Chamber and committees

PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Clerkin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay for all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt that is owed by homeless people for temporary accommodation to local authorities.

Since our previous consideration of the petition, the Scottish Government’s temporary accommodation task and finish group published its report on 30 March this year. The group made two recommendations about charges for temporary accommodation, and those are available in the clerk’s note. In response to our recent correspondence, the Scottish Government stated that

“provisions to prohibit local authorities from charging individuals for the provision of temporary accommodation have not been considered for inclusion”

in the housing bill, and that it has

“no plans to pay for homeless temporary accommodation nor waive the outstanding debt owed”.

Shelter Scotland’s written submission outlines a number of issues, including its view that a change in the financing of temporary accommodation is overdue. The petitioner’s recent submissions highlight concerns about the repossession of family homes resulting in record amounts of homelessness in Scotland, and his submission outlines information that has been received through a freedom of information request to Glasgow City Council. He states that the system is “unworkable and broken now” and that means that thousands of people need help immediately.

I invite colleagues to suggest any way in which we might proceed.

Not on a motorcycle, I trust. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I am sure that cups of coffee or something stronger have been raised in toast to your splendid defence.

I do not disagree with any of that. Where good practice is in place, all the positive attributes and advantages that were identified in everything that you have said apply. The issue is simply that, where that is perhaps not the case, residents find themselves in a difficult position—they are not entirely clear as to what they can do, and they find that quite a difficult atmosphere can obtain in trying to take matters forward. So, with an understanding of the very valuable work that is done, are we nonetheless content to proceed on the basis that has been recommended?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. We will keep the petition open and proceed accordingly.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which, PE1887, was lodged by Nicola Murray and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific offence that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage.

At our previous consideration of the petition, on 23 November 2022, we heard evidence from the petitioner, Nicola Murray, and key stakeholders. The committee agreed to recommend that the Scottish Government creates a specific statutory offence and/or aggravator for causing miscarriage through acts of domestic violence. We also recommended that, in its forthcoming report on the provisions of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, the Scottish Government should include a review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the current legal framework in bringing forward and prosecuting charges where miscarriage is caused.

The committee also wrote to the Scottish Sentencing Council, requesting that the evidence gathered be taken into account as part of the council’s development of sentencing guidelines. We have since had confirmation from the SSC that it will consider the committee’s evidence as part of its work.

The response from the then Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans was that he would take time to fully consider the implications of any proposed changes before considering any next steps, including the potential for wider consultation. He said that officials were already exploring potential policy options and that he would welcome meeting the petitioner once that work is concluded. The cabinet secretary’s response refers to a recent report on the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 but notes that it

“does not include a review of the effectiveness of the current framework in bringing forward and prosecuting charges where miscarriage is caused.”

A little bit of work has taken place and been forthcoming in the wake of the evidence that we took from Nicola Murray. Do members have any questions, comments or suggestions that we might consider in relation to that?

PE1971, on taking robust action to stop motorcycle theft, was lodged by Kenneth Clayton. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to prevent and reduce motorcycle theft by empowering the police to pursue and tactically engage thieves, and by reviewing sentencing policy to allow the courts to implement tougher punishment for those convicted of motorcycle theft, including the use of mandatory custodial sentences for those carrying weapons or groups who threaten individuals with violence.

We most recently considered the petition on 21 December, when we agreed to seek information from Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Authority and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Police Scotland has provided further detail on operation Soteria, which focused on tackling motorcycle theft and related antisocial behaviour across Edinburgh. Police Scotland also shared information on the work that its prevention, interventions and partnership team, in collaboration with others, is taking forward on the issue, which members will have read with interest.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service noted that there is no specific common-law offence of theft of a motorcycle but that it had used its database to identify 47 charges related to motorcycle theft over the past five years. Interestingly, it also noted that 32 per cent of the relevant police reports originated from the Edinburgh area, where operation Soteria was in place.

