Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, first, it is already best practice for solicitors to obtain medical opinion if there are doubts about a person’s capacity; secondly, the evidence received by the committee suggests that mandating the proposed practice in all cases could become time-consuming, costly and burdensome; and, thirdly, the Scottish Government has suggested that additional time is required to develop workable legislative proposals to reform the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2020 and has set up a working group. I think that the Scottish Government’s response was provided in response to a request that I made during our previous consideration of the petition that it should provide an explanation of why the proposal to introduce legislation had been withdrawn.

To be fair, the Government has been quite candid in its reply, in which it states that this is an area not without complexity and that a number of different problems have been identified and views expressed in response to a consultation that was undertaken, but that it is not yet ready to provide robust legislation that is practical when it comes to the implications of obtaining medical opinion in such circumstances. I wanted to add that because the petitioner and those who supported her have done a good job at focusing attention on the issue, which is plainly very complex.

I recall the petitioner’s circumstances: her father was taken advantage of by a solicitor who was, as a result, fined for misconduct. The petitioner had a very bad experience, but hard cases can sometimes make bad law. I hope that the petitioner recognises that, to be fair, the Government is giving the matter the serious consideration that it deserves. I hope that, in the next parliamentary session, the Government might consider it anew, not least because—there might be different views about this—the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, if it is passed, might multiply the complexities of such issues.

If I may say so, Mr Golden has been pursuing this issue doggedly, a bit like a bloodhound. He gave a comprehensive list of the various types of dogs that are involved.

Seriously, however, the petition is an interesting one. It asks for money for a very worthy cause—namely, to support the use of sniffer dogs in tracing drugs. I recall from my experience in the mountain rescue team that one dog was 20 or 30 times more effective than a human in tracing a missing person because of their sense of smell and their swiftness. They have a tremendous ability to do that.

Irrespective of where the money comes from, the use of dogs would seem to be an extremely effective way to recover illicit drugs and cash, as the petitioner, Mr Kevin Craigens on behalf of the Shetland Times Ltd, said, and as Beatrice Wishart enthusiastically argued on 18 June.

I do not think that we can take the petition any further but, in closing it, I wonder whether we might write to the Government to say that, irrespective of how funding is found for the purpose—whether it is through the proceeds of crime, which has a certain symmetry about it, or by other means—it is a very worthy cause, and to ask whether the Government is going to do anything at all about it.

I thought that the Government’s response was studiedly evasive and unhelpful—unnecessarily so, because it seems to be an obviously good idea and an effective practice. It is surprising that it has not been, to use an ugly phrase, rolled out southwards beyond Shetland.

Again, in view of the limited time that is available to us in the session—substantially because of that—we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. The Scottish Government’s position is that it would not be lawful to employ a policy of automatic exclusion without considering the individual circumstances of each case. It has no plans to change the law on exclusions, and the committee has undertaken detailed work on the broader issues relating to violence among young people. Plainly, nothing will change between now and 8 April—that is a matter of fact. In saying that, as Mr Golden said earlier, I am not supporting a review.

Indeed, I am bound to reflect that, in the individual circumstances to which our attention was drawn, the person accused of rape and the alleged victim were in the same class. If that is the case, anybody can understand that that is an extremely difficult circumstance. I thought that COSLA’s response was very general, whereas the issue raised by the petitioner was very specific, and it is difficult to generalise from a specific case. I do not think that the petitioner’s case has been answered properly by COSLA, the Scottish Government or anybody else.

It is a very difficult area indeed, and I do not pretend that I have a magic solution, but I do not think that the issue is going to go away. It is rare that much time passes without the issue of violence in the classroom being raised in the chamber—it is raised very frequently.

There is a case for doing that, but it is up to the whole committee.

If I were the petitioner and in the circumstances that have been described, which I have alluded to briefly, I would be very unhappy with COSLA’s response. Indeed, by highlighting the United Nations approach and getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—the COSLA response is almost like a moral lecture that says that people who agree with the petition do not have the right attitude. The United Nations is a hell of a long way from the classrooms that we are talking about. When we are dealing with children, it is a very difficult area, but, nonetheless, I stress that it is an issue of growing concern around the country to parents, children and, frankly, everybody.

Yes.

The Scottish Government’s first argument, that a policy of automatic exclusion would not be lawful because it would need to consider every case, is fair enough. I have no doubt that that is true, and it is almost certainly true legally. However, the reframing of the aim could be that there should be a presumption that automatic exclusion would be appropriate in extreme circumstances, such as the one that I mentioned. I do not think that that would risk breaching the law, but I am thinking out loud here.

Hold it open.

As you said, convener, the Scottish Government has committed to implementing the core provisions that the petitioner has asked for, from March this year. It has also now announced the introduction of the first set of relevant regulations. Therefore, it would appear that the Scottish Government is committed to doing what the petitioner has asked.

We all probably know of or have helped constituents with severe cases, where their homes are riddled with damp. That is a ghastly situation for any individual to find themselves in. I hope that the petitioner will be satisfied that, although we are not yet there, a successful outcome is promised. In the light of what has been promised, I do not think that there is any more that we can do. I therefore suggest that, in the circumstances, we close the petition.

Yes.

I was there for the debate, and I listened to it. I remember you asking whether the swimming lessons would be offered every year or whether it was a one-off, convener. I remember that exchange—it was a palpable hit.

If the Scottish Government has promised to consider a working group, would it be worth while to write to the minister to ask whether that decision will be taken in this parliamentary session and, if so, what the decision will be? That might not prevent us from closing the petition, because we have probably gone as far as we can with it. However, in doing so, I wonder whether it might be useful to give the minister a prod. Heaven forfend the thought that the minister would just play for time, but others might perhaps suggest that he would.