Chamber and committees

The next petition, PE1947, lodged by Alex O’Kane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 26 October, when we agreed to engage with communities and families that have been directly affected by the issues raised in the petition. The committee also agreed to write to the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, whose written response states that the primary prevention of violence is the most effective and cost-efficient form of prevention. It highlights work by YouthLink Scotland, which found the social return on investment in youth services to be at least three to one, with a note that that work is a fundamental part of any form of violence prevention work. It points to a survey of young people in England and Wales that suggested that one in seven young people had experienced some form of violence, including threats, bullying and low-level violence.

Members will be aware that, last month, members of the committee met an Edinburgh-based youth group, 6VT, and visited Milton in Glasgow to meet the petitioner and families with direct experience of the issues that are raised in the petition. We were joined on that occasion by our parliamentary colleague Bob Doris. It was one of the most engaging, courageous, moving and disturbing exchanges that those of us present have had with members of the public, who, along with their young people who had been the victims of violence, placed their faith in the hands of the committee and gave us visceral descriptions of the experiences that they had endured. I again thank all those who were prepared to do that. Obviously, and clearly, we uncovered a number of issues. Coincidentally, there was a debate in the chamber that same week, and I was able to make some general reference to the experiences that we had heard about on our visit.

This is an issue on which I feel that, given the faith that was placed in us, we are honour bound to take further action. Alexander Stewart, you were also with me on the visit. Would you like to add something?

I should qualify what I said earlier by pointing out that, although we met in Milton, some of the people whom we met had travelled from as far as Cupar in Fife to participate in the discussion. There was a local group that we had hoped to meet that day but, sadly, due to unforeseen circumstances, we were not able to meet. One of the things that I might reflect on with the clerks, if the committee is happy for me to do so, is who might be the most representative body of people that we can bring round the table.

Are members content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

For the reasons that Mr Stewart has outlined, we thank the petitioner, but we will close the petition.

Are there any other suggestions?

Our next petition, PE2019, which was lodged by Alan McLeod, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent all owners of self-catering holiday accommodation from obtaining rates relief under the small business bonus scheme.

The Scottish Government highlighted that reforms to the scheme were announced in the Scottish budget, aiming to make it the most generous scheme in the UK. Those reforms took effect from 1 April this year and provide 100 per cent relief for properties with a cumulative rateable value of up to £12,000, and the upper rateable value for individual properties to qualify for relief was extended from £18,000 to £20,000.

A consultation on council tax for second and empty homes has been published. It seeks views on the current thresholds for properties to be classified as self-catering accommodation and liable for non-domestic rates. It invites comments on the non-domestic rates system for such properties.

Do members have any comments?

I would be content if we did that on the basis that we would be asking the Scottish Government whether it will consider taking into account the petitioner’s call for action in that regard—I would not want to give the impression that the committee had taken evidence that led us to advocate that course of action. With that qualification, does that meet with the agreement of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE2020, which was lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered to couples on the NHS for the chance to have a family.

The SPICe briefing explains that, currently, the eligibility criteria for NHS-funded fertility treatment in Scotland apply only to couples and do not mention the eligibility of single women. The eligibility criteria for NHS-funded fertility treatment in Scotland were last reviewed in 2016, based on recommendations from the national infertility group. The focus of NHS-funded treatment is on treating infertility as a medical condition. In contrast, other parts of the UK, such as England, have allowed single women to receive NHS-funded fertility treatment if they are infertile.

The Scottish Government’s submission notes that access criteria for NHS in vitro fertilisation—IVF—treatment in Scotland are determined at a national level, and discussions regarding potential changes to those criteria are conducted by the national fertility group, which consists of experts from various organisations and considers clinical research, evidence and data in order to make recommendations to Scottish ministers.

The submission states that Public Health Scotland is working on collaborative modelling techniques to assess the capacity implications of expanding access to NHS IVF treatment for single individuals. That topic will be discussed at a future meeting of the group. However, specific timescales for the modelling and subsequent discussion are not yet available.

In the light of that interesting information, including information about comparators, do members have any suggestions for action?

PE1978, which was lodged by Cristina Rosique-Esplugas, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow raw drinking milk to be sold in Scotland, bringing it in line with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to allow farmers the opportunity to sell unpasteurised drinking milk. We last considered the petition on 18 January, when we agreed to write to the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland, the NFU Scotland and Dairy UK.

We wrote to those organisations, partly on the recommendation of Mr Sweeney, who was a member of the committee at the time, and of Mr Ewing, because we wanted to understand why there was a difference in policy. We have now received responses from the organisations, with Dairy UK agreeing with Food Standards Scotland’s view that raw drinking milk has posed a significant risk to the public in the past. Dairy UK also believes that compulsory pasteurisation has helped to protect consumers in Scotland and should continue to be in place. NFU Scotland shares that view, believing that the risks of selling raw milk significantly outweigh the benefits.

Food Standards Scotland’s response provides information on the decision that was taken in 2006 to retain the ban on the sale of raw cows’ milk and to extend it to other species, which was based on widespread support from industry, enforcers and public health bodies. Food Standards Scotland highlights that, although raw drinking milk is available in other UK nations, bans and restrictions on the sale of those products are in place in several European Union nations, as well as in several states in the United States of America.

The Food Standards Agency has provided information on the restrictions that apply to the sale of raw cows’ milk in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; it also shares details of the policy review that was conducted in 2018, which looked at the current controls and made recommendations for enhanced controls. That led to the industry guidance that was published in 2020, which reinforces the advice that raw drinking milk might contain harmful bacteria. The Food Standards Agency notes that it has regular productive meetings with the Raw Milk Producers Association.

The committee has also received a submission from the petitioner, which suggests that the information that was provided by Food Standards Scotland and others might not present a complete picture of the level of risk that is posed by unpasteurised milk products. The petitioner highlights information from a senior researcher at Utrecht University, which argues that inappropriate evidence has been used to affirm that raw milk is a high-risk food.

At the time, we very much sought views without an expectation that a change in policy would be likely. If we had hoped to understand why the policy in Scotland is different to that of the rest of the UK, I do not think that any of the responses that we have received identifies that. However, they are all unequivocal in their determination that we have the right policy in place and that it should remain in place. It is to that point that the Scottish Government has responded.

I should also seek the committee’s guidance in that we have received an unsolicited additional submission, and, under our new policy, we have to determine whether, by exception, to accept it. I thank the submissioner for the submission, but I do not know that it adds materially to the evidence that we have been considering, so I am inclined to suggest that we do not accept the additional submission on this occasion.

Mr Torrance, you look as though you are ready to offer a comment.

Our next petition, PE1983, which was lodged by Daniel Osula, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system by ensuring that clear information is provided to members of the public about how their case will be considered and that information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff.

We last considered the petition on 8 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to ask what steps it takes to ensure that procedural rules and practices of the courts and their complaints procedures are transparent and accessible to members of the public. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has provided a submission that notes that, although every court case involves different parties, facts and circumstances, information on the common procedures and rules that are used in a broad range of cases is made available. That includes an overview on the SCTS website of the most commonly used court processes, with SCTS staff available to provide procedural advice to people who are engaged in court or tribunal actions. It is, however, noted that staff

“must remain ... impartial in relation to the merits of each case”

and

“are unable to provide legal advice”.

The response also provides information on the SCTS complaints procedure, which is based on the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman’s model complaints handling procedure. The SCTS highlights that, as part of the steps that are taken to achieve customer service excellence accreditations, details including what service users should expect when accessing SCTS services are displayed on its website and in SCTS locations.

In the light of the responses that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?