Seòmar agus comataidhean

For the reasons that Mr Golden set out, we should close the petition. However, having heard what Mr Mountain said, I agree that, in closing the petition, it would be helpful to write to the Scottish Government, in the terms that he suggested. The fire in Dava decimated everything for an area of 44 square miles, which is one half of the area of the city of Edinburgh, and it is of huge concern that the next wildfire could be even worse. An international expert in wildfires said that Governments do not take this issue seriously until the first 100 people are dead. I do not say that to be dramatic, but gamekeepers in my area tell me that there is a risk of a serious fire, which could decimate vast areas, and they can tell me exactly where it would happen, how, in what wind conditions and at what time of year.

Although I know that Mr Fairlie is taking the issue seriously, the need for swift action is absolutely overwhelming. We should ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with local authorities to put a ban in place, especially in times of high risk, and especially during April and the months in which bracken, gorse and so on in moorland are more susceptible to fire than they are at other times of year, although I am no expert.

I just wanted to back up what Mr Mountain was saying and make sure that we show the petitioner that we are taking the petition very seriously indeed. Otherwise, it could drag on for another five years, while draft byelaws here and there in little bits of Scotland are considered instead of national action, which the Government should surely not allocate to others but should take responsibility for itself.

I have no comment.

My second and only further question is: what do you believe would improve data collection and analysis to inform screening and prevention strategies? Two of you have referred to gaps. Are there any particular steps that you would advocate for or areas where you feel that gaps need to be filled in order to improve data collection to inform screening? I am thinking particularly of young people, who are the topic of one of the petitions.

There is no alternative but to close the petition. I say so because it is plain that we will not see any further specific action by the Scottish Government before dissolution. That is crystal clear. However, I want to say a few things.

First, I pick up on the fact that, as the convener said, Mr Gale—I think—noted that there is a particular concern about sedatives being given to people in old folks’ homes to make them easier to deal with. That point has not been answered at all—I thought it only fair to Mr Gale and the petitioner to point that out—and nor, really, has the petitioner’s ask ever been directly responded to. The petition was lodged on 5 January 2023, and its aim was that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted.

Looking back at Maree Todd’s first response, on 29 January 2024, I see that she did not answer that point at all—not in the slightest. She said that the Scottish Government would introduce the human rights bill later that year. That has not happened. I think that it is only fair to the petitioner to point that out and get it on the record that that promise has plainly been broken.

We are not going to get any further, but it is symptomatic of the Government’s approach, which is that, where it is not willing to do something that it is asked to do, instead of just saying, “We’re not going to do that” and giving a reason—I suspect that that is the case here—we get huge amounts of written material in response that does not bear directly on the point. Personally, I feel that that does the Government no good at all, because petitioners understandably get completely hacked off that the thing that they are asking for has not been answered at all.

I just wanted to put that on the record, but I agree with Mr Torrance—perhaps from a slightly different perspective—that nothing further is going to take place. I note that the petitioner has been pursuing the issue for two decades now and he must feel pretty aggrieved and disappointed. I reflect on the fact that the committee tries very hard to extract answers from the Government but, very often, for whatever reason, that does not happen. This is one of those cases.

Plainly, any medical treatment or process must be based on the best evidence and data. That is pretty obvious. One of the several petitions before us asks to improve data on young people who are affected by conditions that cause sudden cardiac death. I want to ask each of you about your views on data, research and guidance. First, what data currently exists on sudden cardiac death in young people in Scotland? Is there enough data? Are there gaps? If so, how should they be filled?

I appreciate that it is quite a broad theme but, given the importance of evidence-based practices in medicine as the sound way to proceed, it is perhaps a good starting point. What data exists, and what are your views about what more might or should be done?

I agree with Mr Torrance’s recommendation. I suggested that the summary cause procedure be used but, to be fair to the minister, she has responded directly to the point and given her reasons. I understand that the reasons might well be valid and my suggestion has been answered by the minister so, in the interest of balance, I should thank the minister for her response. It does mean, however, that there is no real resolution to the petitioner’s request, although I suspect that, in many cases, no real resolution is ever possible when certain differences arise. That is my experience, anyway.

I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation for the reasons that he set out, but it might be useful to reflect on the fact that the purpose of the petition is to allow there to be some regard to exceptional circumstances—namely,

“personal or compassionate circumstances, including bereavement, illness, sudden house moves, or lack of awareness of rights”.

It occurs to me that, if some allowance is to be made for those factors, particularly illness and bereavement, perhaps the more appropriate way to give effect to that would be through the system of reliefs for council tax, rather than changing the bands. The bands relate to the category of value in which a property was deemed to have fallen at the relevant date, which was, I think, back around 1990, when council tax was introduced to replace the poll tax. It seems to me that such matters are more in the territory of reliefs than the alteration of bands. For example, there is already relief for council tax in toto for someone who is severely mentally impaired, and the process for obtaining that relief is not that complicated.

I just thought that I would give that reflection. If the petitioner were to come back with another petition in the next parliamentary session, she might wish to consider that alternative route to achieving the aim that is set out in the petition.

I used to be involved in family actions as a solicitor. It is an area that is not only about child welfare but often about broken-down relations between the husband and wife. Therefore, such cases are often ancillary to divorce proceedings. They can be extremely difficult and fraught with emotional intensity and strong feelings on either side, so many of the delays that result come not from the courts but from the reluctance of the parties to come to a deal. I do not make any judgments on anybody in saying that. That is just how it works—or does not work.

It would be interesting to know when the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will come into force and what the plans are. The advice that we have had from the clerks is that the act will require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings could negatively affect a child’s welfare, which seems to be a very useful power. In other words, if there were to be an inordinate delay that went on for years and years and the child’s welfare was—understandably—suffering as a result, it seems sensible that that law, as passed in 2020, should come into play. It would be good, at the very least, to ask the Scottish Government when the 2020 act will come into force. If it is saying that the 2020 act is something that should be taken account of, we are entitled to know when it will become the law.

The Scottish Government should also be asked for its views on the petitioner’s revised deadline of four to six weeks as opposed to 14 days. I suspect that the answer will be much the same and I suspect that there are good practical reasons to consider that any deadline of this nature may be arbitrary in some cases and therefore potentially produce adverse anomalies and consequences. However, it would be useful to get a bit more detail from the Government about that.

At the end of the day, I am sure that the petitioner has got a point that these actions can take years and years, and that the victims—the sufferers—are very often the children.

I do not demur from that recommendation. However, the controversy regarding the expected content of the Scottish Government's bill will not recede. The controversy may actually intensify once people grasp that the bill may not achieve what a great many people believe that it should achieve and that they want it to achieve, although that may just be a personal observation.

For the reasons that the convener and Mr Golden have given, there is nothing further that we can do with the petition at this stage.

I agree with the recommendation, but I do so with considerable regret, because the points that you and Jackie Baillie have made are apposite, as usual. Most of the parties support the general tenor of the petition, so it is extremely disappointing that more has not been done. However, at the same time, we do not have executive power in this committee and we are near the fag end of the session of Parliament, so the incoming Administration, whoever that is, will have to take on the issue. I have no doubt that another petition could be lodged by the petitioners early on in the next parliamentary session, if they so wish.