Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, December 1, 2021
Official Report 515KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Interests
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Inheritance Law (Estranged Spouses) (PE1904)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. I make it clear to anybody who has lodged a petition and who may be looking in this morning that we have, as a course of practice, sought the Scottish Government’s views on the petition and sometimes also considered a range of other submissions that have been sought or received. We therefore come to the discussion not blind but having had the opportunity to read some background material in relation to petitions that have been submitted.
PE1904, which was lodged by Christina Fisher, seeks to change Scots law to disqualify estranged spouses from making claims on an estate. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to define in law the difference between a legally married cohabiting couple and a legally married non-cohabiting couple for the purposes of ensuring that an estranged spouse cannot inherit their spouse’s assets.
The SPICe briefing accompanying the petition sets out the current legal position in relation to inheritance law in Scotland. It notes that section 1 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out that, where a person has made a will, when that person gets divorced or their civil partnership is dissolved, any provision in a will benefiting their former spouse or civil partner ceases to apply. However, there is no equivalent statutory provision in section 1 covering the situation where the person is estranged from their spouse or civil partner, but there has been no divorce or dissolution of the civil partnership. There is also no provision covering where a person has made a will benefiting their cohabitant, but the cohabiting relationship later breaks down.
In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it has carried out consultation to keep the law of succession under review, with the most recent consultation analysis published in May 2020. It notes that
“while the law of succession affects everyone it can also divide opinion”,
and that
“there must be some degree of consensus on what reforms will deliver outcomes that are appropriate for the majority of people in Scotland.”
The petitioner’s anomaly is actual. In light of that, what comments might colleagues wish to make?
There is scope for us to ask the advice of organisations—possibly the Law Society of Scotland and the Family Law Association—that may be able to give us some views on the scope of what the petition is trying to engage with. As a first stage, it would be useful for us to clarify and take more evidence on the process.
I would like to write to those organisations on the basis that it appears that the anomaly exists. We would be interested in their confirming that that is the case and what they see as the potential risk to justice arising from that. We could add the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission to the list of organisations that we will write to.
Are there any other comments?
I agree with that. I do not know whether it is easy to define in law at what point estrangement takes place. I do not know whether that is clearly defined in legislation, so that might be the complexity that arises from the petition.
Yes. Although the word “estrangement” sounds quite formal and technical, it is perhaps not legal. Therefore, it could mean different things to different people. It would be useful to obtain evidence on that.
Child Sexual Abuse Allegations (Religious Organisations) (PE1905)
PE1905, on the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950, has been lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJWs Support. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950.
The petitioner is a survivor of child sexual abuse who believes that she was failed by people in her church when she reported her abuse. She has provided further details of her experiences in a late submission, which has been shared with the committee. She calls for an investigation into the response of religious organisations that were informed about allegations of abuse against children who were not in care.
The petitioner argues that the scope of the current Scottish child abuse inquiry is too narrow, as it is able to investigate only the abuse of children in care. In contrast, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales has powers to investigate abuse in religious organisations generally and the inquiry recently published a report on the topic.
The Scottish Government states that there was extensive consultation and engagement with abuse survivors in relation to the Scottish child abuse inquiry’s remit and acknowledges that
“there was not unanimity on the extent of the remit amongst survivors, and that some wished for the remit to be broadened.”
In 2016, the Deputy First Minister addressed this issue directly, stating:
“If we set a remit that, in practice, would take many more years to conclude, we fail to respond to the survivors of in-care abuse who have taken us at our word, in Government and in Parliament, that we will learn from their experience and, by addressing the systematic failures that existed, ensure that it can never happen again.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; c 41.]
The Scottish Government states that it has no plans to reconsider the remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
The petitioner’s submission is harrowing and it would be good to invite her to give evidence orally to the committee if possible. That would be an appropriate first step.
There is no doubt that there is scope to do work on the petition, because of the situation. As the Scottish child abuse inquiry has a narrow remit, to ensure that survivors do not feel they are not being listened to or that their experiences are not being acted upon, it would be useful for us to take some more evidence on the matter to clarify it. The last thing that we want is for survivors to feel that, under the circumstance that we have in Scotland, they are not being given parity with what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is currently a belief that that is the case. For that reason alone, we need to be open and up front about the matter.
I agree with my colleagues.
We will invite the petitioner to give evidence. I wonder whether there is any information that we might obtain from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales on how it has determined the scope of its inquiry and is going about exercising its powers, as well as what additional complications have arisen for it in the light of that. We could notify the Scottish Government that we are inviting the petitioner to give evidence and let it know when that takes place, so that it is aware, and we could indicate that we might be minded to invite the Deputy First Minister to give evidence subsequent to the petitioner.
Members indicated agreement.
Marie, did you hope to come in as well?
No, I am okay. I am in agreement with the rest of you.
Thank you.
Funded Early Learning and Childcare (PE1907)
The next petition is PE1907, which has been lodged by Claire Beats. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove eligibility criteria for access to services. The petitioner notes that
“availability of early learning and childcare funding for 2-year-old children depends on certain eligibility criteria, such as their parents being in receipt of benefits or being vulnerable.”
As an early years practitioner, the petitioner suggests that
“lockdown babies”,
in particular,
“have suffered from lack of play experiences, meeting peers, and opportunities that other children have always had.”
She suggests that funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds
“will greatly increase their potential”,
as well as helping parents who may be struggling financially as a result of the pandemic.
As with all new petitions, we sought the views of the Scottish Government. It suggested that current eligibility criteria for funded early learning and childcare is targeted towards those children who would benefit from it most. It also pointed out that local authorities have a discretionary power to offer funded places to a wider range of children, depending on individual need. The Scottish Government concluded by highlighting that, in this year’s programme for government, it has committed to expanding an early learning offer to all one and two-year-olds, starting in this parliamentary session with those from low-income families.
Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? Are we minded to write to stakeholders to understand their views? Early Years Scotland, the National Day Nurseries Association, Parenting Across Scotland and COSLA are the obvious ones that come to mind. Do we agree to write to them?
Members indicated agreement.
Fire and Smoke Alarms (PE1910)
PE1910, which was lodged by Ian Nicol, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an exemption for smaller houses from the requirement to have interlinked smoke and fire alarms fitted, which comes into force in just a few months’ time, in February 2022.
The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition explains that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2007 sets out a basic standard of house condition called the “tolerable standard”, which will be amended in February 2022 to include ceiling-mounted and interlinked smoke and heat alarms. Carbon monoxide alarms are also included, where appropriate. The legislation does not provide for any exemptions from the requirements, although the guidance acknowledges that
“it may not be practical to fit fire and smoke alarms to this exact standard”,
depending on the layout and design of the building.
The Scottish Government’s rationale for the new requirements is that interlinked systems alert occupiers immediately to fire in their homes. It acknowledges that, during the daytime, an occupier in a small house would hear unlinked alarms. However, it notes that unlinked systems are not sufficient to ensure that an occupier would be woken quickly during the night. It explains that the new requirement will bring all homes to
“the same level of protection”
that is currently mandatory
“in new build homes throughout the UK and in private rented homes in Scotland.”
The petitioner has responded to the Scottish Government’s submission and notes a number of concerns, which are that the requirement is not mandatory throughout the UK and it is unclear what the consequences of non-compliance are; that there are shortcomings with battery-operated alarms; and that there are cost implications for home owners that may be particularly challenging for those on low incomes.
Has any of us not been woken in the middle of the night by a battery that has gone flat in such a device and found it almost impossible to disconnect? I think that the newer models are more efficient.
Do members have any comments?
I have seen what the Scottish Government has said that its intention is, how it is approaching the matter and to whom it has spoken about it. Even so, it would not do any harm for us to write to the Scottish Government to ask for a review of the effectiveness of the current financial support that is offered to ensure that all occupiers have the capacity to meet the regulatory requirements and be kept safe. I think that there is still some confusion among the general public, and it would not do us any harm to do that.
I have a small parallel concern, having spoken to elderly constituents, in particular, who have only just lately become aware of all this. They are slightly worried about the bona fides of people who might fit such devices. Previously, we have had concerns about the elderly being preyed on by some, and I would like to get an understanding from the Scottish Government of what security there is and whether it feels that appropriate advice on the matter has been given to all households. I know that that does not fall within the scope of the petition, but it is a related point of concern.
Thank you for your comments, Mr Kidd. Do members agree with the suggested action?
Members indicated agreement.
Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 (Post Mortems) (PE1911)
Our final petition is PE1911, which has been lodged by Ann McNair. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with the permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to next of kin as a matter of course.
I would like to start by immediately acknowledging the very difficult circumstances in which the petitioner brings us her petition and which have been detailed in the petition and the submission. The petitioner’s child died suddenly and underwent a post mortem that was much more extensive in nature than the petitioner had originally thought it would be, and which involved the removal of tissue from her child. The petitioner was told that tissue samples
“belonged to no particular person”
and would be held as part of medical records.
The petitioner also notes that it took her 10 months to locate her child’s tissue samples and that
“No-one seemed to know where these samples were being held”.
She also says:
“I felt these tissue samples were still part of my child.”
She highlights that practice in Scotland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, where tissue samples are automatically offered back to the family.
The Scottish Government’s submission sets out the different types of post-mortem examinations that are carried out in Scotland and explains how tissue samples are collected and stored. The submission states:
“Tissue samples are a very small part of an organ”
and are “chemically treated” to
“produce a tissue block ... from which a very thin section can be cut by a biomedical scientist.”
The Scottish Government also notes that, if a nearest relative requests the return of tissue blocks,
“any reasonable request will be treated sympathetically by the Procurator Fiscal.”
However, if there are “suspicious circumstances”, the procurator fiscal might need to retain tissue for further investigation.
The committee has also received a submission from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities on the petition, which is summarised in members’ papers.
Do members have any comments or observations?
This is not a throwaway comment, but I think that it is perfectly understandable that the relatives of a deceased person would want that person to be treated with as much dignity as possible.
On the back of what has already been stated, we should probably write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration it has given or plans to give to the automatic return of tissue samples or to the seeking of authorisation for the retention of samples, in line with practice in other parts of the UK.
It is that aspect of the petition that I think we would seek to explore, given that the legal position with regard to the procurator fiscal having to seek permissions and so on is not likely to proceed.
There is real sympathy with the petitioner, and we need to take note of the harrowing nature of her experience and circumstances.
I acknowledge what you have said about the position of the procurator fiscal, convener, but I think that there is scope for us to ask the Royal College of Pathologists and others for guidance on where the request in the petition would sit.
I am sympathetic to the petitioner’s requests, which are clearly personally significant. I note the legislative change with regard to organ donation, which has created an opt-out system, and I do not see why the same principle cannot apply to all forms of post mortems or physical interventions on the body. There could be a system of proactive consent, whereby the next of kin could express their desire that such things did not take place. That is what happens with organ donation, which people now have to opt out of, and we could have a look at how those two issues interact.
Thank you. The clerks have noted those comments. Do members agree to keep the petition open and write as colleagues have suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes our consideration of new and continued petitions. Our next meeting is on Wednesday 15 December, and I thank our guest or substitute colleague Marie McNair for attending.
Meeting closed at 10:46.Previous
Continued Petitions