Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023
Official Report 553KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Decisions on Taking Business in Private
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
Continued Petitions
Rape Charges and Convictions (Record of Sex) (PE1876)
Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. First, PE1876, which was lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people who are charged with, or convicted of, rape or attempted rape. We last considered the petition almost a year ago, on 23 March 2022, so I apologise to the petitioners that we have not given it further consideration before now. At that stage, we agreed to write to a number of bodies to gather information on recording practices and the guidance underpinning those practices. That has taken some time.
Members will be aware that issues relating to the collection and use of data were discussed during consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. To assist us in our consideration of the petition, the Scottish Parliament information centre has published an updated petition briefing that highlights the consideration that was given to data collection during the passage of that bill.
We have now received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland, copies of which are included in our meeting papers. The cabinet secretary’s response reiterates the Government’s position that recording practices are operational matters for the relevant bodies to determine. The cabinet secretary also refers to the chief statistician’s guidance, “Data collection and publication guidance—Sex, Gender Identity, Trans Status”, and he notes that there are no current plans to revise that guidance, which was published in September 2021.
Similarly, Police Scotland refers to its previous response to the petition, stating that police
“do not routinely ask the gender or sex of people with whom they interact”,
with records based on how a person presents to officers at the time of engagement. The response from Police Scotland also notes that DNA samples are obtained from all individuals who are accused of a sexual offence, with the DNA profile obtained from those samples indicating the person’s biological sex.
The committee has received a new submission from the petitioners, which offers their reflections on the various responses that we have received. The petitioners highlight a freedom of information response that shows a discussion between the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on how sex should be recorded. The petitioners understood that area to be the responsibility of the Scottish crime recording board, so there is, in effect, a contradiction. The petitioners have also raised concerns about Police Scotland’s policy for recording sex being developed and approved in advance of reforms to gender recognition coming into effect.
That summarises the submissions that we have received. What comments, thoughts or observations do colleagues have? I certainly feel that the petition deserves to remain open, but I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.
We should keep the petition open. I would like the opportunity to hear from the petitioners. Plainly, we have had responses to the petition, including a submission from Michelle Thomson and an oral contribution from Ruth Maguire, my predecessor on the committee. Ruth Maguire pointed to the importance of data being accurate and, perhaps more important, to the very sensitive nature of the issue. There must be a risk of retraumatising a victim of rape by failing to record the perpetrator as male and possibly recording the gender of the perpetrator as female. We should not underestimate the harm and trauma that that could cause.
Given that the replies have been somewhat dry and technical, I would be interested in hearing what the petitioners have to say, because, after all, this is the petitions committee, which is a gateway for people to seek clarity. It is a well-focused petition, and there would be an opportunity for us, after taking evidence, to pursue matters further. I therefore hope that we can hear from the petitioners in order to get their response to the information that we have gleaned from the various authorities.
I agree that we should keep the petition open. It is well thought through and put together, and it is evidence based. The convener mentioned the Scottish crime recording board, and we should pursue the matter with it to see what information it records and how it will take things forward. Along with hearing from the petitioners, which would be immensely helpful, it would be worth while to make a formal approach to the Scottish crime recording board.
I concur with my colleagues that more information is required. We have already discussed data collection. Police Scotland talks about “operational” procedure, but it would be interesting to get more clarity and to seek further information from Police Scotland on the process of updating and recording the policy, including whether there has been a wider consultation on the policy change and how such work is progressing. I acknowledge that the police see it as one thing, but I think that we and the petitioners see it as something else. Clarification is required, and we need to ensure that we get the full information, so I add that to what my colleagues have recommended.
It might be worth asking Police Scotland to reflect on its previous response, in which it said:
“there are no known cases where a biological male has been charged with the physical crime of rape and has self-identified as a woman.”
That might have been its view at the time, but, as the Parliament knows from subsequent events, it is not a robust basis on which to form a policy judgment. Police Scotland wrote to us in January 2022, so we might want to hear from it further on that, as well as from the board, as Carol Mochan suggested.
Are we content to invite the petitioners to meet the committee when we have received responses to the various further inquiries that we will make? At this stage, are we content to approach the relevant bodies that have been suggested?
