Chamber and committees

Curiously, while I was skimming through YouTube in my insomnia, quite by chance I came across film of fishing communities across the west coast and elsewhere in Scotland, and I was struck by how coastal life has changed in the past three decades, following the disappearance of so many of the fishing vessels that used to be the lifeblood of those communities. We talk about that, but it is striking when you actually see images that show how much has gone and that what remains does so under pressure from the regulation that Mr Ewing correctly identifies as still being in place and presenting such difficulties for those communities.

Notwithstanding that, Mr Torrance has made a suggestion based on the fact that the aims of the petition have been achieved. Are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE2081, which was lodged by Professor Jeremy Hughes on behalf of Kidney Research UK in Scotland, and it calls on us to do exactly what it says on the tin, which is to urge the Scottish Government to make chronic kidney disease a key clinical priority.

When we previously considered the petition, on 15 May 2024, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to seek further clarity on the Scottish Government’s approach to the designation of clinical priorities. We have received a response from the cabinet secretary that states that the Scottish Government does not have a list of conditions that are clinical priorities and that there are, therefore, no criteria for the designation of clinical priorities.

The cabinet secretary goes on to say that,

“even ... where there is no specific policy or strategy”

for an individual condition,

“the Scottish Government is still undertaking work to support all people living with long-term conditions to access the best possible care and support”.

That includes, for example, a

“national policy on the reimbursement of electricity costs for home dialysis”.

It is the Scottish Government’s view that publishing more strategies for individual health conditions would not be the most effective way to improve care.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. The first responds to the cabinet secretary’s letter and draws our attention to the existence of a clinical priorities team in the civil service with staff aligned to particular clinical conditions.

The petitioner’s second submission provides an update on the work that Kidney Research UK has been doing to improve awareness, prevention, early detection, treatment and monitoring of chronic kidney disease in Scotland. That includes the launch of an action plan for Scotland and efforts to work constructively with the national health service and Government bodies to improve the lives of people with chronic kidney disease.

The petitioner remains concerned that there is no named civil servant to help to oversee and support the changes that are proposed in Kidney Research UK’s action plan, and he has invited the cabinet secretary to intervene directly in the matter by attending a summit on chronic kidney disease. This is the first time that such an event has been convened in Scotland.

Those are two significant contributions from the petitioner in response to the cabinet secretary. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE1989, lodged by Mary Montague, is the first of two petitions concerning defibrillator provision that the committee is considering this morning. I declare an interest in that Mary Montague is the provost of East Renfrewshire Council, which is the presiding local authority in which my Eastwood constituency sits. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces.

We last considered the petition on 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. The minister’s response highlights the Scottish Government’s participation in the Save a Life for Scotland partnership and the increase in defibrillator deployment by the public in recent years. The minister also points to a number of relevant factors that go beyond the availability of defibrillators, such as optimal placement, accessibility of the equipment and bystander confidence to use defibrillators.

The committee pressed the minister on engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding defibrillator provision through the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Scottish Government’s response explains that there is a lack of strong evidence for the effectiveness of legislation to mandate defibrillators in designated places and that, as such, the Scottish Government is focusing efforts on its established approach to improving survival rates.

The committee will recall that we were a bit concerned about the Scottish Government’s response. Defibrillators are now being provided everywhere else in the United Kingdom. I think that I recall that a Barnett consequential had even been provided in respect of that. I cannot remember whether that is correct, but that is my vague recollection. Nonetheless, it appears that Scotland is taking a unique position by not progressing provision, and I do not think that the committee was entirely convinced by that approach. Do colleagues have suggestions for how we might proceed?

I thank all those who might be watching to see how we followed up the round-table discussion on PE2034. From my perspective, that was one of our most productive round-table discussions, because of the really useful information that our witnesses were able to bring.

The next petition is PE2034, which was lodged by Stuart Chirnside and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt its current proposals for highly protected marine areas—HPMAs—in Scotland and to bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods.

We previously considered the petition at a meeting almost a year ago, on 29 May 2024, when we agreed to write to our friends at NatureScot, seeking clarification on whether it is undertaking any work related to highly protected marine areas. NatureScot responded to confirm that it is not progressing any work related to highly protected marine areas, in line with the Scottish Government’s announcement that it will not progress with the proposals.

In the light of that, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I think that illuminating some of the alleged ways forward with evidence of incidents would be quite helpful in enabling the committee to understand whether such things have actually ever occurred.

I thank you again for your comments, Mr Ewing. Are members content to keep the petition open and to pursue the matter further in the way that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. That is all duly noted.

