Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much, Monica. You described the evidence session that we had as tense, which is a fair description. Having read the Official Report of the meeting, I think that you characterise it correctly in many respects. Although it was a slightly tense atmosphere, the Lord Advocate clearly stuck to her view of where her responsibilities lay. The committee got slightly frustrated that it was not clear thereafter where she thought the committee should go to get the correct answers. That is what we have been reflecting on.

Given the evidence that we heard from the pathologists in Lancashire and the other evidence that we have heard, I believe that members of the committee are minded to seek to do everything that we can to advance the aims of the petition. In the light of those remarks, do colleagues have any contributions?

If I can coalesce your view, you would prefer to keep the petition open and go back to the Scottish Government, highlighting the petitioner’s latest evidence. Perhaps we could say—in your words, if I can paraphrase them—that further public toilet closures appear to be taking place, which is placing an unreasonable burden of expectation on local businesses, and that, for those reasons, the Government should have a further think about whether it would be prepared to consider its position. Is that appropriate?

Rather unusually, over the issue of public conveniences, I am invited to come to a casting position. I am minded to close the petition but to accompany that with a directional letter to the Government that sets out our concerns about the approach that it has decided to adopt but which recognises that it appears that the Government is not prepared to reconsider that. That matter will be for others to pursue in a different environment. Thank you all very much.

I am content with that. Are members content with it?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of personal possessions and furniture left in the property; and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

In the background to the petition, Bernadette explains that her sister faced threats and harassment from her ex-husband, whose family emptied their marital home of all furniture, fixtures and fittings. The police were seemingly unable to take any action to prevent that. Bernadette also tells us about the mental and physical impact that that experience has had on her sister and how she was unable to access financial support to replace her possessions and start over.

The SPICe briefing notes that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 introduces two short-term civil protection orders, both of which could exclude a perpetrator of domestic abuse from the place where the person at risk lives. However, the briefing also notes that that part of the act is not yet in force.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety notes that civil legal aid is available in a wide range of actions, including contested divorces, and that around 70 per cent of people are eligible for some form of civil legal aid. The minister highlights other options, such as the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, which offers free legal information and advice to women in Scotland who have or are experiencing gender-based violence. The minister also refers to the work that is undertaken on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse, including options for financial support for women leaving an abusive partner.

The minister refers in her letter to the Scottish Law Commission’s plans, as part of its work on family law, to review the civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse, which the committee is aware of from our consideration of related petitions. In the light of all that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I think that that was clear as your objective. Of course, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is not making an editorial judgment on the merits of the petition; we seek to advance the aims of petitioners as best we can, but, ultimately, the decision as to whether the aims of a petitioner are fulfilled is one for the Government. In this case, the Government has come back and said that it does not intend to pursue the statutory route. For that reason, Mr Torrance has recommended that we close the petition. Are members content to do so?

PE2026, which was lodged by Sam McCahon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to eliminate council tax discounts for second homes and vacant properties and to make the property owner, rather than a tenant, liable for payment of council tax.

The Scottish Government’s response, which was provided in May, encouraged the petitioner to contribute to a public consultation on the council tax treatment of second homes and empty properties. The consultation closed in July. The Government submission stated that a joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform has been convened and is considering targeted changes to council tax.

The petitioner makes the case for the property owner rather than the occupier to be liable for council tax, saying that that would promote justice and equity and reduce the cost of living for all residents in Scotland. The petitioner’s view is that the council tax reduction scheme leads to significant revenue loss for councils and increases the burden on tenants and home owners who do not qualify for the means-based tax reduction. The petitioner believes that the existing approach is, in effect, subsidising property owners’ investments. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I am going to assume that there was no connection between your observations about Ms Grant being at school and world war 1 potholes. I take it that that was just an unintended—[Laughter.] Also, I wonder who is left to evidence that a pothole looks like a world war 1 crater, but maybe there is someone who can do that in the Highlands, where, of course, everyone is long-lived.

Mr Ewing is right to say that we have simply been told that the Government does not consider that the road meets the criteria but that we have not been told why, in the light of the evidence that has been attested, it has come to that view. It has simply asserted its view, not justified it, and I agree that we should ask it to do so. I am happy with that proposal if other colleagues feel that it is appropriate. Are members content for us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Rhoda, I think that your attendance contributed to a different outcome being achieved in our consideration of the petition, so I thank you for that.

As this is the start of the parliamentary year, I say, as indeed I do each time we consider new petitions, for the information of those people who might be looking in on our proceedings because they have lodged a petition or are following how a petition might be progressing, that, ahead of the committee’s first consideration of a petition, we seek the views of the Scottish Government and of the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe, our independent research operation—to assist us. We do not consider any petition for the first time without views having been received.

The first new petition under this item is PE2023, as it happens, which seeks to stop the deposit return scheme and which was lodged by Jim Foster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the introduction of the 20p deposit for consumers and the roll-out of the deposit return scheme. It is the petitioner’s view that introducing the scheme will increase costs to the consumer, punish those who already recycle and result in additional journeys to recycling centres.

The minister’s response to the petition, which was received in May, reaffirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to launching the scheme in March 2024. However, as can happen with the consideration of petitions from time to time, events have overtaken us. Members will be aware that, before the summer recess, the minister announced that the introduction of the deposit return scheme would be delayed until October 2025 at the earliest.?

I do not think that the committee has heard directly from the minister, but that is simply our reading of matters in Parliament.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in relation to the petition? I hesitate, but I see that Mr Torrance wants to speak.