Official Report 703KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. Before we consider them, as always, I indicate to those who might be joining us online to hear their petition reviewed for the first time that there are two actions that we take in advance of the consideration of a new petition. We invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to give us a proper briefing on the issues underpinning the petition that has been lodged. We also contact the Scottish Government to get its preliminary views. The reason why we take those actions is that, historically, when the committee met to consider a new petition, if we had not done those two things in advance, we simply agreed to do them, which delayed the proper consideration of the petition. All of that is done to expedite the detailed consideration of the issues that are raised.
ScotRail (Inter7city Routes) (PE2133)
The first new petition is PE2133, which is on expanding ScotRail’s inter7city routes to include Dunfermline. The petition, which has been lodged by Andrew Wedge, calls for exactly what it says on the tin: for the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that every city in Scotland has a direct express rail connection to the others by expanding ScotRail’s inter7city routes to include Scotland’s newest city of Dunfermline. The petitioner suggests that the procurement of a replacement for the high-speed train fleet, which operates on the intercity routes, should be used as an opportunity to expand the intercity routes and improve connectivity between all Scotland’s cities.
As the SPICe briefing notes, Dunfermline was granted city status in 2022 and has two railway stations, both of which are located on the Fife circle line and are regularly served by direct trains from Edinburgh, Glenrothes with Thornton and Cowdenbeath. The briefing also draws our attention to ScotRail’s “Fit for the Future” consultation, which included a proposal for a direct service from Dunfermline to Dundee or Perth. However, as the proposal received negative feedback, it was not taken forward.
The Cabinet Secretary for Transport acknowledges that the proposal in the petition is a reasonable one that has been given
“detailed consideration over recent years by ScotRail, Network Rail and Transport Scotland”.
The cabinet secretary’s response goes on to note that, although the proposal for an hourly Edinburgh to Perth via Dunfermline service was withdrawn, options to develop and enhance rail connectivity in Fife will be kept under review. The response also includes information on the appraisal of passenger services on the Alloa to Dunfermline line, which was not recommended in the set of national priorities for investment as part of the second strategic transport projects review. Again, the cabinet secretary has indicated that Transport Scotland will keep that under review, subject to a strong business case being developed and suitable funding being available to support that change.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which comments on the cabinet secretary’s response and suggests that a small amount of feedback from Perth residents and a minor increase in journey time due to the additional stops in north Fife resulted in Dunfermline losing out on the proposed hourly Edinburgh to Perth via Dunfermline service. The petitioner draws our attention to the growing populations in Dunfermline and west Fife, with further housing developments under construction, and emphasises the need for further investment in the infrastructure to support that growth.
Mr Wedge also raises concerns about the extensive journey time for passengers travelling from Fife to Glasgow or Stirling and suggests that ScotRail could make use of existing but less-used lines to offer direct express services, which would also help to reduce pressure on existing pinch points such as Haymarket.
That is a fairly comprehensive introduction to the new petition, as we have received some detailed responses. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action? Given the cabinet secretary’s response, I am not sure that there is anything that we can do directly in relation to the petition. There might have been more information to seek, but I feel that we have had quite strong direction at this stage. Do colleagues feel that there is more that we could do?
My instinct is that you are probably right, and in saying that I am mindful of the huge pressures on the transport budget in all respects. Having said that, the petition is a new one, so I wonder whether we could write to Transport Scotland and ScotRail to ask whether the proposal to reopen the Alloa to Dunfermline line for passenger services will be reviewed in light of what the petitioner has described at some length in his response to the minister as the very significant housing development in the west Fife area, and general development in that area around Rosyth and so on. We could also ask what consideration has been given to using connections to provide rail services linking Dunfermline with Glasgow and Stirling without the need to go via Edinburgh.
That would at least get on the record from Transport Scotland and ScotRail what exactly they are saying about that. I strongly suspect that, once we get the responses within a few weeks, we may conclude that, with the elections next year, the issue is really a matter for debate at that time and of each party setting out its priorities for what improvements it would support in the next session of Parliament. That would be part of the process. However, because the petition is a new one, we owe it to the petitioner to try to get that further information, at the very least.
