Chamber and committees

We will close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Ambulance Service has paused its work due to the reluctance of its staff to support the roll-out. We place a greater premium on that than on the financial implications that were identified. To satisfy Mr Ewing, if the petitioner felt that the situation warranted the pause being re-examined, it would be open to him to submit a further petition at that time.

The next petition is PE2022, which was lodged by Ellie Wilson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce national safeguarding guidance for dealing with cases of sexual misconduct in higher education institutions, including clearly defined measures to ensure campus safety when a convicted sex offender or someone awaiting trial for a serious sexual offence is enrolled in that institution.

It is almost a year—June last—since we considered the petition, when we agreed to write to EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland, Universities Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, the National Union of Students Scotland and the University of Glasgow student representative council. The committee has received responses in support of the petition from Rape Crisis Scotland, EmilyTest, Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid. Many of the responses note the importance of having sector-wide guidance in place to ensure that a consistent approach to protecting students is taken by all universities and colleges in Scotland.

We have also received a submission from Universities Scotland that details the work that is under way to develop and deliver a consistent nationwide approach to data collection on convictions and criminal charges for students. Its response highlights the importance of education as a tool for rehabilitation, and notes the intention to keep data collection separate from the admissions process so as not to deter applications from people who pose no threat to other students.

Again, this is an interesting petition, and a considerable number of submissions have been offered to help us in our evaluation. It seems that work is currently under way.

Given what you have just articulated, I am trying to understand why the First Minister would publicly pronounce that individuals were not eligible. As you have described the process, the application comes to Redress Scotland and you make the decision. Should that more appropriately have been understood to be a decision of Redress Scotland and not, as it appeared from the way that the matter has unfolded, a determination of the First Minister, which was left to appear as being of a higher standard than any consideration that you might have given?

The second item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. We have spent a considerable amount of time discussing and taking evidence on the first of them. PE1933, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, is on allowing Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme. Some of the survivors who have been following the petition as it has made its way through the Scottish Parliament are with us in the public gallery this morning, and I welcome them.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 17 April 2024, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland, Thompsons Solicitors and John Swinney, who was at that point a back-bench MSP. Members will recall that, when we wrote to him in his back-bench capacity, we asked him to comment on submissions that he had made previously as Deputy First Minister. Of course, he has now replied to our request in his capacity as First Minister—which is my way of saying that the reply is not as candid as it might have been in different circumstances.

As well as the response from the First Minister, we have received responses from the organisations that we wrote to, as well as from our petitioner. All those responses are set out in our papers for today. Members might wish to draw on the content of those submissions during today’s meeting.

At that previous consideration, we also agreed to invite Redress Scotland to give evidence. I am pleased to welcome to this morning’s meeting Joanna McCreadie, who is the chief executive of Redress Scotland, and Kirsty Darwent, who is the chair of Redress Scotland. I do not know whether our witnesses wish to say anything before we go to questions. Have you prepared opening remarks, or are you happy just to answer members’ questions? You may do whatever suits you.

Here we have, slightly, the nub. I will allow other colleagues to come in after this.

You have identified a number of criteria, the last one of which appeared to be that there could be discretion of consideration in respect of parents not having given proper consent. We have been unable to understand why, given that these survivors were sent to Fornethy without true consent from their parents, the criteria did not allow for their applications to be considered.

However—this is the bit that we are finding tricky—the Scottish Government has said, “That’s your decision, not ours,” which almost suggests that it would not have held you to account if you had come to a decision that you wanted to give consideration to Fornethy survivors. If consideration cannot be given, we seem to be circling round, but not quite landing on, who would validate that.

Given that the survivors were sent to Fornethy without demonstrable parental consent, why is that criterion not sufficient to allow them to be considered to be within the scheme’s scope?

Okay. I will let David Torrance pursue that point.

If an application bounces about a bit, would the same core panel consider it?

Perhaps we could also seek a bit more information on the assertion that all primary and secondary schools in Scotland can access school nurse services. I would like us to quantify what the level of that resource is across Scotland and to what extent it is being accessed, as it would be useful to have an understanding of that.

Are colleagues content with the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.

This is a petition that attracted our attention when we first heard it. Are agreed on the proposed follow-up action?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to PE2088, our next new petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help eliminate cervical cancer for women and those with a cervix in Scotland by introducing at-home human papillomavirus self-sampling to enhance the smear test programme, helping to increase the uptake and accessibility of smear testing. The petition was lodged by Emma Keyes, and I believe that she and supporters of the petition are present in the public gallery.

We are also joined by one of our faithful attendees from among our MSP colleagues, Monica Lennon. Good morning, Monica. I will invite you to address the committee in a moment.

As referenced in the SPICe briefing, the Public Health Scotland cancer incidence report notes that the drop in early detection of cervical cancers in 2020 is most likely due to the pause in screening services during the pandemic. The briefing also highlights that women from deprived backgrounds are less likely to participate in screening, and notes that self-testing is seen as a way of getting around some of the barriers to smear testing, and that self-testing has been trialled in some areas of England and in Dumfries and Galloway.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it relies on advice from the United Kingdom National Screening Committee. Although that committee recognises the potential benefits of self-sampling, it has previously concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend implementation. The Scottish Government notes that studies that are under way to gather further evidence are expected to conclude shortly, if they have not already done so.

The Scottish Government acknowledges the potential of self-sampling to increase uptake levels and reduce barriers to cervical screening. As such, a working group has been convened to assess potential models and understand any changes to the screening programme that might be required to support an initial roll-out of self-testing, following emerging evidence from global studies, including the one that took place in Dumfries and Galloway.

Monica Lennon, I welcome any comments that you might want to share with the committee.