Official Report 852KB pdf
Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I highlight that, before we consider a new petition, we initially seek the view of the Scottish Government. We also receive a briefing from SPICe, the impartial research service in the Parliament. That is because, historically, those were the first two things that we would ask for in order to pursue a petition, so we have shortcut that process.
At the risk of colleagues having to keep up, I will suggest that, given that Mr McArthur is with us and that the petition that he is interested in was going to be considered a little later, we bring it forward to now, in the expectation that he has productive hours to spend on other matters in the Parliament.
National Entitlement Card Scheme (Ferry Travel) (PE2188)
Our first new petition is PE2188, lodged by Claire Sparrow, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to extend the national entitlement card scheme to include ferry travel for people aged 60 and over. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights the publication of “Islands Connectivity Plan—Strategic Approach” in May and the expanded concessionary ferry travel for under-22s only. The response states that the Scottish Government does not consider the ask of the petition to be achievable, as it is not affordable to expand ferry concessions any further to include over-60s at this time, beyond what is already provided.
The petitioner has provided two written submissions, which highlight that ferry travel is essential for older adults living on islands. They sometimes must travel to attend healthcare appointments that are not available locally—I can think of islands even in the west of Scotland where that is the case—to purchase groceries and other necessities, and to maintain social and family connections.
The petitioner states that older island residents are effectively excluded from the same freedom of movement that their mainland counterparts enjoy. She points out that, under the current arrangements, island residents must first pay for ferry travel before they can access a bus service to which free bus entitlement applies. The petitioner states that that is not simply a matter of inconvenience; it is a matter of geographical inequality and social isolation.
Before we consider whether the committee can do anything in the time that is available to us, I ask Mr McArthur whether he would like to offer a few comments.
I am grateful to you, convener, not least for up-ending your agenda to accommodate me.
I echo the petitioner’s sentiments. I do not think that I am betraying confidences by saying that she is the resident of an island that does not have a GP or a nurse—and there is no shop. Accessing services is often achievable only by taking the ferry to the mainland. I have long made the argument that, for islanders in Orkney—it is the same in Shetland, the Western Isles and on the west coast—ferries often perform the function that buses perform on the mainland and that, therefore, the extension of concessionary travel on buses for younger people as well as for older people, although very welcome, has led to islanders feeling that there is a growing inconsistency in the way that they are treated.
The Government is right, and is to be commended, for extending free interisland ferry travel to island residents under the age of 22. I made the case for that strongly, along with other colleagues for the Highlands and Islands, across parties. However, the Government now has a problem. As it has accepted the principle in relation to under-22s, it becomes more difficult for it to say that it cannot do the same for those over the age of 60.
I support a great deal of the principle and the argumentation behind the petition. I am pragmatic enough to understand that, in the time that is available between now and the end of the parliamentary session, it might be difficult to make progress. However, the argument will not go away. As I said, as a result of the more recent decision in relation to under-22s, the Government has helped to make the case that Claire Sparrow and other signatories to the petition are fairly making.
Thank you very much, Mr McArthur. There is an issue here. Mr Torrance?
I am back on track, convener. I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport to ask her to respond to the petitioner’s points that ferry travel is essential for older island residents to attend healthcare appointments and maintain social connections, and that older island residents are being excluded from the same freedom of movement that their mainland counterparts have.
That is a powerful point and a perfectly reasonable one for us to inquire about. We will keep the petition open and hope that we can get a response that would allow us to at least consider the cabinet secretary’s response to that point. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, Mr McArthur.
I will see you in the Conveners Group meeting shortly, Mr Carlaw.
Yes, indeed.
Dental Check-ups (Pensioners) PE2187
Our next petition is PE2187, lodged by David Corner, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reinstate six-monthly dental check-ups for state pensioners.
The SPICe briefing explains that, in November 2023, substantial reforms were made to the treatments that dentists offering NHS care provide. Prior to the reforms, patients would be sent a reminder to visit their dentist annually, although a number of dentists did that every six months. The reform introduced the extensive clinical examination, which is intended to be more thorough, and for which most people will be recalled annually, rather than within a shorter time. However, dentists can still use their discretion to determine whether a patient should additionally attend a review exam between those thorough annual examinations.
In its response, the Scottish Government explains that the extensive clinical examination is based on clinical guidance on the appropriate recall for dental check-ups, which is produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The response confirms that dentists can still see patients more frequently than every 12 months, based on their assessment of patients’ individual oral health needs. The Government therefore concludes that the issues raised in the petition do not require remedial action. Are colleagues content with that?
