Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you. We welcome the petition. Are members content to keep it open and to begin our investigations by following the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that we have covered the ground at this stage, mainly. Will we get that evidence first? I am just trying to think where we want to be sequentially—

There seems to be a fairly consensual view among colleagues. Are members content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I wonder whether there should be a flavour of something else in our approach. Obviously, the Government has made its argument, but for people not covered by the inquiry’s scope, the inference is that the abuse that they suffered is not worthy of an inquiry in its own right or further investigation. I think that that is an unfortunate conclusion. It might well be that, as Fergus Ewing suggests, the Government is going to touch on this matter in a different way, but it would be helpful to invite it to spell out why it feels that way. We as a committee are going to have to go back to the petitioner and say, in essence, that the issue that they have identified is not thought by the Government sufficiently serious to warrant its investigating it in a formal way. That is not a conclusion with which the Government should be comfortable.

Is the committee content?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition remains open. I am hopeful that Parliament will be able to influence its outcome and advance its aim as we proceed; let us hope that we do. I thank Monica Lennon for her on-going interest and the petitioner for all the interest that she shows. I appreciated having an opportunity to read the response that the petitioner received from the Lord Advocate, which was economical in respect of the issue. The opportunity to advance the aims of the petition exists, so thank you, everybody.