Official Report 580KB pdf
Deposit Return Scheme (PE2023)
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.
Thank you, convener.
Considering the Government’s position and the fact that the scheme has been delayed until October 2025, I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has paused the introduction of the deposit return scheme until October 2025.
The petitioner would, of course, have the opportunity to lodge a fresh petition for consideration by the committee at that time, depending on the Government’s decision.
It is ironic that, in one respect at least, we have achieved what the petitioner wanted before the petition has even been considered. That must be something that—
A triumph.
Perhaps it is not a triumph, but it is certainly unusual. However, it is, of course, just a referral.
I agree with Mr Torrance for the reason that my understanding is that the lead committee is still considering the issue as live and is unlikely to cease doing so. It has the bit between its teeth, it has been considering the matter in detail, and it would be wrong for us to start to take on any serious consideration of a matter to which a lead committee has devoted a huge amount of time and effort. I do not know whether the issue is still live, but there is certainly still public debate about it.
Most recently, the UK Government suggested 2026 and not 2025. I believe that the minister has resisted that.
All those matters will almost certainly be raised by members of the lead committee, so it would be otiose for us to stick our neb in. The petitioner is quite entitled to go to the lead committee and make representations to his MSP to that effect. They would be the more appropriate vehicle to raise these issues with.
I worked with Mr Golden and other members on the matter, and I would be interested to hear what he thinks. However, that is my honest view, despite the fact that I would very much like to question the minister. Perhaps that is for another time and another day.
I agree that we should close the petition, at least partly on the basis that we do not know for sure the scope and form of what we would be stopping. There is quite a changing landscape in respect of extended producer responsibility and a delay to the rest of the UK scheme to 2026, which may or may not have implications for us in Scotland. There is also the potential for a different form of deposit return scheme via the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which we wait to see amendments for. Therefore, it is not clear to me exactly what we would be stopping. The petitioner might look kindly on a new form of deposit return scheme, if it was a digital one and there was something in it about refillables. However, I think that, until we and the petitioner know what we would be stopping, we have no option but to close the petition.
There seems to be a fairly consensual view among colleagues. Are members content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
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.
Performance-enhancing Drugs (Public Information) (PE2024)
Our second new petition, PE2024, which was lodged by Cael Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of using steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators, or SARMs, and other performance-enhancing drugs, or PEDs, which should include a particular focus on the impact on young people aged 16 to 25; to work with community learning and development practitioners, gyms and community coaches to raise awareness; and to develop a public health campaign to highlight the negative impacts of PEDs and encourage regular health check-ups for users, and a screening programme to allow users to test the safety of their PEDs.
Cael tells us that one of his friends was admitted to hospital with a life-threatening issue resulting from steroid use. Having seen many people at his gym use performance-enhancing drugs without any apparent impact, Cael’s friend had been unaware of the severity of the impact that they can cause. Cael notes that that was not an isolated incident and raises concerns about how easily available and widely promoted the drugs are, without information about negative impacts being provided.
The SPICe briefing sets out the distinction between anabolic steroids, which are class C drugs that can be prescribed by pharmacists for personal use, and selective androgen receptor modulators, which can be legally purchased in the UK without age restrictions. The latter are gaining popularity, partly due to heavy promotion on social media.
The Scottish Government’s response outlines the work that the Scottish Drugs Forum is doing to provide information and training on the matter. The response also states the Government’s commitment to developing its public health surveillance data to better understand drug trends and says that that work could be further enhanced to include the substances that the petition highlights. It refers to a multi-agency working group, whose work includes the development of a set of standards to support young people with their drug use.
We have received a further submission from the petitioner, which welcomes some of the activity set out by the Government but raises concerns that the current approach does not address the main harms that are associated with performance-enhancing drugs, namely hepatic, kidney and cardiovascular disorders.
The petitioner has drawn an important issue to the committee’s attention. What thoughts do members have on how we might approach it?
I wonder whether the committee would like to continue the petition and write to UK Anti-Doping, Anabolic Steroids UK and the Scottish Drugs Forum seeking their views on the action that is called for in the petition. I would like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the petitioner’s submission and seek clarity on the membership and terms of reference of the multi-agency working group.
I endorse that. I was struck by the detailed response that the petitioner gave to the Scottish Government’s main response. As well as saying that the Scottish Government does not seem to be covering the issues that he believes are relevant, he says that the multi-agency working group to which the Scottish Government refers might not include the right people, and he goes through who they might be.
I do not know much about the area, but the petitioner is basically saying that there are young people between 16 and 25 who go to gyms and have access to steroids with no guidance or information about how to use them and what the risks are. I think that he is saying that people in that world, who are in charge of running gyms and have a medical background, for instance, should be involved in the multi-agency working group.
