Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, November 22, 2023
Official Report 724KB pdf
Contents
New Petitions
Forestry and Land Scotland (Parking Charges) (PE2042)
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always say to people who are watching our proceedings, including those who are tuning in because they have lodged a petition, when we first consider a petition, we have already asked the Parliament’s independent research body SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer us some evidence and views. We have also sought the initial consideration of the Scottish Government. We do that because, otherwise, when we first consider the petition, those would be the first two actions that we would suggest, and not having taken them already would only delay a meaningful consideration of the petition.
The first of our new petitions is PE2042, which is lodged by Undine Achilles-Day on behalf of the Taynuilt community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish car parking charges at all Forestry and Land Scotland sites, to help to promote access to forests and green spaces across Scotland.
The petitioner is concerned that the introduction of car parking charges by Forestry and Land Scotland will have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of people who wish to visit those sites but who will, as a consequence of the charges, no longer be able to afford to do so.
Responding to the petition on behalf of the Scottish Government, Forestry and Land Scotland states that it has been charging for car parking at its most popular sites for 20 years. Although it is expanding the number of sites where parking charges apply, two thirds of its car parks will remain free to use.
The response goes on to note that the decision to increase the number of sites where charges are incurred followed a challenge to public bodies by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy to actively increase income from visitors, to offset the increasing costs of managing visitor pressures. Abolishing charges would impact the sustainability of Forestry and Land Scotland’s finances and could lead to similar calls on other parts of central and local Government that charge for parking.
The petitioner has responded to the Forestry and Land Scotland submission, raising concerns that parking charges are being introduced at sites, such as Fearnoch forest and Sutherland grove, where there are no additional facilities to justify the charges.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I see that we have competition among the members on this occasion. I will go to Mr Ewing first, who will perhaps be less challenging to the aims of the petition than Mr Torrance will.
As this is a new petition, I think that there is quite a lot to be done. Some of that has been suggested to us, so perhaps I will leave those things out, but I want to make some specific points that I do not think have been raised with us in the advice that we received.
Number 1 is that there have long been parking charges for 23 sites. That was increased in 2012 to 44 sites, but now it has been increased to 110 sites. As it happens, I used to have the ministerial portfolio with responsibility for FLS and I have fond memories of working with it, so I appreciate that it has to cover its costs. However, many of the car parks have no facilities whatsoever—they are basically open ground. I know that because I used to do a lot of running around forests in the Highlands. I cannot see that it is justified to make charges at such sites. Some sites have facilities, but only a few.
There seems to be a lack of rationale for how and why the charges have been introduced. Why have some charges been made and not others? What is the rationale? Surely the rationale should be based on what facilities there are. Where does an equality impact assessment come in? It seems to me that it considers various things, such as equal rights. That is absolutely desirable and fine—everybody has a right to access, which is perhaps the point—but the key decisions should be based on what facilities there are, such as toilets and whether rangers are present. I would be keen to get details of all that from FLS.
Secondly, why should the equality impact assessments not be made public? They are public documents, so can FLS explain why there is an issue?
Thirdly, if the costs of running the 300 destinations are £13 million, can we get some detail and breakdown from FLS of what that cost entails? It seems to be an awful lot of money. Is it mostly labour costs or are costs site specific? What exactly is it that FLS employees do at the sites? Most of them are basically open land. There is nothing to do. There is no grass to cut and the areas where cars park are usually unmetalled and flat.
If charges are to be imposed everywhere, some drivers, instead of parking in the car park, might park alongside roads—often single-track roads—to avoid having to pay charges. They know that they will not be detected, because no police will go by for weeks on end in some of the more remote areas.
I am not against bodies recovering their costs. It is a principle of Government that brings problems with it. I just wanted to raise those points and I am sympathetic to other points that will be raised.
I am happy to write further to FLS along the lines that you have suggested to dig beneath the general point that it has made about the fact that charges have existed for a while.
Mr Ewing mentioned car parks that have no facilities, but we just need to look at Loch Morlich—he will know the area well. There are lots of car parks there, but they are seriously overused by the public. It is a really good tourist destination, and the wear and tear in those areas is incredible. Forestry and Land Scotland has to repair that, so it needs to get revenue from somewhere.
