Official Report 699KB pdf
Child Circumcision (PE2052)
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?
11:45
I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government recognises non-therapeutic male infant circumcision on religious grounds and does not regard male circumcision as comparable to female genital mutilation.
I think that that is a very clear direction from the Scottish Government with regard to the aims of the petition. Given that, are colleagues minded to agree and to close the petition on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for raising the issue but, clearly, the committee can keep a petition open only if we think there is an opportunity to advance its aims. I think that the direction from the Scottish Government is quite clear.
Community Link Workers (PE2053)
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, convener. It is a pleasure to return to the committee to discuss such an important issue.
I am really pleased to be here to support the petition, and I was pleased to work with community link workers and the GMB trade union over the summer period in opposition to proposals from the Glasgow city health and social care partnership to cut the number of community link workers in Glasgow from 70 positions to 42. With the Scottish Government stepping in and awarding the partnership the money to maintain the level of community link worker posts in the city, it might on the face of it seem that the petitioner’s ask has been met. However, the intervention was made only after some months of uncertainty and significant distress among the workforce and associated GP practices.
Indeed, the petition’s latter ask, which is to secure the long-term future of these roles, is the fundamental issue for the committee’s consideration today. It is clear, certainly to me, that the current model of yearly funding awards for community link worker posts across the country does not provide sufficient job security or forward planning capacity for the workers, or sufficient consistency for the deep-end GP practice teams, for whom the community link worker posts are crucial as part of wider team efforts to support vulnerable patients.
Link workers play an invaluable role in communities, particularly those with high levels of deprivation. They work with patients on personal, social and financial issues that are not necessarily clinical, such as housing benefits, loneliness, isolation and debt, which not only improves outcomes for the patients but helps to free up valuable GP time. As we all know, GPs are already hard pressed to support other patients with clinical needs.
Evidence of the value of the link worker role is not merely anecdotal. Indeed, as the petitioner has highlighted to the committee in his submission, there is a proven social return on such investment. Under the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland community link worker programme in Glasgow, 7,800 people were supported in 2022, at a cost of £2.1 million, which generated around £3 million in gross value added, £800,000 in cost savings, £500,000 in tax revenues and, crucially, £18.2 million in wellbeing benefits for communities in Glasgow and the west of Scotland. That equates to a benefit of £8.79 for every £1 of public money invested, which is an impressive ratio.
The positive impact that community link workers have on patients, GP surgeries and the local area in which the service is provided has been clearly demonstrated. Long-term funding is therefore necessary to ensure that that positive impact is sustainable and given best effect, to allow GP surgeries to plan ahead and to give the workforce the basic job security that I think we all agree is reasonable.
Therefore, I encourage the committee to keep the petition open and to invite the Scottish Government to review its current model for funding link workers through health and social care partnerships, with a view to looking at a longer-term funding model. Perhaps the committee would consider taking submissions from the Glasgow city health and social care partnership, the trade union that represents the workers concerned—the GMB—and deep-end GP practices, representatives of which could perhaps describe in detail the benefits that the posts provide to their practices. That is a starter for 10. Thank you for listening to me.
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—
The Glasgow city health and social care partnership.
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.
Thank you very much for joining us this morning, Mr Sweeney.
Thank you, colleagues.
Exportation of Live Animals (PE2055)
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 wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the UK Government has now introduced the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill, which aims to ban the live export from Great Britain of animals that are destined for slaughter or fattening for slaughter, and the Scottish Government has confirmed that it will work to implement a ban.
The aims of the petition will therefore be achieved. In light of that, are members content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Shared Parenting (Promotion) (PE2057)
PE2057, which was lodged by John McMaster, aims to promote shared parenting and prevent the separation of children from their parents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the frequency and duration of parental contact are equal; to promote the use of parenting arrangements; to require that the evidence of accusations from one parent to another is provided within 14 days of any civil action; and to raise public awareness of the importance of both parents in a child’s life. The petition states that its purpose is not to take any of the necessary protections away, but to prevent abuse of the current systems, which are knowingly abused to alienate children.
The SPICe briefing provides information about the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, most of which is not yet in force. The act says that the court must look at the impact of any court orders on the child’s relationships with their parents and other important people in their life.
The briefing notes that, in its stage 1 report on the Children (Scotland) Bill, the Justice Committee stated that it was not persuaded by a presumption in favour of shared parenting, as that could cut across the key principle of the welfare of children being the paramount consideration. The Scottish Government’s response reiterates that view and adds that, where parents cannot agree, it should be for the courts to decide what parental contact arrangement is in the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis.
