Seòmar agus comataidhean

Have charges led to successful convictions in Northern Ireland and England under the specific provisions of those acts?

Paul Sweeney, who is online, will ask a couple of questions.

I will let you respond in a moment, Dr Neal, but I should also say that a members’ bill is often the catalyst that leads to the Government adopting a proposal. It is difficult to quantify the success of members’ bill because, on quite a few occasions, the objective has been achieved because the bill has led to the Government understanding and adopting the issue rather than because the bill itself has passed into law.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding dual mandate MSPs and to legislate to bring those rules in line with the Senedd and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections in 2026.

The petitioner has reminded us that, since the formation of the Scottish Parliament, MSPs have been allowed to take their place at Holyrood, while retaining a role or having a dual mandate in other local or national levels of Government. He notes that members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not permitted to have a dual mandate and members of the Welsh Parliament have a grace period of eight days to resign if they also hold a seat as an MP. He also states that Welsh Parliament members who are peers would have to take a leave of absence from the House of Lords and that those who hold a role as a regional councillor can remain in post so long as the expected day of the next regional election is within 372 days.

As we do with all new petitions, the committee requested an initial view from the Scottish Government. In responding to the request, it stated:

“the Parliament is responsible for all matters relevant to its internal operation, including the terms for seeking its membership.”

Therefore, the issue is not a matter for the Scottish Government per se.

Are colleagues content for the committee to write to the Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to inquire about the deliberative processes that led to the introduction of the legislation that prevents dual mandates in those legislatures, and to ask about any issues that they have encountered in the implementation of that legislation? Are members also content to write to the Electoral Reform Society to seek more information about the issues that have been raised by the petition?

Once we have considered those responses, we would be able to progress the petition to the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament that is charged with responsibility for those issues, given that the Scottish Government has said that it is not.

As there are no other suggestions, are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

As a committee, we might be ready to agree that we will keep the petition open until, at the very least, we have a preferred route identified and some understanding of the timetable and financial underpinning of the recommended solution. Are members content to do that, and to follow up on Mr Stewart’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner for raising the issue. I am only sorry that I do not know whether, ultimately, we got the satisfaction that he might have hoped to get. However, we have NatureScot’s assurances on record. Obviously, it is open to individuals who feel that the provisions are not being honoured to lodge another petition in future.

PE1895, which was lodged by Gary Wall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision making within the framework of the “Scottish Regulators’ Strategic Code of Practice” and the Scottish Government’s guidance “Right First Time: A practical guide for public authorities in Scotland to decision-making and the law”.

We last considered the petition on 18 May, at which point we agreed to write to NatureScot to ask how it ensures that the process for licensing refusals and reasons for refusal are clear and consistent. Its response states that the approach is

“in accordance with legislation following internal policy and procedures”,

and that a record of all assessments is kept. NatureScot says that, in cases of refusal, a discussion takes place with the licensing manager and the unit manager is informed. It states that the applicants are

“clearly informed in writing of the reasons for refusal.”

The petitioner’s recent submission to the committee reiterates his experience of a licence refusal where a conservation objective was not stated in the refusal explanation. He also states his view that the complaints procedure is not impartial, as it is conducted by NatureScot staff.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I am sorry—I do not mean to quantify it in this way—but I am interested in whether the practice in England and Wales comes down to a compensation order in the same way that we have here.

Pregnancy can lead to abuse being introduced into what had been a relationship without abuse.

PE1862 is on introducing community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities. I am almost surprised to say that we do not have Rhoda Grant with us this morning as we consider the petition. If you are watching, Rhoda, I say good morning to you.

The petition was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of Uist economic task force. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations delivering lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

We considered the petition very recently, at our meeting on 26 October, when we took evidence from the Minister for Transport, Jenny Gilruth MSP, and Fran Pacitti, who is director of aviation, maritime, freight and canals at Transport Scotland. During the evidence session, the minister and director shared information on the progress that is being made to encourage islander representation on boards, such as being more proactive in how the roles are advertised and making it an essential criterion that applicants for the position of non-executive director have a good understanding and knowledge of the issues affecting island communities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?