Members indicated agreement.
We will therefore keep the petition open. We will seek further information from those bodies, and we will invite the petitioners to join us at a future committee meeting in order to discuss directly with them their views on the responses that we receive and where we might take the petition. Do we agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Whole Plant Cannabis Oil (PE1884)
PE1884, which was lodged by Steve Gillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole plant cannabis oil available on the national health service or provide funds for private access to it for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help.
At our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to inquire, on behalf of the petitioner, how he could participate in the upcoming clinical trials of cannabis-based products for medicinal use—CBPMs. We have received a response from the interim chief pharmaceutical officer, who has indicated that individuals who are interested in taking part in the trials should mention that interest to the specialist clinician in charge of their care, who will be able to keep them updated once the trial set-up has been confirmed.
The last time the committee considered the petition, a degree of sympathy was expressed on the general issues connected to it. However, the fact that the trials are in prospect may lead to a way forward. There could be an opportunity for the petition to come back at a later date if nothing much materialises.
As you identified, convener, at this stage in the proceedings, we do not have many options, so I suggest that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we close the petition.
As you identified, clinical trials will be carried out with a view to building an evidence base that is connected with CBPMs. Unlicensed products are not routinely available on the NHS, and licensing is the only way to ensure safety, quality and efficacy. Pending results from the clinical trials, there is no further action that the committee can take.
In closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner to highlight the eligibility of Scottish patients for the upcoming clinical trials and the information provided by the interim chief pharmaceutical officer about the process. That would be useful. However, there is not much further action that we, as a committee, can take at this stage. As you identified, the petition could come back in some other format.
I would like to do more, but I do not think that there is any more that we can do at this point. We can draw the information to the petitioner’s attention and point out that, in the event of its being felt that that route was not open or that the trials had not materialised, there is the opportunity to bring the petition back to us. Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Potholes (PE1936)
PE1936, which was lodged by Leslie Roberts, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces by creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and providing ring-fenced funding to local councils to tackle the problem.
We last considered the petition on 28 September, when we agreed to seek the views of a number of organisations involved in the maintenance of the road network. The committee has received responses from the Scottish Road Works Commissioner, the RAC Foundation, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association.
The Scottish Road Works Commissioner notes that road authorities such as Transport Scotland and local councils are responsible for decisions relating to the repair and maintenance of roads. The commissioner does, however, have the power to impose financial penalties on road authorities that systematically fail in their duty to co-ordinate or co-operate when undertaking roadworks.
In its response, the RAC Foundation highlights call-out data that indicates that a United Kingdom motorist is now 1.6 times more likely to suffer a fault or damage caused by a poor road surface than they were in 2006. The RAC Foundation also notes cuts to transport budgets. That point was also highlighted in the submission from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association, which expressed disappointment that the Scottish Government has reduced the budget for motorways and trunk roads by more than £75 million in the 2023-24 budget. In the context of those financial pressures, the CECA states:
“we are rapidly approaching a tipping point for some local authorities whereby they will never catch up on the structural repairs on their network”.
I seem to recall that, in my local authority area, it was estimated that it would take 120 years to get the roads up to spec at the current level of spend.
09:45The Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland submission highlights guidance for local authorities on taking a risk-based approach to their inspection and repair regime but notes that not all local authorities follow that approach. The response also notes previous investigations carried out by Audit Scotland on the condition of Scotland’s local and trunk roads.
We have also received two new submissions from the petitioner that raise further concerns about the deteriorating condition of the road surface and the impact that it is having on motorists. In particular, the petitioner highlights safety concerns about driving at night or in wet conditions, and the impact on female drivers. The petitioner also wishes to draw the committee’s attention to concerns that were raised about road conditions in Glasgow ahead of the Union Cycliste Internationale cycling championships, which are due to be hosted by the city later this year.
My only suggestion, in the first instance, is to note that, in last week’s UK Government budget, the chancellor announced an additional £200 million for pothole repairs, presumably with a consequential coming to the Scottish Government of about £20 million. The Scottish Government has to decide what it wishes to do with those funds, but I think that we might legitimately inquire, on behalf of the petitioner, whether the Scottish Government intends to commit that consequential towards the repair of potholes, in addition to raising with the Scottish Government the concern expressed by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association that spending on motorways and trunk roads was seriously reduced in 2023-24 by £75 million, and ask what action it is taking to help build resilience into the road network across Scotland.
