���˿���

All of which is noted.

I point out that the petition was launched in September 2022, which makes it something of a teenager in our schedule of petitions. If that is a pensioner petition then, by that definition, some of our petitions are out of the Jurassic period.

We can agree on that point.

Minister, thank you very much. We do not need detain you any longer. I think that the petitioner’s aims are potentially in hand and can be resolved. I am grateful to you for that and for joining us with your colleagues this morning.

Welcome back. We continue our consideration of existing petitions. PE1973, on ending the use of sheriffs’ discretion when ruling on civil cases and providing clear legal guidance on the division of assets, was lodged by Sandy Izatt. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and to provide greater clarity on the division of assets in cases of cohabiting couples who are separating by removing the use of sheriffs’ discretion rulings in civil cases; providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples; allowing appeals to be heard when it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong but has used their discretion to prevent an appeal, at no cost to the appellant; and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We have received a response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety—who was just with us—in which she wrote that she was “unable to provide” an anticipated timescale for introducing a bill on cohabitation. The minister confirmed that Scottish Government officials were beginning “detailed work” on the Scottish Law Commission report on cohabitation, including an assessment of whether it would be helpful for the Government to consult on the commission’s recommendations.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, who expressed his concern about the vagueness of the information that we have received on the issue and highlighted his continued concern about the use of sheriffs’ discretion in preventing appeals.

In the light of what we have heard about the petition’s progress—the Government will move forward but does not know when it will do so, and the petitioner feels that matters remain a little vague—what are committee members’ views?

Our next petitions, which were lodged by Derek Noble, are coupled. PE1974 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A890 as a trunk road and to resolve the safety problems associated with the Stromeferry bypass, and PE1980 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to adopt the A832 between Achnasheen and Gorstan as a trunk road, thereby connecting that route to the existing trunk road network.

We last considered the petitions at our meeting on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Transport, who is now the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. The cabinet secretary has responded to our request for clarity by stating that the strategic transport projects review 2

“considered local roads to be ‘out of scope’ unless they provided direct access to a major port or airport; linked to a nationally significant National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) development site; or where a local road intersected a trunk road where bus priority or active travel measures were proposed.”

The cabinet secretary has said that it was considered that

“neither the A890 or A832 met these criteria for consideration as part of the strategic transport network and were duly not included as part of the appraisal or STPR2 final recommendations.”

We have been joined by Rhoda Grant. The committee is wrestling with a fairly direct response to the aims of the petitions from the cabinet secretary, but we would be happy to hear anything that you might like to say.

The Government has given a clear direction on its position. As a committee, we have to be satisfied that we have a realistic opportunity to advance matters. I am not persuaded that we have, but Rhoda Grant’s testimony on the consequences will be on the official record of the Parliament. The committee is prepared to summarise that view unanimously and express it to the Government, with the hope that it might take further action. That is not our normal way of doing things, but we would be putting in place, by exception, a consequential action.

I do not find that easy but, given the volume of petitions that we have to consider, we have to be satisfied that there is a real prospect of advancing matters. We have other petitions that Rhoda Grant is concerned with and for which there might be greater prospects.

The circumstances are appalling, but I thank Derek Noble for bringing the petitions before us. Obviously, we will see whether anything at all comes from our action, but, regrettably, I feel that that is the position that we are in.

Do members agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

That seems very sensible and consistent with the suggestions that have been made by the petitioners. Are committee members content to keep the petition open and proceed with it on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

In that case, we thank the petitioner, and we will pursue the aims of the petition accordingly.

We will thank the petitioner and keep the petition open. We will now embark on our quest to receive further comment and evidence. Thank you very much to Jackie Baillie, as well.

PE2076, which has been lodged by Maurice Frank, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require original wills made outside of Scotland to be accepted into safe custody by Registers of Scotland, or other safe custody providers, without prior mailing around, removing their power first to require an opinion on the validity of the will from a lawyer in the jurisdiction of origin.

The SPICe briefing explains that

“prior to a person’s death, there is no requirement in Scotland to register a will with a public body. However, a person might choose to register their will for safekeeping in the Register of Deeds ... A document whose formal validity is governed by a law other than Scots law can be registered if the Keeper is satisfied that the document is formally valid according to the law governing such validity”,

and the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 makes that provision.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that due to the resources involved in obtaining such confirmation, the responsibility for providing the necessary evidence test rests with the applicant. The response further states:

“This provision is consistent with the principle that as the Register of Deeds is a Scottish public register, members of the public in Scotland (who are not familiar with the laws governing documents in other jurisdictions) should be able to view the register with confidence that the documents registered therein are formally valid.”

Where an individual chooses to lodge a will in the register, it might be possible for evidence to be obtained electronically rather than by mailing the document to the relevant jurisdiction, depending on the requirements of that jurisdiction.

It is quite a technical request and quite a technical response. Do members have any suggestions or comments?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. I will make an additional suggestion. The cabinet secretary notes that the Education and Skills Committee’s 2017 report noted how valuable good PSE is to young people. Therein rests an issue of how contemporary the content of PSE is at any given point in time. From my constituents, I know that there is, at times, a feeling that the content has not been updated regularly enough to reflect current circumstances, and that the range of cultural and social issues affecting young people move apace, so what might have been relevant two or three years ago needs to be looked at again. Therefore, although the value of good PSE is there to be seen, students should not be questioning the value of the item in the curriculum, because they should feel that its content is relevant to their concerns and considerations. The content should not be speaking to something that is aged in relation to their personal experience.

Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.