Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will thank the petitioner and keep the petition open. We will now embark on our quest to receive further comment and evidence. Thank you very much to Jackie Baillie, as well.

PE2076, which has been lodged by Maurice Frank, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require original wills made outside of Scotland to be accepted into safe custody by Registers of Scotland, or other safe custody providers, without prior mailing around, removing their power first to require an opinion on the validity of the will from a lawyer in the jurisdiction of origin.

The SPICe briefing explains that

“prior to a person’s death, there is no requirement in Scotland to register a will with a public body. However, a person might choose to register their will for safekeeping in the Register of Deeds ... A document whose formal validity is governed by a law other than Scots law can be registered if the Keeper is satisfied that the document is formally valid according to the law governing such validity”,

and the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 makes that provision.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that due to the resources involved in obtaining such confirmation, the responsibility for providing the necessary evidence test rests with the applicant. The response further states:

“This provision is consistent with the principle that as the Register of Deeds is a Scottish public register, members of the public in Scotland (who are not familiar with the laws governing documents in other jurisdictions) should be able to view the register with confidence that the documents registered therein are formally valid.”

Where an individual chooses to lodge a will in the register, it might be possible for evidence to be obtained electronically rather than by mailing the document to the relevant jurisdiction, depending on the requirements of that jurisdiction.

It is quite a technical request and quite a technical response. Do members have any suggestions or comments?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. I will make an additional suggestion. The cabinet secretary notes that the Education and Skills Committee’s 2017 report noted how valuable good PSE is to young people. Therein rests an issue of how contemporary the content of PSE is at any given point in time. From my constituents, I know that there is, at times, a feeling that the content has not been updated regularly enough to reflect current circumstances, and that the range of cultural and social issues affecting young people move apace, so what might have been relevant two or three years ago needs to be looked at again. Therefore, although the value of good PSE is there to be seen, students should not be questioning the value of the item in the curriculum, because they should feel that its content is relevant to their concerns and considerations. The content should not be speaking to something that is aged in relation to their personal experience.

Are members content that we proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I say to Mr Ross that we are going to close the petition on the basis that the Government has no plans to do away with the subject. However, there is an issue at the heart of what he has said about the contemporary relevance of the subject at any given point, and we will draw that to the Government’s attention.

PE2078 is the last of our new petitions today. It was lodged by Ryan McNaughton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a new body to be responsible for the mandatory inspection, assessment and licensing of private ambulance service providers, or to encompass the clinical governance management of private companies in Scotland into Healthcare Improvement Scotland.

The SPICe briefing that we have received explains that the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 includes independent ambulance services in the definition of an “independent healthcare service”. The act sets out that Scottish ministers must

“prepare and publish standards and outcomes applicable”

to independent health care services and that Healthcare Improvement Scotland may inspect

“any independent health care service.”

However, HIS has confirmed that regulation of those services has not yet been commenced and that it is unable to undertake any regulatory activity in respect of that type of service.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that the next step is for officials to continue engagement with stakeholders to explore whether the definition of “independent ambulance services” should be amended before the provision is commenced, in order to ensure that any regulation adequately reflects services today and in the future. The response also states that the commencement of HIS’s functions in relation to the regulation of independent ambulance service provision will be considered and prioritised as part of a suite of proposals regarding the regulation of independent healthcare.

The act was passed in 2010, but it seems that we have not yet commenced its provisions, which is certainly some lead time by any standard.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action??

Thank you, minister. That is encouraging. If I look over your shoulder, I can see the petitioner, who is in the public gallery this morning and will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that, too.

I was trying to understand the pathway. At our last meeting, having read the previous submissions that we had received, I noted an understanding that, given that Scots law is rooted in different traditions and precedents to law elsewhere in the UK, the assumption underpinning the petition—that there would be tourist destination travel to Scotland for such litigation—was perhaps more of a theory than a determined outcome. The Scottish Government’s thought process at that point was that it would prefer to be in a slightly reactive position if that happened rather than in a proactive position simply because it might happen, given everything else that the Government has to consider. Was that part of the thinking? Has the fact that action has now been taken in other jurisdictions compounded the potential risk—which might otherwise have been theoretically less likely but is now potentially more likely—that such litigation could occur, meaning that the Government perhaps feels that it needs to take more decisive and direct action on the matter, proactively rather than reactively?

I would be very grateful for that.

Thank you. You make a very powerful case in respect of the petitioner and the aims of his petitions. The issue that the committee must wrestle with is the—as you have said, profoundly disappointing—closed door that was presented to us by the Scottish Government.

Mr Ewing, are you indicating that you have thoughts on the matter?

I was going to suggest that, if we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal to close the petitions, we couple that with writing to the Scottish Government to, as well as confirm our decision, summarise the practical consequences that Rhoda Grant detailed quite accurately and encourage the Government to consider the option of bringing together parties to advance a bespoke solution, rather than simply, as it has done, refusing to entertain further consideration of the idea.

I do not think that there is any dramatic action that we can take, but we could embrace Rhoda Grant’s suggestion by writing to the Government at the same time. Does that meet the committee’s approval?

I agree. We could also write to Public Health Scotland to seek an update on its modelling work on the timescales that it anticipates for completion.

We should keep the petition open and seek further explanation of what progress is being made in that regard. It all looks a bit piecemeal and of secondary consideration, but women in Scotland should not feel that they are subjected to bias or discriminated against compared with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.