Official Report 816KB pdf
Rape Charges and Convictions (Record of Sex) (PE1876)
Welcome back. The next petition on our agenda, under continued petitions, is PE1876, which was lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape.
The Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee has considered the above petition throughout the current parliamentary session. It is one of our longest-running petitions this session—it was lodged back in 2021—and the committee has been pursuing extensive work on it since then. We have a large volume of petitions, and our practice is to do a considerable amount of work on every admissible petition by securing a research briefing, a Government response and committee consideration for each one.
We also try to progress the ask in petitions on behalf of petitioners as far as we are able to do so. We are not the Government; we are a committee of the Parliament. To ensure fairness for all our petitions and petitioners, we consider them in turn, which sometimes means that there can be a wait after a petition is considered before it can be rescheduled.
At its meeting on 30 October 2024, the committee agreed that it would be appropriate to invite the chief constable to give evidence at a future meeting. The committee does not hear evidence on every petition. In fact, it takes evidence on relatively few of the petitions that come before it. As a result, we want to make sure that we get the most out of any sessions at which we hear from witnesses.
After issuing our invitation to Police Scotland, we were advised that there was a full review of the policy on recording sex and gender that was due to conclude this autumn. To make sure that we could use this valuable opportunity to hear from the chief constable as effectively as possible, the committee agreed to wait until autumn 2025 to take evidence.
I am pleased to say that we are joined today by Chief Constable Jo Farrell, and by Deputy Chief Constable Alan Speirs, who has responsibility for professionalism and enabling services. I warmly welcome you both. I understand that the chief constable would like to make a brief opening statement before we move to questions from the committee.
Police Scotland supports the petition. A man who rapes or attempts to rape a woman, girl or other victim is, should be and will be recorded by Police Scotland as a male.
Gender self-identification is a complex area of public policy and practice, as illustrated by the work of the committee. The debate has evolved over a number of years, but let me be clear that my priority is to protect victims. Statistics and data accuracy matter, and we will always engage in a way that aligns with our values.
The petitioners outline that, in 2019, Police Scotland established a position on these matters. Our 2019 position stated that Police Scotland recorded the biological sex or gender identity of an individual based on self-declaration unless, first, the sex or gender of a person was relevant to an investigation, as would be the case in sexual violence crimes, including rape and attempted rape, or, secondly, further inquiry was necessary on the basis of risk.
In December 2021, the issue was discussed during evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee on the prosecution of violence against women and girls. At that time, Police Scotland stated that there had never been a case of a male who committed rape and self-identified as a female being recorded on the police crime system as a female, and that remains the case.
On reflection, and having observed the intense public debate around gender identification and the—at times—mixed messages from Police Scotland in freedom of information responses and correspondence to this committee, for example, I want to provide further clarity and direction in this area. It is important for victims to hear from me as chief constable that there is no doubt in our practice. A man who commits a rape will be recorded as a male.
I have also put myself in the shoes of our custody sergeants and considered the support that they need to do their job. In September 2024, during a public update at a meeting of the Scottish Police Authority board, I made a clear statement and direction that a man who commits rape or serious sexual assault will be recorded by Police Scotland as a male. That meeting was live streamed by the authority and we published the statement on the matter on our website, alongside a series of internal communications for officers and staff.
At my direction, Police Scotland commenced a review to consider the terminology and recording practices that we use to collect and record sex and gender data, and to recommend improvements. That work is under the direction of Assistant Chief Constable Catriona Paton and is supported by an expert human rights adviser. It includes extensive engagement with a broad range of internal and external stakeholders. Our review takes account of the UK Government-commissioned independent review of data, statistics and research on sex and gender by Professor Alice Sullivan, which was published in March 2025 and which makes it clear that public bodies need reliable and consistent data that is based on biological sex to inform policy and practice. Our review also takes account of the Supreme Court decision on the definitions of the terms “sex”, “man”, “woman”, “male” and “female” in the Equality Act 2010, which was handed down in April this year.
The broad work of our review is at an advanced stage and continues at pace. We are implementing guidance as it is developed, and we have communicated updates in that regard. In mid-October, as a result of that work, Police Scotland took the decision that we will record a person’s biological sex and, where relevant, their transgender status for suspects and victims of all crimes and offences, in accordance with our equality and human rights obligations. We are moving to implement that at pace across our data recording systems.
The review will continue to be responsive to and informed by developments in law and statutory guidance, human rights advice and on-going engagement. We will continue to take action on specific areas, and we expect to provide a further substantial update through the Scottish Police Authority early next year, including on progress on updating systems.
Let me close by underlining that my priority is to protect the safety, wellbeing, rights and dignity of victims, witnesses and the accused, and of my officers and staff. Thank you.
That was very helpful. I am sure that it will help inform colleagues as we proceed.
We have been joined by our parliamentary colleagues Tess White, Ruth Maguire and Rachael Hamilton. After the committee has asked questions, time permitting, I hope to invite them to ask questions that they might feel have not been properly addressed.
Chief constable, I listened to all of your statement with interest and care, and I am grateful for it, but was there an underlying admission in there that Police Scotland got something wrong? If so, why?
As I outlined in my opening statement, I felt that greater clarity needed to be brought to our position on recording in relation to rape and sexual offences, and that is what I did in relation to my announcement and my communication in September 2024 at the Scottish Police Authority board. I put myself in the shoes of the people who were making those decisions, and then further developed the work in relation to the review that I have talked about and which you referenced.
How did that lack of clarity come about, and how did the situation evolve to the point where you felt that further work was needed to clarify it?
Our 2019 statement, which I outlined in my opening statement, talks about allowing people the opportunity to self-identify. I felt at that point that there was the potential that people who are very interested in and who scrutinise this area of policy and practice would disregard the second part of the statement, which said that we would record based on biological sex if it is relevant to the offence. In the autumn of 2024, I wanted to make the position in relation to rape and sexual offences absolutely clear, that being part of the petition.
Did Police Scotland act without giving due thought at the time to disquiet that might be a consequence of the statement that came out in 2019? What was the motivation at that point?
I would be commenting on the situation across Scotland before my tenure as the chief constable. In my opening statement, I highlighted that this area of public policy and practice is complex, and that there are very strong opposing views.
