Seòmar agus comataidhean

In addition, it would be useful to know what the Scottish Government’s position is on pre-application engagement. My understanding is that—it would be useful to have clarification on this point—pre-application engagement could reduce public participation and make it easier for energy infrastructure to be rolled out without community involvement, but I stand to be corrected on that.

It would also be useful to get the Scottish Government to outline how it sees public participation with regard to decision making in that area and, ultimately, to understand how it considers that that could be improved. That links to the second bullet point in the petition, which is about community liaison and public participation. That is where that aspect gets quite complicated.

The UK Government has a role in providing licence conditions for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, so we should get a position from it as the energy regulator. We should also get a position from the national energy systems operator on how it might highlight the current Kintore to Tealing infrastructure and infrastructure that might be required in future in that place. I think that it has a role in highlighting future infrastructure. There is also a role, as we have heard, for the transmission operators and, potentially, for the distribution network operators, who might be doing smaller-scale energy infrastructure.

There is quite a lot to understand in how all this pieces together. A member of a community might not fully appreciate all the different stakeholders that are involved in delivering energy infrastructure.

Ring fencing?

The timetabling of debates is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau to discuss, and I am sure that the member can discuss the matter of ensuring that the topic is debated in Parliament with her business manager.

There are several aspects that we need to unpack. Several different actors are involved in energy infrastructure, and it would be useful to get opinions from them.

First, on the Scottish Government’s position, it would be useful to understand what discussions and engagement it has had with the UK Government on regulatory powers that would put pre-application engagement for electricity transmission on a statutory footing.

I think that we have progressed the petition as far as possible. I recommend that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to take forward the specific proposal contained in the petition at this time, given the wide range of law, duties on public bodies and national guidance that exists to protect children from harm, including that caused by alcohol.

I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the bases that self-testing kits do not give as much information as lab analysis and might not indicate the presence of other substances or the purity of drugs, and that test results could be misrepresented or misinterpreted by individuals.

Furthermore, the Scottish Government suggests that testing in drug-checking facilities is preferable because harm-reduction advice and signposting to support services can be offered.

Finally, work is being progressed to pilot drug-checking facilities in Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow.

Dignity, respect and compassion appear to be severely lacking in this case. The committee is trying to determine why, who is ultimately responsible and whether we can put right what once went wrong through the redress scheme. I am interested in the system for assessing individual cases. I am a bit confused about some aspects that you have mentioned. For example, you have spoken about exceptional circumstances, about people in the same institution at a similar time acting as corroboration and about ultimately applying the presumption of truth and looking at the balance of probabilities. Does the system allow for such cross corroboration, particularly where no records exist? By contrast, in the standard system, there is an individual case and there are no similar cases. I accept everything that you have said, but it seems as if, in this particular case, either there should be a slightly different system or some of the flexibilities that have been mentioned should be brought in. I am unclear about that.

Thank you.

I want to be clear on the issue of panel assessments of individual cases. In the case of Fornethy—although this could also apply to other cases—a number of individuals are coming forward, and, due to the constraints of the guidance or the act, panel members feel that they cannot provide redress in those cases. However, on the basis of humanity and doing what is right, they think that something should be done.

Is there a process for flagging to the Scottish Government and the Scottish ministers that there is a problem and that Redress Scotland would like to resolve the issue but that you cannot do so? Are conversations taking place on that to ensure that victims get the justice and redress that they deserve?

I have a final question. The Deputy First Minister suggested in evidence to the committee that a precedent could be set in the case of Fornethy survivors that might lead to a number of other cases. I want to get on the record from Redress Scotland that it does not matter to you, as an independent body, whether a precedent is set in an individual case, even if that would mean that hundreds or, heaven forbid, thousands of more cases would then be set against that bar. In each individual case, if there is wrongdoing, it needs to be redressed. I would like to get confirmation of that from you, if you can give it.

I do not think that it is for Redress Scotland to rewrite the rules or make recommendations, but I think that it is your role to flag concerns in this case or in others. It is up to the civil service and the Scottish ministers to say, “These are the recommendations and they are based on that,” or, “We don’t think that”. However, unless there is a feedback loop, how will Scottish ministers know that there are potential issues or flaws in the legislation or the guidance?