I was looking for ways in which we might be able to do that, so I am content with that suggestion. Are colleagues content that we proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Swift Bricks (Installation in New Buildings) (PE2134)
PE2134, which was lodged by Cally Smith on behalf of Huntly Swift Group-NES Swifts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help reverse the decline in swift populations by introducing legislation that would make swift nesting bricks a requirement for all new-build developments in Scotland and make it mandatory to include swifts in all ecological building surveys.
As the petition background tells us, swifts were added to the UK red list for conservation in 2021, and nest site loss is considered to be one of the factors that has contributed to a 62 per cent decline in the swift population since 1998. The SPICe briefing that we have received notes other possible causes for the decline, such as poor summer weather and a decline in the number of insects, which are swifts’ main food source.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights that improving biodiversity is listed as a cross-cutting outcome in the national planning framework 4, also referred to as NPF4, with policy 3 noted as playing a
“critical role in ensuring that development will secure positive effects for biodiversity.”
The response goes on to note the Scottish Government’s work with NatureScot in finalising its “Developing with Nature” guidance, published in 2023, which describes a number of measures that development can incorporate to conserve, restore and enhance nature. In the light of the polices that are contained in NPF4 and supporting guidance, the Scottish Government does not consider it necessary to mandate the use of swift bricks or other individual measures, although it does acknowledge that they may be an important and helpful intervention in some developments.
We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, the first of which adds further clarity to petition’s ask for a requirement to include swift bricks in “all suitable new developments”—I emphasise the word “suitable” there—and includes information on how that can be achieved in most new buildings. The petitioner’s second submission responds to the Scottish Government’s submission and makes clear that swift bricks are a universal provision that could be used to serve other cavity-nesting bird species, such as the sparrow, house martin and starling.
While the petitioner appreciates the “Developing with Nature” guidance, she argues that the enhancements that are suggested in the guidance are rarely being made. The submission also highlights that ecological surveys rarely include swifts, and when they are, the survey’s timing—outwith the peak breeding season of June and July—means that a “nil” or “poor” record of swift activity is often given.
Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I was struck that the ministerial response was quite detailed and specifically pointed to the national planning framework, which requires such environmental matters to be considered at a general level.
I am not sure that the law can be quite as specific as the petitioner is asking for it to be, and I am not quite certain as to whether the word “suitable” has been incorporated in the petition—the call is only for the use of such bricks to be “mandatory” in suitable premises. As I understand it, the petitioner argues that not all house construction is suitable, because if houses are not more than 1 or 2m apart, it is simply not practical for birds to fly in and out as the buildings are too close. From what I can gather from the papers, on the one hand, the word “suitable” has been inserted, but even if that is the case, the current planning framework allows for such things to be considered, and no doubt they would be raised locally, in areas that have a strong swift population.
I am open to hearing what other colleagues say, but I am not really sure that we can do much more with the petition. I suspect that, if we write to pressure groups, they will just ask us to support it, and if we write to builders, they will say not to support it. We could write, but I am not sure that doing so will take us any further, particularly since we have already responses with copious detail from SPICe and the minister.
Moreover, the Government has indicated that it intends to review the building standard on sustainable development, so there are further opportunities for such requirements to be incorporated at that point.
There is that as well, yes.
Are you suggesting that, on this occasion, we close the petition based on the substantive responses that we have received?
It could be brought back in some form quite easily, if, after the review—
If those aspects are not fulfilled.
The petitioner argues that the current system is not working, but that is disputed. If the current system is still not working after the review, the option is open for the petitioner to bring the issue back, perhaps in the next parliamentary session.
10:45
I understand. On that basis, colleagues, are we minded, in view of the responses received and Mr Ewing’s analysis, to close the petition on this occasion? Mr Choudhury, are you content with that?
Yes.
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner. In view of the responses received, that is the committee’s conclusion. However, should those reviews not lead to any improvement, a fresh petition could be raised in the next session of Parliament.
Non-fatal Strangulation (Ban) (PE2136)
That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE2136, on making non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone criminal offence in Scotland, has been lodged by Fiona Drouet.
We are joined in our consideration of this petition by our MSP colleague Tess White. Good morning, Ms White. I believe that you have been accompanied to the committee this morning by the petitioner, who is also in the gallery. Good morning. You will forgive me, but my eyesight is so bad that I have to assume that the petitioner is in the gallery.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone criminal offence in Scotland. The SPICe briefing notes that in 2023, a publication on the prevalence of strangulation and suffocation found that one in four women accessing community and refuge services reported they had experienced strangulation or suffocation.
