Seòmar agus comataidhean

We could also write to the Scottish Government to ask how it intends to address the concerns about those existing households with a debt arising from temporary accommodation charges that have already been accrued. In particular, the committee would, I think, be interested to know how on-going household debt from temporary accommodation aligns with the Government’s priority to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation by 2026.

Are colleagues content with both those proposals?

Not at all. Thank you very much, Ms Boyack.

You have touched on issues that, as a constituency MSP, I can say have been raised by constituents of mine, too. I would say that there are good and less good factors, and there is good and bad practice. Obviously, constituents tend to contact us when faced with an issue, but I think that the issues that you have raised and touched on are becoming increasingly part of my own casework profile.

I note that we are still waiting for the Scottish Government’s publication, but having heard those remarks and reflected, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

PE2060, which is to review existing legislation and legal remedies against trespassers, has been lodged by Daithi Broad. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. The SPICe briefing outlines the circumstances in which the public have the right to roam, noting that exceptions to that include domestic houses and gardens.

The briefing also notes that many people incorrectly—I was quite surprised by the briefing, I have to say—believe that the law of trespass does not exist in Scotland. Police Scotland has highlighted difficulties in applying the law in practice. Notably, the police have no jurisdiction, as trespass to land is a civil matter and they cannot assist in the removal of trespassers. Police Scotland’s comments on trespass state that the best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which, if breached, may then turn into a criminal matter.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition also outlined information about the current law on trespassing. In response to the petition’s ask regarding responsibility for injuries on the land, the Scottish Government stated that the duty of care is the same regardless of whether an individual has permission to be on the occupier’s land, but factors such as the foreseeability of unauthorised entry and any steps taken to prevent unauthorised entry and to warn of dangers may be of relevance in determining whether reasonable care has been taken in the particular circumstances. The response also notes that the evidential burden to prove trespass would depend on whether the individual was pursuing a criminal or civil law case.

For my own part, having read the briefing, I think that it is saying that there is little that you could risk doing, particularly in the current climate in which it seems to me that your interests are secondary to those of the people who want to trespass on your property. That is basically how it reads to me. Although we pretend otherwise, the reality is that that is how it will be if you seek to do anything. It is also very difficult, because the briefing does not define what “force” is; I imagine that, if you were to escort somebody off, “force” would now include even laying hands upon somebody, however gently that was done. I found the briefing quite dispiriting. Do colleagues have any suggestions on what we might do?

Are we content to pursue it on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is our inquiry into the A9 dualling project and, as colleagues and those who are following our proceedings in relation to this inquiry will see, we are joined once again by Edward Mountain, who is here in his capacity as a reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Good morning to you, Edward. I nearly said the net zero and Edward committee there—I do not do what an Edward committee would do if there were such a thing.

It was as straightforward and as simple as that.

I ask because this is a theme to which I might return with other witnesses. In the 2007 to 2011 session of Parliament, I was the convener of a hybrid committee that was established to work on the Queensferry crossing. It was responsible for identifying the route and the design of the project. The committee then offered to Government, with the support of Parliament, a project that was agreed in terms of what it was going to deliver. That then had to be taken forward by the Government to ensure that the project was completed.

I talked about a lack of direction. Do you feel that there was clarity around what the A9 project would encompass at all points, or that there was vagueness about how different sections would be progressed—as it seemed to me in some of the documents that I was reading—that would have allowed things to drift slightly?

I have read into some of the narrative of your response to my question that it seems that an atmosphere such as you spoke of has not been widely apparent in conduct in the progress of the project to date.

I will turn first to the current holders of office in that respect. Alison Irvine, perhaps between you and Rob Galbraith, you could respond to Mr Ewing.

That is slightly better. We will do our best to cope.