Official Report 789KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is consideration of new petitions. We have two new petitions this morning. As always, for those who might be joining us remotely, I highlight that we seek the advice of the Scottish Parliament Information Centre—SPICe—and an initial view from the Scottish Government, simply in order to progress the petition at its first consideration.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Implementation in Scots Law) (PE2135)
PE2135, lodged by Henry Black Ferguson on behalf of wecollect.scot, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights full legal effect in the devolved law making process prior to the next Holyrood parliamentary election.
The SPICe briefing explains that the international covenant was adopted in 1966 and ratified by the UK in 1976. Many of the rights that are set out in the ICCPR are reflected in international agreements and have been incorporated into UK human rights-related legislation.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is committed to a new human rights bill, which will incorporate further international human rights standards into Scots law. The Scottish Government has developed and consulted on proposals to give effect to the recommendations from the national task force for human rights leadership, which comprised a range of experts and stakeholders, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not among the treaties that the task force recommended for incorporation, although it did recommend that further consideration be given to restating the rights that are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.
The submission explains that when incorporating international treaties into domestic law, the Scottish Parliament can only give effect to provisions within its powers and responsibilities. That route cannot be used to effectively extend the Parliament’s powers by claiming that the incorporated international treaty provisions now allow the Parliament or Scottish Government to do anything that would previously have been beyond the Parliament’s devolved competence.
The petitioner’s submission questions the Scottish Government’s position and states that the issue of devolved competence is not relevant to the covenant’s full implementation. He believes that the Scottish Government’s submission seeks to restrict and undermine the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?
I have studied the petitioner’s response to the Scottish Government’s written submission of 31 January. The petitioner’s written response, published on 13 March, raises a whole series of issues, some of which are somewhat technical and legal.
The thrust of it is that the petitioner adduces various examples of statements, notably by the First Minister in 2023, who stated that there should be
“the right to public participation in public affairs as expressed in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
The petitioner has highlighted that MSPs continue to ignore the Parliament’s motion of 2 September 2012, which acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government that is best suited to their needs.
The petitioner also challenges the view that the matter is not within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament and he refers to the Scottish Human Rights Commission as endorsing that view. Without rehearsing all that the petitioner said on 13 March, the letter raises further issues of substance that the cabinet secretary, Angus Robertson, should be asked to comment on further in order to do the petitioner justice. This is the first time that we have considered the matter, and the petitioner is perhaps right when he states that it is disappointing that the Scottish Government’s reply was not issued by Angus Robertson but by an official.
Perhaps Mr Robertson could be asked to give detailed comment on all the arguments that the petitioner set out in response to the initial Government position. I appreciate that that will take more time, but this is the first calling of the petition. The issues that have been raised are substantial and a mixture of political, legal and technical. I will not add to that, as I could quote extensively from the petitioner’s detailed and helpful submission, but I feel that the petition requires a further response from the Scottish Government.
I echo Mr Ewing’s comments. As part of the response, it would be useful for the petitioner and, indeed, the Parliament to understand what the Scottish Government’s position is on the codification and enablement of international law in a devolved setting. The Scottish Government has a position on alignment with European Union law, but I am unclear as to how international law in the devolved setting is to be adhered to.
I am not asking for that information treaty by treaty, but I note that, tomorrow, the Parliament has a debate about how the Aarhus convention of 1998 is being enabled in a devolved context. It would be useful to know the Government’s overall approach to the issue. I have concerns that it might not be practical for the Scottish Government to adhere to the timescales requested by the petitioner, but it would be interesting to know what the overall trajectory is.
Having looked at the petition, my own preference was to move to close it. Paying respect to the views of our two colleagues, is the committee content to let the petition run on the basis of the further enquiry to Mr Robertson that has been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
Parking Badge for Pregnant Women (PE2140)
Our final petition is PE2140, lodged by James Bruce. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a new parking badge to assist women to be able to get in and out their cars—I do not suppose that the parking badge would do that in itself—when they are pregnant and in the initial months after their pregnancy.
The petition’s background highlights that pregnant women often face difficulty getting in and out of their car when the vehicle next to them has parked too close. The SPICe briefing provides us with information on the blue badge scheme, which supports disabled people to access parking bays that are situated closer to where they want to go. Members will likely be aware that the blue scheme applies to on-street parking and does not generally apply in off-street car parks, such as supermarket car parks. The briefing also includes information about the use of parent-and-child parking bays by pregnant women, and insurance companies and organisations such as Mumsnet and Money Saving Expert have said that if you are heavily pregnant and need to park in a parent and child space then you should do so.
In its response to the petition, Transport Scotland states that the blue badge scheme is designed to allow disabled people who experience severe barriers in their mobility to park closer to their destination, and the eligibility criteria is based on functional mobility rather than diagnosed medical conditions. While pregnancy and postpartum recovery would not automatically qualify under the legislation, individuals may still apply if significant long-term complications arise. The Transport Scotland response goes on to say that there are no plans to create separate concessionary badges or widen the blue badge scheme’s automatic eligibility criteria, and decisions to offer alternative parking concessions for off-street car parks are the relevant authority or landowner’s responsibility.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
To be blunt, we cannot go far on the petition, but some avenues to explore that might be helpful to the petitioner include writing to the Scottish Retail Consortium to find out what its member supermarkets’ position is on pregnant women accessing disabled spaces or parent-and-child spaces on their premises.
In doing so, we could note that the Scottish Government has said that it has no plans to create concessionary badges or widen the blue badge scheme’s automatic eligibility criteria, so the scope of our ability to proceed is limited in that regard.
Let us take forward the enquiry, as Mr Golden suggested, and keep the petition open on that basis.
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will next assemble on 23 April. We will now move into private session to consider agenda items 5 and 6.
11:44 Meeting continued in private until 12:00.Air ais
Continued Petitions