Chamber and committees

We will keep the petition open and seek to advance our consideration by obtaining that information.

That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting. We will next meet on 4 June, and we will now move into private session for the subsequent agenda items.

We thank the petitioner, but in light of the information that we have, we will close the petition at this time and hope that the work progresses.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. With just less than a year of the parliamentary session left, the committee’s ability to extend its work on petitions is now slightly more circumscribed, because, by the time we get responses, we could be short of time to fully consider them. We are considering petitions as sensibly as we can so that we can advance their aims as best we can. I hope that those who have lodged petitions will understand that.

Our first petition is PE2020, lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered to couples on the national health service for the chance to have a family. We last considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to Public Health Scotland and the national fertility group.

The national fertility group’s response highlighted that access to NHS in vitro fertilisation treatment in Scotland is the most generous in the United Kingdom and it noted that, in 2021, Scotland had the highest rate of NHS-funded IVF cycles in the UK at 58 per cent, compared to 30 per cent in Wales and just 24 per cent in England.

Last April, Public Health Scotland presented its modelling work, which aimed to increase understanding of the eligibility, demand and cost implications for changes to national access criteria for NHS fertility treatment, including IVF treatment and intrauterine insemination for single people.

The national fertility group’s submission stated that further work is still to be done in order to understand capacity implications. The group will then discuss the modelling implications and consider whether a change recommendation could be supported in the medium to long term.

There is quite a lot of work going on. In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

We could do two tightly focused pieces of work with a view to bringing the petition back sooner rather than later. We could ask the petitioner for their response and write a straightforward letter to the minister to draw their attention to the work that we have done and ask for an urgent ministerial response so that we can determine what more we can do with the petition. Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of possessions and furniture left in the property; and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

When we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. The minister’s response states:

“where a Non-Harassment Order ... is made by a civil court following an application by the person at risk, they will ... be notified of any application to revoke or vary the NHO and will be entitled to oppose the application in court.”

The response notes that, when an NHO has been made against an offender as part of their sentencing and they then apply to vary or revoke the order, they are required to serve a copy of the application upon anyone who is named in the NHO, including the victim. In such cases, it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to oppose the application.

The minister’s letter also informs us that, although the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service proactively seeks the views of the person at risk, it does not expressly impart those in open court in order to minimise safety risks to the victim. The minister states that a move from that approach might

“create opportunities for perpetrators to use the court process to further abuse the victim.”

In relation to progress on the implementation of part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, the minister highlights that work on that

“continues to take some time”

and that it has brought up new challenges but is on-going. The minister stated that she would look to provide a detailed update to the committee in the coming months but, in fact, no update has been provided since July last year.

On legal aid reform, the minister pointed to “The Vision for Justice in Scotland: Three Year Delivery Plan 2023/24 to 2025/26”, which provides for stakeholder engagement on future legislative proposals to reform the legal aid system. At the time when the minister wrote to the committee, it was intended that that work would commence “in early course”, but it is worth noting that the Scottish Government’s recently published legislative programme for 2025-26 does not include a proposed bill on legal aid reform and that stakeholder engagement is on-going.

In the light of all of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content to pursue the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I have the petitioner’s response before me, and he has indeed come back on each individual point. From our perspective—the code having just been reviewed by the First Minister and republished—it is not likely that there will be a further review at this time, but it may well be that, next session, circumstances could be different and that the issues could once again be worth considering by whoever holds the office at that point.

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.