Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1935 is to urge the Scottish Government to create a committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the ministerial code. The petition has been lodged by Dillon Crawford.

The petitioner considers that a committee of non-MSPs would be able to act independently because they would not be affiliated to a party. The Scottish Government’s submission details the process by which ministers are held to account. Ministers are bound by the Scottish ministerial code, and a group of independent advisers currently exists to provide the First Minister with advice on which to base judgments in relation to conduct.

I think that PE1935 is an interesting petition. It is obviously motivated by current events. I wonder whether, in the first instance, we might invite the Scottish Parliament information centre to do a little bit of further work on how the various Parliaments within the UK currently process and deal with such business. I do not know where the Scottish system fits in with the systems in Northern Ireland, Wales or the rest of the UK, and I think that the petitioner and the public probably feel that there is a slight lack of transparency about how the arrangements have arisen. It would be useful for us at least to pull that work together and look at it as we consider the petition further.

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

My experience is the same—I am not sure. At some stage, as virtual events become more commonplace, it might be useful for us, beyond the context of this discussion, to understand the material impact on the management and control of the outcome of the discussions.

Thank you for that, Mr Whittle. Minister, do you and your colleagues want to pick up on that point? Given that our formal questioning has finished, we would also be happy to hear any concluding remarks that you want to make.

Thank you. I wonder whether we might also write to some of the bodies that represent victims and survivors, just to call in aid to the argument and to get some understanding of their views on widening the eligibility criteria. They must be aware of the particular circumstances of the groups that are falling through the net, and might be able to identify others that they would say are in a similar situation. Do we agree to write to those bodies, together with the suggestions that have already been made?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. It is an important petition; we will keep it open and see what progress we can make.

I will suspend the meeting briefly. The minister is now with us, so we will be able to discuss our final continued petition in a moment.

Hold on a second, Mr Whittle—what has overtaken Whitelee? It used to be the biggest.

Although you are being slightly circumspect about your overall reaction to the report, would you go so far as to say that you feel that the group fulfilled your expectations and fulfilled the brief that was set for it?

Mr Kinnaird, I heard you say that a second public event was to be incorporated. Is there a definition of what constitutes a public event?

Obviously, the Government has not yet published a response, but what, in general terms, is your overall reaction to the report?

PE1933 is entitled “Allow the Fornethy Survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme”. The petition was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to the redress scheme in order to allow the survivors to seek redress.

Iris Tinto notes that

“Survivors need acknowledgement, closure and compensation.”

She states that, despite being

“‘in care’ of Glasgow Corporation”

the decision to exempt groups such as the Fornethy survivors group has “magnified that suffering.” The group has provided a powerful and detailed account of the range of abuse that they suffered and the outcomes associated with that in the written submission that members will have seen among their papers. In its submission to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it

“recognises that the abuse of children in all circumstances ... is wrong and harmful.”

Despite that recognition—I am thinking of a petition that we heard not long ago; herein lies a common theme—the Scottish Government states that the exclusion of people who were abused in short-term respite or holiday care is

“in keeping with the core purpose of the redress scheme”.

It states that

“eligibility for the scheme is not based on how long a child was in care ... Instead, it is based on how the child came to be in care and the type of care setting”

that they were in.

Members will recall the petition that we have been considering about the abuse inquiry and the terms of reference in relation to that. Although this is a different petition and a different set of circumstances, I was struck when reading the notes that it seems again to be the case that drafting of regulations is tight and allows groups to fall through the net, which is acknowledged but not followed by any resolution. What views do colleagues have, having read the notes?