Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will do that as well. Thank you very much.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. The next public meeting will take place on Wednesday 14 September 2022, with or without Mr Smokey as a guest. Thank you all.

What is your wider experience of others who have experienced a similar situation?

Colleagues, can I have an indication of those who might like to speak? I will come to Paul Sweeney first.

Thank you. Colleagues, on this occasion, I am quite happy to write to the Scottish Government along the lines suggested by Rhoda Grant. Once we have done that and seen the response, we will be in a better position to decide what we can do further in relation to the petition. I certainly think that we should suggest to the petitioner that, in due course, after we have taken this element of the petition forward, she might want to monitor the work of this group and see whether a fresh petition is required at a later date.

In the first instance, however, we will write to the Scottish Government along the lines suggested. Thank you for that suggestion, Rhoda.

Thank you, Mr Stewart. Does that meet with the general approval of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service says that there have been six cases in which domestic abuse led to the loss of a child. You—a very strong person, if I may say so—obviously have a family and have come here this morning supported by your mother. However, I imagine that the circumstances for some of the other women must be very different, with the lack of a support network leaving them hugely exposed. In relation to some of the women with whom you are engaged, I wonder whether that lack of direction when their case is not taken seriously after being reported leaves them feeling exposed and at further risk.

Do you feel that that is a very significant factor in the underreporting, or the non-pursuit, of such cases?

Colleagues, are we so minded?

Members indicated agreement.

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

We considered this petition, too, on 15 June. During the evidence session, the committee raised the importance of community shared ownership as a method of raising funds at local level for people and their communities. The committee questioned whether the minister had engaged with the UK Government—these are issues again that Paul Sweeney has just raised—to seek approval for amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 so that it can mandate community shared ownership. The minister indicated that such conversations had not taken place in relation to community energy. We have also had a recent submission from the petitioner reiterating her view that raising a land tax could be a route to mandate community shared ownership.

I am happy to suggest that we write to the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth to follow up on those outstanding issues and, again, to raise the issue of any recent discussions that the Scottish Government may have had with the UK Government in relation to the issues that are raised in the petition. I am happy to ask the minister what role he thinks that local place plans and early community engagement in the planning process can play. I am also happy that we ask the minister for his views on the petitioner’s suggestion that developers must offer and secure 15 per cent community shared ownership investment. Are there any further suggestions from the committee? I think Fergus Ewing wants to come in.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1930—1, 9, 3, 0: we are getting to my mother’s age, now. It has been lodged by George Eckton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers, as a matter of course, be given information on the cheapest possible fare, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering the same.

Members will be aware that our predecessor committee considered a similar petition from Mr Eckton in the previous session. That petition was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had committed to introducing an obligation on the operator to provide customers with clear and straightforward information on all fare options, including identification of the cheapest possible fare.

In his written submission accompanying the petition, Mr Eckton highlights that the previous commitment that was made by the Scottish Government is yet to be fulfilled. He has suggested that, because ScotRail is now in public ownership and is the property of the Scottish Government, it should be subject to the consumer duty. Mr Eckton has also suggested amending the price promise guarantee, to further assist passengers in accessing the lowest possible fare for their journey.

I wonder whether colleagues have, having balanced and considered the evidence, any suggestions for action or comments. Paul Sweeney looks like he is bursting to step forward with a suggestion, although I might have misread his signs.