Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can I cut in? In part, your concern is that a policy that was established as a consequence of a fatality from a headstone memorial that was some 7 feet tall and of heavy construction has led to regulations being applied now to much smaller and, frankly, less dangerous headstones, and in a highly destructive way without notice. That is causing distress and is causing sometimes irreparable damage to the stones themselves.

Thank you for the photographs that you have given us. One shows a very good example of trenching, with a headstone literally having been halved. In essence, a hole has been dug, the stone has been inserted in that hole and all the details on the stone of the recently deceased person are buried beneath the ground—along with, unfortunately, the deceased—so one no longer has any idea whom the stone is commemorating. It looks quite crass.

Forgive me—I do not know a lot about this—but is a routine test done? Is there an inspection?

I suppose that there could be a dangerous headstone. Depending on the complexity or style of the particular memorial, it could be dangerous. Dealing with it could also be a very costly undertaking and not necessarily something that the council will immediately think it can accommodate.

Maybe Desmond Barr would like to say something. I apologise for not bringing you in sooner. Please just flag up at any time that you want to contribute.

The committee considered having the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with us this morning. However, we will probably ask it to respond to issues that arise from the petition.

The evidence session has been very helpful. Are colleagues content for us to reflect on the evidence that we have heard and consider it at a future meeting of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

That does help. I think that we agree to write to various organisations, in the first instance. That wee synopsis is good context for us when we consider the issue as we proceed. Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to PE1982, which has been lodged by Gary McKay. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the funding that is provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland to enable more places to be made available to Scottish students pursuing ballet at that level.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing states that higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, although they receive significant funding from the Scottish Government. It notes that the Scottish Government does not direct how many funded places individual universities make available, and that it is unable to intervene in internal institutional matters. In 2021, funding was provided to the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland that provided 30 places for Scotland-domiciled students studying dance. The response from the Scottish Government reiterates the technical points and notes that universities are able to offer as many places to international students as they wish.

We have received a submission from the petitioner that highlights the issue of opportunity for Scottish dancers to continue in further ballet education. He shares his view that the current set-up provides a means for increased business turnover and focus on financial interests. The petitioner raises concerns about the financial burden that is faced by students who might have no choice but to study outside Scotland as a result of limited places at the Royal Conservatoire.

Do members have any comments? I appreciate the general point that the petitioner is making about international students absorbing many available places.

We move to petition PE1981, which is on ensuring that perpetrators of domestic abuse who have been excluded from the matrimonial home cannot force sale of the property. The petition has been lodged by Caroline Gourlay, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to strengthen legislation to stop perpetrators of domestic abuse, who have been excluded from the matrimonial home by a court order, being able to cause further trauma and distress to their victims by trying to force the sale of the property.

Caroline Gourlay highlights a potential loophole in existing legislation that enables perpetrators of domestic abuse to contact their victims through a third party to force the sale of a property. In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that section 4 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 provides protection to a spouse or children who are at risk of physical or mental injury because of the other spouse’s conduct. That is achieved by applying to the court for an exclusion order. The Scottish Government also notes that, where a court action has been raised in relation to the division and sale of the matrimonial home, the 1981 act also includes provisions for the court to refuse to grant the decree or to postpone its being done for a period that it considers to be reasonable. The court may also grant a decree subject to conditions.

Although the Scottish Government has indicated that it has, at present, no plans to reform the 1981 act or equivalent provisions for civil partners, it is expected that phase 2 of the Scottish Law Commission’s review of aspects of family law will focus on civil remedies for domestic abuse. Following the Scottish Government’s response, we have also received a submission from the petitioner, which highlights that being contacted by a third party, such as a solicitor, can be a distressing and traumatic experience for victims, even where exclusion orders and interdicts are in place.

It is for that reason that Caroline Gourlay believes that individuals who are subject to interdict and exclusion orders should not be permitted to contact their victim directly or indirectly while the court order remains in place. It is a technical legal thing. Are there any suggestions?