Official Report 769KB pdf
Item 4 is the consideration of new petitions. As I always say before consideration of the first petition, the Parliament seeks the preliminary thoughts of SPICe, the independent research body in the Parliament, so that it can give us a proper briefing on the issues raised. We also get an initial response from the Scottish Government. As I have explained before, the reason why we do so is that, historically, those were the first two actions that we agreed to take, so it curtails the delay in our proper consideration of the issues at hand.
However, as I have also said and as we now have to say to petitioners, we are up against it and have just a handful of meetings of the committee left. Even with new petitions, we have to be pretty certain that we can do something meaningful in the time that is available to us.
Council Tax (Banding Alterations) (PE2172)
The first new petition for consideration is PE2172, which has been lodged by Sarah McFadzean. A representative is in the gallery on her behalf this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend council tax regulations to allow late banding alteration proposals in exceptional personal or compassionate circumstances such as bereavement, illness, sudden house moves or lack of rights awareness, particularly among tenants.
The SPICe briefing for the petition explains that, when someone moves into a new home, they can apply to have their council tax band changed if they think that their property is in the wrong band. This application or “proposal” must be made to the local assessor within six months of the person becoming liable for council tax on that property, which I suspect every MSP is aware of because they will have received representations on the matter. If the proposal is received outwith the statutory time limits, the assessor must deem it invalid. People have six months to make such an application, which is not necessarily properly understood.
The Scottish Government response confirms that existing regulations do not grant discretion to extend the statutory period for proposals in exceptional circumstances for personal or compassionate reasons. The Government states that, because each assessor has an on-going duty to maintain an accurate council tax valuation list, anyone could request a review, and possibly a correction, of the list itself based on potential error and without a time limit restriction.
However, as shown in the SPICe briefing, the Scottish Assessors Association suggests that the band review process
“is not a legislative option in Scotland”,
whereas the proposal process is set out in existing legislation. Additionally, evidence presented to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee earlier this year showed that assessors are already under pressure with existing workloads.
The Scottish Government is currently conducting wider work on council tax reform in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and based on research that was commissioned by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The Government intends for that comprehensive work to inform a debate in the Scottish Parliament, which will shape proposals for the next Parliament to consider, in early 2026. Members might, in fact, recall that we have recently closed a different petition on that exact basis, which is that the issue will be the subject of a statement, a debate and a paper ahead of dissolution, with recommendations to follow next year. Now that I have said it, I do not know whether the Government will do all those things, but a paper will certainly be published that sets out the options.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed? It is a new petition, but we have to look at it in the light of our ability to proceed.
In the light of your comments, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is currently undertaking work with COSLA and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that will inform potential council tax reform proposals in the next parliamentary session.
It might be worth pointing out that the Scottish Government published “Consultation: The Future of Council Tax in Scotland” on Monday. The public consultation closes on 30 January 2026, so it would be sensible to suggest to the petitioner that she could contribute to it.
I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation for the reasons that he set out, but it might be useful to reflect on the fact that the purpose of the petition is to allow there to be some regard to exceptional circumstances—namely,
“personal or compassionate circumstances, including bereavement, illness, sudden house moves, or lack of awareness of rights”.
It occurs to me that, if some allowance is to be made for those factors, particularly illness and bereavement, perhaps the more appropriate way to give effect to that would be through the system of reliefs for council tax, rather than changing the bands. The bands relate to the category of value in which a property was deemed to have fallen at the relevant date, which was, I think, back around 1990, when council tax was introduced to replace the poll tax. It seems to me that such matters are more in the territory of reliefs than the alteration of bands. For example, there is already relief for council tax in toto for someone who is severely mentally impaired, and the process for obtaining that relief is not that complicated.
I just thought that I would give that reflection. If the petitioner were to come back with another petition in the next parliamentary session, she might wish to consider that alternative route to achieving the aim that is set out in the petition.
That could be set out in the letter to the petitioner confirming that the petition has been closed, if the committee is minded to close it. Is the committee minded to do so?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner and hope that the consultation, which covers the routes through which council tax might be changed in the next session of Parliament, will be a mechanism to take forward the aims of the petition.
Disposable Barbecues (Ban) (PE2175)
PE2175, which was lodged by Paul White, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce new legislation that would immediately ban the sale of disposable or instant barbecues by retailers and introduce on-the-spot fines for anyone using a disposable barbecue in Scotland.
We have been joined by our colleague Edward Mountain for our consideration of the petition. Good morning, Mr Mountain.
The petitioner believes that, in recent years, there has been a rise in irresponsible outdoor access, which, combined with climate change, has increased wildfire risk significantly. The Scottish Government’s response states that the ask of the petition is “not achievable” in Scotland. The submission states:
“Product standards and safety, and the regulation of the supply of goods to consumers are reserved matters. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 generally prevents banning the sale of an item in one part of the UK which can be freely sold in the others.”
