Chamber and committees

Our next petition, PE2025, was lodged by Bernadette Foley. Forgive me, colleagues, but there is quite a long follow-up, given the amount of information that we have received.

The petition 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 that access is available to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; that victims are financially compensated for the loss of the marital home, including the loss of personal possessions and furniture that were left in the property; and that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

We previously considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Government. Members will have noted that we have received responses from all those organisations.

The Scottish Law Commission told us that, although its “Aspects of family law” project does not extend to divorce law or legal aid, it will consider whether and how survivors of domestic abuse might be able to obtain remedies against perpetrators, including for the loss of property. The commission is also reviewing the efficacy of non-harassment orders.

The Law Society of Scotland suggested that making legal aid automatically available to anyone who has made an allegation of domestic abuse could potentially open up the scheme to misuse. It also indicated its support for a victim being heard prior to any decision being taken to vary or revoke a non-harassment order, and it highlighted that that should happen automatically in a civil context, as the order would normally have been sought by the victim.

In its response, the Scottish Government noted that, in addition to an implementation board, an operational working group has been established to work through the detail of how the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 could operate. It also noted that there are several challenges to be addressed in implementing part 1 of the act, which gives Police Scotland powers to issue a domestic abuse protection notice and to apply to civil courts for a domestic abuse protection order.

In their responses, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and Scottish Women’s Aid indicate their support for the aims of the petition and draw our attention to the increase in the number of victims who self-represent due to the lack of available legal aid. Members may recall from previous consideration of petitions related to legal aid that the Government indicated its intention to introduce a legal aid reform bill during this parliamentary session, but we have not yet seen such a bill.

Do members have any suggestions for action?

We should make that last point in particular, because the Parliament is running out of time to progress any such bill. Are colleagues content with that suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

To be clear, are we inviting the Scottish Government to work with whoever forms the next UK Government, or are you asking the committee to write on the issue to whomever that next Government is?

I am similarly minded. I do not with any great satisfaction want to close the petition or accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but the direction in the responses that we have received is such that I do not think that there is anything more that we can do at this stage to take it forward. I will not go so far as to say that I am not persuaded by the assurances that we have received, but on the basis of the evidence that I have heard in relation to other petitions recently, I am not entirely persuaded by them.

Nonetheless, members are content that we close the petition. We thank the Scottish Gamekeepers Association for lodging it. Other petitions can be lodged again in the future: I fear that some of the issues that have been identified in this one will not be resolved and might yet be the subject of future petitions.

Are colleagues content that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to PE2093, on the Scottish ministerial code. In summarising the petition, I may make reference to active cases about which we should be circumspect about making any further comment.

The petition, which was lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code; to put the code under statute; to enable the independent advisers to initiate investigations; and, if the First Minister decides to go against the IAs’ advice, to ensure that a statement is provided to Parliament. The petition also calls for the code to set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament and to allow IAs to make recommendations for changes to the code. It further calls for a renaming of the IA position to make it clear there is no judicial involvement and seeks to require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.

The petitioner believes that updating the ministerial code by making such changes would strengthen standards and improve public confidence.

Members will be aware that, as is noted in the SPICe briefing, new versions of the ministerial code can be issued at any time and that previous updates have been issued following Scottish Parliament elections and changes of First Minister.

In its response, the Scottish Government highlights the fact that the ministerial code was most recently updated in July 2023 to further strengthen transparency and propriety and states that there are no current plans to update the code during the remainder of this session of Parliament. It might be worth noting that the Scottish Government’s response was provided prior to John Swinney being appointed as First Minister.

We have also received two written submissions from the petitioner, which set out in more detail how he believes that the ministerial code should be updated to improve public trust and transparency when applying the code or investigating potential breaches of it.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. For those who are joining us online this morning, perhaps to hear their petition being considered, I say that, ahead of our consideration of a new petition, we always invite the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe—to give the committee an initial view on the petition. We do that because, before that was our standard practice, it would be the first thing that we decided to do on considering a petition, which simply added a degree of delay.

The first of our new petitions is PE2092, which seeks to change the law to prevent children between the ages of five and 17 from drinking alcohol in their home or in other private premises. The petition has been lodged by Jamie-Lee Dougal, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to do exactly what I have just said. The petitioner notes that many adults in Scotland abuse alcohol and suggests that allowing children and young people to consume alcohol in the home or in private premises does not help to tackle those issues.

The SPICe briefing provides detail of existing legislation restricting the sale and supply of alcohol to persons under 18. Although there are no specific offences relating to allowing consumption of alcohol in the home by a child, an adult could be prosecuted, depending on the circumstances, on the grounds of child cruelty, under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that an alcohol-free childhood is the healthiest and best option and points to a downward trend in the number of young people who consume alcohol. It also notes that, where a child has misused alcohol, that could be grounds for a referral to the children’s hearings system. Given the wide range of law, duties on public bodies and national guidance in place to protect children from harm, the Government does not intend to take forward the specific ask in the petition, but it has stated that the issue will be kept under review to assess whether further legislative measures might be required in the future.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???

PE1966 is on formally recognising and incorporating local knowledge in Scottish Government policy. We last considered the petition, which was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, on 20 September 2023.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally recognise local knowledge and ensure that it is given full consideration, alongside scientific knowledge, throughout consultation, decision-making processes and policy development, specifically within the conservation arena.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and NatureScot. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that

“There are no plans to revise the Scottish Government best practice handbook on consultations”

and that it does not take a one-size-fits-all approach to consultations.

NatureScot recognises that local knowledge is vital, and it seeks to incorporate local knowledge in its work and decision making in a number of ways, details of which are provided in the papers for the meeting. The submission also states that NatureScot employs staff

“from a variety of areas and backgrounds who bring local knowledge to their roles.”

That is what it says, anyway.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

It is a serious issue, but I have to say that a lot of systematic synthetic phonics appeared in our words there.

There appears to have been a degree of action, although the petitioner is not altogether sure about it all. Are colleagues prepared to act? I wonder whether we might close the petition and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to let her know that we have done so, while drawing her attention to the fact that the petitioner feels that some of the work on the matter is a little vague. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with that? I very much doubt that much can happen during this session of Parliament, even if work is being taken forward, because we have only 18 months of the session left to run. Nonetheless, the Government’s view is that it is still undertaking that work.

Are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.