Chamber and committees

This is not a throwaway comment, but I think that it is perfectly understandable that the relatives of a deceased person would want that person to be treated with as much dignity as possible.

On the back of what has already been stated, we should probably write to the Scottish Government to ask what consideration it has given or plans to give to the automatic return of tissue samples or to the seeking of authorisation for the retention of samples, in line with practice in other parts of the UK.

Given what you have just outlined and the expected delivery of a new vessel and consultation with communities next year, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

To be honest, I do not know anything about falconry other than the broad outline, but the issue here is how falconers can maintain their work without causing damage to protected species. The falconers’ response to that would be interesting.

I actually agree with what has been said. I understand that, if you are to introduce legislation, particularly if members of the public are going to comply with it on a daily basis, you have to try to make it straightforward and avoid the possibility of the rules being broken. It is important that we raise the issue with the COVID-19 Recovery Committee and ask it to consider the matter. After it has done so and we have heard what it has said, we can consider the instrument again next week.

I am aware that the petition is about people, particularly those with autism, who do not have a learning disability. The Scottish Government has already stated that it will publish a learning disability, autism and neurodiversity bill in order to create a commissioner role that will look into the range of autistic circumstances, and I think that that pretty well covers the matters that the petition relates to.

Sadly, the issue that the petition deals with is of the moment and has been for quite some time. It is important that the committee continues its work on the matter—I was going to say “continues its pursuit”, but that seemed a bit strong. We need to keep the issue in the public domain and the Scottish Government’s eyes fixed firmly on it until it can be resolved.

Yes, we did. I do not know that we can do much more, other than write to the Scottish Government to ask where we stand in relation to aid for those families who require it. I know that the issue has been talked about and is being worked out, but we need to know where we are now. That is important to find out for many families.

I think that we should close it with that action in place. We cannot do any more than that, but we should take that step.

I have known people who have gone through the whole process. I believe that the 20m rule is a degrading and inhumane approach, particularly when it is repeated on more than one occasion. That rule should not be there in the first place. I would be perfectly happy to continue the petition and look for further routes to try to achieve elements of what the petitioner is seeking.

I go back to what my colleague David Torrance said: we should ask the Scottish Government to speak directly to the petitioner to find out where the problems are in order to address them.