Chamber and committees

I invite my colleague Fergus Ewing to lead the questioning.

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?

Good morning, and welcome to the 18th meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

For the benefit of colleagues, item 1 is to agree to take agenda items 4 and 5, which is consideration of revised guidance and written submissions, in private. Are members happy to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

It would be better to talk in general terms about the policy, because I am worried that we will prejudice in some way the wider consideration of these issues.

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. As I hope that you will understand, the response from the Scottish Government means that there is little scope for the committee to pursue the petition further. On that basis, we will close it.

I understand your point, and I understand the point that you make about the committee. I have a long experience with this committee. In 2013, women came forward on the transvaginal mesh scandal. It must have been an incredibly difficult presentation to make at that time, to identify what was not an area of public health policy and to discuss it in detail. I hope that the Parliament—certainly, those of us men who were on the panel at the time—understood and pursued that case very actively on behalf of those women. I hope, and I believe, that we are capable of doing that but, from that experience, I have long understood that some of those issues are very difficult to present and discuss.

I thank you both very much for your evidence this morning. We will have a short suspension to allow us to reset.

Our second continued petition this morning is PE1928, which is on providing free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. The petition was lodged by David Gallant and was last considered by us on 3 May, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government has responded to confirm that the remit of the fair fares review includes consideration of the scope and extent of existing concessionary travel schemes, including the provision for disabled people and their companions travelling by rail.

Colleagues may remember the issue in relation to companions who may have been getting on at one stop where there was a concessionary scheme and getting off at another where there was not. The response also indicates that the review will report by the end of this year, with the expectation that a package of measures will be considered for implementation from 2024-25 onwards.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner, drawing our attention to provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and suggesting that the legislation be used to compel the Scottish Government to ensure that disabled people have equitable access to public transport. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

I think that the Government’s argument in relation to the termination of a pregnancy at 24 weeks would have to be the primary source of any debate from which a consequential action would arise, were any change such as the one that the petition seeks to establish to be made at some point. However, I understand the Government’s concern that moving on that area first could have consequential impacts on the legislation that might not be intended by the petitioner. For those reasons, I agree that the proposal to close the petition is the correct one. Are colleagues content with that proposal?

Members indicated agreement.