Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do members have any other thoughts?

I quite like digital display boards. I have a few in my constituency. They tended to replace roller display boards, where the picture changed, or ones with slats that used to turn. Now, it is all modern tech.

We will keep the petition open, and we will seek to find out the views of the bodies concerned on digital display boards. It is perfectly possible that they could be located in much more intrusive locations, which could be of consequence to people locally.

I should say that I am not sure that Mr Yousaf was the lead minister for the project at any point—I think that it was Keith Brown.

And then Michael Matheson.

The other ask of the petition that we are considering is whether a memorial to those whose lives have been lost would be appropriate. Transport Scotland was slightly concerned about that proposal and looked at it rather literally as a memorial more or less in the central reservation with people driving past, which I do not think was the suggestion. Your predecessor pointed to the memorial that was built at Queensferry for the people who died during the construction of the Forth rail bridge many years before.

Given the loss of life, is such a memorial appropriate? I do not remember anything similar in Mr Salmond’s time. Both of us have been involved in politics long enough to remember national tragedies such as the Lockerbie bombing or the Piper Alpha disaster in which there was a considerable loss of life and for which there is a memorial that people can go to. What would your thoughts have been if, as the First Minister, you had received such a suggestion? If there is merit in it, what process would evaluate that best and potentially take it to a conclusion?

Would colleagues be content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition has been a very important one. We have discussed it on a number of occasions, although, sadly, without achieving the progress that we would wish for. However, we will set out the committee’s view, which has very much been in support of the petitioner, to the Scottish Government and seek additional information in relation to the comparative work in England and Wales.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That was the last of our new petitions for consideration this morning. We will now move into private session to consider items 5 and 6. Our next meeting will take place on 12 June.

Welcome back. We move to item 3, which is consideration of continued petitions. The first of those petitions, PE1905, lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJW’s Support, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sex abuse since 1950.

We last considered the petition on 6 September 2023. We asked the then Deputy First Minister about work arising from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, and about how the implementation of national child protection guidance is monitored in the context of religious settings. We received a response in November 2023 that highlights that child protection committees were asked to return a self-evaluation by the end of October that year. The Scottish Government was then due to work with the Centre for Excellence for Children’s Care and Protection—CELCIS—to analyse those returns, and a report was due at the start of 2024 to summarise the national implementation progress.

The then Deputy First Minister highlighted that, under the guidance, faith organisations should have designated child protection leads who have a role in passing on concerns about children to police or social work, and in developing and maintaining organisational policies and procedures. Government officials presented to faith and belief representatives group in 2022 to raise the profile of the guidance.

In response to the report in England and Wales, the Scottish Government has worked with stakeholders to gather views and consider the potential risks and merits of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in a Scottish context. The petitioner’s submission emphasises the challenges that are associated with engaging certain religious groups in that work. She states that her experience suggests that not all religious groups will engage with advisory groups or committees. She argues that that is why it is important to legally require religious leaders to report allegations of abuse to the authorities.

Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? It seems as though we have been going round the houses and the Government’s view is fairly clear. It seems that, irrespective of the views that the committee has expressed or supported, it is not minded to proceed in that way.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. Do members agree with that?