Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, February 22, 2023
Official Report 643KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Abortion (Full Decriminalisation) (PE1969)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. I will begin this item as I normally do by saying that, before the committee considers a new petition, we send it to the Scottish Government to request an initial view on the petition, as well as asking for a briefing from the Parliament’s impartial research service, the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Our first new petition today is PE1969, on amending the law to fully decriminalise abortion in Scotland, which has been lodged by Gemma Clark. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to fully decriminalise abortion services in Scotland and make provision to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all parts of Scotland.
Gemma highlights that, although the Abortion Act 1967 sets out criteria making abortion permissible, such as the requirement for two doctors’ signatures, it does not explicitly decriminalise abortion. Gemma believes that that leaves women open to the risk of prosecution if they choose to end their pregnancy.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government makes clear its view that all women should be able to access abortion services, as set down within the limits of the law, where they wish. The Government’s response refers to work being undertaken with national health service boards to ensure that services up to 24 weeks are established in Scotland. It also makes reference to the support that is being provided to Gillian Mackay in drafting her member’s bill on safe access zones for abortion services.
The Scottish Government has indicated that, although it may be open to reviewing the law on abortion in the future, it has no immediate plans to amend the Abortion Act 1967.
The committee has also received a submission from the Scottish feminist policy and advocacy organisation Engender, which briefly sets out its argument in support of decriminalising abortion.
Members should also be aware, as highlighted in both the briefing we received from SPICe and the Scottish Government response, that the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 mentioned in the petition does not apply in Scotland.
Do members have any suggestions or comments??
I am quite supportive of the general principles of the petition about decriminalising abortion. In a modern society, it seems right that the Abortion Act 1967 should be updated. I would be interested to know why the Government says that it is supportive of that but has not set out any plans to do it. Can we explore that?
I know that there is medical support behind changing the law, so it would be interesting to ensure that we have all that information. I would like us to take the petition forward.
We could write to the stakeholders involved, such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Sexual Health Scotland, the British Medical Association, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Abortion Rights Scotland and faith organisations—Interfaith Scotland, the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and the Humanist Society Scotland—to seek their views on the actions that are called for in the petition.
It is important that we collate as much information on this topic as we can. If we contact those agencies and organisations that you indicated, convener, they will be able to give us their views on any action that may be required. That will enable us to take a much better and a more holistic approach to challenging the issues raised by the petition. As Carol Mochan has said, the law requires updating. It has been decades since the issue has been examined in that way. By collecting that information and putting it all together we will have a much better picture as to how the issue is being approached across those organisations in Scotland.
Does the committee agree to all those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Arrangement Orders (PE1984)
Our next new petition is PE1984, on introducing the C100 form for child arrangement orders in Scotland, which has been lodged by Amy Stevenson.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reduce the financial barriers that prevent parents from having contact with their children by introducing a Scottish equivalent to the C100 form, with a fixed fee for making applications for child residence or child contact orders.
Members may recall that we previously considered a petition from Amy Stevenson, which focused on the provision of legal aid to parents fighting for access to their children. Amy has followed up on that petition with this call for the introduction of a form similar to the C100 form used in England and Wales when applying to the court for a child arrangement order. Amy suggests that introducing a similar form in Scotland, along with a fixed fee for submitting it, would help to reduce the financial burden on parents seeking child residence or contact orders.
In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government set out the current process for applications to the court for child residence and contact orders, and the fees associated with that.
While accepting that the current procedures for lodging writs and defences in Scotland are viewed as difficult to understand, the Scottish Government highlights a range of issues that it would require to consider before moving to a forms-based system, including criticisms that the C100 form is too lengthy and can be difficult for vulnerable applicants to complete without assistance; the fact that the form may not capture all the relevant issues for the court to consider; and concerns that a forms-based approach may not be focused on the best interests of the child. It is also noted that a forms-based process may reduce costs at the initial application stage but would not rule out the need for applicants to access legal advice at other stages of the process.
The committee has also received submissions from Shared Parenting Scotland and Claire Baker MSP, copies of which are included in our meeting papers. I briefly highlight that Shared Parenting Scotland has suggested that the introduction of a C100 form, or something similar, would remove some barriers for parents who are trying to restore or establish a schedule of contact with their children, but that wider improvements are necessary to provide support to parents in those circumstances.
Do members have any suggestions or comments???