The submission also refers to “Your Parenting Plan”, which is a guide for parents with a joint agreement to structure and record discussions about the future care and welfare of their children. In addition, it is noted that the Government provides funding to Relationships Scotland, whose network provides family mediation services, and to Shared Parenting Scotland.
Work is also under way to improve judicial case management, which will lead to court cases being resolved more quickly. Under section 30 of the Children (Scotland) 2020, the court will be required
“to have regard to any risk of prejudice to the child’s welfare that delay in proceedings would pose.”
An important issue has been raised, and we have received some quite informed responses. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to seek their views on the action that the petition calls for, including on the potential resource implications for medical professionals.
I am slightly confused, Mr Choudhury. Are we talking about the same petition?
We are dealing with PE2061, are we not?
No, that is not the petition that we are discussing. We are dealing with PE2057, on shared parenting.
Have I got the papers mixed up?
I think—in fact, I am certain—that you have jumped on to the next petition.
Yes, I have.
I withdraw your suggestion in respect of this petition.
I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that the Justice Committee stage 1 report on the Children (Scotland) Bill stated that it was not persuaded by the presumption in favour of shared parenting, as that could cut across a key principle of the welfare of children being the paramount consideration, and that the Scottish Government agrees with the Justice Committee’s comment on shared parenting. In addition, the Scottish Government works to promote parenting agreements through “Your Parenting Plan”, and work is on-going to resolve family and civil partnership cases more quickly. Furthermore, once fully commenced, the Children (Scotland) 2020 will require the court
“to have regard to any risk of prejudice to the child’s welfare that delay in proceedings would pose.”
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.
We thank the petitioner for raising the issue. It is an important matter, and work appears to be under way that directly addresses the issues that have been raised. However, as I said a moment ago, if the measures that have been outlined do not lead to a satisfactory outcome in respect of the issues that have been raised in the petition, the committee would be very happy to receive a petition again after the appropriate time has passed.
Vulnerable People (Capacity) (PE2061)
PE2061 is the final new petition that we are considering this morning. This is the petition that you focused your attention on, Mr Choudhury. The petition, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.
I have been aware that a couple has been with us in the gallery all morning. They have stuck it to the end, so I will conclude that they are here for this petition. Thank you for joining us.
The petitioner has explained that, while terminally ill in hospital, her father was asked to sign legal documents affecting the value of his estate. The family raised their concerns with the Law Society of Scotland, and a solicitor was thereafter found guilty of misconduct and fined.
The SPICe briefing notes that, although there is no general requirement under common law to have someone assessed before they enter into a legal agreement, the Law Society’s guidance on meeting the needs of vulnerable clients makes it clear that solicitors cannot simply rely on the presumption of capacity.
12:00In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated that it is already best practice for a solicitor to obtain a medical opinion if there are doubts about a client’s capacity. The response went on to note that the question of a “golden rule”, similar to that which operates in England and Wales, has been considered by the Scottish courts, which ruled that such a strict requirement is not necessary.
We have also received a submission from the petitioner that responds to the Scottish Government’s view. The petitioner remains concerned that the Law Society’s rules are insufficient in deterring solicitors from taking actions that they should not take, and notes that the complaints procedure can be a long and distressing one and that it is challenging for members of the public to navigate, with solicitors facing minimal consequences even when complaints are upheld.
We have had notes of interest in the petition from Alex Rowley and Liam McArthur, and representations have also been made to me by Claire Baker and Finlay Carson. Therefore, there is quite a wide range of interest among colleagues on the issues that the petition has raised.
Colleagues exchanged views during our period of consideration ahead of looking at these matters today. Some important issues have been raised, and I believe that we want to keep the petition open at this point.
Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed? Maybe Mr Choudhury would like to offer a suggestion to us now.
Sure. I will repeat what I said earlier. I suggest that we write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to seek their views on the action called for in the petition, including the potential resource implications for medical professionals.
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?
I am waving them in agreement with you, convener.
Thank you. We will keep the petition open and drill down a little bit further. We will write to the various organisations that Mr Choudhury suggested writing to, and specifically the Law Society. I would like to ask the Law Society whether it can give any indication to us of the outcomes of its operational practice as it currently stands. What can it point to that it believes means that the current arrangement is satisfactory, given that there is a much more stringent application of practice elsewhere in the UK?
It has been a long morning for our petitioners in the gallery. I hope that they are content that we are keeping the petition open and will be pursuing its aims. Of course, as petitioners, they will be kept abreast of any information in relation to the progress of the petition.
That brings us to the end of our public session this morning. Our next meeting is on 7 February. I hereby close the formal part of our meeting.
12:04 Meeting continued in private until 12:15.Air ais
Continued Petitions