���˿���

Are you content with that suggestion, Mr Golden?

Thank you for that, Mr Ewing. Having heard that, are colleagues content, on this occasion, to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2060, which was lodged by Daithi Broad, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. This is another petition that we last considered on 7 February. We agreed to seek the Scottish Government’s views on whether it intends to carry out work relating to the issues raised in the petition and to ask whether it would carry out any relevant awareness-raising work.

The Minister for Victims and Community Safety states that the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 effectively addresses the issue of persistent repeated trespassing. She also states that the Scottish Government does not consider that strengthening of the act is required and that no further work is planned in the area. She explains that the Government has received virtually no representations on the issue and will not take any direct action unless new and substantial evidence comes to light—so there we are.

Our next petition, PE2064, which was lodged by Julie Mitchell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that under-16s charged with rape are treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate, seeking an update on her review of diversion from prosecution as it relates to sexual offences and requesting figures on cases of rape by under-16s. The committee also made reference to the petition in its letter to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety on PE1947, as the issue of serious crimes committed by young people cuts across both petitions. We considered PE1947 just a short while ago.

The Lord Advocate’s response states that the review is making good progress. At the time of her submission, a review of the existing prosecution policies and round-table discussion events had taken place. That included contributions from stakeholders who represent children in conflict with the law.

The response also states that a senior advocate depute has been appointed to conduct an examination of all cases of rape that were diverted or referred to the reporter in the past five years. That examination will inform the revised prosecution policies, which were due for publication by mid-summer.

On the number of cases, the response states that there were 266 cases reported of rape or attempted rape between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023 for children aged 12 to 15. Those cases were reported jointly to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal. The Lord Advocate goes on to say that there were 462 cases reported of serious sexual assault between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023—the same time period—by children aged between 12 and 15, which were reported jointly to the children’s reporter and the procurator fiscal.

I think that the issues here persist and are of concern. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That is very much the petitioner’s concern, too.

Certainly, that particular visit was one of the most harrowing that I have made. We respected the anonymity of the victims of violence and their parents, but the way in which they had been targeted and their lives ruined with the perpetrators carrying on regardless was really very difficult to hear about.

It was a long response from the minister. I felt that I was almost being given a manual, against which I would like to test the actual life experience of people who have been subjected to such violence, because the minister’s response seems almost to be floating above practical experience in its otherworldliness. It could do with a little bit of worldliness.

I am quite happy to pursue some detail, but it would be good to test with the minister the experiences as we heard them, as they are very much still being represented by the petitioner. Are we agreed, colleagues?

Members indicated agreement.

I would be happy to draw to the minister’s attention the testimonies that we received as an illustration that she might find useful in challenging any advice that she might be being given on what everybody thinks, because obviously not everybody does think that way.

Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first new petition, PE2119, which was lodged by Calum Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the operation of the woodland creation scheme.

The petition has four particular asks: to make it mandatory for all new deer fencing to be marked, where necessary, with wooden droppers as it is erected to help prevent bird strike; to require all work on these schemes to be stopped or paused by the end of March to protect ground-nesting birds; to require NatureScot to carry out initial and annual environmental impact assessments to consider the effects of woodland creation on resident wildlife; and to ensure that any recipient of a forestry grant who then puts the forest up for sale must return the grant in full when sold.

In the background to the petition, Mr Campbell raises concerns about bamboo canes being used to mark deer fences in a section of the Cairngorms national park. He suggests that they are cheaper and less effective than wooden droppers, and they have led to black grouse flying into the fence and being killed. The SPICe briefing provides information on the use of netting and other measures, such as sawn wooden droppers, which are intended to help reduce the risk of birds colliding with fences. It also notes that bamboo should be used only as a last resort to mark fencing on extremely high-exposure sites.

In its response to the petition, Scottish Forestry notes that the choice of marking material and position of deer fences will require consideration of the visibility of the marker, the proximity of the fence to grouse activity and the durability of the material, with particular focus on the exposure of the site and what that means for the longevity of the material.

The response goes on to detail Scottish Forestry’s processes for considering woodland creation applications and its statutory duties to assess and determine whether a project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner in which he raises concerns that the target of planting new trees might not achieve the expected carbon capture, particularly where planting takes place on heather moorland. Mr Campbell also highlights on-going concerns about the specific site in the Cairngorms. Scottish Forestry had instructed the forestry agents to undertake remedial work to address the impact on the black grouse population, but, by the beginning of November, that remedial work had not yet taken place.

The petition raises quite a specific issue, and we have received what I thought was quite a comprehensive response to it. Do members have any suggestions?

Are we content to accept that? I will just officially recognise that pay as you go is apparently contactless tap-in. There we are. That is my prehistoric ignorance of such matters.

The report was published in August.

Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1947, which was lodged by Alex O’Kane, is another petition with which the committee has been extensively involved. It urges the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 6 March, following our site visits, and we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, seeking her response to a number of points. In particular, we requested clear information on what a whole-system approach to youth offending looks like when addressing repeated incidences of violence perpetrated by a young person.

The minister’s response recognises that, although the aim is to keep children out of the criminal justice system, in some cases that will not be possible or appropriate. The minister highlights that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

“The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child ... shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest ... period of time”.

The severity of a crime will influence whether it is proportionate to arrest a child and present them at a police custody centre.

The Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines on the sentencing of young people are also highlighted. The guidelines focus on rehabilitation but note that other factors, such as protection of the public, punishment and expressing disapproval of the offending behaviour, can be taken into account. That is very consistent with the experience of those of us who heard evidence. The submission explains that young people aged 12 to 17 who have committed a serious sexual offence or are considered to be a serious risk of harm can be managed in various ways. That includes care and risk management or multi-agency public protection arrangements, if they have been convicted of the offence in a criminal court.

On victim support, the minister points to the “Standards of Service for Victims and Witnesses” document that is published by key criminal justice agencies. The document seeks to explain what happens at each stage of the criminal justice process, the standards of service that can be expected and who can be contacted for help or advice.

The petitioner has provided a new submission, in which he once again expresses his concerns about the justice system and reiterates his view that youth violence is aggravated by a lack of consequences, deterrence and punishment. I have to say that that is very much what those of us on the committee at the time who met and took evidence from people felt was being very clearly and strongly expressed.

The petitioner also raises concerns about funding, arguing that

“a lack of funding was inevitably going to lower the bar in every field of service”

and that it would put young people

“at risk and the public in more danger.”

David, were you on the committee when we took this evidence?