Chamber and committees

I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that legal access rights and the outdoor access code were designed to apply only to non-motorised access to land. The Scottish Government believes that infringements of the code are best tackled in that way.

Before making that proposal, I read the Scottish Government’s response. I must say that it seems to be sitting on the fence. For some strange reason, the Scottish Government shows a strange propensity for being reluctant to say anything at all about camper vans. I cannot imagine why that could possibly be the case.

Those remarks aside, lay-bys are not meant for overnight camping for recreational purposes, but they can be necessary to allow drivers of heavy goods vehicles to take a break. Those drivers may have to do so because of tachograph rules that are designed for vehicle safety. It is not entirely straightforward, but I think that a distinction could be drawn for commercial business employment use for protected lay-bys, which are the only ones that should be used for overnight parking. We should distinguish between that on the one hand and camper vans on the other.

The petitioner has a serious point to make and I thoroughly back up what the convener has said, but we have no alternative but to close the petition.

I was struck by the background information to the petition, which pointed out that Scotland continues to have one of the highest cancer mortality rates in western Europe among children under 18. That is a shocking statistic.

I was not aware of many of the issues that Jackie Baillie has eloquently set out. Although it is heartening that some progress has been made on points 1 and 2, she is absolutely right to focus on point 3 and seek a specific answer from the Scottish Government. However, I see no reason why we should not at the same time write to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to see what it says about the issue. Plainly, the Scottish Government refers regularly to advice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and everything else from the royal colleges, so it might be worth while to do that—there would be no harm in it.

I absolutely endorse what Maurice Golden said, but I want to add a few things. The petitioner’s account of what happened to his mother is a heart-rending and very sad story of actions being taken that were completely opposed by the family. There are always two sides to every story, I guess, but, on the face of it, it is a tragic case.

I was also struck that, in their submission of 3 January 2026, the petitioner pointed out that the local authority “ignored all concerns”, that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland was “unable to do anything” and that the Office of the Public Guardian said that the power of attorney role “was not overseen”. All the public bodies that are supposed to be providing help provided absolutely no help whatsoever.

I have to say that the Scottish Government did not answer the petition’s specific asks in its response. It simply said that there was going to be law reform, but it carefully avoided making any substantive comment on the petition, which is about protecting vulnerable adults from abuse of the use of power of attorney.

I hope that, if we close the petition today—there is no alternative—the petitioner will bring back the petition for the reasons that Mr Golden set out, so that the new committee can consider these things anew—de novo—early doors.

I just want to say one more thing, on the euthanasia bill, or the right to die bill, that is being taken through the Parliament. Should that pass—my goodness me, if there are problems with power of attorney now, we ain’t seen nothing yet. I will not be voting for that bill, but if it is passed, I think that the number of serious issues that will arise will be far greater and that will be profoundly sad.

I am happy to do that. Laura Hansler might well be back before us in the next parliamentary session.

I agree with what you and Mr Golden have said, convener, but I note in passing that it is our understanding that the Scottish Government does not intend to amend the 1981 act to remove the power to grant licences, so it is not doing anything—it is just allowing things to go ahead. NatureScot has indicated that it is bound by the 1981 act, although I have to say that I do not quite understand that, because I think that it gives it some discretion.

I am struck by NatureScot’s determination to allow the guga hunt to proceed while preventing the control of seagulls in my constituency, which is causing huge problems as well as lacerations and injuries to people. However, that is really for NatureScot to explain. Given the number of signatures that the petition has received, I think that the issue needs to be explored further, but that is probably for the next Parliament.

Finally, I would note the written submission that we have received from an islander. I am sure that any committee will want to ensure that the voice of the islanders is heard. They are making the case that this is part of their tradition and heritage. They want to be heard, and they are entitled to be heard, but I think that some of them feel a little bit browbeaten by the tone of some of the criticisms that have been made of them. I hope that the debate can be conducted in a civilised and rational way, even if people have very strong emotions about the matter.

—it is defeat; it is simply a deferral of probable consideration.

The members of the next Parliament, including those of us who are not ourselves culled, can give it consideration.

Yes. Mr Torrance is absolutely right. The Scottish Government has set out its stall, but it does not really have an answer, nor can it ever have an answer, to the point that has been raised by the petitioner. The cut-off time is arbitrary, and one can well understand how much that must rankle and worry people who have been through abuse before 2004.

I guess that we will come back to the issue again, because if a decision is not based on principle and confounds any sense of decency, I am quite sure that this committee will be hearing about it again—and rightly so.

Yes, I agree with that. I am struck by petitioner Helen Blythe pointing out that an answer that she received to a freedom of information request said that fewer than one in 20 schools have all four recommended allergy safeguards in place—so, 19 out of 20 do not. Almost half—49 per cent—have no allergy policy, only 8 per cent hold spare adrenaline autoinjector allergy pens, and nearly a third do not provide any allergy training.

The Scottish Government has given a long answer, but, as far as I can see—I apologise if I have missed anything—it does not refer to any of those points whatsoever. When the Scottish Government replies to petitioners, why can it not just answer the questions that are put and the factual assertions that are made? If it says that they are wrong, let us say it. It never does that, and it must be extremely irritating for all petitioners.

That is a general point. On a specific point, the Government’s response says that the job of the inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland is to go round and inspect schools, to make sure that they are following their obligations in all respects, but it does not seem to refer to allergies at all. It refers to dietary requirements, which covers some allergies, but it does not refer to allergies. Is it possible to raise that issue ourselves? Or, if there is not enough time to do that, which may well be the case, could we encourage the petitioner to bring the petition back?

If I were marking the Scottish Government’s response, I would give it a half out of 10, and not for the first time.

Given the effluxion of time, we are unable to pursue the matter further, but the petitioner has raised an interesting point. I will say more about that in a minute. The Scottish Government has said that it has no plans to make any changes in the current parliamentary session, so nothing will happen in this session.

I want to make a very simple point. In England, the limit is £10,000, whereas it is £5,000 in Scotland. I looked in vain for an explanation, but the Scottish Government has not remarked on that point at all. I do not know the reason for that, but it is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I am no longer a practising solicitor, but, having observed the courts scene at the moment, I know that it is very difficult to get a criminal lawyer and that there are massive delays in the civil courts. Quite frankly, no individual can afford to go to court unless they are very well off or get legal aid, which people often do not get. Therefore, there is, of course, a case for raising the limit to £10,000 to allow people to avail themselves of the simple procedure, instead of having to deal with the extraordinary byzantine complexity of the ordinary cause or summary cause procedures, which are not much simpler. The current situation means that, in effect, there is no justice for individuals in that narrow band.

It is impossible to get a lawyer for that sum of money, because the legal fees involved would probably exceed the sum sued for in most cases. Lawyers will not take the case on and people go without remedies. We are in a country where there is a theoretical right of access to the courts but where, in practice, it does not exist. One simple way to address that, to a modest extent, is to do what the petitioner asks.

This is another petition where, if it were not for the fact that it is now 2026 and we are a few weeks away from dissolution, we would have had the justice minister here to answer some of the questions that, quite frankly, they have manifestly failed to answer in any way at all, which is quite abysmal, in my opinion.