Chamber and committees

That will be communicated to staff after the final report, which will follow the September 2024 review and the June 2025 interim update, which I understand was provided. When will that final report be made public?

I would be happy to begin the relationship, which would be very exciting.

My second and only further question is: what do you believe would improve data collection and analysis to inform screening and prevention strategies? Two of you have referred to gaps. Are there any particular steps that you would advocate for or areas where you feel that gaps need to be filled in order to improve data collection to inform screening? I am thinking particularly of young people, who are the topic of one of the petitions.

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.

Plainly, any medical treatment or process must be based on the best evidence and data. That is pretty obvious. One of the several petitions before us asks to improve data on young people who are affected by conditions that cause sudden cardiac death. I want to ask each of you about your views on data, research and guidance. First, what data currently exists on sudden cardiac death in young people in Scotland? Is there enough data? Are there gaps? If so, how should they be filled?

I appreciate that it is quite a broad theme but, given the importance of evidence-based practices in medicine as the sound way to proceed, it is perhaps a good starting point. What data exists, and what are your views about what more might or should be done?

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.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation for the reasons that he set out, but it might be useful to reflect on the fact that the purpose of the petition is to allow there to be some regard to exceptional circumstances—namely,

“personal or compassionate circumstances, including bereavement, illness, sudden house moves, or lack of awareness of rights”.

It occurs to me that, if some allowance is to be made for those factors, particularly illness and bereavement, perhaps the more appropriate way to give effect to that would be through the system of reliefs for council tax, rather than changing the bands. The bands relate to the category of value in which a property was deemed to have fallen at the relevant date, which was, I think, back around 1990, when council tax was introduced to replace the poll tax. It seems to me that such matters are more in the territory of reliefs than the alteration of bands. For example, there is already relief for council tax in toto for someone who is severely mentally impaired, and the process for obtaining that relief is not that complicated.

I just thought that I would give that reflection. If the petitioner were to come back with another petition in the next parliamentary session, she might wish to consider that alternative route to achieving the aim that is set out in the petition.

For the reasons that Mr Golden set out, we should close the petition. However, having heard what Mr Mountain said, I agree that, in closing the petition, it would be helpful to write to the Scottish Government, in the terms that he suggested. The fire in Dava decimated everything for an area of 44 square miles, which is one half of the area of the city of Edinburgh, and it is of huge concern that the next wildfire could be even worse. An international expert in wildfires said that Governments do not take this issue seriously until the first 100 people are dead. I do not say that to be dramatic, but gamekeepers in my area tell me that there is a risk of a serious fire, which could decimate vast areas, and they can tell me exactly where it would happen, how, in what wind conditions and at what time of year.

Although I know that Mr Fairlie is taking the issue seriously, the need for swift action is absolutely overwhelming. We should ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with local authorities to put a ban in place, especially in times of high risk, and especially during April and the months in which bracken, gorse and so on in moorland are more susceptible to fire than they are at other times of year, although I am no expert.

I just wanted to back up what Mr Mountain was saying and make sure that we show the petitioner that we are taking the petition very seriously indeed. Otherwise, it could drag on for another five years, while draft byelaws here and there in little bits of Scotland are considered instead of national action, which the Government should surely not allocate to others but should take responsibility for itself.

I have no comment.

I also declare an interest: I am the deputy convener of the cross-party group on building bridges with Israel. Although I think that I am capable of coming to a balanced view on the very sensitive issues that are involved, I nonetheless decline to do so on this matter in case it is seen that I am partial and have an interest. That is perhaps the appropriate thing for me to do in this case.