Official Report 699KB pdf
Island Community Representation on Boards (PE1862)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.
We previously considered the petition at our meeting just before Christmas, on 20 December, when we heard evidence from all three petitioners. During the evidence session, the petitioners spoke about ways to ensure that island residents can influence and truly feel part of the decision-making process. Specifically, they spoke about the importance of including local island knowledge as an essential criterion in the skills matrix for appointments to public boards.
Having had the opportunity to reflect on the evidence that we heard, and following our brief informal discussion after the evidence session last month, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I suggest that we write to the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland and to Western Isles Council, Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition—specifically, the suggestion that island knowledge should be added as an essential criterion in the skills matrix for boards that deliver lifeline services to island communities, and the processes for encouraging island residents to apply for those roles.
In addition, we should write to the Minister for Transport to seek a response to the four suggestions that are set out in the background information on the petition; to ask what consideration has been given to developing a more structured role for local councils to suggest potential candidates when vacancies arise on public boards that deliver lifeline services to island communities; and to seek further information on the methodologies that are being used to encourage more applications from island residents and give them confidence to engage with the recruitment process. For example, video conferencing technology could be used to allow people to participate in interviews, rather than there being a requirement to physically travel, which can involve an awful lot of time and expense and is a deterrent in some cases, as we have heard.
The point about individuals being able to participate in interview processes was well made. That is a comprehensive list of suggestions. Do colleagues have any additional suggestions?
We should also write to island community councils to get them involved.
I am happy to include them in the list.
Are we content with those suggestions? If Mr Torrance can just nod his head, I will know that he is content, too.
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and take forward the action that the committee has agreed to take.
Rape Charges and Convictions (Record of Sex) (PE1876)
Our next continued petition is PE1876, which was lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray—despite my wonky eyesight, I might have seen some of them in the public gallery. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape.
We previously considered the petition on 6 December last year, when we took evidence from two of the petitioners: Dr Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa Mackenzie. During the evidence session, we heard the petitioners’ concerns about a lack of ethical leadership from the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on the policy of recording crime statistics and about the possible impact on wider public policy decisions and the allocation of resources. We also explored the issue of public trust in statistics and whether there might be local variations in the way in which the police record data on rape and sexual offences. The committee felt that important issues were raised in the evidence session.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
We should write to Police Scotland to seek a clear explanation of how its policy on recording the sex of perpetrators of crimes aligns with the organisation’s values. We should also seek further information on whether a consistent approach to recording crime data is taken across Scotland and, in particular, on whether there is a central database for recording information on rape and sexual offences.
Thank you, Mr Choudhury. There seemed to be a gap between warm words and operational practice in Police Scotland’s approach, so those questions need to be put to it directly.
It seems that no other member wishes to comment further. Is the committee content to keep the petition open and to progress the issues with Police Scotland directly, along the lines that Mr Choudhury suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Reusable Water Bottles (PE1896)
The next petition is PE1896, which seeks to provide every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle. Members might recall that the petition was lodged by Callum Isted, who, at the age of just seven and still in primary school, was the Parliament’s youngest ever petitioner. I have to say that the petition has been open for so long that he is now almost heading off to secondary school. The petition itself calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the disposable water bottle that is provided with primary school lunches with a sustainable reusable metal bottle.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write both to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity and to the then First Minister. We requested information on the methods of water provision in each local authority-run school and on how authorities are meeting their sustainability requirements. We were particularly keen to hear whether local authorities would be interested in participating in a national procurement exercise for the supply of reusable metal water bottles.
The Scottish Government received responses from 26 local authorities, and a summary of those findings has been provided as a written submission. It reveals that the automatic provision of reusable water bottles to pupils, or the use of single-use bottles, is not an authority-wide policy in any Scottish local authority area. Of the responses, 15 noted that single-use bottles are available in schools; of those, 13 also offered reusable plastic cups and the remaining two provided reusable water bottles. We heard that 13 councils indicated that they would be interested in taking part in a national procurement exercise, while 12 clearly stated that they would not. Of those that marked no, six already provided reusable water bottles.
