Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: Wednesday, June 26, 2024
Official Report 626KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
Continued Petitions
Wind Farms (Community Shared Ownership) (PE1885)
PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the offering of community shared ownership a mandatory requirement of all planning proposals for wind farm developments. We last considered the petition on 25 October, when we agreed to clarify what power the Scottish Government might have in relation to mandating CSO through the devolved power under the Electricity Act 1989.
The then Minister for Energy and Environment confirmed that, in the Scottish Government’s view, any legislation relating to how consents for electricity generation stations are granted would relate to a reserved matter, which puts the issue beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Her submission highlights the onshore wind sector deal, which is described as
“a collaborative commitment to develop practical approaches to support and encourage CSO models”
aiming
“to assist developers, funders, local government and communities to engage in these opportunities”.
A framework is due for publication by the end of this year.
In response to the minister, the petitioner’s submission reiterates her view that industry will ignore the Scottish Government’s plans unless CSO is made mandatory. She reiterates her main call, which is for CSO to be made mandatory through use of devolved land and tax powers.
The committee also asked for an update on the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Government, the Scottish National Investment Bank, Local Energy Scotland, communities and developers. The SNIB’s response outlines that
“work includes assessing the scale and level of interest at a community level, developer considerations, how to best cater for community engagement on complex financial transactions, and the current appetite within the private sector to fund shared ownership models.”
There are quite a lot of responses and material to consider. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?
Would the committee consider writing to the minister to ask what progress has been made on exploring the possibility of utilising tax powers to mandate community shared ownership and renewable energy developments, as indicated by the petitioner?
As well as adopting Mr Torrance’s suggestion, could we ask the Scottish Government, when we write, whether it has reached a conclusion on the matters that are set out in the submission from last November from the Minister for Energy and Environment, which said that
“officials are currently developing policy proposals for inclusion in the final Strategy, informed by the ... consultation, that will build on the successes of CARES”—
the community and renewable energy scheme—and
“our existing good practice principles for community benefit and shared ownership of onshore renewables”.
In previous meetings, I suggested that community ownership can be obtained without developers necessarily making financial contributions in addition to their current community benefit payments, which are normally at the tariff of £5,000 per annum per megawatt; that perhaps they could be persuaded to add community turbines to wind farms—for example, having 20 turbines instead of 18; and that the SNIB could fund a loan of most of the capital that would be required to purchase additional turbines.
That is the model that I sought to pursue when I was Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, and was successfully pursuing until the abrupt cessation of renewables obligation certificates. I will not go into that. It was being funded by private banks including Triodos, Close Brothers and the Co-operative Bank. I really would like the Scottish Government to be asked to address that and whether it will include this particular proposal in its plans.
Finally, in addition, there will be a new incoming United Kingdom Government. It seems to me that the petitioner would very much want the Scottish Government to collaborate with that incoming Government, of whatever hue it might turn out to be, and to make up for the lacuna in legal powers by agreeing to further community ownership. That is a really important issue for many people in rural Scotland, who feel that the benefits are passing them by and going to developers, and that they are not getting a fair share.
I am sorry to go on, but it did work before. Why has the Government not addressed that? Is it considering that now? If not, will it do so, and if it will not consider that, why not?
To be clear, are we inviting the Scottish Government to work with whoever forms the next UK Government, or are you asking the committee to write on the issue to whomever that next Government is?
In the first instance, we should ask the Scottish Government, because the matter will go nowhere if the Government is not persuaded; if it is persuaded, this might go somewhere.
Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Redress Scheme (Fornethy House Residential School) (PE1933)
Our second continued petition is PE1933, on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, some of whom are with us in the gallery today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June 2024, when we heard evidence from the chair and chief executive of Redress Scotland about the processes for considering redress applications. We subsequently received further submissions from the petitioner, sharing their reflections on the evidence from Redress Scotland and commenting on recent submissions from Thompsons Solicitors, the Law Society of Scotland and the First Minister.
The petitioner’s second submission provides further detail to support their view that Fornethy house operated as a residential school, and includes reference material about bursaries for Fornethy house from the Glasgow education department.
We have heard a lot of evidence and the committee is clear about its direction of travel. Do members have any comments or suggestions about how we might proceed???
In the light of the evidence that we have heard, I think that the committee should write to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic to set out to her our view that individuals who experienced abuse in a relevant care setting should be able to access the redress scheme, regardless of the length of their stay or of whether there was parental consent for their placement.
The committee might wish to highlight the view of Thompsons Solicitors that the way in which the exclusions have been introduced and applied is inconsistent with the principles of dignity, respect and compassion that are supposed to underpin the redress legislation.
The Scottish Government should also review the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 and should consult on expanding the scheme to include residential institutions that were owned and operated by the state, regardless of the length of residents’ stay. The Government should also enable redress to be provided in cases where abuse was carried out in such institutions by staff who were employed by the state, regardless of whether parental consent had been provided for the child to be placed there.
