property owner and the rights of a victim of domestic abuse to be protected from their abuser. Therefore, the Law Society considers that a blanket position would not be appropriate and again stresses the importance of training for lawyers handling cases involving domestic abuse. Linked to its view on PE1968, the Law Society’s child and family law sub-committee view is that there is already a solid framework in the law that regard must be given in circumstances where there has been domestic abuse, and a full suite of powers is available to judges to deal with such matters.

I feel that we are in a similar position. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Fair enough. Colleagues, do we agree? Do you agree, Fergus?

We could ask specifically for the views of the chief officer. I know that it is an issue of huge public interest. Since the petition was lodged, there has been a very high-profile major fire in Ayr. As I recall, Ayr’s height appliance was no longer in service, and one had to be provided from Glasgow. Issues were raised about all of that, and that is very much one of the issues that is raised in the petition.

The next petition is PE1968, which was lodged by Angela Evans. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review existing legislation on family law and seek to stop perpetrators of domestic abuse causing further abuse and distress to partners and children by removing their ability to apply for contact orders under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020.

We considered the petition at our meeting on 8 February. At that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Shared Parenting Scotland and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. Copies of the responses that we have received are in our meeting papers.

The then Minister for Victims and Community Safety’s response, which was submitted in March, provides details on the work that is under way to commence the various provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, with measures to regulate the provision of child contact centres expected to be introduced later in 2023. That minister also highlighted budgetary pressures in taking forward that work, noting that establishing a register of child welfare reporters might cost around £5 million a year.

The responses from Shared Parenting Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland all noted concern about the slow progress that is being made to implement the 2020 act, with the commissioner calling on the Government to make funding available to progress implementation. Shared Parenting Scotland suggested that more detailed statistical information on child contact cases should be recorded by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in order to establish information about what happens in those cases. Scottish Women’s Aid also shared concerns that no routine data is available on courts’ practices and outcomes in disputed child contact cases in Scotland, emphasising that is not possible to monitor the implementation of children’s rights without that data.

The Law Society of Scotland’s submission notes that appropriate and sensitive procedural rules should address concerns that family courts can be a traumatising experience for victims of domestic abuse, with judicial training a vital component in ensuring that practitioners and the court can respond to the particular circumstances of each case. The response also notes the view of the child and family law sub-committee that there is already a solid framework in law that regard must be given in circumstances where there has been domestic abuse, and a full suite of powers is available to judges to deal with these matters.

Colleagues, do you have any thoughts?

If only Government ministers were like that.

Yes. That would make sense, too. Thank you.

Even while we close the petition?

Of course.

Has the Scottish Youth Parliament made that request itself?