Seòmar agus comataidhean

So, you are content to support those.

The evidence was not just from Glasgow—we heard from a pupil from St Andrews in Fife. Therefore, it seems a bit easy to say—

It is interesting that you talk about the period since 2000. Smartphones and iPads are much more recent than that, really—the first iPad did not appear until 2010. As I said in my opening remarks, in the examples that we heard about, one of the disturbing characteristics was the violence by appointment. We heard about people filming violence deliberately and posting it on social media to allow the perpetrators to self-aggrandise and create reputations for themselves that were designed to intimidate others. That seems to me to be a new and slightly sinister development. What have you found in relation to that, if anything?

One of the examples that the committee heard was of a youngster who was in a shopping centre who realised that violence was impending. They sought support from the security staff and contacted their parents, and the security staff said, “There’s absolutely nothing we can do to protect your child until the violence actually occurs.” The security staff said that, if they intervened, they would be charged as a result of having intervened, potentially for restraining the individual who was going to perpetrate the violence before the violence had actually been perpetrated. The evidence suggested that the people who were committing the violence were perfectly aware of the fact that nothing could be done to protect that individual. Is there a greater degree of knowledge of the parameters of the system in current society, which people exploit in the knowledge that they can act again with impunity?

Thank you; that is very interesting. In the course of the discussion, we have covered one or two of the other questions that we were going to ask, so I will throw it back to you and ask whether there is anything that we have not discussed that you might have volunteered by way of testimony and that would be useful to us.

The next continued petition is PE1854, to review the adult disability payment eligibility criteria for people with motability needs—sorry, I mean mobility needs. “Motability” is from my old motor trade days, which crept into my vocabulary there. The petition, which was lodged by Keith Park on behalf of the MS Society, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20m rule from the proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs.

We have been considering the petition for some time. We last considered it a year ago, on 26 October 2022, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government, and to the MS Society.

The Scottish Government has undertaken a consultation on the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of adult disability payment. It found that respondents frequently argued for the reform or elimination of distance-based mobility tests, including the 20m rule. The consultation responses will inform the independent review of ADP. The independent review is due to commence later this year and, according to the petitioner’s recent written submission, the Scottish Government has started the recruitment process to identify the lead for the work.

The cabinet secretary’s written submission highlights the current financial challenges facing Government, stating that any significant changes that result in new additional spending will not be deliverable within the current parliamentary session. The petitioner has expressed disappointment at the Scottish Government’s incorporation of deliverability and affordability considerations into both the consultation and upcoming review. He states that such considerations should not limit the scope of the independent review or any recommendations relating to eligibility criteria. The petitioner argues that the purpose of the review should be to make recommendations that would enable the design of a disability assistance benefit that will meet the needs of disabled people.

We have held the petition open for some of that work to advance.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

That might very well be something that we can incorporate into our final consideration, given that the Government has said that it will engage with the petitioner on the aims of the petition.

The petitioner was given the opportunity to contribute but has chosen not to.

Yes.

PE1958 is on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, who I can see is with us in the public gallery again—she must have a season ticket for our proceedings, as I like to say to regular attendees—on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, on the basis of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

Members will recall that, at our previous meeting, we heard evidence from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, Natalie Don MSP, and Scottish Government officials Cara Cooper and Sarah Corbett. During that meeting, the minister recognised that the care and support provided to care-experienced individuals is inconsistent, and she talked about a determination to

“review and co-design the policies and supports for people with experience of care alongside those with lived experience”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 8 November 2023; c 2-3.]

We also heard that a consultation process is planned for 2024, with the Promise bill expected to be introduced to the Parliament for consideration in 2025—which is getting a little bit near the end of this parliamentary session.

Since our previous meeting, we have received a submission from the Scottish Government providing clarification on whether legislative change would be required to achieve the things that are called for in the petition and providing the requested details on educational outcomes—I think that Maurice Golden asked about that—and on looked-after children, and data on social work staff retention and recruitment.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Jasmin, sharing her reflections on the evidence that we have gathered, and additional information provided by the Scottish Government, which she has had a chance to consider. While welcoming the work being done by the Scottish Government, Jasmin highlights the reviews and consultations that have already taken place, where care-experienced people shared their views, and she cautions against further consultations, which risk asking people to relive trauma while they continue to wait for solutions to be developed and implemented.

While the evidence that we took from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise at our previous meeting in response to our questions is still fresh in our minds, do we have any comments or suggestions in consequence of that?