Good morning. Do you think that police officers feel confident in how they record the sex of suspects in rape and attempted rape cases? What guidance have they been given to help them?
10:45
I am confident that they are confident. The reason I say that is that, if we look at our data in relation to the recording of men accused of rape and sexual offences, we see that there have been 16,258 offences recorded on our crime system since 2018, and every one of those has been recorded accurately. There is a biological man who has committed, or is suspected to have committed, the offence, and that is how they have been recorded. I am confident because the data is evidence that our staff are able to make those judgments, and that they make the correct judgment and record accurately.
In so far as officers are confident in how they proceed, is it now the case that the same criteria are applied in relation to the policy for all sexual offences and that there is no distinction in that regard?
Sorry—
In terms of the specification of gender, is there now a consistent policy for all sexual crimes?
I talked about rape and sexual offences, which is a broad category. I do not know whether you want me to talk now about the further work that we have done and some of our further policy decisions.
I think that that would be helpful. I will then bring in Fergus Ewing.
DCC Speirs has led the review work, so I ask him to take the committee through the scope of that work and the decisions that we have made. That will provide you with the answer with regard to our further steps in this area.
I will start at the end of your question, convener. I think that the decision that we made in October this year is significant: in every instance where we are recording a crime or an offence, we will record the biological sex of the person coming into custody. In order to ensure that that progresses at pace, we will implement changes to the key systems on which we will record that data. That brings a further degree of absolute clarity and goes much further in removing ambiguity.
When we commenced the review work, we identified four critical areas that we wanted to look at: terminology, data recording, legal compliance and—this was the acid test for the work that we were trying to do—the operational effectiveness of the policies that we put in place. It has been helpful that we have been able to look at the work of Professor Alice Sullivan and the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment. We also recognise that there are other pieces of work still on-going, so you will see from our systems that, right now, we define all our guidance as interim as we await final clarity on some of that on-going work.
Through the review work, we have looked at terminology. Most recently, we have taken a position around data recording. We have addressed search, in terms of both search on the street and search in custody. We have looked at the whole position on safe spaces. The work of the oversight group has, in our view, been thorough. It has not quite reached completion yet, but we are working towards that.
An important aspect is that we have encouraged stakeholder engagement. We recognise that there is a polarising context and that there are varying views, and we have worked hard to draw in views from others in relation to our work. In the early part of 2026, as the chief constable indicated, we will take a final report to the Scottish Police Authority as well as an update on the implementation of the changes that we will make to our recording systems.
Good morning. My understanding now, from listening to the deputy chief constable, is that the position of the police fundamentally changed as of October this year. Unlike the position beforehand, which was based on the 2019 policy, the biological sex of every potential offender will be recorded. Is that right?
Yes—that will be recorded on our systems. We have a system designed that allows us to be really clear in the data that we record.
As well as the biological sex of the potential offender, will there be recording of any self-declared gender if it is different from the biological sex? In other words, if a biological man says, “I identify as a female”, would that also be recorded?
We will look to record it. In our experience, there has been a lot of conflation of sex and gender identity. We want to be really clear, and the research that we have seen from Professor Sullivan, and the Supreme Court judgment, bring clarity on the accuracy of what we would want to record. However, we have also articulated that it is incredibly important, when somebody comes into custody, that we treat them with the dignity and respect that they would look for.
The first critical point for us is how we record biological sex. There might, in the future, be instances where a person’s gender identity differs from their biological sex.
I appreciate the point about treating people with dignity, and I appreciate that it is a very sensitive topic and there are people with different views. However, I want to probe a wee bit further and take us through the consequences of the new policy. If a biological man is recorded as a biological man but declares to be a woman, how would that person be treated as the person goes through the criminal justice system? Would that person be treated as a man or as a woman when it comes to prosecution and—assuming that prosecution leads to a guilty finding—the sentence?
I will pick that up. Our priorities relate to supporting victims; prosecuting offenders and making sure that those people are brought to justice; and ensuring that, by recording accurately biological sex, our crime data is accurate and we are able to use that information and data across policing and broader public policy.
On the point about dignity and respect, the person would be recorded as a man—as a biological man—and they would be recorded on the system as a man. With regard to the treatment of that person while in our care and custody, we would seek to engage with them in the identity that they want to be known as.
On your further question about going through the justice system, I do not think that it is for me, as the chief constable, to comment on how other agencies beyond policing will deal with these issues. What I would say, in relation to the broader justice system and my colleagues south of the border, is that, in my view, Police Scotland is ahead—through the work that we have done, the reviews that we have undertaken and the decisions that we have made—in how we have implemented the decisions around the Supreme Court judgment.
I appreciate that you, as chief constable, are not responsible for decisions that are for the Scottish Prison Service to make. The SPS has a process that it says is used to assess whether a biological male self-identifying as a female is housed in a male or a female prison, and in what circumstances, such as confinement, segregation from others and so on. I appreciate that you are not responsible for that. However, I want to put to you a point that the petitioners have made. They are looking to the Scottish Government, and to your good self, for leadership on this.
What I am driving at is that, if you record the biological sex of a potential offender but treat that person as the gender that they wish to be recognised as—we will just stick with the example of a biological male self-identifying as female—does that not open a gateway whereby it facilitates the Scottish Prison Service to conclude that it is safe for a biological male to be placed in female prisons? Are you not inadvertently and unwittingly facilitating that outcome by not only recording a person’s biological sex but treating them according to their self-identified gender?
I am talking about males, principally, but you see my point. Although it is not your decision in which prison—male or female—people are put, if you treat a man as a woman, it is no real surprise if that man ends up in a female prison. I am not at all alluding to any on-going court action; I am purely talking about the principle so that we do not get into any sub judice or prejudice territory. As chief constable, do you need to go further in providing leadership to set out that biological males should not, in fact, be housed in women’s prisons?
My first point is that such a scenario has never occurred in the 16,300 crimes that have happened since 2018. That is not to say that it would not happen, but we and I have made concrete progress and decisions based on the ruling and decisions that were made by the Supreme Court. I have also considered our obligations on human rights, dignity and respect. I have described our process and how people would be recorded. I cannot be drawn on what the Scottish Prison Service chooses to do on that. I am responsible for this organisation and I operate within the law, and we have made strong progress.
