Chamber and committees

On that latter point, I agree with Mr Harvie. I hope that he will accept that my personal record on these matters is such that I would not be a party to a decision that was trying to promote the kind of conclusive outcome that some people might be trying to come to as a result of the decision.

However, political parties have political views; the institution of the Parliament does not. The Parliament is welcome, open and accessible to all visitors—it is rated as a five-star visitor attraction by VisitScotland and, in an assessment in June 2023, it scored 10 out of 10 for inclusivity—but it is important that people who visit the Parliament feel that the Parliament itself is not expressing any particular kind of view. That was the reason why the corporate body came to the position that it did. [Jackson Carlaw has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

I note the point that Mr Mason makes. If it is possible for people services to be given advance notice of the potential arrival of a very short-term employee, it can facilitate a discussion with the member about how that might be progressed.

However, where, in effect, the individual has been employed and we are notified of that after the event, there is a requirement for us to abide by employment law provisions. I know that Mr Mason is an assiduous attacker of bureaucracy in those regards but, unfortunately, it is nonetheless a bureaucracy that is required as a result of the employment law by which we are bound.

That is why I am genuinely confused. If there is a presumption of truth and no evidence to suggest that there was parental consent, and they are saying that there was no parental consent, then why are they not believed, since that criterion would have made them eligible?

Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on the second-last day of the parliamentary term—Wednesday 26 June.

Notwithstanding everything that we have heard, I will try to encapsulate the issue in my mind. If I was a Fornethy survivor and I believed that the circumstances that had placed me there were not freely determined by my parents, is that the basis for me to make a claim?

I have two quick final questions. Given the attendant publicity that is associated with the scandal at Fornethy, and given your independent status, has the Scottish Government endeavoured to engage with you directly on the issues that have arisen in relation to Fornethy? You have talked about what I would call formal reporting mechanisms. Is that the chain of communication that has existed, or has any other communication taken place as a consequence of the attendant concern and publicity that are attached to Fornethy?

That is the case.

Thank you for those suggestions, Mr Golden. I know that you have previously concerned yourself with animal welfare issues relating to dogs—in particular, I seem to recall you speaking about electric-shock dog collars.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries suggested by Mr Golden?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. One of the reasons why we thought it would be useful to have you along is that we have kept hearing these two words, “Redress Scotland”, throughout the process, without having any particular understanding of the organisation. Also, I have felt at times that people have said, possibly unfairly to you, “That’s nothing to do with us. That’s for Redress Scotland”, and we have not been clear about where authority actually lies. It has also been suggested that you have no discretion to act, but at other times it has been suggested almost that you have all the discretion that you would care for to act.

In the first instance, I would like to understand what your role is and what the Scottish Government’s role is. What is the distinction between the two and where are the respective authorities in all that? You now have a chance to make plain what your role and the Scottish Government’s role actually are.

Our final petition for consideration this morning is PE2091, which has been lodged by Kirsty Solman on behalf of Stand with Kyle Now. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to enable a CAMHS worker and a school nurse to be placed in our secondary schools. The petitioner believes that access to a CAMHS worker and nurse would allow children who are struggling with their mental health to be identified early and would make it possible for any referrals to be completed correctly and efficiently.

The SPICe briefing notes that school counselling services for children aged 10 and over are available in all local authorities, although the delivery varies across local authorities, with some providing authority-wide services rather than allocating practitioners to particular schools or areas.

A 2023 report by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland identified further barriers to accessing school counselling services and recommended that all local authorities should have clear waiting time targets and that compliance with those targets should be part of the Scottish Government’s evaluation of the services.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government highlights that all primary and secondary schools in Scotland are able to access the support of school nurse services, and that the school nurse role has changed over time and now includes a focus on emotional health and wellbeing. School nurses can support the mental health of children and make referrals to CAMHS, where appropriate.

This is a new petition. If we wish to keep the petition open and to seek further information, do colleagues have any suggestions about action that we might take or who we might contact?