Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1979 was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries in future.

We considered the petition on 8 October 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government reiterates its position that processes and bodies are already in place in Scotland, including the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, to provide independent inspections and investigations into specific incidents. The response also restates that the Government is progressing work to understand complaints and whistleblowing processes more widely, including via the national public protection leadership group and the education and childcare assurance board.

Members might recall that the Professional Standards Authority has reviewed the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s fitness-to-teach process and made a number of recommendations. The GTCS has now published an action plan to implement those recommendations over the short, medium and long term. The Scottish Government states that, when new concerns regarding individual cases emerge, those must be reported to the appropriate authorities, particularly Police Scotland, so that they are properly investigated.

We have received an additional submission from the petitioners, who continue to highlight concerns that the national child protection guidance is only advisory and that power is placed in the hands of local authorities. The petitioners feel that the improvements that the Government cites do not go far enough to address the issues that have been raised.

I remind members that the minister previously indicated that the Government would engage with the recommendations of the Scottish child abuse inquiry once that is concluded, and that it will keep under review the statutory requirement for mandatory reporting. We also heard previously that, so long as local authorities provide education services and employ teachers in Scotland, a local authority-led process will always be required when investigating concerns.

Colleagues, the Scottish Government insists that a number of established processes and bodies such as the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman already carry out independent inspections and investigations. The GTCS has published its action plan to implement the recommendations of the PSA report. The Scottish Government continues to look at how existing whistleblowing arrangements are working and various pieces of work are in progress that will inform further reviews of child safeguarding processes. The Scottish Government has urged that new concerns regarding individual safeguarding cases should be reported to the appropriate authorities, including Police Scotland.

Notwithstanding all that, this is a live issue of immense public interest. I am minded to suggest that the committee leaves the petition open and offers it to our successor committee in our legacy report, in order that it can take these matters forward. The underpinning of the issues that have been raised remains current. Do any colleagues have any comments?

As there are no other comments, are we content to add this to the shortlist of petitions that we will hold open for the next session of Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that that is the correct course of action. It is a big subject that requires much more exploration than we can give it. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Would that be on the basis that it would be updated to reflect the evidence that we have had so far, rather than having a repeating cycle in relation to that?

Do colleagues have any comments? Are we content to accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

I genuinely think that it would be better to have a fresh petition, but the trouble is that the Government has diminished the terms that are used here. If you want to be pedantic, you can ignore the substance of the petition by hanging around the definition of a particular word. I would love to cater for whoever submitted the response to us—I would give them a wholly frozen meal and tell them that it was fresh.

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We have the option of keeping the petition open, on the basis that the next committee could further explore the issues that it raises, but on the back of the responses that relate to part of the petition, we could instead recommend that a fresh petition be lodged that focuses on those areas—and potentially the wider issue of digital evidence—which might be of interest for a fresh committee to explore. I am between a rock and a hard place on the matter.

What is the best course of action?

Thank you. Are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.