Chamber and committees

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?

I think that we might accompany that with a note to emphasise the strength of expression of the responses that we received from the Scottish Drugs Forum and UK Anti-Doping. Are colleagues content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Is there anything else? I do not want to make a dripping roast, saying yes and then having another thing sprung on me. Thank you, Mr Choudhury.

Are members content to incorporate those suggestions into the representation that we make?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to embrace Mr Mountain’s suggestion? Are there any other suggestions that the committee would like to add?

I see that we have a suggestion. It is not from a member of the committee, but I am delighted to see Clare Haughey with us this morning. I am happy to invite you to comment in any way, Clare.

PE2034, which was lodged by Stuart Chirnside, calls on the Scottish Government to halt its proposals for highly protected marine areas—HPMAs—and to bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods.

We last considered the petition in October last year, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking an update on its alternative plans to enhance the protection of the marine environment. We have received a response from the Scottish Government confirming that there are no plans to progress the HPMA proposals, nor is the Government looking to designate 10 per cent of Scotland’s seas as highly protected marine areas by 2026.

In response to what the petitioner might feel is validation of their submission, do colleagues have any suggestions for action? I see Mr Ewing flailing around in his seat as he seeks to contribute to our deliberation on the issue.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. That obviously draws on a lot of what the committee has heard. In the first instance, I think that we should set that out to the Government in the terms that Mr Ewing has suggested, and see what response we get, which would then inform how we might take forward the matter. Do members agree with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much for that, Mr Golden. Are members of the committee content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I am outflanked by what I would call that rather tenuous link, which committee members have managed to draw together by a thread. That is fair enough. It will be some time before we consider the petition again. There might have been quicker routes to try to establish all that. However, is that the will of colleagues, including you, Mr Choudhury? That appears to be the case. Thank you. In that case, we will keep the petition open and we will seek to clarify that point.