The committee should also recommend that the Scottish Government introduce a feedback mechanism to improve collaboration between the Government’s redress unit and Redress Scotland, to enable Redress Scotland to flag any issues or concerns about the process.
Following the various discussions that we have had, we are persuaded by the important considerations that underlie the petition. Notwithstanding the evidence that we have heard from ministers, the committee will make a unanimous, clear and direct recommendation that the Government act in accordance with our recommendations.
I entirely agree with the recommendations that Mr Torrance set out and with your remarks. It seems to me that there is complete unanimity among the five committee members that this is an extremely strong case and that a just grievance must be corrected.
In addition to what Mr Torrance has said, could the letter to the Scottish Government indicate that the committee is unanimous on the issue, that we feel very strongly and that we will press for a debate in the Scottish Parliament if the Government is not willing to do what is necessary?
I am content to agree to that, too.
Obviously, we are about to go into the summer recess, so we will confirm the wording of the final draft of our letter by correspondence. In view of that, are colleagues content that any correspondence, once agreed, should be published on the petitions web page and to delegate to me, as convener, arrangements for publication to ensure that we not only send a letter to the Government, but that we make a public statement on the conclusions that the committee has reached and the firm recommended direction that the committee is urging the Government to follow?
Members indicated agreement.
Let us hope that that makes progress. It is quite unusual for the committee to issue very specific recommendations in that way. Given the evidence that we have heard, the Government really ought to pay some attention to our recommendations. I hope that we are accordingly able to make progress on the petition on behalf of the petitioners.
Can you also include, for the Government, the letters from the Law Society of Scotland and Thompsons Solicitors, as evidence?
We plan to highlight those in the letter that we draft. Obviously, we will draft a comprehensive letter that will draw from those particular sources. I think that that is important in how we manage matters.
Local Knowledge (Conservation Policy) (PE1966)
PE1966 is on formally recognising and incorporating local knowledge in Scottish Government policy. We last considered the petition, which was lodged by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, on 20 September 2023.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally recognise local knowledge and ensure that it is given full consideration, alongside scientific knowledge, throughout consultation, decision-making processes and policy development, specifically within the conservation arena.
When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and NatureScot. The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that
“There are no plans to revise the Scottish Government best practice handbook on consultations”
and that it does not take a one-size-fits-all approach to consultations.
NatureScot recognises that local knowledge is vital, and it seeks to incorporate local knowledge in its work and decision making in a number of ways, details of which are provided in the papers for the meeting. The submission also states that NatureScot employs staff
“from a variety of areas and backgrounds who bring local knowledge to their roles.”
That is what it says, anyway.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of the evidence that we have been given, would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government and NatureScot have set out their approaches to incorporating local knowledge in policy and decision making, and neither currently intends to revise such approaches in line with the petition’s request?
I cannot demur from Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I do not think that the petition is going any further, but I feel, from quite long experience, that there is some substance behind the specific concerns that are highlighted in specific examples of quangos not taking account of local people’s views. I am afraid that I reached that conclusion a long time ago, and nothing has happened to make me change that view. I wanted to put that on the record.
The petition’s wording is maybe a bit vague. It is difficult to see how local knowledge could be the subject of mandatory duties in legislation, but the examples that have been given of where it has been felt that the state is not really interested in what the little person in rural Scotland says are well founded, and we will no doubt come back and consider some of those in the future.
The SGA is, of course, entitled to lodge petitions on the specific matters, should it so choose. I am a member of the SGA, and I think that I have paid my subscription.
I am similarly minded. I do not with any great satisfaction want to close the petition or accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but the direction in the responses that we have received is such that I do not think that there is anything more that we can do at this stage to take it forward. I will not go so far as to say that I am not persuaded by the assurances that we have received, but on the basis of the evidence that I have heard in relation to other petitions recently, I am not entirely persuaded by them.
Nonetheless, members are content that we close the petition. We thank the Scottish Gamekeepers Association for lodging it. Other petitions can be lodged again in the future: I fear that some of the issues that have been identified in this one will not be resolved and might yet be the subject of future petitions.
Drug Testing Kits (PE1986)
PE1986 is on providing testing kits for drugs in public spaces. It was lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign. It was last considered on 23 October.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces, such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings. The Scottish Government’s response to our correspondence reiterates that self-testing drug-checking kits do not offer the same in-depth analysis and harm-reduction advice that is offered by drug-checking facilities.
The submission also details the progress that is now being made towards piloting drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow. The Scottish Government received more information from the Home Office about controlled drug licence applications for each area and anticipated that applications would soon be made. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the bases that self-testing kits do not give as much information as lab analysis and might not indicate the presence of other substances or the purity of drugs, and that test results could be misrepresented or misinterpreted by individuals.
