Official Report 649KB pdf
Child Sexual Abuse Allegations (Religious Organisations) (PE1905)
Welcome back. We move to item 3, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those petitions, PE1905, lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJW’s Support, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sex abuse since 1950.
We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023. We asked the then Deputy First Minister about work arising from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, and about how the implementation of national child protection guidance is monitored in the context of religious settings. We received a response in November 2023 that highlights that child protection committees were asked to return a self-evaluation by the end of October that year. The Scottish Government was then due to work with the Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection—CELCIS—to analyse those returns, and a report was due at the start of 2024 to summarise the national implementation progress.
The then Deputy First Minister highlighted that, under the guidance, faith organisations should have designated child protection leads who have a role in passing on concerns about children to police or social work, and in developing and maintaining organisational policies and procedures. Government officials presented to faith and belief representatives group in 2022 to raise the profile of the guidance.
In response to the report in England and Wales, the Scottish Government has worked with stakeholders to gather views and consider the potential risks and merits of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in a Scottish context. The petitioner’s submission emphasises the challenges that are associated with engaging certain religious groups in that work. She states that her experience suggests that not all religious groups will engage with advisory groups or committees. She argues that that is why it is important to legally require religious leaders to report allegations of abuse to the authorities.
Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? It seems as though we have been going round the houses and the Government’s view is fairly clear. It seems that, irrespective of the views that the committee has expressed or supported, it is not minded to proceed in that way.
Yes, I tend to agree that we have exhausted every avenue, so I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government will not widen the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry’s remit to include abuse in different settings, that the Government has taken steps to raise the profile of the national guidance for child protection with religious organisations and, finally, that the Scottish Government is monitoring national data to track implementation of the national guidance.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. Do members agree with that?
I am a bit cautious about closing the petition, although I think that we are reaching the end of the road. I wonder whether there might be one final opportunity for the committee to write to the Deputy First Minister and ask for detailed information about the work that is being undertaken to consider the findings and recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse for England and Wales, and to ask for an update on the publication of the implementation progress report and its findings. I feel that there was an error in limiting the scope of the inquiry.
We have explored that issue with the Government.
Yes.
Could we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal but combine it with your suggestion? We could perhaps express the view on behalf of the committee that we felt that that was the wrong action for the Government to take, and that, in closing the petition, we would welcome a final report from it in relation to the questions that you have posed? Would that satisfy you?
That would make sense.
Would colleagues be content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
The petition has been a very important one. We have discussed it on a number of occasions, although, sadly, without achieving the progress that we would wish for. However, we will set out the committee’s view, which has very much been in support of the petitioner, to the Scottish Government and seek additional information in relation to the comparative work in England and Wales.
Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 (Post Mortems) (PE1911)
Our next continued petition, PE1911, was lodged by Ann Stark, who I think I can see with us in the gallery again. I say, “I think,” because I have a big spotlight shining in my face and it is difficult to see anybody down at that end of the room from here. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 and the relevant guidance to ensure that all post mortems can be carried out only with the permission of the next of kin; that brains are not routinely removed; and that tissues and samples are offered to the next of kin as a matter of course.
We are again joined by our colleague Monica Lennon, who has been with us before when we have considered the petition. Good morning and welcome, Monica.
We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Royal College of Pathologists and other relevant organisations. The response from COPFS to the committee confirms that recent discussions with pathology providers have included the benefits of and possible difficulties with the suggestion to use CT scanners as an alternative to invasive post-mortem examinations. The response also highlights the HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland’s annual report for 2022-23. The inspector’s view is that consideration of the delivery model for forensic pathology is required. The report notes the cross-sector nature of work in the area and therefore suggests that the Scottish Government should lead on it.
Both the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathologists have highlighted the existing clinical guidelines relating to the use of CT scans in post-mortem examinations. The Royal College of Radiologists states that there should in principle be no reason why CT scans could not be used during post-mortem examinations in Scotland, and that the guidance notes that, at the time of writing, the availability of expertise in imaging interpretation was limited to a small number of centres in the UK.
The Royal College of Pathologists notes that many types of deaths that can be diagnosed by post-mortem imaging in England would not require an autopsy in Scotland. The submission suggests that the impact of scanning on the overall autopsy rate in Scotland is likely to be much less than in England.
