���˿���

Thank you. That is very helpful. I see that colleagues do not have any further questions. I thank the witnesses for coming in. Is there anything that you would like to mention that you feel we did not manage to explore in the detail that you might have wished?

The next petition is PE1985, which is on evaluating garage to home developments. The petition was lodged by Darren Loftus and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent evaluation and provide national guidance on garage to home developments.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 23 February, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, before we move forward, we received a request from the petitioner yesterday asking us to defer consideration of the petition until a later date. We are still trying to establish the underpinning of that, but in light of that request, are colleagues content to defer consideration of the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. As there are no other comments, suggestions or variations of view, do member wish to pursue the proposal from Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content for us to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

?

Our next petition is PE2000. I do not know whether that is statistically significant—two thousand what, I am not entirely sure. It was lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or creating a new body that is similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which could enable students to access redress without the need for court action.

We previously considered the petition on 19 April, at which point we agreed to seek the views of Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland. Universities Scotland has responded, stating its view that

“the SPSO offers an effective route for complaints-handling”

where cases have not been resolved at an institution level, and that it sees

“no basis for an expanded remit or new body”

to be established.

The response also notes new guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority, published earlier this year, which provides advice on how consumer protection law applies to the UK higher education sector and what enforcement action is available when higher education providers do not comply with the law.

The response also refers to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill that is currently being considered by the UK Parliament and is expected to significantly strengthen the Competition and Markets Authority’s enforcement powers.

NUS Scotland’s response states the organisation’s support for

“a review into the complaints processes for higher education institutions”,

and notes its view that

“extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman”

would be an

“effective way of”

empowering students to hold universities to account, although we note that the SPSO has no wish to take on that remit.

We also received a response from the petitioner expressing concerns about the SPSO’s remit and approach to complaints handling, and the impact on students of navigating complaints processes and having to seek redress through civil courts.

From NUS Scotland and from the petitioner, there is a desire to go further, but from the SPSO and Universities Scotland, there is less of a desire to do so. Do colleagues have any comments or observations in view of the responses that have been received???

That latter point in particular, on which the Scottish Government has given a clear direction, means that there is limited scope for the committee to advance the aims of the petition. Do colleagues therefore support Mr Torrance’s recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

I have a couple of questions on the various submissions that the committee has received and your own. In your final submission, you say that the Police Scotland statement remains “technically correct”. I want to look behind that. Do you believe that it remains technically correct because that is convenient or because it is technically correct—if you understand my meaning? When you say “technically correct”, do you worry that that is a euphemism for not entirely responding to the issues that you are raising?

Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 20 December. We now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5, as we agreed to do earlier.

Depending on the responses that we receive, I suggest to colleagues that the issue might be one that we could put on our shortlist of topics to debate in the chamber. I know that we are looking for debating time for two shorter debates that could be combined, but the issue of defibrillator provision seems to be one of considerable importance.

The final petition today, PE2047, was lodged by Frances Anne Nixon and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider legislation to ensure that malicious false allegations are considered hate crimes and are dealt with as such. Members may be aware that the petitioner lodged a similar petition in 2019, which was considered by our predecessor committee in session 5 of the Parliament and was prompted by the petitioner’s experience of malicious false allegations at that time. The Scottish Government has provided a response that notes that behaviour amounting to making false allegations can be dealt with under existing common law. It is not clear to the Government on what basis a false allegation that is made against someone should be treated as a hate crime when other offences, such as assault, that are committed in the same circumstances and with the same motivation would not be. It is also noted that existing hate crime legislation can be used to add a statutory aggravation to general offences that are being prosecuted.

Ms Nixon has responded to the Scottish Government’s view, highlighting that her experience demonstrates the challenges of dealing with malicious false allegations using existing law and calling for the definition of a hate crime to be expanded to ensure that any characteristic of an individual cannot be used by others to make false allegations against them. I appreciate the petitioner’s tenacity based on her experience, but the Scottish Government’s view is direct.