Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our final petition is PE1994, which is lodged by Margaret Fagan and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and the handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases. Ms Fagan tells us that, while reforms aimed at protecting victims of sexual offences are welcome, changes to the law are, in her view, unduly disadvantaging those accused of committing such offences. She is particularly concerned that evidence gathered by the defence, such as medical reports and witness statements, is being rejected on the grounds that it is irrelevant or inadmissible.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that reforms introduced through the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 amended the restrictions on evidence relating to sexual offences. The reforms were intended to prevent the leading of evidence that is of limited relevance to the particulars of the case or that unduly undermines the credibility of the complainer. The provisions were not intended to increase conviction rates, nor should they infringe on the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Scottish Government response also notes that careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Lady Dorrian review, “Improving the Management of Sexual Offence Cases”, with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislative reform as part of the criminal justice reform bill. As noted in the SPICe briefing, it is anticipated that that bill will be introduced in the spring or summer of the current year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s recommendation? I believe that we are.

PE1931, lodged by Ian Barker, calls on the Scottish Government to prevent the digital exclusion of rural properties and households by giving priority in the reaching 100 per cent—R100—programme to properties with internet speeds of less than 5 megabits per second.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the relevant contractor—BT Openreach—to seek further information about how work is sequenced and prioritised. The Scottish Government’s response explained that it conducted an open market review to identify the premises that would be eligible for public investment through R100. The intervention area identified was tested through a public consultation to confirm that it was accurate. The Scottish Government also weighted the scoring for some rural locations as part of the bidding process to encourage deployment in those areas. The submission provides information about the full fibre charter for Scotland, which aims to extend build further into remote, rural and geographically challenging areas.

BT Openreach’s response to the committee explains its inside-out approach to sequencing works, whereby build begins from the primary exchange location, where the main fibre controls unit is located, out into the communities. The rationale for that is to make the most use of public subsidy and extend the network as much as it can with the funding that is available.

Finally, a recent parliamentary question from Willie Rennie MSP highlighted an FOI that, he said, reveals that the full R100 programme will not be delivered until March 2028.

The subject has entertained the chamber with a degree of controversy for as long, frankly, as I can recall. Colleagues, have we any comments in the light of the evidence that we have received?

Are there any other comments? Are we content to proceed as Mr Stewart suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

All right. I am happy to keep the petition open for us to take it into account in our consideration.

Are we content to write to key stakeholders to seek their views on the action called for in the petition in order to generate a bit of further information? Are you content for the clerks to give some consideration to who those stakeholders might be and who we might want to hear from? On that recommendation, we will write to a broader body of people, rather than us trying to second-guess who all the organisations are at the moment. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes. That is helpful, Mr Ewing. Let us face it: on numerous occasions during consideration of petitions in the past, the committee has received submissions in which it was suggested that there was already a route through which the aims of a petition could be realised, only for us to find, on investigation, that there were obstacles in place or that, in fact, the route was rarely exercised or understood. Given that that has been suggested to us as a remedy, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which it is one. I am happy to agree to that. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1988, lodged by Sue Wallis, calls on the Scottish Government to review the process for allowing raw sewage discharge from homes into Scottish coastal waters; provide additional funding to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for enforcement; and introduce legislation to ban households from discharging raw sewage.

The SPICe briefing states that financial responsibility for the provision of private sewage treatment rests with the individual home owner or community. The Scottish Government response states that there are no plans to provide additional funds to Scottish Water to provide connections to households with private sewerage arrangements during the current investment period but households have the option to connect to the public network at their own expense and Scottish Water will make a reasonable contribution towards the costs of that project, should a new main be required. The submission states that the current register of septic tanks held by SEPA is incomplete and the number of unauthorised discharges is likely to be high. The Scottish Government notes that SEPA is reviewing its regulation of private sewerage systems.

The petitioner highlights the difference in approach to unauthorised disposals compared with that to dog fouling, where fines are issued to those who do not clear up after their dogs. She shares her experience of reporting issues to SEPA in 2019 and expresses concern that nothing has changed in almost four years. The petitioner questions the method of registering private water discharge with SEPA at the point of house sale: in her experience, several of the properties have been sold, but no change has happened as a result.

Do members have comments or suggestions for action?

Are there any other comments? I have to say that, because the dog fouling issue was before the public eye, it led to a change in practice. I cannot help but feel that, if every member of the public was similarly subjected to the voiding of raw sewage into water, there would be much more public concern and engagement on the issue. The parallel that has been drawn is certainly valid. It is quite a visual parallel, and it leads me to believe that we should pursue the issue quite a bit further to see where we get with it.

Next is PE1935, which is not the year in which an infringement was last upheld, just the number of the petition. Lodged by Dillon Crawford, it calls on the Scottish Government to create an independent committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the Scottish ministerial code.

The committee, at our last consideration, agreed to request a Scottish Parliament Information Centre briefing on the ministerial code equivalents in the partner nations: England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The SPICe briefing provides detail of the processes followed across the UK. In Scotland, the First Minister is the only MSP who assesses and decides action for a breach of the ministerial code.

All MSPs, including ministers, are expected to abide by the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”. The briefing states that that is consistent with arrangements at a UK level and in the other devolved nations, where there are separate codes of conduct for members of the Government and members of the respective legislatures.

While there are similarities, the briefing notes that there are differences between Governments in how alleged breaches of the relevant ministerial code are dealt with, the status of the independent advisers and the sanctions available to the Prime Minister or the First Minister in relation to breaches of the relevant ministerial code. Have members any comments or suggestions for action?

That is helpful. Thank you for the suggestion. Having seen that concern, I was not sure where we would write to to resolve it, but that is a good suggestion.

Are members of the committee content to proceed on the basis of those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.