Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, April 19, 2023

Official Report 670KB pdf

---

New Petitions

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. As I always do for the benefit of those who might be following our proceedings, I want first of all to indicate that we take soundings in relation to petitions and seek, in particular, an initial view from the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s impartial research service to ensure that, even at the start of our consideration, we have some informed opinion.

---

Monarchy (Legal Loopholes) (PE1998)

The first new petition is PE1998, on ending legal loopholes for the monarchy. The petition has been lodged by Tristan Gray on behalf of Our Republic and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to abolish adaptations and exemptions to legislation requested by the monarchy; to ensure that all future communications between the monarch, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament with representatives of the monarchy are fully transparent and public; to publish details of all cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the monarchy; and to prevent any such alterations to our laws from being implemented in the future.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that

“seeking Crown consent is a requirement under the Scotland Act 1998”

and that it is required

“to follow the same rules that apply to UK Bills when it comes to seeking consent from the Royal Household.”

I should also say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the 1998 act is outwith the responsibility of this Parliament.

On the issue of sharing correspondence between the monarchy, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the response notes the importance of confidentiality in order

“to hold free and frank discussions”.

The Scottish Government also states that it

“does not record how Bills have changed as they have been developed or where stakeholders have queried aspects of that legislation”

—at all, I would presume.

Do members have any questions or suggestions in view of that directive response from the Scottish Government?

Convener, you have already explained our position on this, and I think that the petitioner, too, must understand that, in reality, very little can be achieved under the circumstances. I therefore think that we have no other course but to close the petition. For a start, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation to remove the legal requirement to seek consent. Moreover, as the correspondence from the Scottish Government points out, there is an issue of confidentiality with regard to the royal household, and

“to maintain the ability to have free and frank discussions”

that confidentiality needs to be “recognised and respected”.

According to the Scottish Government, too,

“the detail of ... cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the Monarchy”

cannot be provided, because the

“Scottish Government does not record”

that sort of thing.

We acknowledge the petition, but unfortunately, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not think that we can do anything but close it.

Are colleagues content to close the petition, given the Scottish Government’s advice and the limitations on the powers of the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. However, as the petitioner will understand, it appears that there is no route open to the committee to take forward the petition’s aims.

---

Universities (Accountability) (PE2000)

PE2000, which has been lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or by creating a new body, similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, to enable students to access redress without the need for court action.

Members will be aware that a similar petition—PE1769—was considered by our predecessor committee in the previous parliamentary session. It was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had no plans to seek to extend the SPSO’s existing powers and that the Scottish Funding Council had stated that there was no evidence that the current approach had not been effective in protecting the interests and rights of students.

In its response to this new petition, the Scottish Government highlights that higher education institutions are “autonomous bodies” with their

“own arrangements for handling complaints from students”

and that

“Any individual who is not satisfied with the outcome of the”

university’s

“complaints process may refer the issue to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman”.

As noted in response to the previous petition, the remit of the SPSO does not apply to matters of academic judgment.

The briefing that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre also notes that consumer protection legislation remains a reserved matter, with the Scottish Government highlighting that Scottish ministers have no power to legislate on the

“redress and enforcement aspects of consumer protection”.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner. In it, Dr Oldfield calls for the consideration of

“a more joined up approach from existing bodies”,

including the SPSO and the Quality Assurance Agency, and also raises concerns about the policy and decision-making processes of those bodies.

Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might take matters forward?

We could take the opportunity to write to Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland to seek their views on the issue raised in the petition, specifically on the question whether they support a review of the complaints procedure for higher education institutions and the SPSO’s remit in relation to these processes. That would be my recommendation, convener.

I am quite keen to hear those views.

I agree with Alexander Stewart. In the letter, we could point out that redress and enforcement aspects remain reserved to the UK, so that it is clear that our remit is constrained.

11:30  

We could also refer to the fact that there has been a previous petition, and briefly append that petition and set out the outcome and the reasons therefore. Although I am keen to hear from Universities Scotland and NUS Scotland, we may well, when we hear from them, find ourselves in a rather similar situation to that of our predecessor committee. We owe them a hearing, but we should not raise expectations too high that we may not be able to fulfil.

