Chamber and committees

The issue warrants further consideration, but, unfortunately, the committee will not be able to give it that consideration at this point in the parliamentary session. We come back, again, to the term “sustainability”, this time in respect of the gannet population, but, ultimately, the committee has to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on this particular island, whose name I struggle to pronounce.

Yes. I agree with you, convener. It is reasonable to ask the future committee to attempt to get some data on what every local authority in Scotland is doing on this. Allergies are very prevalent, so the issue is worthy of further consideration before coming to a conclusion, although that would be for a future committee.

My understanding of international law is that the International Criminal Court, which is based in The Hague or New York, can, as required, look into specific cases. In order for such a court to be established, my understanding is that the UK would need to pull out from the Rome statute, which is clearly not a devolved matter. I would have concerns about international legal obligations were that to be the case.

On that basis, and on the basis that the Scottish Government is not willing to progress the petition, such matters are outwith the jurisdiction of the Parliament. I believe that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because of time constraints—it will not be possible to progress the petition further in this session of Parliament.

However, I note that the Scottish Government has established an adults with incapacity reform expert working group. In my experience in Parliament over the past decade, establishing an expert working group often means that nothing happens. I hope that that is not the case here.

Despite the Scottish Government announcing in 2024 that a bill would be introduced to amend the 2000 act, it has proposed that that be taken forward in the next parliamentary session. A promise that a bill will be taken forward by future Governments is a very weak promise, even a future Government of the same party. We have had experience of such bills being delayed for the best part of eight or nine years.

Nonetheless, I will try to step back from being so cynical and hope that the matter will be addressed in the next session of Parliament. If it is not, closing the petition today will allow the petitioner the opportunity to bring back the issue and increase the pressure on the Government, if required.

The Scottish Government would argue that there is a sustainable funding model for Scotland’s colleges, but I disagree with that, and I would widen that out to the tertiary education sector. Nonetheless, with regard to the petition’s aims, I believe that the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government, is engaging with the Scottish Funding Council and Colleges Scotland on the wider college sector and is looking into a review of the funding allocation model.

I note that many colleges are making difficult decisions in order to be sustainable. Dundee and Angus College has recently closed its swimming pool at Gardyne Road, much to the dismay of the local community. However, unfortunately, at this stage in the session, I do not believe that there is anything that the committee can do to further progress the petition’s aims.

I have sympathy with the petitioner and, ultimately, the motivation to receive justice. However, the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, first, the Scottish Government believes that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent the fraudulent use of bankruptcy to further abuse a partner; moreover, if the abuser is not genuinely unable to pay their debt, it is possible for survivors or anyone with an interest to apply to the court to have their abuser’s award of sequestration recalled; and finally, concerns about undisclosed income or assets can be reported to, and investigated by, the trustee, who could then get court orders to require such assets or income to be handed to them.

I am shocked to learn that no data is recorded on patient outcomes for medications such as HRT and other hormone therapies that are used to treat or manage endometriosis. It seems bizarre and strange that we are not looking at patient outcomes in order to understand how to improve them.

Nonetheless, I think that the committee’s only option is to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has not indicated that it would be willing to create a national database. Instead, it believes that there are other mechanisms for improving outcomes for people with endometriosis.

I am not sure what those other mechanisms are. I think that a national database or something similar is required. However, the Scottish Government is elected to make decisions, and voters can make a decision on the Government in May this year. Perhaps the petitioner and those who have signed the petition might want to bear in mind the Scottish Government’s response when they go to the ballot in May.

The Scottish Government’s response is disappointing but, ultimately, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has what is described as a needs-based funding formula for local authorities that is agreed annually following negotiations between the Scottish Government and COSLA. However, it might be worth while if the committee, in closing the petition, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to highlight the issues that are raised by the petition.

I wonder whether this petition might be one that we could keep open for further consideration at a future meeting, if the committee is so minded. There are inadequacies in Police Scotland’s work to align the data. As soon as I hear the phrase “working group”, it raises a red flag about the possibility that there will be no action. The issue is perhaps worthy of further consideration but, clearly, the committee cannot make a decision until we see the full list of all the petitions that we might want to keep open.

The issue warrants further consideration, but, unfortunately, the committee will not be able to give it that consideration at this point in the parliamentary session. We come back, again, to the term “sustainability”, this time in respect of the gannet population, but, ultimately, the committee has to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on this particular island, whose name I struggle to pronounce.