Chamber and committees

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. First of all, for those who might be tuning in to see the progress of their petition or others who might be watching this morning, I should make it clear that, in advance of considering petitions, we seek submissions from the Scottish Government and receive submissions from other parties to ensure that we have a certain amount of information at our disposal before we proceed.

Our first new petition is PE1876, which has been lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray. It 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 or convicted of rape or attempted rape.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that the crime statistics that it publishes

“are derived from data held on the Criminal History System ... an operational database which is used for the primary purpose of recording of information on people accused or convicted of perpetrating a criminal act.”

The submission argues that it would therefore be

“for Police Scotland to determine how the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape is recorded on the CHS.”

Since the publication of our meeting papers, the committee has received several written submissions, including from Fair Play For Women, Dr Shonagh Dillon, For Women Scotland, Sharon Dowey MSP and the petitioners. In their submission, the petitioners highlight that crime recording practices in Scotland are overseen by the Scottish crime recording board. The role of the board, which is chaired by the Scottish Government, is to

“support the production of accurate and objective statistics on crime in Scotland”.

The petitioners therefore reiterate that the action that they are calling for is for 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 or convicted of rape or attempted rape.

The petitioners also highlight in their submission guidance that the Scottish Government published last month on collecting data on sex, gender identity and trans status and which cites the investigation of “a serious sexual offence” as an example where data on biological sex is required. They argue that the fact that the chief statistician chose to single out sexual offending in this guidance lends weight to the argument that the nature and gravity of such cases justify accurate recording.

After that introduction, I seek comments from members.

I am going to be a bit blunt here. I was struck by the following paragraph in the Scottish Government’s submission:

“The crime of rape is committed by someone with a penis, including a surgically constructed penis. As the petition mentions, a person (male or female) can also be convicted of rape when their involvement was art and part (assisted in the perpetration of the crime).”

I note that the petitioners wonder whether, although that is technically the case, such a rape has been the subject of any subsequent prosecution. I do not think that that is entirely clear.

There are a number of people to whom we can write. I invite suggestions as to who they might be.

Welcome back. This morning we have our first evidence-gathering session, and I am delighted that we have with us Maree Todd, the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport. Online we have, from the Scottish Government, David Bishop, mesh team leader, and—trying to join us, although he has not yet managed to establish a link—Terry O’Kelly, senior medical adviser.

PE1865 is a continued petition that was lodged by Roseanna Clarkin, Lauren McDougall and Graham Robertson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review of all surgical procedures that use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established.

At our last consideration of the petition, on 8 September, we agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to give evidence at a future meeting. The Scottish Government has advised that the issues raised in the petition are within the portfolio of the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport.

Having welcomed the minister to the meeting, my first job is to invite her to make a brief opening statement before we open up the floor for questioning.

Two suggestions have been made: first, that we close the petition and, secondly, that we draw the petition to the attention of the respective cross-party groups. I am not totally sure that it is within our competence to do so with groups that have not yet been officially recognised by the Parliament, but I think that we could do that. Indeed, I think that it would be useful for the elected members of both groups to initiate a discussion.

Do members agree to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of Mark McDonald and other former colleagues who did a lot in the previous session to ensure that these issues were at the forefront of concern and whose work in the area has helped inform, and has probably led to, the actions that the Government is now taking.

I invite colleagues to lead the questions, starting with David Torrance.

I observe only that fools rush in where angels fear to trend, minister, so I am grateful for your forbearance in holding back.

Did you want to add anything, minister?

I have just one follow-up question. One of the scandals that arose with transvaginal mesh related to the quality of the mesh itself. It turned out that the regime that was in place to ensure the highest standard of mesh material was really not robust and, to our shock and dismay, some of the mesh that had been fitted in some women was no different from the mesh that is found wrapped around packages that come through the post. Is a strong regime in place for the mesh procedures that we are talking about to ensure the quality of the product that is fitted in any operation?

I can say to Mr Bishop that, if we were relying on the MHRA at the time, it was woefully inadequate in its explanation of its procedures and in respect of the subsequent regulation to ensure that only proper materials were used. It is clear that some products bypassed that. Can patients now proceed with greater confidence?

We will now discuss PE1837, which is a continued petition that was lodged by Stephen Leighton. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder can access support, and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland.

When we last considered the petition,?we agreed to invite?the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to give evidence at a future meeting. The Scottish Government has advised that the issues raised in the petition are within the portfolio of the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. I am therefore delighted to welcome the relevant minister, Kevin Stewart. He is accompanied by Hugh McAloon, deputy director for mental health complex care; and? Jacqueline Campbell, unit head, learning disability, autism and neurodiversity.?

I invite the minister to make a brief opening statement that might help inform our discussion.