Seòmar agus comataidhean

That remains to be seen. Thank you, Mr Ewing.

Do any other colleagues wish to come in?

Thank you very much for that, Mr Ewing. I think that that is correct.

It is open to us to write to the Government to say that we are closing the petition on the basis of good faith, given that the Government has said that it will progress the issue. It would be helpful to try to tie it down to a more specific timeline.

I thank Mr Izatt very much for bringing an important petition before the committee. In the event that no progress is made, it would be open to him to lodge a fresh petition. As matters stand, the committee has taken the issue as far forward as we can, given the Government’s response and assurance. Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2019, which was lodged by Alan McLeod, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent all owners of self-catering holiday accommodation from obtaining rates relief under the small business bonus scheme. We last considered the petition on 28 June last year, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Assessors Association, the Holiday Home Association, the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and the Scottish Government.

We asked the Scottish Government whether it would consider adding self-catering holiday accommodation to the list of properties that are unable to qualify for the small business bonus scheme. Its response outlines the current arrangements for self-catering holiday accommodation but does not provide any indication of its position on the petition. Its submission notes that a consultation on council tax for second and empty homes invited views on the thresholds that apply for self-catering accommodation to be liable for non-domestic rates, and that the responses were being analysed at the time of the submission.

I am very disappointed in the Government’s response. What is the point of sending us a response that is almost like a public information leaflet but does not address in any way, either positively or negatively, the ask of the petition and the question that we put? I would therefore like to go back to the Government in a direct way and say that the committee does not at all appreciate receiving a statement that we could reasonably have downloaded from the internet; we are asking about an instrument of future policy relating to the ask of the petition; and we would appreciate the Government’s views on the petition as put.

We would much prefer that to a cut and paste from the internet.

PE2020, which was lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered to couples on the national health service for the chance to have a family. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 28 June 2023—several petitions have come back from that date—when we agreed to write to the Fertility Network Scotland, the British Fertility Society, Fertility Scotland and the national fertility group.

The national fertility group responded to the committee in October, informing us that, at its most recent meeting, which took place in late August 2023, it received an update from Public Health Scotland on the modelling work that it is carrying out to help the group better understand the capacity implications of any future expansion of NHS in vitro fertilisation treatment for single people. At the time of the group’s submission, specific timetables could not be given for the completion of that modelling work or subsequent consideration.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, in which she highlights the support for petitions like hers across the UK. She describes the inability of a single person to access fertility treatment on the NHS in Scotland as biased and discriminatory.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

That brings us to the consideration of new petitions. I realise that there might be people who have tuned in to watch our proceedings for the first time to hear how their petition might proceed or who are with us in the gallery for the first time. Therefore, as always, I will say that, in advance of considering a petition, we take two immediate actions. One is to seek from the Scottish Government an indicative initial response to the petition. The second is to seek a briefing on the issues that were raised by the petition from the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe.

As a veteran of the committee in previous parliamentary sessions, I can tell you that, before we opted to take those actions, we would meet to consider a new petition?and those actions would be the first two things that we recommended we then did. All that that did was delay our consideration.

Are members content with that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

Our next petition is PE2075, which was lodged by Stewart Noble, on behalf of Helensburgh community council. Stewart joins us in the gallery—welcome. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prioritise local participation in planning decisions that affect the local area by providing a clear and unambiguous definition of the word “local”, in so far as it applies to planning legislation; giving community councils decision-making powers for planning applications in their local areas; and ensuring that the way in which decisions and planning applications are taken is compatible with the provisions and ethos of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

In the background information on the petition, Helensburgh community council highlights the example of planning applications that affected Helensburgh being approved despite opposition from the community council and a majority of local ward councillors on the planning committee. The SPICe briefing, to which I referred a moment ago, sets out the process for determining planning applications, which includes the requirement for planning authorities to provide community councils with a weekly list of applications for developments in their areas. A planning authority must also consult community councils on proposed developments that are likely to affect the amenity of their area.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes the consultation that has taken place on “Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance”, as well as the recent amendments that were made by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 to increase the opportunities for individuals and community bodies to engage in the planning process, including by preparing local place plans for their own areas.

In addition, the Scottish Government has suggested that extending powers to determine planning applications to community councils would require comprehensive revisions to existing legislation, and that the Government is not minded to consider such a fundamental change to the planning system at this time.

We have received a submission from the petitioner in response to the Scottish Government’s response, in which the community council expresses concern that the “engagement” and “participation” that are referred to are simply part of a box-ticking exercise. The petitioner has also clarified that his proposal for providing community councils with decision-making powers on planning decisions would involve a number of community councillors becoming members of local authority planning committees, with full voting powers, to assist in determining planning applications in their area.

We are joined by Jackie Baillie, as we are again considering a petition that is of interest to her community and constituents. I am happy to invite her to address the committee.

We have suggestions there. Are committee members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, and I hope that they have drawn some comfort from the response from the Government.