- The Convener:
Item 4 is the family support services inquiry. Committee members might know that while we have been working hard, Mary Mulligan has been working even harder to continue the work that we did during our consideration of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. She now has a report to present to the committee.
- Mrs Mulligan:
Thank you convener. I will not take advantage of the committee's time by dragging my report out to fill what should be the rest of this morning's meeting. However, it would be helpful if I drew out some of the points in the report that members have in front of them.
I will start by thanking a few people who have been involved in constructing the report, because I did not write it all myself. The first person to thank is Lewis McNaughton, the clerk who has supported me throughout the writing of the report. He missed one of the best football matches of last summer's world cup because we were stuck on a wet M8 on the way back from Hamilton. I am sure that he will have seen the recordings.
I also thank Sarah Harvie-Clark, who put together the mapping exercise, which clearly shows some of the service provision issues. We undertook several visits, and I thank all those who supported us in Hamilton, Easterhouse, Peterhead and Aberdeen, where we met representatives of various Grampian organisations.
I also thank Scottish Marriage Care, Couple Counselling Scotland, which has recently changed its name to Relate Scotland, and Family Mediation Scotland. I attended the cross-party group on children and young people, which was quite useful in giving me a feel for the issues that the group has been considering. I am grateful to the large number of sheriffs who contributed to the paper and were more than willing to meet and discuss their experiences of applying family law, particularly dealing with couples in breakdown and finding a resolution when children are involved. I met the Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, Robert Brown. I thank everyone who responded to the consultation.
I will structure my comments on the report by first considering the extent to which the services are provided and the issues surrounding their provision and funding. The committee was interested in finding out what services are being provided, whether there are gaps in provision and how the services that are being provided are funded.
At this stage, I should note that there are a number of children's services, including those that provide advice and support to parents. I have not specifically considered those services, although I think that it would be a useful exercise for the Parliament—although perhaps not this committee—to undertake. After all, children and families are being supported in those areas.
During its consideration of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, the committee acknowledged the value of family life in whatever form, particularly in supporting children. However, we also recognised that relationships sometimes break down and were concerned that sufficient support and advice should be available to ensure that any breakdown was made less acrimonious and that, if children were involved, their interests were represented. In order to address that matter, we attempted to map current service provision. That was difficult, because the services do not fit into neat little boxes. However, in response to one of the committee's concerns, I have to say that we did not find much evidence of duplication. Indeed, we found that organisations, particularly local ones, were working closely with each other and, where necessary, were cross-referring.
I am sure that members will recall that, during our consideration of the bill, I was obsessed not only with looking at services dealing with relationships that have broken down but with taking a step back and considering services for those who were thinking about getting married or co-habiting. We found that relatively little was going on in that respect. It might be that such services were previously provided by churches but, because fewer and fewer people are now connected with the church, fewer of those support options are available to them. Although Scottish Marriage Care runs a focus group that offers advice and support to people who are considering marriage, that is the exception rather than the rule.
As far as counselling is concerned, I direct members to paragraph 24, which highlights our views on the matter. The role of the main organisations—Relate Scotland and Scottish Marriage Care—is to assist couples experiencing difficulties and, if those difficulties lead to breakdown, separation or divorce, to offer support through the process. At times, such support requires referral to mediation services and so on.
In paragraph 36, I refer to the provision of mediation services. The main role of the major service provider, Family Mediation Scotland, is to resolve the difficulties in a relationship and, in the event of a break-up, to try to ensure that it happens without any of the acrimony that can be involved. Of course, break-ups can affect not only the immediate couple but children and wider family relationships.
The final area that we looked at was the provision of child contact centres. During our consideration of the bill, we were concerned with ensuring that, in any situation that involved children, the child was able to maintain contact with both parents and with the wider family. As a result, we looked at supported contact centres, supervised contact centres and exchange contact centres. Clearly the most prominent of those was the supported contact centre, which simply provided facilities that enabled children to meet the non-resident parent.
Supervised contact centres are very rare; in fact, we saw no examples of them. I suppose that, as they tend to deal with extreme situations in which contact is being re-established, we should not expect them to be prevalent. However, their very rarity is an issue that should be examined.
Exchange contact centres are used to help families to re-establish their own arrangements. They are often used as a drop-off point where children can be left and picked up by the non-resident parent.
I am surprised that some local authorities do not have contact centres. Although it is possible that such authorities purchase the service from another local authority—we did not see any examples of that—practical problems arise if people need to travel to a contact centre. It is not always possible for people to do that unless they have their own means of transport.