Do you agree with the general proposition and principle that biological males should not be imprisoned in women’s prisons?
That is a policy position for the Scottish Prison Service.
Just so that I am clear, at ground level, what has changed is that the biological sex will now be recorded but, in essence, the treatment of the individuals will be exactly the same. Is that where we are currently?
We will record the biological sex in relation to rape and sexual offences, as we have done since 2018 for 16,000-plus crimes. Last month, we took the decision to expand that approach to all crimes.
Is that happening as we speak?
Following the Supreme Court decision, we have done a detailed piece of work to examine how many digital systems we have across policing—we have a lot of them, as you can imagine. Over the years, the terms “male”, “female”, “gender” and “sex” have been conflated and confused, so we have worked through the detail of how those identifiers are described in the systems. Now, we will progress with the work to ensure that they are compliant and that we record biological sex. An additional element is included so that somebody can tell us if they want to identify as a transgender identity.
That is helpful clarity. I wondered why the work was taking so long, but I appreciate that it might have been because of the different historical information technology systems at Police Scotland. How is the recording of any identified gender delimited on the new system? Is the person literally just recorded as a trans person or are there different ways in which the person might identify?
11:00
At the moment, our proposal is to have biological male, biological female and a trans identity. On your point about IT systems, we have identified nine priority systems, which is where we will start. Those include custody systems, our criminal justice case system, our intelligence system and our crime recording system.
Thank you.
I am bearing in mind that the petition has been going on since 2021. You made a clear and concise statement at the start of the evidence session. Are you happy with the length of time that it has taken for you to be in the position that you are in now? It seems a rather long time.
I will reinforce the point that I made about the concrete steps that we have taken. When I took over this role, I identified that we needed further clarity, always putting myself in the shoes of the people who are doing the job on the front line. I have brought that clarity. In addition, we have now worked in areas that relate to technology to ensure that they are compliant with the law, and we have worked in other areas where the Supreme Court judgment needs to be reflected in the way in which we go about our business.
Are there further areas that you will develop and progress as a result of the Supreme Court judgment, or are you almost there?
We have been working on other areas, which the deputy chief constable will describe to you.
Part of the challenge since 2019 has been that we have tried to operate within the available law and policy. It has been incredibly helpful that we can now anchor our position in the commentary of Professor Sullivan. We can look at the Supreme Court judgment and we will closely watch where the human rights commission arrives at in relation to a code of practice. We reflect on the fact that, if policy and law move, we will seek to develop our position.
Data recording is one element of the issue; safe spaces become another element. The position regarding stop and search on the street and then search in custody is vitally important to us. We have been clear and unequivocal about the policy that we put in place, the guidance that we have given to officers and the level that we went to in order to clearly communicate our position as it relates to stop and search. More recently, we have communicated our positions on facilities, safe spaces and single-sex spaces in offices.
As the chief constable has indicated, we are way ahead of other police forces across the United Kingdom. We are well connected with other forces through the National Police Chiefs Council, which is the forum for all UK policing. In some spaces, we have had to be bold and pave the way. On reflection, it is taking time, but we have anchor points, such as the Supreme Court judgment, which have allowed us to push on with a degree of pace.
I have one final question. What are the feelings of or feedback from your officers on the front line?
Officers recognise that it is a polarising context. We face that context operationally every day in how we police our business. The feedback and sense that I get from officers is that we have provided clarity. There is absolute clarity about data recording and expectations regarding stop and search. There have been instances when officers have not always been sure-footed and confident, but our stop and search policy and the guidance that we have given to officers are crystal clear—that is the feedback that we get. We will draw other feedback from officers as it filters in through our staff surveys. In the past two years, we have reached a point at which we survey our staff every year. We listen to the feedback and, if I get the sense that there are gaps or elements that need greater clarity, we will try to deal with that.
I will pursue the point that my colleague Davy Russell raised about the internal organisation of the police. I have no detailed knowledge of this but I understand from the website that, within the police, there is the Scottish Women’s Development Forum and the Scottish LGBTI Police Association. That is fair enough. However, I have been advised that, also within the police, there is an organisation called Police SEEN—sex equality and equity network—UK, representing those who describe themselves as “sex realists”, but attempts to have the organisation recognised by Police Scotland have not been agreed to. Is that correct? Will you talk me through that?
I get the sense that the ethos of the police is to be as supportive as possible, to recognise different views and not to get involved in some of the stuff that we have seen about public bodies disciplining people because they are deemed to hold unacceptable views, which has led to a tremendous outcry in the public, and rightly so. I am looking for some assurance that Police Scotland is understanding of, sympathetic to and supportive of those officers who have particular views, including those who feel, as I and many others do, that biological males should not be housed in women’s prisons and who take a sex realist point of view, while recognising, as the deputy chief constable said, the need to be sensitive and fair and to treat other people as you wish to be treated yourself.
I will start in answer to your question and the chief constable might want to add something. We have recognised the importance of engagement not only inside the organisation but with stakeholders outside it. We have a range of diversity staff associations across Police Scotland and we have tried to draw those groups together, particularly in the past couple of years.
We now have a collaboration group that is chaired at executive level and which brings together all our diversity staff associations on a structured and regular basis. That is separate from the regular day-to-day engagement that we have with single diversity staff associations as well as our statutory staff associations.
There has been a little bit of correspondence in the past couple of years about the notion of a SEEN, but it has not, in my view, been pursued hugely in Scotland. However, we see the capability of the Scottish Women’s Development Forum as a platform to build on.
First and foremost, we are listening to our officers and staff, and to the range of diversity staff associations, and considerable work has been done in that regard. In no way would we look to muffle the voice of any of our organisations, but we recognise that we have an extensive range of associations and platforms in which views can be expressed.
The DCC spoke briefly about our staff survey, which is one of the ways in which we take feedback from across the organisation. I made a commitment that we would do that annually, so that we can ensure that we have made positive progress across a number of areas of business. The second survey will report to the Police Authority in the next few months.
There are a number of different avenues that our workforce of 22,000 people can take to provide views of how they feel about the organisation and the leadership of the organisation.
That will be communicated to staff after the final report, which will follow the September 2024 review and the June 2025 interim update, which I understand was provided. When will that final report be made public?
