Seòmar agus comataidhean

This is the other petition that has received my detailed attention. The minister’s response was fairly positive, but it is now almost a year old. It stated that work was to commence in early course, but the programme for government contains no reference to that legislation, as the convener said, and it is not clear whether the work has commenced or is to be commenced.

I therefore suggest that we do two things. First, we should write to the minister to seek an update on the submission of 29 July 2024 and, in particular, clarity on whether the work that is referred to in the last paragraph of the letter has commenced. It stated that the Government intended

“to commence this engagement in early course.”

Secondly, the petitioner’s response of 30 July 2024 recognised the minister’s concern and thanked her for her helpfulness to the committee, but it raised a very interesting point about whether victims are able to apply for an extension of a non-harassment order.

I gather that non-harassment orders are normally granted for a specific period in time. It therefore seems to be an extension of natural justice that, if the victim feels that there is a reason why that time period should be extended, they should have the opportunity to apply to court for an extension thereof. I would therefore be grateful if, in writing to the minister, we could inquire of him whether it is the case that the current law—which I think is, from memory, the Act of Adjournal (Criminal Procedure Rules Amendment No 2) (Non-harassment order) 1997—allows the victim to make such an application, and, if not, whether that would be part of the legislation that the minister is considering bringing in and considering in early course.

I do not oppose that, because a lot of progress has been made and a lot of the points that the petitioner raised have been answered. However, I note the fact that, in the petitioner’s response of 5 May, which is hot off the press, he sets out very clearly his response on each point. Some of the points that he makes certainly have substance, and others may do. I do not think that we can do much more with the petition in the remaining time that is available to us this session.

I commend the petitioner for his forensic focus on the defects in the code. To be fair, the responses have been relevant, but the petitioner may wish to come back to the Parliament in the next session, after he has reflected further on the changes.

You have highlighted that, in the Victim Support Scotland written submission of 20 November 2024, considerable doubt is cast on current approach and on how an absolute discharge can conceivably be justified. I appreciate that the Government’s argument is that that occurs only in the most exceptional circumstances, but we do not really know what those are nor how frequently the disposal has been deployed, and we should know that.

On a wider note, I suggest that we write to the Scottish Sentencing Council to highlight Victim Support Scotland’s written submission, and to ask how people can have confidence that absolute discharges are being used appropriately, given the serious nature of rape and sexual assault and the lack of information that is provided about what “exceptional circumstances” means in practice for such cases.

We should also write to the Lord Advocate and to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, asking the same questions so that we get a suite of answers, and highlighting the worrying and troublesome fact that those who are subject to an absolute discharge would not be made the subject of sex offender notification requirements—in other words, they would fall off any radar that exists, however adequate, or not, it may be. Again, that seems to be an anomaly.

Finally, the petition has—quite understandably—attracted a fairly high level of support. From memory, it has 563 signatures or thereabouts, and the number has gone up substantially from when we previously considered it. It is, therefore, plainly a matter of considerable public interest. For that reason, even though we are moving towards the end of the parliamentary session, I think that, rather than closing the petition, we should have at least one more shot at obtaining information that we have not—in my view, at any rate—thus far obtained.

I agree. I am struck by the information that we have had from the petitioner and others about the gravity of the problem and the extent of the risk that those women are exposed to. In our papers, I note that Ash Regan’s work on the topic of hostel safety is referenced. She has referred to the need to “stop more women dying”. The Glasgow Times has run a campaign that highlights the issue.

Although the Scottish Government has said that funding has been provided, there is a lack of clarity about whether any of that funding will find its way to providing the solution that the petitioner wants. I agree with the approach that Mr Torrance has advocated, but we should specifically ask what will be done to address the issue this year—so as to elicit not a vague response of, “Money will be made available in a general way,” but what exactly will be done—otherwise we will be in the same position and no further.

I hope that I am not being unfair to the Government—needless to say, I never wish to do that—but my concern is that women’s homelessness is one of those issues on which we talk about spending huge amounts of money but nothing actually happens.

I agree with what you have said, convener. In her response, which I am looking at, the minister, Jenni Minto, said:

“there is currently a lack of strong evidence for the effectiveness of enacting legislation to mandate deployment of PAD”—

public access defibrillators—

“in designated places”

and

“it is unclear whether such legislation would be ... effective”,

which suggests that there could be some evidence—we do not know what it is. If there is a lack of clarity, the best way to proceed might be to call the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to give evidence to the committee on the petition. I do not wish to pre-empt any procedure; we will also consider the next petition, which is also about defibrillators.

I was going to say something very similar. In the light of the tragic circumstances that befell the petitioner’s family, the petitioner has allowed the matter to be raised in the Scottish Parliament and allowed us to obtain the evidence that you refer to. The evidence shows that, in every country in the world that has policy on the issue, bed sharing seems to have a fairly high risk of cot death, which is tragic and sad. Through the petitioner’s efforts, he has been able to highlight the issue and what is a tragic loss for any such family.

I agree with all that, convener—I have one further point to add. The Scottish Government, in its response, says that there are checks and balances, one of which is that if the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service considers that the court has imposed an unduly lenient sentence, it is open to that body to appeal against the sentence.

I wonder if it could be clarified—I should know this, but I do not, because my practising days have been over for two decades now—whether that applies to an absolute discharge. Is that a sentence, or is it in fact an exoneration of sorts? If it is the latter, does that provision apply, and can the Crown appeal against an absolute discharge? Secondly, if the Crown is competent to do so, has it ever done that? Has that actually happened?

I agree. I do not think there is any purpose in pursuing the petition, because the petitioner has achieved his principal objective of seeing HPMAs scrapped and put in the burgeoning policy recycling unit that is probably somewhere in a bunker in St Andrew’s house. That is good news.

I read the reply from NatureScot, which arrived quite promptly in July last year. It was the shortest response I have ever seen from NatureScot and said that it was not pursuing HPMAs, although that was not really what I had suggested that it might do. I had suggested that NatureScot might pursue the same objective by other means—using not HPMAs but other methods to constrain fishing.

I place on record my extreme concern that the lot of inshore fishing, in particular, has become such that the future of the industry is parlous. For example, on the Clyde and the west coast, the influence of non-governmental organisations and overregulation resulted, a few years ago, in the very sad depletion of what used to be a huge fleet of fishing boats all round that coast. That should be a matter of real concern to all who cherish the contribution of fishermen to our economy. They seem to be beleaguered and under threat.

I say that because it is what has been put to me by various representatives of fishermen and their families in the past four years. In closing the petition, we must certainly not neglect to defend the interests of Scotland’s fishermen.

I agree that we cannot take the petition any further. We have ventilated the issue of luminescence. The Scottish Government says that local authorities can produce guidance as they wish for their own area. This might be more of an issue for Glasgow than for rural areas, it being an urban metropolitan local authority. To be fair to the Scottish Government, it has pointed the petitioner to the fact that the local authority could be persuaded to introduce guidance.

I read the petitioner’s comment that a particularly large sign is directly opposite a few small houses. One can imagine that that could form a light nuisance, especially in the evening. However, in case the petitioner feels that we are not casting sufficient light on the issue, I note that it is a matter for the local authority.

I have a quick question for some members of the panel. If there were to be a statutory right to learn to swim, would there be more use of pools due to more children being taught how to swim than at present? Would there therefore be additional income to pools as a general proposition? If so, can the panellists quantify that factor to help to take forward the delivery of a statutory right to learn to swim? That would be on the basis that it would help to bring in additional income, which would thereby help to meet the steep costs of running swimming pools.