Seòmar agus comataidhean

For the next new petition, I note that we have some guests in the public gallery, and we are also joined by Jackie Baillie.

PE2193, lodged by Avril Arnott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory clinical standards to ensure that urgent paediatric cancer referrals are subject to the same maximum wait times as adult referrals; require clear accountability and follow-up when a paediatric cancer referral is downgraded or delayed; fund training and update guidelines to enable general practitioners and clinicians to recognise, and escalate action on, signs of cancer in children as promptly as they would in adult cases; and undertake a formal review of paediatric diagnostic delays in Scotland, to identify systemic failures and implement change.

The petition was motivated—as petitions too often are—by the tragic passing of a young girl after she was repeatedly referred and downgraded in her medical assessments. The petitioner argues that no young person should have their symptoms underestimated simply because they appear to be healthy or are perceived to be too young for serious illness.

The Scottish Government points to a number of projects, either completed or in progress, that directly address the points raised by the petition. The Scottish referral guidelines were updated last summer to support GPs in referrals for children and young people. The cancer action plan for Scotland for 2023 to 2026 includes carrying out a clinically-led review of the latest evidence to determine

“whether there is merit in specific additional or alternative cancer waiting times standards for different types of cancer and cancer treatment”.

In 2024, NHS Scotland launched a primary care cancer education platform, which provides primary care clinicians with information to support earlier cancer diagnosis efforts and enable effective decision making. The Scottish Government expects the managed service network for children and young people with cancer to be alert to systemic failures and to initiate local board escalation procedures if necessary. Additionally, the Scottish Government previously stated that the managed service network handles the implementation of “Collaborative and Compassionate Cancer Care: cancer strategy for children and young people 2021-2026”. That work started in 2021 and is due to be completed in 2026.

Before the committee decides what action to take, I invite Jackie Baillie to contribute to our thinking.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I suggest to the clerks that we add this to the list of petitions that we will give further consideration to. We will leave just a handful of petitions open for the new Parliament to consider, and we will have a further meeting in which we will have to decide which petitions, from a shortlist, we would recommend that action for. I am minded to add the petition to that list.

Well, we could have a petition on banning that culling as well.

Are colleagues agreed that we will keep the petition open and add it to the small list of petitions that we will consider referring to the next committee, so that it has a working agenda when it first meets?

Members indicated agreement.

I am very much of that view. Given the length of time that the committee has left, I would very much encourage the petitioner to lodge the petition again immediately when the new Parliament convenes. I hope that the new petitions committee, with time ahead of it, will be able to explore some of the issues that have been raised.

With some regret, I feel that we have to close the petition at this point, but I strongly recommend that it be resubmitted to the committee on the other side of the election. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Josh MacLeod in my parliamentary office for his very forceful representations to me on the matter.

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?