Are you referring to the staff survey?
Yes.
That will be reported to the Police Authority at the end of this calendar year or early next year.
When will the other report be published? That is the general review, so I am told.
Our intention would be to take that to the public Police Authority board meeting early next year—probably around February. As an organisation, we have not been silent for the past year and a half. We have been continually feeding in and communicating with our staff. We have issued three or four different pieces of guidance and made policy decisions, so the progress that we are making is being seen inside the organisation. As we intimated earlier, we will publish the report in early 2026.
Will it be available to members of the public around February 2026?
Yes, it will be presented at the public part of the Police Authority board, I would suspect.
We have described some of that work as “interim”, but I want to ensure that the committee is clear that we describe it as such because we are waiting on other bodies to report. That is not in any way about delaying—
Which other bodies, chief constable?
The human rights commission is due to publish its code of practice. I just wanted to clarify that point.
Is that the only body that you are waiting for?
There is also the code on stop and search.
Exercising my discretion as convener, I now invite our three parliamentary colleagues to join the questioning. Tess White is first.
Good morning. I have four questions and I am conscious of the time. First, I want to check something that you said in your opening remarks to the committee, chief constable. You said that there is no case of a male being recorded as a biological female. You said that that remains the case. As far as you are aware, according to your records, in Police Scotland, there is not a single case of a man being recorded as a biological female.
That has been the case since 2018.
What happens if you are informed that that is not the case on the ground? What is the process? Do people raise it as a whistleblowing issue? Can people come to you directly if it is happening in their force?
We have crime registrars in the organisation, whose role is about the integrity and accuracy of our data recording. Therefore, of course, if there was a sense that there was an element of inaccurate recording, we would look at the specific case and address it.
Would you personally look at that? If it is going on right now and you are not aware of it—if it is a practice that has happened—people can come directly to you. Chief constable, you look confused. I am just saying that you are not aware of it. I will leave that with you. My second question—
To answer that question, on broader issues—on all issues—some people will go through their first and second line managers; other people will email me directly. If we are talking about a specific case—
Yes. They can directly email you.
People directly email.
Thank you very much. Police Scotland previously said that it had introduced the policy—the previous policy, before today—in preparation for gender recognition reform, which, as we know, failed. Was that an appropriate position for the police service to take—to pre-emptively align itself with the Government, rather than waiting for the bill to be passed or not passed?
You are asking me to comment on decisions that precede my time in the role, so I would be commenting on behalf of others, which is not the correct position for me to take.
Under your leadership, it did not take place, and you would not pre-emptively say, “Something is going on, so we’ll do this,” rather than waiting until the law is clear.
We would comply with the law and the 2019 position, as I said earlier. In my view, at the point at which it said “self-identification”, there was not clarity around what to do in relation to the crimes of rape and sexual offences.
11:15
My third question is around the data that has been corrupted over the past few years. What will you do to backtrack and ensure that data is correctly recorded? What will happen?
First, as we have said a couple of times today, as things stand, we can find no inaccuracy in a recording of biological sex as it relates to the serious crimes of rape and attempted rape. We will look specifically at our data standards and our policies, and, where appropriate, if there are any instances that need to be adjusted, we will absolutely adjust them.
You can be assured that we are in agreement on the importance of accurate data recording. Professor Sullivan addressed that in her research work. We are really committed to ensuring that data recording within policing is accurate.
If people come directly to you, Deputy Chief Constable Speirs, can you guarantee that you will protect the source and not go back and say, “What’s going on?” I see that you are looking at me, Chief Constable Farrell. I just want to protect the people who will come to you and say, “This is happening in my force; please will you address it?” If you say yes, that is good enough for me and the committee.
I am the gatekeeper of the professionalism portfolio. Values are really important to us as an organisation. Set against our values of integrity, fairness and respect, you can be absolutely assured that we have the best interests of anyone who comes to speak to us in mind.
My final question follows on from a question that my colleague Mr Ewing asked in relation to Police SEEN UK. I have its badge on today as I told my constituents that I would wear it for them. A number of serving police officers feel uncomfortable with the topic that we are discussing today. Everybody’s wellbeing and inclusion is important.
I met Police Scotland’s head of human resources at our Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and I got pushback about Police SEEN. It seems that the police support the groups that support self-ID but do not support the staff networks that support biological reality. I have been a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for 30-plus years. This matters—staff networks matter—so will you, either Chief Constable Farrell or Deputy Chief Constable Speirs, meet Police SEEN in the next few months to hear its feedback directly?
Absolutely. That is really important to us. I said earlier that there had been a bit of correspondence some time ago. I would like to think that, as senior leaders in policing, we listen. We will be content to engage with officers or staff in the organisation and consider how best to take the matter forward.
Thank you. Your head of HR has a different view, so I would be grateful if I could leave that with you.
Good morning. I have some questions around communication. First, I welcome the clarity of your statement this morning and the acknowledgement that, previously, mixed messages were coming out of Police Scotland. In relation to communication to officers, many of whom will of course be impacted by crime as well as policing crime, can you give more detail on the date when the change in policy was communicated and how that was formed, please?
I have made a number of policy decisions. Are you talking about the decision going back to 24 September?
I suppose so, yes—the main one. However, it might be helpful for the committee to hear whether the change was communicated in different ways and about the different pieces of policy that have changed.
I refer back to the position that the chief constable took at the Police Authority board meeting on 26 September. That decision was made by the executive team in advance of that board meeting.
A number of arrangements are in place for how we communicate that. As an organisation, we still use memos, but we recognise that, in a large organisation that spans a third of the UK, we have to be more engaging. We would host shift briefings and hold extended leaders forums. We have an intranet, which is accessible to every employee in the organisation. There are a number of ways in which we can communicate clearly, and we are drawing on feedback from those. Those are the vehicles that we routinely use for any policy or other communication across the organisation. In our corporate communication structure, there is an entire team dedicated to internal communications.
In terms of feedback, you spoke about an annual staff survey. What questions will be in the next staff survey to ensure that officers understand and are comfortable with the clear policy that you have laid out?