This is a very important issue. We have heard about some areas in the submissions that we have already received, but we need to get more information. We should write to the Scottish Government highlighting the online systems that have been introduced in Australia and in the Netherlands and seek information on what considerations have been given to developing a similar service in Scotland for parents who have separated. It would be very useful for us to collate information on other countries that have put that in place.
It might be quite useful for us to seek the views of some of the organisations that we have here in Scotland, such as the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, Relationships Scotland and the family law committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council, to find out where we can take the petition. Those are my suggestions, convener.
Do members agree with those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Garage to Home Developments (Evaluation) (PE1985)
PE1985 is on evaluating garage to home developments and has been lodged by Darren Loftus. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent evaluation and provide national guidance on garages to homes developments.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition notes that the proposed garages to homes project meets the Scottish Borders Council’s local housing strategy objectives and is supported by both the Scottish Borders Council and South of Scotland Enterprise. It states that the buildings will be permanent, high-quality homes, designed for wheelchair users and/or people with limited mobility.
On the issue of community engagement, it highlights a public consultation that was held in November 2022 and plans for consultation events in the future. The submission concludes by stating that the
“Scottish Government does not prescribe, nor enforce, particular housing solutions, but rather it provides the planning framework against which developments are tested.”
The petitioner’s recent submission asks:
“Is the aspiration of the Scottish Parliament to move their citizens, specifically older adults and people with a disability, into housing units converted from garages?”
His submission questions the quality of the feasibility study for the project, stating that no social factors or identifiable local housing needs were factored into the study.
Do members have any comments or suggestions???
We need to write to the Scottish Government to seek some more clarity on what consideration is given to the national impact of garages to homes developments in the Scottish Borders, whether it believes that a broader evaluation of such developments is required, and whether it recognises the value in assessing factors such as social impact as part of any evaluation of such developments. It is perhaps an opportunity to get COSLA’s view on the petition from a planning and local authority perspective. That would give us a flavour of how it sees the process.
Does the committee agree to those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Drug Testing Kits (PE1986)
PE1986, on the provision of testing kits for drugs in public spaces, has been lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings.
The SPICe briefing for the petition highlights recommendations of the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce, which states that drug testing should be supported and that current drug-checking facilities should be reviewed to ensure that they are open, transparent and accessible. The briefing points to a research project on licensed drug-checking facilities, which was due to report in January 2023, and another related project, which is due to conclude in March 2023.
The Scottish Government’s submission shares its reservations about the simplicity of the testing kits proposed in the petition. It highlights the planned establishment of drug-checking services in Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow through upcoming pilots. That approach includes laboratory testing and links to other drugs services and provides wider public health information about the drugs in circulation.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action???
I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for a summary of the evaluation report, for the programme of implementation of licensed drug-checking facilities, and an update on the status of its licence application to the Home Office for the establishment of drug-checking facilities. We should also ask who the target service users of the facilities pilot will be and request information on how health boards will engage with those groups. Finally, we can ask what considerations have been given to ensure that drug-checking facilities will be made accessible to people who are not already in touch with other health services, especially young adults, as highlighted by the Scottish Drug Death Taskforce.
Do members agree with that suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Automatic By-elections (PE1987)
Our next new petition is PE1987, on amending the Scotland Act 2016 to automatically trigger a by-election if an MSP or councillor leaves their party, which has been lodged by James Cassidy. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scotland Act 2016 to automatically trigger a by-election by compelling an MSP or councillor to resign if they leave the party that they belonged to when they were elected.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the terms of membership of the Scottish Parliament are a matter for the Scottish Parliament. On the issue of councillors, the Scottish Government states that it has no current plans to change the electoral system in the way that is called for in the petition.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
We have heard that there is no need for a change and no information that it will be a reality. I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not plan to change the electoral system to prevent a councillor from remaining in post following their resignation from the political party that they represented when elected.
If members do not have any other comments, do we agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Abortion (Educational Resource) (PE1991)
PE1991, on developing an educational resource on abortion, has been lodged by Gemma Clark. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop a health-focused and stigma-challenging educational resource on abortion and make it available to all secondary schools in Scotland.
Gemma believes that it is essential for all young people to receive medically accurate and health-focused education on abortion and that challenging the stigma around abortion is also essential for a well-rounded sexual health curriculum. In a written submission in support of her petition, Gemma has also raised concerns about anti-abortion groups visiting schools, and the importance of ensuring that young people are provided with factual information regarding their healthcare.
