Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes. I am happy to write to the cross-party group. We might also write to the armed forces personnel and veterans health joint group, which is a separate body, seeking similar information.

PE2034, on stopping the current proposals for highly protected marine areas in Scotland, has been lodged by Stuart Chirnside and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt its current proposals for highly protected marine areas and to bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods.

Events have slightly overtaken the petition, as we know. It was lodged on 20 June, and as members will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition gave a statement to Parliament on 29 June, confirming that the Scottish Government would not be progressing with the proposals. As noted in both the SPICe briefing and the Scottish Government response, the cabinet secretary has committed to providing the Parliament with an update on the Government’s next steps on the issue.

Thank you very much, minister. Yes, we eventually got the Scottish Government’s response to its own inquiry. We certainly exchanged calendar dates for some time about when that might be coming and, eventually, it did.

I will sum it up in short and outline the concern that underpins my question. The committee has now completed its report on deliberative democracy in consequence of the extensive inquiry that we held. The Parliament asked the committee to lead on that inquiry at the start of this parliamentary session, following the recommendation from Ken Macintosh’s Commission on Parliamentary Reform in the previous session that we look into that area. As a committee, we have been on a journey, but our report is enthusiastic about the opportunities that are presented, which are in two forms: what the Government can do and what the Parliament can do. The Parliament will debate our report in the chamber at the end of the month and we very much hope that the parliamentary aspect can be taken forward.

The Government’s response appears to accept the emerging use of citizens panels and their value and probably even the lessons learned from the experience of the Scottish Government model. Ultimately, however, the response is that “There is nae money.” I accept that, and we think that it will probably cost about £1 million a pop to hold a meaningful citizens panel on the model that we have seen in other national Parliaments.

In the first instance, I want to understand whether there has been a diminution of enthusiasm for the concept of the citizens panel as a result of the Scottish Government’s experience to date. Is money being used as a lever to suggest that the panels do not have quite the role that the Government had thought, or is it still very much the Scottish Government’s intention to find a way and a means, at some point, of embracing the concept of citizens panels as an embedded process in Scottish public life? If that is the case, is there an idea in your mind or in the Government’s mind about whether that is likely to happen in this parliamentary session, or will it most likely be in a subsequent session?

I hope that that meets the immediate hopes and expectations of the petitioners.

You may have felt that it was the right idea, Mr Adam, but I am not sure that it was the most enlightening of the options that were before you.

Thank you for that. Lots of colleagues want to come in. Mr Golden has a specific supplementary on a point that was made in the latter half of that response. You can come back to any other points that you want to make later on.

We will keep the petition open and seek to hold an evidence session at a subsequent committee meeting, as agreed.

Our next petition is PE1979, regarding the establishment of an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies. The petition has been lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. I see that the petitioners are with us in the public gallery. A warm welcome to you. You have had quite an extended morning before we got to your petition.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland, and concerns that there are gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries.

We considered this petition at our meeting on 8 February, at which point we agreed to seek further information from a number of relevant organisations. We have subsequently received responses from the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the Scottish Social Services Council, the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Copies of the responses are in the papers for today’s meeting.

The GTCS has provided an overview of its fitness to teach process and identified national education reform and the Scottish child abuse inquiry as opportunities for driving improvement on the roles and responsibilities in child protection.

The responses from the Scottish Social Services Council, the EIS and COSLA suggest that the existing guidance and processes for child protection are sufficient, with both the EIS and the SSSC hesitant about the need for an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services.

In contrast, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland response notes that it has identified

“a number of gaps in the national guidance and a need for stronger accountability mechanisms.”

Its response suggests that there would be merit in exploring the creation of a national whistleblowing officer, perhaps in a similar format to the independent national whistleblowing officer for the national health service.

The committee has received three submissions from the petitioners that reflect on our previous consideration of the petition and comment on the content of responses that we have otherwise received.

Finally, members of the committee and I have received email correspondence from a number of individuals seeking to make submissions to the committee or to give evidence in support of the petition, but only if they can do so under conditions of confidentiality, which the committee can obviously agree to.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We can consider that in our determination of the evidence that we have heard.

Marie McNair, who joins us online and who is substituting for David Torrance, has indicated that she has a question.

We come to Edward Mountain, whose land you just volunteered up, Mr Neil. I do not want him to stray into matters on which he has not necessarily given a declaration of interest to the committee, but I invite him, as our reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, to ask a question.