Chamber and committees

We established previously that there were not formally recorded actions. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the petition, we got a commitment from the Government that it would introduce formal recording of the prescribing of medicines. At that stage, we identified that, although it was asserted that those things were happening, there was no way to demonstrate subsequently that that was the case. In a previous response, the Government accepted a recommendation from the committee to change the procedures in order that a new process be put in place at that time.

Thanks again to Roisin Taylor-Young for her additional work, which has allowed us to consider matters this morning. We will move forward on that basis. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1958 seeks to extend aftercare for previously looked-after young people and remove the continuing care age gap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland. My eyesight is sometimes a little bit dodgy, but I thought that I spotted her joining us this morning, so I welcome her to the gallery.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, on the basis of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

Colleagues will recall that we last discussed this petition at our meeting on 19 April, when we heard evidence from the petitioner, Jasmin, and from representatives of Who Cares? Scotland, CELCIS, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and The Promise Scotland.

Members will also recall that, ahead of our previous consideration, there was an informal discussion with care-experienced individuals and their advocates. A note of that discussion has been published on the committee’s web page for the petition. During those evidence sessions, we heard about the importance of ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights, which seems to be a major concern, and, in particular, the consequences of individuals being removed from supervision orders before their 16th birthday. We also heard about the inconsistent application of existing support, both within local authorities and across the country, and the need to ensure that provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 are fully implemented.

We have all had time to reflect on the evidence that we heard, and I am pretty certain that, having done so, there is considerable additional work for us to consider. Are there any suggestions from the committee as to what we might do? At some stage down the line, I think that we will want to hear from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, but I wonder whether there is anything that we might think of doing in advance of that.

Alternatively, we could write to say that those are the issues that the committee will be particularly interested in focusing on. We can pull together the information and the committee’s concerns and flag up to the minister that we will seek to address those aspects when we take evidence from her directly.

Are we content to proceed on the basis that we will keep the petition open and invite the minister to join us at a future meeting—obviously, that will be after summer recess—at which we will take more detailed evidence on the petition and see what further progress we can make?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1960 was lodged by Edward Grice, who is also the protagonist of PE1961, which we will consider in a moment. The petition is lodged on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association and calls on the Scottish Government to formally recognise private hire cars and taxis as modes of public transport and to enshrine such recognition in law.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 7 December 2022, at which we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and Heads of Planning Scotland. We have since received responses from the CPT and the Scottish Government. It is noted in the meeting papers that Heads of Planning Scotland declined to provide a formal response, indicating that it would defer to the views of SCOTS on the matter. Unfortunately, a response from that organisation has not been forthcoming, so we are none the wiser.

The Scottish Government responded with information on the short-life working group, which was tasked with reviewing and updating the “Taxi and Private Hire Car Licensing: Best Practice for Licensing Authorities” document. We understand that the petitioner was a member of that working group, whose work has now concluded.

The CPT’s response states that it represents only the bus and coach sector and that there is no formal role for the taxi and private hire sector in its organisational structure, which really goes to the heart of the issue. It goes on to say that, although it is sympathetic to the petitioner’s concern that the sector is not being fully consulted on transport issues, it does not agree that classifying taxis and private hire vehicles as modes of public transport would help to achieve the Scottish Government’s stated desire to reduce car kilometres. I am inclined to ask: who is the Confederation of Passenger Transport?

The petitioner has responded to dispute the CPT’s interpretation of the term “private vehicle” and has drawn our attention to the taxi trade’s classification as public hire as well as to licensing provisions that can enable taxis and private hire cars to offer taxibus services. I am genuinely unsure who or what funds the CPT. Is it a Government agency? The CPT’s response, which is a politically provocative judgment that the petitioner’s aims cannot be accommodated because they contradict something for which the CPT does not have responsibility, is a bit striking. Do members have any suggestions?

I am inclined to agree. I wonder whether we could ask the Scottish Parliament information centre or someone to investigate the CPT. I would like to know who funds that body, because there may be a conflict of interest that has not been made obvious to us in the submission. Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are there any other thoughts?

We will ask the Scottish Government about that.

We will discern what that might lead to. We will check.

The final new petition that we will consider today is PE2015. The petition, which was lodged by Irene Krsmanovic, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the right to vote in Scottish local government and Scottish Parliament elections to all prisoners held in Scottish prisons.

On 4 May 2023, ministers laid a copy of the report on the review of the operation of section 5 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020. The report concludes by stating:

“The Scottish Government’s position remains that it is neither appropriate, nor necessary to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, to enfranchise all prisoners, but that the correct balance is found in extending voting rights to those prisoners serving shorter sentences.”

It states clearly:

“The Scottish Government does not plan to revisit the 12-month threshold for prisoner voting.”

That is a fairly express direction.

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed with the petition?