Chamber and committees

I am content with that approach. When closing the petition, however, could we draw the Government’s attention to the information that the petitioner provided in the supplementary submission on 13 November, to which you alluded, convener? The petitioner made a strong point that should be made to the Scottish Government specifically so that it can be considered in the consultation. People with a disability cannot go by bus for long distances because, according to the petitioner at least, there are no adequate toilet facilities on various well-known bus company vehicles, which are referred to in the petitioner’s response. The point is that they cannot access public transport because provision is based on people without a disability. Therefore, because trains do not have disabled-friendly toilets, the provision of what they ask for would enable them to travel. At the moment, they cannot travel at all.

I entirely agree that we cannot take the matter much further given that there is a consultation, so that would be a way to deal with it. It is an extremely strong point and a very obvious form of discrimination against people with a disability.

I was astonished by the replies, quite frankly. The starting point for us in our work is to look at what petitioners say and what they complain about. This petitioner says that the parking charges that he and his cohort of community healthcare workers must pay—it is not quite clear whether he is an employee or a volunteer, but maybe I have not read the information properly—have increased to £6 per hour. That means that staff pay £48 for working an eight-hour shift, which, on a five-day week, comes to £11,520 year.

I would have thought that the health minister and NHS Scotland would have commented directly on what the petitioner said, but they have not. Why not? It is absolutely baffling and completely unacceptable. The idea that the Scottish Government can pass the buck to local authorities is completely at odds with what happened in September 2008—the information that I have suggests that, at that time, the Scottish Government announced that car parking charges should be abolished at NHS hospitals.

That directly contradicts what the minister is now saying. I find it absolutely baffling that we would be asked to regard this nonsense as in any way acceptable. We have to strongly rebut the response and write to COSLA and the health minister and ask them to look again. We should ask whether it is the case that groups of health workers have to pay these extortionate charges and, if so, how on earth they can be expected to carry on in their jobs. If that is true, we will be driving people out of that kind of work. COSLA and the minister might question that evidence, which is fine, but surely the petitioner is entitled to a direct response.

It was of concern in the good old days, convener.

I guess that the background to that view is the feeling that some individuals might seek to be housed in female prisons. In that sense, the motive for professing female gender is one that most people would regard as bogus. That said, I take the distinction that has been made.

I have just one more question for the witnesses, which is this: what would you like to happen next? You have already said that ethical leadership is what you require from the Government, the police, those who record statistics and so on, but are there any more specific things that you would like to be done in response to your petition?

And you would like us to find that out.

Yes.

Are you happy with that, though?

I thought that the responses were comprehensive, particularly that from the police. It is obvious that the police take the matter very seriously. I will not expand on it, but I thought that they offered a comprehensive reply, for which I am grateful. Nonetheless, Clare Adamson’s point about testing being standard—which the police say is the approach that they take—is the correct principal approach. Therefore, there a few questions on which I would like to establish the police’s position in view of the responses that we have had.

First, the committee should write to the police to ask whether it keeps a record of instances in which a urine test was conducted, when it was refused by the victim or when it was not practically possible. The police refer to instances in which a test was not practically possible or in which it was refused. Secondly, we should ask whether the police can compare those records, if available, with the number of reported incidents of suspected spiking. Thirdly, how does it ensure that the operation precept guidance is understood and followed by police officers across Scotland, so that there is a uniform, routine approach and that testing is standard?

We could also write to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on its round-table meeting with operational partners, as noted in its submission of 1 June. In addition, we could ask how the Government is engaging with pub owners as part of its work to tackle spiking and broader safeguarding regulations for the night-time industry. Inconsistencies in approach by individual pubs due to a lack of specific regulation was raised during the committee’s round-table session. Lastly, has the Scottish Government given consideration to making spiking a specific offence? That suggestion was also made during the committee’s round-table discussion.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for appearing. As you have alluded to, the committee was keen to give you the opportunity and to hear what you have to say.

You might have already answered my question, Dr Blackburn, but what is the aim of the petition? What would you like to see happening? You have made your views clear, and I am grateful for that, but I am curious to know what you would like to happen and what in particular you would like to see changed.

I am obviously not going to mention any particular cases, but there may be instances of a rape suspect self-identifying as a trans woman. Many people—including me, although this is my personal view—might think that that person is frankly at it and is a bad actor. Given that that is happening in—happily—a very few instances, what is your view about how the gender identity of the suspects in those cases should be recorded? It is presumably your view that those are men and should be recorded as male. Is that it?