Chamber and committees

PE1898, which is our final continued petition this morning, was lodged by Julia Gow. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it a crime for a stranger to enter someone’s home without permission or a warrant.

A response from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlights that the individual facts and circumstances of each case are considered when assessing whether to prosecute. It provides a non-exhaustive list of various offences that may be relevant in a circumstance where a person enters the home of another person without their permission.

Similarly, Police Scotland stated that cases are dealt with according to the circumstances and evidence presented, stating that it is unaware of any scenarios where the existing law is insufficient to deal with matters criminally if required.

The petitioner’s response recognises that there are offences that may cover specific circumstances but emphasises that no law currently exists for the specific circumstance that is outlined in her petition. She states that that is frustrating.

Do colleagues have any comments?

I note that Police Scotland does not believe there are scenarios in which it has insufficient powers. Again, I am not sure that I have bottomed out what the extent of the issue might be but, given what Police Scotland has said and the evidence in the responses that we have received, I think that it is unlikely that the Scottish Government is minded to take the issues further forward. Mr Torrance has suggested that we close the petition under rule 15.7. Do colleagues support that?

Members indicated agreement.

Under item 3, we have just one new petition to consider. As I say to any petitioner tuning in for the first time, in advance of our consideration of a new petition we send it to the Scottish Government to seek its views so that our discussion is just a little bit better informed before we launch into consideration of it.

PE1913 has been lodged by Wendy Swain and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department in Social Security Scotland that will fast-track future adult disability payment applications for people with a cancer diagnosis while they are undergoing treatment.

I am delighted to welcome Martin Whitfield, who is joining the committee on his first visit to the public petitions process, I think. We will hear from him in a moment, but first I will provide some further background on the petition.

Adult disability payment will replace personal independence payment in 2022. The Scottish Government’s submission states that the definition of terminal illness will be changed under ADP to remove arbitrary time constraints and ensure that decisions are better informed by clinical judgment. Research into the impact of the new definition has revealed that the number of people with cancer accessing ADP using the fast-track process will more than double compared to Department for Work and Pensions fast tracking.

It is estimated that the number of terminally ill ADP recipients who have cancer will increase from 2,800 to approximately 8,200 under the new definition—a whopping increase—and it is projected that a majority of ADP recipients with cancer, 62 per cent, will be able to use fast-tracked processes, compared with less than a third who were able to do so under PIP. Further changes to the delivery of disability benefits through ADP are detailed in the clerk’s note. The Scottish Government has stated that it does not support an additional fast-track route specifically for people with cancer and that its approach will not prioritise any single condition over another.

The petitioner shares the experience of her family member who has incurable blood cancer and who has been told that his illness is not affecting his life enough for him to receive PIP.

Before the committee considers the petition, I welcome Martin Whitfield and invite him to speak in support of it.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank members for their contributions.

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development.

The committee wrote to the Scottish Government asking whether the Scottish Government could use? existing ?planning powers to ?provide incentives ?for developers to offer community shared ownership. The Scottish Government’s response highlights good-practice guidance, which indicates that planning authorities

“should not seek to secure shared ownership though the use of planning conditions or obligations”.

The Energy Saving Trust suggested that the UK Government’s contracts for difference could be a route to making community shared ownership offers mandatory. The trust notes that due to competitive bidding rounds, opportunities for community shared ownership could be threatened by bidders cutting costs to try to win contracts. It was suggested that community shared ownership could be protected if additional points in the contract evaluation were awarded to bidders for offering community shared ownership.

The petitioner raises a number of additional issues. Her view is that some developers refuse to interact with the local community, some refuse to offer community shared ownership, and others might make community shared ownership offers that do not meet the definition of community shared ownership as defined by the Scottish Government. The Energy Saving Trust and the petitioner make a number of recommendations for improvement: they are detailed in the clerk’s note in your papers.

Do any other members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We have decided that we will invite the cabinet secretary to come in relation to petition PE1864, which is a different aspect of the whole wind farm debate, so I think it would be perfectly reasonable to combine this petition with that on that occasion.

That is a novel suggestion, but yes, the issues are very important. In the first instance, we will seek to take evidence from the petitioner and the bodies that Ruth Maguire suggested. We will write to the Scottish Sentencing Council, drawing its attention to the issues involved and the evidence that we might seek from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, while trying to fathom and bottom out the scope of the potential issue that we are addressing here. It is a very important issue. In the first instance, let us take more evidence, but it might well lead to recommendations that could form the basis of initiatives that others might wish to take forward thereafter.

I think that that is right. I was almost going to ask, “Are we able to initiate bills?” but I think that, as a committee, we are. It is perfectly open to us, but we will get a bit further down the road before we get to that.

Are we agreed in the first instance to hear evidence from the petitioner and relevant stakeholders?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes. The committee had delegated it to me to decide on the appropriate minister—you are quite right. It could be either minister in that event.

Yes, the same thought had occurred to me: why is it not allowed? Therefore that is very much a question that you could put to the appropriate minister. If colleagues are happy to again delegate determining who that is to me, we will proceed on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.