Chamber and committees

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm developments.

Following the committee’s evidence session with the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth, we followed up with the minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport on a number of points. The minister stated in his recent submission that local place plans have no role in encouraging shared community ownership through planning systems due to existing restrictions. However, planning authorities may be able to direct renewable energy businesses towards information about any known community aspirations for CSO. The minister has stated again that the Scottish Government has no powers to mandate CSO and highlights existing support for communities that are considering CSO opportunities.

The petitioner’s recent submission reiterates her suggestion that CSO could be mandated through raising a new tax, which would require all developers who do not own the lands to make a CSO offer in line with the good practice principles. An upcoming review of good practice principles has been highlighted by the cabinet secretary, who stated that a consultation on the draft guidance is planned for this year, and that the Scottish Government intends to build any relevant lessons from the petition into future updates to the equivalent guidance for onshore renewables.

In the light of that potential, there seems to be some progress. Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments on what we might do next?

I think that Mr Torrance has been gazumped. Thank you very much for that, Mr Ewing. I think that the committee should take forward both those points, which were passionately and coherently argued. We will return to the minister to seek clarification, using the context of the submission that we have received, which appears to be quite detailed in respect of the petitioner’s contradictory view.

Secondly, as Mr Ewing suggests, it would be good for us to ask the SNIB whether it plans to make money available and, if not, why not. Obviously, that would facilitate the kind of progress that the petitioner is looking for and, as Mr Ewing says, it ought to be within reach and achievable.

In some ways, if not in others.

Are we agreed with our colleague’s suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to petition PE1907, which was lodged by Claire Beats. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds, removing eligibility criteria for access to services.

We last considered this petition on 26 October. At that point, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking information on the anticipated timescales for expanding early learning and childcare provision to one and two-year-olds.

The committee has now received a response from the Scottish Government, which highlights the publication of “Best Start: Strategic early learning and school age childcare plan 2022 to 2026”. The plan sets out the Government’s priorities over the current session of Parliament and indicates that phase 1 of its commitment to develop a new offer of early learning and childcare for one and two-year-olds is under way, and that the findings from the first phase of the programme can be expected from 2023-24 onwards.

In light of the Scottish Government setting out that timetable, which appears to respond to the arguments in the petition, David Torrance has a comment.

That brings us to PE1920, which was lodged by Laura Hastings. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide more thorough follow-up care for women with diabetes.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 23 February 2022—it is quite fresh in my mind, so I am surprised that that was so long ago. We put on record our apologies to the petitioner for not returning to the petition before now. At that meeting, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish diabetes group and relevant stakeholders to ask whether they are satisfied with the measures that the Scottish Government has taken in women’s health and diabetic health.

The committee has now received a response from the chair of the Scottish diabetes group. The response highlights the national diabetes dataset, known as Scottish Care Information-Diabetes, or SCI-Diabetes, which has been used to inform the work of the NHS Research Scotland diabetes epidemiology group on the impact of inequalities in diabetes care.

The response recognises the significant impact that menstruation and menopause can have on diabetes control, as well as the increased risk of cardiovascular disease for women with diabetes. The chair of the Scottish diabetes group also indicates that the women’s health plan will be discussed at Scottish diabetes group and national diabetes managed clinical network meetings to ensure widespread awareness of the policy.

The committee also wrote to Diabetes Scotland to seek its view on the issues raised in the petition. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, a response has not been forthcoming.

In view of the responses that we have received from the Scottish diabetes group and the Scottish Government, are there any suggestions that colleagues would like to make?

Thank you. If colleagues have no comments, are they content to proceed?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move to new petitions. As I normally caveat when we discuss new petitions, before the committee considers a new petition, we send the petition to the Scottish Government and request an initial view in relation to the objectives of the petition, simply so that we do not spend the first meeting agreeing to do that, which would only delay our progress and consideration.

The first new petition that we will consider is PE1968, which was lodged by Angela Evans and is on restricting the ability of perpetrators of domestic abuse to use family court proceedings to continue tormenting their victims. The petition 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.

Angela tells us that mothers and their children are being let down by the family court system, which has granted contact orders to perpetrators of domestic abuse. In her view, that forces victims of abuse, who can include the child or children, to spend time with someone who has abused them, potentially putting them at further risk.

As I said a moment ago, and as we do with all new petitions, the committee has sought an initial response from the Scottish Government. The Government states that there is no place for domestic abuse in Scotland but suggests that removing the ability of perpetrators of domestic abuse to apply for contact orders might raise questions about access to justice.

I should note that the Scottish Government response and the briefing that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre both highlight that applications to the court for contact orders are made under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, rather than the 2020 act that is referred to in the petition.

The Scottish Government’s response also notes that changes to section 11 of the 1995 act have recognised the impact of domestic abuse. There are also provisions contained in the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 that have yet to be implemented and which relate to matters such as the appointment of a child welfare reporter to gather the views of the child and report on the child’s best interests, and the use of special measures to help protect vulnerable witnesses and parties when family cases are considered. Information in the SPICe briefing suggests that it may be 2024 before those provisions are implemented, or the new systems of regulation become operational, which hardly seems ideal.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I understand the point that you are making. As I said, I have some direct experience.

You said that you received the treatment in November. This is the contradiction that I want to try to understand: given the reservations that have been expressed by some jurisdictions about the treatment’s effectiveness, has it given you confidence to act in a more complete way? I think that you said, “Even if it gives me 10 per cent additional benefit, that is 10 per cent additional benefit that I did not have”. Is it the case that, although it might not give the sense of full and complete security that vaccination might give to other people, it nonetheless advances confidence among people who cannot have the vaccines but who could take Evusheld? Is it essentially that? On the back of taking it, have you felt more confident about acting in a way that is consistent with how you operated before?

I thank both of you for being with us this morning. The committee very much appreciates the personal circumstance of both of you individually, which, unfortunately, is a variation on a theme that is extraordinarily difficult.

What you have told us has been very helpful. We will give urgent consideration to what, if anything, we can do that might be useful and will act accordingly, but thank you very much for giving evidence to us to allow us to consider the petition further.

Colleagues, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard later in private?

Members indicated agreement.

I suspend the meeting.