Do colleagues agree with that or have suggestions that might complement it?
I agree with that. In the past, Audit Scotland published its “Maintaining Scotland’s roads” report. It would be useful to follow up on any recommendations in the report and to get an indication as to what action is planned in future to try to tackle the issue.
I know that “potholes” as a word can engender a degree of hilarity at times in certain quarters, but there is nothing funny about it if you drive through one and significantly damage your vehicle. It is becoming an almost anticipated experience for most motorists, which is not as it should be, and deeply concerning and worrying.
I concur with the suggestions that have been made thus far. The petitioner has pointed out that, as well as the inconvenience and the risk of damage to vehicles, there is the risk of potholes leading to a personal injury. For obvious reasons, cyclists, for example, are more prone to accidents, such as falling off their bike, where there are potholes, and if a car has been incapacitated by being driven into a pothole and, therefore, the motorist has to stop by the kerb, perhaps in a remote rural area, there is a risk of anything happening, frankly, when they are waiting for an emergency vehicle to come along. In extremis, there is the risk of someone losing their life as a result of an accident occasioned by a pothole.
I am not sure whether the police or anyone else records whether poor road maintenance is listed as a contributory factor when they do their analysis of fatal accidents, but I would be interested to at least ask the police whether that is the case.
I am very much attracted to the idea that, if additional funding were to come to Scotland, it should be used for this issue. I am not suggesting that it necessarily be used for the motorways, which, in my experience, are pretty well maintained—they have to be, given the speed of the vehicles that use them—but it could be used for the roads in cities, not least in Edinburgh. The roads here are in an appalling state, as are the roads in Glasgow, sadly. The situation is becoming considerably worse.
The problem has bedevilled Scotland since devolution, as seen in the various audit reports over the years and the backlogs that you have alluded to, convener. It is something that affects people; obviously all of us, as MSPs, frequently receive complaints from constituents about the effects of accidents that have been occasioned by poorly maintained roads.
It would be interesting to inquire of Police Scotland the extent to which the condition of the roads has been a contributory factor in accidents that police have had to attend. Dipping back into my now long-distant past career in the retail motor industry, I recall that, as a large repairing operation, we did not routinely have to undertake repairs as a result of damage caused by potholes. To be fair, there were considerably fewer automobiles on the roads 30 years ago than there are today. Notwithstanding that, all of us can see a deterioration.
The word “pothole” can mean so many different things. It can mean just a little bit of rough texture on a road, which is messy, but it can also be quite a heavily disguised but large and fairly dangerous pothole, which, if the road is busy, people will often not have advance sight of until they find themselves in it. That needs to be taken far more seriously as it becomes a potentially more dangerous experience.
Are we agreed that we will write to the various organisations and keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
Peer Support Programmes (Public Sector) (PE1942)
PE1942, which was lodged by Fiona MacAulay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer support programmes such as TRIM and STRAW—I am sorry, but I do not know what the acronyms stand for—in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health. We previously considered the petition on 26 October, when we agreed to write to stakeholder organisations to ask for their views on the petition.
We have now received responses from the Scottish Recovery Network and the Samaritans. The Scottish Recovery Network tells us that it has a strong track record of promoting and supporting the development of peer support in communities. The work includes the Peer2Peer training resource, which was mentioned in the Scottish Government’s initial response to the petition. The response goes on to say that, although the Scottish Recovery Network has some awareness of TRIM and STRAW, and the private sector psychology consultancy company that delivers them, the network has no experience of the models or products in practice.
The submission from the Samaritans highlights the value of peer support and the need to ensure that people have access to that support when they need it, which it indicates could be achieved through sustainable investment in talking therapies and wider third-sector community support.
Before I ask for comments, it is worth mentioning that the TRIM and STRAW packages that are referred to in the petition appear to be commercial products, so whatever action the committee takes should focus on the general merits of the petition rather than on those commercial products in particular, as it is not our practice to promote such products.