The petitioner has provided two written submissions, which reiterate the key ask of her petition. She also notes that a meeting recently took place between her and the Lord Advocate—I think that Monica Lennon may have been at that meeting, too—in which they discussed her individual case and the changes that she wishes to see.
The committee has uncovered a number of issues throughout its consideration of the petition. We have gathered a lot of written evidence from a number of key organisations and have taken oral evidence to inform our thinking of the issues, all of which have had us as passengers in support of the aims of the petition as it progresses the issue. Before I invite committee members to suggest where we might go next, I invite Monica Lennon to give a brief statement.
10:45
Good morning, convener, and thank you for your opening remarks. Having listened to your recap, I note that we have been on quite a journey. I pay tribute to Ann Stark and her husband, Gerry, as well as the committee. At the start of the process, we knew very little about the Parliament’s understanding of what was going on. The Government was not taking an active interest and, it is fair to say, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service thought that there was nothing to see.
The convener mentioned the meeting on 17 April with the Lord Advocate and Andy Shanks, who is the head of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit. I was present along with Ann Stark and Gerry Stark. The meeting lasted for almost two and a half hours. The Lord Advocate was very much in listening mode, but she had lots of questions, which speaks to the fact that, since Richard Stark’s death in 2019, the family have been trying to get answers. That shows how difficult it can be for grieving families to deal with the system. The petition has always been about improving the system, not just for the Stark family but for all families in Scotland.
I extend my thanks to the committee, because a lot of evidence and information is now available to us. We know that we need to learn lessons, but we also need to learn from other jurisdictions where families have been listened to and where the process of modernisation has been started, if not rolled out. Lessons have been learned in relation to the process, including about making efficiencies and savings at a time when public finance is under pressure, but the changes have also led to a more compassionate experience for families. On behalf of Ann Stark and Gerry Stark, I emphasise that the petition is about trying to minimise distress for grieving families at the worst time in their lives. As Ann has said in her written submissions, Richard’s death was not suspicious, but the family feel that they were treated in exactly the same way as they would have been were it a murder case or a highly suspicious death. That made their ordeal all the harder to bear.
I will touch on the discussions that we had with the Lord Advocate. I characterised her evidence session with the committee as tense, because it was quite difficult to try to tease out who was going to take responsibility for making change happen. The Lord Advocate has written to us since that meeting, making it clear that she shares the family’s desire for COPFS to make whatever improvements it possibly can. She reiterated her apology for the poor communication on behalf of the service and recognised that that caused unnecessary distress. There was some discussion about the family liaison charter, which should include looking at the medical history of the deceased and would inform whether a full invasive post mortem is required. We recognise, not just for the Stark family but for many families, that there is a communication issue, which is something that COPFS is looking at.
We know that COPFS is committed to the continuous improvement of its death investigation work. It is fair to say that it is as a result of the petition and the committee’s work that an improvement programme in the system for the investigation of deaths has been established. The purpose is to oversee a programme of work that is designed to achieve greater public confidence—which is really important—improve the service, deliver to bereaved relatives and deliver increased efficiencies in the investigation of deaths.
On the issue of samples, which I know is covered in the committee’s briefing papers, I want to reiterate that Richard Stark died in 2019. As we sit here today, on 28 May 2024, his parents and wider family still await confirmation that all of Richard’s body samples are accounted for. The Lord Advocate has confirmed in her letter to me that she is making further inquiries with pathology providers that are contracted to do that work. Again, that shows how difficult this can be.
As you have been told, COPFS regularly meets the current pathology providers, and the potential future use of CT scanners has, from time to time, formed part of their discussions. It is our view—it is my view from speaking to the family—that the conversations have not led to anything up until now and that that has been mentioned almost in an ad hoc way.
However, more positively, since the Lord Advocate last appeared at the committee, members of COPFS’s pathology, toxicology and mortuary programme board visited Northern Ireland. They received a presentation, which we are told was informative, from the state pathologist on the experience in Northern Ireland of utilising CT scanning. We welcome that.