Other jurisdictions have introduced a stand-alone offence for non-fatal strangulation in recent years. England and Wales created a stand-alone offence of strangulation or suffocation, which came into force in June 2022. Northern Ireland created a new offence of non-fatal strangulation or asphyxiation, which came into force on 26 June 2023. Ireland created the stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or non-fatal suffocation, which commenced on 1 November 2023.
The reason for introducing the stand-alone offence in all those countries has been noted as ensuring that perpetrators could be charged and prosecuted with a sufficiently serious offence, even in the absence of physical injuries.
The petitioner’s submission argues that Scotland must keep pace with those changes by introducing non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone criminal offence. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has responded to the petition. Her submission states that the Scottish Government
“will give serious consideration to the Petition”,
and emphasises the importance of understanding how any new law would interact with the offence of domestic abuse. Scottish Government officials will continue to progress considerations in the area, including through discussions with operational partners.
The petitioner’s written submission states that the act of non-fatal strangulation
“can cause brain damage, organ failure, long-term physical and mental health problems and increases the risk of strokes and neurological disorders.”
The petitioner argues that establishing non-fatal strangulation as a stand-alone offence in Scotland
“will signal zero tolerance for such acts, ensure appropriate consequences for perpetrators, and enhance victim protection. It will also deter future harm and reinforce Scotland’s commitment to addressing domestic abuse.”
Colleagues may have seen a degree of press reporting over the weekend on issues similar to those raised by the petition.
Before I ask committee members for comments on what we might now do, I ask Tess White to offer her thoughts to the committee.
I am grateful to the committee for the opportunity to speak to PE2136. I pay tribute to the petitioner Fiona Drouet, who is here in the committee room. Fiona lost her daughter Emily in the most tragic circumstances after her boyfriend abused her while they were students at the University of Aberdeen. I first became aware of the devastating physical and psychological impact of choking a sexual partner during a parliamentary event that I held with the women’s support service, Beira’s Place, towards the end of last year.
The issue had not come to my attention before then, but once you know about such a thing, you have to do something about it. As you said, convener, there are devastating effects. Within six to eight seconds, a woman loses consciousness. After 15 seconds, her bladder will be incontinent. After 30 seconds, her bowels will open. She will be brain dead within four minutes.
As Fiona has said herself, no one—no woman or girl—could ever consent to this; indeed, there comes a point where a woman or girl is physically unable to do anything about it. How can you consent to something if you lose consciousness? It is not “breath play”—that is a euphemism that men use. They say, “Oh, it’s just breath play during sexual intimacy.” It is not; it is truly frightening, and it can be a predictor of dangerous and potentially fatal behaviour.
The petition, as you have rightly said, convener, calls for a stand-alone criminal offence for non-fatal strangulation. My view is that the common-law offence of assault does not adequately capture the complexity of what is a startling and ever-growing problem. In recognition of the fact that, as the committee has just heard, non-fatal strangulation can occur without obvious physical injury, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland have already introduced stand-alone offences with robust penalties.
I note, as does Fiona Drouet, the concerns expressed by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs about unintended consequences and what she has said to the committee about having a separate law, especially its interaction with existing domestic abuse legislation. However, that response does not cover two key points. This is a form of abuse and control; it can be part of domestic abuse, but it is also part of violence against women. It is also a non-consensual act. So, although I acknowledge the need to stress test any changes to the current law in Scotland, I am massively concerned that the Scottish Government is kicking the can down the road. This feels like yet another issue impacting women that is being pushed to the bottom of the legislative agenda.
Finally, convener and committee, as a Parliament, we have a year to go—please do not allow this to be lost. We could be talking about your daughters or your nieces. Something needs to be done. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to signal a zero-tolerance approach to non-fatal strangulation, and I urge it to act with the urgency that the issue deserves.
