Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colleagues, are we content?

Members indicated agreement.

In order to facilitate a number of people in the public gallery, I will reorder the petitions for consideration.

PE2193, on addressing dangerous delays in paediatric cancer diagnostics, was lodged by Avril Arnott. It 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—we heard some difficult evidence on that—and undertake a formal review of paediatric diagnostic delays in Scotland in order to identify systemic failures and implement change.

We previously considered the petition on 21 January, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We asked for views specifically on the second point of the petition: a requirement for clear accountability and follow-up when a paediatric cancer referral is downgraded or delayed.

As colleagues will remember, the petition was prompted by the tragic passing of Isla Sneddon after she was repeatedly referred and downgraded in her medical assessments on account of her young age.

In its response, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health argues that missed opportunities for early intervention, which can lead to irreversible harm,

“are not only a service challenge but a clear children’s rights issue.

It states that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child makes timely, appropriate and accessible healthcare an obligation, not just an option.

We received a comprehensive response from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care after he held a meeting with Isla’s parents. The response highlights that

“the Centre for Sustainable Delivery is currently reviewing supporting guidance for the Scottish Referral Guidelines (SRG) for Suspected Cancer.”

The guidance clarifies that,

“if a referral is regraded, then a communication should be sent to the referring clinician with explicit reasons for this and considerations for next steps in care.”

Colleagues will be aware of the introduction in NHS England of Jess’s rule, which encourages primary care clinicians to rethink a diagnosis if an individual presents three times with the same symptoms or concerns. The cabinet secretary tells us that he has instructed his officials to liaise with the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care to explore how the rule is implemented in England and how a similar rule could be introduced in Scotland.

The cabinet secretary’s response reminds us of actions that the Scottish Government has taken on some of the other issues that the petition raises, and we were quite content to hear about them when we last considered the petition. The actions include updating the SRG for children and young people last summer and providing a primary care cancer education platform for primary care clinicians. As we heard previously, the Scottish Government expects the managed service network for children and young people with cancer to initiate local board escalation procedures in cases of systemic issues. The cabinet secretary also confirmed that the clinically led review of the current cancer waiting time standards will specifically include paediatric and teenage and young adult cancers.

That means that we have advanced matters considerably in so far as we are able to in this parliamentary session.

Jackie Baillie, who has an interest in the petition, is with us this morning. Jackie, is there anything that you would like to add?

I am going to change the order again and bring us to PE2085, which was lodged by David Cornock, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a statutory definition of residency for fatal accident inquiries into deaths abroad. We last considered the petition on 12 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, the Lord Advocate and the chief constable of Police Scotland.

The Lord Advocate’s response confirms that she has met the petitioner and, as a result, a number of improvements have been made to communication with relatives who are affected by deaths abroad. The Lord Advocate states that she does not consider that the lack of a formal definition adversely affects the Crown’s decision making. Her submission also states that whether the person was ordinarily resident in Scotland will be clear from the initial information that was provided and that, for example, when a person has been living and working abroad outwith Scotland for many years, it is likely that they would not be considered to have been ordinarily resident. If there is uncertainty about the residency status of the person who has died, the Crown Office will instruct further inquiries to obtain information that will allow a determination to be made.

The Lord Advocate also notes that a minute of agreement was finalised with the death certification review service and Police Scotland that updated the process for reporting and investigating deaths abroad. The minute includes detailed guidance on the facts to be considered when assessing whether a person was ordinarily resident in Scotland at the time of their death, with reference to relevant case law.

The cabinet secretary’s response to the committee reiterates the Scottish Government’s position that creating a legal definition of “ordinarily resident” would not resolve the underlying challenges or improve outcomes for families. The cabinet secretary also states that she is aware of comparisons with the coroner system in England and Wales, but that it is important to note that the inquest system of England and Wales operates under a different framework. While the processes differ, both jurisdictions face similar practical obstacles in investigating deaths abroad.

The deputy chief constable’s submission states that the assessment of residency status is always important and that when Police Scotland is instructed to undertake further inquiries, it will seek to explore the case fully with the family to provide sufficient information to assist the determination. He also reiterates that Police Scotland’s view is that the current definition of “ordinarily resident” is sufficient.

