Official Report 769KB pdf
Education Scotland (Staff Roles) (PE1953)
The next item is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those who are joining us this morning or watching online that we have a very considerable number of open petitions but not long remaining in which to consider them. We have only eight meetings of the committee remaining before the dissolution of the Parliament. Our focus for the rest of the parliamentary session, in the limited time that remains to us, is therefore on identifying areas in which we believe that we can make real progress in relation to petitions.
The first petition that we will consider again this morning is PE1953, lodged by Roisin Taylor-Young, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review education support staff roles in order to consider urgently raising wages for ESS across the primary and secondary sectors to £26,000 per annum; increasing the working hours for ESS from 27.5 to 35 hours a week; allowing ESS to work on personal learning plans with teachers and take part in multi-agency meetings; requiring ESS to register with the Scottish Social Services Council; and paying ESS monthly.
When we previously considered the petition in March, we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. Her response highlights the guidance on supporting children and young people with healthcare needs in schools, which states:
“NHS boards and education authorities should work collaboratively to ensure that all staff receive ... appropriate ... training”.
The cabinet secretary states that the Scottish Government has no formal role in setting the pay or terms and conditions of non-teaching school staff. The submission highlights the Scottish Government funding to support pupils with complex additional support needs, which includes an allocation for local and national programmes to support the recruitment and retention of the ASN workforce.
In view of the response that we have received from the cabinet secretary, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
10:45
Considering the cabinet secretary’s response, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Public Audit Committee recently undertook scrutiny of additional support for learning in the context of the Auditor General for Scotland’s report. We have explored the issue that is raised in the petition, and there is limited time remaining in the current session of Parliament to progress the issues further. In closing the petition, we could suggest to the petitioner that she raises the issues with one of her local MSPs and advise her that a new petition could be submitted in the next parliamentary session.
That advice might be generally applied on a number of different occasions. Are there any alternative suggestions to those of Mr Torrance?
Members: No.
Are we content to close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner very much for raising the issue, but there is clearly no time for us to adequately pursue the petition in the balance of the parliamentary session.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PE1999)
PE1999, which was lodged by William Hunter Watson, is on full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am afraid that, through a slight undermining of our normal procedures, we have not considered the petition in committee since 20 December 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The then Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Maree Todd, stated in her response that the Scottish Government was prioritising work to consider possible reform to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, and she highlighted the intention to introduce a new human rights bill.
The committee has received a written submission from Barry Gale, who states that, although the minister’s response outlined a broad vision for change, the level of impact would depend on the details of how that vision was implemented. His submission emphasises the importance of reforming the law to put people unequivocally in control of decision making about their lives.
The petitioner’s written submission makes a specific point about care for elderly people. He states that the minister failed to indicate whether the programme of reform would end the giving of sedatives to elderly care home residents. He also states that mental health law in Scotland cannot be compatible with international human rights if it permits potentially harmful drugs being given to care home residents for the convenience of staff.
We have a recent update from the Scottish Government, which states its intention, subject to the outcome of the election, to introduce an adults with incapacity bill and a new human rights bill in the next parliamentary session. The human rights bill would give domestic legal effect to a range of internationally recognised human rights including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The bill would aim to support rights holders, including disabled people, to access remedy where their rights are not upheld and to establish a multi-institutional model of human rights accountability in Scotland.
The submission highlights that the Scottish Government has now progressed or completed the majority of the actions and milestones that were set out in the initial delivery plan for the mental health and capacity reform programme. The Scottish Government also notes that the adults with incapacity expert working group continues to meet monthly and is taking forward the detailed development work that is required to modernise the legislation. In fact, a quite comprehensive series of commitments and actions are under way.
Do colleagues have any comments?
In the light of the response from the Scottish Government and the actions that it is taking, will the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government intends to introduce a human rights bill in the next parliamentary session, which will give domestic legal effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? In addition, as the convener said, work on the mental health and capacity reform programme has begun, with the majority of actions being progressed or completed, and the adults with incapacity expert working group meets monthly and is taking forward detailed development work to modernise existing legislation.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. We have identified those three points.
There is no alternative but to close the petition. I say so because it is plain that we will not see any further specific action by the Scottish Government before dissolution. That is crystal clear. However, I want to say a few things.
First, I pick up on the fact that, as the convener said, Mr Gale—I think—noted that there is a particular concern about sedatives being given to people in old folks’ homes to make them easier to deal with. That point has not been answered at all—I thought it only fair to Mr Gale and the petitioner to point that out—and nor, really, has the petitioner’s ask ever been directly responded to. The petition was lodged on 5 January 2023, and its aim was that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted.
Looking back at Maree Todd’s first response, on 29 January 2024, I see that she did not answer that point at all—not in the slightest. She said that the Scottish Government would introduce the human rights bill later that year. That has not happened. I think that it is only fair to the petitioner to point that out and get it on the record that that promise has plainly been broken.
