Chamber and committees

Colleagues, are we so minded?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE1885, was lodged by Karen Murphy. It calls on the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all proposals for wind farm development.

We considered this petition, too, on 15 June. During the evidence session, the committee raised the importance of community shared ownership as a method of raising funds at local level for people and their communities. The committee questioned whether the minister had engaged with the UK Government—these are issues again that Paul Sweeney has just raised—to seek approval for amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 so that it can mandate community shared ownership. The minister indicated that such conversations had not taken place in relation to community energy. We have also had a recent submission from the petitioner reiterating her view that raising a land tax could be a route to mandate community shared ownership.

I am happy to suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth to follow up on those outstanding issues and, again, to raise the issue of any recent discussions that the Scottish Government may have had with the UK Government in relation to the issues that are raised in the petition. I am happy to ask the minister what role he thinks that local place plans and early community engagement in the planning process can play. I am also happy that we ask the minister for his views on the petitioner’s suggestion that developers must offer and secure 15 per cent community shared ownership investment. Are there any further suggestions from the committee? I think Fergus Ewing wants to come in.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1930—1, 9, 3, 0: we are getting to my mother’s age, now. It has been lodged by George Eckton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers, as a matter of course, be given information on the cheapest possible fare, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering the same.

Members will be aware that our predecessor committee considered a similar petition from Mr Eckton in the previous session. That petition was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had committed to introducing an obligation on the operator to provide customers with clear and straightforward information on all fare options, including identification of the cheapest possible fare.

In his written submission accompanying the petition, Mr Eckton highlights that the previous commitment that was made by the Scottish Government is yet to be fulfilled. He has suggested that, because ScotRail is now in public ownership and is the property of the Scottish Government, it should be subject to the consumer duty. Mr Eckton has also suggested amending the price promise guarantee, to further assist passengers in accessing the lowest possible fare for their journey.

I wonder whether colleagues have, having balanced and considered the evidence, any suggestions for action or comments. Paul Sweeney looks like he is bursting to step forward with a suggestion, although I might have misread his signs.

We can do that, too. Thank you very much. We agree to those suggestions.

PE1934 is on developing an education resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. It has been lodged by Craig Scoular on behalf of Greenfaulds high school rights and equalities committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop such an educational resource. The resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help them to create a safer society for women.

Statistics on gender-based violence are included in the petition background information. The petitioner states that

“educating our children will end any existing cycles of gender-based violence and prevent any new ones from starting.”

The Scottish Government’s response outlines existing resources and guidance that are relevant to the subject of the petition. They include learning about topics including, in primary school, gender-biased expectations, up to learning about sexual harassment and feminism in high school. It also states that the gender-based violence in schools working group will review existing resources, identify effective practice examples and develop new resources.

Based on the evidence that we have received on this important petition, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Shall we write to COSLA in the first instance?

Members indicated agreement.

In your case, you felt that the value of your lost child was quantified at £300, and that did not seem to you to represent a fair or just outcome.

The last of our continued petitions this morning is PE1917, which was lodged by Amy Stevenson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide full legal aid to all parents who are fighting for access to their child or children, regardless of income.

When we last considered the petition, on 18 May 2022, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, seeking more information on the review of the legal aid system and on its plans for a provisional timetable for bringing forward the Legal Aid Reform (Scotland) Bill. Since then, we have received a response from the Scottish Government, which was included in our meeting papers for this morning. Do members have any suggestions about how we might respond accordingly?

PE1935 is to urge the Scottish Government to create a committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the ministerial code. The petition has been lodged by Dillon Crawford.

The petitioner considers that a committee of non-MSPs would be able to act independently because they would not be affiliated to a party. The Scottish Government’s submission details the process by which ministers are held to account. Ministers are bound by the Scottish ministerial code, and a group of independent advisers currently exists to provide the First Minister with advice on which to base judgments in relation to conduct.

I think that PE1935 is an interesting petition. It is obviously motivated by current events. I wonder whether, in the first instance, we might invite the Scottish Parliament information centre to do a little bit of further work on how the various Parliaments within the UK currently process and deal with such business. I do not know where the Scottish system fits in with the systems in Northern Ireland, Wales or the rest of the UK, and I think that the petitioner and the public probably feel that there is a slight lack of transparency about how the arrangements have arisen. It would be useful for us at least to pull that work together and look at it as we consider the petition further.

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 12th meeting—in 2022, for the avoidance of doubt—of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our first agenda item is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic abuse that causes a miscarriage.

We are joined by Nicola Murray and her mother, Julie Ruzgar. I am delighted that you have come and are with us. The committee does not routinely hear from petitioners now because of the volume of petitions that we receive. However, we thought that it would be helpful in this particular instance to give Nicola Murray an opportunity to speak to the committee about why her petition is important. We will also be holding a round-table session on the petition. We had hoped that that might take place later today, but the availability of other parties who want to participate in the session is such that it will take place in our first meeting after the summer recess.

Today, we will hear evidence from Nicola Murray and then we will continue the petition, to allow us to have a round-table discussion at the beginning of September. We are grateful to Nicola and her mother for travelling to the Parliament. Before we move on to explore the issue further—obviously, we have considered it previously and have read the various submissions—the committee would like to give you a few moments to say anything that you might like to say, whether prepared or spontaneous, by way of an introduction.