Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the bases that self-testing kits do not give as much information as lab analysis and might not indicate the presence of other substances or the purity of drugs, and that test results could be misrepresented or misinterpreted by individuals.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government suggests that testing in drug-checking facilities is preferable because harm-reduction advice and signposting to support services can be offered.

Finally, work is being progressed to pilot drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow.

Dignity, respect and compassion appear to be severely lacking in this case. The committee is trying to determine why, who is ultimately responsible and whether we can put right what once went wrong through the redress scheme. I am interested in the system for assessing individual cases. I am a bit confused about some aspects that you have mentioned. For example, you have spoken about exceptional circumstances, about people in the same institution at a similar time acting as corroboration and about ultimately applying the presumption of truth and looking at the balance of probabilities. Does the system allow for such cross corroboration, particularly where no records exist? By contrast, in the standard system, there is an individual case and there are no similar cases. I accept everything that you have said, but it seems as if, in this particular case, either there should be a slightly different system or some of the flexibilities that have been mentioned should be brought in. I am unclear about that.

Thank you.

I want to be clear on the issue of panel assessments of individual cases. In the case of Fornethy—although this could also apply to other cases—a number of individuals are coming forward, and, due to the constraints of the guidance or the act, panel members feel that they cannot provide redress in those cases. However, on the basis of humanity and doing what is right, they think that something should be done.

Is there a process for flagging to the Scottish Government and the Scottish ministers that there is a problem and that Redress Scotland would like to resolve the issue but that you cannot do so? Are conversations taking place on that to ensure that victims get the justice and redress that they deserve?

I have a final question. The Deputy First Minister suggested in evidence to the committee that a precedent could be set in the case of Fornethy survivors that might lead to a number of other cases. I want to get on the record from Redress Scotland that it does not matter to you, as an independent body, whether a precedent is set in an individual case, even if that would mean that hundreds or, heaven forbid, thousands of more cases would then be set against that bar. In each individual case, if there is wrongdoing, it needs to be redressed. I would like to get confirmation of that from you, if you can give it.

I do not think that it is for Redress Scotland to rewrite the rules or make recommendations, but I think that it is your role to flag concerns in this case or in others. It is up to the civil service and the Scottish ministers to say, “These are the recommendations and they are based on that,” or, “We don’t think that”. However, unless there is a feedback loop, how will Scottish ministers know that there are potential issues or flaws in the legislation or the guidance?

There is quite a lot in this that would be helpful to follow up with the Scottish Government. It is important that the committee notes that there is no such breed as an XL bully. It is the characteristics and type that have been subject to restrictions. We could follow up on the verification of those characteristics and the capacity of vets and other professionals to do that. It is important to ask the Scottish Government, for example, what training it is providing for owners to progress their dog to wearing a muzzle, which is one of the restrictions.

In addition to that, we should seek further details on the planned summit on responsible dog ownership and control, and ask specifically whether that will include owners of XL bully type dogs and provide the opportunity to consider the impact of the regulations on those owners, and what other measures might be put in place by the Scottish Government to ensure more responsible ownership and, ultimately, the welfare of dogs.

That is helpful. I have a final question. How were you advised about the project running behind time? Was it regularly discussed at Cabinet, for example, or was it broadly left to the relevant minister and officials?

The petition refers to “the current proposals”. On the face of it, notionally, those proposals have been shelved. If, at the time, the Scottish Government was saying that it would not progress the current proposals, the petition would clearly have to be closed. However, if, at that time, the Scottish Government instructed NatureScot to progress some form of the current proposals, I think that that would fall within the scope of the petition. It might be worth clarifying that aspect with NatureScot. Clearly, if NatureScot is doing that off its own bat—if it is doing it at all—that is a different matter. However, if the Scottish Government has instructed it, we should see the details, because that might fall within the scope of the petition.

I am a bit cautious about closing the petition, although I think that we are reaching the end of the road. I wonder whether there might be one final opportunity for the committee to write to the Deputy First Minister and ask for detailed information about the work that is being undertaken to consider the findings and recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse for England and Wales, and to ask for an update on the publication of the implementation progress report and its findings. I feel that there was an error in limiting the scope of the inquiry.