The survey has a number of elements and themes. One theme is about whether people have the right direction and understand the purpose. There will not be a specific question on that point because, in order to use the survey to demonstrate progress, we need to ask the same questions on each occasion, so that we can test and measure ourselves. There are questions like, “Do you know the direction of the organisation?”, “Do you understand what your objectives are?” and “Do you have the right equipment?” There is a range of questions, but there will not be a specific question on the point that we are discussing.
I appreciate that point in relation to getting meaningful data from a survey. How will you know that officers are clear, following the mixed messages that there have been?
I come back to the 16,000-plus records of biological men committing rape. The deputy chief constable described how we have now looked across all the data systems and the work that we need to do to be really clear about biological sex and not interchanging those words with gender. We will have to do a further, strong piece of communication so that people within the organisation understand the importance of that.
A couple of days ago, we discussed the fact that technology has moved on and everybody will be familiar with the point at which you put an entry into a digital system. That can have a check and balance built into it. We will use the technology as much as we can to ensure that we can be reassured about its accuracy.
I have a question on something that I would like clarity about. After the chief constable’s initial statement in 2024, why did it take so long for a directive to be initiated and the policy to be implemented? Why was there that great long gap between then and now?
I do not think that there has been a long gap. I brought clarity in September last year and shortly after that we began the work to ensure that our systems were accurate and compliant. We have used the publication of Professor Sullivan’s report and the decision by the Supreme Court to inform us further.
What happens next? We are talking about the review and further evidence or advice being gathered. In answer to an earlier question, did you say that the human rights commission—
At some point, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is going to issue its code.
Is that organisation part of the oversight group, as you described it earlier?
No, it is one of the bodies whose position we would take into account, in the same way that we have taken the legislation into account .
You said a number of times that Police Scotland has taken into account the report from Professor Alice Sullivan plus the Supreme Court decision. Is that not enough? Why do you have to wait for more bodies to give you advice?
We are not waiting; we are progressing the work. However, we have done so knowing that we are waiting on two codes of practice, one in relation to stop and search and a broader one, but we have decided to use the term “interim”. When we get those codes, we can finalise the work, but in no way is that stopping the development of the work or the progress on compliance with the legislation.
So, members and the public can be confident that—despite the delay in the implementation since the original statement was made in 2024—this is happening right across the board, right now?
My opinion differs from yours that there has been a delay. I repeat that, as a public body in Scotland, and as a police service across the United Kingdom, we have made rapid and concrete strides to ensure that we are legally compliant and we have taken the right action to ensure that people are confident, not only about the way in which we treat people, but that we are recording data accurately to make good policy decisions moving forward.
Does the guidance that was talked about earlier relate to the two codes of conduct that will be published? Is the guidance subject to scrutiny by the oversight group and, if so, who belongs to the oversight group?
We have issued a number of pieces of guidance on policy decisions that we are making, so I am unclear which one you are pointing to, but I will use guidance on stop and search as an illustration. In recent years, Police Scotland has operated under Scottish Government guidance on stop and search in the street. However, because of all that has developed in the Supreme Court on stop and search, we have made a policy decision and issued internal guidance to our officers on that.
The Government’s guidance sits over the top of that, and we need it to catch up, but we felt that it was right and proper that we drive forward with guidance on stop and search, because it is an operational imperative and it is an imperative when individuals come into custody. That is one illustration that shows that we are bold in pushing on and doing what we believe to be the right thing in circumstances such as that.
We have taken a similar approach to our estate and the use of our facilities. We are consistent on the use of the estate, how we would adapt stop and search and how we would record in the circumstances that we have discussed this morning.
Will Police Scotland look retrospectively at all the data that was collected on the crime history system prior to 2018—I think that one of you gave that date—to ensure that all victims of rape and crime feel safe?
Yes. We have indicated that we have a number of systems. We have data recording and weeding standards, and a number of different systems are impacted. First and foremost, is the crime system, then there is the custody system and then there is the criminal history system. We have been very clear this morning about our confidence in accurate data recording as it relates to rape and attempted rape. However, you can be assured that, given that we have intimated how important the accuracy of data recording is, if there is any sense that we need to retrospectively revisit any systems, we will absolutely do that.
As the chief constable and the deputy chief constable have indicated that they do not have anything further to add, I thank them both very much for their attendance this morning.
Members, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning at a later date?
Members indicated agreement.
11:30 Meeting suspended.Fatal Accident Inquiries (Deaths Abroad) (PE2085)
Welcome back. I highlight to those who are joining us this morning or watching online that—as I said some moments ago, before we heard evidence in relation to the previous petition—Parliament will dissolve in April next year. The final sitting will be in March, and the committee still has a huge number of open petitions before it. Our focus, therefore, is now on trying to identify the areas where we feel we can make progress in the time remaining. Any judgments that we come to about whether we feel that we can keep a petition open are a reflection not of the importance of the subject but of the committee’s ability to make progress in the limited time remaining.
To accommodate colleagues’ diaries, I intend to upset the order of the continued petitions and move to PE2085, which is on introducing a statutory definition of residency for fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of Scots abroad. I understand that the petitioner, David Cornock, is with us today in the public gallery. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 2 April, and we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs.
We are joined by MSP colleagues Michael Marra and Tess White. Michael Marra has spoken to us in relation to the petition on a number of occasions. Good morning to you both.
I have quite a bit to say in relation to the petition. I hope that colleagues will bear with me.
The committee is aware that the system of coroners’ inquests that is used in England and Wales is significantly different from the Scottish system of death investigations. Coroners’ inquests mainly determine how, where and when someone died; they rarely make wider recommendations in relation to the circumstances of the death. In Scotland, fatal accident inquiries aim to establish what happened and to prevent future deaths from happening in similar circumstances. In addition to determining whether someone was ordinarily resident, the Lord Advocate must consider, first, that the death was sudden, suspicious, unexplained or gives rise to serious public concern; secondly, that the circumstances of the death have not been sufficiently established in the course of other investigations, such as by the country in which the death occurred; thirdly, that there is a real prospect that a fatal accident inquiry could sufficiently establish the circumstances of the death—for example, if evidence about the circumstances of the death is available; and, finally, that it is in the public interest to hold a fatal accident inquiry.
