Chamber and committees

There is quite a lot of information. We will summarise much of that again in our response to the petitioner. I thank them for lodging the petition. In view of the work that is currently being done, the committee has decided that we will close the petition.

Thank you.

The petition is important, and I applaud James Anthony Bundy and his family for the work that they have done in lodging it. As Jackie Baillie was, I was struck by the fact that the taking and promoting of the fairly straightforward action that is proposed could make a material difference. I think that we will certainly want to go back to the minister, but I wonder whether members have suggestions about action that we might take in the interim period.

I would very much like us to pursue that with the minister. In many respects, I would like to think that we could embrace the language of Jackie Baillie, in that what is being called for seems to be common sense. If the Government has considered adopting the BE FAST model and has chosen not to, I would like to know what reasons it had for coming to that conclusion, because I think that that would further assist us in considering how we might pursue the issues raised in the petition.

I thank James Anthony Bundy for lodging his important petition. We will keep the petition open and will return to our consideration of it at a subsequent date once we have received the information that we have requested. I thank our parliamentary colleagues for joining us.

Our next continued petition is PE1995, on improved support for victims of spiking, which was lodged by Catherine Anne McKay. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a multi-agency approach to investigating spiking incidents to ensure that victims are given access to appropriate testing and that incidents are investigated robustly.

We are joined for our consideration of the petition by our parliamentary colleague Clare Adamson, who joins us online—indeed, she has been faithfully with us throughout all our proceedings so far. Good morning, Clare. I will come back to you in a second.

We last considered the petition on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. Police Scotland has confirmed that victims who report a suspected spiking incident will always be asked to provide a urine sample. However, a sample will not be collected if such a report is made outwith the 14-day forensic window or the victim does not wish to provide a sample. Senior investigating officers have been appointed within each territorial police division to act as points of contact for all spiking-related matters and investigations.

The Scottish Government’s response highlights operation precept, which is the name for a national response to spiking that includes guidance for officers and staff. It states that Police Scotland also has a spiking information toolkit, which includes guidance and information for the licensed trade. The response notes that there is no single test that can determine whether a person has been spiked, and that it is not possible to determine whether drugs found as part of any test were taken by the individual or given to them against their knowledge or will. It concludes by noting that a further round-table meeting is due to take place with operational partners.

Lastly, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament’s independent information centre—has produced a summary of the round-table discussion on the topic of drink and needle spiking that was held by the Education, Children and Young People Committee in January 2022. That summary has been included in colleagues’ meeting pack.

Before I invite committee members to comment on further actions that we might take in the light of the evidence that we have received, I offer Clare Adamson the opportunity to make some comments.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. We respect the fact that important issues have been raised but, given the response from the Scottish Government, which has no inclination to undertake work to advance the aim of the petition, I feel that there is little scope for the committee to proceed. We will therefore close the petition.

Yes. Curiously, I see that our colleague Jackie Baillie is in the public gallery, as she is joining us for a later petition. Jackie and I worked together on hospital car parking charges in an earlier parliamentary session. We wrote to the then health secretary—one Nicola Sturgeon—and managed, on a joint Opposition basis, to have hospital car parking charges in NHS-owned car parks abolished. You make the point very effectively, Mr Ewing, that the Government has previously intervened on a matter that it regarded as being in the ownership of the NHS.

The key thing for me is exactly the point that you make, which is that the Scottish Government says that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government. It may not be technically a matter for the Scottish Government, but the Government can have an opinion on it and can show some sort of moral leadership or lead in relation to our evidencing the petitioner’s claim. It seems to me that we are talking about individuals who are community based and who need to use a car to get to the patients or people whom they are assisting. If they are having to pay significant car parking charges, whether that is back at headquarters or when they are with the patient, that is a disincentive to their continuing in the form of employment that they are in. Their loss would be hugely detrimental to that valuable service in the community.

I wonder whether we could also write to COSLA, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, Unite and the Allied Health Professions Federation to see whether we can get further evidence on the statements that the petitioner has made to understand whether it is a widespread experience. I certainly think that we should go back to the Scottish Government and say, “We’d like to understand what your view is on the petition and not just to hear you argue that it’s not a matter for you.” Clearly, it would be a matter for ministers if we suddenly lost all the staff who are providing the service.

PE2043, which has been lodged by Philipa Jackson, is on changing the way in which gender theory is presented in schools. As you will recall, we considered a similar—though not exactly the same—petition just a moment ago. The petition has been lodged to urge the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to redefine the relationship, sexual health and parenthood—or RSHP—lessons pertaining to transgender and not present the information as fact.