Are there any comments from colleagues?
Once again, I think that the petition has probably gone as far as we can take it in the process. It would be appropriate to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Recovery Network is continuing to develop a peer support training resource, Peer2Peer, about which we have had information from the Scottish Government and others, and it can be adapted to support the needs of different organisations. Given that, I propose that we close the petition.
We thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us, but we have taken it as far as we can. Do members agree to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Brownfield Sites (Remediation and Reuse) (PE1943)
PE1943, which was lodged by Victoria Mungall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use while also discouraging developments on greenfield land. When we last considered the petition, on 26 October, we agreed to wait until the national planning framework 4 was finalised. We also agreed to write to a number of organisations seeking their views.
Members will be aware that NPF4 has now been finalised and was approved by Parliament on 11 January. We have also received responses from Clyde Gateway, the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. I also note that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities declined to provide a formal response to the petition on this occasion.
The responses that we have received detail some of the challenges of developing long-term vacant and derelict sites, such as fragmented land ownership and ground conditions, while highlighting the funding streams that are available to support the redevelopment and regeneration of those sites. In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute highlighted the work of the Scottish Land Commission on the matter and the recommendations to review and evaluate funding streams to ensure that they incorporate criteria that will help direct investment to parts of the country that need it most.
On that basis, do members have any suggestions?
National planning framework 4 has been published. Funding streams are available, such as the vacant and derelict land investment programme and the regeneration capital grant fund, which provide, in principle, what the petitioners are looking for, namely a means to incentivise the restoration of brownfield sites as opposed to always going for new greenfield sites. When we considered the petition previously, Paul Sweeney said:
“the renovation and retrofitting of existing buildings is subject to 20 per cent VAT, but demolition and new builds are zero rated, so a handicap is imposed on what should be the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 26 October 2022; c 35.]
That is a fair point, but it is not really within the power of the Scottish Parliament to deal with the VAT on that, as I understand it.
No, it is not.
Mr Torrance suggested that we wait until NPF4 was finalised. Given that it has now been finalised and that there are funding vehicles, we have perhaps taken the petition as far as we can. If it subsequently emerges that the petitioner feels that those funds are insufficient, she could raise the matter again. I am not sure, however, that we can go any further with the petition, given the inquiries that we have made and the evidence that we have received.
That is a sympathetic and comprehensive response. Are colleagues agreed that we will write to the petitioner, confirming the information that we have received and the fact that NPF4 has been published, and that we will close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
Engine Idling Ban (Enforcement) (PE1944)
PE1944, which was lodged by Alan Ross, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enforce the engine idling ban and to take action to introduce instant £80 fines for offences, reclassify idling as a high traffic offence, legally oblige local authorities to enforce the engine idling ban, create contact points for public reporting, and increase anti-idling signage in public spaces.
At our last consideration of this petition, the committee agreed to write to COSLA, the RAC Foundation and Professor Adrian Davis of Edinburgh Napier University to seek their views on the petition. Professor Davis’s response states that citywide or nationwide banning of idling, combined with fear of fines and environmental awareness, appears to be the most effective method of reducing engine idling. In its response to the committee, COSLA stated that many local authorities simply do not have the additional resources or staff capacity that would be required to enforce the engine idling ban on a statutory basis consistent with the comprehensive scheme of suggestions proposed by Alan Ross.
In light of the responses that we have received from Professor Davis and COSLA, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?
Once again, I think that this petition has probably come to its conclusion and that we need to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders. As you have identified, the feedback from local authorities to the Scottish Government suggests that the vast majority of idling drivers switch off their engines when requested to do so. The SPICe briefing indicated that fixed penalty notices are rarely issued. The Scottish Government has stated that it considers the current approach to enforcement to be fit for purpose and appropriate.
As you indicated, convener, COSLA said that local authorities do not have the resources to manage a statutory duty to enforce the engine idling ban and that, because of the additional resources and staff capacity that would be required, local authorities would not be able to manage that process.
For all those reasons, rule 15.7 of standing orders should come into effect and the petition should be closed.
Colleagues, are we content with Mr Stewart’s suggestion in relation to this petition?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner but we now draw that petition to a close.
Next
New Petitions