Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Mr Choudhury has suggested something that I think will find an echo among colleagues: that we invite Police Scotland to come to the committee and give evidence on the matter at a future meeting. Are colleagues content that we do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.

I am conscious that Mr Rowley has joined us this morning. The petition that he is here for is a little further down the agenda, but I will pull it forward to facilitate his participation in our proceedings, because he arrived early and did not quite understand that our evidence was a bit behind schedule.

PE2061, from Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.

As I said a moment ago, we welcome our colleague Alex Rowley.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 24 January, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council. Responses have been received from all those organisations and are detailed, as colleagues will have seen, in our papers for today’s meeting.

Although expressing sympathy for the petitioner, the Law Society tells us that it does not consider it “necessary or desirable” to replicate the golden rule approach in Scotland

“in light of the other safeguards which exist.”

The society also expressed concern that any requirement for medical professionals to co-sign legal documents could add significant complexity, delays, and costs to the legal process.

The General Medical Council noted that doctors must work within the limits of their competence, and so should not be expected to make assessments about the capacity of their patients to make financial decisions if they felt unable to do so.

The British Medical Association highlighted that there is already provision for doctors to comment on capacity where appropriate, and expressed concern that the petition’s proposal risks creating an impossible increase in workload.

In its response, the Mental Welfare Commission advocates a proportionate response and an expectation that solicitors exercise their professional judgment, and has suggested additional organisations that we might wish to hear from, including the Office of the Public Guardian.

We have received two submissions from the petitioner sharing her reflections on the responses that we have received. She expresses concern about processes that are designed to protect clients, such as access to the client protection fund, and restates the view that this petition aims to build on the good practice that already exists to ensure that vulnerable people are further protected from exploitation.

Before the committee considers how it might proceed, I invite Alex Rowley to contribute to our deliberations.

Thank you, Mr Rowley. At the very least, I think that we should consider taking forward the Mental Welfare Commission’s suggestion that we write to the Office of the Public Guardian. I also suggest that we speak to the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland to discuss the issues, because I am slightly disappointed by the dismissive response that we have received from other organisations that seem to find the proposal inconvenient. Are there any other suggestions for action?

We will keep the petition open and pursue it on that basis.

That concludes our consideration of new petitions. Our next meeting will be on 13 November. We now move into private session to consider agenda items 4 and 5.

Welcome back to this meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We continue our evidence taking in relation to PE2089, which is a petition to stop the creation of more national parks in Scotland. Following the evidence that we heard from our previous witnesses, we have been joined by Rob Lucas of the Galloway National Park Association and John Mayhew of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks. I extend a very warm welcome to both of you.

I say again that our colleague Finlay Carson is sitting in on the discussion of the petition this morning.

We will move straight to questions. We have four themes. I do not know whether you were able to watch or hear any of the evidence that we took from the first panel, but our questions will be on similar themes.

The next continued petition, PE1993, which was lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements, and to reform the assessment criteria and adequately fund the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements.

We last considered the petition on 20 December, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Social Services Council and the Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans. The minister’s response to the committee highlights that, from this academic year,

“postgraduate students who are not eligible to receive bursary support from the Scottish Social Services Council ... will be able to apply for the postgraduate funding package administered by the Student Awards Agency Scotland (SAAS).”

The response also highlights the Scottish Social Services Council’s new model and schedule of rates for the financial support that it provides to postgraduate students. It has also worked to increase clarity for students on the funding that they will receive if they are eligible for a bursary; to reduce the complexity of assessments; and to streamline the administrative processes.

The Social Work Education Partnership commissioned a review of practice learning funding, which reported in September 2023. The minister’s written submission states that the “recommendations are being considered” by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Social Services Council’s written submission states that an action plan is

“being drafted by the SWEP Programme Office”.

The petitioners are concerned that the minister is not taking ownership of the issue. Their submission states that

“it is unfair to try and palm off decision making onto others”,

and that

“the Government will need to make funding available to enable this policy to happen”.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

You make an interesting point about whether national parks themselves are the catalyst for additional tourism. There are other factors, too; for instance, you could point to American television series such as “Outlander” and the tourism that comes from people visiting those destinations. However, when it comes to the whole idea of creating a national park, is it not implicit that such a park will, in the public mind, be somewhere that we should all go to? It might not depend on this, but, by making somewhere a national park, do we not almost self-promote the concept that this is somewhere that tourists should consider upping themselves off to?

Given that the national parks have been in place for a couple of decades now, is a review not a perfectly reasonable proposition?