Continued Petitions

The next continued petition for consideration is PE1551, by Scott Pattinson, on mandatory reporting of child abuse. When we last considered the petition in June, we considered the Scottish Government’s reason for not consulting on mandatory reporting. Members will recall that the Government’s position was that, although it would be entirely within the Parliament’s competence to take its own approach on the issue, it would be “prudent” to await the outcome of the UK Government’s consultation.

The committee considered that the submissions from children’s organisations on the petition demonstrated that there were people and organisations that wanted to engage in a discussion on the issue. We agreed that any discussion of the matter should take place in the context of the child protection system in Scotland, and we invited the Scottish Government to provide a response to those points once it had reflected on the committee’s consideration.

An update had not been provided by the time our meeting papers were issued, but an update was provided on Tuesday of this week and has been circulated to members. In that response, the Scottish Government acknowledges that

“the context around matters of child protection in Scotland differs in a number of ways to that in England and Wales”

and recognises that any analysis of responses to the UK Government’s consultation would require to be considered in a Scottish context.

The submission indicates that UK Government officials have confirmed with Scottish Government officials that responses to the UK Government consultation are currently being reviewed and that there is no indication of when the findings will be published. The Scottish Government indicates that it

“has had informal engagement with key stakeholders on the matter of mandatory reporting”,

which it expects to continue. It indicates that it will provide the committee with an update on any outcomes from that informal engagement in February 2018.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action?

I am still at a loss to understand why that has anything to do with the petition. It has been accepted that there is a different regime in Scotland, as there is for many things. The child protection landscape is quite different, although many of the issues to do with child abuse and the reporting of child abuse are no respecters of boundaries or borders or anything else—I understand that.

Some progress has been made, in the sense that the Scottish Government is carrying out informal engagement, which it says that it will report back on in February. We could reflect on the matter further once it has done that. We could indicate to the Government that we are keen that that work is done. Although the delay is understandable, we feel that it is not grappling with the issues that the petitioner has identified.

Do members agree to get an update from the Scottish Government in February and to urge it to engage on the matter?

Members indicated agreement.