���˿���

Good morning, Jasmin and Laura. It is good to see you again. Thank you for taking part in last night’s discussion. As has been indicated, it was a very robust session, at which we got a strong flavour of the issues.

You have spoken about having to navigate barriers. It is clear from last night’s discussion with people with lived experience that that was one of the big issues that they had. You have identified that there does not seem to be a joined-up approach across some of the agencies that are involved. What needs to change? If things are to improve, change is needed. Last night, we got a flavour of how people had found it difficult to navigate the system. Jasmin has identified that some people found that so stressful and so problematic that they ended up going down a different route. For some people, that was a final route. We do not want anyone to experience that. It would be useful to hear what changes you think that we need to see in relation to navigating the barriers.

As you identified, the evidence that we had from Stephanie Bonner was quite compelling. I think that there are areas that we can ask Police Scotland about in order to take forward the petition. It might be useful to find out how many complaints it has received about the way in which it has investigated unexplained deaths in the past five years, how many of those were upheld and what the main failings were that were identified in the complaints that were upheld.

It is important that we possibly also look at the review of the investigation of deaths, the national guidance that we have and the steps that are planned to ensure that updated guidance is fully implemented. As you identified, convener, many issues came out of the evidence session that we are not able to look into specifically, but I think that these areas would give us clarity about what Police Scotland are doing and how the police are moving forward to manage the process that was identified during the session.

Convener, you have already explained our position on this, and I think that the petitioner, too, must understand that, in reality, very little can be achieved under the circumstances. I therefore think that we have no other course but to close the petition. For a start, the Scottish Parliament cannot pass legislation to remove the legal requirement to seek consent. Moreover, as the correspondence from the Scottish Government points out, there is an issue of confidentiality with regard to the royal household, and

“to maintain the ability to have free and frank discussions”

that confidentiality needs to be “recognised and respected”.

According to the Scottish Government, too,

“the detail of ... cases where laws have been adapted at the request of the Monarchy”

cannot be provided, because the

“Scottish Government does not record”

that sort of thing.

We acknowledge the petition, but unfortunately, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not think that we can do anything but close it.

We could take the opportunity to write to Universities Scotland and the National Union of Students Scotland to seek their views on the issue raised in the petition, specifically on the question whether they support a review of the complaints procedure for higher education institutions and the SPSO’s remit in relation to these processes. That would be my recommendation, convener.

Those organisations are all very important, but I think that we also need to talk to the Scottish Trans Alliance, because it has a role to play in all of this. We can get some views from the National Parent Forum of Scotland and from Connect—formerly the Scottish Parent Teacher Council—as well.

It might also be useful for us to write to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to seek information on the review of the technical guidance for schools in Scotland. As you identified, convener, the situation is not the same south of the border and we need to look at what we are doing here in Scotland itself, so that would be useful.

I think, Laura, that is what you have already said and are trying to say again here today.

I concur with Fergus Ewing that we should continue to seek clarity. We now have a new transport minister in the form of Kevin Stewart, and it would be useful to highlight the key findings of the economic impact report and the issues that our colleagues Emma Harper and Finlay Carson have identified in their submissions and seek a response from the Government on how things should be managed. That is something that we could do to get clarity and move things forward.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and the conversation so far. It has become evident from where we are, from what the witnesses have said and from what we have already heard, including information that I heard at last night’s meeting, that the individuals that we are discussing are vulnerable people who are sometimes at a crossroads in their lives. In some instances, although not all, they are being failed, and some of them are being failed so seriously that they eventually choose to take their own lives because of the situations and circumstances that they have found themselves in.

I acknowledge that we have capacity issues and workforce issues, but it is very evident to me from hearing about the lived experiences of some individuals last night that some have struggled and that they continue to struggle even in the present day due to the experiences that they went through.

I acknowledge that you are all doing your bit in the process. However, the third sector is also doing a huge amount of work in this area, and it seems to be what is providing the safety net for some of these vulnerable individuals, rather than the authorities or the statutory groups that have been set up by Government to protect and support them.

I suggest that the whole area requires a root-and-branch review to ensure that progress is made. Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling’s petition has identified some of the areas that we need to consider seriously if we are to get this right. At the moment, we are not getting it right for many individuals.

You have talked about things being patchy, but many organisations are facing that in the current circumstances. You have a protective and supervisory role to manage and look after vulnerable individuals, but we are failing these individuals and failing in some of these communities. The legislation that has been talked about this morning is very important, but there needs to be a realisation by all your organisations of what you can achieve and what you might achieve going forward.

It would be useful to get a flavour of whether you think that what I have said is correct. Do you see that as being where the sector is at the moment? Do we have a crisis in some of these areas? If so, what would the response be, or what should it be? If we are putting forward such a thing as the Promise, can we actually fulfil it? Can we achieve it? My view, from what I am seeing and have heard over the past few days and today, is that we are failing some of these young people, which is not acceptable in any way, shape, or form.

I would like all the witnesses to say a little on that.

You have just identified that, if you had a wish list, you would do certain things. At the same time, you do not want to be curtailed in what you are trying to achieve as an organisation, which is ensuring that information is transmitted.

I still think that there might well be a requirement for you to seek support to achieve some of the goals that you have set yourself. Otherwise, you might be setting yourself up to fail. I appreciate that you want to make progress, but, at the same time, we do not want you to come back in a year and say, “Okay, we tried, but it didn’t quite work, and we’ve now found ourselves in a slightly bigger situation.” It would be good to get a flavour of how you will try to manage that, because that could—potentially but not necessarily—happen, depending on where you find yourselves.