Furthermore, the Scottish Government suggests that testing in drug-checking facilities is preferable because harm-reduction advice and signposting to support services can be offered.
Finally, work is being progressed to pilot drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow.
In the light of the Scottish Government’s responses, and Mr Golden’s recommendation, which summarised them, are we content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition and hope very much that the progress that the Scottish Government has identified is realised in the months ahead.
Victims of Domestic Violence (PE2025)
Our next petition, PE2025, was lodged by Bernadette Foley. Forgive me, colleagues, but there is quite a long follow-up, given the amount of information that we have received.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home by ensuring that access is available to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; that victims are financially compensated for the loss of the marital home, including the loss of personal possessions and furniture that were left in the property; and that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.
We previously considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Government. Members will have noted that we have received responses from all those organisations.
The Scottish Law Commission told us that, although its “Aspects of family law” project does not extend to divorce law or legal aid, it will consider whether and how survivors of domestic abuse might be able to obtain remedies against perpetrators, including for the loss of property. The commission is also reviewing the efficacy of non-harassment orders.
The Law Society of Scotland suggested that making legal aid automatically available to anyone who has made an allegation of domestic abuse could potentially open up the scheme to misuse. It also indicated its support for a victim being heard prior to any decision being taken to vary or revoke a non-harassment order, and it highlighted that that should happen automatically in a civil context, as the order would normally have been sought by the victim.
In its response, the Scottish Government noted that, in addition to an implementation board, an operational working group has been established to work through the detail of how the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 could operate. It also noted that there are several challenges to be addressed in implementing part 1 of the act, which gives Police Scotland powers to issue a domestic abuse protection notice and to apply to civil courts for a domestic abuse protection order.
In their responses, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and Scottish Women’s Aid indicate their support for the aims of the petition and draw our attention to the increase in the number of victims who self-represent due to the lack of available legal aid. Members may recall from previous consideration of petitions related to legal aid that the Government indicated its intention to introduce a legal aid reform bill during this parliamentary session, but we have not yet seen such a bill.
Do members have any suggestions for action?
I wonder whether we could write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to highlight the evidence that the committee has received; to seek an update on the work of the implementation board and the operational working group to progress the implementation of part 1 of the 2021 act, including information on what challenges are still to be resolved before implementation can proceed; to ask what action has been taken to ensure that victims have the opportunity to be heard before non-harassment orders are varied or revoked; and to ask whether the Scottish Government still intends to introduce a legal aid reform bill during the current parliamentary session.
We should make that last point in particular, because the Parliament is running out of time to progress any such bill. Are colleagues content with that suggested course of action?
Members indicated agreement.
Literacy Attainment (PE2037)
PE2037, which was lodged by Anne Glennie, is on improving literacy attainment through research-informed reading instruction. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide national guidance, support and professional learning for teachers in research-informed reading instruction—specifically, systematic synthetic phonics—and to ensure that teacher training institutions train new teachers in such instruction.
We previously considered the petition on 25 October. At that time, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and to the General Teaching Council for Scotland.
In her response, the cabinet secretary notes that student teachers are taught about systematic—or is it “systemic”? No—it is “systematic”. There are too many Ss. Student teachers are taught about systematic synthetic phonics as part of the process of gaining a broader understanding of the development and teaching of reading.
In its response, the General Teaching Council for Scotland notes that, although it sets the required design, expected component parts and other features of initial teacher education, such programmes do not aim to cover every teaching approach in detail. It also provides detail on the standards that are expected of teachers in order for them to maintain full registration, as well as on on-going efforts to develop a more effective career-long teacher education model.
We have also received two submissions from the petitioner. The first of those asks for more detail on what exactly is being taught to pre-service teachers and notes that research is being undertaken by academics in Glasgow and Dundee to evaluate current literary teaching practices. In her most recent submission, the petitioner draws our attention to international examples in Australia and New Zealand, with systematic synthetic phonics being recommended as the most effective method of teaching children to read. The petitioner has also drawn our attention to a report that explores the variability in literacy rates and policy in both the UK and Ireland.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Mr Torrance, can you get your head around the tongue twister?
I will try.
I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, in its response to the cabinet secretary, the Scottish Council of Deans of Education states that student teachers are taught about systematic synthetic phonics in the context of gaining a broader understanding of the development and teaching of reading, and that Education Scotland is developing new resources related to early reading, which will outline how systematic phonics approaches form one aspect of an overall pedagogy for early reading.
Do not ask me to say that again. [Laughter.]
It is a serious issue, but I have to say that a lot of systematic synthetic phonics appeared in our words there.
There appears to have been a degree of action, although the petitioner is not altogether sure about it all. Are colleagues prepared to act? I wonder whether we might close the petition and write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to let her know that we have done so, while drawing her attention to the fact that the petitioner feels that some of the work on the matter is a little vague. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
New Petitions