In the light of the Government’s evidence, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government’s position is that the extensive clinical examination, which was introduced by the NHS dental payment reform in 2023, is based on the best clinical practice guidelines, and that dentists can use their clinical discretion to see patients more frequently than every 12 months, based on patient risk factors.
That is Mr Torrance’s recommendation. Are we content with his proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Review of Guidelines) (PE2180)
The next petition is PE2180, lodged by David Sinclair Aiton, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to urgently review the correct guidelines for the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland housing and property chamber and to introduce case progress and hearing timelines, as the protracted and timeless nature of the current process is contrary to article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
The Scottish Government states that the Scottish ministers are not responsible for reviewing guidelines and that the administration of the First-Tier Tribunal is a matter for the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Scottish Government does not consider possible legislative changes to reduce wait times to be a practical solution and refers to engagement with SCTS on this issue, including the recent appointment of additional members to the tribunal and on-going work to identify further recruitment priorities.
The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that tribunal procedures are set out in the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Housing and Property Chamber (Procedure) Regulations 2017, as amended. The rules do not prescribe time periods for an eviction order application to be listed for either an initial case management discussion or hearing.
The briefing refers to an answer to one of my own parliamentary questions, which states that the average timescale for an application to be heard is slightly more than six months. The briefing also highlights information from the tribunal’s annual report 2023-24, which states that the volume of applications received for 2023-24 is the highest ever and is 10 per cent higher than the figure for 2022-23.
In his submission, the petitioner considers that long wait times are not solely attributable to increasing case loads. He also argues that the proposed review of guidelines is fully achievable and suggests newer amended rules to enable expedited hearings and to introduce a provision for decisions on the granting of eviction orders without the need for a hearing when the facts of the case are not disputed by the parties involved.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that we have little alternative but to close the petition, for the reasons that we have discussed before with regard to the limited time that is available in this session of Parliament, and on the basis that the Scottish Government has indicated that it considers the petition’s ask to be not practical and achievable only in part.
The Government’s response makes it clear that ministers are not responsible for reviewing the guidelines or procedures, and amending the 2017 regulations is not considered to be a practical solution to addressing wait times. Moreover, introducing case progress and hearing timelines in primary or secondary legislation would require consultation and comes with cost and resource implications. The Government also points to steps that have been taken in conjunction with the SCTS to address the underlying practical reasons for wait times, including the recent appointment of additional members to the First-tier Tribunal.
That is the Scottish Government’s position, and it is not reasonable to expect that there will be any change in that position between now and the end of the parliamentary session. One might expect the additional members to the First-tier Tribunal to reduce wait times, simply by the fact that there will be more people to deal with cases. That is to be welcomed.
However, if members agree to close the petition, I recommend that the petitioner might wish to see whether the changes have impacted favourably or not, and then think about bringing the petition back in the next session of Parliament, depending on the answer to that.
I think that that is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Obviously, my constituency interest led to the parliamentary question that I lodged, and I think that the current situation is a matter of public concern.
Are we content with Mr Torrance’s proposal, but that we recommend that this is a petition whose aims might—[Interruption.] Oh, have you not made your proposal yet, Mr Torrance?
No.
I am sorry—I went straight to Mr Ewing, not to you, Mr Torrance. It was Mr Ewing’s proposal, not yours. I thought that you had indicated that you wanted to add something.
No.
Are we content with Mr Ewing’s suggestion as to how we might proceed?
Members indicated agreement.
Suicide Awareness and Prevention Training (PE2183)
The next petition is PE2183, lodged by Craig Paton, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make suicide awareness and prevention training mandatory for high school students in order to help remove stigmas; to empower young people to speak openly; and to ensure that teachers can spot the vital signs and take appropriate measures to prevent a fatality. The petition notes that the training is, in fact, available in English schools.
The SPICe briefing explains that the curriculum in Scotland is largely non-statutory, with the content of what is taught being a matter for teachers, schools and local authorities. It notes that the Scottish Government has, since at least 2002, focused on reducing the number of suicides, including through working groups and a series of strategy, prevention and delivery plans that are published every few years.
The Scottish Government refers to the curriculum for excellence as a broad national framework rather than a statutory curriculum. Health and wellbeing is one of the eight curricular areas in the framework, and it is one of the three core areas that are identified as a responsibility for all, which means that all staff across the school community share responsibility for delivery.
