Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that note, are we content to close the petition? Well, we are perhaps not content, but do we agree?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2202, which was lodged by Rachel Bigsby, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets on Sula Sgeir. The guga hunt can take place legally only under a special licence issued by NatureScot—our old friends in NatureScot, which is the least effective organisation in the western world. That is a personal observation.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it truly appreciates the petitioner’s concerns over the protection of this important species. In considering an application for a licence, NatureScot considers two main issues: sustainability and animal welfare legislation.

A licence was granted in 2025 with a limit of 500 birds, which is significantly fewer than in previous years, when the licence granted the taking of up to 2,000 birds. The limit aims to safeguard the sustainability of guga and support its continued recovery following the avian flu. The Scottish Government does not intend to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to remove the power to grant licences for taking gannets.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which states that the central question is whether the continued licensed killing of gannet chicks is compatible with conservation science, animal welfare standards and the Scottish statutory obligations. The submission highlights the avian flu outbreak, which many of us will have seen visual evidence of, and coverage of subsequently, and which caused mortality in northern gannets.

The petitioner states that the population modelling used by NatureScot shows that the limit of 500 birds is not a recovery level but a maximum level that avoids immediate population decline. She is also concerned that no independent observer is present during the hunt, stating that there is no independent verification that licence conditions relating to humane killing are being complied with.

10:30

The committee has received a written submission from OneKind, a charity working to protect and improve the lives of animals in Scotland, which highlights a number of concerns and states that tradition does not justify the killing of young gannets. It also states that manual killing depends on the skill of the operator and the conditions that they are working under, so it can vary widely in terms of efficacy and welfare impact.

The committee has also received a late submission against the petition from a resident of the Isle of Lewis, who believes that many of the comments that have been made in respect of the petition are abusive and offensive, that the petition is ignorant of the ways of island life and that there is no merit in its being progressed.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action, bearing in mind our position and the issue of timing with regard to the parliamentary session? Members know my views on NatureScot, but I am not sure where we can go in the time that is available to us.

I suppose that the one other option that is open to us would be to consider whether this is a petition that we should leave open for the next parliamentary session.

PE2204, which was lodged by Candice McKenzie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national database to record patient outcomes for medications, hormone replacement therapy—HRT—and all other hormone therapies used to treat or manage endometriosis. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that Scotland follows the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on endometriosis diagnosis and management. The guidance outlines best practices in endometriosis diagnosis, referral, pharmacological treatment, surgical management and care co-ordination. It has been used by NHS Scotland to develop the endometriosis pathway, which details the investigation and management of patients.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the proposal would be a positive but substantial project. The submission states that the creation of a national database of this scale and complexity would have significant costs attached for the development and implementation, as well as considerable implications for clinical staff time. The Scottish Government considers that there are mechanisms by which those living with endometriosis are able to access the best possible care and support.

10:45

The Government also states in its submission that action has been taken to support women and health professionals to learn more about endometriosis, the symptoms and the treatment options, and that menstrual health, including endometriosis, will continue to be an area of focus in the next phase of the women’s health plan. That next phase will continue action to improve the collection and use of data, as the Government acknowledges that there are clear gaps in routine women’s health data. The Government also highlights information about current endometriosis research that it has funded.

In her written submission, the petitioner draws on her lived experience and international evidence, which she feels demonstrate that structured outcomes data improves safety, consistency and quality of care. She says that the absence of national data drives inconsistent care, avoidable complications and continued reliance on trial-and-error treatment, and that it contributes to patients being dismissed when they report worsening symptoms, as clinicians lack the evidence that is needed to validate or explain patient experiences. She goes on to highlight international examples of endometriosis data collection and the impact of endometriosis on economic productivity.

In the previous parliamentary session, I well remember our former Labour colleague Elaine Smith, who was very much associated with the issues of endometriosis, attending the Public Petitions Committee on a number of occasions and raising the subject in debate in the chamber.

This is another petition on which it seems to me that there is still more work to be done, but, with only five meetings left, I am not sure what work we could do at this stage.

It will certainly be open to the petitioners to submit a new petition, and I very much hope that they will, because issues have been raised that I would otherwise have been very content for us to progress. Of course, one way or another, we will have a Government of a fresh complexion, which might want to look at these issues in a different light.

PE2205, which was lodged by Daniel Donaldson, is on extending access to justice by reforming court rules in equality and human rights claims. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove or raise the £5,000 monetary limit in simple procedure for claims that are brought under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998, and to extend qualified one-way costs shifting to cover equality and human rights claims.

The SPICe briefing explains that simple procedure is a simplified type of court procedure that is designed to be used for relatively low-value claims, without the need for specialist legal advice. Simple procedure uses maximum thresholds to cap the money that can be claimed for legal expenses.

