Chamber and committees

We took evidence from the minister prior to your joining the committee, but there is every reason to suggest that we might wish to have the minister back.

She stole your thunder.

PE1892, which was lodged by Evelyn Baginski, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make attacks by one dog on another dog a crime and subject to a penalty requiring the owner to pay a fine and reimburse any expenses related to the incident.

The initial Scottish Government response outlined existing legislation and recent consultations relevant to the petition, including stating that people and assistance dogs are protected under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Under the 1991 act, an attack on another dog could be considered dangerous if the test for the offence is met, including reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person or an assistance dog. One response to the consultation in the 1991 act review highlighted that it did not raise the issue of whether legislation should be extended to cover attacks on another dog.

The Scottish Government’s most recent response sets out the rationale for including assistance dogs in the 1991 act, stating that

“if an assistance dog is attacked, the assisted person may suffer a significant reduction in freedom through either temporary loss of a dog whilst it recovers or permanent retirement and the resultant wait for a replacement dog.”

The submission highlights the Scottish Government’s intention to undertake a review of the 1991 act in the near future.

Information has been provided by Polmont veterinary clinic on injuries and associated costs from dog attacks on other dogs, based on details from neighbouring clinics. The costs are detailed in your papers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE1897, which was lodged by Richard Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the procedures for the collection of council tax that apply when a person has difficulty in making payment. The committee sought views from stakeholders after its last consideration of the petition and to date responses have been received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Citizens Advice Scotland and Social Security Scotland.

In response to the petitioner’s concerns about individuals not receiving a council tax notice, COSLA suggests that, based on the reliability of postal services and the availability of e-billing, that circumstance should be

“an exception rather than the norm.”

Citizens Advice Scotland clarifies a number of points made by the petitioner and makes suggestions for improvements to the council tax system, including a review of the time between the point someone falls behind and the issuing of a summary warrant, as it believes that that is currently “very short”; a review of whether liability for the whole year’s council tax should be applied when someone falls one month behind; and a review of how council tax reduction is promoted and ensuring that all councils have an automatic entitlement for those on qualifying benefits.

The committee asked Social Security Scotland whether systems would be designed to automatically notify individuals if they are eligible for a council tax reduction. In its response, Social Security Scotland states that the Scottish Government has commenced conversations with local authorities about opportunities that might exist to make access to entitlements automatic for clients. One example of that is that Social Security Scotland will explore automatic entitlement to free school meals, school clothing grants and council tax reduction for those who are eligible for Scottish child payment.

I open up the discussion for comments from colleagues.

There are several increasingly focused and quite serious issues.

Would anybody else like to come in?

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.