We are not going to get any further, but it is symptomatic of the Government’s approach, which is that, where it is not willing to do something that it is asked to do, instead of just saying, “We’re not going to do that” and giving a reason—I suspect that that is the case here—we get huge amounts of written material in response that does not bear directly on the point. Personally, I feel that that does the Government no good at all, because petitioners understandably get completely hacked off that the thing that they are asking for has not been answered at all.
I just wanted to put that on the record, but I agree with Mr Torrance—perhaps from a slightly different perspective—that nothing further is going to take place. I note that the petitioner has been pursuing the issue for two decades now and he must feel pretty aggrieved and disappointed. I reflect on the fact that the committee tries very hard to extract answers from the Government but, very often, for whatever reason, that does not happen. This is one of those cases.
Yes—that is a very fair summation of the position. I think that there is absolutely frustration and disappointment—well, probably more than disappointment now. The petitioner looks to the process that exists, which is the petitions system, yet our system is frustrated by our not engaging directly with the issue of the petition when we do not get the responses that would allow us to do so.
If legislation is introduced in the next session of Parliament, there will be an opportunity to directly address the issues that the petition raises in the context of the debate that will take place as that legislation progresses through Parliament. The issue is sufficiently serious that I hope that that will happen.
On that basis, given Mr Fergus Ewing’s comments, are we minded to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Property Factors (PE2006)
PE2006, lodged by Ewan Miller, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 to cover dismissal of property factors or bring forward other regulations that would achieve the same aim. That could include giving the First-tier Tribunal powers to resolve disputes related to the dismissal of property factors. We last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and the Law Society of Scotland.
In providing her response, the minister has consulted the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It suggests that the proposal to give small claims courts powers to dismiss property factors could add a layer of complexity that may not be suitable for simple procedure. An alternative may be to consider the summary application procedure that is available in the sheriff courts as a possible route to removing property factors. However, the SCTS believes that that would not be readily accessible to unrepresented parties and it may involve awards of expenses on a par with the ordinary cause procedure. The Government therefore concludes that it would not be a viable option. I think that it might have been Mr Ewing who floated some of those ideas.
The Law Society of Scotland observes that, if reforms are to be taken forward in this area, consideration would need to be given to what an “excessive charge” means in practice. It considers that proper mediation between residents and factors is essential and may avoid recourse to litigation.
Since we last considered the petition, the Parliament has scrutinised and passed the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Various colleagues lodged final-stage amendments that were directly relevant to the petition’s ask. During the stage 3 proceedings, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing indicated that most of the issues that were raised in those amendments will be addressed in an updated code of conduct for registered property factors that will set out minimum standards of practice. As a result, those amendments were either withdrawn, not moved or disagreed to at stage 3. The cabinet secretary’s amendment, which changed the proportion of owners that is required to remove a property factor from two thirds to a simple majority, was agreed to.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
In light of that information, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the changes that the petitioner asked for have been considered and voted on by the Scottish Parliament as part of the recently passed Housing (Scotland) Bill.
If we agree to that, we will need to point to the code of conduct that is going to be developed that is supposedly going to address those issues. Expectations that the bill might have been amended to accommodate the petitioner’s points have not been fulfilled. Do we have any other options or is the committee content to proceed on that basis?
I agree with Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I suggested that the summary cause procedure be used but, to be fair to the minister, she has responded directly to the point and given her reasons. I understand that the reasons might well be valid and my suggestion has been answered by the minister so, in the interest of balance, I should thank the minister for her response. It does mean, however, that there is no real resolution to the petitioner’s request, although I suspect that, in many cases, no real resolution is ever possible when certain differences arise. That is my experience, anyway.
Are we content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Disposable Vapes (PE2033)
PE2033, lodged by Jordon Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate for a full or partial ban on disposable vapes in Scotland and to recognise the dangers that those devices pose to the environment and the health of young people.
When we considered the petition in March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Grocers Federation to ask for its views on whether the ban would go far enough to address the issue. Its response suggests that a number of organisations might need to be provided with significant extra resource to tackle the rise in illicit goods that could result from the ban.
On the environmental aspect, it expresses concerns about sufficient public commitment to educating vapers about returning used vapes and about retailers potentially being expected to accept used illegal vapes for recycling in their stores as part of their provision of vape take-back.
Finally, the SGF suggests that, alongside any further restrictions on affordable vaping products, the ban could risk an increase in cigarette consumption, and it calls for a nuanced debate on the topic of voting—I mean vaping. [Laughter.]
Since we last considered the petition, a UK-wide ban has indeed been introduced, which means that, as of 1 June 2025, single-use vapes are no longer stocked or sold in Scotland.
Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?
The committee should consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that a ban on single-use vapes is now in force.