Mrs Stark and the family suggested to the Lord Advocate that COPFS staff or members of its pathology, toxicology and mortuary programme board should perhaps visit Lancashire, where we believe that Dr James Adeley would be happy to facilitate a fact-finding trip. I know that, from time to time, the committee gets out of Parliament, and my suggestion to the committee is that it might wish to consider the opportunity for such a site visit. If the Lord Advocate and her colleagues are considering that, it would be worth checking where they have got to.
I will not repeat points that have been made about the resourcing issues and the workforce pressures that are facing COPFS and, more generally, pathology and other health services that are involved. It is very much a case of our needing to have the right people doing the right jobs. We have identified that there are shortcomings in the skill set in COPFS. That is why, in a paper that he submitted to the UK Justice Committee back in September 2020, Dr Adeley talked a lot about the importance of communication and the relationship with families. I have that submission in front of me. We want to minimise stress, deal with workforce pressures and use public resources better. We have heard about potential savings and at least achieving cost neutrality through the work in Lancashire.
I want to thank the committee, because we can see that your work is making a difference. We still have quite a distance to go, and, right now, I am not so confident about how engaged the Scottish Government is or about how meaningful that engagement is. Therefore, I think that the visit would be important. The opportunity here is to minimise the stress to grieving families, modernise the investigation of unexpected and sudden deaths and build resilience into the system. The scanners give us another tool that we do not currently have. The Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 needs reform.
Today, I am giving only one example: the Stark family’s situation. However, as you know from Ann Stark’s submissions, many other families have found themselves in that situation. I thank the committee for its compassion for the Stark family, but we want every family to experience the same level of compassion and for the system to be modernised. Thank you.
Thank you very much for that, Monica Lennon.
We have now assembled a considerable amount of evidence. Having had a chance to discuss these matters privately as well, the committee is of the view that we now need to write to the Scottish Government directly highlighting some of the matters that we have raised.
I wonder whether one of my colleagues would like to summarise, for the record, what areas we are proposing that that letter would cover.
There is a lot of ground to cover, so I will just read the text from our briefing paper.
Yes, it is a comprehensive series of asks.
It is. I am very grateful for Monica Lennon’s work in taking up this matter so diligently, which is a credit to her. We should write to the Scottish Government to highlight the HM chief inspector of prosecution’s view that consideration of the delivery model for forensic pathology is required, and that the Scottish Government should lead that work. In passing, I note that it was evident that the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate passed the buck in their evidence by saying that it is primarily a matter of medical evidence. They were, if you like, not taking the lead, so the Scottish Government should take the lead in that regard.
In addition, we should highlight the issues and suggested improvements to pathology services that were raised during the committee’s consideration of the petition, including the lack of clear direction and fragmented nature of the service, which is leading to challenges in resolving issues as they arise and the inconsistent and unclear communication with the next of kin, as well as the suggestions that tissue samples are returned to the next of kin and that CT scanners are used as an alternative to invasive post mortems. Thanks to the petitioners, Monica Lennon and the committee’s work, we have had a lot of evidence about each of those issues, so there is no point in rehearsing all that.
We should also highlight concerns in forensic pathology services about value for money, affordability, sustainability and contractual terms, as noted in the HM Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland’s annual report. We should highlight COPFS’s call for a national forensic pathology service.
We should recommend that the Scottish Government brings together service providers, the Crown Office and stakeholders to consider the key challenges that face pathology services as identified in the petition and the inspectorate’s report, takes ownership of and leads the development of a delivery model for pathology services, and ensures that any delivery model facilitates continuous and long-term improvement of pathology services.
In conclusion, that is all a bit dry—it is MSP-speak—but at its heart is the concern that the next of kin’s wishes should be respected and taken into account, and that they should be treated with dignity and respect in the desperately difficult situation that they face.
Thank you, Mr Ewing. That obviously draws on a lot of what the committee has heard. In the first instance, I think that we should set that out to the Government in the terms that Mr Ewing has suggested, and see what response we get, which would then inform how we might take forward the matter. Do members agree with that proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep open the petition and act on that basis. I thank members and the petitioners for the work that has been done.
Child Arrangement Orders (PE1984)
PE1984, which was lodged by Amy Stevenson, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to reduce the financial barriers that prevent parents from having contact with their children by introducing a Scottish equivalent to the C100 form, with a fixed fee for making applications for child residence or child contact orders.
