Chamber and committees

PE1941, on stopping the destruction of headstones in community cemeteries, was lodged by Councillor Andrew Stuart Wood and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty to ensure health and safety in our cemeteries.

We previously considered the petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Its response states that, once they are finalised, the new burial regulations will set out minimum standards for all burial authorities in Scotland and will work alongside existing guidance and a burial code of practice. Regulations will also be brought forward to introduce inspection for burial, cremation and funeral directors, with inspectors inspecting against the legislation, guidance and codes of practice. Two public consultations have taken place in relation to that work.

The committee has also received a written submission from David Brunton outlining specific concerns about Scottish Borders Council’s cemetery improvement programme. He states that the guidance has not been followed in practice and that the use of individual notices for signalling planned works in cemeteries needs to be enforced. He raises concerns about listed building consent not being obtained prior to works being carried out and about poor communication when people seek information from councils about their rationale for taking stones down.

Colleagues will remember our evidence session on the petition, when we were provided with quite graphic illustrative examples of the way in which headstones had been routinely destroyed in cemeteries without reference to any of the families concerned. However, the Scottish Government appears to be making progress in that regard. I am aware that the petition throws up a number of issues beyond the ones that we are considering here.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I think that there is still widespread interest—represented by colleagues from all around the country, in all parties—in how the matter progresses.

We could ask that, but I think that the evidence suggests that such information is very fractured; it depends on individual practice. I do not think that there is a national database on such matters.

Are colleagues content with the suggestions that have been made?

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue but, clearly, the committee can keep a petition open only if we think there is an opportunity to advance its aims. I think that the direction from the Scottish Government is quite clear.

The aims of the petition will therefore be achieved. In light of that, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2057, which was lodged by John McMaster, aims to promote shared parenting and prevent the separation of children from their parents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the frequency and duration of parental contact are equal; to promote the use of parenting arrangements; to require that the evidence of accusations from one parent to another is provided within 14 days of any civil action; and to raise public awareness of the importance of both parents in a child’s life. The petition states that its purpose is not to take any of the necessary protections away, but to prevent abuse of the current systems, which are knowingly abused to alienate children.

The SPICe briefing provides information about the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, most of which is not yet in force. The act says that the court must look at the impact of any court orders on the child’s relationships with their parents and other important people in their life.

The briefing notes that, in its stage 1 report on the Children (Scotland) Bill, the Justice Committee stated that it was not persuaded by a presumption in favour of shared parenting, as that could cut across the key principle of the welfare of children being the paramount consideration. The Scottish Government’s response reiterates that view and adds that, where parents cannot agree, it should be for the courts to decide what parental contact arrangement is in the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis.

The submission also refers to “Your Parenting Plan”, which is a guide for parents with a joint agreement to structure and record discussions about the future care and welfare of their children. In addition, it is noted that the Government provides funding to Relationships Scotland, whose network provides family mediation services, and to Shared Parenting Scotland.

Work is also under way to improve judicial case management, which will lead to court cases being resolved more quickly. Under section 30 of the Children (Scotland) 2020, the court will be required

“to have regard to any risk of prejudice to the child’s welfare that delay in proceedings would pose.”

An important issue has been raised, and we have received some quite informed responses. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2061 is the final new petition that we are considering this morning. This is the petition that you focused your attention on, Mr Choudhury. The petition, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.

I have been aware that a couple has been with us in the gallery all morning. They have stuck it to the end, so I will conclude that they are here for this petition. Thank you for joining us.

The petitioner has explained that, while terminally ill in hospital, her father was asked to sign legal documents affecting the value of his estate. The family raised their concerns with the Law Society of Scotland, and a solicitor was thereafter found guilty of misconduct and fined.

The SPICe briefing notes that, although there is no general requirement under common law to have someone assessed before they enter into a legal agreement, the Law Society’s guidance on meeting the needs of vulnerable clients makes it clear that solicitors cannot simply rely on the presumption of capacity.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated that it is already best practice for a solicitor to obtain a medical opinion if there are doubts about a client’s capacity. The response went on to note that the question of a “golden rule”, similar to that which operates in England and Wales, has been considered by the Scottish courts, which ruled that such a strict requirement is not necessary.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner that responds to the Scottish Government’s view. The petitioner remains concerned that the Law Society’s rules are insufficient in deterring solicitors from taking actions that they should not take, and notes that the complaints procedure can be a long and distressing one and that it is challenging for members of the public to navigate, with solicitors facing minimal consequences even when complaints are upheld.

We have had notes of interest in the petition from Alex Rowley and Liam McArthur, and representations have also been made to me by Claire Baker and Finlay Carson. Therefore, there is quite a wide range of interest among colleagues on the issues that the petition has raised.

Colleagues exchanged views during our period of consideration ahead of looking at these matters today. Some important issues have been raised, and I believe that we want to keep the petition open at this point.

Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed? Maybe Mr Choudhury would like to offer a suggestion to us now.

I see that our colleagues who are in the room are also content. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 6 relates to the evidence that we are about to hear in relation to the inquiry and item 7 relates to our pre-budget scrutiny work.