Seòmar agus comataidhean

Not now. [Laughter.]

I feel that we have run out of steam, unfortunately, so I recommend closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government does not consider that there is a need to clarify the definition of protected animals in the 2006 act and the associated guidance, and that it considers the sheep on St Kilda to be protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, in the same way as any unowned and unmanaged population of wild deer are.

That is correct. I was looking out for my next pedigree pooch. [Laughter.]

The issue is already covered by existing legislation, but there are precedents for the Parliament going beyond what is already covered by legislation. I think that we should follow up—at least once more, or perhaps finally—by writing to local authorities to seek information on each local authority’s policy on the presence and behaviour of dogs in cemeteries, the number of complaints received in relation to the behaviour of dogs in cemeteries and whether there is any monitoring of cemetery usage. In many parts of Scotland, for lots of people—dog walkers or otherwise—a cemetery is a place where they can access green space. It would be interesting to find out whether local authorities are looking into that, and it would be interesting to know whether any fines have been issued in relation to breaching the current legislation in cemeteries.

We should write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on its work with local government to explore removing the requirement for a person who has been certified as being severely mentally impaired to be entitled to a qualifying benefit in order for them to be disregarded when calculating council tax liability.

We will have data from elsewhere in the UK, but I note the cabinet secretary’s point that such an offender can be sentenced “up to life imprisonment”. I am not clear, based on the data that we have for Scotland, whether the High Court has dealt with such cases, and ultimately it is only the High Court that can sentence someone up to life imprisonment. I do not know, but I suspect that many of these offences are going to the sheriff court, which would mean up to five years’ imprisonment. That is significantly different from the suggestion that the cabinet secretary has made.

Therefore, I wonder whether we can attempt to find out where these offences are going and how many there are in Scotland. I appreciate that it will be under common law, but it is possible that, with work, we can find out some of the statistics. It would at least clarify the point about life imprisonment.

I appreciate that a full answer might be forthcoming but, given that we do not have one to date, we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to highlight the increasing requirement for additional support needs assistance and the pressures that staff face, as set out by the petitioner. We should also highlight the medical duties that are carried out by staff, as set out by the petitioner, and seek a view on whether that level of medical care should be provided without registration or training.

Furthermore, we should highlight the delay to the Scottish Government’s publication of the report on the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistance. We should ask why there has been such a significant delay in publishing the report, although I appreciate the comments that you made on that point, convener.

Finally, we should seek information on how the Scottish Government intends to take action to address the issue during this parliamentary session.

Unfortunately for the petitioner, we have reached the end of the road with the petition. The one positive aspect is that the petition called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government

“to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils.”

As you have highlighted, convener, that has been secured. We therefore have no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that a debate on a non-binding motion has taken place, the Scottish Government has reaffirmed its commitment to rolling out the next phase of the free school meals programme to primary 6 and 7 pupils who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment, and it continues to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the capital work that is required to support the expansion of free school meals can begin. The Government is also considering initial views on a pilot for universal free school meals in secondary schools.

To round off some of the discussion, what is the minister’s assessment of how the legislation allows access to justice?

Just to be clear, is it the Scottish Government’s position that the current approach allows for a justice system that is up to date, fair and respects the rights and diverse needs of users?

I am sure that we all appreciate that we are running down the clock in this parliamentary session. Is there any more detail on how and when that response might be published?