Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next petition is PE1979, which was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, who join us in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to you all. We are also joined for consideration of this petition by our MSP colleagues Edward Mountain and Ash Regan. Good morning to both of you.

The petition 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 concerns about 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 the future.

We last considered this petition at our meeting on 6 March 2024, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise, the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. Copies of the responses that we received are included in the papers for today’s meeting.

Members will note that, although the SPSO suggested that there is merit in exploring an independent national whistleblowing officer role for education and children’s services, its experiences with the establishment of the national health service whistleblowing service demonstrate that it is not a straightforward process and “would require careful design”.

The response from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner echoes that sentiment and notes that, although she supports the exploration of a potential whistleblowing officer role, it is not a role that could be fulfilled by her office, nor does she have any evidence of children and young people wanting the commissioner to take on such a role.

We received two responses from the minister, the first of which refers to the Scottish Government’s determination

“to ensure that robust child protection measures are in place across Scotland”,

through implementing updated national guidelines.

The minister also indicated her willingness to meet with the petitioners. I understand that that meeting took place on 4 December and that the minister committed to keeping the petitioners updated on her work to support more robust and consistent investigations of specific cases. As the minister noted in her second response, and in response to recent questions in the chamber, that work includes engaging

“with Association of Directors of Education in Scotland representatives about the issue of how safeguarding concerns ... are investigated at local level”,

as well as establishing a national public protection leadership group

“to discuss ways public protection process in Scotland can and should improve”.

We have also received several submissions from the petitioners, which welcome the constructive and thoughtful submissions from the SPSO and the CYPCS. They highlight continued concerns about fragmented investigation systems and the power imbalance experienced by those raising safeguarding concerns, and the need to ensure that those with lived experience of such issues are part of designing an independent whistleblowing system.

The petitioners’ most recent submission comments on their meeting with the minister. Although they

“welcome any action that strengthens the protection of children and young people”,

the petitioners remain concerned that the Scottish Government has, so far, failed to address “fundamental points” such as public confidence in child safeguarding when systems, networks and personnel involved in historical and current allegations of abuse continue to be in place.

That is quite a lot of information. I ask my colleagues Edward Mountain and Ash Regan whether they have anything to say before we begin the discussion.

Our next petition is PE2035, which was lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially recognise the legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland.

The committee will recall that we took evidence from the petitioner last year and that, at our subsequent meeting on 17 April 2024, we agreed to write to the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. Due to ministerial changes, the committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, and has received a response from the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity. The committee’s letter asked about the proposed ministerial statement, research into different conservation methods, funding, zoning and education.

The minister’s response reiterates that the Scottish Government agrees that predator control can be an important component of species conservation, alongside other techniques such as habitat management and translocation. The response states that there is no specific information available on the costs and outcomes of each conservation method. The response notes that the efficacy and costs of each method or approach to conservation of a particular species depend on a variety of factors and therefore cannot be easily compared on a like-for-like basis.

The Scottish Government is currently reviewing the financial support available for agri-environment and climate schemes and, as the review develops, the Government will be considering the funding available for predator-control activity.

Members will recall that the petitioner suggested the use of zoning to allow for targeted predator control while preventing widespread removal of species. The minister has outlined work on a generalist predator population survey, which aims to better understand the size and impact of predators on capercaillie conservation and native pinewood restoration. The minister explains that the outcome of that work will allow further consideration of whether zoning will be useful to allow targeted predator control while preventing widespread removal of predator species.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which states that he agrees with many of the points that have been made by the minister and is satisfied with the answers that have been provided. However, he reiterates his call for a ministerial statement.

The next petition is PE2058, which was lodged by Julie Louden, and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve fire safety in dog boarding kennels by mandating the installation of smoke detectors, smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 21 February 2024 and agreed to write to the Scottish Government, COSLA, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home, Dogs Trust, and other relevant stakeholders. The committee has received responses from all of them, as well as from the Pet Industry Federation and the petitioner.

The Scottish Government is considering revoking the act that currently regulates animal boarding and bringing boarding under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (Scotland) Regulations 2021. Its response to the committee states that the Scottish Government will consider how to address fire safety under any future licensing scheme.

Dogs Trust stated its support for bringing animal boarding under the scope of the 2021 regulations, noting that it hopes to see the creation of guidance under any new legislation for boarding establishments which mirrors the animal welfare establishments guidance, as a minimum.

The Scottish Government’s submission also states that, in light of the incident that is highlighted in the petition, animal welfare officials will seek to engage with colleagues in the fire protection and safety unit to identify appropriate enhanced fire safety measures and how best to incorporate those measures into any future licensing scheme for animal boarding.

Stakeholders raised concerns about the practicalities of requiring sprinkler systems to be installed in dog boarding and rehoming kennels. The Dogs Trust consulted a contractor, which gave a rough estimate of tens of thousands of pounds to install a sprinkler system at one of its centres.

The Pet Industry Federation sought views from kennel and cattery members across Scotland. All respondents said that they had smoke detectors in addition to the fire extinguishers that are required, and none had sprinklers installed. Respondents were open to the suggestion that sprinklers be installed. However, some raised concerns about the cost and economic viability of installing sprinkler systems in commercial boarding premises and said that, in some cases, it would be practically impossible to do so. The federation concluded that the cost of installing such systems was likely to be too high for many and that it would be difficult to support an additional requirement that could put its members out of business.

In its response, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service provided figures for the number of fire incidents since 2009. Twenty-four fire incidents were recorded under the relevant category for animal boarding and shelter kennels for dogs. Four of the premises involved in those incidents were noted to have had smoke alarms present. The SFRS noted that, under fire safety law, measures need to be taken to address risk, but not to the extent that the cost, effort and other disadvantages associated with the provision of fire safety measures would be disproportionate to the risk to life.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

Do other members want to add anything?

I have no further questions.

The bill states that a doctor or nurse must stay with a person until they have died, but not in the same room. In its evidence, Police Scotland questioned how a health professional could be sure that no third-party involvement was taking place.

Good morning. My questions are about the act of assisted dying, the means of death and the substance used.

Some respondents to the committee have raised concerns about complications during assisted dying. Evidence from Oregon has been cited that indicates that 7 to 11 per cent of people have complications during assisted dying, which range from vomiting and waking up to prolonged deaths. On the other hand, in evidence from witnesses from Australia and Canada, the committee has been told that there have been minor complications, such as not being able to get intravenous drips in, but nothing major. How would you address that?

Section 15 of the bill describes assistance as providing a terminally ill adult with a substance to end their life, staying with them until they have decided that they wish to use the substance or removing the substance if they decide that they do not wish to use it. The UK bill contains more detail. It says that someone providing assistance may

“prepare that substance for self-administration by that person ... prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and ... assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

We have heard MND Scotland’s concerns on the issue. Why does your bill not define what actions would be considered to constitute self-administration?

The bill stipulates that an individual’s terminal illness, as opposed to ingestion of a lethal substance associated with assisted dying, would be recorded as a cause of death on the death certificate. Do you have concerns about how that might impact on a death investigation process?

What is the view of the Scottish Government on the adequacy of the training expectations that are set out in the bill and the financial memorandum?