Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1874, which was lodged by Dr Conrad Harvey, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to create artillery and firearms exclusion zones around places of spiritual importance and religious worship in Scotland.

In its written submission, the Scottish Government outlines the principles that determine what types of development require planning permission, how applications are considered and the conditions and mitigations that can be applied when granting planning permission.

The Scottish Government states that planning decision makers already have

“the ability to consider and control noise in a way that reflects the particular circumstances”

of any proposed development. It also believes that a 5-mile exclusion zone around existing places of worship would be

“a comparatively blunt approach to controlling noise-generating developments.”

In his response, the petitioner reiterates his belief that it is inappropriate to have a shooting range within 5 miles of an established cathedral, temple, synagogue, mosque or monastery.

Would anybody like to offer a view?

PE1875, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson, calls on the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the academic years 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Our papers explain that the Scottish Government has committed to establishing a public inquiry into the response to Covid-19, which it says will be “comprehensive”. Moreover, in its submission, the Government advises that, in 2020, it commissioned a review to provide it with a better understanding of how the school curriculum is designed and to identify areas for improvement. The remit of the review, which was conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, was expanded from an initial review of the senior phase curriculum to a full review of curriculum for excellence.

The resulting report was published on 21 June 2021 and, on that day, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills confirmed that the Scottish Government accepted all of the review’s recommendations. She also stated that the Scottish Qualifications Authority would be replaced and Education Scotland substantially reformed. However, the petitioner states that replacing the SQA is not enough in itself, and that a public inquiry is needed.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Okay.

Yes. Given that the inquiry is taking place and that it will now be comprehensive, it is perfectly reasonable to find out whether that issue could be incorporated, too. Do we agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank all members for their consideration of the petitions.

The Scottish Ambulance Service has already made a submission to us saying that it does not feel that there is a demand for body cameras. [Interruption.] The clerk tells me that it was the Scottish Government that made that point. In that case, I am quite happy to write to various organisations, if that is the committee’s view.

As no member wishes to comment further, we will write to those organisations and see what kind of response we receive.

PE1878, which was lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to investigate why there have been so few prosecutions under sections 315 and 318 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003.

The issue was raised in PE1786 from the same petitioner in February 2020. At the time, the Public Petitions Committee wrote to and subsequently received submissions from the Mental Welfare Commission and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice.

The SPICe briefing that we have received highlights that an independent review of mental health legislation is taking place, which will include a review of practice on compulsory detention, care and treatment since the 2003 act came into force.

In its submission, the Scottish Government notes that court proceedings under section 315 were taken in respect of 71 charges that were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service between 2007-08 to 2019-20. Out of those, 38 led to a conviction. One case was reported to the COPFS in 2018 under section 318 of the act but it resulted in no action being taken because there was insufficient admissible evidence.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We can do that. It is important to note that the Scottish Sentencing Council is itself reviewing the issue. In some respects, I would have hoped that it has been taking evidence from other parties as part of its consideration of the matter, but there is nothing to stop us writing to those organisations, too.

Good morning and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2021 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our principal agenda item today is the discussion of new petitions. I say to petitioners who might be tuning in and others who might be watching that, in advance of considering petitions, we receive submissions, including from the Scottish Government, which help to inform discussions such as those that we are about to have.

The first petition for consideration this morning is PE1869, which was lodged by Dillon Crawford. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that would require all railway stations in Scotland to have step-free access.

The Scottish Government’s submission highlights work that has been undertaken by the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments to fund accessibility improvements and create step-free access at more than 30 stations across Scotland’s rail network. The submission stresses, however, that rail accessibility is a reserved matter, so it is not possible for the Scottish Parliament to legislate in this area, as requested by the petition.

It was interesting to receive notes in relation to work that is being done to establish step-free access at various stations and the other work that is being done to improve access in stations generally, but it seems that there is an obstacle as regards our considering a petition that seeks a legislative solution.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.