Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Josh MacLeod in my parliamentary office for his very forceful representations to me on the matter.

PE2205, which was lodged by Daniel Donaldson, is on extending access to justice by reforming court rules in equality and human rights claims. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove or raise the £5,000 monetary limit in simple procedure for claims that are brought under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, and to extend qualified one-way costs shifting to cover equality and human rights claims.

The SPICe briefing explains that simple procedure is a simplified type of court procedure that is designed to be used for relatively low-value claims, without the need for specialist legal advice. Simple procedure uses maximum thresholds to cap the money that can be claimed for legal expenses.

In cases in which qualified one-way costs shifting, or QOCS—which is, apparently, pronounced “kwocks”, although not by me—applies, the pursuer is not liable for the defender’s legal expenses if they lose. However, the defender remains liable for the pursuer’s legal expenses if the pursuer wins. QOCS is generally used in court actions when there is a recognised imbalance between the position of the parties.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states:

“While officials have generally kept the Simple Procedure limit under continual review there have been very few calls for an increase in the Simple Procedure limit to date … There has been no detailed analysis specifically undertaken in relation to removing or raising the £5,000 limit in Simple Procedure claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 … Removing or raising the monetary limit would require secondary legislation to be taken forward”

and the

“Government have no plans to do this in this Parliamentary session.

On the issue of QOCS, the Scottish Government says that there have been “few calls” for the change that the petition sets out—that is why we have petitions—and its submission states:

“At this time, the Scottish Government does not consider it has the sufficient data or evidence to support such a change. The need to deliver against existing priorities combined with the limited time remaining in the current parliamentary session will restrict further investigations”—

blah, blah, blah. Although no plans are in place to explore QOCS applying in the types of cases sought by the petitioner, future consideration might be given to whether QOCS could be extended to other types of civil litigation.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That brings us to the final continued petition this morning, PE2209, which was lodged by Joanna Kerr, as was the previous petition that we considered. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make CCTV mandatory in all taxis and private hire vehicles.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, although the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have responsibility for the overarching legislation, the day-to-day administration of the licensing regime is devolved to independent licensing authorities. The submission states that the licensing authorities—in this case, the 32 local authorities—have discretion to determine appropriate licensing arrangements for vehicles according to local needs and their own legal advice. That includes decisions in relation to the installation of CCTV in vehicles as a requirement of licensing. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s position is that that is a matter more appropriately for individual licensing authorities to consider.

The submission notes that a task force on civic licensing is reviewing a range of licensing provisions, including provisions in relation to general taxi and private hire car licensing. It is expected that a report setting out recommendations will be presented to the Scottish ministers by spring 2026. Although the focus of the group is not specifically on CCTV, that issue might arise as part of its considerations.

Obviously, the issue is a matter for local licensing bodies, which are the local authorities. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

As there are no suggestions, I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government’s view is that it is more appropriately a matter for individual licensing authorities to consider. In any event, the committee has limited time ahead of it to consider the issue further.

Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes today’s meeting.

Meeting closed at 11:08.

Mr Ewing, the long and winding road, as ever, leads us to your door. Thank you for your contribution on the petition. Are you making a formal proposal to close the petition and to establish in practice the criteria that we might indicate as the basis for its closure?

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.

The first new petition for consideration is PE2191, lodged by Robin Pettigrew, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the legislation concerning the Scottish outdoor access code in order to explicitly prohibit camping in a vehicle outside designated camping zones, and to make the provisions of the code legally enforceable by introducing dedicated enforcement teams and fines for code violations.

The right of responsible access to land was introduced by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and is guided by the SOAC, which is a voluntary code of conduct. Currently, access rights apply only to non-motorised vehicle access.

The Government recognises the potential challenges that are posed by the behaviour of some road users. It states that infringements of the SOAC are a matter for local authorities, roads authorities and Police Scotland to manage. The Scottish Government considers that the creation of a new team with enforcement powers might create confusion over roles and, it implies, a less effective response to SOAC infringements.

On illegal or antisocial behaviours that fall outwith the scope of the code, the Government’s response suggests that a range of mechanisms are available to tackle those behaviours and that reviewing Scotland’s system of non-motorised access rights would not make a substantial difference to the enforcement of any such actions.

I read all that from the Government and thought that it was rubbish, to be frank. A serious issue has been raised in the context of the petition, but I am sorry to say that this is one of the petitions that I have identified for which we would need to initiate considerable work. If the committee proposes to close the petition, I hope that the petitioner will raise the issue in the new session of the Parliament when it convenes in May.

Do colleagues have any suggestions or thoughts?

Are there any other comments or thoughts? If not, are colleagues content to support Mr Golden’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

We will therefore hold the petition open and act on that basis. I thank Jackie Baillie for her contribution and the people in the gallery for being with us this morning.

Thank you, Mr Golden. Are colleagues content to close the petition?