Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, gentlemen. I want to ask about your engagement with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government told the committee in October last year—more than a year ago—that

“Officials will make contact with the Petitioner to discuss engagement between Transport Scotland and the Taxi sector”.

What was the outcome of those discussions?

Like Paul Sweeney, I found your account harrowing, and I am very sorry that the system appears to have let you down, not just in one way but in several ways. I just make that observation. Thank you very much for coming before us on an issue that is, sadly, so important for many women.

I will pursue the main issue, which is whether the law should be changed and, if so, how. Am I right in saying that you would like there to be a new criminal offence that specifically relates to circumstances in which violence or coercive action by a man—I think that it would be a man in almost every case—leads to the loss of an unborn child? Is that your primary objective in lodging the petition?

I was not sure if you could hear me, convener. While agreeing to the courses of action that you have just outlined in relation to PE1885, given that energy is a policy issue that rests substantially with the Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero, Energy and Transport, we should also write to him as well. In writing to both ministers, we should ask whether the Scottish Government has any plans to provide additional funding to enable communities to pursue an interest in community ownership and, in particular, whether the Scottish National Investment Bank, which operates commercially but has a green mandate, could be requested to provide an element or a tranche of funding from which communities might be able to draw, as well as raising money from other sources, such as private banks and so on.

It occurred to me that, in order to pursue what the petitioner wants, those related aspects are also relevant and are perhaps ones that we could seek the Scottish Government’s views on with regard to whether it has an additional plan to enable community ownership of renewable energy projects to become far more prevalent than it is at the moment.

Indeed. I do not know the answer, but we will pursue that point to see whether we can get justice for you.

I want to ask you about another issue. You were faced with the ghastly situation of finding that the charge had been reduced, as I understand it, without any consultation. Of course, at the end of the day, the people in charge of the prosecutorial system are, rightly, independent. However, do you feel that there should be a requirement for prior communication with victims of these ghastly circumstances prior to any reduction in the gravity of the offence being agreed between the fiscal and the defence lawyer?

That is extremely helpful. I am keen to pursue those points with my colleagues. Thank you for speaking out so clearly today.

I can understand that. As Mr Sweeney said, that could be done either by the Government or by an individual MSP.

However, I want to put to you an alternative that has been suggested, in a very helpful paper, by those advising us in the Scottish Parliament information centre. They suggest that, instead of creating a specific, brand new offence, it would be possible, under existing offences, for the charge against the assailant or the accused to specifically refer to the fact that the violence led to the loss of an unborn child. In other words, instead of creating a brand new offence, an alternative course of action could be to urge the Scottish Government and the justice system, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Lord Advocate, to require that such wording be specifically mentioned in the charge. Do you feel that that might be an acceptable alternative to the creation of a specific offence?

That is very helpful, because colleagues might wish to pursue that alternative option with the relevant authorities. In its submission, the Scottish Sentencing Council said that

“nothing ... precludes the loss of an unborn child caused by violent actions or coercive control from being libelled as part of an offence”,

so it says that that could be a route. However, I will ask the council, if I have the opportunity to do so, whether that has ever happened in practice.

How is the Government going to address the report’s points on inclusion and equalities?

I very much endorse the course of action that has been recommended by David Torrance about writing to the Deputy First Minister. In the letter, I wonder whether we might seek clarification of why the criteria seem to be based on how people came to be in care rather than on the experiences that they had in care. If an individual suffered a wrong, surely that individual should be entitled to receive remedy of whatever sort—a monetary compensatory award, an apology or something else. It seems that the criteria that are being used to restrict groups of people are, at least, open to question.

I also want to raise a point that relates to a constituency case that I had about not dissimilar circumstances. Although I will perhaps need to go back and check, my recollection is that part of the Scottish Government’s answer as to why a category of potential claimants was excluded from entitlement to claim a remedy was that that was what Parliament had judged during the passage of the relevant legislation. If that is the case, I wonder whether a little bit more work needs to be done to check the evidence and the basis on which Parliament came to its conclusion. That is my recollection; if it is faulty, I must apologise, but I think that that was part of the reasoning that the DFM adduced in reply to me on a very similar issue. If that is the case, it suggests that Parliament has, in fact, considered the principle of the issue before.

Perhaps the clerks could check that in order to see whether I am rambling incoherently and talking complete nonsense or have a nugget of a point.

I support David Torrance’s suggestion to refer the petitions to the health committee. In the evidence that we heard, many concerns were enunciated about particular issues that are affecting people in rural Scotland; most of Scotland is actually “rural Scotland”, in terms of geography.

As I understand it, as a constituency MSP with a partly rural constituency, some of the issues have not been raised in evidence; that is no criticism of the petitioners. For example, provision of vaccination services by local general practitioners is not available any more because of the terms of the GP contract. Many people feel that that is an unfair restriction on general practices that would like to provide vaccination services as well as other services. That is a hot issue right now; it was not raised by the petitioners, but I raise it as an example from my casework of an important nitty-gritty issue.

It was raised in evidence by the petitioners and by Rhoda Grant that travel allowances for people who must undertake operative treatment in Inverness—people who have to travel from the Western Isles, for example, who must stay in hotels and who have probably driven—are woefully inadequate and do not cover costs. I suspect that that is because of the UK tariff, because I have looked into the matter before for constituents who have had to travel from Inverness to the central belt. The level of travel allowances and travel costs are unfair. I mention that in the hope that, if the committee agrees to refer the petitions to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, those issues could be considered, as well as the particular ones that are raised by the petitioners.