Seòmar agus comataidhean

The report was published in August.

Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1947, which was lodged by Alex O’Kane, is another petition with which the committee has been extensively involved. It urges the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 6 March, following our site visits, and we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, seeking her response to a number of points. In particular, we requested clear information on what a whole-system approach to youth offending looks like when addressing repeated incidences of violence perpetrated by a young person.

The minister’s response recognises that, although the aim is to keep children out of the criminal justice system, in some cases that will not be possible or appropriate. The minister highlights that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

“The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child ... shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest ... period of time”.

The severity of a crime will influence whether it is proportionate to arrest a child and present them at a police custody centre.

The Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines on the sentencing of young people are also highlighted. The guidelines focus on rehabilitation but note that other factors, such as protection of the public, punishment and expressing disapproval of the offending behaviour, can be taken into account. That is very consistent with the experience of those of us who heard evidence. The submission explains that young people aged 12 to 17 who have committed a serious sexual offence or are considered to be a serious risk of harm can be managed in various ways. That includes care and risk management or multi-agency public protection arrangements, if they have been convicted of the offence in a criminal court.

On victim support, the minister points to the “Standards of Service for Victims and Witnesses” document that is published by key criminal justice agencies. The document seeks to explain what happens at each stage of the criminal justice process, the standards of service that can be expected and who can be contacted for help or advice.

The petitioner has provided a new submission, in which he once again expresses his concerns about the justice system and reiterates his view that youth violence is aggravated by a lack of consequences, deterrence and punishment. I have to say that that is very much what those of us on the committee at the time who met and took evidence from people felt was being very clearly and strongly expressed.

The petitioner also raises concerns about funding, arguing that

“a lack of funding was inevitably going to lower the bar in every field of service”

and that it would put young people

“at risk and the public in more danger.”

David, were you on the committee when we took this evidence?

PE2012, which was lodged by Angela Hamilton, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the need for follicle-stimulating hormone blood tests in women aged 40-45 who are experiencing menopause symptoms, before hormone replacement therapy can be prescribed to relieve their symptoms and replenish hormone levels.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 6 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the British Menopause Society and NHS Education for Scotland. The latter has advised that there has been a slight delay in the delivery of its online learning modules on menopause and menstrual health, but notes that the resource will be free to access for practitioners working in Scotland, and will include cases describing the lived experience of women who are facing barriers to accessing HRT preparations.

We have received a brief response from the British Menopause Society, which refers to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines that set out that blood tests are often not necessary to diagnose perimenopause or menopause in women aged 40 to 45. It is the society’s view that diagnosis, and hence the need or otherwise for treatment, should be based on history, period pattern and the presence or otherwise of symptoms.

Are there any suggestions for action on the back of that?

It appears that we are content, so we thank the petitioner for lodging the petition with us, but we will close it on the basis of the information that we have received.

I welcome you all.

Members will be aware that, although section 38 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, which makes provisions for local bus service franchising, came into effect in December 2023, the full suite of secondary legislation and guidance for the introduction of local service franchising is not yet in place. Transport Scotland, in its initial response to the petition, indicates that a number of substantive regulations have been laid, stating that

“The remaining regulations and statutory guidance to bring the franchising provisions into effect will be provided before the end of this year.”

The initial response also states that the Scottish Government has no plans to revisit the primary legislation to remove the requirement for an independent panel to be convened to approve or reject a local transport authority’s franchising proposal.

As has been highlighted in the submissions that we have received from the petitioner, although the delay in enacting provisions is, in their view, “inexcusable”, events have now slightly overtaken us. As members will likely be aware, the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, at its meeting on 29 October, considered a Scottish statutory instrument relating to the traffic commissioner’s role in appointing the independent panel and recommended that the SSI be annulled. A motion to annul the SSI was subsequently lodged in the chamber, and was not agreed to. That means that the regulations are in place, and, indeed, they came into effect on 1 November.

During the NZET Committee’s consideration of the recent SSI, it has become apparent that the remaining regulations and associated guidance will now be published in the new year. There is a lot of information to consider, which is detailed in our papers for today’s meeting, and it includes developments relating to bus franchising in other parts of the UK. We have also received a written submission from Paul Sweeney, which is included in our papers, too.

I invite all colleagues who have expressed an interest in the matter—as I welcome the interest of parliamentary colleagues in relation to petitions—to address the committee. We thought of having an opinion poll to see in which order we should hear from you all, but, ultimately, we opted simply to invite you to speak in alphabetical order. I know that the clerks have asked you, if you can, to complement, rather than repeat, one another’s evidence. The committee would very much appreciate that.

We will begin with Neil Bibby.

Thank you, Mr Bibby. You have illustrated your evidence with examples from communities adjacent to my constituency in Eastwood, where there are similar concerns. Given that I regularly—indeed, almost daily—receive representations on the inadequacy of bus services, particularly in what is a growing community that feels that it is not at all well served by those services, I understand the points that you have made.

I invite Patrick Harvie to contribute.

Thank you. A number of suggestions have been made that I think that we might want to pursue, and I would note those made by Mr Sweeney and Mr Simpson, particularly in relation to legislation and other such matters. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Perhaps we could also ask SPICe to have a look at the proposed better buses bill at Westminster and to give us a little bit of information on that.

Do you want to comment, Mr Ewing?

So you are quite content. Mr Sweeney?

I heard you make that point, yes—it was not lost on me. As you know, the Parliament has been very successful at acquiring the contributions of UK ministers. [Laughter.] We can put in a long-term request and see what success we have in due course; maybe something will be made available to us before Parliament dissolves.

I note that a number of supporters of the petition are in the gallery this morning—thank you for joining us. We will keep the petition open and advance the interests as has been suggested. As we move on to our next and final new petition this morning, I thank everyone very much for their participation.