There were 43 fatal accident inquiries carried out in Scotland between April 2022 and March 2023. The cabinet secretary’s response states that it has always been anticipated that inquiries under the legislation into deaths abroad will be rare. The response states:
“an investigation into a death abroad faces formidable hurdles without the cooperation of the domestic authorities. Neither Police Scotland nor the Lord Advocate has jurisdiction to conduct investigations overseas”.
The cabinet secretary points out that those challenges are also faced in England and Wales. On that basis, the cabinet secretary has stated, there is
“no intention to change the current system in Scotland.”
On the substantive matter of defining the term “ordinarily resident”, the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government have all previously advised that they consider the definition of “ordinarily resident” to be widely recognised and accepted in common law. The leading case on the matter put the question:
“has the applicant shown that he has habitually and normally resided in the United Kingdom from choice and for a settled purpose throughout the prescribed period, apart from temporary or occasional absences?”
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs reiterated in her most recent written submission:
“The term ‘ordinarily resident’ that is contained within the legislation is viewed as sufficiently flexible and workable by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service”.
She went on to say that the definition
“is sufficient to allow the Lord Advocate to conduct an assessment into ordinary residence depending on the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”
The petitioner has provided two written submissions to the committee. He states that,
“With an estimated 1000 deaths of Scots overseas”
since the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed, he does
“not believe that anyone can justify the effectiveness of the current system.”
He reiterates his view
“that the current process does not work and that the ordinarily resident test is not applied correctly”.
The petitioner’s second submission highlights a recent round-table meeting attended by a number of representatives, including members of Parliament, MSPs, Police Scotland, Victim Support and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The submission includes a contribution from the director of instrumentation and control at Chart Industries, who highlights that employees can undertake assignments for a number of years. He states:
“Given the ... length of these postings, it is essential to have a clear and practical definition of ‘ordinarily resident.’”
Similarly, a written submission from Graham Duncan notes that he is unclear as to whether his colleagues in the oil and gas industry who
“work abroad for months at a time”
would be considered to be ordinarily resident.
Another individual, Julie Love, has provided a written submission in support of the petition, as she had a similar petition considered back in 2009. She shares her view that there does not appear to be a safeguard for families with loved ones abroad.
Finally, Dave Doogan MP has provided a written submission, and I understand that he has been supporting the petitioner with his campaigning work. Dave Doogan MP believes that there is an efficacy gap between the 2016 act as introduced and the impact on bereaved families who have lost loved ones abroad.
Before I invite suggestions from colleagues, I invite our parliamentary colleagues who have joined us to add anything that they wish the committee to consider.
I thank the committee for its continued interest in the petition, particularly given the workload that the convener has outlined. You covered a lot of ground in your lengthy introduction, convener, including some of the things that I was going to say, given the lack of progress that has been made since we last met and considered the petition, back in April.
We had the round table in Parliament, and the clearest outcome of that was the emerging cross-party consensus, which is represented in the letter that we copied to the convener and the committee members, that the law is not working.
I note the response from the cabinet secretary to the committee. The word used regarding this kind of inquiry is “rare”, but such inquiries have been non-existent since the legislation was passed—there has not been a single one. It would test the credibility of the definition to say that, of the approximately 1,000 deaths of Scots abroad, none would be able to meet that test.
I also recognise the description of the difference between the systems in England and Wales and in Scotland, in terms of process and intent. However, we have to be clear that, although they are not directly comparable, we can see some instances where people have received some level of clarity about the circumstances in which their loved ones have passed away abroad, and some level of closure for their families. That has not been available to Scots who face those circumstances.
I think that there is a contradiction in what the cabinet secretary has written to the committee in her letter. On 10 October, the First Minister signalled a willingness to look again at the legislation. He told a journalist that he had met Mr Cornock, and he said:
“I understand entirely the concerns that he has, and would want to see those addressed.”
That was in the aftermath of the round table and the emerging cross-party consensus. There is a weight of growing evidence and concern that the law has not worked.
Another issue that was not covered in your opening, convener—and it would not be—was the 30 October communication to Dave Doogan MP from Hamish Falconer MP, who is the Minister for Middle East and North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It stated that the FCDO in the UK
“can intervene in a case should concerns be raised regarding the pace, quality and/or progress of any investigation or trial”
in that jurisdiction. It also said:
“If a family have serious concerns that their loved one died in suspicious circumstances, they should raise this with the local UK police, who can contact the foreign competent authority through policing channels.”
Having taken that advice from the FCDO, the Cornocks spoke to and were interviewed by Police Scotland on more than two occasions, and Police Scotland produced a major incident report stating that it was suspicious about the younger David Cornock’s death and the quality of the investigation. On both occasions, the processes were closed down by superiors within Police Scotland. I do not think that the system is working. It is not working on the basis of process and it is not working on the basis of the law.
In closing, I have three requests that the committee might consider. The first is that the committee might write to the cabinet secretary again, in the light of that cross-party letter, and ask her for a more considered response, particularly given the words of the First Minister, which I have put on the record today.
Given what I have just said about the police, the committee might also consider lending its weight to helping me and my constituent to secure a meeting with the chief constable. Considering the committee’s meeting this morning, you clearly have better success with that than we do. It would be useful if you were able to write in that regard.
11:45I also recognise that, in recent weeks, you have had cabinet secretaries at committee meetings to talk about a variety of petitions. If the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will be in front of you at some point as part of your work programme, might we be able to put some questions to her on this issue? If she will not be, I am sure that she would agree that it would be a good use of her time to answer some questions on it, given the growing cross-party consensus.
I greatly appreciate the committee’s forbearance, considering its workload. Deaths abroad are an incredibly serious issue that affects many families across Scotland, and the committee is doing sterling work in trying to support my constituent in that regard.
I will say one brief thing to support my colleague Mr Marra: if there is a discrepancy between England and Scotland, that needs to be addressed. I fully support what Michael Marra has said.
Fergus Ewing?
You were going to opine, convener.
Was I? I wondered whether you have any thoughts to contribute.
I started off somewhat sceptical. However, having listened to what Mr Marra said and having refreshed my memory of what has been said, I believe that it is apparent from the evidence that—as the petitioner has made clear from the outset—there have been between 200 and 400 investigations in England each year into deaths abroad, whereas, in Scotland, there have been zero investigations. I looked again at the cabinet secretary’s submission of 26 May, to see whether there was any explanation for that, and the only explanation was that, in essence, it is difficult to hold an inquiry when you do not have jurisdiction. However, that is the case for England and Wales as well, so it is not an explanation.