Mr Torrance’s recommendation is that we keep the petition open and pursue the issues as he has directed, which Mr Ewing has fleshed out. Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, of which we have only one this morning. I highlight—as I always do—that, in advance of the committee considering new petitions, we do two things. First, we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to offer us a view on the issues that have been raised in the petition. That information is submitted to members of the committee in advance, with the papers that we receive. We also invite the Scottish Government to give us a preliminary view. We do those two things because, historically, they were the first two things that the committee used to recommend doing, which only delayed the progress and consideration of the petition. So, we come to the petition with those bits of information in front of us.

PE2147, lodged by Laura Jones on behalf of the Scottish Tenants Organisation, seeks to create more women-only homeless accommodation that protects and meets the specific needs of women. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform homeless services in Scotland, and to ensure that services protect women from sexual assault and exploitation, by increasing funding and supporting the creation of more women-only homeless accommodation.

The petitioner tells us that increasing numbers of women are being placed in unsuitable hotel and bed-and-breakfast emergency accommodation, with little consideration for the specific challenges and risks that that poses for women. The petitioner is concerned in particular about the risk of sexual assault and exploitation that women face when placed in temporary emergency accommodation.

As the SPICe briefing notes, although local authorities have a duty to assess anyone in their area who is applying as homeless and to provide temporary accommodation in certain circumstances, the Scottish Government has a policy to reduce the use of temporary accommodation. The briefing also highlights Scottish Government homelessness statistics for the period between April and September 2024, which indicate that hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation accounted for 24 per cent of temporary homeless accommodation.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government recognises that women’s experiences of homelessness are very different to men’s experiences, and the response to women’s housing needs should therefore also be different. The response draws our attention to the temporary accommodation standards framework, which was published in April 2023 and aims

“to ensure that any time spent in temporary accommodation causes minimal harm.”

To achieve that, it aims to ensure that the accommodation is of good quality, safe, warm and affordable, and that standards are consistent across Scotland. The framework includes standards on support to access different types of accommodation, which are allocated based on gender, and provision of single-gender accommodation for households that are experiencing domestic abuse. The Scottish Government response also references the implementation of the equally safe strategy, which is aimed at preventing violence against women and girls and supporting survivors who have experienced such abuse. In the year ahead, the Government will invest £21.6 million in delivering the equally safe funding programme.

Members will also have noted from our papers that issues related to the petition have been raised as part of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and the Social Justice and Social Security Committee’s inquiry on financial considerations when leaving an abusive relationship.

This is the first time that we have considered the petition and I can see that we are joined in the gallery by those who might have an interest in it. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I felt, in reading the Scottish Sentencing Council’s submission, that it had about it a terrible whiff of, “How can we get rid of this annoying inquiry by not really responding to it and doing so in the shortest possible way?” I did not feel that it was an adequate response whatsoever. It may not be possible to summarise matters, as the SSC suggests, but I think that it could have gone a little further in giving some examples that it may be aware of from its own experience in order to illuminate the issue further for the committee. I do not think that the SSC’s response did the committee’s inquiry justice at all. I am, therefore, very much of the view that Mr Ewing’s suggestions have merit.

Do colleagues wish to add anything, or are we content to keep the petition open and pursue these matters with the Government and in particular with the Lord Advocate and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs?

We come to PE2102, which is our final continued petition this morning. The petition was lodged by Anna-Cristina Seaver and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the option of an absolute discharge in cases in which the accused is found guilty of rape or sexual assault, and to introduce a statutory minimum sentence for those offences, including the convicted person being registered as a sex offender.

We previously considered the petition on 25 September 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Victim Support Scotland, Rape Crisis Scotland and the Scottish Sentencing Council. The Scottish Government’s response states that it supports discretion for the criminal court when sentencing in individual cases, including imposing an absolute discharge for rape and sexual assault, if the judge considers that to be appropriate. The submission states that the Scottish Government does not have any current plans to adjust the powers of the court to impose absolute discharges in criminal cases.

The committee asked the Scottish Sentencing Council for details on circumstances in which an absolute discharge might be given; we were curious to understand why that would happen if someone had been found guilty of rape or sexual assault. Its response states that, as each case is unique and turns on its own facts and circumstances, it is not possible for the council to be more specific about what exceptional circumstances might amount to in respect of any offence, which does not advance us terribly much.

Victim Support Scotland supports the aims of the petition and states in its response that there is no evidence to support a view that there are cases sufficiently exceptional to warrant an absolute discharge for sexual crimes. Given the seriousness of rape and sexual assault, Victim Support Scotland believes that there should always be some form of punishment and safeguarding for the public as the result of a guilty verdict. Its submission states that abolishing the absolute discharge for sexual crimes would validate the experience of survivors, show a clear outcome from the trial and demonstrate that justice has been carried out.

Rape Crisis Scotland’s response states that it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which an absolute discharge would be appropriate for a crime as serious as rape.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you. As there are no other comments or observations, are we content to support Mr Golden’s proposed action?

Members indicated agreement.