Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next petition, PE1983, which was lodged by Daniel Osula, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system by ensuring that clear information is provided to members of the public about how their case will be considered and that information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff.

We last considered the petition on 8 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to ask what steps it takes to ensure that procedural rules and practices of the courts and their complaints procedures are transparent and accessible to members of the public. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has provided a submission that notes that, although every court case involves different parties, facts and circumstances, information on the common procedures and rules that are used in a broad range of cases is made available. That includes an overview on the SCTS website of the most commonly used court processes, with SCTS staff available to provide procedural advice to people who are engaged in court or tribunal actions. It is, however, noted that staff

“must remain ... impartial in relation to the merits of each case”

and

“are unable to provide legal advice”.

The response also provides information on the SCTS complaints procedure, which is based on the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman’s model complaints handling procedure. The SCTS highlights that, as part of the steps that are taken to achieve customer service excellence accreditations, details including what service users should expect when accessing SCTS services are displayed on its website and in SCTS locations.

In the light of the responses that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1994, which was lodged by Margaret Fagan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases. We last considered the petition on 8 March, when we agreed to write to the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society of Scotland, Rape Crisis, Victim Support Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

In that last letter, we sought information on the use of section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, under which an accused person can apply to the court to lead evidence at trial that would otherwise be prohibited by section 274 of that act. We requested information on how many applications have been made under that provision and what proportion of them have been granted—I think that we did that in response to that having been advanced as a way in which matters could be progressed.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s response highlights that the provisions of sections 274 and 275 apply equally to the Crown Office and the defence. Indeed, it cites data that suggest that a substantial minority of applications are made by the Crown and that the majority of applications that are made by each side are granted. It should be noted, however, that the response provides limited information on the total number of applications, which is what we were seeking, and it suggests that the committee might wish to seek more robust data from the Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service. That is important, because we wanted to understand whether, if this was a route that was open, it was being properly accessed by those to whom it was apparently open.

We have also received responses from the Faculty of Advocates and Victim Support Scotland. The response from the Faculty of Advocates raises concerns about unpredictability and the narrowing of the interpretation of section 275, which might have negative implications for the balance between the rights of complainers and the rights of the accused. Meanwhile, the response that was provided by Victim Support Scotland strongly contests the petitioner’s view that law reforms have resulted in innocent people being wrongly convicted. It argues that that view does not align with the experiences of people affected by crime, nor does it reflect the conviction rates for sexual offences.

In the context of our deliberations, it is important to point out that the issues that are raised by the petition are within the scope of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 1 of its parliamentary process.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of that?

Thank you. In the lifetime of this Parliament, as we have successfully sought to destigmatise issues of mental health, we have brought to light the inadequacies of some of the provision and policies that exist in various fields of life. It seems arbitrary to determine that, irrespective of the personal circumstance of the person concerned, when someone’s child reaches the age of one, the ability of that person to be treated as they would have been when their child was not yet one disappears, with—as is the case in the petitioner’s sister’s circumstance—potentially harrowing consequences.

Do members have any suggestions for further action?

That concludes our consideration of new petitions, and that final flourish from Mr Stewart concludes his contribution to the work of the committee, which I again thank him for.

I wish our clerks and my colleagues on the committee a happy and restful summer. I look forward to seeing who we have on the committee when we return after the break, and we can all live in hope that we will be suitably refreshed when we meet again on 6 September.

Thank you all very much. Your evidence has been very much appreciated. Is there any final point you would like to touch on that we have not addressed?

The next of our continued petitions is PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on the boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Dr Alasdair Allan has joined us before in our consideration of the petition, and I warmly welcome him back for this discussion.

When we considered the petition at our meeting on 22 February, we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, recommending that the Scottish Government explore all available options for formalising the role of community representation on boards of public organisations, including Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd, David MacBrayne Ltd and Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

We received a response from the now-former transport minister, Kevin Stewart, who agreed that more islanders should be involved in decisions on lifeline services. Similar to the response from the previous minister, Jenny Gilruth, Mr Stewart provided information on the efforts to encourage applications from island representatives in recent CMAL and DML recruitment processes. The minister also highlighted HIAL’s location-neutral policy for head office roles, which enables staff undertaking head office functions to be based at any HIAL sites.

We have also received a further submission from the petitioners, which emphasises the unintended consequences that can result from not having islander knowledge on the boards of public bodies and includes a request to give oral evidence to the committee. That is one of the options open to members, although colleagues might think that, in inviting Dr Allan to address us, we have taken the issues in the petition as far as we can.

I invite Dr Allan to address us.

Our next continued petition is PE1992. I am delighted to say that we are joined by the petitioner, Laura Hansler—a very warm welcome to the committee, Laura.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to deliver on the commitment that it made in 2011, and address safety concerns on the A9 by publishing a revised timetable and detailed plan for dualling each section, completing the dualling work by 2025, and creating a memorial to those who have lost their lives in road traffic incidents on the A9.

As well as the petitioner, we are joined by Grahame Barn from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association Scotland. A warm welcome to Mr Barn as well.

We are also joined by a number of MSP colleagues, and others will be joining us later. First, we welcome Edward Mountain, who joins as a reporter on the petition for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Mr Mountain will be assisting us in our consideration of the petition, including during today’s evidence sessions. It is nice to have you with us.

We also welcome Murdo Fraser and Kate Forbes, who I understand may be following proceedings online at present but will join proceedings later. Mark Ruskell may also join us. We have apologies from Jamie Halcro Johnston, who had hoped to join us.

All members who join us will have an opportunity to contribute at the end of the second evidence session. We have also received a written submission from Rhoda Grant, who is unable to join us due to other committee business.

A positive galaxy of parliamentary investigative talent will be brought to bear as we pursue the inquiry. After we have heard from our two witnesses, we will suspend briefly then hear from Transport Scotland.

I understand that, in the first instance, the petitioner would like to make a short statement. I am very happy to invite her to do so.

If Jackie Baillie does not mind, I will ask her for clarification. The petitioner feels that his figures came from a ministerial response received to one of your questions. Have you been able to understand or establish why there might be a discrepancy between the two sets of figures?

It would be useful to write to the Scottish Government to seek an explanation for the discrepancy in the figures. We should also draw attention to the report that has suggested that there could be a link with Covid. We could refer back to the petitioner’s long-standing association with the issue, the fact that it is all about prevention and that circumstances have changed. In the light of all of that, it could be that it is necessary to do a little more than had previously been suggested. Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that, on the petition’s clinical objective, which was to rule out the use of mesh in all circumstances, we had previously taken the view that we had heard sufficient evidence not to support it in principle. Is that the point that you wish to make, Mr Torrance?