Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I agree with what you and Mr Golden have said, convener, but I note in passing that it is our understanding that the Scottish Government does not intend to amend the 1981 act to remove the power to grant licences, so it is not doing anything—it is just allowing things to go ahead. NatureScot has indicated that it is bound by the 1981 act, although I have to say that I do not quite understand that, because I think that it gives it some discretion.

I am struck by NatureScot’s determination to allow the guga hunt to proceed while preventing the control of seagulls in my constituency, which is causing huge problems as well as lacerations and injuries to people. However, that is really for NatureScot to explain. Given the number of signatures that the petition has received, I think that the issue needs to be explored further, but that is probably for the next Parliament.

Finally, I would note the written submission that we have received from an islander. I am sure that any committee will want to ensure that the voice of the islanders is heard. They are making the case that this is part of their tradition and heritage. They want to be heard, and they are entitled to be heard, but I think that some of them feel a little bit browbeaten by the tone of some of the criticisms that have been made of them. I hope that the debate can be conducted in a civilised and rational way, even if people have very strong emotions about the matter.

Yes, I agree with that. I am struck by petitioner Helen Blythe pointing out that an answer that she received to a freedom of information request said that fewer than one in 20 schools have all four recommended allergy safeguards in place—so, 19 out of 20 do not. Almost half—49 per cent—have no allergy policy, only 8 per cent hold spare adrenaline autoinjector allergy pens, and nearly a third do not provide any allergy training.

The Scottish Government has given a long answer, but, as far as I can see—I apologise if I have missed anything—it does not refer to any of those points whatsoever. When the Scottish Government replies to petitioners, why can it not just answer the questions that are put and the factual assertions that are made? If it says that they are wrong, let us say it. It never does that, and it must be extremely irritating for all petitioners.

That is a general point. On a specific point, the Government’s response says that the job of the inspector at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education in Scotland is to go round and inspect schools, to make sure that they are following their obligations in all respects, but it does not seem to refer to allergies at all. It refers to dietary requirements, which covers some allergies, but it does not refer to allergies. Is it possible to raise that issue ourselves? Or, if there is not enough time to do that, which may well be the case, could we encourage the petitioner to bring the petition back?

If I were marking the Scottish Government’s response, I would give it a half out of 10, and not for the first time.

I absolutely endorse what Maurice Golden said, but I want to add a few things. The petitioner’s account of what happened to his mother is a heart-rending and very sad story of actions being taken that were completely opposed by the family. There are always two sides to every story, I guess, but, on the face of it, it is a tragic case.

I was also struck that, in their submission of 3 January 2026, the petitioner pointed out that the local authority “ignored all concerns”, that the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland was “unable to do anything” and that the Office of the Public Guardian said that the power of attorney role “was not overseen”. All the public bodies that are supposed to be providing help provided absolutely no help whatsoever.

I have to say that the Scottish Government did not answer the petition’s specific asks in its response. It simply said that there was going to be law reform, but it carefully avoided making any substantive comment on the petition, which is about protecting vulnerable adults from abuse of the use of power of attorney.

I hope that, if we close the petition today—there is no alternative—the petitioner will bring back the petition for the reasons that Mr Golden set out, so that the new committee can consider these things anew—de novo—early doors.

I just want to say one more thing, on the euthanasia bill, or the right to die bill, that is being taken through the Parliament. Should that pass—my goodness me, if there are problems with power of attorney now, we ain’t seen nothing yet. I will not be voting for that bill, but if it is passed, I think that the number of serious issues that will arise will be far greater and that will be profoundly sad.

I was struck by the background information to the petition, which pointed out that Scotland continues to have one of the highest cancer mortality rates in western Europe among children under 18. That is a shocking statistic.

I was not aware of many of the issues that Jackie Baillie has eloquently set out. Although it is heartening that some progress has been made on points 1 and 2, she is absolutely right to focus on point 3 and seek a specific answer from the Scottish Government. However, I see no reason why we should not at the same time write to the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to see what it says about the issue. Plainly, the Scottish Government refers regularly to advice, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and everything else from the royal colleges, so it might be worth while to do that—there would be no harm in it.

I do not think that we have any alternative but to close the petition. The residents of Seil island have made their point. It is all very well saying that Ofcom and all the authorities are committed to doing something about it, but that falls short of their actually doing anything about it.

The petitioner, Timothy Bowles, has raised a very fair point, which must apply to other islands, although there cannot be that many islands that will be in this predicament. The Scottish Government points out the considerable expenditure on the reaching 100 per cent—R100—broadband programme, which has laid 16 undersea cables that have assisted communications in many islands. It is not as if nothing has been done—a lot has been done. That means that there can be relatively few places left that are in this predicament. It is not beyond the wit of man for Ofcom and the Scottish Government, with all the mighty resources that they have, to find out which ones are left and sort them out. I hope that the petitioner perseveres.