We looked at contact centres because we recognise that they provide one way of resolving disputes over the child's contact with the non-resident parent or of re-establishing that contact where previous arrangements have broken down. We spent one morning in a contact centre in Hamilton, where we had the opportunity to speak to the users of the service, both resident and non-resident parents. I found that useful. All of them spoke very highly of the service that they received. Even those who had at first been reluctant to attend the centre—some of them were directed by the court to attend the centre—said that the service had made a difference.
People attend contact centres for a variety of times. Some will attend for less than a month, but others will attend for up to six months. By the time that they stop attending, people are at the stage where they can move on to the next step. That brought back to me the question how those relationships would be re-established if such centres were not available. I do not think that we had an answer to that.
Funding is always the major issue for all such projects. Most services are delivered through the voluntary sector and they often use volunteers. When we visited the Hamilton contact centre, the two women on the door were volunteers. Their job during the week was working in family support services, but they gave up their Saturday mornings to supervise the centre. Given the importance of such facilities, should we rely on volunteers, good though they may be? That is an issue.
The funding generally comes from local authorities, although I will shortly deal with the exception that we considered. The funding is often insecure and short term. Even though the local authority officials and councillors to whom we spoke could see the benefits of such services and appreciated what was being done, they could not guarantee that funding would be available next year, let alone three years hence.
The anomaly is the family mediation services that are funded by the Scottish Executive. There was some concern that the Executive would decide to transfer the moneys for those services to the local authorities and that the funding that is currently provided would become lost among other local authority funding. However, during the period when we were compiling the report, the minister decided to delay that transfer for another two years so the organisations providing the services will continue to be funded by the Scottish Executive until 2008. For two years after that—until 2010—the moneys will be ring fenced within local authority allocations. That is a welcome move, because it will ensure that people can consider what services are needed and establish relationships with the local authorities so that the authorities take on board the responsibility to continue to provide that funding. I am pleased that the minister has recognised those concerns.
However, the minister has not yet confirmed whether that pot will be enlarged. At the moment, the Executive funds 11 services. Given the gaps that exist and the need to provide further services elsewhere, will the same size of cake simply be divided among even more local authorities or will the Executive increase the size of the cake so that we can support the services that already exist and set up new services? That question has still to be answered.
Finally on the issue of funding, the report mentions that all the services are provided free but that people are sometimes asked to give donations in recognition of the service that they have received. Although that will probably be done after they have been to the service two or three times—so there is no question of anyone not getting the service without making a donation—there is still an issue of where to find the balance in people paying for the service that they get.
We knew that the funding responsibilities were to transfer from the Justice Department to the Education Department, and we all agreed that that was not a bad move, because the Education Department has responsibility for children's services and social work. However, I have one concern. I spoke about the number of sheriffs who contributed to the report. All said that they recognised the value of contact centres and that, without them, they would struggle to find somewhere for families to re-establish relationships and contact. I wonder whether the Justice Department should still have a role in supporting those centres, in particular given that the sheriffs are using them. It is recognised that funding may need to be looked at in the round, and there may need to be a decision on where it comes from.
All the services are under financial pressure, and all are concerned about the short-term nature of funding. I possibly should have made this point in talking about contact centres, but the committee will remember that in our final deliberations on the bill we asked about the establishment of family contact facilitators. We did not come across them, although in an initial meeting with Executive officials we heard that work was going on. However, that was last spring, and we have not come across them since then, so it would be useful for the committee to get an update from ministers about what has happened. There was initial support and people were keen to establish them, but I am not sure what progress has been made. Members might like to hear from ministers on that.
I want to make a quick point about the sheriffs' responses. As I said, they all confirmed the usefulness of contact centres. We also met some solicitors in Aberdeen who work with Family Mediation Grampian but practise what is known as collaborative family law. That is when the representatives of both parties sit down together to discuss and try to resolve problems to do with contact, financial matters arising from a break-up and other such issues. It is less adversarial than the usual arrangements between solicitors. Indeed, we were told that some solicitors do not like it because they see their role as purely to get the best deal possible for their client. The collaborative arrangements are more about trying to come to an agreement that is acceptable to everybody. It is an interesting concept that could be pursued, particularly considering that there are no rights and wrongs in family law and it is often about making compromises. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
One sheriff in particular said that the role of solicitors was crucial in family law cases. Sometimes, those solicitors had to say to their clients things that they did not want to hear but which would resolve the situation. Those who practise collaborative law are trying to bring that to the fore. The interesting point is that, if those solicitors cannot resolve the issues for the couples and families involved, they step back and let somebody else take on the more adversarial work. Therefore, they are not protecting their own situation—in a way, the arrangements make them independent.