The petitioner has provided a written submission that argues that the recent responses are ill-informed and dismissive to the 1,000 families who are affected and he reiterates his concern that no FAIs into deaths abroad have taken place, which, he believes, proves that the bar is impossibly high.

We have also received written submissions from members of the Scottish Parliament Jackie Baillie and Michael Marra, who have previously addressed the committee on the petition. Ms Baillie’s submission states that it is unthinkable that a parent should be left without options to establish why their child died in unexplained circumstances, even while abroad, when they are a UK citizen. Ms Baillie believes that the system in Scotland appears to lag behind that of England and Wales, and Michael Marra’s submission asks the committee to keep the petition open and highlights the petitioner’s tireless campaigning on the issue.

The committee has received unsolicited written submissions from two individuals, Mr Billy Milligan and Mr Dave Scott. Mr Milligan’s submission states that the absence of a statutory definition has produced uncertainty, inconsistency and injustice. He asserts that such uncertainty is not an academic quibble because it affects workers and families in Scotland’s globally enlarged economy.

Mr Scott, who is an offshore energy industry representative, expresses disappointment that this area of legislation regularly fails the Scottish people.

Finally, the committee has received an unsolicited written submission from Victim Support Scotland, which states that the support that it can offer bereaved families relies entirely on strict referral processes and requires criminality to be confirmed by the relevant authority. This means that deaths occurring either in Scotland or abroad where no criminality has been found, and which are unexplained or suspicious, or involve suicide or a road traffic accident, do not form part of its remit or funding agreement. The submission states that it would appear that there is a gap in support. Therefore, the onus is on families to investigate, challenge, query and understand complex international legislation, all at their own financial and time cost, while grappling with grief and trauma.

Jackie Baillie, would you like to add anything to what you set out in your written submission?

The petitioners had the opportunity to meet the Lord Advocate, but the committee has not—we have only seen written evidence from her.

One of the things that became apparent to the committee as we investigated the issue is that the systems in England, Wales and Scotland are wholly different to each other, and it is not possible to compare them at any stage along the line. They have different aims and purposes: one relates to post-mortems and another does not, for example. They are not similar.

I think that the committee has probably taken the residency issue as far as we can, with regard to the Crown Office, Police Scotland and others. However, I come back to the point that the petitioner makes, which is that nothing has ever happened on behalf of anybody. That issue has continued to trouble the committee.

Mr Ewing, do you have any thoughts on the matter?

—which would secure him his return.

PE2028 was lodged by Pinar Aksu, on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network, and Doaa Abuamer, on behalf of the VOICES network, both of whom joined us at earlier meetings. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people who are seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.

We last considered the petition on 12 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. The minister’s response confirms that a non-statutory pilot commenced on 1 December 2025 and is expected to run until 31 March—or earlier, if funding is exhausted. The pilot offers free bus travel to people seeking asylum who are not eligible for the existing national concessionary travel schemes. The Scottish Government expects future decisions to be informed by an evaluation of the pilot, taking into account future affordability and value for money, and whether it has supported people seeking asylum to integrate into society.

Just a few weeks ago, our colleague Paul Sweeney MSP asked the Scottish Government whether the pilot scheme will be extended. The minister reiterated that it will run until the end of March and explained that, as the committee has seen previously, asylum seekers in Scotland can already access the statutory national concessionary travel schemes if they meet the eligibility criteria of being aged under 22 or 60 or over, or if they have an eligible disability. Again, progress has been made on the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

PE2113, which was lodged by Wilson and Hannah Chowdhry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide support to communities affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—commonly referred to as RAAC—by: setting up a national fund to assist struggling homeowners and tenants affected by RAAC; initiating a public inquiry to investigate the practices of councils and housing associations concerning RAAC, including investigation of how business related to RAAC was conducted, the handling of safety reports and property sales, disclosure of RAAC, and responses to homeowner concerns; and introducing or updating legislation, similar to the general product safety regulations, to ensure that developers, councils and housing associations are held accountable for using substandard property materials, to mandate risk disclosure and to make surveyors and solicitors liable for untraced defects. Legislation should also include provision for a comprehensive register of high-risk buildings in Scotland.

