Seòmar agus comataidhean

The final new petition that we will consider today is PE2015. The petition, which was lodged by Irene Krsmanovic, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the right to vote in Scottish local government and Scottish Parliament elections to all prisoners held in Scottish prisons.

On 4 May 2023, ministers laid a copy of the report on the review of the operation of section 5 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020. The report concludes by stating:

“The Scottish Government’s position remains that it is neither appropriate, nor necessary to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, to enfranchise all prisoners, but that the correct balance is found in extending voting rights to those prisoners serving shorter sentences.”

It states clearly:

“The Scottish Government does not plan to revisit the 12-month threshold for prisoner voting.”

That is a fairly express direction.

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed with the petition?

Were there a route to pursue, I think that it would be to amend the 2021 act to include private hire and taxi drivers, which Unite has suggested that it would support. [Interruption.] Sorry?

That has also been very much at the heart of the debate in Parliament.

Given the express direction that we have received that the Scottish Government has no plans to revisit the 12-month threshold, I propose that, under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, we close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Government’s position remains that

“it is neither appropriate, nor necessary to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights, to enfranchise all prisoners, but that the correct balance is found in extending voting rights to those prisoners serving shorter sentences.”

Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much, Mr Whittle.

Colleagues, I am interested to know what suggestions you have. It is encouraging that the minister has accepted two of our recommendations, but our continued concern might involve deliberation on the potential vagueness in the Government’s response in respect of the separate recommendation. Does anybody wish to comment?

Have we taken evidence on that? I cannot recall. No, I do not think that we have taken evidence on it.

PE1906, which was lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of Replace the M8, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow cathedral, including, specifically, complete removal and repurposing of the land.

Like the ghost of Christmas past, we are joined by our former colleague Paul Sweeney, who spoke in support of the petition when he was a member of the committee. Welcome back, Paul—it is nice to see you. We have missed your independent analysis in our considerations. I have been following with interest your public campaign in relation to the matters raised in the petition, about which we will, no doubt, hear more in a moment.

We previously considered the petition on 23 November and, since then, we have received a response from the Scottish Government stating that Transport Scotland is “happy to work” with Glasgow City Council to ensure that “all the necessary stakeholders” are included in any assessment. The submission states that no funding has been allocated by the Scottish Government towards an assessment and that, as discussions on the scope of any work have not taken place,

“it would not be appropriate to discuss funding at this time.”

On that note, I am happy to ask Mr Sweeney whether he has any comments or suggestions as to how the committee might advance the interests of the petition.

I suppose that that would be of some reassurance if you were driving over it.

There are a number of questions that we could put to the minister in advance or in an evidence session. Does the committee have a preference? Should we ask for more detailed information in advance?

I take Mr Sweeney’s point that, in some ways, the petition is there to provoke some sort of wider progress. Some of the issues that it raises are quite intriguing. From small seeds, big outcomes can follow, if we show an interest and a commitment.

I suggest that we write to Glasgow City Council saying that we are interested in the aims of the petition and are minded at some stage to facilitate a wider discussion but that it would be useful at this first phase if it fleshed out its ideas as to what might follow. I suggest that we indicate that we do not necessarily require an immediate timescale, because we recognise that the council might have to do a little bit of thinking before it comes back to us. That would allow us to have a better idea of how we might advance the aims of the petition. Does the committee agree?

Members indicated agreement.

That is great. We will keep the petition open on that basis. Thank you very much for joining us, Mr Sweeney.