However, the SPICe briefing notes:
“Scottish Ministers can introduce regulations under section 140 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit or restrict the importation, use, supply or storage of injurious substances or articles for conservation purposes.”
The restrictions on single-use plastic and single-use vapes are examples of instances when the Scottish Government has sought to do that. The briefing explains that new product restrictions of that nature could require a UK-wide approach or an agreed exclusion from the 2020 act’s principles. Local authorities have the power to introduce byelaws that put in place temporary bans on the use of barbecues, including disposable ones, in the whole of, or any part of, their area. The SPICe briefing notes:
“The Cairngorms National Park Authority has recently submitted a ‘fire management byelaw’ proposal to Scottish Ministers which, if approved, would ban the use of disposable and other (non-gas) barbecues in the Cairngorms National Park ... between 1 April and 30 September”
except in certain circumstances.
Before I ask my colleagues whether they have any suggestions on how we might proceed, I would be delighted to hear from Mr Mountain.
Thank you, convener. I understand why Paul White has lodged the petition. It is a matter of frustration to him and to many constituents that wildfires continue to be a problem. The issue was probably highlighted more than it has been by anything else by the wildfire at Dava, which burned thousands of acres. However, the petition comes on the back of other fires, on the Isle of Arran and in Glen Finglas, where wildfires have happened because of the use of disposable barbecues. I accept the Scottish Government’s comments about the 2020 act. I also accept SPICe’s comments about the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which might provide some scope for a ban to happen That is not something that the petitioner would reasonably expect to be achieved in this session of the Parliament.
11:15When you come to consider closing the petition, which I am sure that you will do, convener, and, probably rightly so, given the time that the committee has left in the parliamentary session, a way forward would be to seek clearer guidance from the Government on when disposable barbecues could be used. It should be automatic that people are told not to use disposable barbecues when the fire risk goes up from moderate to high. There could also be a way of the Scottish Government making announcements so that people are asked to abide by a voluntary ban.
As a result of its slow action in relation to the Cairngorms byelaw, the Scottish Government has slightly provoked this petition. The Cairngorms national park submitted a byelaw for approval to the Government, and it has taken it a huge amount of time to consider it. Even as we speak, I am not sure that the byelaw has been passed by the Scottish Government. I tried to find out, but I have been unable to do so. Therefore, if I might be so bold, I suggest that it might be worth writing to the Scottish Government to say that the committee is closing the petition and that you hope that it would be more proactive in saying when disposable barbecues should not be used and that there would be a speedier response to requests from local authorities for byelaws to ban the use of disposable barbecues. I hope that that is helpful.
Thank you, Mr Mountain. Do colleagues have any suggestions for how we might proceed?
I agree with the member’s comments. We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, given the time constraints and the likely requirement for an exemption under the UK 2020 act, the Scottish Government’s track record with regard to exemptions under that act, and the lack of the delegation of powers and governance in relation to the application of that act in the UK, the timescales mean that the committee could not progress the petition before the end of the parliamentary session. However, in closing the petition, I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government regarding how, from a circular economy point of view, it might look to tackle the issue of disposable barbecues and to ask whether it has engaged, or plans to engage, on that specific issue with the UK Government, including on guidance, as the member highlighted.
The petitioner might want to consider whether it is worth while lodging a new petition in the next session, and, if so, to consider the fact that, were we to ban disposable barbecues, it would be relatively simple to redesign said barbecues to make them reusable. As the member will know, we already have examples, such as hexamine stoves. With regard to tackling wildfires, a ban on disposable barbecues would take us no further forward. There would still be a risk; it is just that the risk would be from a reusable, rather than a disposable, product.
For the reasons that Mr Golden set out, we should close the petition. However, having heard what Mr Mountain said, I agree that, in closing the petition, it would be helpful to write to the Scottish Government, in the terms that he suggested. The fire in Dava decimated everything for an area of 44 square miles, which is one half of the area of the city of Edinburgh, and it is of huge concern that the next wildfire could be even worse. An international expert in wildfires said that Governments do not take this issue seriously until the first 100 people are dead. I do not say that to be dramatic, but gamekeepers in my area tell me that there is a risk of a serious fire, which could decimate vast areas, and they can tell me exactly where it would happen, how, in what wind conditions and at what time of year.
Although I know that Mr Fairlie is taking the issue seriously, the need for swift action is absolutely overwhelming. We should ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with local authorities to put a ban in place, especially in times of high risk, and especially during April and the months in which bracken, gorse and so on in moorland are more susceptible to fire than they are at other times of year, although I am no expert.
