Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

Members will recall the evidence session that we held at our last meeting, with stakeholders, who raised many important issues in relation to the petition. We have also heard directly from the petitioner, Nicola Murray, about her personal experience and her desire to see a change in the current system.

In advance of the meeting, we had a chance to reflect on the evidence. Today affords us an opportunity publicly to give some thought to what we have heard and how we might take matters further forward. This is one of the more important petitions that we have heard. We have all been very struck by the evidence as we have listened to it.

PE1906, which has been lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of @ReplacetheM8, 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, the complete removal and repurposing of the land.

When we previously considered the petition on 23 February, we agreed to write to stakeholders seeking their views on the action that the petition calls for. Glasgow City Council has highlighted its commitment to address the aims of the petition as part of its “Strategic Plan 2022 to 2027”. It has committed to

“Commission research on and explore options to reduce the impact of the M8 on the city centre, and review opportunities to re-engineer other roads infrastructure to become more people-friendly including options for long-term replacement.”

It also states that funding and collaboration with stakeholders such as Transport Scotland is required to take forward the research.

We have also had submissions from Professor Richard Williams, who provided information on a recent project in São Paulo, and from Dr Wood, who supports the petition. Dr Wood’s submission highlights relevant traffic reduction projects in other parts of the UK, and the related economic development opportunities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I recall that Mr Sweeney has a particular interest in the petition.

We could write to the Scottish Government to ask it to facilitate a collaborative approach between Transport Scotland and Glasgow City Council to see what progress could be made, and to clarify what the funding mechanism for the proposed outcomes might be. Does that seem sensible?

Let us, in the first instance, pursue the issue a little bit further and see where that takes us. We can consider that response in due course. I thank Monica Lennon for her evidence.

Are members agreed on the way forward?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE1933, which has been lodged by Iris Tinto, on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group, is on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress. We were going to be joined by Martin Whitfield MSP, who has unfortunately had to go to a meeting elsewhere. However, we are joined by Brian Whittle MSP, who has an interest in the petition. I welcome him to the committee.

We previously considered the petition on 15 June. At that time, we agreed to write to the Deputy First Minister, Glasgow City Council and bodies representing victims and survivors of abuse. Since then, the committee has received responses from the Deputy First Minister, Glasgow City Council, Victim Support Scotland, the Moira Anderson Foundation, the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, Future Pathways and the petitioner. Copies of those responses are included in the papers for today’s meeting. Our meeting papers summarise some of the issues that have been raised.

Members will also be aware that representatives of the Fornethy survivors group visited the Scottish Parliament very recently, on 27 October, and the matter of their exclusion from the redress scheme was raised directly with the First Minister at First Minister’s question time on that day.

The written evidence that we have received from organisations that represent and support victims and survivors of abuse suggests that there is support for widening the scheme’s eligibility criteria to include survivors who experienced abuse during short-term respite or holiday care.

The Deputy First Minister has stated that it was always the Scottish Government’s intention to exclude arrangements where there was no exercise of public function in either the provision of accommodation or the reason for the child being resident in the care setting.

The responses from both the petitioner and Glasgow City Council highlight that records relating to Fornethy house are limited. It strikes me that it may not be possible to establish, one way or another, the reason for a child’s stay at Fornethy, in order to meet the proviso that the Deputy First Minister has stipulated is to form the basis of their exclusion.

Before I open up the matter to committee members to see how we might proceed, would Brian Whittle like to say anything in support of the petition?

I am very supportive of that suggestion.

Thank you, Mr Stewart. Mr Ewing, I think that I saw you nodding in assent.

We thank the petitioner but, in view of the response that we have received from the Scottish Government, we will close the petition under rule 15.7.

PE1955, lodged by John Wood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities provide good-quality, clean and accessible public toilets by placing a statutory duty on local authorities to provide adequate public toilets and ensuring that sufficient funding is available to local authorities to meet that requirement.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights a 2018 BBC report, which revealed that 15 of the 28 Scottish councils that responded to an FOI request had fewer public toilets in 2018 than they had in 2010. The briefing also points to a comfort scheme that runs in a number of local authorities and which provides grants to businesses and organisations when they register to become providers of toilet facilities. I have to say that I was unaware of that scheme.

In its response, the Scottish Government states that

“there are no plans ... to make the provision of public toilets a statutory obligation on local authorities.”

It points to the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which includes

“project proposals”

to deliver

“new public toilets, car parking, and waste disposal facilities.”

In his response to the Scottish Government, the petitioner says that the provision of public toilets is

“a basic requirement of public and environmental health”,

not simply “an optional ‘tourism’ issue”. He points to the Scottish Government’s role in ensuring “health and environmental protection” as a demonstration of why the issue is of national importance.

I note from a motion lodged by one of our parliamentary colleagues that this is national toilet week, of which I was also unaware. We are therefore considering the petition at an apposite moment. Do members have any comments or suggestions for how to take the issue forward?

Are there any other suggestions or are members content to proceed on that basis? It might also be useful to write to Highland, South Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire councils in order to understand how the comfort schemes operate. As I have said, I was not previously aware of them, and I would be interested to find out how many businesses are actually supportive of the schemes and what effort had to be put into achieving them; what the annual cost is; and how widely advertised and understood the schemes are. They would seem to offer an opportunity that other councils might wish to take into account. In addition, councils might seek to use the rural infrastructure fund that Mr Ewing has suggested we write to the Government about as a means of facilitating that.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.