Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given the information that we have received back—especially from Citizens Advice Scotland—about the timings, about individuals’ ability to pay and about the liability that applies when they fall behind, and given the increasing awareness that the whole idea of funds and support for individuals who are finding it difficult to pay is a very important topic, I think that we need to get more clarity from the Scottish Government as to how it is attempting to address that and whether there is an opportunity to undertake the review that is being sought. That would give us the chance to see and hear what the Scottish Government is planning to do under the process.

As Mark Whitfield indicated in his presentation, we have an opportunity here to engage with the third sector. We talk about dignity, fairness and respect, and I think that it fits those criteria for us to at least investigate this matter for those individuals going through the horrific experience of being given such news and having to cope. The third sector organisations have a wealth of knowledge and experience of what takes place with individuals who are suffering, so it would be very beneficial to have their input as well as to find out from the Scottish Government how it wants to progress this. We should keep the petition going so that we can clarify that and take further information and evidence.

I, too, indicate my disappointment at not having a response from the Scottish Government. It is very much in our favour if we invite the cabinet secretary to comment on the evidence that we have received. It is useful to have the photographic evidence as well. Ms Baillie has taken an informed approach. It would be useful to get the cabinet secretary to answer some of the questions that she posed.

You talked about the pressures of transparency and the journey that we are on to ensure that equality and human rights budgeting processes are delivered. However, there are challenges and major pressures that will affect the delivery of equality and human rights budgeting in the coming years. We also have the added difficulty of managing the pandemic and its effects, which might unwind the priorities that were set. It would be useful to get a flavour from Emma Congreve and then Angela O’Hagan of what they think the challenges are in relation to allocating funds and supporting the way forward. Those priorities may be derailed, knocked back or knocked off course, so how can we manage those difficulties?

Thank you. Chris Birt, did you want to respond?

Thank you. Angela, in your opening statement, you talked about how individuals and organisations were affected across the piece. How do you see the priorities changing and having to be adapted to ensure that people are not lost or that they do not fall through the net?

A lot of correspondence has gone back and forth on this topic, and I note what the Scottish Government has said about the process and proceedings. As you have indicated, Ms Don has now come forward with her suggestion for a member’s bill, and I think that, at this stage, it would be appropriate to keep the petition open until we can establish the topics on which that bill is likely to proceed. You indicated that it might not be as broad as the approach that Ms Mitchell wants to progress, but it would be useful for us to have the proposal in any case and to invite the petitioner to provide evidence to the committee, depending on whether the member’s bill is allowed to progress.

I recommend that we try to achieve that with the petition. It will not be easy, as you indicated. The Scottish Government has expressed some strong views on the matter but, at this stage, it is important that we continue to progress the petition.

I see some merit in looking at the limited trial that the Ambulance Service is to carry out. As Mr Sweeney has indicated, there are risks to do with confidentiality and so on, which might be too great, but I believe that there is merit in considering what comes out of the trial and how things might progress.

Therefore, I am keen that we continue our consideration of the petition, and I am happy to support Paul Sweeney’s recommendations.

You have outlined the information that we have received and where we are in the process. When we last considered the petition in November, we wrote to some organisations, and you have gone through the correspondence that we have received from individuals and organisations, which have some very strong views on the petition. I note those views.

Under the circumstances, I believe that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. We have sought views from the Lord Advocate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and both believe that it would be inappropriate for the death certification review service to review medical death certificates in cases in which the cause of death has already been investigated by procurators fiscal. We have exhausted most of what the committee can do, so I suggest that we close the petition.

There is no doubt that work is progressing on a high-level framework, and I think that the Scottish Sentencing Council has put a huge amount of effort into all of this. I therefore suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders given that, as the convener indicated, the council is developing a set of sentencing guidelines

“on rape, sexual assault, and indecent images”.

In closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner suggesting that she engages with the development of the guidelines and specifically the research project on rape and sexual assault. The committee could share the petitioner’s details with the Scottish Sentencing Council to ensure that dialogue and discussion take place between the petitioner and the council. I think that that would be the best way forward at this stage.