Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next continued petition, PE1990, from Jordan Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to request the introduction of a monthly chamber session to allow young people to put questions to the First Minister and, as was the case at the time that the petition was originally lodged, “her” Cabinet. Of course, that is now “his” Cabinet.

We last considered the petition on 25 October 2023, when we agreed to write to a number of stakeholders and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, of which I should declare that I am a member. We have received a response from the National Union of Students Scotland, which states that it has no position on the petition and that it aligns itself with the views of the Scottish Youth Parliament.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s response confirms that it has not had representations from the Scottish Youth Parliament to request more sittings in the Scottish Parliament building. The response highlights that a new annual exhibition slot has been added to the terms of its partnership agreement with the Scottish Youth Parliament. The next sitting of the Scottish Youth Parliament is due to take place in the Scottish Parliament on 31 October and 1 November 2024.

In the light of that, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

Mr Golden points to our inquiry on deliberative democracy. That was one of the issues that we pursued, and it had attractions, but it also had the very difficulties that Mr Golden has identified.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Marie McNair, are you content that we pursue the matter a bit further?

Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open. Having been directed to the view that local authorities have that ability, let us try to find out whether staff can, in fact, access that opportunity in practice.

That brings us to PE2048, from James Anthony Bundy. I see that Mr Bundy is with us in the gallery, along with his mother, I believe. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—stroke awareness campaign and ensuring that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke.

We have been joined in our consideration of the petition by our MSP colleagues Stephen Kerr and Alexander Stewart. Good morning to you both.

The next continued petition, PE2049, from Gilliane Petrie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce buffer zones outside migrant accommodation to prevent anti-migrant groups from gathering in those spaces and help to protect occupants, including asylum seekers and refugees, from harassment and intimidation. We also considered the petition at our meeting on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to seek information from the Scottish Refugee Council, JustRight Scotland, COSLA, Police Scotland, and the Mears Group.

In its response, Police Scotland states that it considers current police powers as sufficient to address any unlawful behaviour that may arise in the vicinity of migrant accommodation as a result of protest activity.

The Mears Group believes that any decision about buffer zones would be a matter for the Home Office as the contracting authority for migrant accommodation, while also highlighting its use of private security teams to help manage protests, with support from the police.

The response from JustRight Scotland states its position that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are fundamental rights and that lawful interference should be kept to a minimum and done cautiously. It also believes there is much more that can be done in Scotland to ensure that those seeking asylum are safe and secure in the place where they are living and in the community, with the response highlighting wider concerns about the use of institutionalised accommodation for people seeking asylum.

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

I thank the petitioner, but they will understand from the evidence received from Police Scotland that the required protections are—I hope—in place.

I think that the committee can accept that, if there are a considerable number of responses, it might take time to analyse those. However, it is 15 or 16 months since the consultation closed, and it would be interesting to understand what the on-going delay is. Are colleagues content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2105, which was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent unnecessary use of emergency public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.

We are joined this morning by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney, who are both former members of this committee. Welcome back to you both.

The SPICe briefing explains that local authorities are required by law to intervene where a building presents a danger to people in or about that building, to the public generally or to adjacent buildings or places. Where the local authority considers the required action to be urgent, it can carry out that action without first obtaining the usual statutory consents. That includes where demolition is considered the required action.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that works undertaken on listed buildings without prior consultation should be limited to the minimum necessary requirement to protect the public until proper consultations can take place.

It also states that it is for the local authority to determine the most appropriate course of action, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case, and that it is not possible for guidance to be specific about the approach required when the instances of dangerous buildings are unique and require a risk-based approach to determining the appropriate action.

The petitioner’s written submission states that in order to adhere to the legislative requirements and good practice, enhanced guidance is needed to set out the minimum structural evidence and processes that are required before demolition works to listed buildings is undertaken. She recognises that the approach to managing dangerous listed buildings is unique and requires a risk-based approach. However, it is her view that that does not prevent the creation of additional guidance to ensure the appropriate expertise is sought when assessing what action should be taken.

Before we consider what we might do, we will hear from Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney. Carol Mochan, what would you like to say?

If there are no other suggestions for action, are we content to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.