Thank you, Tess White. Having read through the papers and the detail that we received, I have to say that this was a practice of which I, too, was largely unaware. As you have said, when one is confronted with the detail, it seems that there really is a requirement for the Parliament to be proactive and for the Government to take a legislative lead, particularly in light of the fact that other Parliaments across these islands have already taken that step. It does not seem really adequate that Scotland should be trying to find difficulties where clear direction is required and, indeed, has been given by legislative moves and the legal framework elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I do not know whether you feel similarly, colleagues, but are there any views as to how we might proceed? I think that we really need to be very direct in our questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, because I do not think that we will want to allow this to languish. Are there any suggestions as to what we might seek to clarify with the cabinet secretary?
We will have data from elsewhere in the UK, but I note the cabinet secretary’s point that such an offender can be sentenced “up to life imprisonment”. I am not clear, based on the data that we have for Scotland, whether the High Court has dealt with such cases, and ultimately it is only the High Court that can sentence someone up to life imprisonment. I do not know, but I suspect that many of these offences are going to the sheriff court, which would mean up to five years’ imprisonment. That is significantly different from the suggestion that the cabinet secretary has made.
Therefore, I wonder whether we can attempt to find out where these offences are going and how many there are in Scotland. I appreciate that it will be under common law, but it is possible that, with work, we can find out some of the statistics. It would at least clarify the point about life imprisonment.
I agree with that. We should write to the cabinet secretary to seek further data on the extent to which sexual assaults involving strangulation have been treated differently. We should find out in how many cases that was found to have been the case and what analysis has been done of those statistics. Do such statistics exist? Is that information retained properly?
As Mr Golden said, the sheriff court has limited sentencing powers. It has been a long time since I was in the sheriff court—three decades—but I think that it is possible for a sheriff to remit sentencing to the High Court if he feels that the maximum sentence that he has the power to give is inadequate.
Be that as it may, I would have thought that every such case should be dealt with under solemn proceedings, not least because, as the petitioner points out, non-fatal strangulation often signals a heightened risk of homicide. It is quite staggering that a BBC survey showed that 40 per cent of women aged 18 to 39 in the UK reported experiencing choking, strangulation or gagging during sex. That is a hugely worrying percentage. We should therefore seek further data from the cabinet secretary.
We should also seek details of when officials will meet partners, because, in our view, the matter should be approached with great urgency and not be left to drift for months, as so many things do. We should ask whether officials and the cabinet secretary will engage directly with the petitioner and get a timeline for the work.
When asking for all that, we could indicate that we might well be minded to hear evidence from the cabinet secretary, given the interest in the issue. All the other countries in the UK seem to have taken action to deal with it, so why are we at the coo’s tail? Although the current system can work in theory, I feel instinctively that, in practice, it is probably not working as it should.
I am grateful to Tess White for setting out these extremely serious matters with such lucidity. I wanted to supplement Mr Golden’s suggestions with those remarks.
I agree with my colleagues. It is very important that we ask the Scottish Government to work with the petitioner and to provide a timeline.
I am minded to seek clarity on that point in particular, given that the parliamentary session now has only 14 months left to run. It is important that we try to provide some momentum behind anything that is being considered or justified, in relation to what might be being done or not done, in order to progress the aims of the petition.
To be fair to the cabinet secretary, she has said:
“I remain open minded towards the proposal”,
so this is not a case of the Government saying, “No, we’re not doing that.” If it had said that, our response at this stage of a parliamentary session might be to leave the matter to the next election, when people can vote for parties that will do what they feel is correct in a democracy. We are not at that stage. If the cabinet secretary thinks that what the petition proposes can be done, why can it not be done soon, before the next election? Why can we not just do things in this Parliament, with this Government?
Exactly. Are we content to keep the petition open and to take forward its aims as suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner, and we thank Tess White for her contribution.
Hire of Public Land (Ministerial Intervention) (PE2056)
The final point that I want to put on the record relates to PE2056, on introducing legislation to allow the Scottish ministers to intervene in the hiring of public land. I am very sorry to say that, after we wrote back to the Scottish Government following what we felt was an incomplete response, the Government has sent us more or less the same response again. I feel that that shows discourtesy to the committee.
Therefore, with the committee’s permission, I would like us to write to the Government to specifically draw its attention to the actual question that we are asking and to say that we wish to have an answer to that question, not some generalised answer on the issue that is not relevant to the point that we are putting. Are colleagues content for us to write directly to the Scottish Government to ask it to answer the question that we are asking?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the public part of the meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 2 April.
10:59 Meeting continued in private until 11:14.Air ais
Continued Petitions