The Scottish Police Authority’s response mentions that recent reports highlight an overall increase in vehicle crime but that that is not specifically attributed to motorcycle theft. The SPA also noted that, in the past year, more than 1,800 motorcycle riders have been stopped in order to engage, educate and encourage what are described as appropriate attitudes and behaviours on the road.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

What would be the best way to frame that question? Should we ask the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that question at the same time as we make the inquiry that Mr Ewing has suggested? Are we asking whether it can give any indication of the current volume of cases and the waiting times that are associated with such charges getting to court?

Do we agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content for the committee to write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to establish what happened in relation to the prosecutions?

Foysol Choudhury wants to say something.

That brings us to the last of this morning’s new petitions. PE2006, which was lodged by Ewan Miller, is on reviewing and simplifying the legislation in relation to the dismissal of property factors. Forgive me for the slightly complicated introduction as I speak to the petition. To clarify a jargon term for the benefit of anybody listening, property factors manage the maintenance and repair of common property and communal areas in flats and housing estates on behalf of the home owners and residents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors, or to introduce regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal, which is a free dispute resolution service, powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors.

In his submission, the petitioner, as the chair of a local residents association, explains his experience of a struggle to dismiss a property factor. He argues that the legal framework around the process is complex and makes the dismissal of property factors unreasonably difficult.

The SPICe briefing explains that dismissal of property factors can, indeed, be a convoluted process, as the relevant legislation is complicated and needs to be read in conjunction with the title deeds of a particular estate. There can also be complicated legal questions on whether conditions in title deeds are enforceable. As a result, it may often be necessary to seek legal advice. Court actions may also be necessary if a dispute between home owners and a property factor cannot be resolved. Of course, all that can be quite an expensive consideration for those involved.

The briefing notes various inquiries into the system over the years, particularly in relation to landowning maintenance companies, which are property factors that own the land that they maintain—normally, open spaces on housing estates—and operate in a particularly complex legal environment.

In 2013, the Scottish Government stated:

“doing nothing is not an option, given the concerns in this area”.

At the same time, it indicated a preference to prepare a voluntary code of practice on dismissing and replacing landowning maintenance companies rather than to legislate. However, the code is yet to be introduced and, on 30 June 2022, Ash Regan MSP, the then Minister for Community Safety, responded to a parliamentary question on the timeframe, saying that the Government had prepared a draft code and planned to seek the views of stakeholders before it proceeded with publication.

It should be noted that the new code is intended to cover only landowning factors. With regard to non-landowning factors, the Scottish Government, in its submission, states that it has

“no plans to amend the legislation”

and highlights that the current regulations require factors to provide home owners with “clear information” on the dismissal process.

As a constituency MSP, I have come across this issue and have found the whole business almost impenetrable. It is extraordinarily difficult, even for residents associations that are dealing with factors, to be confident that they can proceed, as they are confronted with what are sometimes quite threatening suggestions of the costs for which they may be liable.

Given the period over which the issue has been raised and the comprehensive lack of progress, I wonder what colleagues think.

PE1928, which was lodged by David Gallant, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. We last considered the petition on 21 December 2022, when we heard evidence from the petitioner and Sight Scotland, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

At the time, we agreed to wait until responses had been received from the local authorities that offer discount fares for companion travel before writing to the Scottish Government. I am pleased to say that we have now received responses from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, West Lothian Council and Fife Council. Those responses highlight the financial pressures that are faced in operating the existing concessionary fares travel scheme, with West Lothian Council actually removing its rail concession scheme as part of its budget-saving measures.

Previously, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration it is giving to introducing a national policy for companion rail travel—you may recall that there were issues depending on where people accessed and alighted from trains—and to ask it to confirm that the fair fares review would consider free travel for companions and people with disabilities.

We have received a submission from the petitioner ahead of this morning’s meeting. He does not feel that the local authorities’ responses were relevant to the aims of his petition and has suggested that free rail travel for disabled people could be restricted to specific routes or localities in order to benefit those who live in more rural areas.

In the light of the comments that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions relating to the petition that we might consider for further action?