The Scottish Government has responded to the petition, as it often does in such cases, to state that the curriculum is not mandatory. It does not, however, share details of the relationships, sexual health and parenthood resources that are available to teachers.
11:15It is noted that the resources have been developed and peer reviewed in partnership with educators, health professionals and third sector organisations, with the intention of providing young people with learning that is factual and objective and that enables them to make informed choices about their sexual health and wellbeing.
The committee has also received submissions from the Humanist Society Scotland and Scottish Teachers for Positive Change and Wellbeing, as well as a joint letter from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Back Off Scotland. The submissions are broadly supportive of the petition’s aim to ensure that pupils receive medically accurate and health-focused education on abortion.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
I am broadly supportive of the petition, and I have been approached by other members of the Parliament to suggest that we could seek further information on what happens within the school education system and how we could support proper education around what is often a sensitive issue for young people at school, particularly for young women. I would be keen to see whether we could get together some of the information and see how the issue is taken up in the school curriculum.
Do colleagues have any other suggestions? We could write to organisations including COSLA, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Scottish Catholic Education Service and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child to seek their views on the issues raised within the petition. Do members agree with those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
A9 (Dualling) (PE1992)
Our final new petition is PE1992, lodged by Laura Hansler, which is on dualling the A9 and improving road safety. I welcome to the committee Murdo Fraser and—a regular visitor to the committee—Rhoda Grant.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011 and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section; completing the dualling work by 2025; and creating a memorial to the people who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A9.
As I said, we are joined in our consideration of the petition by our colleagues Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant.
The petition has been somewhat superseded by the Minister for Transport’s statement to the Parliament on 8 February, in which it was confirmed that the 2025 completion date is now “no longer achievable”. Nevertheless, I will set out some of the background to the petition, before opening it up to wider discussion.
In the background information to the petition, the petitioner, Laura Hansler, tells us that the A9 dual action group was formed to raise awareness of the number of people who have lost their lives on the A9 and of the need for a mandatory safety feature to be deployed to reduce further loss of life, as well as to explore whether there should be an investigation into the procurement procedures that are associated with the project.
In its initial response to the petition, which was received prior to the minister’s statement, the Scottish Government highlighted the short-term road safety measures that have been developed by Transport Scotland to take account of the recent trend of fatal accidents on the A9.
The response states the Scottish Government’s firm commitment to completing the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness, albeit without providing a revised timetable on when the work is likely to be completed.
Following the minister’s statement, the committee received a submission from the petitioner in which she calls on us to consider a public inquiry into the matter.
I open up the discussion to members.
I commend Laura Hansler for bringing the petition to the Parliament. I believe that it has been signed by several thousand people.
Last year, 13 people lost their lives in incidents on the A9, and 12 of those occurred on sections of the A9 that are single carriageway. There is evidence that the risk of fatality or incapacitating injuries as a result of incidents is three times greater on single carriageway than on dual carriageway, and the risk is 10 times greater on single carriageway than on motorway. There are no dual carriageway links in the Highlands; therefore, for a Highlander—a Highland resident—the chance of dying on the road is between three and 10 times greater than for people living in the central belt. Every death has been a tragedy for families and has caused absolute devastation. That is the backdrop that has brought representatives from nearly all parties to the conclusion that we need to get to the bottom of what is happening.
My suggestion is that there should be a parliamentary inquiry. Perhaps the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee could be approached privately to see whether, if it wishes, it has the time to undertake such an inquiry, given its busy work schedule. If the net zero committee is not able to undertake such an inquiry, I suggest that this committee carries it out.
The important point is that an inquiry is required. Why? There are several questions to be considered, but there are two main ones. I would be interested to hear what Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant say about this, because we have been working cross party—including with the Liberal Democrats—on the issue, which is good.
The first of the two main questions is about what exactly went wrong with the Tomatin to Moy section. Around the spring of 2021, it was announced that the work would be going ahead, and it was only fairly recently that we heard that it would not go ahead. What happened in that intervening period? Why did it go wrong, and will a retender solve the problem or could it lead to the same situation, with apparently only one bidder left, at a price that was reported to be unacceptably high?