The petitioner wants there to be a statutory definition of residency, which may be one solution. The Law Society of Scotland says that that is not necessary. However, I wonder whether the wider problem is that the authorities in Scotland are simply averse to having such investigations altogether for practical reasons—and there are practical reasons; we recognise that.
For the people for whom this matters, it matters greatly. When someone loses a loved one abroad in circumstances that are unexplained, that will linger forever. It is a serious matter, and the cabinet secretary has not really answered the points that have been raised, so we should go back to the cabinet secretary. It is a bit like being asked to do an exam paper and saying, “Well, I don’t agree with any of the questions, but will you give me a pass mark?” It is not on.
We are here again and again, in the same situation with cabinet secretaries, Mr Marra. It is unlike Ms Minto this morning, who I thought was excellent in her responses. I am not making a blanket criticism, although it is not rare for me to criticise the current Government. However, on this occasion, the lack of a basic answer is an insult to the petitioners and to the committee. I certainly do not think that the petition should be closed—I am sorry if that is not the view of other members—but I am not sure whether we should go so far as to take evidence, because we just need some clarity.
If we are going to approach the chief constable, we should also approach the Lord Advocate, because, if I am correct, she has the final say in such matters—I could be wrong about that. I had a meeting with the Lord Advocate about the inadequacies of the FAI system in Scotland, and she was very aware, attuned and involved in trying to improve the process. I would certainly want to involve the Lord Advocate as well as the chief constable if the committee were to agree to that approach.
Bearing in mind the significant numbers that are involved—1,000 deaths is a lot of deaths, and they affect whole families, so the number is multiplied by the people who are affected—I think that we should dig a bit deeper.
We face the fact that the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service want to do nothing further. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has made it perfectly clear that the Scottish Government does not intend to do anything further. At the same time, the committee is of the view that the issues that the petition raises are more important than the dusty response that we have received implies.
As the responses that we received came before the roundtable discussion that took place, and as there appears to be wider cross-party support and understanding of the failures on the issue, I suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary to say that we would like her to consider the matter further, given that there is considerable disquiet for the reasons that Mr Marra has articulated. As Mr Ewing has said, it seems extraordinary that there have been no inquiries in Scotland when, irrespective of the system being different, the authorities in England and Wales have been able to progress inquiries in the face of the exact same challenges that any inquiry led in Scotland would face.
I am perfectly content for the committee to write to the chief constable, saying that it is an issue with which it would be helpful for Police Scotland to engage—my mother would correct me on my grammar if I got that the wrong way round. We can ask whether the Government would be prepared to meet Mr Marra and the petitioner with a view to progressing the matter. Are there any other suggestions from the committee?
We also need to write to the Lord Advocate.
Yes. Notwithstanding the wall of negativity that we have received from officialdom, with a view to penetrating that wall with further efforts, are members content to keep the petition open?
Members indicated agreement.
Concessionary Bus Travel Scheme (Asylum Seekers) (PE2028)
PE2028, lodged by Pinar Aksu on behalf of Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer on behalf of the VOICES Network, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend the current concessionary travel scheme to include all people seeking asylum in Scotland, regardless of age.
Paul Sweeney, our MSP colleague, joins us for our consideration of the petition, as he has done previously. Good morning, Paul.
The committee last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. We received a response from Transport Scotland, which states that the working group that is responsible for designing a pilot scheme to progress free bus travel for all asylum seekers has reconvened this year and was due to have its first meeting in May. It also indicates that officials are considering, and would discuss with the working group, whether it is possible to include people seeking asylum in the statutory national concessionary travel schemes in the longer term.
In August, in a response to a written question, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity said that it was
“anticipated that the pilot will commence in the Autumn.”—[Written Answers, 19 August 2025; S6W-39566.]
However, in an additional submission, the petitioners indicate that they are still waiting for the pilot to begin, and they continue to urge the Scottish Government to commit to a sustainable and long-term solution.
I recall that we raised the issue directly with Humza Yousaf, the then First Minister, at an earlier stage. The scheme was agreed and then disrupted. We were then told that the petition’s aims were once again being pursued, but although the will is supposedly there to make it happen, the matter seems to be going on for a little bit longer than we were told. Before the committee considers what further it might do, I invite Mr Sweeney to comment.
As you know, the petition has been part of a long-running campaign that began in December 2021 around the extension of free concessionary travel to people seeking asylum, who are often the most destitute members of the community, with an income of less than £50 per week. The rationale for extending the existing concessionary travel schemes to a relatively small group of the population made sense. The Government accepted that rationale but, as you have said, convener, we have been caught in the teeth of the logistics of how to best implement such a proposal.
The preferred solution is a straightforward extension of eligibility under the existing concessionary travel schemes. The Government intimated that it was piloting a project, and I believe that a pilot in Aberdeen was very successful, but that was based on the ad hoc issuing of bus passes through charitable organisations, which is not really the systemic approach that would be the ideal.
Might I just come in here? I recollect that the cabinet secretary at the time was concerned that the extension of the scheme in the way that you have identified might have had a knock-on effect on the Home Office’s subsequent consideration of the level of support that asylum seekers were receiving, and that it could have proved counterproductive if it was implemented in that way.
Yes—the Government at the time identified a risk that the rules on no recourse to public funds, which contain an explicit list of prohibited benefits, could be extended to include such a scheme if it were introduced. That comes across as being a bit of a bad-faith and vindictive thing to do. I do not think that, politically, it is a real risk now, certainly with the change in Government.
I think that it is worth exploring the matter again. The Government previously said that it would extend the scheme, and it then rescinded that commitment. It has now reinstated it, but we are still stuck on the issue of when an extension is going to be implemented through a statutory instrument. It would be helpful if the committee could press the Government further on its timetable for the statutory instrument. There is no real rationale for further delay and hindrance—let us just get on with it.
