Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do colleagues agree to close the petition on that basis and to note and accept Mr Ewing’s suggestion that we, within our competences, have a posthumous letter on our recommendation ready for the next Presiding Officer of the Parliament, if only to ensure that the issue does not recur as a running sore thereafter and that there is an opportunity for our recommendation to be factored into the proper scrutiny of the project by the colleagues who will have the responsibility to monitor it in the next parliamentary session?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2192, which was lodged by Kevin McGillivray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 so that debt owed by domestic abusers to their survivors cannot be written off by sequestration.

The SPICe briefing for the petition clarifies that sequestration is the term that is used in Scots law for entering personal bankruptcy. When someone becomes bankrupt, a trustee is appointed to manage their assets on behalf of creditors. The trustee is usually the Accountant in Bankruptcy, which is a Scottish Government executive agency.

Further, the briefing clarifies that if a domestic abuser is trying to abuse the bankruptcy process and is not, in fact, genuinely unable to pay their debts, it is possible for anyone with an interest—including the ex-partner—to apply to the court to have the award of sequestration recalled. Furthermore, concerns about the abuser having hidden income or assets can be reported to the trustee. On investigation, the trustee is able to require assets and income to be handed directly to them, if necessary. The debtor can also be reported to the police if they are suspected of a criminal offence.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the fraudulent use of bankruptcy to further abuse a partner amounts to financial abuse and that safeguards are in place to prevent that. The Government clarifies that, in investigating the debtor’s assets, the trustee’s powers are limited under the 2016 act, as

“They cannot carry out covert investigations, examine income or bank accounts not held in the debtor’s name, or act beyond the statutory investigation period.”

In relation to alternative action, the response points to a nationwide policy review of statutory debt solutions, which was initiated in 2019. The final report of recommendations to Scottish ministers was expected by the end of the last calendar year.

The petitioner’s written submission highlights that economic abuse involves complex financial behaviours that trustees cannot detect under the existing powers. It also expresses concerns that the transparency presumed by the insolvency system does not always work in practice.

There is quite a lot in the petition, but the response suggests that there is already provision available to remedy the situation. What do colleagues think? Are there any proposals for action?

We will close the petition on the basis that has been identified.

For the next new petition, I note that we have some guests in the public gallery, and we are also joined by Jackie Baillie.

PE2193, lodged by Avril Arnott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory clinical standards to ensure that urgent paediatric cancer referrals are subject to the same maximum wait times as adult referrals; require clear accountability and follow-up when a paediatric cancer referral is downgraded or delayed; fund training and update guidelines to enable general practitioners and clinicians to recognise, and escalate action on, signs of cancer in children as promptly as they would in adult cases; and undertake a formal review of paediatric diagnostic delays in Scotland, to identify systemic failures and implement change.

The petition was motivated—as petitions too often are—by the tragic passing of a young girl after she was repeatedly referred and downgraded in her medical assessments. The petitioner argues that no young person should have their symptoms underestimated simply because they appear to be healthy or are perceived to be too young for serious illness.

The Scottish Government points to a number of projects, either completed or in progress, that directly address the points raised by the petition. The Scottish referral guidelines were updated last summer to support GPs in referrals for children and young people. The cancer action plan for Scotland for 2023 to 2026 includes carrying out a clinically-led review of the latest evidence to determine

“whether there is merit in specific additional or alternative cancer waiting times standards for different types of cancer and cancer treatment”.

In 2024, NHS Scotland launched a primary care cancer education platform, which provides primary care clinicians with information to support earlier cancer diagnosis efforts and enable effective decision making. The Scottish Government expects the managed service network for children and young people with cancer to be alert to systemic failures and to initiate local board escalation procedures if necessary. Additionally, the Scottish Government previously stated that the managed service network handles the implementation of “Collaborative and Compassionate Cancer Care: cancer strategy for children and young people 2021-2026”. That work started in 2021 and is due to be completed in 2026.

Before the committee decides what action to take, I invite Jackie Baillie to contribute to our thinking.

That brings us to PE2197, lodged by Linsay McRitchie, which is on allowing more survivors of care abuse to access redress. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend section 18 of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 to include survivors of abuse that occurred after 2004.

Under section 18 of the act, redress payments are limited to abuse of children in “relevant care settings” in Scotland that occurred before 1 December 2004. The policy memorandum for the bill set out that that is the date when the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, gave a public apology in the Parliament.

The policy memorandum also set out that

“Rapid and substantial change in relation to the monitoring and regulation of the care system in Scotland took place in the period immediately following the creation of the Scottish Parliament.”

Consideration was given to the date being set at 17 December 2014 instead, to match the Scottish child abuse inquiry’s terms of reference, but the Scottish Government’s view was that 2004 was a more appropriate cut-off point in the context of the redress scheme.

The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that it considers that the cut-off date for the scheme

“remains appropriate and in line with the core purpose of the scheme”.

It also states that there are no plans to review that.

The petitioner’s written submission states that

“Just because the law drew a line at 2004 doesn’t mean abuse stopped then”.

She believes that if the inquiry investigates abuse over a specified time period, the redress scheme should also cover that time period. The petitioner also states that the

“cut-off date leaves an entire generation behind”,

as they are left with no route to redress.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content, given the position of the Scottish Government, notwithstanding the importance of the issue, to accept that we will not be able to advance the petition during this parliamentary session?

Are members content with Mr Golden’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2207 is entitled “I demand the Scottish Parliament create a pilot court to try Russian war criminals with Ukraine”. The petitioner, Sviatoslav Rozenko, demands that the Scottish Government establish a pilot court to try Russian war criminals in co-operation with Ukraine and international bodies. That will make Scotland a centre of international justice, ensuring punishment for the guilty, protection of victims and adherence to international law, strengthening the country’s authority globally and demonstrating commitment to justice and international legal principles.

Before we begin any further consideration of the petition, I note that the committee did not receive the Scottish Government’s response to it until last week, which is substantially later than was expected. That is disappointing both for the petitioner, given the effect on their opportunity to give any response to that, and for the committee.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the petition’s ask to be practical or achievable. The submission states that, although it would be legally possible to create a new domestic court with universal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Ukraine, the Scottish Government’s policy is not to create a new domestic court to prosecute those crimes. The Government’s reasons for that are set out in its written submission and include the impracticality of prosecuting crimes without any nexus to Scotland, practical and financial challenges with investigating and translation, and the cost involved in creating a new court.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. The petitioner sets out that the ask of his petition is possible in Scotland. He states that the Scottish Government’s position is a political choice rather than a result of legal constraint. The submission counters the Scottish Government’s financial position, stating that no cost estimates or comparisons with alternative routes were provided. The petitioner states that the true reasons for the Scottish Government’s rejection are political caution, fear of precedent, unwillingness to take international initiative and wider geopolitical consequences, all of which are perfectly legitimate. Do members have any comments?

11:00

If members have no other comments, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, any final recommendation would do that.