I will quickly go through my conclusions. We asked whether there were gaps in service provision. Clearly, there are gaps, particularly in the provision of contact centres and early advice on relationships. I am pleased to say that a lot of partnership working is going on, both locally and nationally, which should be encouraged if we want to get the best value for the money that is being invested in the services.
However, as I have said, funding is inconsistent across Scotland. Some local authorities are proactive and imaginative in how they invest money—Hamilton's use of the changing children's services fund is one example—but most get money annually and there is no long-term funding. Even when there is present funding, there are no guarantees for the future and, as I said earlier, there is concern about the funding shifting from the Scottish Executive to local authorities, particularly if we do not increase the size of the general cake. I realise that service provision needs to be decided on according to local needs, which is why I do not have a problem with the Executive passing more responsibility to local authorities. The question is whether local authorities understand their responsibility and are geared to take it on.
In conclusion, we need to acknowledge the link between the services that I have examined in the report and the other services that I mentioned, such as children and family services. We must take those services more seriously. At the moment, I get the feeling that they are not seen as central and that they are somewhat on the periphery. However, not only are they important to the individuals, particularly children, who are involved, they also benefit communities by helping to resolve disputes.
Unfortunately, the number of relationship breakdowns is unlikely to fall—indeed, if anything, it is likely to increase. As a result, we need to boost current services to ensure that they do not become stretched. One family mediation group told me that it does not advertise or even tell people that it exists, because it would simply be overwhelmed. That is crazy. We must build on the existing good practice.
Not wanting to cop out on this matter, I believe that funding must be increased. The Scottish Executive and local authorities need to examine the issue, decide how funding should be provided, and then work with service providers on distributing funding and on developing and increasing service provision throughout Scotland.
- The Convener:
Thank you for that very comprehensive summary of an excellent report.
Do members have any questions?
- Mr McFee:
First, I apologise for not having read the full report, although I should point out that this is my fourth committee meeting this week.
Coming from a local authority background, I recognise many of the points that Mary Mulligan made about funding, particularly with regard to voluntary organisations. Because that funding is allocated, at best, from year to year, it prevents service development and makes everyone involved very tetchy. After all, although these organisations are voluntary, some people who work in them are paid and, without the guarantee of a wage for the next year, they will always be tempted to go elsewhere. I also acknowledge that future service provision will be in local authorities' hands, and I feel that that is probably the correct way of constructing suitable services.
However, given that local government now gets a three-year settlement, can we at least try to encourage local authorities to consider seriously—or, in some cases, implement—three-year funding deals for their voluntary organisations, in return for developing service level agreements with them? Surely that should now be within the gift of local authorities.
That said, any service provision that is transferred to local authority control must be fully funded. The method of hypothecating money for services is very unclear and, in many cases, local authorities cannot break moneys down. They are simply given a block figure, which they are told has to fund everything. Funding must be transparent if we are to encourage local authorities to guarantee more than year-to-year agreements. As I said, good service development does not happen if funding is guaranteed for no longer than 12 months.
- Mike Pringle:
I will make a couple of points. Mary Mulligan talked about meeting sheriffs. It may be too early to tell, but does any sheriff yet have a view on how the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 is working, which has been a particular issue for me since I became an MSP?
You refer briefly to Children 1st's development of what it calls family group conferencing. I do not know whether you visited Children 1st and saw at first hand what happens. I have done that, because Children 1st happens to be based in Edinburgh South. The service appears to be very successful. As you said, it brings together with the different agencies not just parents and children, but the wider family. People sit together and discuss the situation, after which the professionals leave the room and leave the family to discuss issues and try to sort out the problems. After that, the professionals return. I am not sure how many councils have adopted that process—I tried to get the City of Edinburgh Council on board and involved with Children 1st, but it was reluctant to participate, which was probably because of a lack of resources. The system is not being widely used, but where it is used, it is extremely successful. Did you observe that in depth?
