Chamber and committees

When I was looking at the papers on the committee website, perhaps I missed it, but I could not see any response from the petitioner to the written submissions from Openreach and the Scottish Government. I wonder whether that is correct, because that surprised me a little.

I think that Mr Torrance has covered most things. I absolutely endorse the comments that all members have made. There is an awful lot to be answered by the minister. Overall, there is a feeling that nothing very much is going to happen any time soon, and what might happen will happen many years hence. That was the feeling that I got.

The minister was full of good intentions, which came shining through at our previous meeting, but there was a lack of clarity. What exactly is going to be done, by whom, when and how? Does the Government have an indication of when the Promise bill will be implemented, assuming that it is passed? Quite a lot of legislation that is passed is never implemented.

I support those recommendations. Perhaps in the course of drafting the letters to the UK DEFRA and to Food Standards Scotland, we could make reference to the material that the petitioners have drawn attention to regarding the European Commission’s work on launching a review into accessible labelling, so that we can be informed by what the European Union is doing. Plainly, that is bound to have an enormous implication. If the EU makes new labelling regulations, all the major food producers will probably comply with those. That would leave the UK as the odd man out, if I may coin a phrase.

In reading the petitioner’s submission of 18 September, which responded to minister Shirley-Anne Somerville’s submission in August this year, it occurred to me that we have not fully explored and bottomed out the points made in the most recent comments by the petitioner, and I felt that it would be only fair to the petitioner to do that.

As I understand it, their report in 2018, which was five years ago, pointed out the basic inconsistency or unfairness that the petition is about, which is that the 20m rule is arbitrary and there is no evidence that it is based on any rational justification. When the move was made from disability living allowance, or DLA, to personal independence payment, or PIP, the rule resulted in a third of people who suffered from MS losing some support and one in 10 losing all support. That was the basic thesis five years ago. I am not sure that we have ever had a factual response from the Government about whether that is correct or, indeed, on any of the specifics. The Government’s response mentioned the review, which is fine, but it has not responded specifically to what the petitioner said.

The other point that I picked up from the petitioner’s response in September was slightly different. It says that ADP and PIP use the 20m rule but that DLA, which still applies in some cases, uses a 50m rule. There is an inconsistency, as different benefits apply different rules. If that is correct—I am no expert on this at all so I do not know, but that is what the petitioner said a couple of months back—I do not think that this committee should take forward this work. I understand that the Social Security and Social Justice Committee is undertaking scrutiny on the issue—perhaps Mr Torrance will speak to that in a minute.

However, the very least that we could do is specifically and explicitly refer those matters to the minister. We could send a copy of that letter to the Social Security and Social Justice Committee and suggest that it might have regard to those points in its scrutiny. In that way, the petitioner’s case would not be lost but would be bequeathed to the substantive committee.

At the risk of causing difficulty, those are my suggestions.

I agree with David Torrance’s suggestions. However, in light of the ministerial response, which, as you say, convener, is disappointing, we should seek to press the issue by seeking a parliamentary debate to pursue the petition’s call, which is to urge the Parliament to amend the 2020 act to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry. A debate in Parliament would allow consideration of what, in many ways, is a very serious matter.

I do not think that anyone doubts the good intentions of the Scottish Government, but the trouble is that the question that I asked has not really been answered. The question is, what will be done now to deal with that anomaly? The answer that you gave, minister, was that you do not yet know clearly whether the change can be made without legislation. It seems to me that that is a yes or no question: either legislation is required to make that change or it is not. If it is not—you have suggested that that is something that you are considering—surely it is your duty to give us clarity on that specific question. If the answer is that you do not need to make changes to the law, the petitioners will say, “Get on with it; do it now.”

In response to Mr Golden, who quite rightly asked whether there is a capacity issue, your first answer was no, there is not. So, if there is the capacity in local authorities to provide the care, by not acting now we are allowing the anomaly to remain in place for another three, four or five years.

I appreciate that you have not been in post for a particularly long period of time—things take time in Government, as I well remember—but, nonetheless, with respect, your predecessor and you have had 14 months to give an answer to this question. The lack of clarity on the specific question is unfortunate. I would be most grateful if we could get a specific reply in writing. As I said, if legislation is not required, the petitioners will say, “Get on with it; what is the problem?”

In effect, you have admitted that this is an anomaly—I think that “inconsistency” was the word that you used. It seems to me completely anomalous.

We have clear evidence that many young people do not know their rights, and they do not know that, by being taken off a CSO, they will lose their rights. How can they be expected to know that? They certainly do not know about the incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why would a 15-year-old have any knowledge of that? The idea that the fact that that was done in the Scottish Parliament makes a blind bit of a difference to young people knowing their rights seems to me to be completely fallacious.

It is our job to press for answers for the petitioner. You have had 14 months. We have not got anything in writing. We have not got clarity on that question. With respect, minister, if you are not able to give that clarity today, I would be most grateful if you could write to the committee as soon as possible to answer that simple question. To me, that then determines whether we might want to take the matter further in various ways, such as having a debate in the Scottish Parliament about it.

I support that. From the information that the clerks have provided to me this morning, my understanding is that the Scottish Government points out that, where an applicant for a disability benefit is suffering from a terminal illness, there is a process that allows that to be taken into account and the application to be fast-tracked.

I hope that it is of some comfort to the petitioner that, in fact, they are asking for something that the Scottish Government has assured us already exists, for those who, sadly, suffer from not only cancer but other terminal illnesses. The point that the petitioner has raised is valid and has already been recognised as valid, and a procedure has been put in place that has due sympathetic regard to people in that desperate situation.

Good morning, everyone. The petition was lodged on 6 September 2022, which is 14 months ago. Minister, at the moment we do not have any written response from you or your predecessor on the petitioner’s specific asks. The petition seeks to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after children who left care before their 16th birthdays, and to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives according to their individual needs. The crux of the petition is that care should be based on need, not the arbitrary occurrence of people’s dates of birth or their attaining a certain age.

If, as I understand it, your plan is to introduce the bill in 2024-25, it will not become law until 2025. It might not come into force until some time after that—typically, 2026 or later. That would mean that about four years will have elapsed between the petitioner making her plea to the Parliament, which it is our duty to interrogate, and the occurrence of any potential response. That obvious problem raises two questions. First, what can the Scottish Government do now to end the practice of young people being taken off compulsory supervision orders ahead of their 16th birthdays? Who Cares? Scotland has given us worrying examples of that problem happening in practice. With respect, although your good intentions are admirable and absolutely clear, I think that the petitioner wants concrete actions.

That is a different kind of movie. [Laughter.]

We could have done that instead of doing a few other things.