Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me—I do not know a lot about this—but is a routine test done? Is there an inspection?

I suppose that there could be a dangerous headstone. Depending on the complexity or style of the particular memorial, it could be dangerous. Dealing with it could also be a very costly undertaking and not necessarily something that the council will immediately think it can accommodate.

Maybe Desmond Barr would like to say something. I apologise for not bringing you in sooner. Please just flag up at any time that you want to contribute.

The committee considered having the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with us this morning. However, we will probably ask it to respond to issues that arise from the petition.

The evidence session has been very helpful. Are colleagues content for us to reflect on the evidence that we have heard and consider it at a future meeting of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

I understand the point that you are making. As I said, I have some direct experience.

You said that you received the treatment in November. This is the contradiction that I want to try to understand: given the reservations that have been expressed by some jurisdictions about the treatment’s effectiveness, has it given you confidence to act in a more complete way? I think that you said, “Even if it gives me 10 per cent additional benefit, that is 10 per cent additional benefit that I did not have”. Is it the case that, although it might not give the sense of full and complete security that vaccination might give to other people, it nonetheless advances confidence among people who cannot have the vaccines but who could take Evusheld? Is it essentially that? On the back of taking it, have you felt more confident about acting in a way that is consistent with how you operated before?

PE1723, which was lodged by Mary Ramsay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

At our previous consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the national specialist services committee on a number of outstanding issues. We have considered the petition on a number of occasions and we are quite engaged with it.

In response, the Scottish Government has provided information about the role, membership and operation of the national professional, patient and public reference group. The national services division has now responded to the committee, setting out the current service provision and how it operates with the national specialist services committee. The response states that, at the time of writing, no formal application for a national magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound service had been submitted by NHS Tayside.

We are joined for our discussion of the petition by Rhoda Grant. I ask her whether she would like to say anything before we consider the various representations that we have recently received.

Our next new 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 enquiries by public bodies. The petition has been lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. I see that some of the petitioners have joined us in the public gallery to observe our consideration of the petition today and, as far as they are all here, we welcome them to our proceedings.

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 Scotland, and concerns that there are gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing office for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle those enquiries in the future.

The petitioners tell us that they have supported whistleblowers in raising historical and current allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights and, while acknowledging the work of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, the petitioners believe that a separate and wider inquiry into safeguarding is required.

In responding to the requests of the petition, the Minister for Children and Young People states that learning from the Scottish child abuse inquiry, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and actions such as implementation of the revised national child protection guidance, mean that the Scottish Government does not consider that there is a need to extend the scope of the SCAI or to establish a separate inquiry to explore concerns that allegations about safeguarding have been mishandled by public bodies.

Although the petitioners have welcomed comments about improving systems as a result of the inquiries into cases of non-recent child abuse, they have restated the call for a distinct inquiry into wider allegations and whistleblower concerns about unresolved child protection issues that relate to organised criminal child exploitation and trafficking. The petitioners also highlight in their response that national child protection guidance is non-statutory, and they consider the guidance to be confusing, complex and somewhat contradictory.

The committee has also received a number of written submissions in support of the petition. Colleagues will recall our consideration of the eligibility criteria around some of the submissions that we have received and previously considered, many of which share details of families’ experiences in pursuing child protection and safeguarding concerns, and the difficulties that they encountered in trying to resolve concerns with a variety of public bodies.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I am certainly not inclined to follow the Scottish Government’s initial response that it does not see any further merit in this.

I note that the Scottish Government says in its response that if a couple who are married or cohabiting own a home together both must agree to its sale, otherwise the party who wants to sell the property will need to raise a court action seeking an order for division and sale. Under section 19 of the 1981 act, where a spouse has raised an action of division and sale involving the matrimonial home, the court may refuse to grant the decree or postpone doing so for a period that it considers to be reasonable, or it may grant the degree subject to conditions. You are a lawyer, Mr Ewing. Are you able to add any nuance to all this?

Yes—it would be interesting to have that information.

That brings us to the end of the public part of our proceedings. We will meet next on 22 February.