���˿���

I appreciate the fact that you are here in good faith. It has been testy because we have become quite exercised across all parties in the consideration of the petition and the evidence that we have received.

You talk about the evidence from NatureScot but I am trying to understand the circumstances. This was a stage 3 amendment. You said earlier that none of the normal practices or procedures were carried out. From Mr Ewing’s questions, we have established that there was no outreach, no evidence taken and no mention of falconry whatsoever before the amendment. In what circumstances did the amendment to the legislation at stage 3 arise? Did somebody pick up the phone or push open the door and say, “Heck! We have just realised that we forgot all about falconry in this legislation. We had better rush through a stage 3 amendment”? You talk about the advice from NatureScot, but it was not received at any point during the progress of the bill through Parliament. It was received as an afterthought so that you lodged a stage 3 amendment with no consultation, consideration or discussion.

In his evidence to the committee, Mr Whitaker said that he was unable to tell us how many mountain hare had ever been taken by birds of prey in any given year. What then was the substantive underpinning of the evidence that you received from NatureScot?

PE1928 calls for free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. The petition was lodged by David Gallant, and the committee heard from David and from Nicoletta Primo of Sight Scotland earlier this month, when we discussed the accessibility issues that disabled passengers face when using rail travel versus bus travel and how an extension of the national entitlement card scheme to provide free rail travel might be financed.

We heard about a lack of consistency in the way that discounted fares or companion travel are applied in different areas and the confusion that that creates for passengers and rail staff. We heard of individuals boarding a train where there is a concessionary scheme in place but getting off the train where there is not a concessionary scheme in place and then being asked to pay for a ticket.

As a result of that discussion, the committee has written to the local authorities that offer discounted fares for companion travel to find out more about the scheme and how it operates in practice. Members might also be aware that the issue of free rail travel for blind and partially sighted people and their companions was the subject of a members’ business debate on 13 December. During the debate, the Minister for Transport indicated that Transport Scotland has been commissioned to look into the costs of a national scheme and that it will review the approach to companion travel as part of the fair fares review. In the light of that information, certain questions might present themselves as a way to proceed. Would colleagues like to recommend any?

Was there a proposal for us in there? I know that you support the petition.

PE1973 is about ending the use of sheriffs’ discretion when ruling on civil cases and providing clear legal guidance on division of assets. The petition, which was lodged by Sandy Izatt, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 and provide greater clarity on the division of assets in cases of cohabiting couples who are separating, by removing the use of sheriffs’ discretion rulings in civil cases; providing clear legal guidance to the Law Society of Scotland on the division of assets for cohabiting couples; allowing appeals to be heard when it is determined that a sheriff has the rule of law wrong but has used their discretion to prevent an appeal at no cost to the appellant; and publishing information on what resources have been allocated to provide clear legal guidance.

Sandy Izatt tells us that a “lack of clarity” in the law regarding the division of assets for cohabiting couples has resulted in cases proceeding to court and taking up “valuable court time”. He suggests that the provision of clear legal guidance would offer clarity on that issue and enable matters to be resolved without the need for a court hearing.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006

“introduced legal protections for cohabiting couples should their relationship come to an end by separation or death.”

The Scottish Government also highlights that the Scottish Law Commission is carrying out a review of aspects of family law. Following the Scottish Government’s response, members might be aware that the Scottish Law Commission has now published its report and draft bill on cohabitation.

We have also received a written submission from Mr Izatt, who raises concerns that, where the division of assets has not been clearly defined in law,

“there is too much room for argument by competing solicitors,”

which leaves sheriffs with discretion

“to rule on how they feel, rather than what is fair, true and just.”

That is interesting. Do members have any suggestions?

That concludes consideration of new petitions. We will move into private session to consider item 4. As noted in the agenda, the committee will move back into public session in approximately 20 minutes, in order to hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on our final petition. Although that is not our normal practice, we have agreed to do so in order to facilitate our ministerial guests’ giving evidence this morning.

Please do.

You referred to the petitioner’s courage and obviously we very much felt that courage in the evidence that she gave. We explored with Karen the aspect of what happens in an acute situation—if somebody has a heart attack or if somebody is having elective surgery, it is clear what to do, but in the hierarchy of mental health services, what do you do? Karen said that when, in a crisis,

“you phone NHS 24 to get help for mental health or speak to an out-of-hours doctor or anything like that, you are told either to contact the police if you feel that you cannot keep yourself or someone else safe, or to attend accident and emergency.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 9 November 2022; c 24.]

I think that she very much felt that attending accident and emergency with people who were attending for physical health reasons, not mental health reasons, was not the appropriate place to be in those circumstances at all. What are your reflections on that point?

The petitioner was not able to give the latest figure for people presenting at A and E, but it was quite a high number of incidents. I think that she had figures that showed that around 600 people had done so.

Obviously, Karen’s experience very much influences the view that she has of everything that Luke experienced. I do not want to be superficial or to react to an individual circumstance, but she felt that there was an impression or a suggestion that the risk assessments that had been done had partly been coloured by a desire to play down the likely seriousness of the issue rather than to escalate it, and that there was a drift to try and achieve that. She is not pointing to Luke’s case in isolation, but she feels that that meant that his higher risk status was not recognised at a point when something could have been done. It is very easy to generalise or not to really know, but what is your sense of that?

Monica Lennon is not here to take evidence from the witnesses, so I ask her whether there is anything that she wants to say to the committee that the cabinet secretary can hear and that might he want to touch upon in any final remarks that he wants to make.