Chamber and committees

Given the United Kingdom National Screening Committee’s planned review of evidence on population screening for sudden cardiac death, what role might the Scottish Government play in that regard? Moreover, what additional steps is the Scottish Government taking to improve data collection, classification and public reporting of sudden cardiac deaths, particularly in young people?

I fully agree with Mr Ewing, but it is a bit unfortunate that—as far as I can make out—the petitioner’s local authority did not respond. Perhaps the petitioner could take that up with local councillors.

Just so that I am clear, at ground level, what has changed is that the biological sex will now be recorded but, in essence, the treatment of the individuals will be exactly the same. Is that where we are currently?

Is that happening as we speak?

Thank you.

I appreciate that there will be an independent review, but three years is an awfully long time. What is the Scottish Government’s current assessment of how effective screening might be in preventing sudden cardiac death? I am thinking about any issues with false positives or negative results as a consequence of screening.

Minister, I hope that this suggestion, which follows on from Mr Ewing’s, will also be helpful. I have a Union of European Football Associations C licence for football coaching. As part of the journey to that, there is an online element of first aid training, but CPR is not included in it. Every football coach in Scotland must do the level 1.1 coaching course, and first aid is part of that. Will you commit to engaging with the Scottish Football Association and Scottish Women’s Football on CPR being included as part of that coaching pathway? The point about schools is a good one, and my suggestion is another mechanism through which we can get the message out there in a structured environment.

That is helpful clarity. I wondered why the work was taking so long, but I appreciate that it might have been because of the different historical information technology systems at Police Scotland. How is the recording of any identified gender delimited on the new system? Is the person literally just recorded as a trans person or are there different ways in which the person might identify?

I might disassociate myself with the rationale behind that, but I certainly think that we should close the petition.

This suite of amendments has been lodged following discussions with the minister and in response to the committee’s stage 1 report. Concerns were raised at stage 1 about the burden that the reporting requirement would place on bodies, and some considered that an annual reporting requirement would be overly onerous.

I have listened to those concerns, and I am seeking to amend section 4 to provide for a one-off reporting requirement after three years and to allow the level of information that is required to be reported to be reduced to the numbers of cases, prosecutions and convictions. There is nothing preventing the report from including information that was previously set out in section 4, however.

Under section 4(3), the Scottish ministers may add “other information” that they “consider appropriate.” However, ministers are now not required, for example, to report on the number of cases that are prosecuted under common law or the number of cases that are prosecuted under summary or solemn procedure.

I will turn to my individual amendments in the group. Amendment 11 clarifies that the information that the report is to contain is to relate to things that have happened over the course of the three-year reporting period. Amendment 12 amends the information that is required to be reported on. Amendment 13 is a technical amendment to ensure that the bill is clear that the reference to “length of sentence” in section 4(2)(g)(ii) is to a custodial sentence as opposed to, for example, the period of a work requirement imposed under a community payback order. Amendment 14 removes the requirement to report on cases of dog theft prosecuted under the existing common-law offence of theft. Amendment 16 is a consequential amendment and amendment 15 is a minor and technical amendment.

Although I strongly believe that good data collection and reporting to the Parliament are important, I want to balance that with proportionality, allowing bodies such as Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to get on with their jobs. I have listened to concerns that were raised at stage 1.

I was therefore happy to lodge my amendments in this group, which I believe strike an appropriate balance, and I thank the minister and her officials for their constructive engagement in helping me to develop them.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for lodging her amendments 24 to 28. As with her other amendments in relation to working gun dogs, I remain to be persuaded of the need to include them in the bill. I would have no objections to the report that is required under section 4 providing information on working gun dogs. However, I am not sure that specifying that in the bill is necessarily helpful, as it would mean making a separate case for working gun dogs.

I have just spoken about amendments 10 to 16, which would reduce the amount of information that was required to be reported on. I lodged those amendments following discussions with the Scottish Government, in which there was recognition of the need to balance good data collection and reporting mechanisms with proportionality. My fear with amendments 24 to 26 is that they go against that approach and would place overly burdensome duties on bodies in relation to a very specific type of dog.

Amendments 27 and 28 define a working gun dog in two alternative ways. As mentioned earlier, I have a concern about amendment 27 in respect of the way it conflates breeds and training.

More broadly, I am encouraged by the fact that Rachael Hamilton will engage with the minister following stage 2, and I believe that they will be able to reach a consensus that will allow the issues in Ms Hamilton’s amendments to be addressed.

I move amendment 10.