The Scottish Government points to resources that are available through Education Scotland to support learning in relation to mental health, self-harm, suicide prevention and positive mental wellbeing. It also notes that Education Scotland is leading on the development and delivery of the curriculum improvement cycle, with work already under way on that.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the evidence that is in front of us, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland and that the curriculum for excellence is a broad non-statutory national framework, with the content of what is taught being largely a matter for teachers, schools and local authorities. Health and wellbeing is one of the eight curricular areas of the curriculum for excellence and, in addition, is one of the three core areas that are identified as a responsibility for all. The Scottish Government has pointed to resources that are available through Education Scotland to support learning in relation to mental health, self-harm and suicide prevention, and it notes that Education Scotland is currently leading on the development and delivery of the curriculum improvement cycle.
Are we content with Mr Torrance’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Use of Digital Material in Court Proceedings (PE2185)
Our final petition today, PE2185, is on the introduction of stronger safeguards regarding the use of digital material in court proceedings. I have to assume that the three remaining guests in the gallery have suffered through our entire proceedings only to find that their petition is the last of those that we are considering today. Notwithstanding that, I hope that we can do something positive to assist.
The petition, which was lodged by Christopher Simpson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to ensure that any digital material that is presented in court, such as photos or screenshots, is verifiably sourced, timestamped and able to be independently authenticated before being considered admissible, unless both parties agree otherwise.
Regarding current court procedures, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has explained to our SPICe researchers that
“before any item attains evidential status its provenance must be established; an item is meaningless unless its source is in some way proved”.
If the defence and the prosecution do not agree on the provenance of an item, whether digital or not, there is a process in place that enables parties to challenge the evidence and lead their own rebuttal.
The Scottish Government indicates that the gathering and presentation of evidence are matters for Police Scotland and COPFS. The Government does not consider the action that is called for by the petition to be necessary on account of existing safeguards, which are meant to ensure that concerns about the authenticity of any digital evidence can be raised and investigated.
However, in an additional submission, the petitioner shares his distressing experience and reiterates that
“individuals can be subjected to lengthy investigations and restrictions based on unverified or fabricated digital material.”
Discussions about the provenance of evidence take place after a person has been charged, and the petitioner sees that as a gap in the legislation. He insists that all digital evidence must be verifiably sourced, timestamped and authenticated before it reaches court.
Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
In light of the evidence, I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Lord Advocate and the chief constable of Police Scotland to ask for their views on the petition and the timing concern that the petitioner expressed in his additional submission.
It strikes me that the timing concern is wholly legitimate. We know the opprobrium that can be attached to an individual being charged, and it would seem curious if evidence had not been corroborated before things got to that point in the process, so it is perfectly legitimate for us to seek further clarification on those matters.
I support that, including for the reason that, although in theory the specific proposal should not be necessary, in practice, the petitioner has had an experience that is quite the contrary: one of a failure to carry out a proper process, according to the petitioner’s narrative. Therefore, it would do no harm, particularly given the increasing importance of digital material and evidence in court, to understand what safeguards are in place to ensure that it is properly authenticated and verified as far as possible.
The main thrust of the petitioner’s submission is that that should happen, but one doubts whether it in fact happens, for various practical reasons. Not least of those would be because, to be honest, some people of my vintage might not really understand how digital material works. I would be surprised if some of my learned friends were necessarily experts at digital technology. The petitioner has raised an interesting area of evidence in criminal proceedings that should be pursued and clarified.
Yes. I should emphasise that, in pursuing these matters, we are not doing so on a purely theoretical basis; the evidence that is before the committee indicates that that was the actual experience of the petitioner.
We can see how digital evidence can be manipulated from the recent BBC fiasco involving a US President.
Indeed. The last time I checked, President Trump had not lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament in relation to the digital evidence at the BBC but, actually, I would not put it past him, because he seems to be quite free in doing that sort of thing.
We will keep the petition open, notwithstanding the time that is left to us in this session of Parliament, and hope that we can advance further information in relation to the points that are raised as a consequence of the additional submission from the petitioner.
For the sake of completeness, I point out that I recall—because I was present—when President Trump, who was then a businessman in north-east Scotland, appeared before a committee of this Parliament and stated that the wind turbines opposite his golf course should not go ahead. When he was asked what his evidence was, he replied, “I am the evidence.”
That is how the affairs of the United States are conducted, currently.
That brings us to the end of that item. I hope that the petitioner is content with our taking forward the petition on that basis.
12:27 Meeting continued in private until 12:34.Air ais
Continued Petitions