We last considered the petition at our meeting on 4 October 2023. We received a response from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety suggesting that, although work is under way to implement section 24 of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, it is likely to be later in 2024 before the Government is in a position to advance with the pilot scheme on mandatory alternative dispute resolution meetings.
The minister’s response also notes that the Scottish Government does not plan to review the current system for initiating actions for child contact and residence orders due to “other priorities and pressures” but refers to actions in the family justice modernisation strategy that could help to improve the experiences of individuals going through child contact and residence disputes.
Do members have any comments or suggestions?
We should close the petition under rule 5.7 of standing orders, on the basis that section 24 of the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 requires the Scottish ministers to arrange a pilot scheme for mandatory alternative dispute resolution meetings and work is under way for the pilot to commence this year. Secondly, the Scottish Government has no plans to review the current system for initiating actions for child contact and residence orders. In closing the petition, it might be helpful for us to flag to the petitioner that they have the option to resubmit the petition in 12 months’ time, should no progress have been made on the pilot.
11:00
Thank you very much for that, Mr Golden. Are members of the committee content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner very much for raising the issue with us. In the light of the minister’s response, the committee feels that there is no immediate further course of action for us to take, as Mr Golden has summarised. However, I emphasise the point that it is perfectly possible, if the Government’s commitment has not been realised, for the petition to be brought back to us in 12 months’ time.
Performance-enhancing Drugs (Public Information) (PE2024)
PE2024, which has been lodged by Cael Scott, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a national public information programme to raise awareness of the impacts of the use of steroids, selective androgen receptor modulators and other performance-enhancing drugs. It makes the case that that programme should have a particular focus on the impact of such products on young people aged 16 to 25, and that work should be done with community learning and development practitioners, gyms and community coaches to raise awareness of the issue. It also asks that a public health campaign be developed to highlight the negative impacts of PEDs and to encourage regular health check-ups for users, and that a screening programme be developed to allow users to test the safety of their PEDs.
We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to UK Anti-Doping, Anabolic Steroids UK and the Scottish Drugs Forum, as well as the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has responded by providing the terms of reference for the early interventions for children and young people working group, which, it notes,
“will be guided every step of the way by the experiences of young people whose lives have been affected by alcohol and drug use and the front line services who support them.”
The response also lists the organisations that are members of the working group.
In its response, UK Anti-Doping draws our attention to its 2019 report on image and performance-enhancing drugs, which showed that the use of IPEDs extends beyond cheating in sport and is a significant public health issue. It is UK Anti-Doping’s view that structural arrangements to establish cross-agency working are needed in order to tackle the wider public health concerns that exist in relation to IPED use.
The Scottish Drugs Forum would welcome and actively support any national initiative that was focused on reducing the risks and harms associated with IPEDs. The forum suggests that a national campaign should be accompanied by the provision of adequate services, such as blood testing and other health checks, to reduce harms.
We have also received a response from the petitioner, in which they share their analysis of a series of freedom of information requests to regional health boards across Scotland on the costs and prevalence of, and existing support for, IPED use.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action, given the robust responses that we have received?
I think that we might be nearing the end of the road on this petition as well. However, we could write to the Minister for Drugs and Alcohol Policy to highlight the written evidence that the committee has received, which you have articulated, and to seek an update on what specific action the early intervention working group is taking to address public health concerns about the use of image and performance-enhancing drugs, including how it intends to include owners of leisure centres, gyms and fitness professionals in that work.
I think that we might accompany that with a note to emphasise the strength of expression of the responses that we received from the Scottish Drugs Forum and UK Anti-Doping. Are colleagues content with that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Changing Places Toilet Fund (PE2027)
PE2027, which was lodged by Sarah Heward on behalf of the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group, calls on the Parliament to encourage the Scottish Government to launch without further delay the £10 million changing places toilet fund that was pledged in the 2021 SNP manifesto, and to make the application process clear, straightforward and expeditious for groups that are trying to build these much-needed facilities.
We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport. The minister’s response to the committee highlights the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment
“to make the £10 million fund available across the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26.”
The fund is due to open at “the beginning of 2025.”
In the light of the fact that the aim of the petition has, therefore, been realised, which is to make the funding available without delay, and a timetable has been set for that in early 2025, I am inclined to propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is now working to make the £10 million available for changing places toilets in the current session of Parliament, which is key.
