³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

PE2051, on improving the processes for protecting children and young people from traumatic incidents, was lodged by Dianne Youngson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a consistent and transparent reporting mechanism for incidents that affect the health of pupils in schools; to review and improve the existing guidelines for schools in dealing with at-risk pupils; to place in law the monitoring of reporting mechanisms, with ultimate responsibility being placed with the Scottish ministers and local authorities; and to reform the exclusions procedure to include consideration of whether exclusions may cause further harm.

On reporting and monitoring, the SPICe briefing notes that all schools and local authorities are expected to use the bullying and equalities module in the SEEMiS information system to record and monitor bullying incidents. However, Education Scotland’s review found that the module is challenging to use and that national guidance is not being fully implemented, which leads to inconsistencies.

The submission from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills highlights the getting it right for every child approach and, in particular, the role of a child’s named person. She has also highlighted the counselling services that are in place throughout secondary schools, which are available for children who are 10 years old and over.

On exclusions, the 2017 national guidance is noted. That guidance states that exclusion should be used as a last resort and should be a proportionate response where there is no appropriate alternative, with the wellbeing of the individual being a key consideration.

Last year, the Scottish Government held a series of summits on relationships and behaviour in schools. The cabinet secretary provided an update on that work to Parliament in November and announced that a joint action plan will be developed to address the issues that had been raised. In that statement, the cabinet secretary also encouraged more accurate recording of all incidents of inappropriate, abusive or violent behaviour in schools.

In view of the information that is before us, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We will therefore keep the petition open and seek the information as set out by Mr Torrance.

That is also a perfectly reasonable suggestion to make. We will take forward the petition, mindful of all the suggestions that colleagues have made.

I wonder who we should write to. What relevant dog agency might we take views from?

No. Okay. We can do that, too.

I should also say that, at our previous meeting, we agreed to consider not just the evidence that we had heard on PE1979, which is on establishing an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies, but the evidence that we took on the A9 dualling project, which we have been considering. Therefore, agenda items 5 and 6 will be taken in private, too. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will be looking in some detail at the influence of social media over the past 10 or 15 years, but I note that Emily Beever wants to come in.

We will come back to that. Some colleagues will attest that I represent a relatively affluent area in that I am the MSP for the Eastwood constituency on the south side of Glasgow, which has some very high-income areas but it also has its own less fortunate areas. This is another theme that we might come back to but I have had examples of youth violence brought to my attention and I am struck by what seems at times the lack of parental responsibility in acknowledging that their children can in any way be responsible for acts of youth violence. Those parents, therefore, support neither the teachers nor the school and have themselves become part of the harassing posse, if I can put it that way, of the individuals who have been the subject of the violence.

Of course, that is an emerging trend. Teachers, particularly those who have left the profession, have been saying to me for a very long time now that if they only had to deal with the children that would be fine, but they now find dealing with the parents almost impossible because they get very little support from them. That is a theme that I want to come back to, but I do not want to hog all the time, so I will hand over to David Torrance.

Are we content, colleagues, to support Mr Torrance and Mr Ewing’s suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Members indicated agreement.

We should ask for as candid a response as possible from the cabinet secretary, because we are aware that statements are being made in the chamber almost daily about the inability to deliver on major projects. We want to understand where the Rest and Be Thankful project sits within that framework.

PE2002, lodged by Grant White, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide increased funding for legal aid in civil cases for people with disabilities.

We last considered the petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. We have now received responses from SLAB and the Law Society.

SLAB highlights its recent research into the experience of users of civil legal assistance, noting that results were, apparently, positive overall. Responses to questions on finding and contacting solicitors did not reveal any significant differences in experience between those with and without a condition that limits their day-to-day activities. However, eight respondents reported feeling that their disability had made it difficult for them to access a solicitor. In its equality outcomes plan for 2023 to 2026, SLAB aims to improve the accessibility of information about legal aid and its services, with a focus on people with disabilities and other groups—which is an ask of the petition.

The Law Society of Scotland’s response states that the number of firms that are providing civil legal aid has significantly declined—by 20 per cent—over the past decade, with a lack of a sustainable funding mechanism and fees not keeping pace with inflation being noted as contributing factors. Its submission states that a mechanism for periodic review, taking inflation into account, is required to address the impact of inflation on the legal aid system.

We have responses from SLAB, which appears to be amending practice to some extent, and from the Law Society. Do members have any suggestions for action?