���˿���

I will come to colleagues in a moment, but I fully understand and appreciate the question. It is difficult to be certain about that. Clearly, there has been a requirement for people to work at home for a large part of the pandemic, and as we move forward, that may vary in a number of ways.

We are acutely conscious not just of keeping people safe but of people’s mental health and wellbeing, and we are aware that although some staff will continue to work remotely, they may choose to work remotely from constituency offices so that they are in a smaller community but are engaging with others. That in itself might change the nature of the parliamentary function of constituency offices and require them to be a more obvious extension of the parliamentary process, in terms of the ability to engage reliably.

A considerable number of members prefer to be at Parliament if they can be. As we saw in an excellent debate in Parliament last week ahead of a committee inquiry into future working practices off the back of the hybrid arrangements that we have experienced, some members may go forward on a variable basis. They might work remotely when they do not need to be in Parliament and be in Parliament more regularly when they have a particular physical need to be present.

We will monitor all that as we go along. Obviously, we applaud the work that the Parliament has done on the hybrid working that we have, but that is not to say that I do not understand members’ frustrations. I can see my own party’s WhatsApp chat line as we navigate our way through the hybrid working process. The Parliament is looking at ways in which we can make that more robust and extend the functionality of hybrid working. One of the big frustrations is our inability at present to intervene during hybrid contributions.

Michelle Hegarty could probably provide more detail on process that officials are monitoring in relation to the themes that I have just discussed.

We have an understanding of the increase in staff numbers. We have had a number of part-time staff and temporary employees. On the overall number, David McGill will be able to give you a detailed view of the actual increase in staffing, if that would be helpful.

You are quite right. The underpinning to all that is complicated, and I believe that David McGill is the best person to answer your question in detail.

I will personally take that suggestion back to the corporate body, Mr Johnson. As a former customer of your former shopkeeping empire, I am happy to encourage that suggestion.

I am happy to pursue that. I can see us taking evidence with a bird of prey in the room. That would add a bit of novelty to proceedings.

Yes, I am happy to do that. The Parliament has a proud record of support for wheelchair users. In my first parliamentary session, Trish Godman led on the subject of bespoke wheelchairs. At that stage, Scotland provided a very poor service, but the Scottish Government introduced significant additional funding, which has transformed the lives of many people. However, sometimes, we forget that those better, bespoke wheelchairs have to be able to be deployed in a practical way in order for the individual to get the additional access. Some things are out of sight and out of mind. We have previously heard about issues relating to taxi access for people with wheelchairs, but there is something here for us to hear about as well and I would welcome any evidence that our colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy might be able to give to the committee. I suggest that we hold the petition open on the basis that we hear from her, and see whether that stimulates anything further that we might be able to do. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. As colleagues have no other suggestions, I think that we all agree with that. In the first instance, we will write to the teaching unions and get their parallel evidence in relation to the evidence that we already have and see where that takes us. It may well be that it leads to our agreeing to take further evidence on the petition at a forthcoming committee meeting.

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. I make it clear to anybody who has lodged a petition and who may be looking in this morning that we have, as a course of practice, sought the Scottish Government’s views on the petition and sometimes also considered a range of other submissions that have been sought or received. We therefore come to the discussion not blind but having had the opportunity to read some background material in relation to petitions that have been submitted.

PE1904, which was lodged by Christina Fisher, seeks to change Scots law to disqualify estranged spouses from making claims on an estate. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to define in law the difference between a legally married cohabiting couple and a legally married non-cohabiting couple for the purposes of ensuring that an estranged spouse cannot inherit their spouse’s assets.

The SPICe briefing accompanying the petition sets out the current legal position in relation to inheritance law in Scotland. It notes that section 1 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out that, where a person has made a will, when that person gets divorced or their civil partnership is dissolved, any provision in a will benefiting their former spouse or civil partner ceases to apply. However, there is no equivalent statutory provision in section 1 covering the situation where the person is estranged from their spouse or civil partner, but there has been no divorce or dissolution of the civil partnership. There is also no provision covering where a person has made a will benefiting their cohabitant, but the cohabiting relationship later breaks down.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it has carried out consultation to keep the law of succession under review, with the most recent consultation analysis published in May 2020. It notes that

“while the law of succession affects everyone it can also divide opinion”,

and that

“there must be some degree of consensus on what reforms will deliver outcomes that are appropriate for the majority of people in Scotland.”

The petitioner’s anomaly is actual. In light of that, what comments might colleagues wish to make?

PE1905, on the response of religious organisations to allegations of child sexual abuse since 1950, has been lodged by Angela Rosina Cousins on behalf of UK XJWs Support. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions taken by religious organisations in response to child sexual abuse allegations since 1950.

The petitioner is a survivor of child sexual abuse who believes that she was failed by people in her church when she reported her abuse. She has provided further details of her experiences in a late submission, which has been shared with the committee. She calls for an investigation into the response of religious organisations that were informed about allegations of abuse against children who were not in care.

The petitioner argues that the scope of the current Scottish child abuse inquiry is too narrow, as it is able to investigate only the abuse of children in care. In contrast, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales has powers to investigate abuse in religious organisations generally and the inquiry recently published a report on the topic.

The Scottish Government states that there was extensive consultation and engagement with abuse survivors in relation to the Scottish child abuse inquiry’s remit and acknowledges that

“there was not unanimity on the extent of the remit amongst survivors, and that some wished for the remit to be broadened.”

In 2016, the Deputy First Minister addressed this issue directly, stating:

“If we set a remit that, in practice, would take many more years to conclude, we fail to respond to the survivors of in-care abuse who have taken us at our word, in Government and in Parliament, that we will learn from their experience and, by addressing the systematic failures that existed, ensure that it can never happen again.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2016; c 41.]

The Scottish Government states that it has no plans to reconsider the remit of the Scottish child abuse inquiry.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I have a small parallel concern, having spoken to elderly constituents, in particular, who have only just lately become aware of all this. They are slightly worried about the bona fides of people who might fit such devices. Previously, we have had concerns about the elderly being preyed on by some, and I would like to get an understanding from the Scottish Government of what security there is and whether it feels that appropriate advice on the matter has been given to all households. I know that that does not fall within the scope of the petition, but it is a related point of concern.

Thank you for your comments, Mr Kidd. Do members agree with the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.