Seòmar agus comataidhean

So lack of communication was the common theme.

I hesitate to opine because I have not really given the matter sufficient consideration, but I will just make a couple of remarks. In not every case is title held in joint names. In many cases title is solely in the name of the excluded person, who is usually—almost always—the husband or partner.

Where title is solely in the name of the person who has been excluded, the argument that has rightly been put forward by the Scottish Government—that an action for division and sale would be required—will not apply because such action applies only where there is joint title. That would normally be the case, but title is not infrequently solely in the name of the husband. It could be that the property was acquired by him before the marriage or it could be that it was taken only in his name, perhaps because he was the wage earner and so on.

There is a loophole. If it is right to exclude a male for violent behaviour towards his wife—an exclusion order will not readily be granted unless there is real substance and evidence—I do not see how it can be right and permissible for that person to be allowed to sell the property from underneath the wife’s feet. That seems to be plainly wrong. Therefore, in the interests of female rights and justice, the loophole should be closed. That is just an off-the-cuff personal view, but I hope that it helps.

I agree with all the comments thus far. I do not think that the Scottish Government’s reply is adequate or sufficient by any means. I note that several MSPs from all parties have raised individual cases, which I think is an indication that the matter is not being sufficiently well dealt with at the moment.

I make a plea to the petitioners who are present here today and who have an interest. Without further evidence from petitioners or others who have specific concerns, it is a little difficult for us to move forward and identify solutions, although suggestions have been made that are worthy of serious consideration. So, I make a plea that further information be provided. Of course, it would be required that information about particular cases be kept confidential.

The last point that I will make is that people in such circumstances probably feel that they are in a kind of David and Goliath situation—where they are David and the public authorities are Goliath—and feel very lonely, isolated, disempowered, hopeless and powerless to act, and often believe that the public authorities are not really listening. That is what I gather from experience over many years as an MSP. We need to give David the sling in order to be able to take on Goliath.

I do not, at the moment.

I am always looking for a chance to agree.

Good morning. The information that has been provided to us suggests that around 650,000 people in the UK and around 80,000 in Scotland are immunosuppressed. We are advised that all those people are at high risk of serious illness or death. Obviously, we accept that this is an extremely serious matter that affects a great number of people.

Mark Oakley has mentioned a couple of times that people in this situation, who lack access to Evusheld, have been shielding. Do you have any hard evidence about how many or what proportion of the 80,000 or the 650,000 are actually shielding? As you have said, to have to shield for such a long time imposes an enormous strain—an unimaginable strain—on the individuals concerned. Nikola Brigden remarked upon that earlier. I might have missed this, but what I do not see is any evidence—if there is any; it might not be possible to obtain any—about how many of this group of people are still shielding and have been shielding for several years.

I appreciate everything that you have said. It is an extremely serious matter. Nikola, do you have anything to add?

I have just a few observations. We last considered the petition on 29 June last year. Since then, in August, the petitioner made a further submission. The first point that I want to make is that, in that submission, the petitioner argues in some detail that the Scottish Government has power to mandate community ownership. I am not able to assess whether that view is correct or incorrect but, out of fairness and given that the petitioner has set out quite a lot of detail in the submission, we should at the very least put that to the Scottish Government. In other words, we should ask the Scottish Government whether it agrees with the petitioner’s view and, if not, why not.

Secondly, in the letter that we sent after the previous evidence session—following suggestions that I think that I made—we asked whether the Scottish National Investment Bank, which after all exists to serve the purpose of promoting green schemes, might produce a tranche of funding that could be made available for communities. In the response that we have from the minister, he says:

“We are also working with the Scottish National Investment Bank ... to assess the pipeline of shared ownership”.

That is not really what I asked. I asked whether the SNIB would provide a tranche of money, because it is a bank and it is supposed to operate on commercial terms. If it grants a loan to communities, there is a guaranteed income stream and, thereby, it is a lendable proposition based on a financial flow of income that could be used to repay the loans.

