Seòmar agus comataidhean

My personal view is that the legal aid system is a farce and that the situation with regard to the petition is disappointing. Nonetheless, the committee has no choice other than to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government claims that it has taken some short-term actions to improve access to legal aid. Perhaps that claim should be tested.

The Government has also indicated that long-term work is being done to inform the development of legal aid reform legislation in a future parliamentary session. I would welcome the petitioner resubmitting the petition in the next session of Parliament to test that claim, too. Furthermore, the Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a review of the civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse. Again, that could be looked at in the next session. The Government has also said that it is the policy of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to proactively seek the views of the victim when prosecutors decide whether to oppose an application to revoke or vary a non-harassment order.

As colleagues and the petitioner have suggested, vaping more generally is now a major crisis that we face not just in Scotland but across the UK. As the convener said, vapes were initially introduced as a cessation tool, but the position has changed for the next generation of those growing up—in many schools in Scotland, the use of vapes is commonplace, including in toilets, and it is considered to have no risk. There are wider implications relating to access to vapes, particularly for under-18s, and to the flavours—I presume that unicorn flavour and other such flavours are not targeted at over-18s.

Lots of work will need to be done in this area, including what the petitioner has suggested, by the committee in the next parliamentary session. There are two categories of actions. The first relates to cessation tools for people to go from tobacco to vapes or nicotine-based products such as patches. I think that the issues should be considered in the round when such a petition comes our way.

There is potential for the committee to keep the petition open, but my preference is for a new petition to be lodged and for the new committee to consider the wider issues rather than just the specific issue that is raised in the current petition. Therefore, I think that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, for the reasons that colleagues have highlighted and on the basis that current NHS guidance states that users of nicotine-based products should be able to access licensed smoking cessation products and that users of non-nicotine e-cigarettes and vapes can be referred to non-pharmacy specialist smoking cessation services. The reality is that I would be shocked if many of the children who are currently using vapes in schools across Scotland are accessing said services.

More generally, there is an issue with homelessness that we would all want to be rectified. On the petitions that we are considering today, it might be worth highlighting for anyone listening that, if any committee member articulates what the Scottish Government is stating, that is not an endorsement of that statement. It should be regarded as just a statement of fact and not a position of agreement or otherwise.

We should close the petition, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has stated that there are no plans to pay for homeless temporary accommodation or waive outstanding debts. Furthermore, the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers does not think that there is any case for the Scottish Government to take on the cost of funding temporary accommodation or write off existing arrears.

The issue warrants further consideration, but, unfortunately, the committee will not be able to give it that consideration at this point in the parliamentary session. We come back, again, to the term “sustainability”, this time in respect of the gannet population, but, ultimately, the committee has to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because the Scottish Government has made it clear that it does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on this particular island, whose name I struggle to pronounce.

My understanding of international law is that the International Criminal Court, which is based in The Hague or New York, can, as required, look into specific cases. In order for such a court to be established, my understanding is that the UK would need to pull out from the Rome statute, which is clearly not a devolved matter. I would have concerns about international legal obligations were that to be the case.

On that basis, and on the basis that the Scottish Government is not willing to progress the petition, such matters are outwith the jurisdiction of the Parliament. I believe that the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

The Scottish Government’s response is disappointing but, ultimately, the committee should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has what is described as a needs-based funding formula for local authorities that is agreed annually following negotiations between the Scottish Government and COSLA. However, it might be worth while if the committee, in closing the petition, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to highlight the issues that are raised by the petition.

I have sympathy with the petitioner and, ultimately, the motivation to receive justice. However, the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, first, the Scottish Government believes that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent the fraudulent use of bankruptcy to further abuse a partner; moreover, if the abuser is not genuinely unable to pay their debt, it is possible for survivors or anyone with an interest to apply to the court to have their abuser’s award of sequestration recalled; and finally, concerns about undisclosed income or assets can be reported to, and investigated by, the trustee, who could then get court orders to require such assets or income to be handed to them.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, principally because of time constraints—it will not be possible to progress the petition further in this session of Parliament.

However, I note that the Scottish Government has established an adults with incapacity reform expert working group. In my experience in Parliament over the past decade, establishing an expert working group often means that nothing happens. I hope that that is not the case here.

Despite the Scottish Government announcing in 2024 that a bill would be introduced to amend the 2000 act, it has proposed that that be taken forward in the next parliamentary session. A promise that a bill will be taken forward by future Governments is a very weak promise, even a future Government of the same party. We have had experience of such bills being delayed for the best part of eight or nine years.

Nonetheless, I will try to step back from being so cynical and hope that the matter will be addressed in the next session of Parliament. If it is not, closing the petition today will allow the petitioner the opportunity to bring back the issue and increase the pressure on the Government, if required.

Yes. I agree with you, convener. It is reasonable to ask the future committee to attempt to get some data on what every local authority in Scotland is doing on this. Allergies are very prevalent, so the issue is worthy of further consideration before coming to a conclusion, although that would be for a future committee.

The Scottish Government would argue that there is a sustainable funding model for Scotland’s colleges, but I disagree with that, and I would widen that out to the tertiary education sector. Nonetheless, with regard to the petition’s aims, I believe that the committee has no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government, is engaging with the Scottish Funding Council and Colleges Scotland on the wider college sector and is looking into a review of the funding allocation model.

I note that many colleges are making difficult decisions in order to be sustainable. Dundee and Angus College has recently closed its swimming pool at Gardyne Road, much to the dismay of the local community. However, unfortunately, at this stage in the session, I do not believe that there is anything that the committee can do to further progress the petition’s aims.