Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—that is a fair request.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. For those who are watching, and for petitioners who might be following proceedings, before we consider these petitions for the first time orally at the committee, we have sought the views of the Scottish Government, and in some instances other submissions have also been received, which allows us to have informed discussions ahead of consideration of the petitions.

The first new petition, PE1900, which has been lodged by Kevin John Lawson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance.

In its submission, the Scottish Government confirms strongly that it considers that

“fast and appropriate access to treatment including all forms of opiate substitution is important.”

It highlights its new national mission to reduce drug deaths and harms and the medication-assisted treatment standards that ministers are committed to embed by April 2022. The Government confirms that it has sought assurances from the Scottish health in custody network that opioid substitution therapy is being provided to people in custody across Scotland, and it goes on to state that once the medication-assisted treatment standards are fully embedded, it will monitor provision in the NHS Grampian area.

In his submission, the petitioner suggests that there is a contradiction between what official guidance states must happen to detainees in custody in relation to prescribed medication and what is actually happening. He asks that an inquiry is launched to look into the death in custody of detainees who, in the petitioner’s opinion, were

“medically triaged by unqualified police staff.”

Do colleagues have any comments?

I read the petition with a great deal of concern, but I then read the Scottish Government’s submission. It was a strong response that sought to assure us that the practice in place is to the contrary. The weakness in it is that no register is kept that can substantiate the fact, so we do not know how many requests for prescribed medications have been received, nor do we have confirmation of how those requests were dealt with.

Although I am reassured by the Scottish Government’s commitment that detainees should be able to access their medication, I am slightly unnerved by the fact that we are unable to demonstrate that that is the case. I wonder whether the absence of any formal record of requests received or prescriptions issued is entirely as it should be.

Do any colleagues have a view?

Fair enough. That seems sensible.

Is the committee happy with all of that?

Members indicated agreement.

I was not sure whether you were going to make the same point or a different one.

We will write to the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care to ask how the Scottish Government will address the specific concerns that were raised in the petitioner’s request, both in the short term and in the context of that forthcoming legislation. We will also write to the minister to ask how he intends to collect and disseminate examples of good practice of services that are available.

The next continued petition is PE1838, which was lodged by Martin Baker and Katherine Bailey. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that non-statutory child advocacy services are properly regulated to ensure competence, transparency and accountability.

We expect to be joined by Christine Grahame, who will speak to the petition. Before we—potentially—hear from Christine, I will give members some background information.

When we last considered the matter in September, the committee decided to write to the Minister for Community Safety to ask whether she would undertake the necessary work to introduce legislation to regulate non-statutory child advocacy services. In response, the minister stated that, at this stage, she is not in a position to commit to a consultation on such regulation. She highlighted that, were that to be considered, there would be a number of issues to take into account, including enforcement, ensuring independence of child advocacy services and costs.

The minister also drew the committee’s attention to a new section that has been added to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, section 100A, which provides that

“Scottish Ministers must make such provision to ensure that all children concerned in proceedings in which the court is considering making an order under section 11 of the 1995 Act (on matters such as child contact and residence) have access to appropriate child advocacy services.”

The minister’s intention is, prior to the implementation of that section, to undertake a full public consultation, with impact assessments, in 2023.

In their most recent submission, the petitioners state that they are

“dismayed at the apparent lack of urgency on the matter”,

and note, in particular, their disappointment that the proposed consultation is to begin in 2023. The petitioners reiterate their view that

“advocacy workers are intervening in a child’s life and influencing his/her view of its own family life without transparency or accountability.”

We had hoped to have Christine Grahame with us, but she is not here at the moment, so I ask colleagues whether they have any views that they would like to express.

Are members happy to accept David Torrance’s proposal? It seems that there is to be a consultation in 2023. I am sorry that we cannot hear from Christine Grahame this morning, and I understand the petitioners’ disappointment about the timeline, but it is Government’s intention to proceed on that basis, and its action will address the concerns raised by the petitioners. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1854, which was lodged by Keith Park on behalf of the MS Society, is on reviewing payment eligibility criteria for people with mobility needs. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20m rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs.

At its previous consideration of the petition in September, the committee agreed to write to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Scottish Government. Specifically, we asked for clarity on the issue of delivering adult disability payments on a “like for like basis” with personal independence payments.

In his response, the Minister for Social Security and Local Government acknowledges that respondents to a recent Scottish Government consultation on ADP raised a number of key concerns, including that existing eligibility and payments should be protected with the introduction of any new benefit; that benefit recipients should not have to reapply for benefits to maintain their current entitlements; and that existing eligibility criteria on mobility do not adequately reflect the impact of certain disabilities and health conditions, with many responses focusing specifically on the 20m rule.

The minister states that an agreement has been reached with DWP that passporting to reserved benefits for ADP clients will be assured in the immediate term. However, the minister notes that any significant change to the eligibility criteria for adult disability payments could risk undermining that agreement.

The DWP response provides an example of when receipt of enhanced devolved benefits can result in an additional payment from a reserved benefit. However, the petitioner states that the example provided by the DWP supports the position that an enhanced rate of mobility payment does not entitle an individual to any additional reserved benefits and therefore would not be negatively impacted by a change to the eligibility criteria for the ADP.

The petitioner requests that the petition is kept open to allow stakeholders and the committee to examine the Scottish Government’s response to the ADP consultation, and to take evidence from stakeholders.

That was quite a long summation, but I am sure that we all recall our discussion of the 20m rule and our writing to the various parties in relation to it. Would any member like to comment?

Are we agreed that we will keep the petition open, that we will seek the views of the various bodies that we referred to and that we will seek the views of some of those who contributed the original submissions to which the Scottish Government and the DWP subsequently responded?

Members indicated agreement.

As there are no further thoughts from colleagues, do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1860, which was lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow retrospective claims to be made.

When the committee last considered the petition, it decided to write to the Scottish Government to request an indication of the number of requests that the courts have received to override the principal limitation time limits and how often they exercised that discretion.

The committee received a response from the Minister for Community Safety, who states that, although section 19A of the 1973 act allows the courts discretion to override the principal limitation time limits, the Scottish Government does not collect information about when that discretion is used. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has also confirmed to the minister that the information is held in a court interlocutor and, therefore, the SCTS is unable to interrogate the information. The minister ends her submission by stating that the majority of the types of civil cases relevant to the petition are likely to be initiated within the three-year time limit. Given those circumstances, only in a few cases will a court ever have to consider whether to use its equitable discretion to disapply a time limit.

That sounds like an awful lot of nonsense to me. We were specifically assured that there was an appeals process. We wrote to find out whether, in practice, that was a false curtain of comfort, whether the right of appeal had been exercised and what the outcome of anybody trying to exercise it had been. In essence, we are being told that no records exist of whether requests have been made or what the outcome of any such requests was.

I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I am afraid that I am left with the impression that it is like meeting “The Men from the Ministry”. The petitioner and others have been told that there is an appeals process, but there is nothing to indicate whether it is a reality or a chimera.

That is my tuppenceworth. Does anybody else want to come in?