Chamber and committees

Good morning to the panel members. What obstacles do IJBs face in seeking to place binding directions on their partners and settle on shared priorities for their communities?

What is required to simplify, streamline and co-ordinate governance and accountability, as was called for by the Christie commission, for constructive integration and relationships between partners to develop? How might the creation of a national care service contribute to that goal?

In the light of the responses that we have had, I suggest that the committee considers closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is undertaking work to consider long-term reform of local taxation, as set out in its 2021 programme for government.

I will try.

I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, in its response to the cabinet secretary, the Scottish Council of Deans of Education states that student teachers are taught about systematic synthetic phonics in the context of gaining a broader understanding of the development and teaching of reading, and that Education Scotland is developing new resources related to early reading, which will outline how systematic phonics approaches form one aspect of an overall pedagogy for early reading.

Do not ask me to say that again. [Laughter.]

In the light of the evidence that we have heard, I think that the committee should write to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic to set out to her our view that individuals who experienced abuse in a relevant care setting should be able to access the redress scheme, regardless of the length of their stay or of whether there was parental consent for their placement.

The committee might wish to highlight the view of Thompsons Solicitors that the way in which the exclusions have been introduced and applied is inconsistent with the principles of dignity, respect and compassion that are supposed to underpin the redress legislation.

The Scottish Government should also review the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 and should consult on expanding the scheme to include residential institutions that were owned and operated by the state, regardless of the length of residents’ stay. The Government should also enable redress to be provided in cases where abuse was carried out in such institutions by staff who were employed by the state, regardless of whether parental consent had been provided for the child to be placed there.

The committee should also recommend that the Scottish Government introduce a feedback mechanism to improve collaboration between the Government’s redress unit and Redress Scotland, to enable Redress Scotland to flag any issues or concerns about the process.

Would the committee consider writing to the minister to ask what progress has been made on exploring the possibility of utilising tax powers to mandate community shared ownership and renewable energy developments, as indicated by the petitioner?

I wonder whether we could write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to highlight the evidence that the committee has received; to seek an update on the work of the implementation board and the operational working group to progress the implementation of part 1 of the 2021 act, including information on what challenges are still to be resolved before implementation can proceed; to ask what action has been taken to ensure that victims have the opportunity to be heard before non-harassment orders are varied or revoked; and to ask whether the Scottish Government still intends to introduce a legal aid reform bill during the current parliamentary session.

I think that the committee should consider writing to the First Minister to highlight the petitioner’s submissions, to seek clarification on what consideration the First Minister has given to updating the ministerial code since taking office and to ask him to set out the process for appointing the independent advisers on the ministerial code, including whether any consideration is given to how long they should remain in post.

In light of the evidence that we have been given, would the committee consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government and NatureScot have set out their approaches to incorporating local knowledge in policy and decision making, and neither currently intends to revise such approaches in line with the petition’s request?

Given the progress that has been made on the aims of the petition, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that it has been confirmed that a Scottish veterans treatment pathway that will closely replicate NHS England’s veterans trauma network is expected to be introduced in 2024, and that the SPSO supports the view that it is useful for public bodies to review response times to identify general improvements for the benefit of everyone who engages with them, with the SPSO having recently updated its guidance on vulnerability.

In closing the petition, perhaps we can write to the Minister for Veterans to seek an update on the timescale for introducing a Scottish veterans treatment pathway.