Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that we privately explored that before the meeting, Mr Russell. There is not an open consultation at the moment, but there is a website that the petitioner could independently contact in relation to the issue that has been raised. That is one route. Alternatively, of course, it would be possible for a fresh petition to be brought in the next session of Parliament.

I will be supporting that particular bill, and I hope that those matters can be duly addressed, but that is a debate for another place, I think.

I have had constituency casework during the past couple of sessions of Parliament—other members might have had such casework, too—which had its genesis in issues that have arisen on power of attorney. I do not know how widespread this is, but local authorities have become progressively underresourced and certain areas simply have not been prioritised, because the focus has had to be elsewhere.

I am not presenting this issue as the only example in that regard, but I have found that there have been matters on which I might historically have expected the local authority to take a more active role. However, frankly, the resourcing to do so does not exist now, and certain things have been excused or passed over as a result.

There are issues to be considered, and were it not for the time left in this parliamentary session, and the fact that we have had a number of petitions relating to issues arising on power of attorney, this might have been a very interesting area for the committee to have explored in more detail.

I hope that the petition will return and that the issues in it can be pursued during the next parliamentary session but we have a recommendation to close it on the basis that has been suggested.

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

In the face of your eloquence and in view of the tragic circumstances that underpinned the petition—which might otherwise have been avoided, for all we know—that is a very focused additional inquiry, so I am minded, if the committee is willing, to hold the petition open by exception and to make that specific request of the Scottish Government. I do not think that we can go any wider, given that we want to see what action we can get. We have certainly been able to highlight the issue through the evidence of the petition’s having been raised and the contribution that you have made.

If colleagues are content, we will hold the petition open, by exception, and we will seek to clarify the specific point that Jackie Baillie has raised with the Scottish Government.

PE2192, which was lodged by Kevin McGillivray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 so that debt owed by domestic abusers to their survivors cannot be written off by sequestration.

The SPICe briefing for the petition clarifies that sequestration is the term that is used in Scots law for entering personal bankruptcy. When someone becomes bankrupt, a trustee is appointed to manage their assets on behalf of creditors. The trustee is usually the Accountant in Bankruptcy, which is a Scottish Government executive agency.

Further, the briefing clarifies that if a domestic abuser is trying to abuse the bankruptcy process and is not, in fact, genuinely unable to pay their debts, it is possible for anyone with an interest—including the ex-partner—to apply to the court to have the award of sequestration recalled. Furthermore, concerns about the abuser having hidden income or assets can be reported to the trustee. On investigation, the trustee is able to require assets and income to be handed directly to them, if necessary. The debtor can also be reported to the police if they are suspected of a criminal offence.

The Scottish Government’s view is that the fraudulent use of bankruptcy to further abuse a partner amounts to financial abuse and that safeguards are in place to prevent that. The Government clarifies that, in investigating the debtor’s assets, the trustee’s powers are limited under the 2016 act, as

“They cannot carry out covert investigations, examine income or bank accounts not held in the debtor’s name, or act beyond the statutory investigation period.”

In relation to alternative action, the response points to a nationwide policy review of statutory debt solutions, which was initiated in 2019. The final report of recommendations to Scottish ministers was expected by the end of the last calendar year.

The petitioner’s written submission highlights that economic abuse involves complex financial behaviours that trustees cannot detect under the existing powers. It also expresses concerns that the transparency presumed by the insolvency system does not always work in practice.

There is quite a lot in the petition, but the response suggests that there is already provision available to remedy the situation. What do colleagues think? Are there any proposals 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.

The work of the Scottish Government’s inquiry is on-going. Therefore, it might be worthwhile for the petitioner to wait for that to conclude and then resubmit a new petition to the next Parliament, in the light of whatever arises from that. At that point, the new committee could consider it and potentially pursue it.

Are colleagues content, notwithstanding the importance of the issue, to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

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 am uncomfortable, because the petition raises issues that the committee, in other circumstances, would have been happy to interrogate further. Certainly, we have interrogated NatureScot positions previously. Irrespective of that, though, we would have wanted to take the views of those on the island into consideration, too.

The petition has attracted more than 80,000 signatures, but, as we said at the start of the meeting, the committee has only a handful of meetings left in this parliamentary session. In closing the petition, which I think is what colleagues might be minded to do, I very much urge the petitioner to submit the petition again as soon as the new Parliament assembles. That will not require gathering the number of signatures that have already been gathered; one signature is all it takes for the petition to have the opportunity to be properly heard. However, there would be an opportunity for our successor parliamentary committee to tease out and interrogate in more detail some of the issues raised by the petition.

It is with some reluctance that I suggest that, given that we have only a handful of meetings left and given that, if we make any inquiries now, we will simply not get any responses back in time to take anything further forward, we close the petition at this point.