Chamber and committees

It might be sensible for us to wait for the responses that we are expecting from local authorities and then write on the back of that evidence. Are we all content with that as the next step forward?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner. We are closing the petition for the reasons that we have set out. However, we understand the issues underpinning it, and we believe that there is a forum in which those issues might yet be taken forward.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions, the first of which is PE1965, on limiting estranged couples’ claim on an estate after seven years of non-medical separation. The petition, which was lodged by Mark MacLeod, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to limit married but informally separated and non-cohabiting couples’ claim of prior right over descendants of the deceased after seven years of separation.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it has carried out consultations on the matter in recent years. It notes concerns with the proposals, including potential unintended consequences and difficulties in stating when any period of formal separation began. The Government indicates its intention to undertake further research on the law on intestate succession and confirms that it will continue to keep the law of succession under review in the light of its findings.

The Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill has been introduced. Members might wish to note that section 72 of the bill proposes reforms to the effect that, when someone dies without leaving children, the spouse or civil partner should inherit the whole estate. Under the proposals, a spouse or civil partner is defined as including the situation in which the couple has separated.

Members might also wish to note that the petition is substantially similar to PE1904. We closed that—as recently as March—on the basis that the Scottish Government had indicated its intention to carry out further research on intestate succession. At that time, the committee also noted that unfortunately, from the point of view of our consideration, the legal experts did not support the action that was called for on the matter.

In the light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions on how they would like to proceed?

Are there any other suggestions? Could we perhaps couple that with a suggestion to the petitioner that the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill is currently live—it is only at stage 1—and that it might be sensible to engage with that consideration?

Okay—so we are writing to Transport Scotland on the issues that we have identified, writing to Argyll and Bute Council and writing to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. Are there any other suggestions?

Since there are no further suggestions from members, are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning and welcome back to the final meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022.

We considered new petitions prior to moving into private session; we now move to agenda item 5, which is consideration of continued petition PE1871, which was lodged by Karen McKeown on behalf of the shining lights for change group. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to carry out a full review of mental health services in Scotland, which should include consideration of the referral process, crisis support, risk assessments, safe plans, how integrated services work together, first response support and the support that is available to families who are affected by suicide.

The committee will recall that we heard very affecting testimony from Karen McKeown about the personal circumstances that led to the petition and the changes that she wishes to see being made to mental health services. We thank her again for lodging the petition and for taking the time to meet us.

We are joined by Humza Yousaf, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. We are also joined by officials from the Scottish Government. Hugh McAloon is director of mental health, Gavin Gray is deputy director in improving mental health services and Dr Alastair Cook is principal medical officer. Good morning thank you all for joining us to give evidence.

We are also joined by Monica Lennon MSP, who is here in support of the petition. I will invite her to contribute, subsequent to our hearing the cabinet secretary’s evidence.

Cabinet secretary, we are happy to move to questions, but I am also happy if there is anything that you would like to say to us before we begin questions.

Certainly, the initial questioning in Parliament included issues such as domestic abuse and suicide. People were concerned that the prolonged lockdown might have—in some cases, it did have—a negative impact. As you said, we are only theorising at the moment, but perhaps the fact that people’s experiences were not so different or isolating, in the sense that they were part of an experience that everybody else was sharing, made some things easier to bear or to deal with.

You may, Mr Sweeney.

That concludes our business for today. We next meet on 18 January.