Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the petitioner very much, but we will close the petition on the basis of the submission that we have received from the Scottish Government.

Our next meeting will take place on 17 November.

The next petition for consideration is PE1897, on reforming certain procedures for the collection of council tax. The petition, which was lodged by Richard Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the procedures for the collection of council tax that apply when a person has difficulty in making payment.

The SPICe briefing outlines the process of using summary warrants to enforce council tax debts. It explains that a summary warrant issues information to a judge, who will then grant it without any further investigation of individual circumstances. As a result of a summary warrant, a 10 per cent surcharge is added to the debts listed.

The Scottish Government’s response states that its policy is

“to ensure households that are financially vulnerable do not have to meet a Council Tax liability they are unable to afford”,

and highlights the council tax reduction scheme. It further states that around 500,000 households receive some level of council tax reduction, and of those households, 80 per cent receive a full reduction and are therefore not liable for council tax.

The protected trust deed—PTD—protocol commenced on 1 October 2021 and sets out non-statutory changes to the operational processes for protected trust deeds. The intention of the protocol is to improve transparency and clarity to better enable trustees to manage debtor and creditor expectations in a protected trust deed.

I invite colleagues to comment.

How young you are. It is 31 years not 20 that some of us have been debating the issue—that is, every year since it was introduced.

Are there any other comments?

The next petition for consideration is PE1898, on making entering someone’s home without their permission or without a warrant a crime. The petition, which was lodged by Julia Gow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it a crime for a stranger to enter your home without permission or a warrant.

In its response, the Government sets out the current offences that relate to entering someone’s home without their permission. The submission confirms that

“While entering someone’s home without their permission is not a crime in and of itself, housebreaking with intent to steal is an aggravated form of the common law offence of theft in Scots law. The essential elements of this crime are that a person (1) overcomes the security of the premises and (2) does so with the intention of stealing.”

A number of other common-law or statutory offences might be used, including the common law offence of malicious mischief, the statutory offence of vandalism and a provision of section 57 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which criminalises

“Any person who, without lawful authority to be there, is found in or on a building or ... premises”

where

“it may reasonably be inferred”

that the person

“intended to commit theft there”.

Additionally, the SPICe briefing highlights section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, as it sets out an offence of threatening or abusive behaviour, which might cover some situations where a person enters someone’s house without permission.

In her submission, the petitioner questions the “essential elements” of the aggravated form of theft in Scots law, which states that a person must both overcome the “security of the premises” and do so with the intent of stealing. She asks the committee to consider how being subject to either element of the crime can leave a person feeling safe and secure in their own home. The petitioner urges the committee to consider the mental trauma and loss of experiences as a result of having someone enter your home without permission.

Again, I invite members to comment.

That suggestion seems very sensible. When we write to the professional bodies, it might also be useful to get an impression of the industry’s current status and, for example, the number of independent self-employed travel agents who might no longer be operating. I know that travel is resuming and that people are starting to plan and book immediate and future travel, but it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of those in the industry on the status of any recovery. They could also tell us about their potential fears with regard to any further restrictions that might be proposed or imposed in future months.

Are members content to proceed in the way that has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1890 is on finding solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland. The petition, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of Caithness Health Action Team, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to find ways of providing localised training, recruitment and retention of healthcare staff in difficult-to-recruit positions in Scotland. Members will have received a late submission on the petition from our colleague Edward Mountain MSP, which was circulated yesterday.

The committee is currently considering PE1845, which is on an agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland and explores similar issues in relation to rural healthcare. The committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the remote and rural general practice short-life working group and rural health boards. We have already received some submissions, and we are expecting the remainder later this week.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it recognises the training, recruitment and retention issues that are faced by health boards that operate in rural areas across Scotland. The submission details a number of training and recruitment initiatives for doctors in difficult-to-recruit areas, including remote and rural settings. Wider initiatives are also highlighted as contributing to the improvement of rural healthcare or tackling employment challenges that are specific to rural areas. NHS Highland funding is highlighted, including recovery and renewal investment, which allocated £2.2 million to NHS Highland in 2021-22, and funding of £54,625 for the recruitment of a full-time director of psychology.

The petitioner’s view is that the Caithness community does not appear to benefit from funding that is provided to NHS Highland, and the petitioner believes that health services are centralised to Raigmore hospital.

Mr Mountain has written in support of the petition. I am sure that he would have wished to be with us today and that he would have asked us to pursue the issues that are raised in the petition.

Do colleagues have comments to make on the petition?

PE1895, which was lodged by Gary Wall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it mandatory for NatureScot to explain its conservation objectives in decision making within the framework of the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and the Scottish Government guidance, “Right First Time: a practical guide for public authorities to decision-making and the law”.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that NatureScot, which was formerly known as Scottish Natural Heritage—I thought that it still was, so I am a bit behind the times—is Scotland’s statutory nature conservation body and advisor to the Scottish Government. NatureScot is classified as a non-departmental public body and is subject to NDPB accountability and governance frameworks.

The submission explains that licensing decisions are delegated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. The Scottish Government states that the legislation does not provide for an appeals procedure for licensing decisions. However, all decisions by NatureScot are subject to challenge through the public sector complaints handling system, which includes recourse to the Scottish Public Sector Ombudsman.

The submission concludes that NatureScot ensures that its decision-making process complies with the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, the Scottish regulators’ strategic code of practice and Scottish Government’s guidance, “Right First Time”, through application of transparent, proportionate and consistent processes. With that taken into consideration, the Scottish Government does not consider that additional accountability measures are required over and above those that are already in place for NatureScot.

The petitioner suggests that the terminology that the Scottish Government uses in its submission to describe NatureScot’s processes is different from that used in the legislation and, therefore, incorrect. He also suggests that NatureScot’s practices are inconsistent with case law. The petitioner believes that it is currently impossible for a citizen to hold NatureScot to account and suggests:

“if it was made mandatory that they have to explain their ‘objective’ for decisions in the context of the aims of the legislation, especially for refusals, it would go some way to explain how they have applied ‘proportionality’’’.

The petitioner has responded specifically to the Scottish Government’s position, so I am happy to write back to the Scottish Government to seek its views on the challenge that the petitioner has made. That is a reasonable thing to do. If there are no other suggestions, we will do that in the first instance.

Members indicated agreement.

PE1899 is the last petition that we are considering today, on conducting a risk benefit analysis prior to providing those under 16 with a Covid-19 vaccination. The petition, which was lodged by Mary Henderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to conduct an inquiry into the risks and benefits of providing Covid-19 vaccinations to those who are under 16 years old.

The Scottish Government submission confirms that the chief medical officers from the four UK nations recommend that

“all healthy children aged 12-15 should be offered one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.”

In reaching their decision, and in addition to the wider health issues, the UK chief medical officers took into consideration issues such as disruption to education, reduction in public health harm and mental health issues.

The Government’s submission explains that, in deciding to offer vaccinations to children and young people aged 12 and over, the chief medical officers

“have been informed by the independent expertise of leaders of the clinical and public health profession from across the UK.”

In her response, the petitioner highlights several international articles that support her concerns regarding the vaccination of children. She feels that

“Natural immunity does not appear to have been fully investigated and the longer-term effects are unknown for all four Covid 19 vaccines.”

She is concerned that the

“move to vaccinate those under 16 is being driven more politically rather than medically.”

I invite members to comment on how we should proceed with the petition.

Indeed. We might ask SPICe to do a bit of work for us on how the position in Scotland compares with that in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, to see whether there is any significant variation in the protection for homeowners. Different laws will be in place, but we can ask whether there is any significant difference. Are we agreed to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That is fine. We could ask whether the Government is considering any further offences, because it would be interesting to know its position on that.

Mr Kidd, are you trying to intervene?