Seòmar agus comataidhean

That brings us to consideration of new petitions. I really highlight the difficulty that the committee faces. I have looked through the new petitions that we will consider this morning. Some of them raise substantive matters that the committee would, in ordinary circumstances, want to pick up and pursue. However, there is normally a gap of six months between each consideration of a petition in the committee. That lead time is required for the actions that we initiate and for us to collate and present the required responses to the committee. We have four or five meetings left before the end of the parliamentary session, in which we will be considering our legacy report and the petitions that we can hold open.

09:45

I say to some petitioners who might think, “Should our petition be held open?” that the parliamentary rules are such that, if we hold a petition open and it or any of its criteria is judged to be obsolete in any way, the new Parliament may close that petition and there would be an embargo of 12 months before it could be brought back to the Parliament. However, if we close a petition now, it can be lodged again immediately in May and it can be considered afresh in the new parliamentary session.

I think that that condition is less applicable to new petitions, because they are unlikely to be covering historical matters. I can think of a couple of petitions that have been open for more than five years where some of what underpins them may no longer be current.

Before any petition comes before the committee, we receive the Scottish Government’s initial review. I have to say that that has been a little slow in coming forth for a couple of the petitions that we are considering this morning—indeed, one response was received on Friday. We also get advice from the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, which allows the committee to be fully briefed about the issues that underpin a petition.

My late colleague David McLetchie used to observe that this Parliament had only two buttons: ban it or make it compulsory. In this instance, the Government appears be sitting on the fence somewhat—as you say, in defence of camper vans. There must be a sticker in that somewhere.

Notwithstanding that, and without trying to convey any comprehensive sense of levity—I would not want the petition not to be taken seriously—I think that there is a serious issue in the petition that is worth exploring, and this is the committee that is best placed to do it. It is one of those issues that the committee is best able to tease out. I hope that, if colleagues support the recommendation to close the petition—I see that members are saying yes—the petitioner will bring the petition back to the new Parliament immediately after it assembles in May. Do colleagues agree with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2192, which was lodged by Kevin McGillivray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 so that debt owed by domestic abusers to their survivors cannot be written off by sequestration.

The SPICe briefing for the petition clarifies that sequestration is the term that is used in Scots law for entering personal bankruptcy. When someone becomes bankrupt, a trustee is appointed to manage their assets on behalf of creditors. The trustee is usually the Accountant in Bankruptcy, which is a Scottish Government executive agency.

Further, the briefing clarifies that if a domestic abuser is trying to abuse the bankruptcy process and is not, in fact, genuinely unable to pay their debts, it is possible for anyone with an interest—including the ex-partner—to apply to the court to have the award of sequestration recalled. Furthermore, concerns about the abuser having hidden income or assets can be reported to the trustee. On investigation, the trustee is able to require assets and income to be handed directly to them, if necessary. The debtor can also be reported to the police if they are suspected of a criminal offence.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the fraudulent use of bankruptcy to further abuse a partner amounts to financial abuse and that safeguards are in place to prevent that. The Government clarifies that, in investigating the debtor’s assets, the trustee’s powers are limited under the 2016 act, as

“They cannot carry out covert investigations, examine income or bank accounts not held in the debtor’s name, or act beyond the statutory investigation period.”

In relation to alternative action, the response points to a nationwide policy review of statutory debt solutions, which was initiated in 2019. The final report of recommendations to Scottish ministers was expected by the end of the last calendar year.

The petitioner’s written submission highlights that economic abuse involves complex financial behaviours that trustees cannot detect under the existing powers. It also expresses concerns that the transparency presumed by the insolvency system does not always work in practice.

There is quite a lot in the petition, but the response suggests that there is already provision available to remedy the situation. What do colleagues think? Are there any proposals for action?

We will close the petition on the basis that has been identified.

Any of us who is a parent, even if that was perhaps some time ago—well, we are always parents, but even if our children are no longer children—thinks, “There but for the grace of God.” To think that something might have been avoided if the issue had not been dismissed simply because of a prejudice against the idea that young people might have cancer is deeply disturbing.

I am content to do that in relation to the focused issue. The Scottish Government will appreciate the urgency with which the committee would appreciate its considering the point that we are raising, but we should certainly make it clear to any third party that, given the limited time for the Parliament to consider the issue further, we would appreciate it if they were able to come back to us promptly.

Are colleagues content with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I will be supporting that particular bill, and I hope that those matters can be duly addressed, but that is a debate for another place, I think.

I have had constituency casework during the past couple of sessions of Parliament—other members might have had such casework, too—which had its genesis in issues that have arisen on power of attorney. I do not know how widespread this is, but local authorities have become progressively underresourced and certain areas simply have not been prioritised, because the focus has had to be elsewhere.

I am not presenting this issue as the only example in that regard, but I have found that there have been matters on which I might historically have expected the local authority to take a more active role. However, frankly, the resourcing to do so does not exist now, and certain things have been excused or passed over as a result.

There are issues to be considered, and were it not for the time left in this parliamentary session, and the fact that we have had a number of petitions relating to issues arising on power of attorney, this might have been a very interesting area for the committee to have explored in more detail.

I hope that the petition will return and that the issues in it can be pursued during the next parliamentary session but we have a recommendation to close it on the basis that has been suggested.

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to PE2197, lodged by Linsay McRitchie, which is on allowing more survivors of care abuse to access redress. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend section 18 of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 to include survivors of abuse that occurred after 2004.

Under section 18 of the act, redress payments are limited to abuse of children in “relevant care settings” in Scotland that occurred before 1 December 2004. The policy memorandum for the bill set out that that is the date when the then First Minister, Jack McConnell, gave a public apology in the Parliament.

The policy memorandum also set out that

“Rapid and substantial change in relation to the monitoring and regulation of the care system in Scotland took place in the period immediately following the creation of the Scottish Parliament.”

Consideration was given to the date being set at 17 December 2014 instead, to match the Scottish child abuse inquiry’s terms of reference, but the Scottish Government’s view was that 2004 was a more appropriate cut-off point in the context of the redress scheme.

The Scottish Government’s response to the committee states that it considers that the cut-off date for the scheme

“remains appropriate and in line with the core purpose of the scheme”.

It also states that there are no plans to review that.

The petitioner’s written submission states that

“Just because the law drew a line at 2004 doesn’t mean abuse stopped then”.

She believes that if the inquiry investigates abuse over a specified time period, the redress scheme should also cover that time period. The petitioner also states that the

“cut-off date leaves an entire generation behind”,

as they are left with no route to redress.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.