Sue Webber, who was previously present with Callum Isted and his family, is unable to attend our meeting this morning as she is convening the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 2 proceedings elsewhere in the Parliament. However, she has asked that her support for Callum’s petition and on-going campaign work be noted on the record.
I come back to what, for me, is still quite a vivid memory of Callum Isted presenting his petition. Against a background of so much emphasis being placed on education and change of practice in the next generation, he came forward with a petition designed to achieve a material and practical change. There does seem to be interest in his proposal—at least from the 13 heroic councils that said that they might consider a national procurement exercise.
Do members have any suggestions for action that we might take?
11:30
Considering that 13 councils have expressed an interest in a national procurement exercise, the committee could write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ask whether, in light of the response from local authorities, she would consider progressing the petition’s aims with the 13 councils that indicated an interest in a national procurement service.
We should congratulate the petitioner, because reusable water bottles have a lot of environmental benefits and encourage kids to drink more water.
Absolutely. We should congratulate the petitioner again. When writing to the cabinet secretary, we might point out that, although Mr Isted is not an ageing individual, unlike me and other members of the committee, he is set to leave primary school eventually, so it would be nice if we were able to take forward, to some extent, the aims of his petition.
Do we agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Cemeteries (Local Authority Actions) (PE1941)
PE1941, on stopping the destruction of headstones in community cemeteries, was lodged by Councillor Andrew Stuart Wood and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty to ensure health and safety in our cemeteries.
We previously considered the petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Its response states that, once they are finalised, the new burial regulations will set out minimum standards for all burial authorities in Scotland and will work alongside existing guidance and a burial code of practice. Regulations will also be brought forward to introduce inspection for burial, cremation and funeral directors, with inspectors inspecting against the legislation, guidance and codes of practice. Two public consultations have taken place in relation to that work.
The committee has also received a written submission from David Brunton outlining specific concerns about Scottish Borders Council’s cemetery improvement programme. He states that the guidance has not been followed in practice and that the use of individual notices for signalling planned works in cemeteries needs to be enforced. He raises concerns about listed building consent not being obtained prior to works being carried out and about poor communication when people seek information from councils about their rationale for taking stones down.
Colleagues will remember our evidence session on the petition, when we were provided with quite graphic illustrative examples of the way in which headstones had been routinely destroyed in cemeteries without reference to any of the families concerned. However, the Scottish Government appears to be making progress in that regard. I am aware that the petition throws up a number of issues beyond the ones that we are considering here.
Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
You know that I like to close petitions when the Government has consulted on the issue, but I would like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on the consultation on the burial regulations. Specifically, we should ask when the consultation responses will be published and what work the Government intends to prioritise as a result of the responses that it has received.
I think that there is still widespread interest—represented by colleagues from all around the country, in all parties—in how the matter progresses.
We could also ask whether there is a database with information about the families. For example, if something went wrong with a headstone, would we have the family’s contact details?
We could ask that, but I think that the evidence suggests that such information is very fractured; it depends on individual practice. I do not think that there is a national database on such matters.
Could we ask whether one could be provided?
We could certainly ask whether anybody has given any thought to whether that might be an option.
Are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Unexplained Deaths (PE1948)
PE1948 seeks to improve the way in which unexplained deaths are dealt with. One of our more sensitive and long-standing petitions, it was lodged by Alex O’Kane and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review its practices for dealing with unexplained deaths from initial recovery through to the support offered to family members. We last considered this petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to Police Scotland.
In advance of this meeting, the clerks have engaged with the Criminal Justice Committee’s clerking team to consider areas of overlap between that committee’s work programme and this petition. The Criminal Justice Committee’s action plan includes work on trauma-informed training across the criminal justice sector, with the committee receiving updates on progress towards the further roll-out of training every six months. It is also taking evidence on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and will then take evidence on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill.
