Seòmar agus comataidhean

The petitioner’s submission is harrowing and it would be good to invite her to give evidence orally to the committee if possible. That would be an appropriate first step.

I agree with that. I do not know whether it is easy to define in law at what point estrangement takes place. I do not know whether that is clearly defined in legislation, so that might be the complexity that arises from the petition.

Notwithstanding the Scottish Government’s submission, I think that it would be appropriate to take further evidence directly from stakeholders in the sector, particularly taxi drivers. I understand from my casework that there are significant problems of lack of sufficient support and that that has led to the exit of a significant number of drivers from the sector, which, in turn, is having a substantial impact on the availability of taxis in Scotland’s major cities and towns. On that basis, it would be worth conducting further investigation and seeking further submissions from relevant taxi owner associations and the relevant trade union branches.

I am sympathetic to the petitioner’s requests, which are clearly personally significant. I note the legislative change with regard to organ donation, which has created an opt-out system, and I do not see why the same principle cannot apply to all forms of post mortems or physical interventions on the body. There could be a system of proactive consent, whereby the next of kin could express their desire that such things did not take place. That is what happens with organ donation, which people now have to opt out of, and we could have a look at how those two issues interact.

The established protocols to have proof of double vaccination are to be combined with an option to show proof of a negative test. That has been demonstrated to be a reasonable procedure in practice, as most countries across Europe are operating similar protocols. However, I understand that there is potential for deception in the process. It is perhaps for the lead committee to consider how the aims of the legislation can be better achieved through the procedure. There might be opportunities to improve it, such as by introducing liability for those who are found, in the course of random inspection, to have cheated the system. That might introduce a greater incentive to comply with the requirement for honesty from the community as a whole in order to protect one another.

The only other thing that sprang to mind was that we should perhaps seek submissions from the operators at the airports, such as Loganair. I do not know whether there are other airlines or users of the airports that it might be worth contacting to get their understanding of the situation and hear their concerns, as well as hearing from the Scottish Government, HIAL and the trade union.

Although it is encouraging that the Government’s response has indicated the forthcoming legislation, it is important to give the petitioner some degree of assurance that the specifics of the legislation will address the concerns that are outlined in the petition and also perhaps offer a degree of assurance about more immediate measures that could be put in place. In order to satisfy the petitioner’s concerns, a more specific response from the minister would be helpful.

I agree with Bill Kidd. The principle has broad agreement across Parliament and there is a desire to do something. It is a question of legality and the potential unintended consequences that might affect DWP qualification. It is a grey area that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later. We need to firm up the devolution of social security and how interactions between DWP and Social Security Scotland perform. The petition presents an extremely opportune way of doing that.

With that in mind, it would be helpful to invite further submissions from, for example, the MS Society, Citizens Advice Scotland, the alliance

, the Neurological Alliance of Scotland and Parkinson’s UK. I highlight those groups as an indication of those who made submissions on the petition in the first instance or that indicated support for it.

We need to chip away to get the issue sorted out. Although it is a technical issue, given the severe harm that is potentially caused to people, getting the matter resolved sooner rather than later would be more helpful than deferring it. We should try to get the system designed and fixed quicker than would perhaps otherwise happen.

I am sympathetic, because it is an on-going and worthwhile discussion. In the 1990s, the Scottish Constitutional Convention established the additional member system as the preferred electoral system, but perhaps there is an on-going need to consider alternatives. Obviously, the single transferable vote for local government elections was introduced in the mid-2000s. There have been observations of concerning practices in the most recent Scottish Parliament elections; most notably, the Greens were perhaps stymied in some instances by a decoy green party, which was higher up the list and seduced votes away from the Greens. I certainly noticed that at the Glasgow count, so there are flaws with the current list structure of two ballots, which are worth further investigation.

I share the concern that the monitoring processes are not sufficiently mature. The Government’s submission might be sincere, but if the Government is not connected to what is going on in a custody suite in Scotland at any particular time, how would it know any different? The petition has highlighted a blind spot in its monitoring procedures and it is well worth further investigation.