As has been suggested, we need to see the equality impact assessments, as well as how the charges are established, what facilities they deliver and what benefit they provide to those who use the facilities. We thank the petitioner and will take the action suggested to see what response we get.
Cervical Cancer Smear Test Age (PE2045)
PE2045, lodged by Tiffany Maguire, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to lower the cervical cancer smear test age in Scotland to 16.
Meghan Gallacher joins us for consideration of the petition. Good morning, Meghan. Is the petitioner known to you? Is she a constituent?
Yes, she is a constituent.
The petitioner shares that she was refused a smear test at the age of 18 after her first child was born prematurely and that, following a cervical cancer smear test at 26, it was found that she had abnormal cells.
The SPICe briefing explains that cervical screening is offered on a five-yearly basis between the ages of 25 and 64. The World Health Organization recommends that screening begins by the age of 35. Key organisations for cervical cancer advise that the risks of testing at younger ages might outweigh the benefits, as it is common for women under 25 to experience changes in the cells of the cervix that resolve by themselves. If those changes were detected by a cervical screening test, the patient may be offered unnecessary treatment that could lead to complications, including an increased risk of premature birth in future pregnancies. The Scottish Government’s response also notes that evidence and states that, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, it relies on advice about screening programmes from the United Kingdom National Screening Committee.
I will speak briefly to the petition, convener. I am here on behalf of my constituent, who intimated that she was raising the petition with the Scottish Parliament. I want to say a few words because I believe that the petition is admirable. However, for the reasons that the convener has outlined, I have some reservations about lowering the age of smear tests to 16. That being said, the petition starts a much-needed conversation about women’s health, particularly that of young women who are aged between 16 and 24, and about making sure that if anyone has any concerns about their body they are able to get the help that they need. I have slight reservations about the petition because of the research that we have to hand, which has been referred to by the convener. However, on behalf of my constituent, I feel that the petition is admirable.
Considering Meghan Gallacher’s assessment and the evidence that we have received, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
The evidence that the committee has received and what Meghan Gallacher has said has highlighted the issues that have been raised in the petition and brought them to the forefront. However, the committee has no option but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that women under the age of 25 are not invited for routine cervical screening as evidence shows that screening would do more harm than good, in line with the guidance from the UK National Screening Committee and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I thank Meghan Gallacher for attending the meeting and supporting the petition. I agree that the petition is useful in terms of the on-going conversation that needs to take place, but for the reasons that have been given directly to us, we will close the petition. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Hate Crime (Malicious False Allegations) (PE2047)
The final petition today, PE2047, was lodged by Frances Anne Nixon and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider legislation to ensure that malicious false allegations are considered hate crimes and are dealt with as such. Members may be aware that the petitioner lodged a similar petition in 2019, which was considered by our predecessor committee in session 5 of the Parliament and was prompted by the petitioner’s experience of malicious false allegations at that time. The Scottish Government has provided a response that notes that behaviour amounting to making false allegations can be dealt with under existing common law. It is not clear to the Government on what basis a false allegation that is made against someone should be treated as a hate crime when other offences, such as assault, that are committed in the same circumstances and with the same motivation would not be. It is also noted that existing hate crime legislation can be used to add a statutory aggravation to general offences that are being prosecuted.
Ms Nixon has responded to the Scottish Government’s view, highlighting that her experience demonstrates the challenges of dealing with malicious false allegations using existing law and calling for the definition of a hate crime to be expanded to ensure that any characteristic of an individual cannot be used by others to make false allegations against them. I appreciate the petitioner’s tenacity based on her experience, but the Scottish Government’s view is direct.
Considering the Scottish Government’s view and the evidence that is before the committee, we have no other option except to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not consider that malicious false allegations should in themselves be considered as a hate crime. Behaviour amounting to false allegations can be dealt with under existing common law, with hate crime legislation enabling a statutory aggravation to be added when a false allegation is motivated by characteristics that are listed in the hate crime legislation. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 covers the protected characteristics of age, disability, race, colour, nationality or ethnic and national origins, religion or perceived religious affiliation, sexual orientation and transgender identity. It also includes the power to add variations in sex characteristics to that list.
Do members have any comments, or are we content to agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The direct response that we have received from the Scottish Government and from SPICe is that we will be unable to advance the aims of the petition, so we will close it.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on 6 December.
12:05 Meeting continued in private until 12:08.Air ais
Continued Petitions