Chamber and committees

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.

My experience is the same—I am not sure. At some stage, as virtual events become more commonplace, it might be useful for us, beyond the context of this discussion, to understand the material impact on the management and control of the outcome of the discussions.

Thank you for that, Mr Whittle. Minister, do you and your colleagues want to pick up on that point? Given that our formal questioning has finished, we would also be happy to hear any concluding remarks that you want to make.

Thank you. I wonder whether we might also write to some of the bodies that represent victims and survivors, just to call in aid to the argument and to get some understanding of their views on widening the eligibility criteria. They must be aware of the particular circumstances of the groups that are falling through the net, and might be able to identify others that they would say are in a similar situation. Do we agree to write to those bodies, together with the suggestions that have already been made?

Members indicated agreement.