���˿���

PE2169, which was lodged by Hugh Mitchell Humphries on behalf of Scottish Friends of Palestine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to facilitate a review and upgrade of the teaching resource “Palestine and Israel, understanding the conflict” to assist understanding and debate in the security of classrooms.

The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills states that the teaching resource is not a Scottish Government or Education Scotland resource. The submission states that it is owned by the EIS and is therefore a matter for the EIS to consider if, when and how it wishes to update the resource.

The petitioner states in his written submission:

“to use the issue of ownership of the resource as an excuse for rejecting the Petition is a red herring and untenable. When the Scottish Government gave the go-ahead for the formation of the original working group to produce a resource, in 2015, no contract of ownership was drawn up.”

The petitioner believes that with the current situation and political sensitivities around the topic of Israel-Palestine, local authorities and schools should be supported with a balanced resource.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

So, you support Mr Golden’s recommendations, Mr Ewing.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue and note that the Scottish Government supports the broad aims of the petition, and we also note the comments of colleagues. However, at this point, there is not anything that the petitions committee would be able to do to further advance the aims of the petition in the light of the submissions that we have received.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The first of the new petitions is PE2166, which was lodged by John Watson McMaster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a standardised timeframe for civil proceedings that relate to child custody cases, including a 14-day timeframe for proof hearings. The SPICe briefing explains that section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives courts various powers to decide an issue in a dispute about parental responsibilities and rights.

The briefing states that relatively few section 11 cases tend to get as far as a proof hearing. Instead, they are typically settled during child welfare hearings, which are relatively informal, private proceedings. The briefing also notes that there have been long-standing policy concerns about delays in cases that affect children, including in section 11 cases, and inconsistencies in how such cases are managed. To address that, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will, when in force, require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings would negatively affect a child’s welfare. The length of delay is not specified in the legislation, with the explanatory notes for the bill stating that the length

“would vary from case to case.”

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the specific asks of the petition to be practical or achievable. Its submission notes that a standardised timetable would not recognise the different complexities in individual cases. The submission also highlights the case management rules that are in place for family actions, which includes a key aim of bringing greater judicial case management to resolve cases more quickly.

The petitioner has provided a written submission calling for the committee to reconsider the timeframe that was set out in the petition. Following a meeting with the Scottish Government, he is now calling for a considered timeframe of four to six weeks rather than 14 days for a proof hearing. He states that that timeframe is pragmatic, because it aligns with the operational realities of the courts while still drastically accelerating the process. He also states that the timeframe would protect child welfare by prioritising swift resolution and improve system efficiency by reducing opportunistic and malicious litigation.

The petitioner’s submission states that the core issue is not a lack of rules but a systemic failure to enforce them consistently. He believes that the social damage that is caused by those procedural failures is measurable not only in the immense emotional toll on families but in the long-term costs to public services, including mental health support and social work intervention.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of what we have received?

That brings us to PE2171, lodged by Robert Macdonald, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the use of prisons for punishment and deterrence and use them only for public protection purposes, in order to reduce the pressure on the Scottish Prison Service and allow more focus on rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are jailed, whilst allowing those who pose less of a risk to be given community orders, fines and potentially lifelong driving bans.

The SPICe briefing explains that prisons hold remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners are awaiting trial or sentencing following conviction, while those in the second category are serving a custodial sentence. A Scottish Government paper published earlier this year concludes that there is

“no single reason for the increase in the prison population, and therefore no simple solution to manage and tackle the issue”.

The Scottish Government’s view on the ask of the petition is that, due to the complexity of the matter, it is not practical or achievable in the short term. However, the Government reiterates its long-term ambition to use prisons only for those who pose a risk of serious harm.

The response also pointed to various pieces of work that are aimed at shifting the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community. Most significantly, the sentencing and penal policy commission was established this year to establish the use and effectiveness of custodial sentences and community interventions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for dealing with offending behaviours in a way that is effective and proportionate, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s prison population.

Finally, the Government reiterated that courts continue to have discretion in determining the appropriate sentence for any given case, which may include a custodial sentence if that is deemed necessary.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

The next petition is PE2167, which was lodged by Donna Inglis and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pause the pavement parking ban for all roads that were built before 2019 and to require all local authorities to carry out an assessment and consultation on any other road for which they want to introduce a ban, with a presumption that bans will not be agreed for roads under 6m wide.

The Scotland-wide prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles on the pavement was introduced in part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and came into force in December 2023.?The SPICe briefing explains that exemptions to the prohibition apply to certain categories of vehicle in particular circumstances, and that exemption decisions are a matter for each local authority.

The Scottish Government’s response indicates that the option to allow local authorities to only designate specific roads for pavement parking bans was considered when it designed the policy but that that option was ultimately deemed potentially confusing for drivers.?Thus, limiting the ban to roads that were constructed after 2019 would fail to provide consistent protection for all pavement users.

The Government also points out that funding and guidance were allocated to local authorities in advance of the ban to support road assessments and identify potential pavement exemptions. The initial consultation was promoted through a number of channels and a nationwide campaign was run ahead of the ban coming into force.

Finally, the Government indicates that the parking standards group, which comprises various stakeholders and includes representatives of the local authorities, can address any concerns or clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.

In an additional submission, the petitioner lists several further issues that she believes are having an impact on local authorities and communities following the introduction of the ban.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Our second continued petition, PE1979—a great year—was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, all of whom had an opportunity to address the committee and some of whom joined us from time to time as we considered the petition. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle all those inquiries in future.

We are joined by our MSP colleague Edward Mountain—good morning. We last considered the petition on 5 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise and to the GTCS. In her response, the minister indicated that work is under way to identify potential solutions to the issues that were raised in her meeting with the petitioners. She also mentioned work that was undertaken alongside the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland to understand current arrangements for whistleblowing and case investigation and potential improvements to those arrangements.

The minister also highlighted other work that was undertaken to improve child protection, including meetings of the new national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. She reiterated the Government’s intention to engage with the recommendations of the Scottish child abuse inquiry once that has been included and to keep under review the statutory requirement for mandatory reporting, on which she said that stakeholder views have been varied.

The GTCS response highlights that a local authority-led process will always be required when investigating concerns, so long as local authorities provide education services and employ teachers in Scotland. It also reiterates its view that a focus on establishing a new whistleblowing officer could draw attention away from identifying where the current gaps are and from implementing effective solutions to fill them.

Since reviewing the official GTCS response, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care’s review of the fitness-to-teach process was published, and the GTCS is working on an action plan that is based on the PSA recommendations.

The petitioners have welcomed some of the work that has been undertaken, but they continue to highlight the power imbalance against those who raise concerns and say that current mechanisms do not provide the level of security that is required to identify validity of safeguarding concerns.

Edward Mountain would like to address the committee.

Yes, keeping open the petition is an option, but it is one that we would exercise very carefully, because it might not be helpful to the next committee in the next session of Parliament were it to have a significant body of open petitions before it.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?