Chamber and committees

Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee—our first meeting after the summer recess, which I hope all have enjoyed, notwithstanding the weather.

Our first item is a declaration of interests. As members will recall, our colleague Alexander Stewart has left the committee. We were able to thank him for his work when he was last with us. I gather that Alexander will be able to join us at the launch next week of our public participation and democracy inquiry. In his stead, we welcome our new colleague, Maurice Golden, and offer him the opportunity to refer to any interests.

I thank the First Minister for that answer and for his engagement on the issue. Will he commit to holding a full chamber debate on the issue in the autumn, after the Government has responded in full to the report, so that we can consider it?

Can I ask him for his reaction to an observation by Professor Britton in the introduction and overview to the report, where she comments on a parallel report that she was invited to undertake by the now Deputy First Minister in 2017 and which was published in 2018? Professor Britton says that the report

“highlighted a number of failings and made recommendations on how independent reviews should be conducted in future. Despite being well received, to date, none”—

I repeat, “none”—

“of the 46 recommendations have been implemented by the Scottish Government.”

The First Minister has referred to the work that colleagues across the chamber have done over the past decade with the women. Does he understand their dismay and frustration that none of the 46 recommendations that were made five years ago have been implemented? What will he do to rectify that?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recommendations in the report, “Transvaginal Mesh Case Record Review”, by Professor Alison Britton. (S6F-02285)

The exhibition was called “Dying in the Margins”.

The next petition, PE2021, which was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals that is contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation and to enable interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

I apologise—I have quite a long introduction.

The petitioners have told us that confusion over whether the sheep on St Kilda are considered to be livestock or wild animals is contributing to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of large numbers of the sheep population on the archipelago.

The SPICe briefing provides a helpful history of the sheep population on St Kilda. Research suggests that feral sheep have been present on the island of Soay since the bronze age. The briefing notes that, in 1931, the archipelago was sold to the Marquess of Bute, who subsequently bequeathed it to the National Trust for Scotland in 1957. The petitioners suggest that that means that the trust has ownership of the sheep and, therefore, responsibility for managing them.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated its position that the St Kilda sheep should be regarded in the same way as unowned and unmanaged populations of wild deer and other wild animals. The response also sets out the Government’s view on how the definition of protected animals in the 2006 act applies to the St Kilda sheep. It notes that the definition applies only if and when sheep are gathered up for a particular procedure and that they are otherwise considered to be living in a wild state.

Guidance on the 2006 act allows for animals that live in the wild but whose behaviour, life cycle or physiology is altered by being under human control to be classed as protected animals. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that the sheep on St Kilda are an exception to that general guidance on the basis that they have adapted to live on St Kilda over many generations, so they are not dependent on humans in the same way that more recently escaped or released domesticated animals would be.

In response to the Scottish Government’s submission, the petitioners questioned whether the sheep are really “free to move anywhere” on such small islands, particularly as the population increases. The petitioners also highlighted the research of the historian Professor Andrew Fleming, which shows that inhabitants of St Kilda combined fowling with sheep management, which suggests that the sheep were domesticated 10,000 years ago and have been feral only for less than 100 years, when the last inhabitants of St Kilda left.

We have also received a submission from Alasdair Allan MSP, which details the action that he has taken on the issue and further highlights the petitioners’ concerns that the interpretation of St Kilda sheep as non-native animals means that researchers might have committed numerous offences during the St Kilda Soay sheep project’s triannual capture and release of the sheep population. Dr Allan has suggested that the policy on St Kilda sheep does not reflect best practice for the management of other animals in Scotland, and he reflected that, if the Scottish Government’s position is accepted, there might be a moral and a legal duty to manage the sheep population on St Kilda to avoid mass starvation events.

Members will note in our papers that requests to make submissions in relation to the petition have been received from the National Trust for Scotland, researchers from the St Kilda Soay sheep research project and OneKind, the animal welfare charity.

There is a lot to unpack in all of that. I apologise for the fairly detailed exposition, but that is what was required. Do members have any comments or suggestions? In the first instance, given that they have asked to contribute, we might wish to seek views from the organisations that I mentioned.

That brings us to the last of our new petitions this morning, PE2022, lodged by Ellie Wilson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national safeguarding guidance for dealing with cases of sexual misconduct in higher education institutions, including clearly defined measures to ensure campus safety when a convicted sex offender or someone awaiting trial for a serious sexual offence is enrolled at an institution.

In the background to the petition, Ellie Wilson explains that she was raped while studying at university and that her attacker was charged and found guilty. However, while awaiting trial, Ellie’s attacker began studying at another university and was, in her view, afforded the opportunity to have a normal student experience before being sent to prison. That, Ellie tells us, brought into sharp focus the lack of safeguarding measures that are in place at Scottish universities for dealing with such cases of sexual misconduct.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that Scotland’s colleges and universities should be places where students can live, study and research safe from gender-based violence. The Scottish Government has recognised the concerns that Ellie Wilson has raised and says that it is working in partnership with the higher education sector and gender-based violence experts to facilitate the adoption of a consistent approach to data collection and safeguarding that will help to protect students.

The response also notes that, last year, the petitioner met the former minister for higher and further education, and it makes reference to the working group that was established by the equally safe in colleges and universities core leadership group to review the collection and use of student data in relation to relevant unspent criminal convictions and extant criminal charges.

The petition raises a serious issue. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Thank you. Do members agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

It would be helpful if we could track down the groups that were involved in that.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE1964, was lodged by Accountability Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, investigate complaints made against the SPSO, assess the quality of its work and decisions and establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose. The petition was last considered by us on 7 December, when we agreed to write to the SPSO, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, of which, I should commit to the record, I am a member.

The SPCB’s response details the financial and governance accountability structures that exist between the SPCB and the SPSO, noting that there have been no adverse external audit reports to date. The corporate body states that, although committees have a role, it would expect that committee scrutiny work focuses on how the SPSO is carrying out its functions at a high level and should not aim to review, direct or control specific decisions or actions, which are properly matters for the SPSO.

The SPCB acknowledges that there might be scope for a review by the Scottish Government on how well the legislation is working and on any areas that could be improved but, given the independent role of the SPSO and the assurances that it has that the office is working well, it does not consider that there is a need to undertake an independent review into the quality of the SPSO’s work or the decisions that it has taken or to investigate the complaints against it.

The SPSO’s response to the committee details its approach to decision making, highlighting the option for complainants to request a review of the decisions that are made by it.

The Scottish Government’s written submission states its view that an independent review on the terms that are suggested in the petition is not required and that it does not have the available resources that are required to undertake such a review.

The petitioner has responded to the written submissions, focusing on the question whether an independent review would interfere with the SPSO’s independence. The petitioner argues that an independent investigation of the SPSO would strengthen it, because the nature of truly independent opinion would be outwith any influence of the ombudsman, the Parliament and Scottish ministers.

The petitioner claims that the SPSO is using its discretion to deny the majority of complainants a fair and impartial investigation. Their submission states:

“There is only one way to determine if the SPSO is protecting our human rights as it claims it is, that’s an independent review of individual cases.”

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I feel that we are pushing a rock up a hill, given the answers that we have received.

Unless there is any view that we might pursue the matter further, I think that we have to thank the petitioner and say that, unfortunately, the representative bodies that advise the Government, from which the decisions would subsequently emanate, are not advocating a change. Therefore, I feel that we have to close the petition on that basis.