- Margaret Mitchell:
My questions are about the voluntary sector. You said that the service in Hamilton is good and that it is run by the voluntary sector, but you are concerned that it is run by volunteers and you asked whether the local authority should run it. I take the other perspective: the voluntary sector has the expertise, so if the service has been established, is there a case for directly funding voluntary organisations in some circumstances? That would avoid the sieve of local authorities, which your report says treat services differently. To be blunt, some local authorities would empire build, sideline the voluntary sector and put the money into new local authority posts whose holders would not—with the best will in the world—have the expertise or experience that the voluntary sector often has. I am concerned about that.
Have you considered the establishment of a pool of funding to which voluntary organisations could bid for money to increase their mediation services, establish new relationship preparation programmes or courses, and provide extra couple counselling in the hope of saving relationships when marriages experience difficulties?
- Stewart Stevenson:
I echo other members' remarks: the report is excellent and represents a useful contribution to our wider consideration of the subject.
My question is not really for Mary Mulligan but for the committee. The report has been produced—now what? As I will probably have to go off to another committee meeting shortly, I will leave a couple of thoughts. First, the committee should consider whether to adopt the report and therefore to accept what it says. I propose that we so do.
Secondly, what should happen to the report? I will not answer that, but I ask whether we could have a parliamentary debate on it. I realise that all that is happening between now and the end of March makes that unlikely, but we should not dismiss such a debate, because so much is in the report that it is worthy of wider debate, consideration and—perhaps—a ministerial response in that forum. If we cannot do that, perhaps we should invite the minister to a committee meeting to respond to the report after the Executive has had sufficient time to study it. The indication from our meeting yesterday is that we might be able to fit that into our schedule in the new year. I see the convener rolling her eyes, but the report is important enough for us to consider that option seriously.
Finally, we might invite civic Scotland more widely to comment on the report in order to inform future discussion of the subject. Without putting my force behind those suggestions, I think that it would be useful for the committee to consider those things. I would be disappointed if we did not adopt at least one of those ideas, and I would be delighted if we adopted them all.
- Marlyn Glen:
I support Stewart Stevenson. This is an important and excellent report. We should certainly adopt it and, possibly, take up Stewart Stevenson's suggestions. However, which minister would we want to respond to it? It crosses portfolios. I think that we should also send it out to other committees, but to which ones? It is a big justice issue, but it is also an issue for communities, local government and finance. The question is this: Who should we leave out? It would be a good idea to have a debate on the report in the chamber, if possible.
The report is couched in very temperate language—the opposite of our usual style. I would have been pleased to see a few uses of the word "shocking". The fact that we do not have a basic service for children across Scotland is more than shocking; it is absolutely ridiculous.
- The Convener:
How about "staggering"? [Laughter.]
- Marlyn Glen:
I hope that the report will go not only into our legacy paper, but into other committees' legacy papers. We should, therefore, write to other committees and suggest that they consider that.
I was talking to Mary Mulligan about this before the meeting. I am particularly shocked that there are no child contact centres in any of the areas that are listed in paragraph 44 of the report. I find that to be totally unacceptable. I am also concerned that supervised contact is not available for children throughout Scotland; in fact, only six contact centres provide it. I find that to be totally unacceptable. My only criticism of the report is that that should be brought out more strongly in its conclusions. We spent a lot of time on the Family Law (Scotland) Bill and we know the importance of contact centres and of children being not just supported, but properly supervised in some cases. That is a justice issue.
As I said, we should go along with all Stewart Stevenson's suggestions and send the report to different committees, asking them to consider including it in their legacy papers.
- The Convener:
I am a bit concerned about the switching of the Executive department that is responsible for family support services. I voted for the reduction in the time limit for divorce because the Executive promised extra funding, some of which would go into reconciliation services. If I were to get confirmation of the fact that that issue is with the Education Department, I would not be so concerned. However, I do not think that it fits neatly, and I am worried that we are steering away from some of the ideas that the committee developed. We had differences of opinion around the subject, but I expected a chunk of that £300,000 to go to reconciliation services. I want to question ministers closely about how they are going to deliver on that commitment.
Like Marlyn Glen, I think that the family contact centres are crucial to development of the service. Members will know that I had a particular issue with the Family Law (Scotland) Bill about how we can improve contact levels for non-resident parents. We began by talking about contact officers, who are now called—what did we rename them? There were to be three pilot schemes: I think that they have been renamed, with the word "enforcement" taken out. I would like to know what progress is being made on that. For me, that is an important development. Sylvia Jackson and I agreed to withdraw our amendments at stages 2 and 3 on the basis that the idea would be developed.
