Chamber and committees

PE2026, which was lodged by Sam McCahon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1992 to eliminate council tax discounts for second homes and vacant properties and to make the property owner, rather than a tenant, liable for payment of council tax.

The Scottish Government’s response, which was provided in May, encouraged the petitioner to contribute to a public consultation on the council tax treatment of second homes and empty properties. The consultation closed in July. The Government submission stated that a joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform has been convened and is considering targeted changes to council tax.

The petitioner makes the case for the property owner rather than the occupier to be liable for council tax, saying that that would promote justice and equity and reduce the cost of living for all residents in Scotland. The petitioner’s view is that the council tax reduction scheme leads to significant revenue loss for councils and increases the burden on tenants and home owners who do not qualify for the means-based tax reduction. The petitioner believes that the existing approach is, in effect, subsidising property owners’ investments. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I am going to assume that there was no connection between your observations about Ms Grant being at school and world war 1 potholes. I take it that that was just an unintended—[Laughter.] Also, I wonder who is left to evidence that a pothole looks like a world war 1 crater, but maybe there is someone who can do that in the Highlands, where, of course, everyone is long-lived.

Mr Ewing is right to say that we have simply been told that the Government does not consider that the road meets the criteria but that we have not been told why, in the light of the evidence that has been attested, it has come to that view. It has simply asserted its view, not justified it, and I agree that we should ask it to do so. I am happy with that proposal if other colleagues feel that it is appropriate. Are members content for us to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Rhoda, I think that your attendance contributed to a different outcome being achieved in our consideration of the petition, so I thank you for that.

As this is the start of the parliamentary year, I say, as indeed I do each time we consider new petitions, for the information of those people who might be looking in on our proceedings because they have lodged a petition or are following how a petition might be progressing, that, ahead of the committee’s first consideration of a petition, we seek the views of the Scottish Government and of the Scottish Parliament information centre—SPICe, our independent research operation—to assist us. We do not consider any petition for the first time without views having been received.

The first new petition under this item is PE2023, as it happens, which seeks to stop the deposit return scheme and which was lodged by Jim Foster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the introduction of the 20p deposit for consumers and the roll-out of the deposit return scheme. It is the petitioner’s view that introducing the scheme will increase costs to the consumer, punish those who already recycle and result in additional journeys to recycling centres.

The minister’s response to the petition, which was received in May, reaffirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to launching the scheme in March 2024. However, as can happen with the consideration of petitions from time to time, events have overtaken us. Members will be aware that, before the summer recess, the minister announced that the introduction of the deposit return scheme would be delayed until October 2025 at the earliest.?

I do not think that the committee has heard directly from the minister, but that is simply our reading of matters in Parliament.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action in relation to the petition? I hesitate, but I see that Mr Torrance wants to speak.

Would you be content, Mr Choudhury, if we closed the petition but sent a further letter to the Government, highlighting the issues as you have described them and saying that, although we have noted what the Government has said and recognise that it is unlikely to change its mind, this is a matter of concern and we think that it is worth the Government being aware of the continuing difficulties that are arising? Would that help?

Thank you very much. Fergus Ewing engaged in the discussion when we last considered the petitions, and he is keen to comment.

The next petition, PE1973, in the name of Sandy Izatt, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and provide greater clarity on the division of assets in cases of cohabiting couples who are separating, by removing the use of sheriffs’ discretion rulings in civil cases; providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples; allowing appeals to be heard when it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong but has used their discretion to prevent an appeal at no cost to the appellant; and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance.

We last considered the petition on 21 December, when we agreed to write to a number of organisations, including the Scottish Government, the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland and the Family Law Association. We have received submissions from the Scottish Law Commission, the then Minister for Community Safety and the Law Society of Scotland.

The Scottish Law Commission confirmed that judicial discretion was considered as part of its work on reform of the law relating to cohabitation, with its final report and recommended reforms having been published in November 2022.

In her response, the minister was unable to commit to a timescale for bringing forward legislation in relation to the commission’s recommendations but said that the Government was considering how to implement a number of commission reports, including the one on cohabitation, during this parliamentary session.

The Law Society’s response indicates that it would not support the removal of discretion in civil cases, noting that

“Every court decision involves an element of discretion, or judgement, on the part of a Sheriff”

and saying that the society is

“broadly supportive”

of the reforms that are proposed by the Scottish Law Commission.

Colleagues, does anyone have any comment or suggestion to make?

We will seek that information.

A triumph.

We will write to the petitioner to offer the opportunity that I mentioned and reflect on some of the points that Mr Golden made about the committee not being absolutely certain about what we would be stopping at this stage.