Chamber and committees

Thank you very much.

If you watch one of those television dramas that reconstruct some great injustice that took place decades ago, it usually involves somebody going to a warehouse in the middle of nowhere and turning on a light bulb, and there are a whole lot of boxes that have fallen apart, containing paper records that belong to a bygone era. Is poor record keeping and evidence availability an issue in all claims of an historical nature that come before you? When the digital age arrived, a lot of people just put away everything that was historical. It was a long time before anybody thought that maybe we should be transcribing such records in a format that would make them available in the future. Is that a commonplace occurrence?

PE2089, which has been much anticipated by members of the committee, has been lodged by Deborah Carmichael on behalf of the Lochaber National Park—NO More group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend any action to create further national parks in Scotland; to instruct an independent review on the operation of the current national parks, including an assessment of the economic impacts on businesses and industries within the two parks including, but not exclusive to, farming, forestry, crofting and angling; and to conduct a consultation with representatives of rural businesses and community councils in order to help to frame the remit of the said independent review.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government noted that the appraisal phase for the new national park has concluded and that a report is due imminently this summer. It adds that it has consulted local communities throughout the process and that further consultation will take place when the new national park process moves on to its reporter phase. It also points to evidence that existing national parks support thriving local economies, help to manage millions of visitors and protect the natural environment for the benefit of current and future generations. That includes 25 projects across the Cairngorms national park and the £450 million that was generated in the local economy in 2022 through visitor and tourism businesses in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.

In response, the petitioner raised concerns that the Scottish Government appears not to have acknowledged the

“widespread and well-documented problems associated with the existing two national parks”,

and reiterates her call for an independent review of national parks to take place before a new park is created, especially given that no review has been conducted in the 21 years since the current national parks were created. The petitioner states that, in the current national park areas, landowners and farmers are increasingly concerned about overregulation and the needs of those who look after the land being dismissed.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Petition PE2032, which was lodged by James Brebner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that public bodies provide to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland through the following series of actions: ensuring that there are clear patient pathways for their injuries to be treated by appropriate consultants; establishing a veterans trauma network similar to that which operates in England and Wales; ensuring that all correspondence from veterans to the Scottish Government that raises concerns or makes complaints about their treatment is acknowledged and responded to; and reviewing and seeking an update to the way in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

We last considered the petition on 4 October, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community. As some members of the committee are members of that group, I will make a joint declaration on behalf of all members of the committee who might be in that position. I am, and I think that Mr Golden is. That is now out there.

We also agreed to write to the armed forces personnel and veterans health joint group, Veterans Scotland, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA, the armed forces charity—and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

In its response, the cross-party group, supported by Mr Golden, has highlighted the fact that the first ask of the petition has been delivered through the veterans welfare and defence transition service, while the establishment of a veterans trauma network similar to that which operates in England and Wales is also being progressed, and the Scottish veterans treatment pathway is expected to be introduced during the course of this year.

In line with the information that has been provided to the cross-party group, the armed forces personnel and veterans health joint group has confirmed that it has engaged extensively with NHS England on the matter and it anticipates that the treatment pathway will be delivered in 2024.

We have also received a response from the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman that notes that complainants are not required to disclose their veteran status. As that is the case, the low number of complaints from self-declared veterans is not enough for the SPSO to draw out any themes or conclusions about which services veterans might engage with. The ombudsman supports efforts to improve how complaints to or about public bodies are responded to across the board and notes that the SPSO has recently updated its own guidance on vulnerability.

The committee has also received a response from the Scottish Government, in which it stated that, during 2023, 75 per cent of the items that were classified as ministerial correspondence were responded to within 20 working days, and that efforts are under way to increase the proportion of correspondence that is responded to within that timeframe.

It is clear from what the cross-party group and the other organisations that have responded have said that work to deliver significant aspects of the aims of the petition is under way and they will, we hope, be delivered during this year. In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions?

That is correct. In that case, are you moving, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, that we close the petition?

Thank you. Are colleagues content to support Mr Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

One of the criteria that you identified was the issue of parental consent. In the absence of anything to demonstrate that there was parental consent—and in her report, Dr Fossey demonstrates that there does not appear to be—there is no evidence that parental consent was given. How do you determine that parental consent was given, in order not to apply the criterion of parental consent as being a legitimate reason for consideration?

Yes, I think that we probably can. In closing the petition, we will tell the minister that the committee expects everything to be on schedule, and that that is the basis on which we have chosen to close the petition.

That brings us to item 3 on the agenda, which is consideration of new petitions. Just for the record, because there may be people who are joining us here or are watching online to hear their petition considered for the first time, I will explain that, ahead of the committee’s first consideration of a petition, we take two initial actions: we ask the Scottish Government for an initial view and we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to comment on the aims of the petition.

You may ask why we do that. We do that because, previously, those were the two things that we would agree to do the first time we discussed the petition, and it simply delayed the petition’s progress. We consider a petition with members having received early indications from the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body.

As I have said previously, SPICe does tremendous work on behalf of the committee, given the enormously broad range of petitions that we hear.

Petition PE2083 is on reviewing the rules to ensure that no dog becomes more dangerous as a result of breed-specific regulations. The petition has been lodged by Katrina Gordon, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and ensure that breed-specific regulations do not restrict responsible dog owners from undertaking exercise and training routines that support the dog’s welfare and reduce the risk of their dog becoming dangerous.

The petitioner tells us that an XL bully dog requires two hours of outdoor exercise a day, including being able to run off its lead, in order for the dog to be well adjusted and remain under its owner’s control. It is the petitioner’s view that recently introduced rules requiring XL bully dogs to be on a lead and muzzled while in public spaces risks making those dogs more dangerous.

The SPICe briefing draws our attention to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity’s announcement during the stage 1 debate on the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, of the Government’s intention to hold a responsible dog ownership and control summit later this month. The briefing also notes that one of the criticisms of the new restrictions is that they do nothing to address the issue of dog attacks that take place in private spaces—a point that Christine Grahame MSP raised during the Criminal Justice Committee’s consideration of the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and the motion to annul the order.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it

“understands the concerns expressed by dog owners about the impact that the new controls may have on their dogs.”

It goes on to say:

“There is however a balance to be struck between protecting animal welfare and protecting public safety.”

It is the Government’s view that allowing an owner

“to exercise their dog in a public place while off lead and without a muzzle would be counterproductive to the aim”

of the regulations

“and would create too great a risk to the public.”

We have also received two further submissions from the petitioner, sharing her own experience and wider research on the negative impacts that the restrictions have on the welfare of dogs and, indeed, their owners, potentially making the dogs more dangerous. She notes again that the rules may have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of dog attacks in people’s homes and gardens. The petitioner has repeated her call for the rules to be repealed.

Obviously, this is an issue that is very much in the public eye. It is also an issue around which there is some court action, which means that we are unable to discuss any specific individual cases. However, are there any suggestions about how we might proceed?

I draw members’ attention to the fact that we have been provided with a late submission from Universities Scotland, in which it confirms that it is taking forward that work. Therefore, we have a clear steer that the aims of the petition are probably now being realised through the action that is being taken. I forgot that we had that submission. Does that satisfy your requirement, Mr Choudhury?