In closing the petition, the committee could highlight to the petitioner that the fund will now open in 2025 and that, if they are not content with how the Government’s work progresses thereafter, we would be very pleased to receive a fresh petition at a later date in order to advance the aims. However, we have a firm commitment from the Government. On that basis, therefore, are members content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Mr Choudhury, can I get confirmation from you on that? Mr Ewing has left us, but we need three heads to nod.
Yes.
We have that—thank you.
Insulin Pumps (PE2031)
Our next petition is PE2031, which has been lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Caithness Health Action Team. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that children and young people in Scotland who have type 1 diabetes and would benefit from a life-saving insulin pump are provided with one, no matter where they live.
I am reminded that that was a key issue in the very first session of Parliament in which I was elected, from 2007 to 2011; it is always intriguing to see how things develop. At that point, insulin pumps had just come on the scene, and we were very keen to have them made available through the NHS.
I welcome again Edward Mountain, who has remained with us since our earlier discussion on the A9 inquiry as he has an interest in this petition. I will invite him to say a few words in a moment.
The committee last considered the petition on 20 September 2023. At that time, we agreed to write to Diabetes Scotland, the Insulin Pump Awareness Group and the NHS regional health boards. The committee has received responses from eight of the 14 health boards, copies of which are included in our meeting papers.
A number of the responses refer to utilising additional Scottish Government funding to increase the number of children and young people who are accessing insulin pump therapy and the need for further Scottish Government funding to support on-going staffing and resource requirements that are now necessary to meet the demand for insulin pump therapy. It is also the case that, since the third session of Parliament, from 2007 to 2011, the incidence of diabetes has continued to increase dramatically within the population.
We have received a response from Diabetes Scotland that highlights the benefits of diabetes technology for people with type 1 diabetes, which include the improvement of blood sugar management and a reduced risk of complications such as stroke, eye damage and kidney disease. The response draws our attention to the “Diabetes Tech Can’t Wait” report, which Diabetes Scotland published in November last year. The report includes a number of recommendations to the Scottish Government and to health boards to support the faster roll-out of diabetes tech, with the aim of ensuring that 100 per cent of children and 70 per cent of adults living with type 1 diabetes are able to use hybrid closed-loop tech by 2030.
Before I invite the committee to share thoughts on how we might proceed, I invite Edward Mountain to comment.
Thank you, convener. At the outset, I highlight that Caithness Health Action Team strives hard to ensure that healthcare is delivered across the Highlands, but particularly in Caithness, from where it is more difficult for people to get to Raigmore and the centralised health service that is currently run by NHS Highland. There is no doubt that, up there, people feel isolated from that healthcare, as it can take at least an hour and a half under blue light, and probably two and a half hours under normal driving conditions, to get to it.
I remind the committee that, in 2023, extra money was given by the Scottish Government, and NHS Highland chose to use it for closed-loop therapy mainly for adults. Some money went to paediatric services, but there was a concentration on adults and, consequently, some children missed out. As the petitioner has made clear, there are approximately 25 children across the Highlands waiting for a diabetic insulin pump. My estimate of the cost of the pumps alone is about £75,000, which is not a huge amount of money, although there are some ancillary costs involved, as the convener has made clear: the costs are not only from the equipment but from the staff.
Providing the pumps would make a huge, huge difference to children as they come to terms with the diabetes that they must face, sometimes not fully understanding its effects. It would not require much additional money to ensure that all the children in the Highlands have insulin pumps. In fact, it would come at less than the cost of some of the administrative directors who sit on the board of NHS Highland. I therefore think that the committee could encourage NHS Highland to explain where the funding—the extra money that was given to the Government—went originally, why children were not made a priority and whether there are additional funds, with a mere £75,000 needed to provide pumps for all the children.
I will leave it to the committee, but I will just end by saying that it is difficult to overstate how remote people in the Highlands sometimes feel to healthcare, which is centralised. Giving people the ability to manage their own treatment would be truly revolutionary.
Are colleagues content to embrace Mr Mountain’s suggestion? Are there any other suggestions that the committee would like to add?
I see that we have a suggestion. It is not from a member of the committee, but I am delighted to see Clare Haughey with us this morning. I am happy to invite you to comment in any way, Clare.