The second and perhaps the main question—and this is the thrust of my recommendation—is about the scope of the inquiry, which should be on how we can most swiftly complete the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. How can that be done and what procurement options and choices should be carried out?
I have had extensive discussions with people in the civil engineering sector, including the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which is the representative body. Those discussions have led me to the conclusion that the industry believes that, if things proceed as they do at the moment, where we procure one section consecutively after another and only build one at a time, given that it takes three years minimum for each section—one year to procure and two years to build—and there are nine remaining sections, the work will be completed in 2050, because nine threes are 27 and 2023 plus 27 years is 2050. The prospect of the road not being dualled until 2050 is utterly unacceptable to all parties and certainly to my constituents in the Highlands.
This is the final point that I will make, convener, because I appreciate that you have given me some latitude. The very same senior industry insiders tell me that, if everything is done as swiftly as it could be done, and if companies—if they can be persuaded to do the work by Transport Scotland—have the capacity to do it, the dualling could be completed by around 2030.
The key is the procurement options, and I think that Transport Scotland recognises that the current model of procurement, in which all the risks are passed to contractors, has resulted in a situation with one company leaving Scotland entirely and another company no longer bidding for roads, leaving a limited pool of potential bidders from whom competitive bids can be acquired. In that circumstance, competitive bidding might well again lead to a scenario with no competitive bids, particularly since it costs about £500,000 to prepare a bid and four or five companies would have to do the same preparation work four or five times over. Therefore, a framework contract, which I understand is applicable in Highways England, some local authorities and Scottish Water, would seem to be the way ahead. That would allow the dualling of several sections of the road to be done, as well as parts of the A96, which should also be dualled and the dualling of which from Smithton to Auldearn, including the Nairn bypass, is another Government commitment.
An inquiry into all those things by a parliamentary committee would allow us all to display critical but supportive forensic questioning of Transport Scotland, the minister and industry figures in order to get the work done. Frankly, people in the Highlands and throughout Scotland have been frustrated and, in many cases, angry that the pledge that the Scottish Government made has not been kept and, furthermore, that there has not even been an apology for that.
Perhaps Murdo Fraser would like to comment.
Thank you for letting me come to the committee, convener. I endorse everything that my friend Fergus Ewing has said. He is absolutely right to say that there is strong cross-party concern about the issue. My colleague Jamie Halcro Johnston apologises—he would have been here this morning to support the petition, but he has been detained elsewhere.
We are holding a debate on the issue in the chamber this afternoon, so I will say more about the matter then. However, briefly, to summarise, I have a strong personal interest in the matter. More than 30 years ago, I was involved in a head-on collision on a single carriageway section of the A9, which left me with multiple fractures. I spent weeks in hospital recovering. However, I was one of the lucky ones, because many other people who have been involved in similar accidents have not survived, as Fergus Ewing made clear when stating the stark figures for the past year, during which 12 people died on single carriageway sections.
There is little doubt that, if we had had a dual carriageway with central barriers between the lanes, there would not have been the same level of serious fatality and accident on the A9 as we have seen. It is a crucial issue from a road safety perspective. There was a lot of celebration in the Highlands and across Mid Scotland and Fife—the area that I represent—particularly in Perth and Kinross, when the current Scottish Government announced in, I think, 2011 a timetable for progressing the A9 dualling project to complete by 2025. We know that that will not now happen, which was confirmed by the minister just two weeks ago.
It is important that we keep on the pressure and press for a completion date and that we better understand the reasons why there is not faster progress. I entirely endorse the call for a parliamentary inquiry to be done by a committee of this Parliament. Such an inquiry could drill down into the issues and ensure that we have a proper understanding of what exactly is holding up this vital road safety project. If it does not progress, there will, sadly, be more fatalities over the next few years.
I, too, thank the committee for allowing me to speak to this petition. I agree with what colleagues have already said.
The A9 is a road that impacts not only on constituents in Inverness, but on the whole of the Highlands and Islands. I pay tribute to Laura Hansler for lodging the petition and all those who are campaigning to improve the road.
A lot of people say that there is no such thing as a dangerous road, and there are only dangerous drivers, but the road plays a huge part in mitigating driver error. I think that everybody can admit to driver error at one point or another, but the design of the road can keep people safe. I drive the A9 weekly and I see very strange driver behaviour, most of which would not happen if it was a dual carriageway.
