Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suspect that there is no data yet, because it is very early. However, Mr Ewing is probably correct to suggest that we might anticipate a petition at some point in relation to the unintended—or, in some cases, intended—consequences of the legislation that has been imposed.

PE2069 is the final new petition today. The petition, which was lodged by Nicole MacDonald, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure the accuracy of evidence gathered by child welfare reporters by introducing a requirement that statements that are provided as part of their report are signed as a true account.

Ms MacDonald raises concerns that, where child welfare reports contain inaccurate or misleading information, individuals rely on their solicitor to challenge inaccuracies and, if the solicitor does not, there is the potential for the court to be misled when making its decision. The SPICe briefing highlights the Scottish Government’s 2016 guide to the child welfare report, which notes that the reporter should only ask for information that is relevant to the remit that the court sets. However, as the briefing also notes, if someone does not agree with something in the report, their solicitor should raise that with the court. It notes that the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 provides for a system of statutory regulation of child welfare reporters, although the detail of the regulatory regime is still to be determined, having been delayed, in the minister’s words, “by budgetary pressure”.

The Minister for Victims and Community Safety tells us that a working group on child welfare reports will be set up to inform any changes to current practice and the long-term policy on child welfare reporters. Although a previous working group rejected the suggestion that interviews with child welfare reporters should be recorded, the minister will ask the new working group to consider that point and make recommendations.

It is an interesting series of issues with interesting comments in response. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We might also request that the group engages with the petitioner, if possible. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is the consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE2035, lodged by Alex Hogg, who joins us this morning at our request to give evidence on the petition, which we last considered at our meeting on 25 October 2023. The petition calls on the Scottish Government to officially recognise the legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland. Mr Hogg is petitioning on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and has indicated to the committee that he would like to make a short statement before we move to questions. Good morning, Mr Hogg. When you are settled and ready, over to you.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1947, which was lodged by Alex O’Kane, on addressing Scotland’s culture of youth violence. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland.

When we last considered this petition, we took evidence from Dr Fern Gillon and Dr Susan Batchelor, and the committee has had a meeting with an Edinburgh-based youth group, 6VT, which is just off the Grassmarket. We also visited Milton in Glasgow, where we met the petitioner with our parliamentary colleague Bob Doris in attendance. At that meeting, we heard from families—not necessarily from the Milton area; there were people from Fife present—who had had direct experience of the issues raised in the petition, and some of their evidence, which was given anonymously, was, for committee members, very harrowing to hear. However, we were extraordinarily impressed with the courage of the individuals and their families and the candour of their evidence, and I would like to thank all those who were prepared to meet us.

I am delighted to welcome our witnesses to the committee this morning: Emily Beever—[Interruption.] I have suddenly noticed that my notes were missing—they were on a different page. We have with us Emily Beever, senior development officer, No Knives, Better Lives and Will Linden, deputy head and head of analysis, Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, and I am also delighted to welcome Jonathan Watters, community policing inspector, Police Scotland. Welcome, all, and thank you for being present.

Our questions probably arise out of the different evidence sessions that we have held. I know that you are not a conglomerate, so if you have a particular view that you would like to express, just let me know that you want to come in and I will invite you to do so.

What does the available evidence tell us about the level of involvement of children and young people as perpetrators of violent behaviour? Obviously we have heard examples, but our academics did not think that it was a significant issue, particularly in relation to young people. If these perpetrators are there, are they teenagers, or younger or older than that? Secondly, is there some easily identified universal relevant factor that you can point to as the source of such behaviour, or is it much more complicated than that and not something that can be summarised simplistically by saying that it is to do with, say, deprivation, family or whatever? I would be interested in knowing that.

Who would like to kick off? It is quite a general introductory question—a starter for three, perhaps.

I want to illustrate that point with the evidence from one of those young people from whom we heard. She was a 12-year-old girl who was vulnerable. She was befriended on social media and invited to meet the individual by whom she had been befriended. She found that, in fact, she had been invited to an appointment where there was a crowd of people. She was then physically assaulted. The incident was filmed. She was left unconscious. She was hospitalised. Her parents did not recognise her when they saw her in hospital. The video of the assault was posted, not anonymously but with the names of all those involved attached. They did that because, in their minds, if you are under 25 the procurator will not take forward any action against you. Therefore, they felt that they could do that with impunity. By thinking that way and by promoting that view, they are encouraging others to do the same.

I accept that, in that case, social media is a tool that is being used by people who are disposed towards that kind of violence, but it struck me that the more that there is a belief, rightly or wrongly, that that process as it was described is accurate, the more it will encourage more of the same, because the people perpetuating the violence felt empowered. However appalling it might be, they felt that it made them untouchable and gave them status within their peer group. That is an example of what you and David Torrance are talking about that we heard about directly. It was very difficult not to be profoundly struck by it.

I have allowed the question session to run on a little bit, because it is an important subject. Would you like to volunteer any final comments before we conclude?

No one has any other comments. I am very grateful to the witnesses for their helpful, candid and forthright evidence.

I will suspend the meeting briefly.

Our next continued petition is PE1864, lodged by Aileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, empowering local authorities to ensure local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process and appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries.

We last considered the petition as far back as 31 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning to seek clarification on what the Scottish Government means by ensuring communities can have a “meaningful say” on planning applications.

The minister’s response refers to the definition of community set out in the national planning framework, and notes that, at the time of writing, a consultation was under way on

“effective community engagement in local development planning guidance.”

Members may be aware that the consultation closed on 13 September 2023.

The minister’s response goes on to highlight that the Government’s planning and environmental appeals division has agreed to consider a refresh of reporter training on handling inquiries to ensure that members of the public are able to give their views and to have those properly heard in a safe environment at inquiries.

We have received five submissions subsequently from the petitioner, the first of which comments on the response that we received from the minister and suggests that clearer definitions are required to make an effective assessment of the effectiveness of planning guidance. The petitioner has also restated their proposals for enabling communities to access professional help when engaging with the planning process, which they suggest could be financed through an increase in planning application fees.

The subsequent submissions from the petitioner draw our attention to the type of experience that community groups face when confronting or being confronted by a developer’s legal team during inquiries.

The petitioner highlights comments from the United Kingdom Government that

“decisions on onshore wind are best made by local representatives who know their areas.”

They also refer to the publication of a deal between the onshore wind industry and the Scottish Government with the industry and highlight a comment that was made in relation to that:

“A well-resourced and efficient planning system is needed ... to enable projects to go ahead where they have local support.”

We have received a range of submissions from the petitioner and a response from the Government. The consultation that it held has subsequently been published. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Do we agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1957, lodged by Catherine Donaghy, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that surveyors are legally responsible for the accuracy of information provided in the single survey, and to increase the liability on surveyors to pay repair bills when a home report fails to highlight existing faults in the condition of the property. At this point, I excuse Mr Choudhury from our proceedings.

We last considered the petition on 17 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking further detail on its plans to review home reports. In its response, the Scottish Government has stated its position that delivering the ask of the petition would be inappropriate as the scope of the home report survey is outlined at the beginning of the report and that members of Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors carrying out home report surveys are required to have in place a complaints handling procedure and professional indemnity insurance. The response goes on to note that the delayed 2020 review on home reports will now be progressed alongside the Government’s work to update cross-tenure housing standards.

In light of that, how might we proceed?