Chamber and committees

Part of me wonders whether some local authorities—perhaps smaller local authorities, which are in locations where such permissions might be being sought—feel that their own resource is such that it is easier to say no than it is to say yes, because saying yes involves them in the administration of certain matters for which they feel that they currently do not have the capacity to take forward. That might be, in part, what underpins their views. I would be interested to know whether COSLA felt that there was any substance to that consideration.

Therefore, with the various suggestions that have been made, we will keep the petition open. Although we accept some of the evidence that we have received, and the comment from the Scottish Government, there are issues here that it would be useful for us to explore.

The second of our new petitions, on which colleagues will note that they have a late submission on the table before them, is PE2064, which has been lodged by Julie Mitchell. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that under-16s who are charged with rape are treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The SPICe briefing explains that certain offences for children over the age of 12 and under the age of 16 must be jointly reported by the police to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal. Rape is considered to be an offence that requires joint reporting, and the procurator fiscal decides whether prosecution will proceed in the adult justice system.

Regarding the sex offenders register, where a case proceeds in the adult criminal justice system and results in a conviction for rape, the notification requirements apply regardless of age. However, the length of the notification period is reduced for those under the age of 18. The Lord Advocate is reviewing diversion from prosecution as it relates to sexual offences, to consider whether it is being used appropriately. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that its policy position is to keep children out of the criminal justice system wherever possible and appropriate. However, it recognises

“the need to strike a balance between supporting children who come into conflict with the law and ensuring that our communities are safe and that victims are supported.”

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to take forward Mr Torrance’s recommendation and to combine that with the issues that are raised in PE1947?

Some people are even driving camper vans these days.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hear what you say, Presiding Officer, but if the minister is pointing at other members and deliberately provoking them, it is hardly a surprise that members feel it necessary to react.

As the member representing 50 per cent of Scotland’s Jewish community, I believe that I have a responsibility to articulate arguments on their behalf—as did my immediate predecessor, Ken Macintosh. However, that is not the same as endorsing all the actions of the Israeli Government.

It is important that we work together to secure a future for the region.

Will the First Minister join me in offering congratulations to my constituent Henry Wuga? Henry escaped the Nazi Holocaust, travelling from Nuremberg to Glasgow in 1939 at the age of 15. Here, he met his wife, Ingrid, who was also a survivor as a consequence of the Kindertransport and events that were celebrated in the film “One Life”, starring Sir Anthony Hopkins.

Tomorrow, Henry turns 100 years of age. He has made a remarkable contribution to this country. I have lodged a motion that is supported by Paul O’Kane, and Kirsten Oswald MP is tabling a similar motion in the House of Commons. Will the First Minister join me and, I hope, the chamber, in offering Henry Wuga many happy returns? [Applause.]

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I note the opportunity that is afforded by Ivan McKee, in lodging his motion, for members to discuss further this really troubling and horrendous international situation.

First, I pay tribute, as I have done previously, to the many interfaith organisations in Scotland that are working around the clock, every day, to do all that they can to maintain cohesive relations here, with some real track record of success. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for ensuring that a very tense international situation does not dissolve into a very serious situation in our own country. [Applause.]

This is a short debate, and I will, therefore, address two areas in my speech. Obviously, events since 7 October have unfolded as badly as, or even more badly than, any of us could have anticipated or predicted at the time of our previous discussion. I have to say that, irrespective of the speeches that we make in the chamber today, or of the calls for action from anywhere, it does not seem to me that we are anywhere near a resolution, or even a mitigation, of what is currently a desperately difficult position in the region. The consequences of that were very clearly and fairly laid out by Ivan McKee.

The call for a ceasefire is at the heart of the matter. There should not be a competition between parties for who has the boldest ceasefire. It is a question of the principle of a ceasefire. I think that people are troubled by why I and some others are reluctant to join in the call for an immediate ceasefire. That is not really a question of principle. I have looked at the terms associated with the calls for a ceasefire in the letter that Ian Murray sent to Stephen Flynn and in the Labour Party’s resolution in the House of Commons yesterday, a great deal of which I could agree with. However, contained in the calls for a ceasefire must be a recognition that there has to be a ceasefire on all sides. That means that rockets in and out of Gaza have to stop.

It must be recognised that the hostages have to be released. Some 134 of them still remain unaccounted for, including Kfir Bibas, who is one year old, Ariel Bibas, who is four years old, and Agam Berger, who is 19 years old and of whom nothing has subsequently been heard. Implicitly, that means that, at some point, there has to be a way forward in Gaza that does not leave the Hamas regime in place dictating the future, because it has made it clear that it will not respect a ceasefire and that it will resume its attacks on Israel at the earliest opportunity. We cannot have a ceasefire in which Israel ceases and Hamas fires; it has to be a ceasefire that we can believe will happen. If the hostages are released, Hamas is no longer able to influence the outcome of events, and there is a mutual ending of the attacks from both countries, I would be able to support a ceasefire. I hope that, out of that, we can see a much more likely secure future for the region.

Meanwhile, aid can now come into the country unrestricted. Some 13,000 trucks have entered at three crossing points. At the moment, there are 450 trucks in Gaza with aid that cannot be distributed. I recognise that there is a genuine fear on the part of those who would distribute that aid about doing that safely, so I can certainly support the idea that there should be a pause in hostilities in order for that aid to be as widely distributed as possible.

As I have said before, I do not support every action of the Israeli Government. I resent and reject the suggestion that I do. People ask me, “Why do you bother with any of this?” I stand here in a Parliament with Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Protestant and Catholic MSPs, but no Jew—never a Jew.

Good morning, and welcome to the third meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our first agenda item is simply to agree to take in private agenda item 4, which relates to evidence that we will hear this morning. Are members content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.