Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.

It does seem ridiculous that an individual in such circumstances should have contacted 100 people only to receive 100 rebuffs as he tried to access justice. It is an important petition, and we will take it forward.

That is the final new petition this morning, so I now close the meeting. We will meet again on Wednesday 3 May.

PE2001, which has been lodged by E Phillips on behalf of Safeguarding Our Schools Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the “Supporting transgender young people in schools: guidance for Scottish schools” resource and await the outcome of the Cass review before developing a new resource.

In her response to the petition, the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Shirley-Ann Somerville, stated that:

“Development of the guidance for schools was informed by key stakeholder groups, including LGBT organisations, women’s groups, education organisations and teaching unions.”

The cabinet secretary also suggested that,

“It is wrong to claim that the guidance recommends that young people are encouraged to socially transition.”

Her response notes that,

“the Cass Review ... only extends to current and future services offered by NHS England”,

but she states that,

“The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland will closely consider the ongoing findings of the ... Review within the context of NHS Scotland services”.

The committee has also received a submission from the petitioner that highlights that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is reviewing its technical guidance for schools with regard to evolving policy on issues of gender identity. The petitioner also raises concerns about the statistics that are used in the Scottish Government’s guidance and the organisations that are signposted as part of the guidance, as well as highlighting an impact statement from a parent with personal experience of how the guidance subsequently impacted on their family.

The petition raises some important issues. Do members have any suggestions as to how we might seek to proceed?

As there are no suggestions from members, I am minded to suggest that we write to some stakeholders who would be able to help inform our understanding, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland and LGBT Youth Scotland. Are there any other suggestions from colleagues to add to that list?

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

I suspend the meeting.

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2023. I begin by offering an apology on behalf of the deputy convener, David Torrance, who is not able to be with us this morning, sadly. That is a shame, because he was with our petitioners last night.

We come to that petition now under agenda item 1, which is consideration of continuing petitions. The first of them is PE1958, on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland, and it 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 their 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.

I am delighted that we are joined this morning by the petitioner, Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, and by Laura Pasternak, also from Who Cares? Scotland. Thank you both very much for coming to join us this morning to give evidence.

Before we get started, and for the benefit of anyone following today’s proceedings, I should note that members of the committee—Alexander Stewart and David Torrance, who were in the Parliament yesterday—had an informal discussion with individuals with lived experience of the issues raised by the petition. I understand that that was a forthright and interesting conversation. The discussion was supported by Who Cares? Scotland, the Aberlour Child Care Trust and the Scottish Refugee Council. A note of the discussion will be published on the petition web page in due course.

Getting under way with our evidence session this morning, I understand, Jasmin, that you would like to make a statement to the committee—which the wider world will of course also see and hear—and we will then move to questions.

We have extended the session quite a bit, such has been the interest in the issue at hand. Before we move to the round-table conversation, would you like to make any final comments about anything that we have not covered this morning?

Fergus Ewing, it was at your instigation that we spoke with the two panels of people with experience of all of this last night.

Did you recognise that sentiment about the overwhelming nature of that situation for the individual—the responsibility that, in the absence of advocacy, people feel falls on them to progress things on their own behalf?

The recommendation that we write to the minister is sensible, particularly given that we have this new economic impact report, with its projection of billions of pounds from which the economy could benefit. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.