Seòmar agus comataidhean

I concur. We have heard from the minister about the various themes, and we know about some of the areas of data collection that need to be looked at, but it would be useful to continue the process to ensure that we get the full information that we need on how things are operating and progressing, and to allow us to take a measured approach to the matter. A huge amount of work is being done on what is a very topical issue for many people, with concerns still being raised about how things are being managed. I suggest, therefore, that we keep the petition open, as it would allow us to seek more evidence and to make progress on behalf of the organisations involved and the individuals who are going through the procedure.

An enormous amount of work has been done on the matter over the past few years. We have come on a journey, and I commend everyone who has been actively involved. There are the champions on the education side of things, and it has been vitally important to ensure that general practitioners and the profession are much more informed. I would concur with David Torrance: I think that we have done enough at this stage. There may be opportunities to clarify things in the future but, as we have seen and heard, a lot has been done and achieved so far in the process.

You hit the nail on the head when you talked about the duty of care. There is a duty of care for individuals who are detained, and it is a concern that the Government has no data to show us that that duty has been exercised. You would assume that, if they are detained in police custody, individuals who required such support would receive it, but if we do not have any data to prove that that is the case, there is dubiety about the process. More clarity is required about what the Government intends to put in place if nothing is in place already.

I agree. We need to continue to seek advice and find out people’s views. Those organisations have a strong commitment to the issue and have already given some strong views, but it is vital that we get the views of stakeholders and those who have to progress through the system. Continuing the petition and taking further evidence will enhance our opportunity to try to find a solution.

You have all touched on areas of anxiety, fear and risk, and we have now moved to talking about danger. To try to manage some of that, you require clarity of research, evidence and definition. Do you believe that more research evidence is required to manage those anxieties, fears and risks? If so, what type of evidence should be looked at or examined? The language that we have heard today is potentially inflammatory in some ways, because some people do not see the proposal as a danger or as creating anxiety or a risk; they see it as a right. I ask each one of you to tell me what further evidence you would like that would be used to support your approach. Maybe Piers Shepherd can go first.

Dr Ryan, you spoke about the challenges and the difficulties, and those come together with the safeguards that you have talked about. However, there is some anxiety about religious organisations that deal with their own governance. They self-police, so, in carrying out scrutiny on themselves, they could find loopholes in the legislation that they might manipulate to cover up or hide what they are doing. We heard evidence of that from survivors who felt that they were manipulated, because they were told that they were going to an event of some nature that turned out to be completely different from what was described. It would be useful to hear your views on how we can manage that safeguarding and the fears that those survivors expressed.

Sure, convener.

I agree. There is no doubt that individuals in the sector have suffered, and I am sure that other members will, like me, have received correspondence from many who feel that they fell into the gaps that opened up with the moves to ensure that others in the sector were being supported. The self-employed really had problems, and the petitioner has indicated at length the difficulties that they face.

I certainly want the petition to be progressed in some way and suggest that we take views from the Scottish Government and, indeed, the UK Government on how things are being managed. As I have said, the people in question certainly suffered, and we need to learn lessons that can be applied to the industry. Without the opportunity to be involved in the travel sector, they fell between a rock and a hard place, and it is important that we support them now.

I agree with Jackie Baillie that to get submissions from organisations on the impact would be useful. The Scottish Government has the opportunity to review but those organisations had to live through what took place and it is important to get their views and opinions, because that will give us a steer from the organisations and individuals that were most impacted.

It is vital that we have the opportunity to take evidence on the petition. The initiatives and the training that are in place work, but maybe we will find in taking evidence that there are still some loopholes. Taking evidence would guide us on how we might banish those. I am very supportive of the committee’s taking evidence on the petition and of my colleague Edward Mountain.