We last considered the petition on 24 September 2025 and at that time we agreed to write to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Cabinet Secretary for Housing. The position expressed by the Secretary of State for Scotland is that RAAC issues in Scotland are a devolved matter and that the problem should be tackled by using the overall funding settlement received by the Scottish Government.

The Cabinet Secretary for Housing indicates that the Scottish Government has repeatedly engaged with the UK Government to stress the need for UK Government-led financial arrangements for RAAC remediation on a cross-UK basis but that such calls have so far been unsuccessful—as appears to be the case given the Secretary of State for Scotland’s response. However, the Scottish Government’s position continues to be that it is a UK Government responsibility, as many of the properties were sold under UK right-to-buy legislation and the solution engages with several reserved issues, including insurance, tax and consumer protection. Additionally, the Scottish Government argues that only the UK Government has sufficient financial flexibility to meet the costs of RAAC remediation.

The cabinet secretary points to a number of initiatives and actions to engage with local authorities and communities on the issue and to monitor local authorities’ own engagement and interaction with affected residents. The Scottish Government also asked for guidance to be produced in relation to the presence of RAAC in roof construction in residential properties. Last month, the Institution of Structural Engineers published updated guidance, which aims to support the appraisal, assessment and remediation of RAAC roofs in Scottish residential properties.

In providing evidence to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the cabinet secretary explained that the Scottish Government agreed to a request made by Aberdeen City Council to repurpose some of its unspent funds, available through the housing infrastructure fund, to support RAAC remediation. The cabinet secretary stressed that that was neither a Government offer nor additional Government money, but she expressed the Government’s openness to consider similar proposals from other local authorities.

Finally, members will recall that organisations such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and the Built Environment Forum Scotland have previously suggested that they were not supportive of a public inquiry. They argued that it would be time and resource intensive, would divert from an immediate response and might simply confirm what, in fact, is already widely known. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

10:15

PE2185, which was lodged by Christopher Simpson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to ensure that any digital material that is presented in court, such as photos or screenshots, is verifiably sourced, time stamped and able to be independently authenticated before being considered admissible, unless both parties agree otherwise.

We previously considered the petition on 26 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate and the chief constable of Police Scotland. The Lord Advocate’s response explains that prosecutors must be satisfied that any evidence, whether digital or otherwise, is both credible and reliable. The Lord Advocate reiterates that the provenance of any evidence must be established and that the authenticity and accuracy of evidence can be challenged by any party. In addition, the chief constable’s response states that, where concerns regarding the authenticity of digital evidence are raised in the course of a police investigation into a reported crime, those allegations would be treated seriously and investigated appropriately by Police Scotland.

The petitioner refers to his experience to highlight that, in practice, things do not always work as the other submissions suggest that they should. He expresses on-going concerns regarding current frameworks assuming that digital evidence is authentic at the point at which it is presented, and regarding the lack of a mechanism to address the harm that is caused to a person who is reported to the police on the basis of fabricated digital evidence.

Some of the issues struck me as being of real interest when we first considered the matter. We have had some response but, if I was in the position of the petitioner, I do not know how terribly reassured I would be. I am unclear about what to do with this one.

PE2130, which was lodged by James Mackie, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a ban on the removal of all hair from a horse’s tail to leave a bare stump, other than for medical reasons.

The petition was last considered on 25 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. The minister informs us that, following discussions with stakeholders, it has been agreed that the existing equine code will be replaced with equine guidance, which does not require parliamentary approval and is therefore easier to keep updated. The aim is for that guidance to be published by March. The minister states that the practice of removing the hair from a horse’s tail will be addressed in the guidance, but he confirms that the Government has no plans to legislate to prohibit the practice.

In an additional submission, the petitioner expresses concerns that the draft guidance has not yet been published and that it remains unclear what protection the Scottish Government intends to provide for horses. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we will be eating it very soon. We will be able to see whether that happens. If it does not, I would recommend that a fresh petition be lodged when Parliament reassembles. Are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.