Chamber and committees

We come to the last of our new petitions this morning. PE2027, which was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch without further delay the £10 million changing places toilet fund that was pledged in the 2021 Scottish National Party manifesto, and to make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups that are trying to build these much-needed facilities.

The response from the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport states that, due to budget constraints, funding for the construction of changing places toilets has not yet been allocated and specific timelines for its distribution remain unannounced. The Government’s submission emphasises the need to prioritise spending efficiently to benefit those in the greatest need and says that further details on the investment in question will be provided over the parliamentary session.

The petitioner’s submission details the group’s work to obtain the necessary permissions for a changing places toilet in Tyndrum and notes that the only thing that is preventing it from building the facility is a lack of capital funding. The petitioner highlights the hardships that are faced by disabled individuals and their carers as a result of the absence of changing places toilets, which include indignity, isolation and health risks.

The positive impact that the use of similar funding in England has had in expanding access for disabled individuals is cited. The petitioner notes the benefits to the local economy of tapping into the purple pound of potential tourists and customers in the disabled community.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I am sorry; I had forgotten—even though I directed him to the appropriate seat—that we are joined by our colleague Paul O’Kane, who has an interest in the petition. Before we move to our consideration of potential options, I invite him to comment in support of the petition.

Do colleagues have any other suggestions?

Thank you all very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 20 September. We move into private for items 5 and 6.

Thank you very much, Monica. You described the evidence session that we had as tense, which is a fair description. Having read the Official Report of the meeting, I think that you characterise it correctly in many respects. Although it was a slightly tense atmosphere, the Lord Advocate clearly stuck to her view of where her responsibilities lay. The committee got slightly frustrated that it was not clear thereafter where she thought the committee should go to get the correct answers. That is what we have been reflecting on.

Given the evidence that we heard from the pathologists in Lancashire and the other evidence that we have heard, I believe that members of the committee are minded to seek to do everything that we can to advance the aims of the petition. In the light of those remarks, do colleagues have any contributions?

If I can coalesce your view, you would prefer to keep the petition open and go back to the Scottish Government, highlighting the petitioner’s latest evidence. Perhaps we could say—in your words, if I can paraphrase them—that further public toilet closures appear to be taking place, which is placing an unreasonable burden of expectation on local businesses, and that, for those reasons, the Government should have a further think about whether it would be prepared to consider its position. Is that appropriate?

Rather unusually, over the issue of public conveniences, I am invited to come to a casting position. I am minded to close the petition but to accompany that with a directional letter to the Government that sets out our concerns about the approach that it has decided to adopt but which recognises that it appears that the Government is not prepared to reconsider that. That matter will be for others to pursue in a different environment. Thank you all very much.

I am content with that. Are members content with it?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, 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 access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of personal possessions and furniture left in the property; and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

In the background to the petition, Bernadette explains that her sister faced threats and harassment from her ex-husband, whose family emptied their marital home of all furniture, fixtures and fittings. The police were seemingly unable to take any action to prevent that. Bernadette also tells us about the mental and physical impact that that experience has had on her sister and how she was unable to access financial support to replace her possessions and start over.

The SPICe briefing notes that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 introduces two short-term civil protection orders, both of which could exclude a perpetrator of domestic abuse from the place where the person at risk lives. However, the briefing also notes that that part of the act is not yet in force.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety notes that civil legal aid is available in a wide range of actions, including contested divorces, and that around 70 per cent of people are eligible for some form of civil legal aid. The minister highlights other options, such as the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre, which offers free legal information and advice to women in Scotland who have or are experiencing gender-based violence. The minister also refers to the work that is undertaken on improving housing outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic abuse, including options for financial support for women leaving an abusive partner.

The minister refers in her letter to the Scottish Law Commission’s plans, as part of its work on family law, to review the civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse, which the committee is aware of from our consideration of related petitions. In the light of all that, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I think that that was clear as your objective. Of course, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee is not making an editorial judgment on the merits of the petition; we seek to advance the aims of petitioners as best we can, but, ultimately, the decision as to whether the aims of a petitioner are fulfilled is one for the Government. In this case, the Government has come back and said that it does not intend to pursue the statutory route. For that reason, Mr Torrance has recommended that we close the petition. Are members content to do so?

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?