Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Golden points to our inquiry on deliberative democracy. That was one of the issues that we pursued, and it had attractions, but it also had the very difficulties that Mr Golden has identified.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Marie McNair, are you content that we pursue the matter a bit further?

Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open. Having been directed to the view that local authorities have that ability, let us try to find out whether staff can, in fact, access that opportunity in practice.

That brings us to PE2048, from James Anthony Bundy. I see that Mr Bundy is with us in the gallery, along with his mother, I believe. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—stroke awareness campaign and ensuring that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke.

We have been joined in our consideration of the petition by our MSP colleagues Stephen Kerr and Alexander Stewart. Good morning to you both.

The next continued petition, PE2049, from Gilliane Petrie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce buffer zones outside migrant accommodation to prevent anti-migrant groups from gathering in those spaces and help to protect occupants, including asylum seekers and refugees, from harassment and intimidation. We also considered the petition at our meeting on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to seek information from the Scottish Refugee Council, JustRight Scotland, COSLA, Police Scotland, and the Mears Group.

In its response, Police Scotland states that it considers current police powers as sufficient to address any unlawful behaviour that may arise in the vicinity of migrant accommodation as a result of protest activity.

The Mears Group believes that any decision about buffer zones would be a matter for the Home Office as the contracting authority for migrant accommodation, while also highlighting its use of private security teams to help manage protests, with support from the police.

The response from JustRight Scotland states its position that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are fundamental rights and that lawful interference should be kept to a minimum and done cautiously. It also believes there is much more that can be done in Scotland to ensure that those seeking asylum are safe and secure in the place where they are living and in the community, with the response highlighting wider concerns about the use of institutionalised accommodation for people seeking asylum.

In light of the responses that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I thank the petitioner, but they will understand from the evidence received from Police Scotland that the required protections are—I hope—in place.

I think that the committee can accept that, if there are a considerable number of responses, it might take time to analyse those. However, it is 15 or 16 months since the consultation closed, and it would be interesting to understand what the on-going delay is. Are colleagues content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2105, which was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent unnecessary use of emergency public safety powers to demolish listed buildings.

We are joined this morning by two of our parliamentary colleagues, Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney, who are both former members of this committee. Welcome back to you both.

The SPICe briefing explains that local authorities are required by law to intervene where a building presents a danger to people in or about that building, to the public generally or to adjacent buildings or places. Where the local authority considers the required action to be urgent, it can carry out that action without first obtaining the usual statutory consents. That includes where demolition is considered the required action.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that works undertaken on listed buildings without prior consultation should be limited to the minimum necessary requirement to protect the public until proper consultations can take place.

It also states that it is for the local authority to determine the most appropriate course of action, taking into account the particular circumstances of each case, and that it is not possible for guidance to be specific about the approach required when the instances of dangerous buildings are unique and require a risk-based approach to determining the appropriate action.

The petitioner’s written submission states that in order to adhere to the legislative requirements and good practice, enhanced guidance is needed to set out the minimum structural evidence and processes that are required before demolition works to listed buildings is undertaken. She recognises that the approach to managing dangerous listed buildings is unique and requires a risk-based approach. However, it is her view that that does not prevent the creation of additional guidance to ensure the appropriate expertise is sought when assessing what action should be taken.

Before we consider what we might do, we will hear from Carol Mochan and Paul Sweeney. Carol Mochan, what would you like to say?

If there are no other suggestions for action, are we content to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2107 is about using more money that is recovered from the proceeds of crime to support community-based charities that train animals to assist in the detection of drugs. The petition, which was lodged by Kevin Craigens on behalf of the Shetland Times Ltd, calls on the Scottish Government to direct more public funding that is recovered through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to support charities such as Dogs Against Drugs, which are vital to their communities and play an integral part in the seizure of drugs and criminal assets.

The background to the petition tells us that the charity Dogs Against Drugs was directly involved in the seizure of more than £360,000-worth of drugs and more than £14,000 of cash last year. However, due to financial pressures, the charity has had to let go one of its dog handlers, and the petitioner has suggested that changes to the way in which the proceeds of crime are distributed could reduce such pressures.

The SPICe briefing notes that, although Police Scotland does not publish the number of dogs in its dog unit, a freedom of information response from April 2023 stated that the police had 144 dogs across Scotland, with that figure having been relatively stable for a number of years. In Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, local policing teams work with charities, such as those highlighted in the petition, to carry out detection activities, though they do not fund them.

Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that money that is recovered through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is paid into the Scottish consolidated fund and is currently used to fund the cashback for communities programme. The current phase of the programme

“focuses on delivering a range of trauma-informed and person-centred services and activities for young people ... who are at risk of entering the criminal justice system.”

The Government’s response highlights that a grant of £10,000 was awarded to Dogs Against Drugs through the serious organised crime community grant scheme and that, more recently, it received a one-off grant of £30,000 from money that is ring fenced for projects relating to serious organised crime. That is expected to relieve the current financial pressures while officials consider longer-term funding options.

Do members have any suggestions for action?