I pay tribute to Maryhill Integration Network and the VOICES network for their persistence in that regard; Doaa Abuamer and Pinar Aksu have been excellent advocates on behalf of their membership. The need for such an extension is well established, from a health perspective as much as for any other reason. I hope that we can get on with it without further delay, and I think that there is the political will to do so.
I hope that the commitment on behalf of the UK Government does not prove to be a cross that you have to bear and subsequently repent in relation to.
One hopes so.
Notwithstanding that, we have been engaging on the petition for some time, and we have raised it with the First Minister. Are colleagues content that we ask the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity for a progress update on the pilot scheme that was due to commence this autumn and see what efforts we can make to direct the thing and move it forward? I would just note that we hope that it will materialise in the lifetime of the current session of Parliament, given the duration of the petition and the acceptance from Government at various stages of the aims that it seeks to secure.
Are colleagues content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
That is what we will do. I thank Mr Sweeney for attending.
Care Homes (Local Government Funding) (PE2074)
PE2074, lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.
We last considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to COSLA and to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. The response from COSLA highlights increasing pressures on the sector and significant funding constraints on local government, which have made negotiations with the sector regarding the average cost of care particularly challenging. COSLA reiterates that
“it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their own budgets and to allocate the total financial resources available to them, including on health and social care services, on the basis of local needs and priorities.”
COSLA intends to continue to press the Scottish Government on
“the importance of urgent additional funding”
so that local authorities can
“invest in social care and social work services.”
In his response, the Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing states that the 2025-26 budget allocation to local government in Scotland saw
“one of the largest increases in funding in recent times and a real terms increase of 5.5 per cent.”
In relation to the impact of fiscal pressures, the minister indicates that the Government has been engaging with local leaders, the integration joint board chief financial officers and COSLA to gain a better understanding of the range of issues and consider how the pressures on social care can be managed. In addition, the minister points to the financial viability response group, which has developed a detailed risk register and has identified potential mitigating actions for the sector.
Do members have any comments as to how we might proceed?
In the light of the evidence that the committee has received, perhaps we might consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has indicated that a 5.5 per cent real-terms increase in funding has been provided to local authorities in the 2025-26 budget; the Scottish Government’s policy is to allow local authorities the financial freedom to operate independently and to target investment according to their assessment of local needs; and the Scottish Government is undertaking a programme of work to understand fiscal pressures and financial viability in the social care sector.
Are colleagues content, on that basis, to draw the petition to a close?
I might disassociate myself with the rationale behind that, but I certainly think that we should close the petition.
Noted.
Are colleagues content?
Members indicated agreement.
12:00Control of Dogs (Cemeteries) (PE2087)
PE2087, lodged by Paul Irvine, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pass a law making exercising a dog in a cemetery an offence punishable by an on-the-spot fine for infringement.
We last considered the petition on 19 March, when we agreed to write to all local authorities in Scotland. The committee received responses from 13 local authorities, 11 of which have cemetery management rules in place for dogs. The rules that are in place either exclude non-assistance dogs or require them to be on a leash or kept under control. A number of local authorities noted that signage is in place to explain the rules and that, in some cases, additional signage has been placed in cemeteries where dog activity has proved to be a concern.
Where the number of complaints was provided, the instances were low. However, other responses noted that non-compliance with cemetery rules does take place and that enforcement can be challenging.
Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I am grateful to the petitioner for raising the matter. It is an interesting topic, and one can certainly understand the petitioner’s strength of feeling.
However, I think that we have looked into it in a fairly thorough fashion and, in the light of the fact that we are moving towards the fag end of the current session of Parliament and therefore have no scope to do much more than we have done, I suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, for the following four reasons.
Councils have the power to make management rules under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, and 11 of the 13 of the local authorities that responded to us have in place cemetery management rules to either exclude non-assistance dogs from cemeteries or require them to be on a leash or kept under close control.
A number of local authorities raised challenges that they face in enforcing existing cemetery management rules. They also stated that a new law would need money to fund enforcement—that is a practical reality, I guess. Finally, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 require dogs to be kept under control and provide that, where a dog does its business in a public space, the person who is responsible must clear it up.
In the light of all those arguments, and with thanks to the petitioner, I propose that we close the petition.
On the basis of Mr Ewing’s recommendation, do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?
I fully agree with Mr Ewing, but it is a bit unfortunate that—as far as I can make out—the petitioner’s local authority did not respond. Perhaps the petitioner could take that up with local councillors.
And potentially with his own MSP, because that does seem a little discourteous. Are we otherwise content to close the petition?
Members indicated agreement.
ScotRail (Inter7city Routes) (PE2133)
The final continued petition for consideration today is PE2133, on which members will have received some late submissions. The petition, which was lodged by Andrew Wedge, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all cities in Scotland have a direct express rail connection to each other by expanding ScotRail’s Inter7city routes to include Scotland’s newest city, Dunfermline.
Again, we last considered the petition on 19 March. We wanted to find out whether the position of the proposal to reopen the Alloa to Dunfermline line for passenger services would be reviewed in the light of a significant housing development in the west Fife area. We also asked what consideration had been given to using existing connections to provide rail services linking Dunfermline with Glasgow and Stirling without the need to go to Edinburgh.
The response from Transport Scotland indicates that there remains a path for regional or local rail projects to come forward, subject to a strong business case and suitable funding. If sufficient future travel demand from west Fife is identified, Transport Scotland would consider that within the appropriately developed business case.
On the second point, the response explains that the railway in Fife is not yet electrified, so any direct services between Fife and Glasgow would need to run diesel trains on a mostly electrified route. That would have a negative impact on speeds and reliability. Transport Scotland suggests that the question of a direct service could be revisited once the partial electrification of the Fife route is more advanced.
Members may recall that the Scottish Government’s position on the ask of the petition is that it is reasonable, that it was given detailed consideration in recent years and that rail connectivity in Fife will be kept under review as travel patterns evolve.
Are there any suggestions for how we might proceed?
In light of evidence that the committee has received, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that proposals relevant to the petition were previously considered by ScotRail, Network Rail and Transport Scotland. They could be revisited if sufficient future travel demand is identified, or when the relevant sections of rail infrastructure are partially electrified. The Scottish Government is also keeping under review options for developing rail connectivity in Fife.
Are members content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
Previous
Emergency Cardiac CareNext
New Petitions