Seòmar agus comataidhean

We thank the petitioner and hope that the consultation, which covers the routes through which council tax might be changed in the next session of Parliament, will be a mechanism to take forward the aims of the petition.

I do not want to disappoint Paul Sweeney if he has arrived to discuss the petition on the personhood of rivers but we have just come to the end of our proceedings, having already done so, I am sorry to say.

That brings us to the end of the public session.

Interestingly, just before the October recess I was able to raise the issues arising from these petitions directly with the First Minister at the most recent convener’s group meeting. Two or three points were raised on the subject of our current conversation, which I will refer back to. The First Minister paid tribute to the work that has been done on roll-out, and he was keen to explore whether there is anything more that the Scottish Government can do to give impetus to the partnership—he has asked for feedback about that. However, he does not see a role for the public sector in the roll-out of defibrillators, which is where there is a distinction between other parts of the United Kingdom and Scotland. That also arose in the response that we received earlier from Jenni Minto, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health.

The public access map shows serious clusters of non-availability, particularly in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. The First Minister says that he has asked for proposals to be submitted to him, because the Scottish Government has taken an interest in addressing that, as has the First Minister.

I have listened carefully to everything that has been said. The most recent figure, from 2023-24—I imagine that it will have increased a bit since then—shows that there are 8,723 PADs, so the number has tripled since 2019, which is excellent. However, Stephen Short said that it is sad to see them unused in a nice shiny case on the wall, having not been deployed. I suppose that it goes back to Maurice Golden’s question: are we confident that the defibrillators are going to the right places? Are we confident that people are being trained in how to use them following their supply and installation?

Other parts of the United Kingdom have Government-led initiatives to provide defibs, whereas, in Scotland, we are still largely relying on charitable organisations and voluntary community initiatives. Is that work going to plug the gaps in the access map in Glasgow, in the west of Scotland or in other areas where, I imagine, fundraising initiatives to address the deficiencies are going to materialise?

I am just exploring some of the themes from the fourth question, which is the one on leading preventative actions and the protection of vulnerable populations.

I was struck by something that you said earlier, which, at my own expense, I want to understand. You have done a terrific job with children in schools. You teach them those skills and, 20 years later, they still know what they are doing. MSPs were all sent for training in CPR. I remember it happening upstairs in Queensberry house, but I cannot remember a blessed thing about it. Is that a reflection of my impending senility? Is it that the older you are, the less you can deploy a skill? We were all quite good at it by the time we left the room, but, five or six years later, I have never been in a situation where I have had to deploy it, so I have forgotten how to do it, unlike the children you were talking about, who were taught the skill at school and who, 20 years later, can still walk right into doing the correct actions. Is it just me, or is it the case that those skills are best absorbed at an early age, because they will last longer, and it is harder to retain those skills in an older age group?

PE1999, which was lodged by William Hunter Watson, is on full implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I am afraid that, through a slight undermining of our normal procedures, we have not considered the petition in committee since 20 December 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The then Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Maree Todd, stated in her response that the Scottish Government was prioritising work to consider possible reform to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, and she highlighted the intention to introduce a new human rights bill.

The committee has received a written submission from Barry Gale, who states that, although the minister’s response outlined a broad vision for change, the level of impact would depend on the details of how that vision was implemented. His submission emphasises the importance of reforming the law to put people unequivocally in control of decision making about their lives.

The petitioner’s written submission makes a specific point about care for elderly people. He states that the minister failed to indicate whether the programme of reform would end the giving of sedatives to elderly care home residents. He also states that mental health law in Scotland cannot be compatible with international human rights if it permits potentially harmful drugs being given to care home residents for the convenience of staff.

We have a recent update from the Scottish Government, which states its intention, subject to the outcome of the election, to introduce an adults with incapacity bill and a new human rights bill in the next parliamentary session. The human rights bill would give domestic legal effect to a range of internationally recognised human rights including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The bill would aim to support rights holders, including disabled people, to access remedy where their rights are not upheld and to establish a multi-institutional model of human rights accountability in Scotland.

The submission highlights that the Scottish Government has now progressed or completed the majority of the actions and milestones that were set out in the initial delivery plan for the mental health and capacity reform programme. The Scottish Government also notes that the adults with incapacity expert working group continues to meet monthly and is taking forward the detailed development work that is required to modernise the legislation. In fact, a quite comprehensive series of commitments and actions are under way.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2033, lodged by Jordon Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate for a full or partial ban on disposable vapes in Scotland and to recognise the dangers that those devices pose to the environment and the health of young people.

When we considered the petition in March, we agreed to write to the Scottish Grocers Federation to ask for its views on whether the ban would go far enough to address the issue. Its response suggests that a number of organisations might need to be provided with significant extra resource to tackle the rise in illicit goods that could result from the ban.

On the environmental aspect, it expresses concerns about sufficient public commitment to educating vapers about returning used vapes and about retailers potentially being expected to accept used illegal vapes for recycling in their stores as part of their provision of vape take-back.

Finally, the SGF suggests that, alongside any further restrictions on affordable vaping products, the ban could risk an increase in cigarette consumption, and it calls for a nuanced debate on the topic of voting—I mean vaping. [Laughter.]

Since we last considered the petition, a UK-wide ban has indeed been introduced, which means that, as of 1 June 2025, single-use vapes are no longer stocked or sold in Scotland.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

The final new petition today is PE2177, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson. We considered another petition of his earlier. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide sustainable funding to organisations that provide mobility equipment. The petitioner says that mobility services are vital for access to shops, services and community life. His view is that, without secure financial support, such services face closure, putting equality, mobility and inclusion at risk.

The SPICe briefing explains that the funding of ShopMobility schemes varies by location, with funding coming from local authorities, health boards, charitable donations and grants. The briefing notes that there have been reports in recent years about ShopMobility centres having their funding cut or reduced by local authorities or health boards.

The Scottish Government’s response states that local authorities are independent corporate bodies with their own powers and responsibilities and they are entirely separate from the Scottish Government. It states that it is up to individual local authorities to manage their day-to-day decision making and allocate the total financial resources that are available to them based on local needs and priorities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

My second question is on the issue of data and the Government’s “Out of hospital cardiac arrest: strategy 2021 to 2026” document. A paragraph in that says that the strategy

“does not address cardiac arrests in children, or those caused by external physical injury”.

It goes on:

“Both of these types of cardiac arrest are far less common than those caused by medical conditions in adults, and require a different approach to their management.”

Given that the strategy document was written at a certain point and that data is emerging and being collected, does the data continue to support the view that there is still not a necessity to look at children per se or cardiac arrests as a result of physical injury, which was potentially one of the issues underlying one of the petitions that we are considering?