Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are colleagues content that we close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Given that a review is under way, there will be an opportunity to pursue the matter and to interrogate the Government on it in the next session.

PE2061, which was lodged by 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.

We last considered the petition on 18 June, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. In its response, the Government states that, following the 2024 consultation on proposed changes to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, it concluded that additional time was required to ensure that any legislative proposals were robust and workable and would deliver the best outcomes. For that reason, the proposed bill was no longer included in the May 2025 legislative programme. The Government has set up an expert working group to develop the policy and the operational considerations to support future legislative change in the area, and a minister-led oversight group has been established to monitor and drive progress. Initial meetings were expected to take place in September 2025.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in Scotland previously highlighted concerns that requiring a medical assessment in all instances in which a potentially vulnerable person signs a legal document, rather than only in cases in which there is concern about their mental capacity, may prove burdensome, time-consuming and potentially more expensive for the individuals affected.

Members might also remember that Law Society of Scotland guidance states that, when a solicitor takes instructions from a client, they should be satisfied that the client has the capacity to give instructions in relation to the matter in question. The guidance further indicates that, if there is any doubt as to a client’s capacity to instruct in a particular case, solicitors should seek input from an appropriate qualified professional.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

From the response, it was almost as though we were asking for free lawnmowers to cut grass or something. I thought that the response fell well short of the importance of the issue that underpins the petition, which deserves slightly more direct attention. I am quite happy to write to the Government, although we will no doubt be accused of making funding requests for the budget without identifying sources. In this instance, however, we would be identifying a source, because we would be saying that the proceeds of the drugs should be directed to the charity.

I note that the Scottish Government intends to have completed an assessment by May 2026. We could write to the Government to indicate that we have closed the petition and that we thought that, frankly, the response was a bit short and that the issue deserves greater merit and attention. In addition, we could say to the petitioner that, in the light of the fact that there is to be an assessment by May 2026, there would be an opportunity for the committee in the next parliamentary session to consider a fresh petition on the basis of the outcome of the review. We could suggest that the petitioner pursues the fund more directly at that time.

Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

We will add PE2139 to the shortlist of petitions that we would like to consider carrying forward.

In the circumstances, are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2155, which was lodged by Daniel Taggart, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve support for people trying to give up e-cigarettes and vaping by expanding access to nicotine replacement therapy and stop-smoking medications to include e-cigarette users and vapers. We last considered the petition on 18 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. We wanted to get a bit more clarity on what steps the Scottish Government is taking to increase support, as well as awareness of support, for those trying to quit e-cigarettes and vapes, with a particular focus on young people.

The minister’s response points to the tobacco and vaping framework of 2023, via which the Government is committed to improving information on vapes and to increasing awareness of avenues for support with stopping vaping or smoking. The minister highlights a number of actions that have either already been taken or are to be taken over the next two years, although those are mostly focused on prevention rather than increasing support for those who are already using e-cigarettes and vapes.

Colleagues, do we have any suggestions for action?

I have been a member of the petitions committee, in various parliamentary sessions, long enough to remember the advent of vapes, which were, at the time, considered positively as providing a route to get people off hard tobacco. That was quite a successful initiative, but I do not think that anybody necessarily anticipated the massive growth in the use of vapes as an attraction in their own right, as opposed to their being a device to get people off hard tobacco.

As you said, vapes have now become incredibly prevalent, and they come in an assortment of flavours. Occasionally, I have asked someone what the flavour of their vape was, and they have said that it was mango, passion fruit or goodness knows what else. There are more flavours of vapes than there are flavours of ice cream nowadays.

I am not quite sure where we can take things.

The health committee in the next parliamentary session could also consider the issue, which has definitely grown over the lifetime of the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that a proper holistic view has been taken. I am not in a position to say what harms, if any, are caused by vaping in the way that I could for wider tobacco products, so I do not want to presume anything. However, it is the case that the prevalence of public vaping among young people is now widespread.

Are colleagues content with Mr Golden’s suggestion that we close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. Many people may be joining us this morning who are monitoring the development and progress of their petition. At this stage in the parliamentary session, there is little option but for the committee to consider whether there is anything further that we can do to progress a petition in this session. Irrespective of the merits of a petition, we may feel that we have no option but to close it. When that is the case, we will identify to petitioners that there is an option for them to resubmit the petition at the beginning of the next session of Parliament, if they think that that is the appropriate course of action. That would allow the petition to be properly explored by the Parliament in the new session.

PE1946, which was lodged by Sean Anthony Clerkin, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use general taxation to pay all charges for homeless temporary accommodation, including writing off the £33.3 million debt that, at the time of the petition, was owed by homeless people to local authorities for temporary accommodation.

We last considered the petition in June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Housing. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing provided a response to the committee that highlights work being undertaken to better understand the costs, quality and value-for-money challenges around increasing the use of suitable temporary accommodation. The submission states:

“Charges for temporary accommodation are a matter for individual councils, but councils must take into account what a person can afford to pay.”

It notes that the Scottish Government is willing to work in partnership with others

“to increase consistency in monitoring to improve transparency on charges and value for money.”

Colleagues, do we have any suggestions for action in relation to the petition?