Stewart Stevenson has made some suggestions as to how we should take the matter forward. I am happy to adopt the report as long as we can keep the issue live and Mary Mulligan is willing to be the link for that. It is, obviously, for her to comment on that.
Our problem in obtaining a parliamentary debate will obviously be time, for which we would have to bid, but I agree that such a debate is an excellent idea. It has been suggested to me that we could somehow work round the rules on members' business. I do not know about that; a committee report would not normally be the subject of members' business, but the report is in an individual's name. We can think about that—it would be a shame if the report could not be debated publicly. I am not sure whether the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Education and Young People should be invited to give evidence; I want to think more about it. I agree that at some point, we should invite others to comment on the report.
Quite a lot of comments have been made. I allow Mary Mulligan the opportunity to reply.
- Mrs Mulligan:
I will start at the beginning. Bruce McFee was right. I recently attended a conference about community care, at which voluntary sector providers were concerned about their relationship with local authorities and about the funding arrangements. That needs to be tackled.
I recognise the value of the voluntary sector's provision of the services, which Margaret Mitchell mentioned. Voluntary organisations are flexible and can respond more appropriately to local concerns. It is important to build on what they have established, but funding is a big issue for them. We know that there are never any guarantees but, at the moment, such organisations seem to live from hand to mouth and to be under such uncertainty. As Bruce McFee said, that means that staff must constantly consider their situations and must move on, even when they do not want to. That is a big issue for them. We should consider three-year funding, along the lines of what local authorities pleaded for and obtained.
Mike Pringle talked about the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. We asked the sheriffs how the act is playing in and they said that issues were starting to arise with divorce timings and family disputes, although it is quite early for them to give a substantive response.
- Mike Pringle:
I thought that that might be the case.
- Mrs Mulligan:
The sheriffs are aware that the act is changing the situation.
I did not attend a family group conference with Children 1st, but I know several people who work at Children 1st, so I had quite a long discussion with them about it. Mike Pringle is right to say that that has huge benefits. It is interesting that organisations such as Family Mediation Scotland are also using opportunities to bring in the wider family. That is the right direction of travel.
Mike Pringle said that he thought that the City of Edinburgh Council is not picking up family group conferencing because of funding. I think that is the case. We keep returning to that issue. Sometimes, local authorities ignore the provision of such services because they do not want to have to find the funds in budgets that they feel are already squeezed.
Margaret Mitchell mentioned local authorities and the voluntary sector; I have said a little about that. An argument exists for pooled funding to which bodies can bid for new money. However, both types of funding would have to be provided: organisations need certainty in respect of core funding and could bid for more funding for aspects that they feel are more relevant in their areas. We would have a dual track rather than go one way or the other.
Considering what we said yesterday, I am surprised that I put no Z words in the report.
- The Convener:
I say for the Official Report that that was a bit of an in-joke. Without giving anything away about our private discussions, I can say that it refers to the fact that we have been discussing in great depth the language of our Scottish Criminal Record Office inquiry report.
- Mrs Mulligan:
I feel strongly about the subject of my report, as does the committee, which is why we wanted to pursue it. Despite having 101 other things on, we did not want to drop the matter after dealing with the Family Law (Scotland) Bill. From members' comments it is clear that there is a feeling in the committee that we need to continue the work, which will overlap with consideration of other family services in which the Executive is involved, such as children's services and parents groups, as I said.
It will be important for the Executive to acknowledge that the work cuts across many departments and cannot just be placed in the education portfolio and forgotten about. For example, the justice and communities portfolios will pick up on aspects. Scottish Marriage Care runs a project in Easterhouse—Lewis McNaughton will remind me of its name.
- Lewis McNaughton (Clerk):
It is the REACT—relationship, education and counselling team—project.
- Mrs Mulligan:
The REACT project in Easterhouse supports and addresses the needs of very young parents, in an area of deprivation in which there is a concentration of such issues. The communities portfolio has an input in that context, and other areas of the Executive need to consider provision. The committee is right to agree that the issue cannot be pigeonholed but should be considered across the board.
We now use the term "family contact facilitators"—it would be useful to have an update on that.
- Mike Pringle:
I should have said at the outset that Mary Mulligan's report is excellent. I congratulate her for it and I agree with Stewart Stevenson and Marlyn Glen that we should take it further. When I was in local government, I remember voluntary organisations that worked on that important issue and many others, but were funded for only one or two years, which was a nightmare. The problem will become bigger, particularly as a result of the changes in the law that were made by the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006. We must put in the ancillary services that will back up the 2006 act.