In a response that it has submitted to our committee, Police Scotland explains that identifying relevant complaints received about the way in which unexplained deaths are investigated is not possible, because the professional standards department database cannot be filtered to identify specific complaints relating to the investigation of unexplained deaths. However, the submission does note that professional standards department investigations west maintains an additional index of such complaints in the west command area, and that 13 complaints had been recorded, one of which had been referred to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner for a complaint-handling review.
I should add that a national complaint investigation model has been implemented, with the aim of improving future recording and analysis capabilities. Moreover, at the time of writing of Police Scotland’s submission, the investigation of death national guidance was with senior management for review prior to consultation taking place.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the key issues raised by the petition are being considered by the Criminal Justice Committee? Trauma-informed training has been identified in that committee’s action plan as an issue to pursue with Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and the committee is also undertaking scrutiny of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill and the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. In 2023, the Scottish Government published a trauma-informed justice knowledge and skills framework, which underpins the key aim of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to embed trauma-informed practice in justice systems.
Moreover, in closing the petition, could the committee write to the Criminal Justice Committee to highlight the issues raised by the petitioner and Stephanie Bonner, and could the clerks also assist them in submitting written evidence to that committee, particularly on the complaints process and the codes of ethics, for its consideration as part of its scrutiny of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) Scotland Bill?
I think that that additional link is important. Colleagues, are we content to act on Mr Torrance’s suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank the petitioner and all those who have been concerned in the petition’s progress. As Mr Torrance has said, our colleagues elsewhere are taking forward some of the issues that the petition covers. We will seek to facilitate engagement between the petitioner and the Criminal Justice Committee, as he proposes. I see that we are all content with that.
Public-private Partnerships (PE2004)
PE2004, which seeks to abolish the use of public-private partnerships in Scotland, was lodged by Line Kikkenborg Christensen on behalf of Jubilee Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the use of PPPs and to commit to a new model for financing and managing public infrastructure in Scotland that has safety, quality, value for money and accountability to the taxpayer at its heart. We last considered the petition on 3 May 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust.
The response from the Scottish Futures Trust states that the model proposed by the petition would require a renegotiation of the fiscal framework to enable the Scottish ministers to borrow finance capital expenditure. The response also offers information on the mutual investment model, which cropped up in our earlier evidence session. We know from our work in relation to the A9 that the mutual investment model is an option that is being actively pursued by the Scottish Government.
In its submission, the Scottish Government offers a response to the petitioner’s recommendations, stating that the use of private finance has allowed for the delivery of much-needed schools, hospitals and other key infrastructure. The Government also states that it is working with Audit Scotland to develop clear governance and decision-making processes on the use of the mutual investment model.
We have received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights cross-party support for seeking alternatives to public-private partnerships and expresses concern that the Scottish Government is not fully aware of the financial, social and environmental costs of PPPs.
Members will have noted from our papers that, in addition to the working group that the petitioner mentioned, the Public Audit Committee is due to take evidence from the director general of the Scottish exchequer on matters related to infrastructure investment.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that a working group that includes MSPs from all parties has been established to explore alternatives to PPPs, and the Scottish Government has provided a response to the recommendations proposed by Jubilee Scotland and is continuing to work to improve the financing models at its disposal.
In closing the petition, perhaps the committee could write to the Public Audit Committee to draw its attention to the issues that are raised by the petition ahead of that committee taking evidence from the director general of the Scottish exchequer, which the convener alluded to.
Are colleagues content with the suggestions that have been made?
I have a comment to add. Considering the concern surrounding corporate confidentiality and lack of accountability relating to PPPs, the petitioner may wish to consider how the freedom of information reform proposed by Katy Clark’s proposed member’s bill could affect the accountability of private companies that deliver public services.
Thank you. That observation is there for the petitioner. That is subject to the progress of the proposed member’s bill, of course.
Are members content with the suggestions that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
A9 Dualling ProjectNext
New Petitions