Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next petition is PE1976, which was lodged by Derek James Brown. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person is certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

The Scottish Government’s recent submission acknowledges the differing approaches to the administration of council tax disregard and says that officials are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to encourage local authorities to adopt a common approach. Colleagues will remember that we established that it was quite different depending on where you lived in Scotland whether you got that benefit redress. The submission was sent in May and said that the COSLA leadership was scheduled to consider the proposal “in the coming weeks.”

According to Alzheimer Scotland, the Scottish ministers have the power, through secondary legislation, to amend or remove the statutory test that requires applicants for council tax discount who have severe mental impairment to be eligible for a qualifying state benefit. Alzheimer Scotland considers that the requirement is unnecessary and adds unfairness to the application process, particularly for individuals who have dementia. Alzheimer Scotland wants entitlement to a discount or exemption to be uniform across Scotland and wants guidance to be developed to ensure the fair application of the legislation.

The petitioner’s most recent written submission draws attention to his petition to the United Kingdom Parliament, as well as to a UK Government response that states that councils can apply discretionary council tax discounts or exemptions in circumstances where individuals with a severe mental impairment have not demonstrated entitlement to a qualifying benefit. There has been a move in that direction in the rest of the UK, where people obviously feel that the legislation allows that to take place. What might we further do, colleagues? Are there any suggestions?

Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. [Interruption.]

We are expecting Paul Sweeney and Mark Ruskell to join us. Mark is here. Are you going to speak long enough for Mr Sweeney to get here, Mr Ruskell, or should we take another petition first? I think that Mr Sweeney wants to speak to the next one, too, so I could race on and see where I get to. Therefore, we would consider petition 2030, which is to review cultural funding arrangements to enable Scotland to contribute to the—[Interruption.]

Ah. We do not need to do that.

Gentlemen—if you would like to take your seats, we will deal with item 4. Before we consider the new petitions, I say to anybody who has lodged a petition and is watching, and to anybody who is just following our proceedings, that before we consider a petition we invite the Scottish Government and the impartial research service within the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Parliament information centre—to offer comment to colleagues on the committee so that we have the background, as we consider any new petition.

Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. Did you recognise the 6,000 figure? Did that seem familiar to you?

Who specifically might we contact?

Item 2 is the consideration of continued petitions. I should start by offering apologies from two of our colleagues. David Torrance, the deputy convener, and Fergus Ewing are both unwell and not able to be with us. Unfortunately, the Scottish National Party substitute is not available to be with us, either, so there are just three of us considering the petitions this morning. However, our colleagues have obviously received the papers and have had an opportunity to contribute any thinking that they might have to our deliberations.

That is a fair point. Are we content with following up, keeping the petition open and taking it forward with those further lines of inquiry?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. I know that you are not here to give evidence, but I was going to ask a question about the number of people who might be involved, and you have answered it. I think that you have quantified that at around 6,000.

I suppose that the other potential reason, which you did not volunteer, is that this request has been blended in with other requests for extension to the scheme and, therefore, rather than moving on any, the Government moves on none, in case it is then used as the basis for an argument in another area of extension. I am not arguing that that would be the right thing to do, but I wonder whether that is also in the minds of people who have not taken this issue forward.

I am happy to include that, as well.

We could write to the Government asking what the outcome of any of that was. That would be perfectly reasonable, particularly in relation to this point. Is there anything else that we could do?

The next petition is PE1977, which was lodged by Helen Duncan. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the “National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2021” to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children.

We previously considered PE1977 at our meeting on 18 January—although it seems to be fresher in my mind than that; the year has gone in—when we agreed to seek views from a number of stakeholders.

We have received responses from Shared Parenting Scotland, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, The Promise Scotland, and CELCIS—Scotland’s Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection. Many of the responses highlight the need for discretion and flexibility in relation to informing parents about welfare concerns, and note that there are some circumstances in which an obligation to inform a father risks undermining efforts to protect the safety and wellbeing of the child or children.

Shared Parenting Scotland suggests that there is already an obligation on social work and other agencies to inform both parents of concerns about their children, and questions why that is not happening in practice.

According to CELCIS, existing legislation and guidance are sufficient to support best practice, and a more effective way to address the issues that are raised by the petition would be through improvements to workforce learning, knowledge and skills in this area.

In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions?