Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing that has been provided sets out the current legal framework and explores how various criminal offences may apply to instances of domestic abuse during pregnancy. The information is summarised in the clerk’s note, which notes that women are at increased risk of physical abuse, and particularly domestic violence, during pregnancy and early maternity.

The Scottish Government submission provides information on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, stating that it enables physical, psychological and controlling behaviours to be prosecuted at once, which includes certain forms of psychological abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour that were previously difficult to prosecute.

However, in her submission, the petitioner shares her experience of domestic abuse, which sadly led to the loss of her child. She explains that she was hit by a car and that her injuries caused her to miscarry, which led to her partner taking a plea deal of reckless and culpable conduct with a domestic abuse aggravator. The sentence was a payment of just £300 compensation.

The petitioner explains the impact of the incident, including permanent left-side weakness, difficulty in walking for long periods or distances, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and grief.

In 2018, the petitioner conducted a study with 40 female domestic abuse survivors, the main findings of which are provided in the clerk’s note. Do colleagues wish to speak about this serious petition?

Would anybody like to comment?

PE1889, by Nikki Peachey, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide tailored financial support to self-employed people in the travel industry whose businesses have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In its submission, the Scottish Government outlines the various support measures that have been offered to members of the travel sector throughout the pandemic. It states that a UK-wide approach is required to deal with the issues that the travel sector is facing, and that it has written to the UK Minister for Business and Industry to seek a dialogue on the issue.

In her submission, the petitioner explains that the Covid-19 pandemic has hit such workers hard, that they have not received commissions, due to restrictions on international travel, and that they have incurred increased costs that are associated with booking and refunding travel for clients. In addition, many self-employed workers did not qualify for financial assistance via furlough, the self-employment income support scheme or travel agent grants.

The petitioner advises that although loans have been offered through the UK Government-backed bounce back loan scheme, that has meant starting repayments while still not receiving any income. She concludes by stating that many in the industry report facing bankruptcy and losing their homes and their livelihoods.

I recall that one of the first major post-pandemic representations outside the Parliament, which took place just after we came back from the summer recess, involved travel agents and their representatives.

I invite comments or suggestions from colleagues.

That suggestion seems very sensible. When we write to the professional bodies, it might also be useful to get an impression of the industry’s current status and, for example, the number of independent self-employed travel agents who might no longer be operating. I know that travel is resuming and that people are starting to plan and book immediate and future travel, but it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of those in the industry on the status of any recovery. They could also tell us about their potential fears with regard to any further restrictions that might be proposed or imposed in future months.

Are members content to proceed in the way that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1890 is on finding solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland. The petition, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to find ways of providing localised training, recruitment and retention of healthcare staff in difficult-to-recruit positions in Scotland. Members will have received a late submission on the petition from our colleague Edward Mountain MSP, which was circulated yesterday.

The committee is currently considering PE1845, which is on an agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland and explores similar issues in relation to rural healthcare. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the remote and rural general practice short-life working group and rural health boards. We have already received some submissions, and we are expecting the remainder later this week.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it recognises the training, recruitment and retention issues that are faced by health boards that operate in rural areas across Scotland. The submission details a number of training and recruitment initiatives for doctors in difficult-to-recruit areas, including remote and rural settings. Wider initiatives are also highlighted as contributing to the improvement of rural healthcare or tackling employment challenges that are specific to rural areas. NHS Highland funding is highlighted, including recovery and renewal investment, which allocated £2.2 million to NHS Highland in 2021-22, and funding of £54,625 for the recruitment of a full-time director of psychology.

The petitioner’s view is that the Caithness community does not appear to benefit from funding that is provided to NHS Highland, and the petitioner believes that health services are centralised to Raigmore hospital.

Mr Mountain has written in support of the petition. I am sure that he would have wished to be with us today and that he would have asked us to pursue the issues that are raised in the petition.

Do colleagues have comments to make on the petition?

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 guidance, “Right First Time: a practical guide for public authorities to decision-making and the law”.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that NatureScot, which was formerly known as Scottish Natural Heritage—I thought that it still was, so I am a bit behind the times—is Scotland’s statutory nature conservation body and advisor to the Scottish Government. NatureScot is classified as a non-departmental public body and is subject to NDPB accountability and governance frameworks.

The submission explains that licensing decisions are delegated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. The Scottish Government states that the legislation does not provide for an appeals procedure for licensing decisions. However, all decisions by NatureScot are subject to challenge through the public sector complaints handling system, which includes recourse to the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman.

The submission concludes that NatureScot ensures that its decision-making process complies with the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and Scottish Government’s guidance, “Right First Time”, through application of transparent, proportionate and consistent processes. With that taken into consideration, the Scottish Government does not consider that additional accountability measures are required over and above those that are already in place for NatureScot.

The petitioner suggests that the terminology that the Scottish Government uses in its submission to describe NatureScot’s processes is different from that used in the legislation and, therefore, incorrect. He also suggests that NatureScot’s practices are inconsistent with case law. The petitioner believes that it is currently impossible for a citizen to hold NatureScot to account and suggests:

“if it was made mandatory that they have to explain their ‘objective’ for decisions in the context of the aims of the legislation, especially for refusals, it would go some way to explain how they have applied ‘proportionality’’’.

The petitioner has responded specifically to the Scottish Government’s position, so I am happy to write back to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the challenge that the petitioner has made. That is a reasonable thing to do. If there are no other suggestions, we will do that in the first instance.

Members indicated agreement.

PE1899 is the last petition that we are considering today, on conducting a risk benefit analysis prior to providing those under 16 with a Covid-19 vaccination. The petition, which was lodged by Mary Henderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the risks and benefits of providing Covid-19 vaccinations to those who are under 16 years old.

The Scottish Government submission confirms that the chief medical officers from the four UK nations recommend that

“all healthy children aged 12-15 should be offered one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.”

In reaching their decision, and in addition to the wider health issues, the UK chief medical officers took into consideration issues such as disruption to education, reduction in public health harm and mental health issues.

The Government’s submission explains that, in deciding to offer vaccinations to children and young people aged 12 and over, the chief medical officers

“have been informed by the independent expertise of leaders of the clinical and public health profession from across the UK.”

In her response, the petitioner highlights several international articles that support her concerns regarding the vaccination of children. She feels that

“Natural immunity does not appear to have been fully investigated and the longer-term effects are unknown for all four Covid 19 vaccines.”

She is concerned that the

“move to vaccinate those under 16 is being driven more politically rather than medically.”

I invite members to comment on how we should proceed with the petition.

Indeed. We might ask SPICe to do a bit of work for us on how the position in Scotland compares with that in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, to see whether there is any significant variation in the protection for homeowners. Different laws will be in place, but we can ask whether there is any significant difference. Are we agreed to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That is fine. We could ask whether the Government is considering any further offences, because it would be interesting to know its position on that.

Mr Kidd, are you trying to intervene?

Well, I have never known you to do that, Jackie—that is certainly true. [Laughter.]