Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

It is also open to the petitioner and any individual affected to contact their local councillor, their local MSP or their local MP, who are, after all, elected to represent them and assist them should such incidents arise. However, I think that there is no option for the committee but to close the petition.

I suppose that the one other option that is open to us would be to consider whether this is a petition that we should leave open for the next parliamentary session.

Yes, it will allow that. Are colleagues agreed that we will defer a final decision on the petition, on the basis that we will add it to the list of petitions that we will consider leaving open for the next parliamentary session?

PE2203, on making schools in Scotland safe for pupils with allergies, was lodged by Helen Blythe and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to close the allergy safeguard gap by introducing legislation to mandate and fund all schools to hold an in-date adrenaline autoinjector; to have an allergy policy; and to provide allergy training for all school staff on emergency response, preventing reactions and allergy awareness.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing sets out that

“Allergies are thought to affect approximately 30% of children in Scotland.”

The Scottish Government has written guidance to support schools, local authorities and health boards as they consider what action they need to take in order to safeguard pupils with healthcare needs. The guidance states that schools may obtain adrenaline autoinjectors

“without prescription, for use in emergencies”.

It also states that

“Education authorities and local NHS Boards may wish to consider whether to implement their own local policy in relation to the use of emergency adrenaline auto-injectors in schools.”

The guidance outlines specific issues that the policies could cover. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that

“local authorities already have the power to use funding to take the action they deem necessary to protect children and young people with allergies from harm while at schools.”

The submission states that

“decisions about … what staff training may be required need to be made taking into account local circumstances within each individual school.”

The Scottish Government’s view is that

“There is already sufficient legislation in place to require schools in Scotland to take appropriate action to safeguard children and young people with allergies as well as financial and practical support for local authorities to do so.”

The younger members of my parliamentary team, whose experience of living in the world of a school is more current than mine, thought that the Scottish Government’s response was a bit inadequate. If we are teaching pupils how to use defibrillators and about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, why are we not teaching them how to assist with adrenaline injectors and how to properly understand the issues that arise from allergy policy, leaving those issues more open to chance? I do not know that we can do anything more in this parliamentary session, given the Government’s response.

In closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has set out its position that there is already sufficient legislation in place to require schools to take appropriate action, I wonder whether the committee would agree that we should urge the petitioner to submit the petition again in the new parliamentary session. Perhaps the future committee could interrogate the evidence a bit further in the light of other training that appears to be perfectly within the capabilities of children to understand and that, as we have heard, in relation to defibrillators, could save the lives of people in school—or, subsequently, outside school—as a consequence. Does that meet with the committee’s agreement?

It will certainly be open to the petitioners to submit a new petition, and I very much hope that they will, because issues have been raised that I would otherwise have been very content for us to progress. Of course, one way or another, we will have a Government of a fresh complexion, which might want to look at these issues in a different light.

On that note, are we content to close the petition? Well, we are perhaps not content, but do we agree?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2207 is entitled “I demand the Scottish Parliament create a pilot court to try Russian war criminals with Ukraine”. The petitioner, Sviatoslav Rozenko, demands that the Scottish Government establish a pilot court to try Russian war criminals in co-operation with Ukraine and international bodies. That will make Scotland a centre of international justice, ensuring punishment for the guilty, protection of victims and adherence to international law, strengthening the country’s authority globally and demonstrating commitment to justice and international legal principles.

Before we begin any further consideration of the petition, I note that the committee did not receive the Scottish Government’s response to it until last week, which is substantially later than was expected. That is disappointing both for the petitioner, given the effect on their opportunity to give any response to that, and for the committee.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the petition’s ask to be practical or achievable. The submission states that, although it would be legally possible to create a new domestic court with universal jurisdiction over crimes committed in Ukraine, the Scottish Government’s policy is not to create a new domestic court to prosecute those crimes. The Government’s reasons for that are set out in its written submission and include the impracticality of prosecuting crimes without any nexus to Scotland, practical and financial challenges with investigating and translation, and the cost involved in creating a new court.

The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. The petitioner sets out that the ask of his petition is possible in Scotland. He states that the Scottish Government’s position is a political choice rather than a result of legal constraint. The submission counters the Scottish Government’s financial position, stating that no cost estimates or comparisons with alternative routes were provided. The petitioner states that the true reasons for the Scottish Government’s rejection are political caution, fear of precedent, unwillingness to take international initiative and wider geopolitical consequences, all of which are perfectly legitimate. Do members have any comments?

11:00

PE2208, which was lodged by Joanna Kerr, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a statutory requirement on public bodies to collect statistics on the nationality, ethnicity, immigration status and religion of child sexual offenders, and to collate and publish the data annually.

As with the previous petition, I will begin our consideration by noting the committee’s disappointment at the Scottish Government’s delay in providing its response. The response was received only on Friday of last week, which has limited the petitioner’s opportunity to provide further evidence; therefore, all we have received recently is the Scottish Government’s very late submission.

However, the petitioner provided a written submission to the committee in December, and her written evidence highlights a similar UK public petition, which has now gathered more than a quarter of a million signatures. The submission highlights that police in England and Wales are now expected to collect the ethnicity and nationality data of individuals who are suspected of being members of grooming gangs or perpetrators of other group-based child sexual exploitation.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, given the number of public bodies in Scotland, placing a duty to collect data as set out in the petition would be difficult to implement and disproportionate to their wide and varied roles. The submission notes that, under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, following arrest, a person is under no obligation to answer any question apart from their name, address, date and place of birth and nationality. The submission notes, however, that work is under way to align Police Scotland recording systems to capture ethnicity data for suspects. It also notes that criminal justice agencies record information based on operational needs or where there is a legal requirement. Therefore, agencies do not hold coded data on nationality, immigration status or religion unless the specific circumstances of the offences make it relevant for prosecution.

The Scottish Government has highlighted a programme of work that is taking place to improve data collection on child sexual abuse and exploitation. A short-life working group will bring together experts to consider a range of data sources that can be collated and analysed to build a more comprehensive picture of child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

I think that we privately explored that before the meeting, Mr Russell. There is not an open consultation at the moment, but there is a website that the petitioner could independently contact in relation to the issue that has been raised. That is one route. Alternatively, of course, it would be possible for a fresh petition to be brought in the next session of Parliament.