Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. However, as the petitioner will understand, it appears that there is no route open to the committee to take forward the petition’s aims.

Thank you. That was very comprehensive.

I go back to the first few words that you spoke. You talked about the fact that you had access to services that, you realise, other people did not have. How close was the support that you received to being a model of what should be available, and to what extent could your experience have been different or have contributed further to the support that you were looking for?

Thank you. I am sorry that David Torrance is not with us this morning because, when we first considered the petition, he very much thought that we would value the opportunity to meet the petitioner. He has another engagement—a personal engagement—that means that he cannot be here this morning. He took part in last night’s discussion, along with Alexander Stewart, whom I invite to take forward the questioning.

And which can be closed in a national pandemic, aside from anything else.

I fully agree with Fergus Ewing. The petition is, at heart, about the introduction of reusable metal bottles through some method. I would have thought that the minister would be keen on that, as it would alleviate the pressures of implementing of her deposit return scheme if young people were not contributing to the situation and were able to adopt reusable facilities as an alternative.

Are members happy to accommodate that proposal, too?

Members indicated agreement.

The first new petition is PE1998, on ending legal loopholes for the monarchy. The petition has been lodged by Tristan Gray on behalf of Our Republic and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to abolish adaptations and exemptions to legislation requested by the monarchy; to ensure that all future communications between the monarch, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament with representatives of the monarchy are fully transparent and public; to publish details of all cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the monarchy; and to prevent any such alterations to our laws from being implemented in the future.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that

“seeking Crown consent is a requirement under the Scotland Act 1998”

and that it is required

“to follow the same rules that apply to UK Bills when it comes to seeking consent from the Royal Household.”

I should also say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the 1998 act is outwith the responsibility of this Parliament.

On the issue of sharing correspondence between the monarchy, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, the response notes the importance of confidentiality in order

“to hold free and frank discussions”.

The Scottish Government also states that it

“does not record how Bills have changed as they have been developed or where stakeholders have queried aspects of that legislation”

—at all, I would presume.

Do members have any questions or suggestions in view of that directive response from the Scottish Government?

PE2000, which has been lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or by creating a new body, similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, to enable students to access redress without the need for court action.

Members will be aware that a similar petition—PE1769—was considered by our predecessor committee in the previous parliamentary session. It was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had no plans to seek to extend the SPSO’s existing powers and that the Scottish Funding Council had stated that there was no evidence that the current approach had not been effective in protecting the interests and rights of students.

In its response to this new petition, the Scottish Government highlights that higher education institutions are “autonomous bodies” with their

“own arrangements for handling complaints from students”

and that

“Any individual who is not satisfied with the outcome of the”

university’s

“complaints process may refer the issue to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman”.

As noted in response to the previous petition, the remit of the SPSO does not apply to matters of academic judgment.

The briefing that we have received from the Scottish Parliament information centre also notes that consumer protection legislation remains a reserved matter, with the Scottish Government highlighting that Scottish ministers have no power to legislate on the

“redress and enforcement aspects of consumer protection”.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner. In it, Dr Oldfield calls for the consideration of

“a more joined up approach from existing bodies”,

including the SPSO and the Quality Assurance Agency, and also raises concerns about the policy and decision-making processes of those bodies.

Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might take matters forward?

I am quite keen to hear those views.

That is perfectly reasonable. Are colleagues agreed?

Members indicated agreement.