Chamber and committees

Thank you. In response to the first point, I think that the cabinet secretary makes clear that—whether or not the committee might wish it otherwise—there is no mandatory curriculum in Scotland, so there can be no direction from the Government in that regard.

You allude to deaths that have taken place among young children as a result of not being able to swim. To be honest with you, I am not aware of the incidence of that, which is, in itself, a difficult matter to address.

Colleagues, we have heard from Mr Choudhury and we have also finally had this response from the Scottish Government. On reflection, what do colleagues think we should do?

People should neither be denied the benefits to which they are entitled, nor should their entitlement to receive them be from a variable date depending on where they happen to live. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that the petitioner articulates.

Are we agreed on how to progress the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1977, which was lodged by Helen Duncan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the law and update the national guidance for child protection to require social services to inform biological fathers of concerns about their children.

Helen Duncan tells us in her submission that social services are not required to inform a child’s biological father when concerns have been raised about the welfare of their child. She highlights her family’s experience of finding out about child welfare concerns months after social work had become involved in the case. In researching the issue more broadly, Helen has become aware of situations in which fathers have not been informed of child welfare concerns and they have had to fight to have their child released from foster care.

Responding to the petition, the Minister for Children and Young People refers to the “National Child Protection Guidance in Scotland 2021” and its emphasis on listening to children and the participation of and support for families. She also refers to multi-agency partnership being one of the core elements of child protection processes, and indicates that, when child protection measures are required, social work should include fathers when appropriate and when they have active involvement in the child’s life.

Recognising that each set of circumstances is different and would require professional assessment before information is shared, the minister notes that introducing an automatic notification for biological fathers could place significant risks on children and adults—for example, in cases of domestic abuse, or where the child has requested that their father is not made aware.

The petition is interesting, and raises conflicting emotions and potential consequences. Do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we should proceed?

Please do.

PE1900 was lodged by Kevin John Lawson. The petition, on which, as colleagues will recall, we have previously taken evidence, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all detainees in police custody can access their prescribed medication, including methadone, in line with existing relevant operational procedures and guidance. We took evidence from former members of the Drug Deaths Taskforce and, subsequently, the Minister for Drugs Policy. We explored a range of issues in relation to the petition, including the use of dihydrocodeine, access to monitoring data and implementation of the medication-assisted treatment standards.

The committee has received two submissions from the petitioner, Kevin John Lawson, which are included in our papers, and correspondence from NHS Grampian to the Minister for Drugs Policy, which was an area that we explored in our cross-examination.

The correspondence from NHS Grampian confirms that it is currently unable to administer MAT, including methadone, in a police custody setting. That, it states, is due to historical constraints and the absence of a controlled drug licence.

The correspondence states that NHS Grampian has set up two short-life working groups, one of which is specifically tasked with completing the implementation of MAT standards in police custody. NHS Grampian is also looking to have a controlled drug licence in place by the end of February this year.

In the light of the responses received, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

Colleagues, are we agreed? We also want to contact Highland Council in relation to PE1980, as well as contacting IAM Roadsmart, the Road Haulage Association and VisitScotland to seek their views on the Achnasheen and Gorstan petition. Along with acting on the suggestions that have been made, are we collectively content to keep the petitions open and begin our investigation by pursuing our inquiries with those bodies?

Members indicated agreement.

Our expressing an interest in pursuing the matter might ensure that something is pursued.

The petitions raise important issues. Colleagues, do you have any suggestions or comments?

Does anyone have any further thoughts?

I might be less surprised—he said, trying not to be party political—that the Scottish Government is not rushing to follow the UK Government. However, the fact that the European Union is pursuing a similar legislative solution leaves us as a bit of an outlier and potentially open as the source of comfort to those whom we least want to potentially assist.

Moreover, I take Mr Ewing’s point that it is one thing for the Scottish Government to assert that the 2021 legislation will have dealt with matters here. We would like to understand how that is to be achieved, rather than it just being asserted that it is the case. I agree with Mr Ewing that this is an important issue and that the committee could pursue it further in the light of the evidence that we receive. It would be useful for the people whom we contact to know that we are minded so to do if we feel that the answers that we receive are in the first instance less than persuasive.

Mr Sweeney, you look like you are seeking to intervene.