Seòmar agus comataidhean

The final continued petition for consideration today is PE2140, lodged by James Bruce, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a new parking badge to assist women in being able to get in and out of their cars while they are pregnant and in the initial months after their pregnancy.

We last considered the petition in April, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Retail Consortium. Its response states that most stores located in high streets or retail parks do not have their own customer parking, which, instead, is often provided by local authorities, privately operated car parks or the retail park landlord.

I remind members that, in the initial response to the petition, Transport Scotland stated that there were no plans to create separate concessionary badges or to widen the automatic eligibility criteria for the blue badge scheme, which is designed for disabled people. The Government has also informed us that decisions to offer alternative parking concessions for off-street car parks sit either with the relevant authority or with landowners. We pursued the Scottish Retail Consortium as a last resort, but do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. Do colleagues agree? I think that we were on a bit of a last-resort pass by writing to the Scottish Retail Consortium, given the previous advice that we received. It was worth a punt but, unfortunately, it has not really taken the aims of the petition any further forward. Are we content to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I highlight that, before we consider a new petition, we initially seek the view of the Scottish Government. We also receive a briefing from SPICe, the impartial research service in the Parliament. That is because, historically, those were the first two things that we would ask for in order to pursue a petition, so we have shortcut that process.

At the risk of colleagues having to keep up, I will suggest that, given that Mr McArthur is with us and that the petition that he is interested in was going to be considered a little later, we bring it forward to now, in the expectation that he has productive hours to spend on other matters in the Parliament.

Thank you very much, Mr McArthur. There is an issue here. Mr Torrance?

That is a powerful point and a perfectly reasonable one for us to inquire about. We will keep the petition open and hope that we can get a response that would allow us to at least consider the cabinet secretary’s response to that point. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr McArthur.

Yes, indeed.

The next petition is PE2183, lodged by Craig Paton, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make suicide awareness and prevention training mandatory for high school students in order to help remove stigmas; to empower young people to speak openly; and to ensure that teachers can spot the vital signs and take appropriate measures to prevent a fatality. The petition notes that the training is, in fact, available in English schools.

The SPICe briefing explains that the curriculum in Scotland is largely non-statutory, with the content of what is taught being a matter for teachers, schools and local authorities. It notes that the Scottish Government has, since at least 2002, focused on reducing the number of suicides, including through working groups and a series of strategy, prevention and delivery plans that are published every few years.

The Scottish Government refers to the curriculum for excellence as a broad national framework rather than a statutory curriculum. Health and wellbeing is one of the eight curricular areas in the framework, and it is one of the three core areas that are identified as a responsibility for all, which means that all staff across the school community share responsibility for delivery.

The Scottish Government points to resources that are available through Education Scotland to support learning in relation to mental health, self-harm, suicide prevention and positive mental wellbeing. It also notes that Education Scotland is leading on the development and delivery of the curriculum improvement cycle, with work already under way on that.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Our final petition today, PE2185, is on the introduction of stronger safeguards regarding the use of digital material in court proceedings. I have to assume that the three remaining guests in the gallery have suffered through our entire proceedings only to find that their petition is the last of those that we are considering today. Notwithstanding that, I hope that we can do something positive to assist.

The petition, which was lodged by Christopher Simpson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to ensure that any digital material that is presented in court, such as photos or screenshots, is verifiably sourced, timestamped and able to be independently authenticated before being considered admissible, unless both parties agree otherwise.

Regarding current court procedures, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has explained to our SPICe researchers that

“before any item attains evidential status its provenance must be established; an item is meaningless unless its source is in some way proved”.

If the defence and the prosecution do not agree on the provenance of an item, whether digital or not, there is a process in place that enables parties to challenge the evidence and lead their own rebuttal.

The Scottish Government indicates that the gathering and presentation of evidence are matters for Police Scotland and COPFS. The Government does not consider the action that is called for by the petition to be necessary on account of existing safeguards, which are meant to ensure that concerns about the authenticity of any digital evidence can be raised and investigated.

However, in an additional submission, the petitioner shares his distressing experience and reiterates that

“individuals can be subjected to lengthy investigations and restrictions based on unverified or fabricated digital material.”

Discussions about the provenance of evidence take place after a person has been charged, and the petitioner sees that as a gap in the legislation. He insists that all digital evidence must be verifiably sourced, timestamped and authenticated before it reaches court.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Indeed. The last time I checked, President Trump had not lodged a petition with the Scottish Parliament in relation to the digital evidence at the BBC but, actually, I would not put it past him, because he seems to be quite free in doing that sort of thing.

We will keep the petition open, notwithstanding the time that is left to us in this session of Parliament, and hope that we can advance further information in relation to the points that are raised as a consequence of the additional submission from the petitioner.