Last year, there were eight deaths on the 25-mile stretch near the Slochd in just three months, and that was tragic. The total amount of deaths last year was 13. The deaths of those people are losses to not only their families but their communities. We all lose out, as we lose their contribution to society, so the issue impacts on everybody.
The Scottish National Party made dualling the A9 a manifesto commitment back in 2007. In December 2011, ministers confirmed the commitment and they put the timeframe of 2025 on it at that point. Sadly, progress has been slow, and I do not believe that the war in Ukraine, Brexit, Covid or inflation is the underlying reason for that. Had that target of 2025 been a goal, the contracts would have already been issued, the land would have been purchased, and we would probably be on the last stretch rather than looking towards the third stretch.
Eleven sections of the road still have to be dualled and we have no timeframe for them. The closest timeframe that we have had is the one that Fergus Ewing alluded to—an industry representative said 2050. I would say that it might even be longer than that, because the stretches that have been dualled have not been done back to back. There have been gaps between that work, so we need an investigation into the matter.
11:30If we look at the cost to the public purse, we see that every fatality costs about £2 million to investigate, so last year the total for that was £26 million, and the loss of life is a loss to the public purse as well.
I am keen to see an inquiry. Like Fergus Ewing, I think that it would be worth while for the committee to see whether the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee had space to do that. I also wonder whether this committee would want to get its teeth into the matter and carry out an inquiry. You might have the scope for it. I know that, from time to time, the committee likes to look into an issue that a petitioner has raised. Will you consider that? Certainly, a committee of this Parliament should carry out an inquiry that would tell us what has gone wrong and what progress has been made, and give us realistic timescales.
Thank you, Rhoda Grant.
I suggest that the clerks continue to discuss with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee the possibility of an inquiry, and in the meantime we continue to gather evidence on the matter. We could also invite the petitioner to provide evidence to the committee and invite the Minister for Transport to provide evidence at future committee meetings, if that is acceptable to committee members.
That would be very acceptable. The strength of feeling on the matter is immense, and we have found out today that there is cross-party support for the petition. Thousands of individuals have made the petition part of their process and there is no doubt that there has been neglect of that process. That is coming through very strongly from the petitioner. Having the petitioner here would give us much more clarity. I also think that your idea of having the Minister for Transport come to the committee would be useful.
We need to get information from other organisations that are affected by the situation. Organisations such as the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland have a part to play in this, as does the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation and even the Road Haulage Association. Those are the organisations whose members are using the road and are suffering from the situation. This morning, we have heard MSPs speak eloquently about the dangers on the road and what is possible.
I like the idea of this committee considering an inquiry if it is not possible to for another committee of the Parliament to do one. That could be investigated by the clerks, as you suggest. We should not lose sight of the fact that this committee has an opportunity to ensure that something is done on the matter. That would be my suggestion, as well as your own.
If there is an appetite—I obviously have the appetite, as do others—for this committee to do the inquiry, we would be well placed to do it. I know that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is very busy, but because it is the lead committee on the matter it would be politic to have discussions.
I think that Alexander Stewart is right: we could do a good job and we would be assisted by visiting members, I am perfectly sure. I would be more than happy if the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee did the inquiry. Practically, it might be easier for us to play our part that way.
We should write to the chambers of commerce in Inverness and Perth, which have been very active on the matter, and to community councils. I can supply the clerks with information about who to write to in Badenoch and Strathspey, for example; I think that Sandy McCook chairs a group of the community councils there. We should also write to the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which can provide expert evidence. It would be good to contact it.
I should apologise to my constituents that I am not able to attend the debate on the A9 this afternoon, because I will be in the dental chair having my teeth drilled. I hope that nobody connected with Transport Scotland is doing the drilling. It will be a bit like perhaps not Hamlet without the prince, but, given my age, Hamlet without Polonius, but Laertes will be there to fill the breach. I just thought that I should state that out of courtesy, because normally I participate in such debates, and it is a matter of disappointment that I am not able to do so today, because I could not get any other appointment. I state that for the record and as a courtesy to other members who might wonder why I am not making my views known.
Thank you, Fergus Ewing. Is the committee happy with those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Murdo Fraser and Rhoda Grant for their attendance. That concludes the public session of the meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 March.
11:34 Meeting continued in private until 11:57.Air ais
Continued Petitions