Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1973 is about ending the use of sheriffs’ discretion when ruling on civil cases and providing clear legal guidance on division of assets. The petition, which was lodged by Sandy Izatt, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and provide greater clarity on the division of assets in cases of cohabiting couples who are separating, by removing the use of sheriffs’ discretion rulings in civil cases; providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples; allowing appeals to be heard when it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong but has used their discretion to prevent an appeal at no cost to the appellant; and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance.

Sandy Izatt tells us that a “lack of clarity” in the law regarding the division of assets for cohabiting couples has resulted in cases proceeding to court and taking up “valuable court time”. He suggests that the provision of clear legal guidance would offer clarity on that issue and enable matters to be resolved without the need for a court hearing.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

“introduced legal protections for cohabiting couples should their relationship come to an end by separation or death.”

The Scottish Government also highlights that the Scottish Law Commission is carrying out a review of aspects of family law. Following the Scottish Government’s response, members might be aware that the Scottish Law Commission has now published its report and draft bill on cohabitation.

We have also received a written submission from Mr Izatt, who raises concerns that, where the division of assets has not been clearly defined in law,

“there is too much room for argument by competing solicitors,”

which leaves sheriffs with discretion

“to rule on how they feel, rather than what is fair, true and just.”

That is interesting. Do members have any suggestions?

That concludes consideration of new petitions. We will move into private session to consider item 4. As noted in the agenda, the committee will move back into public session in approximately 20 minutes, in order to hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on our final petition. Although that is not our normal practice, we have agreed to do so in order to facilitate our ministerial guests’ giving evidence this morning.

Please do.

You referred to the petitioner’s courage and obviously we very much felt that courage in the evidence that she gave. We explored with Karen the aspect of what happens in an acute situation—if somebody has a heart attack or if somebody is having elective surgery, it is clear what to do, but in the hierarchy of mental health services, what do you do? Karen said that when, in a crisis,

“you phone NHS 24 to get help for mental health or speak to an out-of-hours doctor or anything like that, you are told either to contact the police if you feel that you cannot keep yourself or someone else safe, or to attend accident and emergency.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 9 November 2022; c 24.]

I think that she very much felt that attending accident and emergency with people who were attending for physical health reasons, not mental health reasons, was not the appropriate place to be in those circumstances at all. What are your reflections on that point?

The petitioner was not able to give the latest figure for people presenting at A and E, but it was quite a high number of incidents. I think that she had figures that showed that around 600 people had done so.

Obviously, Karen’s experience very much influences the view that she has of everything that Luke experienced. I do not want to be superficial or to react to an individual circumstance, but she felt that there was an impression or a suggestion that the risk assessments that had been done had partly been coloured by a desire to play down the likely seriousness of the issue rather than to escalate it, and that there was a drift to try and achieve that. She is not pointing to Luke’s case in isolation, but she feels that that meant that his higher risk status was not recognised at a point when something could have been done. It is very easy to generalise or not to really know, but what is your sense of that?

Monica Lennon is not here to take evidence from the witnesses, so I ask her whether there is anything that she wants to say to the committee that the cabinet secretary can hear and that might he want to touch upon in any final remarks that he wants to make.

I would like to comment on the sincerity and sensitivity with which everybody has addressed the issues this morning. It has been a constructive discussion. Would like to say anything in conclusion, cabinet secretary?

Cabinet secretary, thank you to you and your colleagues for joining us this morning. I very much appreciate it.

Colleagues, are we content to consider the evidence at a subsequent meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Is that a serious answer to the question—that something like a golden eagle will be flying through trees? Is that really the proposition that you are presenting to us?

You have made the point, minister. We have limited time and I do not need to you repeat points.