Seòmar agus comataidhean

As that brings us to the conclusion of the public part of the meeting, I just want to say what an absolute pleasure and privilege it has been to be the convener of this committee in this session of Parliament. I thank the current cohort of colleagues—Fergus Ewing, Davy Russell, Maurice Golden and my long-standing deputy convener, David Torrance, who has been here with me from the start—as well as other parliamentary colleagues who have served on the committee over the past five years, and the many colleagues from all parties who have taken advantage of the option that we have given to come and represent their constituents directly to the committee.

We feel that we have made a lot of progress on behalf of a lot of people, although we have sometimes been frustrated that people have been left disappointed, because there is no more that we can do. At times, I have had to explain that this is a committee of the Parliament, not a committee of the Government. We are not empowered to do anything; we are here to influence and bring about change, which, in some cases, we have been able to do.

So, I want to thank all those who have had petitions open and might be watching—and to all those who might be considering lodging a petition, I want to say, “Please do so.” The Scottish Parliament’s public petitions committee is the finest of any example that we have been able to identify anywhere, and your petition will be considered and heard.

With that, we move into private session.

10:18

Meeting continued in private until 10:26.

These matters might well resurface in the next parliamentary session, as things progress.

Maurice Golden, are you content?

We will keep the petition open. In the legacy report, we will need to make sure that we explain what we have done and why we have done it. It is still a matter of huge public concern. The worries that the committee has expressed about the realities of delivering the plans on the ground are only magnified by the reports that we have seen this morning from Aberdeen. Therefore, the reality of this situation must continue to be interrogated, and we will keep the petition open into the next parliamentary session. I wish all those at University hospital Wishaw well—[Interruption.]

I hope that Ms Baillie does not need to seek urgent medical attention herself. Thank you very much, Ms Baillie, and sayonara.

PE2139, which was lodged by Maria Giordano, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce automatic expulsion for children who are charged on suspicion of committing a crime against another child.

We last considered the petition on 28 January, when we agreed to write to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. At that meeting, it was noted that the commissioner had not provided a response to the petition, but, following the meeting, the clerks became aware that a response had been provided, and, due to administrative error, the response had not been processed or provided to the committee in advance of the meeting. Mention of that was made at the meeting subsequent to the one when the petition was last considered.

The response states that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland shares the petitioner’s concerns about the potential for children who have been harmed by a peer to find themselves in the same classroom as the person who harmed them. The commissioner’s view is that such situations should be carefully managed to ensure that that does not happen and that, in some cases, it might be appropriate for an accused child to be excluded from school. The submission states that such situations require careful balancing of the rights of both children and that any decision should be made following multi-agency discussion, with an equal emphasis on the rights of all the children involved. That would require individual consideration, so the commissioner’s view is that a policy of automatic expulsion or exclusion would not be compatible with children’s rights.

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has previously raised concerns about the lack of support that is available to child victims. The submission states that there is a lack of specialist support available in many areas, which can leave children feeling unsupported, particularly when contrasted with the type of close support that children who are in conflict with the law receive.

I note that that aligns very much with the evidence received and the concerns that were raised during the committee’s consideration of petitions relating to youth crime, during which we undertook on-site visits to various parts of Scotland and met many young people—and their families—who had been affected in that way, all of whom felt that the attention was very much on the perpetrator, whereas they had very much been left to fend for themselves.

In the light of the commissioner’s response, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed and how the issue might be taken forward effectively in the next session of the Parliament? It is my view that there is an issue.

We could also pick up on a point that we can lift from the submission by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland about its concern over the lack of support available to child victims. We could try to address that point, and potentially the exclusion of the most extreme cases, directly.

There are two things that a new petition could focus on, noting that the request in the petition before us has been rejected by the Scottish Government.

Do we think that the suggestion made by Mr Torrance, with that caveat, is the right way to go?

But if the focus was narrowed to the most extreme cases, it might be easier.

PE2190, which was lodged by Mandy McGurk, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent grooming gang inquiry to identify and understand the prevalence of child grooming in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 14 January, and we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. The Scottish Government has now announced its commitment to establishing a public inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland.

The petitioner has provided two further submissions. The first welcomes the intention to establish an inquiry and emphasises that it must be supported by clear safeguards, survivor-led involvement, transparency and firm commitments to accountability. Her submission states that, as well as examining prevalence, the inquiry must examine five other areas: institutional responses and decision making; failure in interagency co-operation; the handling of disclosures and whistleblowing; any patterns of minimisation, misrecording or underreporting; and cultural or systemic barriers that prevented action.

The petitioner states that survivors in Scotland have lived in silence for too long, and that the inquiry has the potential to change that, but only if it is carried out with integrity, independence and meaningful survivor participation.

Do we have any suggestions, colleagues?

Although it is very kind of you to give me a further opportunity to comment on NatureScot, Mr Torrance, I will resist the temptation on this occasion. I do not know that I want that to be my personal legacy from the committee.

Notwithstanding that, it is clear that there are strong views on all sides, and they deserve to be given a full opportunity to be aired. Are we therefore content to keep the petition open, as has been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Fine. In that case, we will keep the petition open and include it in our legacy report for the next session of Parliament.