I just wanted to back up what Mr Mountain was saying and make sure that we show the petitioner that we are taking the petition very seriously indeed. Otherwise, it could drag on for another five years, while draft byelaws here and there in little bits of Scotland are considered instead of national action, which the Government should surely not allocate to others but should take responsibility for itself.
We seem to have come to a hybrid position. We are closing the petition but sending the biggest letter of suggestion to the Scottish Government in so doing. We might normally have done that if we were keeping the petition open. Notwithstanding that, we do not expect that there is a lot that we can do in this session, but we want to highlight the issues to the Scottish Government.
I hope that the clerks have been able to discern from that a course of action with which we can proceed. Is that acceptable to members of the committee?
Members indicated agreement.
I would only say to Mr Golden that he coined the phrase “circular economy” in the Parliament, and I hope that they are the last two words that he says before he departs the chamber in 2026.
I thank Mr Mountain.
Mental Welfare Commission (Duty of Candour) (PE2176)
The next of our petitions is PE2176, lodged by Warren Mitchell, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce penalties for organisations that fail to comply with Mental Welfare Commission recommendations in relation to duty of candour.
The petitioner submitted the petition after the tragic loss of his wife. He believes that there were organisational failures surrounding the circumstances that should have been addressed. The petitioner believes that the Mental Welfare Commission lacks the necessary powers to take organisations to task when recommendations for improvement are not actioned.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights that the Scottish mental health law review recommended strengthening the commission’s powers. The suggestions included that the legislation should include a level of direct accountability to the Scottish Parliament. That would include the power to make a report to Parliament if there is a serious failure by a public body, including the Scottish Government, to follow a recommendation. The review also recommended that the MWC should have the power to initiate legal proceedings to protect the human rights of any person or group that is covered by mental health and capacity law.
The response notes that the Scottish Government previously considered whether the legislation should be amended to include sanctions or penalties against organisations that fail to comply with the law, but it concluded that legislation is already in place that would hold organisations to account, if it was deemed necessary. The Scottish Government is therefore not minded to amend the regulations or the overarching legislation to include sanctions or penalties. The submission also points out that health professionals are subject to professional standards relating to their own profession, and that they can be subjected to an investigation and disciplinary action from their own regulatory body should they be found to be in breach of their obligations.
The Scottish Government states that it will consider strengthening the powers and responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission within the context of a wider long-term reform to mental health law.
This is a petition that has been motivated by tragic personal circumstances, and where we can go is identified for us.
Would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government considered whether the legislation should be amended to include sanctions or penalties against organisations that fail to comply with the law and concluded that legislation is already in place to hold organisations to account, and that it will consider strengthening the powers and responsibilities of the Mental Welfare Commission within the context of a wider long-term reform to mental health law?
There is a process under way, and it would be open to the petitioner to come back in the next parliamentary session, depending on progress in relation to aspects of the issue that have been raised. However, that is when these matters are most likely to be addressed. Are colleagues minded to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We will close the petition but, as I say, we will write and encourage the petitioner to bear in mind the responses that we have received.
Mobility Services (Funding) (PE2177)
The final new petition today is PE2177, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson. We considered another petition of his earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide sustainable funding to organisations that provide mobility equipment. The petitioner says that mobility services are vital for access to shops, services and community life. His view is that, without secure financial support, such services face closure, putting equality, mobility and inclusion at risk.
The SPICe briefing explains that the funding of ShopMobility schemes varies by location, with funding coming from local authorities, health boards, charitable donations and grants. The briefing notes that there have been reports in recent years about ShopMobility centres having their funding cut or reduced by local authorities or health boards.
The Scottish Government’s response states that local authorities are independent corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities and they are entirely separate from the Scottish Government. It states that it is up to individual local authorities to manage their day-to-day decision making and allocate the total financial resources that are available to them based on local needs and priorities.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has not indicated that it will provide specific funding for the provision of mobility equipment, that it is up to individual local authorities to allocate funding to address local needs and priorities, and that the committee has limited time remaining this session to progress the issues raised in the petition.
Are Mr Torrance’s suggestions sensible? In this instance, when we write to advise the petitioner of the position, the obvious question that could be raised with the Scottish Government is how, in light of reduced access to mobility equipment because of inadequate funding, people who have mobility issues can fully participate in their lives and communities in Scotland. However, we could consider that in the next parliamentary session. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I do not want to disappoint Paul Sweeney if he has arrived to discuss the petition on the personhood of rivers but we have just come to the end of our proceedings, having already done so, I am sorry to say.
That brings us to the end of the public session.
11:27 Meeting continued in private until 11:30.Previous
Continued Petitions