Chamber and committees

There is real sympathy with the petitioner, and we need to take note of the harrowing nature of her experience and circumstances.

I acknowledge what you have said about the position of the procurator fiscal, convener, but I think that there is scope for us to ask the Royal College of Pathologists and others for guidance on where the request in the petition would sit.

I agree with that. Although we were advised that a review will take place by 2023, there is a duty of care for transport authorities and bus operators to ensure that individuals are not discriminated against if they attempt to use transport in situations similar to the one that Paul Sweeney has just described. We should investigate other ways to take further evidence from individuals who have experienced that kind of situation, to see whether we can clarify the situation and put some pressure on.

There is scope for us to ask the advice of organisations—possibly the Law Society of Scotland and the Family Law Association—that may be able to give us some views on the scope of what the petition is trying to engage with. As a first stage, it would be useful for us to clarify and take more evidence on the process.

There is no doubt that there is scope to do work on the petition, because of the situation. As the Scottish child abuse inquiry has a narrow remit, to ensure that survivors do not feel they are not being listened to or that their experiences are not being acted upon, it would be useful for us to take some more evidence on the matter to clarify it. The last thing that we want is for survivors to feel that, under the circumstance that we have in Scotland, they are not being given parity with what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. There is currently a belief that that is the case. For that reason alone, we need to be open and up front about the matter.

I agree with Paul Sweeney. There has been a mass exodus in some locations, with 20 to 30 per cent of the industry suffering through lack of resources. We have an opportunity to take some evidence and find out exactly what is happening on the ground, and that will help us assess how we progress with the petition.

The legal system is to be commended for how quickly it adapted its processes, because things changed virtually overnight. That was the case for all of us, but the organisations in the legal system seem to have co-ordinated extremely well. Professor Susskind’s comments about evidence and data are important, and you have already identified that there are issues that you are looking at in that regard.

I want to touch on the issue of digitally excluded people, who have great difficulties in tapping into the system that has been created. Pioneering things such as Webex have been mentioned, and the committee has seen some of the good work that is being done in the structure, which is to be commended.

Resource and funding issues are important with regard to how the legal system supports all of that so that as many people as possible can be included. The reviews will identify some areas that you might be minded to capture, but there will be some barriers to your ability to communicate your role and responsibilities to the general public. How you square that circle needs to be examined in some way, because you will face problems as we progress.

I agree. We need to continue to seek advice and find out people’s views. Those organisations have a strong commitment to the issue and have already given some strong views, but it is vital that we get the views of stakeholders and those who have to progress through the system. Continuing the petition and taking further evidence will enhance our opportunity to try to find a solution.

You hit the nail on the head when you talked about the duty of care. There is a duty of care for individuals who are detained, and it is a concern that the Government has no data to show us that that duty has been exercised. You would assume that, if they are detained in police custody, individuals who required such support would receive it, but if we do not have any data to prove that that is the case, there is dubiety about the process. More clarity is required about what the Government intends to put in place if nothing is in place already.

I concur. We have heard from the minister about the various themes, and we know about some of the areas of data collection that need to be looked at, but it would be useful to continue the process to ensure that we get the full information that we need on how things are operating and progressing, and to allow us to take a measured approach to the matter. A huge amount of work is being done on what is a very topical issue for many people, with concerns still being raised about how things are being managed. I suggest, therefore, that we keep the petition open, as it would allow us to seek more evidence and to make progress on behalf of the organisations involved and the individuals who are going through the procedure.

An enormous amount of work has been done on the matter over the past few years. We have come on a journey, and I commend everyone who has been actively involved. There are the champions on the education side of things, and it has been vitally important to ensure that general practitioners and the profession are much more informed. I would concur with David Torrance: I think that we have done enough at this stage. There may be opportunities to clarify things in the future but, as we have seen and heard, a lot has been done and achieved so far in the process.