���˿���

Yes, I think that we probably can. In closing the petition, we will tell the minister that the committee expects everything to be on schedule, and that that is the basis on which we have chosen to close the petition.

That brings us to item 3 on the agenda, which is consideration of new petitions. Just for the record, because there may be people who are joining us here or are watching online to hear their petition considered for the first time, I will explain that, ahead of the committee’s first consideration of a petition, we take two initial actions: we ask the Scottish Government for an initial view and we invite the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, to comment on the aims of the petition.

You may ask why we do that. We do that because, previously, those were the two things that we would agree to do the first time we discussed the petition, and it simply delayed the petition’s progress. We consider a petition with members having received early indications from the Scottish Government and the Parliament’s independent research body.

As I have said previously, SPICe does tremendous work on behalf of the committee, given the enormously broad range of petitions that we hear.

Petition PE2083 is on reviewing the rules to ensure that no dog becomes more dangerous as a result of breed-specific regulations. The petition has been lodged by Katrina Gordon, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and ensure that breed-specific regulations do not restrict responsible dog owners from undertaking exercise and training routines that support the dog’s welfare and reduce the risk of their dog becoming dangerous.

The petitioner tells us that an XL bully dog requires two hours of outdoor exercise a day, including being able to run off its lead, in order for the dog to be well adjusted and remain under its owner’s control. It is the petitioner’s view that recently introduced rules requiring XL bully dogs to be on a lead and muzzled while in public spaces risks making those dogs more dangerous.

The SPICe briefing draws our attention to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity’s announcement during the stage 1 debate on the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, of the Government’s intention to hold a responsible dog ownership and control summit later this month. The briefing also notes that one of the criticisms of the new restrictions is that they do nothing to address the issue of dog attacks that take place in private spaces—a point that Christine Grahame MSP raised during the Criminal Justice Committee’s consideration of the Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (Scotland) Order 2024 and the motion to annul the order.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it

“understands the concerns expressed by dog owners about the impact that the new controls may have on their dogs.”

It goes on to say:

“There is however a balance to be struck between protecting animal welfare and protecting public safety.”

It is the Government’s view that allowing an owner

“to exercise their dog in a public place while off lead and without a muzzle would be counterproductive to the aim”

of the regulations

“and would create too great a risk to the public.”

We have also received two further submissions from the petitioner, sharing her own experience and wider research on the negative impacts that the restrictions have on the welfare of dogs and, indeed, their owners, potentially making the dogs more dangerous. She notes again that the rules may have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of dog attacks in people’s homes and gardens. The petitioner has repeated her call for the rules to be repealed.

Obviously, this is an issue that is very much in the public eye. It is also an issue around which there is some court action, which means that we are unable to discuss any specific individual cases. However, are there any suggestions about how we might proceed?

I draw members’ attention to the fact that we have been provided with a late submission from Universities Scotland, in which it confirms that it is taking forward that work. Therefore, we have a clear steer that the aims of the petition are probably now being realised through the action that is being taken. I forgot that we had that submission. Does that satisfy your requirement, Mr Choudhury?

We will close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Ambulance Service has paused its work due to the reluctance of its staff to support the roll-out. We place a greater premium on that than on the financial implications that were identified. To satisfy Mr Ewing, if the petitioner felt that the situation warranted the pause being re-examined, it would be open to him to submit a further petition at that time.

The next petition is PE2022, which was lodged by Ellie Wilson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national safeguarding guidance for dealing with cases of sexual misconduct in higher education institutions, including clearly defined measures to ensure campus safety when a convicted sex offender or someone awaiting trial for a serious sexual offence is enrolled in that institution.

It is almost a year—June last—since we considered the petition, when we agreed to write to EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland, Universities Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, the National Union of Students Scotland and the University of Glasgow student representative council. The committee has received responses in support of the petition from Rape Crisis Scotland, EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid. Many of the responses note the importance of having sector-wide guidance in place to ensure that a consistent approach to protecting students is taken by all universities and colleges in Scotland.

We have also received a submission from Universities Scotland that details the work that is under way to develop and deliver a consistent nationwide approach to data collection on convictions and criminal charges for students. Its response highlights the importance of education as a tool for rehabilitation, and notes the intention to keep data collection separate from the admissions process so as not to deter applications from people who pose no threat to other students.

Again, this is an interesting petition, and a considerable number of submissions have been offered to help us in our evaluation. It seems that work is currently under way.

Given what you have just articulated, I am trying to understand why the First Minister would publicly pronounce that individuals were not eligible. As you have described the process, the application comes to Redress Scotland and you make the decision. Should that more appropriately have been understood to be a decision of Redress Scotland and not, as it appeared from the way that the matter has unfolded, a determination of the First Minister, which was left to appear as being of a higher standard than any consideration that you might have given?

The second item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. We have spent a considerable amount of time discussing and taking evidence on the first of them. PE1933, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, is on allowing Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme. Some of the survivors who have been following the petition as it has made its way through the Scottish Parliament are with us in the public gallery this morning, and I welcome them.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April 2024, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland, Thompsons Solicitors and John Swinney, who was at that point a back-bench MSP. Members will recall that, when we wrote to him in his back-bench capacity, we asked him to comment on submissions that he had made previously as Deputy First Minister. Of course, he has now replied to our request in his capacity as First Minister—which is my way of saying that the reply is not as candid as it might have been in different circumstances.

As well as the response from the First Minister, we have received responses from the organisations that we wrote to, as well as from our petitioner. All those responses are set out in our papers for today. Members might wish to draw on the content of those submissions during today’s meeting.

At that previous consideration, we also agreed to invite Redress Scotland to give evidence. I am pleased to welcome to this morning’s meeting Joanna McCreadie, who is the chief executive of Redress Scotland, and Kirsty Darwent, who is the chair of Redress Scotland. I do not know whether our witnesses wish to say anything before we go to questions. Have you prepared opening remarks, or are you happy just to answer members’ questions? You may do whatever suits you.

Here we have, slightly, the nub. I will allow other colleagues to come in after this.

You have identified a number of criteria, the last one of which appeared to be that there could be discretion of consideration in respect of parents not having given proper consent. We have been unable to understand why, given that these survivors were sent to Fornethy without true consent from their parents, the criteria did not allow for their applications to be considered.

However—this is the bit that we are finding tricky—the Scottish Government has said, “That’s your decision, not ours,” which almost suggests that it would not have held you to account if you had come to a decision that you wanted to give consideration to Fornethy survivors. If consideration cannot be given, we seem to be circling round, but not quite landing on, who would validate that.

Given that the survivors were sent to Fornethy without demonstrable parental consent, why is that criterion not sufficient to allow them to be considered to be within the scheme’s scope?

Okay. I will let David Torrance pursue that point.

If an application bounces about a bit, would the same core panel consider it?