That is perfectly reasonable. Are colleagues agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Schools (Transgender Guidance) (PE2001)

PE2001, which has been lodged by E Phillips on behalf of Safeguarding Our Schools Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the “Supporting transgender young people in schools: guidance for Scottish schools” resource and await the outcome of the Cass review before developing a new resource.

In her response to the petition, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Ann Somerville, stated that:

“Development of the guidance for schools was informed by key stakeholder groups, including LGBT organisations, women’s groups, education organisations and teaching unions.”

The cabinet secretary also suggested that,

“It is wrong to claim that the guidance recommends that young people are encouraged to socially transition.”

Her response notes that,

“the Cass Review ... only extends to current and future services offered by NHS England”,

but she states that,

“The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland will closely consider the ongoing findings of the ... Review within the context of NHS Scotland services”.

The committee has also received a submission from the petitioner that highlights that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is reviewing its technical guidance for schools with regard to evolving policy on issues of gender identity. The petitioner also raises concerns about the statistics that are used in the Scottish Government’s guidance and the organisations that are signposted as part of the guidance, as well as highlighting an impact statement from a parent with personal experience of how the guidance subsequently impacted on their family.

The petition raises some important issues. Do members have any suggestions as to how we might seek to proceed?

As there are no suggestions from members, I am minded to suggest that we write to some stakeholders who would be able to help inform our understanding, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland and LGBT Youth Scotland. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues to add to that list?

Those organisations are all very important, but I think that we also need to talk to the Scottish Trans Alliance, because it has a role to play in all of this. We can get some views from the National Parent Forum of Scotland and from Connect—formerly the Scottish Parent Teacher Council—as well.

It might also be useful for us to write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to seek information on the review of the technical guidance for schools in Scotland. As you identified, convener, the situation is not the same south of the border and we need to look at what we are doing here in Scotland itself, so that would be useful.

I am aware that there is considerable interest in the petition. Are colleagues content that we progress it by contacting those various organisation for their views?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Legal Aid (People with Disabilities) (PE2002)

PE2002, which has been lodged by Grant White, urges the Scottish Government to provide increased funding for legal aid in civil cases to ensure access for people with disabilities. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights the Law Society of Scotland’s campaign on access to legal aid and its research, which found that there was a lack of solicitors offering legal aid based in deprived communities.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states:

“The Scottish Legal Aid Board ... apply means and merits tests to determine eligibility”

for the legal aid fund. It goes on to state:

“Neither Ministers nor the Scottish Legal Aid Board ... can compel solicitors to provide advice and representation.”

The response also outlines measures that are being introduced to improve access to legal aid.

The petitioner’s written submission details his experience, which highlights the challenge in obtaining a solicitor. He states that he has contacted nearly 100 firms, all of which stated that they could not take on his case. He concludes by stating:

“my experience is that there are too few solicitors who carry out legal aid work and those who do legal aid cases do not have the capacity to take on any more because of the lack of funding.”

Well, there we are. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed in relation to the petition?

This is a problem of access to justice that seems to be growing. I am aware that the Scottish Government intends to introduce a legal aid reform bill and an uplift of 10 per cent to legal fees. That is welcome as far as it goes, but it is a serious matter for someone to be unable to access legal aid at all. No access is effectively justice denied.

I think that we should write to the Law Society of Scotland to seek its view on the action that the petition calls for, and for information about its campaign on access to legal aid, in particular as it relates to people with disabilities. We have a duty to explore that aspect.

We should also write to the Scottish Legal Aid Board to ask whether it intends to undertake a monitoring report on access to legal aid for people with disabilities and if not, why not. We have a duty to ensure that that particular category of vulnerable people has access to justice, and we need to find out what barriers there are. It could be useful to provide that information to the Scottish Government in order to inform its intended law reform and perhaps influence that process down the line.

Are colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.

It does seem ridiculous that an individual in such circumstances should have contacted 100 people only to receive 100 rebuffs as he tried to access justice. It is an important petition, and we will take it forward.

That is the final new petition this morning, so I now close the meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 3 May.

11:37 Meeting continued in private until 11:46.