Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. Although the word “estrangement” sounds quite formal and technical, it is perhaps not legal. Therefore, it could mean different things to different people. It would be useful to obtain evidence on that.

That concludes our consideration of new and continued petitions. Our next meeting is on Wednesday 15 December, and I thank our guest or substitute colleague Marie McNair for attending.

The next petition is PE1907, which has been lodged by Claire Beats. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove eligibility criteria for access to services. The petitioner notes that

“availability of early learning and childcare funding for 2-year-old children depends on certain eligibility criteria, such as their parents being in receipt of benefits or being vulnerable.”

As an early years practitioner, the petitioner suggests that

“lockdown babies”,

in particular,

“have suffered from lack of play experiences, meeting peers, and opportunities that other children have always had.”

She suggests that funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds

“will greatly increase their potential”,

as well as helping parents who may be struggling financially as a result of the pandemic.

As with all new petitions, we sought the views of the Scottish Government. It suggested that current eligibility criteria for funded early learning and childcare is targeted towards those children who would benefit from it most. It also pointed out that local authorities have a discretionary power to offer funded places to a wider range of children, depending on individual need. The Scottish Government concluded by highlighting that, in this year’s programme for government, it has committed to expanding an early learning offer to all one and two-year-olds, starting in this parliamentary session with those from low-income families.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? Are we minded to write to stakeholders to understand their views? Early Years Scotland, the National Day Nurseries Association, Parenting Across Scotland and COSLA are the obvious ones that come to mind. Do we agree to write to them?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1910, which was lodged by Ian Nicol, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an exemption for smaller houses from the requirement to have interlinked smoke and fire alarms fitted, which comes into force in just a few months’ time, in February 2022.

The SPICe briefing that accompanies the petition explains that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2007 sets out a basic standard of house condition called the “tolerable standard”, which will be amended in February 2022 to include ceiling-mounted and interlinked smoke and heat alarms. Carbon monoxide alarms are also included, where appropriate. The legislation does not provide for any exemptions from the requirements, although the guidance acknowledges that

“it may not be practical to fit fire and smoke alarms to this exact standard”,

depending on the layout and design of the building.

The Scottish Government’s rationale for the new requirements is that interlinked systems alert occupiers immediately to fire in their homes. It acknowledges that, during the daytime, an occupier in a small house would hear unlinked alarms. However, it notes that unlinked systems are not sufficient to ensure that an occupier would be woken quickly during the night. It explains that the new requirement will bring all homes to

“the same level of protection”

that is currently mandatory

“in new build homes throughout the UK and in private rented homes in Scotland.”

The petitioner has responded to the Scottish Government’s submission and notes a number of concerns, which are that the requirement is not mandatory throughout the UK and it is unclear what the consequences of non-compliance are; that there are shortcomings with battery-operated alarms; and that there are cost implications for home owners that may be particularly challenging for those on low incomes.

Has any of us not been woken in the middle of the night by a battery that has gone flat in such a device and found it almost impossible to disconnect? I think that the newer models are more efficient.

Do members have any comments?

I am happy to pursue that. I can see us taking evidence with a bird of prey in the room. That would add a bit of novelty to proceedings.

Yes, I am happy to do that. The Parliament has a proud record of support for wheelchair users. In my first parliamentary session, Trish Godman led on the subject of bespoke wheelchairs. At that stage, Scotland provided a very poor service, but the Scottish Government introduced significant additional funding, which has transformed the lives of many people. However, sometimes, we forget that those better, bespoke wheelchairs have to be able to be deployed in a practical way in order for the individual to get the additional access. Some things are out of sight and out of mind. We have previously heard about issues relating to taxi access for people with wheelchairs, but there is something here for us to hear about as well and I would welcome any evidence that our colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy might be able to give to the committee. I suggest that we hold the petition open on the basis that we hear from her, and see whether that stimulates anything further that we might be able to do. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. As colleagues have no other suggestions, I think that we all agree with that. In the first instance, we will write to the teaching unions and get their parallel evidence in relation to the evidence that we already have and see where that takes us. It may well be that it leads to our agreeing to take further evidence on the petition at a forthcoming committee meeting.

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. I make it clear to anybody who has lodged a petition and who may be looking in this morning that we have, as a course of practice, sought the Scottish Government’s views on the petition and sometimes also considered a range of other submissions that have been sought or received. We therefore come to the discussion not blind but having had the opportunity to read some background material in relation to petitions that have been submitted.

PE1904, which was lodged by Christina Fisher, seeks to change Scots law to disqualify estranged spouses from making claims on an estate. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to define in law the difference between a legally married cohabiting couple and a legally married non-cohabiting couple for the purposes of ensuring that an estranged spouse cannot inherit their spouse’s assets.

The SPICe briefing accompanying the petition sets out the current legal position in relation to inheritance law in Scotland. It notes that section 1 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out that, where a person has made a will, when that person gets divorced or their civil partnership is dissolved, any provision in a will benefiting their former spouse or civil partner ceases to apply. However, there is no equivalent statutory provision in section 1 covering the situation where the person is estranged from their spouse or civil partner, but there has been no divorce or dissolution of the civil partnership. There is also no provision covering where a person has made a will benefiting their cohabitant, but the cohabiting relationship later breaks down.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it has carried out consultation to keep the law of succession under review, with the most recent consultation analysis published in May 2020. It notes that

“while the law of succession affects everyone it can also divide opinion”,

and that

“there must be some degree of consensus on what reforms will deliver outcomes that are appropriate for the majority of people in Scotland.”

The petitioner’s anomaly is actual. In light of that, what comments might colleagues wish to make?

PE1905, on the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950, has been lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJWs Support. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950.

The petitioner is a survivor of child sexual abuse who believes that she was failed by people in her church when she reported her abuse. She has provided further details of her experiences in a late submission, which has been shared with the committee. She calls for an investigation into the response of religious organisations that were informed about allegations of abuse against children who were not in care.

The petitioner argues that the scope of the current Scottish child abuse inquiry is too narrow, as it is able to investigate only the abuse of children in care. In contrast, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales has powers to investigate abuse in religious organisations generally and the inquiry recently published a report on the topic.

The Scottish Government states that there was extensive consultation and engagement with abuse survivors in relation to the Scottish child abuse inquiry’s remit and acknowledges that

“there was not unanimity on the extent of the remit amongst survivors, and that some wished for the remit to be broadened.”

In 2016, the Deputy First Minister addressed this issue directly, stating:

“If we set a remit that, in practice, would take many more years to conclude, we fail to respond to the survivors of in-care abuse who have taken us at our word, in Government and in Parliament, that we will learn from their experience and, by addressing the systematic failures that existed, ensure that it can never happen again.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; c 41.]

The Scottish Government states that it has no plans to reconsider the remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I have a small parallel concern, having spoken to elderly constituents, in particular, who have only just lately become aware of all this. They are slightly worried about the bona fides of people who might fit such devices. Previously, we have had concerns about the elderly being preyed on by some, and I would like to get an understanding from the Scottish Government of what security there is and whether it feels that appropriate advice on the matter has been given to all households. I know that that does not fall within the scope of the petition, but it is a related point of concern.

Thank you for your comments, Mr Kidd. Do members agree with the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.