In cases in which qualified one-way costs shifting, or QOCS—which is, apparently, pronounced “kwocks”, although not by me—applies, the pursuer is not liable for the defender’s legal expenses if they lose. However, the defender remains liable for the pursuer’s legal expenses if the pursuer wins. QOCS is generally used in court actions when there is a recognised imbalance between the position of the parties.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states:

“While officials have generally kept the Simple Procedure limit under continual review there have been very few calls for an increase in the Simple Procedure limit to date … There has been no detailed analysis specifically undertaken in relation to removing or raising the £5,000 limit in Simple Procedure claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 … Removing or raising the monetary limit would require secondary legislation to be taken forward”

and the

“Government have no plans to do this in this Parliamentary session.

On the issue of QOCS, the Scottish Government says that there have been “few calls” for the change that the petition sets out—that is why we have petitions—and its submission states:

“At this time, the Scottish Government does not consider it has the sufficient data or evidence to support such a change. The need to deliver against existing priorities combined with the limited time remaining in the current parliamentary session will restrict further investigations”—

blah, blah, blah. Although no plans are in place to explore QOCS applying in the types of cases sought by the petitioner, future consideration might be given to whether QOCS could be extended to other types of civil litigation.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am content to do that in relation to the focused issue. The Scottish Government will appreciate the urgency with which the committee would appreciate its considering the point that we are raising, but we should certainly make it clear to any third party that, given the limited time for the Parliament to consider the issue further, we would appreciate it if they were able to come back to us promptly.

Are colleagues content with the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2194, which was lodged by Lesley E Roberts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, in line with the recommendations of the Scott review, to make it fit for purpose and to protect vulnerable adults from abuse of power of attorney.

The SPICe briefing highlights recommendation 13.3 in the final report of the Scottish mental health law review—the Scott review—as being particularly relevant to the subject matter of the petition. It adds that the Scottish Government announced new legislation to reform the 2000 act in its 2024 programme for government, but indicated in May 2025 that that had been delayed, with work being done to bring forward a bill early in the next parliamentary session.

The Scottish Government has explained that it has established an expert working group and a ministerial oversight group to progress work on the reform of the act in line with recommendations of the Scott review, including improvements to the power of attorney process, and that it commits to hearing the views of key practitioners and people with lived experience in developing the legislation.

Power of attorney has cropped up from time to time during this parliamentary session and, finally, something appears to be being done to look into it. Do colleagues have any suggestions for courses of action?

Our next petition is PE2200, lodged by Melanie Jane Stuart on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland Further Education Lecturers Association—EIS-FELA—and Unison at Dundee and Angus College. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop, publish and adopt a multiyear—for example, three to five years—funding settlement for Scotland’s colleges, to avoid the reliance on annual decisions; to commit to funding that, at minimum, rises in line with inflation, in order to prevent real-terms erosion of college budgets; to deliver a substantive, above-inflation funding settlement within the 2026-27 Scottish budget that places all colleges in a financially secure position; to provide safety-net baselines for the provision for additional support needs, core student support services and regional or local community access programmes; and to require the Scottish Funding Council to give colleges clearer forward figures and simpler in-year rules, to allow planning flexibility for staffing, curriculum, capital investment and community partnership activities above the three baselines that are set out above.

Members will be aware that this has been a prominent issue in the Parliament’s chamber in the light of the reports from Audit Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council regarding significant financial challenges in the college and university sector. Furthermore, the Education, Children and Young People Committee recently completed substantive work on the long-term sustainability of funding for colleges and universities, that having been the focus of that committee’s pre-budget scrutiny for the budget that we have just received for 2026-27.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government has confirmed that the SFC is engaging with Colleges Scotland and the wider college sector on a fundamental review of the funding allocation model. Since responding to the motion, the Government has announced that its 2026-27 draft budget for education and skills reverses some of the previous considerable and damaging cuts in college funding, with an increase of £70 million in resource and capital funding to colleges. In addition, the 2026 Scottish spending review indicates that Scotland’s colleges will see £146 million of additional resource funding allocated by 2039-40.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2201, which was lodged by Tamara Giocopazzi, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a legal duty on schools to inform parents and carers by the end of the school day if their child is involved in any incident or allegation that affects their safety, wellbeing or dignity. The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it expects schools to work with families on any issue that affects their child’s safety, wellbeing or dignity. It is the cabinet secretary’s expectation that this includes contacting parents or carers in a timely manner when an incident has taken place.

The submission states that schools and local authorities should already have established protocols in place to notify parents of incidents affecting their children’s safety and wellbeing, such as when they have provided first aid as a result of illness or injury. The Scottish Government’s view is that, as it is a local authority’s statutory responsibility to deliver education, it is appropriate that notification protocols are developed and implemented locally.

Mr Torrance has to leave us at half past 10, so I wonder whether he has any thoughts to share on the petition before he leaves us this morning.