When we write to the Scottish Government, could we specifically ask about the range of suggestions that the petitioner made so that we can get answers on them now? I suspect that, if we did not, we would get the same points from the petitioner again, who might feel that we have not pursued the substantive and concrete points that he made in his response.
I am content with that. Are members content with it?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition will remain open and we will write to the various organisations suggested.
Victims of Domestic Violence (PE2025)
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.
10:30The 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?
I hope that the committee will keep the petition open and dig into it a bit more. In that case, I hope that we would write to Scottish Women’s Aid, the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and the Law Society of Scotland to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for. I would like the committee to write to the Scottish Law Commission to seek an update on the review of civil remedies for domestic abuse, including clarification on whether the issues that are raised by the petitioner will be included in the scope of the review. I would also like the committee to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification of when part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 will be fully implemented.
As there are no further suggestions, are committee members content with those recommended actions?
Members indicated agreement.
Therefore, the petition will remain open and we will again endeavour to understand the thinking of the various organisations to whom we will now write, in the first instance.
Council Tax Discounts (Second Homes and Vacant Properties) (PE2026)
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?
The committee could write to the Scottish Government to seek a summary response of the recent consultation on council tax for second and empty homes, request details of the future relevant work planned by the joint working group on sources of local government funding and council tax reform, and ask for the Government’s view on making the property owner liable for payment of council tax in the light of the points that were raised in the petitioner’s recent submission. The committee could also write to Citizens Advice Scotland and Shelter Scotland to seek their views on the actions that are called for in the petition.
Colleagues, are we content to support those suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
Changing Places Toilet Fund (PE2027)
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.
I am very grateful to the committee for hearing me this morning. I am convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on changing places toilets, which was newly established this session, so I have had an opportunity to hear from a number of stakeholders who are interested in the provision of changing places toilets across the country.
I am sure that colleagues will be aware of the great benefits that such facilities bring to communities across Scotland. As well as being fundamentally the right thing to do, the putting in place of such a facility benefits the whole community. Where such facilities are not in place, many families feel that they cannot be spontaneous and cannot enjoy the same access to tourism and leisure activities that others do. Therefore, the provision of changing places toilets benefits the wider economy.
The convener might be aware of the changing places facility in Rouken Glen park in his constituency, which opened only recently. It has increased the number of visits, particularly by families who have disabled children, which shows the impact that the provision of such a facility can have.
In speaking to the petition, I must note the challenge that is faced. A party-political pledge was made in the SNP’s manifesto; it was also a feature of the 2021-22 programme for government that a £10 million fund would be rolled out. Evidently, that has not yet happened. I appreciate what the minister has said about financial constraints and challenges, but I believe that the Government is still committed to rolling out that funding by the end of the parliamentary session. I think that what people want is detail from the Government about its intentions for the fund, how applications might be made to it and what structure the process might take. That would go some way towards making people feel confident that the fund will be put in place.
The petitioner runs a business and is keen, as a business owner, to make a contribution, which she wants to be supplemented by capital funding for the wider community. There are many third sector organisations and people who run their own businesses who are interested in putting in some of their own funds in order to make a changing places toilet a reality, but who require additional funding from the Government.
There is a huge opportunity here. People are concerned that, as we approach the midway point of the parliamentary session, progress does not seem to have been made. Progress has been made in other parts of the UK—a £30 million fund has been distributed in England and is entering its second phase—so Scotland is falling behind in the availability of changing places toilets. That brings us back to the economic argument. People might choose to holiday in other places where there is greater provision.
I simply wish to represent the views of the members of the CPG and ask the committee to give the petition serious consideration and to look, at least, at how such provision might be structured.
Thank you. I think that you are quite right—the Government lit the fuse of expectation without giving us the bang of delivery on an issue on which the public expected progress.
Do colleagues have any suggestions?
I wonder whether we could write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to highlight the equality and welfare issues that the petitioner has raised in her recent submission and to ask when the promised £10 million will be allocated to the changing places toilet fund and when it will be distributed. Perhaps we could also highlight to the petitioner the existence of the rural tourism infrastructure fund, which is available to be used to build new toilets or to provide upgrades to existing facilities. That might be a route for the Tyndrum group to go down.
Do colleagues have any other suggestions?
I endorse David Torrance’s suggestion and support Paul O’Kane’s comments.
I have heard from constituents who are parents of a child with profound disabilities, who feel that they cannot travel south of Inverness because there are no facilities on the A9 that are suitable for their child. I thought that I would mention that, because, although the petition relates to the situation in Tyndrum, which is over on the A82 in the west, the issue is one that substantially affects rural Scotland, as the petitioner herself says.
Thank you. We welcome the petition. Are members content to keep it open and to begin our investigations by following the suggestions that have been made?
Members indicated agreement.
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.
10:41 Meeting continued in private until 11:00.Air ais
Continued Petitions