Seòmar agus comataidhean

We thank the petitioner for raising this fresh issue with us. We note the number of signatures that the petition has attracted. We will seek to take the issue further forward.

I think that, on this occasion, the petitioner has had some success, in that they achieved their end result.

We can do that if members are happy with that. You asked whether the Government would consider afresh the 67 per cent reduction in funding. We could also ask the Government what it thinks the consequences of such a reduction would be for the industry and communities.

Given what you have said, I wonder whether we might also draw the petition to the attention of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is currently undertaking a formal inquiry into office-holders, as part of which it is looking at the whole sweep of the office-holding positions. I know that the corporate body is due to give evidence to that committee, and I have previously—on behalf of the corporate body—raised issues of concern that the corporate body has had when I have presented the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It might be useful for that committee to be aware that the petition exists and that the ombudsman herself is keen on a review, although the Government does not seem minded to pursue one.

Are members content that we take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1962, on stopping motorhomes being parked overnight outwith formal campsites, caravan parks and aires, was lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are parked only in designated and regulated locations.

The Scottish Government’s recent submission states that the work of the camper van and motorhome working group is still under way and that no formal report has been submitted to the visitor management steering group. It was agreed that a formal report would be provided at the end of last year. I understand that that group has met and that that information is now on the Scottish Government’s website.

The petitioners have shared information about the prevalence of motorhomes being parked outwith campsites or aires and the associated issues. The information includes figures on roadside waste disposal, scorch marks and litter. The petitioners believe that, if the tourist levy is applied to campsites but not to motorhomes on roadsides, the number of people who opt to stay outwith formal sites will “increase significantly”. The submission also highlights the positive economic impact of the holiday park and campsite sector. Here we are in May 2024, going into the summer season, when I imagine that such issues will be at their most prevalent.

Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Our next petition is PE1975, by Roger Mullin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as they are known, which we have heard much about recently.

Members will recall that we took evidence on the petition from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and that, when we did so, we were encouraged by the news that a consultation on SLAPPs would be progressed in the autumn. Therefore, with that information in mind, given that the Government is to pursue matters, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to do that?

Sorry, Mr Marra, did you say that you wrote to the First Minister?

Petition PE2028, which was lodged by Pinar Aksu, on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network, and Doaa Abuamer, on behalf of the VOICES Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

We are joined by our MSP colleague, Paul Sweeney, who is redeeming one of his return tickets. Paul continues to have an interest in the petition, and he led a members’ business debate on the issues that it raised in October 2023. Good morning, Paul.

We previously considered the petition on 20 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Refugee Survival Trust. Members will recall that, shortly after that meeting, I took the opportunity to highlight the petition at the Conveners Group meeting with the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, who confirmed that the Scottish Government was giving active consideration to the issue.

We have received responses from the Refugee Sanctuary Scotland, which was formerly known as the Refugee Survival Trust, Transport Scotland and the Scottish Refugee Council, which are included in the papers for today’s meeting. The responses provide further detail on the pilot schemes that have taken place in Glasgow, Aberdeen and Falkirk. The findings of the Refugee Sanctuary Scotland emphasise the positive feedback that it received from participants in the pilot project, which enabled people to travel more frequently and over longer distances.

Following the pilots, the Refugee Sanctuary Scotland has recommended that future provision for people who are seeking asylum be implemented through the provision of a long-term digital ticket or through extension of the national concessionary travel scheme. Extending provision of the national scheme is viewed as increasingly important in the light of the Home Office’s dispersal policy of locating asylum seekers across Scotland, while most of the support systems are based in Glasgow. However, I understand that the Scottish Government is keen to ensure that any action that it takes does not have a consequential impact on asylum seekers arising from other Home Office regulations that might thereafter be triggered.

Since our most recent consideration of the petition and my raising the issue with the First Minister, the Scottish Government has announced funding of £2 million to support further exploration of extending free bus travel to people who are seeking asylum, and the commitment was noted as an immediate short-term action in the recently published fair fares review.

Before we consider the issues, I ask Paul Sweeney whether there is anything that he would like to say to the committee.

PE2085, which has been lodged by David Cornock, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory definition of residency for fatal accident inquiries into deaths of Scots abroad. We are joined in our consideration of the petition by our colleague Michael Marra. Welcome to you, Mr Marra.

The SPICe briefing explains that the term “ordinarily resident” is a commonly used and well-understood legal concept. The term is intended to be flexible to cover a wide range of circumstances.

In England and Wales, a coroner’s investigation will take place where the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of death was unknown or the deceased died in state detention. The inquest will mainly determine how, where and when someone died. Coroners will rarely make wider recommendations but can do so through a prevention of future deaths report. That system is significantly different from the Scottish system of death investigations.

In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and to prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. Fatal accident inquiries take place in limited circumstances at the discretion of the Lord Advocate where a death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained or gives rise to a serious public concern and she considers that it is in the public interest to hold a fatal accident inquiry. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has a role in investigating a wide range of suspicious deaths. However, only a small proportion of those are deemed to require the level of public investigation that is delivered by a fatal accident inquiry.

The Scottish Government has stated that it does not intend to define “ordinarily resident” in legislation and has highlighted that inquiries short of an FAI can take place in relation to deaths abroad, such as the instruction of a post-mortem.

The petitioner’s written submission details his personal experience and raises concerns about the quality of communication to next of kin in such circumstances. The submission also outlines improvements that the Lord Advocate has committed to progress as a result of his engagement with her. The petitioner has obviously been pursuing the aims and objectives of the petition.

Before I ask members to give their consideration to what we might do, I invite Michael Marra to address the committee.