Chamber and committees

We will return to PE2105. Good morning, Mr Sweeney. I think that your connection may have dropped. We had done the preamble and given you the big build-up. I then said to the world that we were about to receive the wisdom of Mr Sweeney, only to be met by a great big blank nothing. However, you are now with us so, without further preamble, would you like to give some thoughts to the committee before we consider how we might proceed on the back of the evidence that we heard last week?

Do members have any comments or thoughts for reflection? We could certainly frame representation to COSLA in relation to the issue, but are there any other suggestions?

The problem is that the standing orders of the Parliament do not allow us to have two petitions open in relation to the same thing at the same time, so I am afraid that we cannot do that.

It is important that we acknowledge that some of the issues here remain active in a live petition. In closing it, we accept that there is an issue here, but the Scottish Government—and, at this stage in the life of the Parliament, there is not much more that we can give effect to in that regard—has said that it is not prepared to pursue the suggested solution that is before us. I therefore do not think that we have any other course of action than the one that Mr Torrance has suggested to us.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It may be a disappointment in some senses, but that is sometimes the way that these things fall, I am afraid.

I would not like to think that the nation’s security relied on a bingo drive. We could make some of those representations and incorporate them into what we send to the Scottish Government. The charity is obviously a very successful one that is doing great and good work. It is looking for a model—as we have said, it is long past time for that, as it has sought and been assured that something might be done. I think that we would like to see something actually being done.

Do members agree to keep the petition open on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce our new petitions, should anyone be looking in to follow our proceedings and see how the committee considers their petition, I highlight, as I always do, that before we consider a petition, we always do two things.

First, we ask the Scottish Parliament information centre, the Parliament’s independent research body, to give us an impartial view of the issues raised by the petition. Secondly, we write to the Scottish Government for its initial view. We do both those things, because, historically, they were the first two things that we would otherwise have decided to do and it expedites the process and consideration of the petition.

PE2155, lodged by Daniel Taggart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to people trying to give up e-cigarettes and vapes by expanding access to nicotine replacement therapy and stop-smoking medications to include e-cigarette users and vapers.

The SPICe briefing for this petition explains that while e-cigarettes and vapes are currently considered lower risk than traditional tobacco products, they still pose health concerns and that further research is required to study their long-term impact on health.

The most recent data for Scotland shows that 12 per cent of adults reported using vapes or e-cigarettes in 2023, compared with just 10 per cent the year earlier. The national health service guidance for pharmacists on public health services states that e-cigarette users should be able to access licensed smoking cessation products, including nicotine replacement therapy. However, the guidance cautions that many e-cigarette products contain nicotine, which means that switching to NRT could create issues with determining the correct dosage.

Additionally, for patients who try to quit non-nicotine e-cigarette products, reintroducing nicotine through NRT would be inappropriate. For those patients, the guidance recommends referral to non-pharmacy specialist smoking cessation services, which may include telephone support, one-to-one support or group support.

In its initial response to the petitioner, the Scottish Government mentions the “Tobacco and vaping framework: roadmap 2034”, under which it has committed to improve information about vapes and to increase awareness of avenues of support for stopping vaping or smoking. The Government has also committed to continue to fund and support cessation services. Despite that, the quit your way Scotland service, which is also referenced in the Scottish Government’s response, appears to be geared primarily towards those who are trying to quit smoking. In fact, with caveats around evolving research on their safety, vapes are being suggested as one of the few possible options to help people who wish to give up smoking.

Do members have any suggestions for action?

Our next petition is PE2061, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help 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.

We last considered this petition on 30 October 2024, when we agreed to write to the Office of the Public Guardian, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland, the Law Society of Scotland, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission. We have received responses from all of them.

The Office of the Public Guardian makes it clear that it will not comment on matters of policy but notes that the proposals in the petition could impact the provisions for powers of attorney, guardianships and intervention orders and access to funds authorisations under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Those provisions include the submission of medical reports for consideration by the judiciary or the OPG.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has indicated that it receives a small but steady number of complaints each year that involve concerns about the steps that have been taken by a solicitor to assess capacity, although it was not able to identify cases alleging coercive behaviour. None of the service complaints that have been investigated by the SLCC have been upheld. Conduct complaints about solicitors are not handled by the SLCC but are passed to the Law Society of Scotland.

The data from the Law Society of Scotland shows that the overall number of applications that were made to the client protection fund increased between 2020 and 2024, although the number of paid claims remained roughly the same. The LSS did not attempt to identify capacity-related claims, but it might be able to provide further data on whether claimants were individuals, solicitor firms or others.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland noted concerns that had been raised by doctors in both primary and secondary care regarding inconsistencies in relation to how lawyers involve medical teams to support capacity assessment when working with clients who are also in-hospital patients. It also noted that, as long as assessment of capacity is undertaken by qualified individuals, they do not need to be medically qualified, highlighting concerns from primary care doctors that a requirement for a medical assessment in all situations might prove burdensome, time consuming and potentially more expensive. However, on balance, the academy indicated that it was broadly supportive of the petition at this time.

Finally, we have also received a submission from the petitioner, who points out that the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which provides the current framework, was subject to a review in 2024, with the consultation analysis being published earlier this year. She highlights that the majority of responses agree that there need to be relevant changes to how power of attorney documents are obtained and by whom, and also that further mandatory attorney training was needed.

In the analysis of the consultation, the Scottish Government stated that the responses would inform the development of a bill amending the adults with incapacity legislation. Although the proposed bill was part of the programme for government that was announced last September, it was not included in the updated legislative programme that was published last month.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that Mr Torrance was quite right in his recommendation, but that the issue that Mr Ewing raises stands out slightly, and that we would be advised to find out more. We more or less accept that the petition has run its course insofar as we can act, but it is important to understand why the bill has just disappeared from the Government’s programme, so we would like to ask about that.