I agree with Mr Torrance. However, in the next parliamentary session, it might be helpful for the petitioner to look at the effectiveness of the ban. I note that the petition called for a full or partial ban. I would agree that, in practical terms, the current ban is a partial ban and there are, unfortunately, numerous shops in Scotland where people can still buy disposable vapes.
Thank you for that. Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Maybe we will get a petition in the next parliamentary session for a nuanced debate on the topic of voting—we will see.
Court Summons (Accurate Information) (PE2073)
PE2073, which was lodged by Robert Macdonald, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require the police and court services to check that address information is up to date when issuing court summons and to allow those who are being summoned the chance to receive a summons if their address has changed, rather than the current system of proceeding to issue a warrant for arrest. When we first considered the petition, we heard a detailed example of the impact of that practice.
We considered the petition in March, and the Lord Advocate has responded by echoing a previous submission from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and highlighting the point that, if the person referred to in the background for the petition was an accused person, the responsibility to update the court on a change of address would rest with that person.
The response also confirms that the processes for obtaining a warrant for accused persons and witnesses, as set out in a past submission from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, still stand.
Additionally, the Lord Advocate points members to a statement that she made before Parliament last October, in which she referenced her specific instruction that pre-conviction warrants should normally be obtained by prosecutors and executed by the police only if there is no immediate alternative to securing the accused’s attendance, or when the accused represents an immediate risk to others.
11:00Finally, the response highlights that His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland have initiated a joint inspection of processes for witness citation and of ways in which the processes could be modernised. The inspection is to be undertaken during the course of this year, 2025.
Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
Will the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government’s position is that the core ask of the petition is an operational matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland, because pre-conviction warrants should normally be obtained and executed only in the absence of an immediate alternative and because HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland are currently conducting a joint inspection of the citation process in Scotland with a view to recommending improvements.
In closing the petition, the committee highlights to the petitioner the option to submit a new petition during the next parliamentary session, should they consider that there has not been sufficient progress on the matter.
Either the code of conduct will address the issue or it will not, and the petitioner could return the issue to us. Do colleagues agree with Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner and hope that the development of the code of conduct will address the matter in hand.
Alkaline Hydrolysis (PE2084)
The next continued petition is PE2084, which was lodged by Randall Graeme Kilgour Foggie. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 to allow alkaline hydrolysis, accelerated composting and other more eco-friendly methods of disposal of human cadavers. We last considered the petition on 5 March 2025, at which point we had all of that explained to us, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.
The Scottish Government’s response states that an alkaline hydrolysis regulations working group has been established and that its first meeting took place on 3 March 2025. It is currently expected that draft regulations will be laid later in 2025, although the exact date is still to be decided. The eventual timeline will be informed by the considerations of the group and the development of the regulations.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that it is expected that draft regulations will be laid this year and that an alkaline hydrolysis regulations working group has been established and has begun exploring issues to inform the development of the draft regulations.
Those seem to be the asks of the petitioner. Are colleagues content that we close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Rivers (Legal Right to Personhood) (PE2131)
The final continued petition for consideration today is PE2131, which was lodged by Professor Louise Welsh and Jude Barber on behalf of the Empire Cafe. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant the River Clyde, and potentially other rivers in Scotland, the legal right to personhood by adopting the universal declaration on the rights of rivers, by appointing a nature director to act as a guardian of the River Clyde, with the responsibility for upholding its river rights, and by considering whether an alternative mechanism should be established to act for the rights of the river, its inhabitants—human and non-human—and society at large. When we last considered this petition on 5 March, we agreed to write to the Glasgow City Region.
The GCR is not able to provide a view on the action that is called for in the petition, as it falls outside the remit of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley cabinet. The cabinet is specifically responsible for decision making in relation to the city deal, strategic economic development priorities as well as any other activities agreed by the authorities.
We also requested more information from the GCR regarding the work to deliver the Clyde mission, as well as any action that could be undertaken to formalise and improve accountability in the management of the River Clyde. The response reminds us that, in August 2023, the Scottish Government transferred lead responsibility for the Clyde mission to the GCR and Argyll and Bute Council, as well as providing funding. Work on a strategic master plan was due to commence this summer, and the GCR indicates that a strategic outline business case was also going to be produced alongside that to strengthen decision making and underpin long-term investment.
The response states that, for the GCR, governance for the Clyde mission has been incorporated into existing regional structures; for Argyll and Bute, any reporting and approval is co-ordinated by council officers, with support from the GCR if necessary. The GCR highlights that a Clyde mission partnership board would in due course also be established and developed in parallel with the strategic master plan.
Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?
In the light of the information that is before us, I ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not currently support the petition’s proposals. Policy mechanisms are in place to balance the interests of nature, society and the economy, and work to progress the Clyde mission is on-going.
I have no comment.
Are we content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Emergency Cardiac CareNext
New Petitions