Seòmar agus comataidhean

—it is defeat; it is simply a deferral of probable consideration.

The members of the next Parliament, including those of us who are not ourselves culled, can give it consideration.

Yes. Mr Torrance is absolutely right. The Scottish Government has set out its stall, but it does not really have an answer, nor can it ever have an answer, to the point that has been raised by the petitioner. The cut-off time is arbitrary, and one can well understand how much that must rankle and worry people who have been through abuse before 2004.

I guess that we will come back to the issue again, because if a decision is not based on principle and confounds any sense of decency, I am quite sure that this committee will be hearing about it again—and rightly so.

Yes, I agree with that. I am struck by petitioner Helen Blythe pointing out that an answer that she received to a freedom of information request said that fewer than one in 20 schools have all four recommended allergy safeguards in place—so, 19 out of 20 do not. Almost half—49 per cent—have no allergy policy, only 8 per cent hold spare adrenaline autoinjector allergy pens, and nearly a third do not provide any allergy training.

The Scottish Government has given a long answer, but, as far as I can see—I apologise if I have missed anything—it does not refer to any of those points whatsoever. When the Scottish Government replies to petitioners, why can it not just answer the questions that are put and the factual assertions that are made? If it says that they are wrong, let us say it. It never does that, and it must be extremely irritating for all petitioners.

That is a general point. On a specific point, the Government’s response says that the job of the inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland is to go round and inspect schools, to make sure that they are following their obligations in all respects, but it does not seem to refer to allergies at all. It refers to dietary requirements, which covers some allergies, but it does not refer to allergies. Is it possible to raise that issue ourselves? Or, if there is not enough time to do that, which may well be the case, could we encourage the petitioner to bring the petition back?

If I were marking the Scottish Government’s response, I would give it a half out of 10, and not for the first time.

Given the effluxion of time, we are unable to pursue the matter further, but the petitioner has raised an interesting point. I will say more about that in a minute. The Scottish Government has said that it has no plans to make any changes in the current parliamentary session, so nothing will happen in this session.

I want to make a very simple point. In England, the limit is £10,000, whereas it is £5,000 in Scotland. I looked in vain for an explanation, but the Scottish Government has not remarked on that point at all. I do not know the reason for that, but it is completely and utterly unacceptable.

I am no longer a practising solicitor, but, having observed the courts scene at the moment, I know that it is very difficult to get a criminal lawyer and that there are massive delays in the civil courts. Quite frankly, no individual can afford to go to court unless they are very well off or get legal aid, which people often do not get. Therefore, there is, of course, a case for raising the limit to £10,000 to allow people to avail themselves of the simple procedure, instead of having to deal with the extraordinary byzantine complexity of the ordinary cause or summary cause procedures, which are not much simpler. The current situation means that, in effect, there is no justice for individuals in that narrow band.

It is impossible to get a lawyer for that sum of money, because the legal fees involved would probably exceed the sum sued for in most cases. Lawyers will not take the case on and people go without remedies. We are in a country where there is a theoretical right of access to the courts but where, in practice, it does not exist. One simple way to address that, to a modest extent, is to do what the petitioner asks.

This is another petition where, if it were not for the fact that it is now 2026 and we are a few weeks away from dissolution, we would have had the justice minister here to answer some of the questions that, quite frankly, they have manifestly failed to answer in any way at all, which is quite abysmal, in my opinion.

I am happy to do that. Laura Hansler might well be back before us in the next parliamentary session.

I was struck by the background information to the petition, which pointed out that Scotland continues to have one of the highest cancer mortality rates in western Europe among children under 18. That is a shocking statistic.

I was not aware of many of the issues that Jackie Baillie has eloquently set out. Although it is heartening that some progress has been made on points 1 and 2, she is absolutely right to focus on point 3 and seek a specific answer from the Scottish Government. However, I see no reason why we should not at the same time write to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to see what it says about the issue. Plainly, the Scottish Government refers regularly to advice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and everything else from the royal colleges, so it might be worth while to do that—there would be no harm in it.

The members of the next Parliament, including those of us who are not ourselves culled, can give it consideration.

Yes, I agree with that. I am struck by petitioner Helen Blythe pointing out that an answer that she received to a freedom of information request said that fewer than one in 20 schools have all four recommended allergy safeguards in place—so, 19 out of 20 do not. Almost half—49 per cent—have no allergy policy, only 8 per cent hold spare adrenaline autoinjector allergy pens, and nearly a third do not provide any allergy training.

The Scottish Government has given a long answer, but, as far as I can see—I apologise if I have missed anything—it does not refer to any of those points whatsoever. When the Scottish Government replies to petitioners, why can it not just answer the questions that are put and the factual assertions that are made? If it says that they are wrong, let us say it. It never does that, and it must be extremely irritating for all petitioners.

That is a general point. On a specific point, the Government’s response says that the job of the inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland is to go round and inspect schools, to make sure that they are following their obligations in all respects, but it does not seem to refer to allergies at all. It refers to dietary requirements, which covers some allergies, but it does not refer to allergies. Is it possible to raise that issue ourselves? Or, if there is not enough time to do that, which may well be the case, could we encourage the petitioner to bring the petition back?

If I were marking the Scottish Government’s response, I would give it a half out of 10, and not for the first time.

I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that legal access rights and the outdoor access code were designed to apply only to non-motorised access to land. The Scottish Government believes that infringements of the code are best tackled in that way.

Before making that proposal, I read the Scottish Government’s response. I must say that it seems to be sitting on the fence. For some strange reason, the Scottish Government shows a strange propensity for being reluctant to say anything at all about camper vans. I cannot imagine why that could possibly be the case.

Those remarks aside, lay-bys are not meant for overnight camping for recreational purposes, but they can be necessary to allow drivers of heavy goods vehicles to take a break. Those drivers may have to do so because of tachograph rules that are designed for vehicle safety. It is not entirely straightforward, but I think that a distinction could be drawn for commercial business employment use for protected lay-bys, which are the only ones that should be used for overnight parking. We should distinguish between that on the one hand and camper vans on the other.

The petitioner has a serious point to make and I thoroughly back up what the convener has said, but we have no alternative but to close the petition.