���˿���

We could also write to the Scottish Government to ask how it intends to address the concerns about those existing households with a debt arising from temporary accommodation charges that have already been accrued. In particular, the committee would, I think, be interested to know how on-going household debt from temporary accommodation aligns with the Government’s priority to reduce the number of households in temporary accommodation by 2026.

Are colleagues content with both those proposals?

Not at all. Thank you very much, Ms Boyack.

You have touched on issues that, as a constituency MSP, I can say have been raised by constituents of mine, too. I would say that there are good and less good factors, and there is good and bad practice. Obviously, constituents tend to contact us when faced with an issue, but I think that the issues that you have raised and touched on are becoming increasingly part of my own casework profile.

I note that we are still waiting for the Scottish Government’s publication, but having heard those remarks and reflected, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

PE2060, which is to review existing legislation and legal remedies against trespassers, has been lodged by Daithi Broad. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and revise existing legislation to offer better protection against trespassers. The SPICe briefing outlines the circumstances in which the public have the right to roam, noting that exceptions to that include domestic houses and gardens.

The briefing also notes that many people incorrectly—I was quite surprised by the briefing, I have to say—believe that the law of trespass does not exist in Scotland. Police Scotland has highlighted difficulties in applying the law in practice. Notably, the police have no jurisdiction, as trespass to land is a civil matter and they cannot assist in the removal of trespassers. Police Scotland’s comments on trespass state that the best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which, if breached, may then turn into a criminal matter.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition also outlined information about the current law on trespassing. In response to the petition’s ask regarding responsibility for injuries on the land, the Scottish Government stated that the duty of care is the same regardless of whether an individual has permission to be on the occupier’s land, but factors such as the foreseeability of unauthorised entry and any steps taken to prevent unauthorised entry and to warn of dangers may be of relevance in determining whether reasonable care has been taken in the particular circumstances. The response also notes that the evidential burden to prove trespass would depend on whether the individual was pursuing a criminal or civil law case.

For my own part, having read the briefing, I think that it is saying that there is little that you could risk doing, particularly in the current climate in which it seems to me that your interests are secondary to those of the people who want to trespass on your property. That is basically how it reads to me. Although we pretend otherwise, the reality is that that is how it will be if you seek to do anything. It is also very difficult, because the briefing does not define what “force” is; I imagine that, if you were to escort somebody off, “force” would now include even laying hands upon somebody, however gently that was done. I found the briefing quite dispiriting. Do colleagues have any suggestions on what we might do?

Are we content to pursue it on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome to the first meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Because of the prevailing weather alerts, several of our colleagues are joining us online, as are all our witnesses this morning. I imagine that we will have a particularly exciting time as we try to negotiate the technology with the various participants.

The first item on our agenda is a declaration of interests. Unfortunately, my colleague Maurice Golden is not able to attend today, so his substitute, Oliver Mundell, is joining us for the first time. Although Mr Mundell is no stranger to the work of the committee, this is the first time that he is attending as a substitute, so I invite him to declare any relevant interests.

Item 2 is to decide whether to take items 6 and 7 in private. Is Mr Torrance, who is online, content with that?

I think that you look very fetching and smart, Mr Barn. I do not think that you need to be concerned at all.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I think that that is appropriate. That clarification will now appear in the Official Report of the meeting.

We can now enjoy talking with Mr Barn. I will start with a more general question. Is that product placement that you have on your mantelpiece there, Mr Barn? I am looking at the Costa mug. I assume that no sponsorship fee is being paid.

Do you have any views on why Transport Scotland said that it would fail to meet its original 2025 deadline for the A9 dualling programme? What is your overall impression of why that did not happen?

Was that due to a lack of direction?