Thank you for your indulgence in letting me speak on this petition, although I was not intending to. I draw the committee’s attention to a written question that was answered yesterday, S6W-27895, in which I have a constituency interest. The written answer may respond to some of Mr Mountain’s asks. I am happy to elaborate if that helps. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto, confirmed that,
“this financial year, up to £8.8 million of funding will be made available to expand access to diabetes technologies in Scotland. The focus will primarily be on providing access to all children that want Closed Loop Systems, but will also allow us to continue increasing access to adults.”—[Written Answers, 28 May 2024; S6W-27895.]
Perhaps that might assist with the petition.
I shall not wander round the room asking for party contributions, but I thank Clare Haughey for advising the committee of that. We will seek confirmation from the Government, as that points seems directly to add to our consideration of the issues that are raised in the petition. I suppose that we could prompt that by writing to the Scottish Government in response to Diabetes Scotland’s “Diabetes Tech Can’t Wait” report, asking what specific funding would support the statement that the minister has made. Are colleagues content to do that? I again thank Clare Haughey for drawing that ministerial answer to our attention.
Could you add something? Perhaps you could ask the Scottish Government whether the funding will be adequate, sustainable and recurring. I understand that Lothian NHS Board is currently having to restrict access to insulin pumps and hybrid closed-loop technology for adults.
We can certainly ask the Government to confirm the sustainability of any funding that it is making available.
We could also ask how much each health board will be receiving specifically for insulin pumps.
Is there anything else? I do not want to make a dripping roast, saying yes and then having another thing sprung on me. Thank you, Mr Choudhury.
Are members content to incorporate those suggestions into the representation that we make?
Members indicated agreement.
Highly Protected Marine Areas (PE2034)
PE2034, which was lodged by Stuart Chirnside, calls on the Scottish Government to halt its proposals for highly protected marine areas—HPMAs—and to bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods.
We last considered the petition in October last year, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on its alternative plans to enhance the protection of the marine environment. We have received a response from the Scottish Government confirming that there are no plans to progress the HPMA proposals, nor is the Government looking to designate 10 per cent of Scotland’s seas as highly protected marine areas by 2026.
In response to what the petitioner might feel is validation of their submission, do colleagues have any suggestions for action? I see Mr Ewing flailing around in his seat as he seeks to contribute to our deliberation on the issue.
11:15
I will add that it has been brought to my attention by fishing representatives that, whereas HPMAs policy, as such, was dropped—after various representations of various types were made to urge the Government so to do—I understand that it is a widely held belief in fishing circles that NatureScot is busily working on that topic to pursue what some feel might be HPMAs by another name. I have not seen the factual basis for that, but I wonder whether we might, to take a belt-and-braces approach, write to NatureScot to ask whether it is doing work in that area, and, if so, what that work is, who has asked it to do it and what role in and input to its deliberations, if any, fishing representatives, such as those representing fishermen in the Clyde and the vicinity, might be having.
I understand the substance of the question, but I am not sure that it is consistent with the petition that we have before us, which is quite specifically a petition in relation to the Scottish Government. I am not sure that that action would be competent in the sense of being within the reach of the petition itself or whether it would have to be the subject of a fresh petition. However, I am willing to take a view from colleagues on that.
The petition refers to “the current proposals”. On the face of it, notionally, those proposals have been shelved. If, at the time, the Scottish Government was saying that it would not progress the current proposals, the petition would clearly have to be closed. However, if, at that time, the Scottish Government instructed NatureScot to progress some form of the current proposals, I think that that would fall within the scope of the petition. It might be worth clarifying that aspect with NatureScot. Clearly, if NatureScot is doing that off its own bat—if it is doing it at all—that is a different matter. However, if the Scottish Government has instructed it, we should see the details, because that might fall within the scope of the petition.
I was going to make exactly the same point that Mr Golden just made.
I am outflanked by what I would call that rather tenuous link, which committee members have managed to draw together by a thread. That is fair enough. It will be some time before we consider the petition again. There might have been quicker routes to try to establish all that. However, is that the will of colleagues, including you, Mr Choudhury? That appears to be the case. Thank you. In that case, we will keep the petition open and we will seek to clarify that point.
Previous
A9 Dualling ProjectNext
New Petitions