Chamber and committees

As there does not appear to be any other suggestions, we will keep the petition open and return to it on receipt of responses to the points that Mr Torrance has proposed.

In essence, the response that we have received suggests that the particular cohort that was not vaccinated will receive general protection through herd immunity. Are our colleagues content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE1969, which was lodged by Gemma Clark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to fully decriminalise abortion services in Scotland, and to make provisions to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all parts of Scotland.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 22 February, when we agreed to seek the views of a number of stakeholder organisations. Following that discussion, we received responses from the Humanist Society Scotland, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland, Christian Action, Research and Education—CARE—the Free Church of Scotland, the British Medical Association and the petitioner. We have also received a submission from Monica Lennon MSP, who is unable to join us in person today, and an update from the Scottish Government, which highlights the commitment in this year’s programme for government to review the law on abortion. Requests to provide written evidence have also been received from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and from the Evangelical Alliance.

Those in support of the petition suggest that abortion should be treated as a medical matter rather than a criminal matter and that decriminalisation would bring Scotland in line with international human rights standards. In contrast, those who have concerns about moves to decriminalise abortion argue that keeping abortion within criminal law is essential for women’s safety, because there must be a way of prosecuting abusive partners who seek to pressure or coerce a woman into aborting a pregnancy. Some responses also argued that the majority of abortions are carried out not on medical grounds but because the pregnancy is unwanted and raised concerns that reforms could introduce the possibility of sex-selective terminations.

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and the Evangelical Alliance have asked to provide written evidence, but that depends on how the committee wishes to respond to the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions?

We come to the last of our continued petitions today, PE1991, which was also lodged by Gemma Clark. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop a health-focused and stigma-challenging educational resource on abortion and to make that available to all secondary schools in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we agreed to write to stakeholder organisations. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, COSLA, the Scottish Catholic Education Service and the petitioner have submitted responses, copies which were circulated with our meeting papers.

I draw members’ attention to the responses from COSLA and ADES, which note that materials linked to the ask of the petition are available and that work is already taking place in schools to deal with the issues that it raises. COSLA also states that the curriculum for excellence allows teachers, schools and local authorities to design a curriculum that fits their own context, the result of which is that there is no mechanism whereby all schools can be compelled to use any specific materials. Similarly, the response from the Scottish Catholic Education Service notes the availability of resources and advice for young people, and highlights the fact that schools are not the sole providers of education and that the close partnership between schools and the wider school community serves young people well in ensuring that they have access to qualified expertise relating to health and to social, physical, spiritual and mental wellbeing.

In view of the responses that we have received, do members have any comments or suggestions?

It is a fairly clear direction from the Scottish Government that it is not going to write off that student debt, so are colleagues minded to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members inclined to support the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

In the first instance, are colleagues content for us to proceed on those lines?

I think that Mr Ewing would like to make a further suggestion.

The first reason why a debate would be useful is the circumstances whereby the ban came into force, which was through a stage 3 amendment on which the petitioner and his fellow falconers had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard. In fact, it seems that nobody thought of them at all, and they did not have the opportunity to state their case. The whole point of the Scottish Parliament is that everybody should be able to state their case in the legislative process at the first stage. Stage 3 is not supposed to be used for the purposes of introducing brand-new material, particularly not legal bans that can result in criminal convictions. Therefore, of itself, that point of principle deserves to be highlighted in Parliament.

However, turning briefly to the arguments on the substance, it seems to me that the effect on hares of allowing the continuance of falconry would be de minimis. NatureScot has admitted that the number of hares that would be affected is minuscule and completely irrelevant to the question of the size of the population. Moreover, I understand from the petitioner, who has kindly given us a great deal of his wisdom and experience, as others have, that it is only certain types of birds of prey—eagles and hawks, I think—that will go for hares. Others will not and cannot. However, eagles and hawks need to prey on hares. Alternative prey do not work, so that suggestion, which has been made by some, is completely irrelevant.

The last thing that I will say—this is really quite sad—is that the petitioner has highlighted that the eagle that he has is now self-harming, because it cannot behave naturally. It is not allowed to, and the petitioner does not want to break the law, as a law-abiding citizen. As a result, that bird is suffering—because of something that happened in Parliament on which his owner and his owner’s peers had no opportunity even to state their case. The really disappointing thing in this is that the Scottish Government has not fessed up to that and said that a mistake was made. It has shrugged off all responsibility.

That is perhaps a bit of a rehearsal for the debate, convener, but it is heartfelt nonetheless and I hope that members might feel that a debate is needed. It would not need to be an extended debate—it would not need to be three hours long—but it would allow the matter to be ventilated. I think that there would be considerable interest among colleagues, because I recall from the debate that there was some disquiet among some of the older hands, if I may say so, that the procedure that was followed for stage 3 of that bill was not appropriate.

Maurice Golden has a question, which I think that I have heard two answers to already, so we will see if he can drill down and get the definitive one.

PE1913, which was lodged by Wendy Swain, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a separate department within Social Security Scotland that will fast-track future adult disability payments—ADPs—for people with a cancer diagnosis while they are undergoing treatment.

We last considered the petition on 23 February and agreed to write to Social Security Scotland. The response from the agency reiterates that the Scottish Government provides a person-centred service and does not prioritise a single condition or type of disability above another. The response states that the Scottish Government does not support an additional fast-track procedure specifically for people with cancer and that there is a fast-track process for people with a terminal illness.

In response to questions about processing times, Social Security Scotland said that there are no targets, as no two applications are the same. However, it indicates that the majority of people will receive a decision within four months and that payments are then calculated from the date of the application.

I should have said that the Scottish Government believes that the fast-track process for people with a terminal illness would accommodate a significant number of those people with a cancer diagnosis.

Do colleagues have any suggestions in light of the Scottish Government’s decision not to take action on the aim of the petition?