I do not see why we could not have a parliamentary debate on the matter. We should put in a bid for parliamentary time. I am sure that such a debate would be heavily oversubscribed, unlike the debates on other bills and issues that we might have during the next three months.
- The Convener:
Does the committee agree that we should adopt the report?
Members indicated agreement.
- The Convener:
In adopting the report, do we also agree that Mary Mulligan continue to act as our reporter and pick up issues, if necessary? Is Mary Mulligan content with that approach?
- Mrs Mulligan:
Yes.
- Margaret Mitchell:
It would be good to add what has been said in the meeting, because we have come at the issue from different angles.
- The Convener:
Okay. That is agreed. Shall we send the report to ministers and ask for their comments? Which ministers should be sent a copy?
- Margaret Mitchell:
We should send a copy to the ministers who have responsibility for justice, communities, local government—
- Marlyn Glen:
And education and finance.
- The Convener:
Is Mary Mulligan happy with that approach?
- Mrs Mulligan:
Yes.
- Mike Pringle:
We should give ministers a date by which we would like them to respond, or the report will get lost.
- The Convener:
I think that there is a prescribed timescale for consideration of committee reports.
- Callum Thomson (Clerk):
The timescale is normally eight weeks but, given how close Parliament is to dissolution, it might be worth trying to expedite consideration.
- The Convener:
Yes. We will ask for a quicker response, given the shortage of time and the importance of the issue. We could also make a bid for a parliamentary debate, although such a bid is not likely to be successful.
- Stewart Stevenson:
We should still bid.
- Mike Pringle:
Let us do so. Who would make the decision?
- The Convener:
Bids are usually discussed at the Conveners Group before being referred to the Parliamentary Bureau for approval. We can bid on principle.
- Mike Pringle:
We can press our representatives on the bureau.
- Mr McFee:
The Conveners Group would have to refer the bid to the bureau first.
- The Convener:
Yes, but many of the slots for committee debates have been allocated.
- Mr McFee:
The Procedures Committee is conducting a review of parliamentary time, although the changes that might be made to the standing orders would not come into effect until the next parliamentary session. It is clear that although a minimum of 12 half sitting days is set aside for committee debates, the Conveners Group can ask the bureau for more slots, if it so desires. Even if the 12 slots have been filled, we should ask the Conveners Group to ask the bureau for another slot, because although the standing orders provide that 16 half sitting days are set aside for Opposition business, the number of half sitting days that is set aside for Executive debates is flexible; in practice, the Executive takes about 40 half sitting days. A slot could therefore be taken from the Executive's time. We can at least ask the Conveners Group to advance that argument at the bureau—it can say no.
- Mike Pringle:
If we know when the argument is to be advanced, we will be able to speak to the appropriate people and twist arms.
- The Convener:
We will raise the issue with the Conveners Group, ascertain whether slots are available and suggest that the bureau be asked whether a short debate could be added to the business programme. If that approach fails, plan B could be that Mary Mulligan and other members consider whether an aspect of her report should be aired in a members' business debate.
- Mr McFee:
A minimum of one members' business debate is required at the end of a meeting of Parliament, which means that we have two such debates a week. We should bear it in mind that nothing stops us having three members' business debates in a week.
- Stewart Stevenson:
That has happened.
- The Convener:
Do members have more comments?
- Stewart Stevenson:
As a courtesy, we should send a complementary copy of the report to the people in the voluntary sector who assisted in its preparation and who supported Mary Mulligan and Lewis McNaughton in their work, so that they do not have to buy copies.
- The Convener:
That is agreed. I am sure that those people will appreciate the report and the work that has been done.
- Mr McFee:
We should put on the record that the committee not only adopts the report but continues to give Mary Mulligan its full support if she wants to pursue issues.
- The Convener:
Yes. I think that we made that a condition of adopting the report. The committee did not want our adopting the report to bar Mary Mulligan from continuing to act as a reporter as she sees fit. We do not want to add to her workload, but we want her to be free to pursue issues on our behalf and report back to us. I thank Bruce McFee for clarifying that we adopted the report with that proviso.
We agreed that we would move into private session to consider item 5, which is our draft stage 1 report on the Rights of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Bill.
Meeting continued in private until 11:54.