New Petitions

That is a clear exposition of the case for the petition. I should point out that the petition was first submitted as an e-petition via the International Teledemocracy Centre. The documentation supplied with the petition goes far beyond what usually accompanies petitions and details the dates between which people could sign the petition, the validity of signatures, full background information and a synopsis of comments on the petition. All that is helpful; it is a good way of submitting petitions to the Scottish Parliament.I agree with what Dorothy-Grace Elder said. As suggested, we should seek the views of the Scottish Executive and send the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for information.

We will do that, but we should do some work first. One of the complaints that we received in the early days of this committee was that we were simply passing petitions directly to the subject committees. We were asked to do a bit more of the spadework, which we can do in this case by writing to the Scottish Executive. Once we get a response, we can give it to the Health and Community Care Committee and, given the information that we have received already, I assume that we would ask that committee to investigate the matter further.

I am sure that it might be. Do members agree that we should follow the suggested action?Members indicated agreement.

PE375 was submitted by Elaine Crawford and calls on the Scottish Parliament to carry out reviews of criminal injuries compensation procedure and policy and the sentencing policy in relation to violent crime. The petition rises out of the petitioner's personal experience, which the background papers show to be very distressing.There are a number of issues. Part of the petition deals with the sentencing of violent offenders; members will recall the response that we received from the Scottish Executive in relation to PE205, which was sent in by Mr and Mrs Collie and called on the Scottish Parliament to review and increase the minimum sentence for convictions of murder. In that response, the Scottish Executive set out the position of ministers and the legal establishment in relation to that matter. By and large, we accepted the views that were laid out in the response. As the Justice 1 Committee is to commission research into attitudes to sentencing and alternatives to custody, it is suggested that we pass PE375 to it with a recommendation that the petition should be taken into account as part of the external research. It is also suggested that we pass to the petitioner a copy of the Scottish Executive's earlier response. Is that course of action agreed to?Members indicated agreement.

I suggest that we seek the Executive's view on criminal injuries compensation procedure and policy, as the petition highlights a traumatic series of events that no one could think justifiable.

The response that was given to Elaine Crawford certainly seems to have been entirely unjustifiable.

I am not sure that the committee can take up an individual's case, although a relevant MSP can. We can ask the authority to respond to the background to the petition.

When I raised the matter of criminal injuries compensation in relation to a constituent's problem, I was advised that the issue is reserved to Westminster. Is that the case?

We will ask the Scottish Executive, which will tell us exactly what the legal position is. However, we need to have a response on the central point about the CICA's procedures and policy. We need an explanation of why its procedure was lacking in this case and what the Executive intends to do about it.

It could be, but we should first get the Scottish Executive's response to that part of the petition. I know that doing this sort of thing extends the time that it takes to deal with petitions, but I am conscious that the Parliament's other committees expect us to do a bit of the spadework before we ask them to act on petitions. That is only right.Is it agreed that we seek the Scottish Executive's view on the issues raised in the petition about the CICA and that we refer the petition to the Justice 1 Committee and ask that it be taken into account as part of the external research into attitudes towards sentencing? We might refer the other part of the petition to the Justice 1 Committee once we have the Scottish Executive's response.Members indicated agreement.

PE376 is from Linda Simkin and calls on the Scottish Parliament to amend the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 so that it becomes an offence to allow an animal to exist in a condition that is likely to cause it suffering. The background papers set out the circumstances that led the petitioner to petition the Scottish Parliament. Since the petition was circulated to members, we have received correspondence from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which believes that serious welfare problems could be prevented if it could inform an owner at an early stage that he or she was committing an offence or if it had legal powers to remove animals. Inspectors are in a good position to determine whether animals are likely to suffer and are frustrated by being unable to take action. In some cases, when a situation has declined rapidly, animals have died before a case could be brought.The SSPCA's view is that the aim of the petition is to provide new grounds for a defence under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and so lower the burden of proof. It suggests ways in which that could be done. Another way of meeting the petition's purpose would be to amend the 1912 act along the lines of the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which applies to livestock only and makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or distress. Distress is arguably a lesser welfare problem than unnecessary suffering, but it may be easier to show. The SSPCA requests the Public Petitions Committee to refer the petition to the Scottish Executive justice department for detailed consideration, so it clearly thinks that the petition has some merit.We have received from the petitioner pictures of the horses that are referred to in the background to the petition, which I will circulate to members. It has been suggested that we initially seek the views of the Scottish Executive on the points that the petitioners raise. Given that the petition has the SSPCA's support, that would be well worth doing. We will ask the Executive to respond quickly, if possible. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.

PE378, from Mr Andrew Nelson, calls on the Parliament to take whatever action is necessary to start the process for the Scottish aboriginal people to claim status. The petitioner is concerned that the Crown recognises the aboriginal status of indigenous peoples in other countries—he mentions Canada—but not of what he terms the Scottish aboriginal people.Members will be aware that nationality is a matter that is reserved to Westminster. The petition calls for this Parliament to start the process that would allow the Scottish aboriginal people to make a claim for status, but the petitioner provides no definition of the term "Scottish aboriginal people". He seems to insinuate that that group is denied rights and privileges that are available to others. It is difficult to understand what the petitioner is getting at, given that all those who live in Scotland—aboriginal or otherwise—have the same rights and status as those who live in other areas of the UK. In the light of that, it is suggested that we take no further action on the petition.Members indicated agreement.

I do not know whether any aboriginal Scottish people are present at the committee.

For the record, John Scott believes that he is an aboriginal.PE379 is from Mr Andrew Wood, on behalf of the Independent Farming Group. It calls on the Parliament to take appropriate action to support financially farmers who farm in areas of Scotland that have been restricted by the foot-and-mouth outbreak and who have not been required to cull their livestock, but who have nevertheless incurred high costs as a direct result of the outbreak. The farms are located in the at-risk areas and the provisionally free areas. Their livestock has not been culled, so the farmers are not receiving the compensation that is being given to farmers whose livestock has been culled.It is suggested that we seek the Scottish Executive's comments on the issues that the petition raises and that we pass a copy of any response received from the Executive during the summer recess to the petitioners for information as soon as possible after receipt.

Would you like us to draw a parallel with the position of the tourism industry, which also suffered consequential loss?

I am happy with that.

We should underline that that was an additional cost that the restrictions placed on people, and not a consequential loss.

So is there an additional cost and consequential loss?

Yes.

That is fine. Do we agree to refer the petition to the Executive and ask it to respond?Members indicated agreement.

PE380 is from Mr David Macnab of the East of Scotland Supporters Association. It calls on the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to initiate an inquiry into how fans' participation in the decision-making process in senior Scottish football might be promoted. The petitioner follows up a recommendation in a recent report of the European Committee that parliamentary committees should consider that issue. This is another petition to have been submitted via the e-petitioner system from the International Teledemocracy Centre. It is suggested that we seek the views of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee on whether it wishes to conduct an inquiry, as suggested by the petitioners. Is that agreed?Members indicated agreement.