The SPICe briefing note that has been prepared states that Scotland does not have a statutory curriculum, as we know. It also notes that the Scottish Government was consulting on draft statutory guidance on the delivery of relationship, sexual health and parenthood education to replace the guidance currently in place.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it has accepted the recommendations made by the LGBTI inclusive education working group. Of the teaching resources available for RSHP, one resource contains a lesson on being transgender and is intended for primary 5 to primary 7. The resource asks young people to think about what transgender means and aims to challenge the stereotypes and prejudices that can lead to transphobic bullying. The response also notes that the content of the RSHP resource was informed by more than 1,000 primary and secondary teachers and was piloted in 38 schools.

The petitioner’s written submission expresses the view that children are being taught an ideology that she is deeply concerned about, as she finds the current teaching to be age inappropriate and extremely graphic. She believes that some of the people involved in creating the RSHP resource are very biased, and she states that adults should not be coercing children to think that they can be the opposite sex.

Those are the comments that we have received from SPICe and the petitioner. Do members wish to suggest any options for action that we might take forward?

Given the Scottish Government’s very clear guidance—and noting Mr Ewing’s comments, which I expect might be more widely shared—are colleagues content to close the petition, even though it is a new one, given the direction that we have received?

Members indicated agreement.

Our penultimate petition this morning is PE2048, on reviewing the FAST—face, arms, speech, time—stroke awareness campaign. The petition, which was lodged by James Anthony Bundy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of the symptoms of stroke by reviewing its promotion of the FAST stroke campaign and ensuring that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke.

I should say that Mr Bundy is known to members of the Scottish Conservative Party as someone who has worked in our corridor and whose father died because of a stroke. I gather that his mother is with us in the room as we consider the petition.

We are also joined by our MSP colleagues Alexander Stewart and Jackie Baillie for consideration of the petition. Mr Stewart is back for his first visit to us since he withdrew his patronage of our committee, and Jackie Baillie is, of course, a very familiar and regular attendee and campaigner on behalf of constituents who have petitions before us. I should also note that we have received a written submission from Sandesh Gulhane MSP in support of the petition.

James Anthony Bundy lodged the petition after losing his father to a stroke that went undiagnosed, as his symptoms did not fall within the parameters of the FAST assessment. The family are now raising awareness of all the symptoms of stroke, which can also include an inability to stand, cold sweats, vision problems, nausea and vomiting.

The SPICe briefing that we have received refers to a 2021 systematic review of evidence that noted that the less commonly used BE FAST—balance, eyes, face, arms, speech, time—test identified more ischaemic strokes than the FAST test and that that test may play an important role in the diagnosis of strokes.

In responding to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health noted that the Scottish Government published its refreshed stroke improvement plan in June and that, in priority 2 of that plan, the Scottish Government has committed to establishing the current degree of public understanding of the symptoms of stroke and whether certain at-risk groups require different messaging.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, which provides further detail of his family’s experience and the difference that the use of the BE FAST test might have made. In doing so, he calls for an immediate and urgent review of the existing stroke awareness campaign to help to ensure that every individual who has experienced a stroke receives the timely care that they deserve.

The petition is an important one. Before we as a committee consider it further, would our two parliamentary colleagues wish to comment on it?

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1876, on accurately recording the sex of people who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape. The petition has been lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray, and I am pleased to welcome Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa Mackenzie to the committee; good morning to you both.

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 who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish crime recording board and Police Scotland, and to invite the petitioners to give evidence.

Before we move to the substance of today’s consideration of the petition, I should note that the committee has received responses from the Scottish crime recording board and Police Scotland, as well as a further written submission from the petitioners responding to those responses.

In its response, the Scottish crime recording board advised that its remit focuses solely on the police recorded crime national statistics, which measure crimes, not people, and it has never included the recording of demographic details of suspects or perpetrators. Police Scotland indicated that a review of its recording policy is progressing through its internal governance processes and, if approved by the professionalism, strategy and engagement management board, it will be subject to wider consultation with relevant stakeholders. Police Scotland also carried out a manual review of its recorded crime data for rape. It states that, although it is unable to confirm the biological sex of those who were recorded in the statistics,

“none of the females recorded for the crime of rape were involved in the physical act itself ... In all cases, their involvement was art and part (aiding or abetting in the perpetration of the crime)”.

In light of those responses and the evidence that has been gathered throughout the consideration of the petition, the committee has a number of questions that we would like to explore with the petitioners today. Is there anything that you would like to say in advance of us doing so?