Chamber and committees

Agenda item 5 is the consideration of new petitions. As I always say, because there could be people joining us, including online, we write to SPICe, which is the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, and the Scottish Government for their views in advance of our consideration of each new petition. We do that because our experience was that, if we did not do so, we would do that after the first meeting at which we considered the petition. That is a matter of routine practice so that we can have as informed a discussion as possible.

Our first new petition is PE2052, on banning child circumcision unless it is medically necessary, with no less invasive solutions available. The petition has been lodged by Taylor Rooney. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give boys the same level of bodily autonomy and protection that was given to girls in the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005, which banned all forms of female circumcision.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it recognises non-therapeutic male infant circumcision on religious grounds, and it notes that national health service guidelines are in place for that practice. The Scottish Government states that it does not regard male circumcision as comparable to female genital mutilation.

In his written submission, the petitioner argues that children’s bodily autonomy and religious rights should take precedence over the beliefs of parents, as children may not follow the same religion in adulthood. He states that male circumcision shares many of the negative effects of the most common forms of female genital mutilation, including loss of sensitivity, and that, regardless of potential benefits, it is still unethical to cut into healthy children’s genitalia.

We have also received submissions from the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities and the Scottish Ahlul Bayt Society. Both argue that circumcision is important for religious and parental autonomy, with parents acting in the best interests of their children within the established legal and medical frameworks.

The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities referenced UK-based research that found that more than 80 per cent of respondents would consider a prohibition of brit milah to be at least “a fairly big problem”. The submission explains that, because of its centrality to Jewish life, denying milah to a Jewish boy undermines his sense of wellbeing and his right to cultural heritage and identity.

The Scottish Ahlul Bayt Society notes that Shia Islam categorically condemns mutilations of all humans, especially children, and that there is a “crucial distinction” between its practice and genital mutilation.

Coincidentally, I am aware that this practice is quite common in, for example, the United States, where I understand that the overwhelming majority of men are circumcised at birth.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2053, which is on stopping the cuts to community link workers and helping to secure their long-term future within general practice teams, has been lodged by Peter Cawston on behalf of Scottish general practitioners at the deep end. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to take action to ensure that the number and hours of community link workers who are currently serving the poorest communities are not cut in the next financial year, and to take binding steps to secure long-term funding for community link workers in GP practices across Scotland. The issue is one that colleagues might well have had raised with them by GP practices in their constituencies.

We have been joined for our consideration of the petition by our former colleague Paul Sweeney. Welcome back to the committee, Mr Sweeney.

The petitioner has told us about the support that community link workers provide and has expressed concern that, without a change in the way in which the posts are funded, health inequalities across Scotland are at risk of widening. Members will have noted from our papers that, although the Scottish Government has announced additional funding covering the next three years to preserve the existing community link worker programme in Glasgow, the petitioner remains concerned that the call to secure long-term funding for the programme has not yet been addressed.

Before I turn to committee members for any suggestions or comments, I ask Paul Sweeney whether he would like to contribute to our thinking.

Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. As I think that you suggested, one might take the view that, superficially, with the Glasgow position having been resolved in the short term, the aims of the petition have been realised. However, I suggest that we keep the petition open and write to Health and Social Care Scotland and the organisations that you identified: the deep-end practices, the GMB and—

Yes. We could also write to the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland to seek its views in relation to the petition.

In addition, we could write to the Cabinet Secretary for NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care to highlight the petitioner’s submission and to seek further information on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking, particularly with reference to its considering future funding models, so that we can ensure that there is a clear and consistent provision of community link workers across Scotland.

I thank Mr Sweeney for his suggestions. As colleagues have no further suggestions, are we content to hold the petition open and to seek further information and evidence on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2055, which was lodged by Ann Mulhearn, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the exportation of live animals from Scotland to any country as a matter of priority and, until such time, to ensure that animals are treated humanely during transit and, where animals are to be slaughtered after arrival, that that is done in a humane manner and to a high standard.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is committed to banning live exports of animals for fattening and slaughter. It welcomes the UK Government’s announcement that a bill will be introduced to ban live exports, and it states that it will work jointly with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations to implement that.

It appears that there is a UK-wide approach and that the Scottish Government expects and hopes to work with the UK Government on the way forward in respect of the aims of the petition.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

I am slightly confused, Mr Choudhury. Are we talking about the same petition?

I think—in fact, I am certain—that you have jumped on to the next petition.

I withdraw your suggestion in respect of this petition.

We could also draw to the petitioner’s attention the fact that, over time, should they feel that those measures have not led to the issues being properly addressed, there would be an opportunity to lodge a fresh petition.

Are colleagues content with Mr Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. Following on from the submissions and notes that we have received in relation to the Scottish Government’s view that the “golden rule” that obtains elsewhere in the UK is not necessary in Scotland, it would be good to ask the Law Society when we write to it why it feels satisfied that the current arrangements are sufficient. It is clear that, across the rest of the UK, that is not the judgment that has been reached. Individual circumstances can be very detrimental, and the current outcomes can be quite tragic.

Important issues have been raised in the petition, and I am not terribly satisfied with the brush-off response that we have received so far. I think that we need to drill down and interrogate a bit further in respect of all this. Do colleagues share that view? Mr Torrance, are you waving your glasses to say something, or are you just waving your glasses?