I welcome everyone to the fifth meeting this session of the Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from Rona Mackay. I ask people to switch off phones and other electronic devices or put them to silent, if they have not already done so.
Agenda item 1 is consideration of three continued petitions from session 4, which we will be considering for the first time.
Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (National Guidance) (PE1548)
The first petition is PE1548, on national guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools, which was submitted by Beth Morrison in February last year. As members will see, we have recently received submissions from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the petitioner. The petitioner’s submission is positive with regard to contact with the Scottish Government, but both submissions refer to recent recommendations from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child that relate to the issues raised in the petition.
Do members have any suggestions for action on the petition? I have to say that I am struck by the extent to which the petitioner has been able to make progress. Given that she seems to have had a positive meeting with the Scottish Government, it might be worth while asking the Scottish Government for its comments on the meeting that it had on 22 September.
We could have an update on that.
Yes.
I do not know whether other members were struck by the comments of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, particularly on the recommendations by the United Nations committee. Would it be worth getting the Scottish Government’s views, too, on those recommendations?
Yes.
Clearly, quite a lot has emerged around the petition, so it is a question of taking things a step further and finding out the Scottish Government’s response to the UN recommendations. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Abuse (Mandatory Reporting) (PE1551)
The next petition is PE1551, on mandatory reporting of child abuse, which was submitted by Scott Pattinson. His most recent submission, which outlines some of his concerns about progress on the issue, is included in our meeting papers. Some options are set out in the paper on the petition. Do members have any suggestions for action on the petition?
There is a strong argument for asking the United Kingdom Government to update us on when it expects to report on the outcome of its consultation. We can also ask the Scottish Government to provide further information on how it intends to engage with the UK Government on the issue of mandatory reporting of child abuse, now that the consultation has closed.
I agree with both suggestions.
They seem reasonable. I am struck by the fact that there is not complete agreement among organisations representing young people that mandatory reporting is the right way to go and that there are issues with mandatory reporting that they are concerned about. At the same time, I understand the point being made by the petitioner and survivors that organisations and institutions do not pay attention to what is happening. There is clearly an issue that we hope will be looked at further by the Scottish Government or the Parliament at some point.
I am unclear about the people who are raising the issues around mandatory reporting. It seems to me that the ones who would prefer it are the ones whose cases are historical rather than the ones whose cases are immediate. Am I reading that wrong?
Do you mean survivors?
Yes. People looking back, historically, would like this reported, but what about those who are involved in it at the moment?
What struck me about the petition is that it deals with two separate things, the first of which is people who have concerns not being sure where to go. If, say, a school teacher or someone who worked in a children’s organisation is a bit concerned but does not know where to go, they might not do anything about their concerns, but such a duty puts an obligation on them to pass them on. There is then a separate issue about the extent to which people who wish to abuse children choose to work in certain organisations because, historically, they are places where abusers have been able to operate. The question is whether mandatory reporting will concentrate people’s minds on their obligation when they have a problem but do not know where to go or will address the question of institutions being places that can offer an opportunity for abuse.
There are really difficult issues on both sides. I was struck by the fact that children’s organisations are of the view that mandatory reporting might create a problem for the young person. It would be interesting to get the Scottish Government’s views on that. I am not sure why the Scottish Government wants to wait for the UK Government to take a position on the issue when, I presume, it could do something right now. It would be interesting to get its general view on the issue.
The fact is that the organisations are UK wide and the UK Government is drawing together all the historical knowledge and information. I think that the Scottish Government has to know the UK Government’s finding before it can come to a decision, as there may be something—some kernels of information—in it that would be helpful. I would certainly support that.
Okay. Are we agreed that we will contact the UK Government and the Scottish Government, asking for an update on where they are?
Members indicated agreement.
In Care Survivors Service (PE1596)
The next petition is PE1596, on the In Care Survivors Service Scotland. The principal petitioner is Paul Anderson, and included in our papers is a letter from the Scottish Government on the development of the survivor support fund. The matter was discussed in detail by our predecessor committee, which also took this matter seriously, and I have looked at the evidence that was taken at that point.
Do members have any comments to make or suggestions as to what action we might want to take on the petition in light of the Scottish Government’s correspondence?
Before we decide what action to take, it is worth noting that the petitioners stated to the committee in January that they would like the existing ICSS to continue but within the proposed model. I am particularly pleased to note the Scottish Government’s stated position that, although survivors have the option of registering with the survivor support fund,
“there will be nothing to prevent them from continuing to receive services from their local support services … if they meet the Fund’s access criteria.”
That will include Open Secret, with which I have had some contact through my constituency business.
That said, I think that we need clarification of the fund’s access criteria, which seem to have caused some confusion and difficulty in recent months. We need further information on the subject.
I defer to your greater knowledge of the petition. You have obviously worked on it a lot more.
The cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse had some involvement with survivors of in-care abuse, and they feel strongly about what is happening and are troubled by it.
Angus MacDonald’s point that people can still access the services is important, but there are concerns about the model that has been suggested. If I have got this right, there are concerns that it almost medicalises the problem, dealing with the symptoms and consequences of abuse instead of considering how we support people who have been in such a situation, in whatever way. Some people involved in the field are concerned that the trauma aspects are not being dealt with. They prefer to deal with the person, who then gets the support wrapped round them, instead of people having to go through a series of processes of support that is not provided in quite the same way. The concern might be that the fund is moving against the approach that was taken in the past around survivors.
There is a broader question about what is happening with the inquiry. People on all sides want an inquiry that will support and help survivors, but there has, to say the least, been a bit of turmoil around it. We are seeing that at not only the UK level but the Scottish level. I think that we should seek an update from the Scottish Government, but I wonder whether there is a bigger issue that we should explore or whether, given that this falls within John Swinney’s remit, we should ask the Education and Skills Committee to explore the issues around how we support survivors, and the fund. I know that there were direct representations to the minister before the Parliament dissolved. Perhaps we should explore those issues around the inquiry so that people can have confidence in what is being done.
It is interesting that we are discussing the survivors’ perception of the system and whether it is doing what it is supposed to do. It might be that it is, but the perception is that the changes might not deliver what they are looking for. We need clarification for two reasons—first, for our consideration of the petition, and secondly, to reassure the survivors that they are going to get the support that they need. It is all about the perception, is it not?
The question is whether we should hold on to the petition and ask for further information, perhaps seeking comments on the changes from folk who work with survivors and deliver the services, or whether we suggest that the Education and Skills Committee consider the issues in the broader context. I am a member of that committee, and although we have taken an interest and have had correspondence with the minister, we have not gone further than that thus far.
That is the choice. Should we hold on to the petition and ask for the information or should we say that the Education and Skills Committee could look at the issues further in the context of the broader questions about the inquiry?
I think that we should seek an update on the Government’s position on the roll-out of the survivor support fund and then consider the petition again before we send it to the Education and Skills Committee. We need to keep control of it.
I agree.
If those with an interest in the petition want to provide the committee with further information on how the fund is working out, whether the approach is the right one and whether their concerns have been addressed, there will be an opportunity for them to do so. The approach is that there is a fund that people can apply to, rather than a service that they can draw from. Those are two different things.
I agree with that.
Yes.
We will contact the Scottish Government and ask it for an update, and an opportunity will be afforded for those with an interest to respond further. Thank you for that, colleagues.
Previous
AttendanceNext
New Petitions