Chamber and committees

I was looking for ways in which we might be able to do that, so I am content with that suggestion. Are colleagues content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner. In view of the responses received, that is the committee’s conclusion. However, should those reviews not lead to any improvement, a fresh petition could be raised in the next session of Parliament.

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE2136, on making non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone criminal offence in Scotland, has been lodged by Fiona Drouet.

We are joined in our consideration of this petition by our MSP colleague Tess White. Good morning, Ms White. I believe that you have been accompanied to the committee this morning by the petitioner, who is also in the gallery. Good morning. You will forgive me, but my eyesight is so bad that I have to assume that the petitioner is in the gallery.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone criminal offence in Scotland. The SPICe briefing notes that in 2023, a publication on the prevalence of strangulation and suffocation found that one in four women accessing community and refuge services reported they had experienced strangulation or suffocation.

Other jurisdictions have introduced a stand-alone offence for non-fatal strangulation in recent years. England and Wales created a stand-alone offence of strangulation or suffocation, which came into force in June 2022. Northern Ireland created a new offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation, which came into force on 26 June 2023. Ireland created the stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or non-fatal suffocation, which commenced on 1 November 2023.

The reason for introducing the stand-alone offence in all those countries has been noted as ensuring that perpetrators could be charged and prosecuted with a sufficiently serious offence, even in the absence of physical injuries.

The petitioner’s submission argues that Scotland must keep pace with those changes by introducing non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone criminal offence. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has responded to the petition. Her submission states that the Scottish Government

“will give serious consideration to the Petition”,

and emphasises the importance of understanding how any new law would interact with the offence of domestic abuse. Scottish Government officials will continue to progress considerations in the area, including through discussions with operational partners.

The petitioner’s written submission states that the act of non-fatal strangulation

“can cause brain damage, organ failure, long-term physical and mental health problems and increases the risk of strokes and neurological disorders.”

The petitioner argues that establishing non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone offence in Scotland

“will signal zero tolerance for such acts, ensure appropriate consequences for perpetrators, and enhance victim protection. It will also deter future harm and reinforce Scotland’s commitment to addressing domestic abuse.”

Colleagues may have seen a degree of press reporting over the weekend on issues similar to those raised by the petition.

Before I ask committee members for comments on what we might now do, I ask Tess White to offer her thoughts to the committee.

Exactly. Are we content to keep the petition open and to take forward its aims as suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Tess White. Having read through the papers and the detail that we received, I have to say that this was a practice of which I, too, was largely unaware. As you have said, when one is confronted with the detail, it seems that there really is a requirement for the Parliament to be proactive and for the Government to take a legislative lead, particularly in light of the fact that other Parliaments across these islands have already taken that step. It does not seem really adequate that Scotland should be trying to find difficulties where clear direction is required and, indeed, has been given by legislative moves and the legal framework elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

I do not know whether you feel similarly, colleagues, but are there any views as to how we might proceed? I think that we really need to be very direct in our questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, because I do not think that we will want to allow this to languish. Are there any suggestions as to what we might seek to clarify with the cabinet secretary?

So what would you like us to ask COSLA?

I see—okay. Are colleagues similarly minded?

We have had a couple of suggestions from Mr Choudhury and Mr Ewing. Are we content to keep the petition open and seek further clarification on the basis of what they have suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The last of our continuing petitions this morning is PE2087, lodged by Paul Irvine. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pass a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement. The petition was last considered at our meeting on 29 May 2024, when we agreed to write to COSLA, Police Scotland and the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it is proposing a requirement for

“each burial authority in Scotland to prepare and maintain a management plan which will apply to all the burial grounds for which the burial authority has responsibility ... Burial authorities will not be required to record their decision on dog access within the management plan, but they could choose to set out their position in the plan if they wish. Burial regulations will not create any new rules in relation to dogs. The decision on whether to permit dogs in burial grounds will remain at the discretion of each ... burial authority based on local factors.”

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed? I call Mr Golden, who is fresh back from Crufts.

Are you suggesting that, on this occasion, we close the petition based on the substantive responses that we have received?