Chamber and committees

Earlier, you referred to the way in which statistics can be manipulated and how a tabloid might suggest that there has been an explosion in a particular area of crime. These statistics, in so far as we have them from any of the bodies, take us up to 2020. Is it your worry that the statistics that might be presented for the period since then might give rise to the type of tabloid journalism to which you are referring? Are you disappointed that there are not more up-to-date statistics that might confirm or not the worry that you have that this evolving practice might be about to have an impact on the way that these things are reported and perceived?

PE2046, which has been lodged by Debbie-Ann McMillan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enable a birth certificate to be issued in respect of any baby stillborn after 20 weeks of pregnancy. I note that Clare Haughey, who I imagine is the MSP for the petitioner concerned, is in the gallery to observe the proceedings.

A stillbirth is defined in legislation as a child who had issued forth from its mother after the 24th week of pregnancy and which did not breathe or show any other sign of life, and that definition reflects the view that a baby born at 24 weeks or over is capable of surviving. The Scottish Government’s submission indicates that a change to 20 weeks would impact on that and other legislation, including the limit of 24 weeks for most terminations of pregnancy. The Scottish Government therefore has no plans currently to introduce primary legislation to change the 24-week threshold to 20 weeks.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition outlines the current approach to registering a stillbirth, with the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 making provision for both a birth register and a separate stillbirth register. It also notes that recording stillbirths as births could have wider implications about the legal personality of an unborn child.

The Government has stated that it does not plan to make changes to the way in which stillbirths are registered. It notes that, as part of the recent launch of a memorial book for those who have experienced a pregnancy or baby loss prior to 24 weeks, applicants will be given a commemorative certificate, which is intended to give recognition and comfort to those who want to record their loss.

I imagine that most members of the committee will know people who have experienced the matters addressed in the petition, but I think that there has been very clear direction from the Government in relation to potential consequential impacts, were the change to be made via primary legislation.

Do members have any suggestions or comments?

I am happy that, in closing the petition, we write to the Scottish Government, which is undertaking the review, to make that point to it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always say, in case there are petitioners who might be watching our proceedings this morning, when a petition is lodged we initially take a view from the Scottish Government and from SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre. We do that because we would propose doing so at first consideration of the petition, so not having their views would only cause a delay in our consideration. It is important that we get to the meat of the argument that the petitioner is trying to advance.

The first of our new petitions is PE2041, on exempting community healthcare staff from parking charges. The petition was lodged by John Ronald. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage local authorities to exempt staff working at community healthcare facilities, and who do not have access to free on-site staff parking, from on-street parking charges, to allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without it costing them thousands of pounds per year.

Mr Ronald told us that he works alongside healthcare staff who are based in community health buildings that are surrounded by parking meters, which have seen an increase in charges to around £6 per hour. Mr Ronald is concerned about the impact that that will have on community-based staff who require use of a car throughout their shifts, particularly in the context of the cost of living crisis.

The Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning responded to the petition, noting that, as local authorities are responsible for setting parking charges on property that they own and for determining who is exempt from such charges, it is not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in. However, I argue that it is an issue on which the Scottish Government might have an opinion.

The briefing that we have received from SPICe also notes the role of local authorities in setting parking charges, as well as highlighting measures for NHS staff and volunteers to claim reimbursement for parking charges and the action that the Scottish Government has taken to abolish car parking at NHS hospitals in Scotland—which is of no use at all to the people whom we are considering here. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? I do not feel that, so far, we have had anything that helps that very important body of public service workers at all.

Our final petition for consideration this morning is PE2049, on the introduction of buffer zones outside migrant accommodation, which has been lodged by Gilliane Petrie. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce buffer zones outside migrant accommodation to prevent anti-immigrant groups from gathering in those spaces and to help to protect occupants, including asylum seekers and refugees, from harassment and intimidation.

The petition has been prompted by concerns about demonstrations taking place outside hotels that are being used to temporarily house refugees and asylum seekers. The petitioner has provided examples of demonstrations that have targeted accommodation in Erskine and Elgin.

In her response to the petition, the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees highlights the Scottish Government’s previous engagement with the petitioner and the need to establish a clear definition of migrant accommodation. She also notes that consideration would have to be given to the purpose, risks and benefits of creating buffer zones. Given the complexity of those issues, which I imagine are considerable, the minister has asked officials to undertake an initial scoping of the potential feasibility of the petitioner’s ask.

The minister also notes the existing powers that are available to Police Scotland to deal with any serious disorder arising from public assemblies, and she encourages anyone who has experienced or witnessed any form of harassment or hate crime to report it to the police.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

All those suggestions are sensible and arise out of the evidence that we have received. Colleagues, do you have anything else that you wish to suggest? Are we happy to proceed on the basis of Mr Ewing’s recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2001, which has been lodged by E Phillips, on behalf of Safeguarding Our Schools Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the “Supporting Transgender Young People—Guidance for Schools in Scotland” resource from Scottish schools, and to await the outcome of the Cass review before developing a new resource.

Again, we previously considered the petition on 19 April and we agreed to seek the views of a variety of stakeholders. We have received responses from LGBT Youth Scotland and Scottish Trans, both of which oppose the action for which the petition calls, and which highlight that the development of the guidance took place with input from organisations across the education, women’s and sports sectors as well as the LGBT+ sector.

The National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland responded by noting that its remit does not include

“the provision of materials and guidance documents to educational establishments”.

It states that it

“is supportive of any guidance which aims to help school staff to provide transgender young people with the best possible educational experiences.”

The response also notes that the Cass review that was commissioned by NHS England to make recommendations about national health services that are provided to children and young people who are questioning their gender identity

“has no significance to the provision of educational materials to schools.”

We have also received two submissions from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the second of which provides a brief update on its review of the technical guidance for schools in Scotland. It is understood that amendments have been made

“to ensure its references to the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment reflect developments in this complex area of law and policy.”

The response from COSLA notes that, although it was not directly involved in the development of the guidance referred to in the petition and does not have an agreed position on the guidance, it remains committed to working with partners to take forward the recommendations that are included in the LGBTI-inclusive education working group’s 2018 report.

We have also received a response from the petitioner that draws our attention to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated technical guidance for schools and shares information on a national health service England resource that has been designed to help educators support gender-distressed children. A request to provide the committee with written evidence has also been received from For Women Scotland.

There has been quite an array of responses, in point of fact, so, having had the opportunity to consider those, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Well, I am not going to lead the committee in a chorus of “Down at the Old Bull and Bush”, Mr Ewing.

Are there any other comments? Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I am quite happy for you to speak.

I understand how difficult that is, and the timing of when anything takes place is always a factor in such matters. Unfortunately, we are not immune when we are in this building in the way that members might be at Westminster.