Chamber and committees

PE1916, which was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which seeks to provide a permanent solution for the route.

When we last considered the petition—which was quite some time ago, on 20 April—we agreed to write to Transport Scotland. We have received a response from the Minister for Transport that indicates that five possible route options are currently being assessed, with Transport Scotland expected to make an announcement on a preferred option for a permanent solution by spring 2023. We have also received a response from the petitioners, who have restated their call for a public inquiry and highlighted their concerns around the costs of finding a permanent solution for the Rest and Be Thankful.

Obviously, there are huge issues attendant upon a public inquiry, not all of which are necessarily going to see us make the progress that we might wish. Do colleagues have any suggestions to make on the petition?

That is very helpful.

Is there a general way in which the circumstances of those prosecutions arose?

Just out of interest, and following on from Marie McNair’s question, what was the experience in relation to that risk assessment?

I should say that, wearing another hat, I know that there are currently 19 members’ bills in the system, which is a record number at this stage in a parliamentary session. We are already probably at the point at which it is unlikely that any further members’ bills have much prospect of success before 2026, which is quite alarming.

We will reflect on these matters further in subsequent meetings, and the committee might agree now that we should write to one or two organisations to find out a bit more about the experience in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We are coming to a conclusion—we have gone on a bit longer than planned, but it has been an interesting discussion. Is there anything that any of you want to add? Is there anything that we have overlooked in our conversation?

I see that there is not. In which case, thank you all very much. This discussion has been hugely valuable to us in our consideration of the petition and we are grateful to you for giving us your time.

Colleagues, are we content to consider the evidence afresh at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

We will suspend the meeting briefly.

Are colleagues content for the clerks to summarise the evidence that we have heard from the various parties and bring forward some recommendations that have arisen from the conversations that we have had? We can have a look at that summary at a future meeting, ahead of submitting it by way of a formal representation to the Scottish Government and to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Does that meet with the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1837, which was lodged by Stephen Leighton, is on providing clear direction and investment for autism support. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder can access support, and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 4 May, when we agreed to follow up with the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care on a number of points that were raised during our evidence session. In response, the minister has detailed a range of on-going work to support and invest in people with autism.

I am pleased to say that the petitioner has said that he is satisfied with the outcome of the minister’s response. He states that the letter is

“a safety net that ensures all autistic people in Scotland have the legal right to at least an assessment of their needs”.

As the petitioner is satisfied, he has requested that we close his petition, and he has thanked the committee for its hard work on the matter. I thank Mr Leighton for bringing the petition to the committee. We are pleased to read positive reflections about his experience of engaging with us on the matter, and I am delighted that the petition has led to a successful outcome.

With the committee’s agreement, therefore, we will close the petition. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. PE1887, on the creation of an unborn victims of violence act, was submitted by Nicola Murray, from whom we took evidence when we last considered the petition. Originally, we hoped to convene this further evidence-taking session at our first meeting after the summer recess, but it proved too difficult to get everybody together at the appropriate time. It is a little bit later than scheduled, but we are now able to consider the petition again.

The petition urges the Scottish Government to introduce an unborn victims of violence act, which would create a specific offence to enable courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

We are joined this morning by Dr Mary Neal from the University of Strathclyde, Steven Tidy from Victim Support Scotland and Dr Marsha Scott from Scottish Women’s Aid. I thank you all for coming to speak to us today. Members have a number of issues that they would like to explore so, if you are quite happy, we will move to the first question. Please indicate when you wish to speak and I will come to you in turn.

We had a really compelling evidence-taking session with the petitioner. There is quite a bit of evidence that we still need to take but, as a general introductory question, will our three guests give us their views on the evidence on the level and impact of domestic abuse during pregnancy? Would anyone like to indicate their general feelings on that matter?