Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Official Report 825KB pdf

---

New Petitions

Item 4 is the consideration of new petitions. As always, I say to those who might be tuning in to hear their petition being considered for the first time that, in advance of that first consideration, we go to the Scottish Parliament’s independent research service, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—and to the Scottish Government for an initial consideration. We do that because, were we not to do so, those would be the first two things that we would recommend doing and that would just simply add delay to our consideration.

---

Trespassers (PE2060)

PE2060, which is to review existing legislation and legal remedies against trespassers, has been lodged by Daithi Broad. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. The SPICe briefing outlines the circumstances in which the public have the right to roam, noting that exceptions to that include domestic houses and gardens.

The briefing also notes that many people incorrectly—I was quite surprised by the briefing, I have to say—believe that the law of trespass does not exist in Scotland. Police Scotland has highlighted difficulties in applying the law in practice. Notably, the police have no jurisdiction, as trespass to land is a civil matter and they cannot assist in the removal of trespassers. Police Scotland’s comments on trespass state that the best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which, if breached, may then turn into a criminal matter.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition also outlined information about the current law on trespassing. In response to the petition’s ask regarding responsibility for injuries on the land, the Scottish Government stated that the duty of care is the same regardless of whether an individual has permission to be on the occupier’s land, but factors such as the foreseeability of unauthorised entry and any steps taken to prevent unauthorised entry and to warn of dangers may be of relevance in determining whether reasonable care has been taken in the particular circumstances. The response also notes that the evidential burden to prove trespass would depend on whether the individual was pursuing a criminal or civil law case.

For my own part, having read the briefing, I think that it is saying that there is little that you could risk doing, particularly in the current climate in which it seems to me that your interests are secondary to those of the people who want to trespass on your property. That is basically how it reads to me. Although we pretend otherwise, the reality is that that is how it will be if you seek to do anything. It is also very difficult, because the briefing does not define what “force” is; I imagine that, if you were to escort somebody off, “force” would now include even laying hands upon somebody, however gently that was done. I found the briefing quite dispiriting. Do colleagues have any suggestions on what we might do?

I wonder whether the committee would consider keeping the petition open and writing to the Scottish Government to ask whether it intends to carry out work relating to the issues that are raised in the petition and on whether it will undertake work to raise awareness about public rights to access different types of land and the law of trespass in Scotland.

I would like to ask the Scottish Government whether it thinks that the current law of trespass in Scotland is worth the paper that it is written on. [Laughter.] I say that in all seriousness, because I was not quite sure what somebody’s remedy is under it. We will keep that petition open, and I can say to our petitioner that the briefing seems to recognise some of the issues raised.

---

Prostate Cancer (Screening Programme) (PE2062)

PE2062, on introducing a national screening programme for prostate cancer, has been lodged by Bill Alexander. It clearly has a topical flair to it, because it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. The SPICe briefing states that there is no one test used to diagnose prostate cancer. The most common tests include a prostate-specific antigen blood test, a physical examination of the prostate and a biopsy. The briefing points out that PSA blood tests can sometimes miss cancer in some patients and can just as easily falsely diagnose others. A heightened PSA is not the same thing as prostate cancer. However, advancements in magnetic resonance imaging technology and biopsy techniques could facilitate the development of a national screening programme.

The Scottish Government response notes that the United Kingdom National Screening Committee considered whether to recommend population screening in November 2020 and, frankly, concluded that it could not happen based on the available evidence. However, the screening committee will review that recommendation in the next 12 months. The response highlights a large prostate screening study called TRANSFORM—I think that that is a large study rather than a study of large prostates; I assume that it is that way round—which will look at potential innovative screening methods with hundreds of thousands of men due to be recruited for the study. I comment on all of this as somebody who has had a heightened PSA test, an MRI and biopsy myself for the matters at hand. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Given the evidence before the committee, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that, based on the evidence currently available, the UK National Screening Committee concluded that it would not recommend a prostate screening programme. Considering that the screening committee will review its recommendation in 12 months’ time, I wonder whether the petitioner would consider bringing the petition back then if he is not happy with the review.

What does that mean?

The UK National Screening Committee is going to—

We are writing to it to find out what it is doing, are we?

No, I was considering closing the petition because the screening committee is going to review its decision in 12 months’ time.

12:00  

Do we know when that 12 months is from? November. In fact, we could have to wait until November this year.

I can certainly see Mr Torrance’s argument, because the reply that we have from the Scottish Government is quite complete in the sense that, as I read it, it is saying there are no real ways in which a definitive test can be issued at the moment. That is the challenge. It is not that there is not a desire perhaps to have a test if a test worked, but a test does not work. My reading of it is that the UKNSC is due to review the recommendation in the next 12 months. That sounds to me as if the review is to start in 12 months and it might take quite a lot longer. I wonder whether there would be any harm in the meantime in signifying our general concern and interest because prostate cancer is such a widespread cancer. I suggest that we do not close the petition at this stage, but it may be that we would close it after a further response.

We could write to the UK National Screening Committee to ask whether it will consider the findings of the TRANSFORM study; how frequently its decision not to recommend population screening for prostate cancer will be reviewed; and how it decides the frequency with which it reviews recommendations. I stress the urgency here because there are so many men who will be affected by this in their lifetime—I think that I read somewhere that it is eight out of 10, which is an incredibly high proportion—and the screening tests that are available for so many conditions and diseases have been one of the tremendous advances in society over the past 20 years and have saved lives in so many cases. The lack of a valid method for the prostate seems to be a matter of real urgency.

Would you be content for us to go with Mr Ewing’s recommendations?

Yes.

Are we content to pursue it on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That takes us to the end of our public business this morning. I look forward to welcoming those who follow our proceedings back at our next meeting. Thank you.

12:02 Meeting continued in private until 12:04.