In the light of that, could we press the minister with regards to the petitioner’s point that the Scottish Parliament has legal power to do this? Perhaps the petitioner is wrong, but I think that we owe it to the petitioner to follow up that point. Secondly, we should write directly to the SNIB to ask whether it plans to make a tranche of money available and, if not, why not because this seems to be an ideal opportunity.

Lastly, convener, I would like to press the minister a bit further. Many moons ago, I was in his position as the energy minister and proactively worked with banks such as the Co-operative Bank, Close Brothers and Triodos Bank to ensure that they provided 90 or 95 per cent of loan funding, with the Scottish Government, through a renewables fund, providing the remaining 5 or 10 per cent. That worked extremely well.

I am sorry to go on at some length, but this is an important opportunity for communities in Scotland, and particularly in rural Scotland. We need to get on with this and there is a huge desire to do it. It is far better to own a stake than to get a cheque, or the so-called community benefit. The communities that have established community ownership have reaped a huge benefit, which has enabled them to help people in their community who are disadvantaged, or to help with kids’ education or whatever they so choose.

I hope that members feel that those suggestions are worth pursuing rather than closing the petition today. My apologies to members who think otherwise.

I have had a case from a constituent regarding their daughter, who was an accomplished dancer who had sought to obtain a place at the Royal Conservatoire. Their experience was very much in line with what is described by the petitioner; namely, that although she appeared to have the credentials and skill to earn a place, the places were being given mostly to candidates from elsewhere in the UK. There appeared to be, I think—it was a few years back—evidence that the Royal Conservatoire is very closely linked with one particular establishment in England, many candidates from which gain places at the Royal Conservatoire.

I am not in a position to make a judgment, other than to say that it seemed to me, from correspondence that I had with the Royal Conservatoire at the time, that there is a serious problem and that Scottish candidates are not getting into the Royal Conservatoire. I got a reply from the management of the Royal Conservatoire. I have to say that, in my recollection, it was quite dismissive of the concerns, which disappointed me.

At the end of the day, I am not sure that we have a locus to act, or how we could act. However, surely the situation is wrong in principle. Qualified young people in Scotland, who wish to pursue a career in the specialist area of ballet, and who in every case have devoted their childhood and adolescence to spending hundreds—if not thousands—of hours trying to get into a very limited pool of places, should at least have the chance to get into the ballet school in their own country.

Because of my experience, which I admit is anecdotal, I think that we should pursue the matter with the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland’s ballet department and ask it to provide evidence about the number of applicants from Scotland and the number who have been accepted over, say, the past 10 years, and evidence about other candidates who have been accepted and from whence they have come. There are, perhaps, a limited number of cases with only a few people involved, but I am aware that the issue caused one particular family real heartache and disappointment with the system as it operates in Scotland.

I agree with Mr Stewart’s recommended course of action and, in doing so, I express my gratitude for the information and help that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre. We had a briefing earlier, for which we are grateful.

In the light of that, I hope that we can put in the letter to the minister the information that we received about the possible distinction between the use of falconry for hunting purposes and for exercise purposes. As well as the issues that Mr Stewart has enumerated, we should ask that regard be paid to whether that information might form the basis of her seeking guidance and advice from NatureScot, which, I gather, deals with operational and strategic arrangements for licences in general, to see whether it can recommend a way that would enable the sport of falconry to continue to be practised in the light of the distinction that we have had the benefit of hearing about this morning from SPICe.

In addition to that, I hope that we can write to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to clarify the circumstances that would constitute an offence, and whether a person could be charged and prosecuted. Again, that might benefit the legal authorities, which are the only ones that have the right to decide whether there should be a prosecution. To be fair to her, the minister has no such locus and that line cannot be crossed. We should ask the prosecution authorities in what circumstances they might be minded to consider criminal proceedings. Perhaps we should also set out in the letter the distinction that we have had explained to us this morning, so that they can see a potential solution but also the quandary that falconers face, and appreciate that the committee is taking the issue seriously.

What I am asking for, convener, is that the letters to the legal authorities and to the minister should go to some lengths to set out our concerns about what we have heard, and our desire for a solution to be found that involves everybody working together to that end.