³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It is helpful to know that the Government is alive to the issue. We will obviously work through it, in due course.

I will touch on a particular issue that the committee has highlighted before, and which touches on the discussions that we have had about motor vehicles, as an area of particular focus. In its delegated powers report on the bill, the committee recommended that in relation to section 53(8), on acquisition in good faith of motor vehicles, instruments should be subject to affirmative procedure. The Government suggested in its response to the committee’s letter on that power that it is open to changing that at stage 2. Is that still the case?

Inevitably, the minimum threshold will be a somewhat arbitrary figure, although modelling can be undertaken on, for example, the basket of typical household goods, which could assess the debt loadings that a typical household might take out on consumer goods.

One remedy that we have been considering is the inclusion of an automatic deflator in the legislation. In the context of the current high-inflation environment, the figure that would eventually be arrived at would automatically adjust to the retail price index or consumer price index, over time. Secondary legislation would not be required to uprate the amount, which would inevitably lag behind reality. Would the Government give consideration to that?

On that, inevitably we will come upon distressing situations in which a small business start-up might have overleveraged or might have a particularly aggressive lender that is seeking to cause destruction. That happened quite commonly after the credit crunch. A particularly egregious example was RBS, which destroyed many businesses. Had a more patient approach been taken, we could have had far more success and resilience in our economy.

It has been highlighted that a lender would not need a court order in order to seize items that had been pledged by a sole trader or a small business even if they had missed only one payment. In a cash-flow situation that was caused, for example, by a spike in energy bills such as we are seeing at the moment, a business might have to defer payment, but that could destroy the business overnight. Will the Government consider strengthening the position? Will there be a safeguard in the legal system, at least to allow for pleas to be made about the circumstances, before a lender is allowed to arrest property that could be critical to a business?

I have engaged with the petitioner on the petition, which I believe is known as Stephanie’s petition. Stephanie Bonner is a constituent who lost her son three years ago in what was recorded as an unexplained death. The family has had no answers, has been let down by the authorities and is awaiting the outcome of a review by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner into the handling of the case. Nothing that I say today will do justice to the importance of the petition.

I am of the opinion that the committee should invite Stephanie Bonner to give evidence on her experience since the tragic passing of her son three years ago. I gave a commitment to the petitioner that I would encourage the committee to invite Stephanie to the committee at the earliest opportunity. Today’s meeting is the first opportunity that I have had to stand by that commitment.

Fundamentally, the petition is about improving the way in which unexplained deaths are dealt with. In order to do that, it is vital that the committee hears at first hand from those with experience of the current system and its flaws, and about the impact that that can have on families who are grieving and seeking answers and closure.

You seem to have a clear set of asks. Have you presented a counter-proposal to Glasgow City Council and, if so, has that been well received or has the council ignored what you have tried to say about a reasonable set of counter-measures to what is clearly quite a blunt instrument which has already caused a 20 per cent reduction in the number of licences in the city?

A particular focus of antisocial behaviour has been St Enoch square and what was formerly known as the four corners area of Glasgow around Argyle Street and under the Hielanman’s umbrella, but I am sure that the petitioner will have suggestions, too.

I concur with your and Ms Mochan’s comments, convener. There is an important need to keep the petition open. It is one thing to have the Government carry out a review, but it is the Parliament’s role to keep the Government under scrutiny, and the committee has an important function in that regard. The issue is clearly a live item of business that the committee has been attending to, and we are therefore well placed to perform that role. It would also be helpful to inform the lead committee that we intend to do that.

Thank you for that insight, Mr Fleming. It seems that the financial solution sits with the Scottish Government as regards the Energy Saving Trust products that are offered via the Government. If we are able to present a counter-proposal to the Government, that could potentially offer a way to deal with the intransigence that you have experienced at a council level. It seems that there is not much appetite for moving any further in terms of the deadlines, but perhaps there could be a remedy here that is similar to the financial remedy that Manchester has reached. Could we perhaps consider taking that forward?

The petition was lodged following a spate of violence in Glasgow city centre and surrounding areas that the petitioner brought to my attention earlier in the year. Since then, there have been several instances in which the level of violence on display has been absolutely horrifying, most notably in the case of 13-year-old Abbie Jarvis. I do not want to get into the specifics of the case—legal proceedings are under way and I do not want to prejudice them—but I point out that, following media coverage, this petition has become known as Abbie’s petition, and I know that my colleague Pauline McNeill MSP has been engaging with Abbie’s family to see what can be done to support them.

I would therefore like the petition to be kept open and progressed. I know that the Government has responded by setting out the measures that it is taking to try to reduce youth violence in Scotland, but I put it to the committee that those measures have not been adequate and that in big cities such as Glasgow—particularly in the city centre—the situation is getting worse. From my conversations with Police Scotland and the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, it appears that there is no one reason for the recent increase; indeed, the problem is multifaceted. I therefore think that the committee will benefit from hearing from the likes of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and, if they wish to appear before us, families who have been directly impacted by youth violence.

I propose that we invite Shelter Scotland to make a submission on the petition, as it might have some important insights.