Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the 12th meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. First, we have our customary item inviting colleagues to agree to take an agenda item in private. Are members content to do that for agenda item 4, under which we will consider our approach to the draft report of our inquiry into the A9 dualling project?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the offering of community shared ownership a mandatory requirement of all planning proposals for wind farm developments. We last considered the petition on 25 October, when we agreed to clarify what power the Scottish Government might have in relation to mandating CSO through the devolved power under the Electricity Act 1989.

The then Minister for Energy and Environment confirmed that, in the Scottish Government’s view, any legislation relating to how consents for electricity generation stations are granted would relate to a reserved matter, which puts the issue beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Her submission highlights the onshore wind sector deal, which is described as

“a collaborative commitment to develop practical approaches to support and encourage CSO models”

aiming

“to assist developers, funders, local government and communities to engage in these opportunities”.

A framework is due for publication by the end of this year.

In response to the minister, the petitioner’s submission reiterates her view that industry will ignore the Scottish Government’s plans unless CSO is made mandatory. She reiterates her main call, which is for CSO to be made mandatory through use of devolved land and tax powers.

The committee also asked for an update on the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Government, the Scottish National Investment Bank, Local Energy Scotland, communities and developers. The SNIB’s response outlines that

“work includes assessing the scale and level of interest at a community level, developer considerations, how to best cater for community engagement on complex financial transactions, and the current appetite within the private sector to fund shared ownership models.”

There are quite a lot of responses and material to consider. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE1986 is on providing testing kits for drugs in public spaces. It was lodged by Andy Paterson on behalf of the help not harm campaign. It was last considered on 23 October.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free testing kits for drugs in public spaces, such as local pharmacies, libraries and university buildings. The Scottish Government’s response to our correspondence reiterates that self-testing drug-checking kits do not offer the same in-depth analysis and harm-reduction advice that is offered by drug-checking facilities.

The submission also details the progress that is now being made towards piloting drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow. The Scottish Government received more information from the Home Office about controlled drug licence applications for each area and anticipated that applications would soon be made. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

In the light of the Scottish Government’s responses, and Mr Golden’s recommendation, which summarised them, are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition and hope very much that the progress that the Scottish Government has identified is realised in the months ahead.

Following the various discussions that we have had, we are persuaded by the important considerations that underlie the petition. Notwithstanding the evidence that we have heard from ministers, the committee will make a unanimous, clear and direct recommendation that the Government act in accordance with our recommendations.

Let us hope that that makes progress. It is quite unusual for the committee to issue very specific recommendations in that way. Given the evidence that we have heard, the Government really ought to pay some attention to our recommendations. I hope that we are accordingly able to make progress on the petition on behalf of the petitioners.

Are members content to keep the petition open and to write to the First Minister in the terms suggested by Mr Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the last of today’s new petitions, PE2096, which was lodged by Eleanor Fraser. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to start a review of the council tax system to consider whether rates could be set per capita, rather than by property value.

In its response, the Scottish Government states that the Scottish ministers have pursued various means of identifying an alternative to the council tax system and highlights the work of the joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform. The submission states that the group is progressing the second phase of its work, which focuses on longer-term reform.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action??

Our next petition, PE2025, was lodged by Bernadette Foley. Forgive me, colleagues, but there is quite a long follow-up, given the amount of information that we have received.

The petition 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 that access is available to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; that victims are financially compensated for the loss of the marital home, including the loss of personal possessions and furniture that were left in the property; and that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

We previously considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, the Law Society of Scotland, the Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Government. Members will have noted that we have received responses from all those organisations.

The Scottish Law Commission told us that, although its “Aspects of family law” project does not extend to divorce law or legal aid, it will consider whether and how survivors of domestic abuse might be able to obtain remedies against perpetrators, including for the loss of property. The commission is also reviewing the efficacy of non-harassment orders.

The Law Society of Scotland suggested that making legal aid automatically available to anyone who has made an allegation of domestic abuse could potentially open up the scheme to misuse. It also indicated its support for a victim being heard prior to any decision being taken to vary or revoke a non-harassment order, and it highlighted that that should happen automatically in a civil context, as the order would normally have been sought by the victim.

In its response, the Scottish Government noted that, in addition to an implementation board, an operational working group has been established to work through the detail of how the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 could operate. It also noted that there are several challenges to be addressed in implementing part 1 of the act, which gives Police Scotland powers to issue a domestic abuse protection notice and to apply to civil courts for a domestic abuse protection order.

In their responses, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and Scottish Women’s Aid indicate their support for the aims of the petition and draw our attention to the increase in the number of victims who self-represent due to the lack of available legal aid. Members may recall from previous consideration of petitions related to legal aid that the Government indicated its intention to introduce a legal aid reform bill during this parliamentary session, but we have not yet seen such a bill.

Do members have any suggestions for action?