Chamber and committees

We now return to Callum Isted’s petition, PE1896, on providing every primary school child in Scotland with a reusable water bottle.

We last considered the petition on 22 February, when we heard evidence from the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, Lorna Slater, and the head of the Scottish Government’s support and wellbeing unit, Laura Meikle. Members will recall that, at that evidence session, the minister reiterated the Scottish Government’s view that it is up to local authorities to decide their budgets and how drinking water is provided, although they are required to ensure that drinking water is made available free of charge and provided in a sustainable way.

We also heard that on-going monitoring of the duties under the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) (Scotland) Act 2007 takes place through nutrition inspections and engagement with catering services and education authorities. However, members raised questions about the availability of detailed evidence from each local authority.

As members might recall, there was an outstanding commitment from the former First Minister to invite young Callum to Bute house, but I am afraid that that commitment cannot be fulfilled, because the building is now covered in building tape and closed for renovations that might take some considerable time to complete. Notwithstanding that unfulfilled promise, do colleagues have any suggestions?

Did you want to come in, Carol?

I am not sure who you are asking.

Perhaps that is because of the order that I read out the names.

Thank you very much. I do not need to complete my peroration because Carol Mochan invited you to do exactly that—to make further specific points that you wanted to put to us. You have all managed to do that. We have ended on an aim and goal that are highly aspirational.

As MPs, we all recognise your comments. Constituents contact us all the time in relation to many different issues. For constituent A, everything will have gone remarkably well and they contact us to tell us so, but constituent B, who might be knocking on the same door, will come back to say that, for whatever reason, that has not happened for them.

As Joanne McMeeking said, we cannot advertise services as a lottery. People should expect to receive—particularly in matters in which people are so vulnerable and need to know that they will get a positive outcome—outcomes that are as every bit as positive as the one that we heard about from Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling earlier.

I thank you all for participating in our work this morning.

Colleagues, are you content to consider the evidence that we have heard at a later meeting of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

I am aware that there is considerable interest in the petition. Are colleagues content that we progress it by contacting those various organisation for their views?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2002, which has been lodged by Grant White, urges the Scottish Government to provide increased funding for legal aid in civil cases to ensure access for people with disabilities. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights the Law Society of Scotland’s campaign on access to legal aid and its research, which found that there was a lack of solicitors offering legal aid based in deprived communities.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states:

“The Scottish Legal Aid Board ... apply means and merits tests to determine eligibility”

for the legal aid fund. It goes on to state:

“Neither Ministers nor the Scottish Legal Aid Board ... can compel solicitors to provide advice and representation.”

The response also outlines measures that are being introduced to improve access to legal aid.

The petitioner’s written submission details his experience, which highlights the challenge in obtaining a solicitor. He states that he has contacted nearly 100 firms, all of which stated that they could not take on his case. He concludes by stating:

“my experience is that there are too few solicitors who carry out legal aid work and those who do legal aid cases do not have the capacity to take on any more because of the lack of funding.”

Well, there we are. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed in relation to the petition?

PE1941, which was lodged by Councillor Andrew Stewart Wood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking the statutory duty of ensuring health and safety within cemeteries.

Colleagues will remember that, on 8 February, we heard evidence from Councillor Wood and Desmond Barr from the Friends of Hawkhead Cemetery. During that evidence session, witnesses raised concerns that a policy established as a consequence of a tragic fatality from a large headstone had led to regulations being applied to much smaller and less dangerous headstones in a destructive way and without notice.

We heard that the Scottish Government guidance on health and safety in graveyards is “very good” but that it is not always followed by local authorities due to budgetary pressures. Witnesses highlighted improved communication with lair owners as a key part of any change and suggested the introduction of an independent auditor to check that local authorities are following the Scottish Government’s guidance. The petitioner was in favour of introducing a national standard to ensure that processes are followed and communication with lair owners is maintained.

There is quite a tricky narrative in relation to the petition. Do colleagues have suggestions as to how we might proceed?

We will keep the petition open and progress on that basis.

PE1948, which was lodged by Alex O’Kane, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage Police Scotland to review its practices for dealing with unexplained deaths, from initial recovery through to the support that is offered to family members.

I am sure that members will recall that, on 22 February, we heard evidence—it was very difficult evidence to hear—from Stephanie Bonner in relation to the experience that she had in investigating the death of her 19-year-old son, Rhys, and her concerns about the way in which the police handled the issue, and the presumptions and assumptions that were made, based on her son’s age and where he lived, which left her in the intolerable position of having to conduct her own inquiries in an attempt to establish answers.

On the issue of support to families, Stephanie shared the fact that she did not feel that she was supported by Police Scotland. She felt that she was met with nothing more than a wall of silence following her initiation of a complaint. She called for unexplained deaths to be treated as a matter for immediate investigation. She believed that it should be a standard expectation that a proactive approach will be taken, that doors will be knocked on and that family liaison officers will be embedded in the process.

Although we are unable to look into the specifics of Stephanie’s experience, because that goes beyond the committee’s remit, her evidence was definitely helpful in illustrating the issues that the petition raises. Now that members have had an opportunity to reflect on her evidence, are there any suggestions that they wish to make about what action we might take?