Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1860, which was lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to allow retrospective claims to be made.

When the committee last considered the petition, it decided to write to the Scottish Government to request an indication of the number of requests that the courts have received to override the principal limitation time limits and how often they exercised that discretion.

The committee received a response from the Minister for Community Safety, who states that, although section 19A of the 1973 act allows the courts discretion to override the principal limitation time limits, the Scottish Government does not collect information about when that discretion is used. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has also confirmed to the minister that the information is held in a court interlocutor and, therefore, the SCTS is unable to interrogate the information. The minister ends her submission by stating that the majority of the types of civil cases relevant to the petition are likely to be initiated within the three-year time limit. Given those circumstances, only in a few cases will a court ever have to consider whether to use its equitable discretion to disapply a time limit.

That sounds like an awful lot of nonsense to me. We were specifically assured that there was an appeals process. We wrote to find out whether, in practice, that was a false curtain of comfort, whether the right of appeal had been exercised and what the outcome of anybody trying to exercise it had been. In essence, we are being told that no records exist of whether requests have been made or what the outcome of any such requests was.

I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I am afraid that I am left with the impression that it is like meeting “The Men from the Ministry”. The petitioner and others have been told that there is an appeals process, but there is nothing to indicate whether it is a reality or a chimera.

That is my tuppenceworth. Does anybody else want to come in?

I thank members for their suggestions.

The last of our continued petitions is PE1886, which was submitted by Ryan Gowran. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a specialist paediatric liver centre in Scotland.

The last time we considered the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government, not so much in relation to pursuing that option, but to highlight the petitioner’s concerns and to ask what financial support could be made available to families who travel to support family members who are being treated far from home. We identified that there was a substantial up-front cost that was not necessarily equitably bearable by a number of families, depending on how often they had to incur that cost before they were able to receive any reimbursement.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that guidance is available to national health service boards on the reimbursement of patient travel costs. Furthermore, it states that

“individual Boards are responsible for developing and applying their own policies”,

and that they must ensure equity of access, consider local circumstances and ensure that schemes are patient centred. The submission highlights that, when a patient is eligible for assistance with travel costs, claims will be settled in one to two weeks. Health boards can also make bookings on behalf of eligible patients, and where there is a need for travel, assist them in identifying and accessing available assistance.

Importantly, the Scottish Government states that it plans to take forward a comprehensive review of those arrangements. I think that we got quite a comprehensive response to the issue that we were pursuing.

That is fine. Bill Kidd, for clarity, in relation to the current position, what would you like the Scottish Government to articulate further?

That makes sense; we can try to facilitate that. It is clear that there is an expectation that that should be happening, but the petitioner and possibly others feel that that has not been their experience.

Do members agree to go back to the Scottish Government on those terms?

Members indicated agreement.

That might get us some further evidence one way or the other on what is actually happening. That is a good suggestion.

Are we content to do as suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE1901, on replacing the voting system for the Scottish Parliament with a more proportional alternative. It was submitted by Richard Wood, who invites us to consider the issue from a different perspective yet again. It is always open to discussion. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the broadly proportional additional member system that is used for electing MSPs with a more proportional alternative.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing sets out two examples of proportional voting systems. The first is the single transferable vote, which uses multiple-member electoral districts or regions with each voter ranking preferred candidates on a single ballot. Scottish local elections take place by STV. The second is open-list proportional representation. It is a variant of party-list proportional representation in which voters have influence over the preference order of party candidates. With regard to STV, the briefing notes a concern

“that candidates nearer the top of the list”

on the ballot paper

“are more likely to selected.”

The Scottish Government submission advises that the Government

“does not currently have any plans to propose changes to the voting system by which MSPs are elected to the Scottish Parliament.”

I think that we are content to do that. The Scottish Government’s position is quite clear, but it would be useful for us to have a current litmus test of the views of those other organisations in the current circumstances.

Thank you very much. Do colleagues have any comments?

Our final new petition is PE1908, which has been submitted by Jeff Bell. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to regularly review the impact of vaccination passport regulations, following their implementation, and to provide data on how they are being used and any benefits that they bring.

The committee has received a late submission from the Scottish Government on the petition. It highlights the scheme’s objectives, which are to reduce the risk of transmission of coronavirus; to reduce the risk of serious illness and death, thereby alleviating current and future pressure on the national health service; to allow higher risk settings to continue to operate as an alternative to closure or more restrictive measures; and to increase vaccination uptake.

The submission also explains that the requirement for Scottish ministers to review the regulations every 21 days is written into the legislation and that the regulations should

“only remain in place whilst they are necessary and proportionate ... Ministers look at a range of data to determine whether the regulations continue to be required.”

Moreover, the Scottish Government confirms its commitment

“to monitoring the impact of certification”

and is collecting data in order to understand fully the scheme’s effects and implementation.

It is worth noting that the Scottish Parliament’s COVID-19 Recovery Committee regularly scrutinises the Scottish Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including in relation to vaccination passport regulations. The committee is also conducting a short inquiry that includes a review of the use of the scheme.

In the light of all that, do colleagues have any comments?