 I'm good morning, and I'd like to welcome everyone to the fifth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2023. Our first very easy decision, I hope, is to agree to take item 4 in private. Are we content to do that? We are. At that meeting, we will be considering the beginnings of our draft report, so I hope that if we can't complete that work today, we're content to arrange further meetings in order to do so. That brings us to item 2, which is consideration of continuing petitions. Our first item to consider is petition number 1876, which is accurately record the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape. This is a petition lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa McKenzie and Kath Murray, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Court Service to accurately record the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape. We were last considered this petition a year ago, almost, on 23 March 2022. I apologise to the petitioners that we've not had this back for further consideration in our schedule before now, but we then agreed to write to a number of bodies to gather information on recording practices and the guidance underpinning those practices, and that's taken some time. Members will be aware that issues around the collection and use of data were discussed during consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform Scotland Bill. To assist us in our consideration of this petition, SPICE has published an updated petition briefing, highlighting the consideration that was given to data collection during the passage of the GRR Bill. We have now received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland, copies of which were included in our meeting papers. The Cabinet Secretary's response reiterates the Government's position that recording practices are operational matters for the relevant bodies to determine. The Cabinet Secretary also makes reference to the chief statistician's guidance on sex, gender identity, trans status, data collection and publication, noting that there are no current plans to revise this guidance, which was published in September 2021. Similarly, Police Scotland referred to their previous response to the petition, stating that they do not routinely ask the gender or sex of people with whom they interact, with records based on how a person presents to officers at the time of engagement. The response from Police Scotland also notes that DNA samples are obtained from all individuals accused of a sexual offence, with the DNA profile obtained from those samples indicating the person's biological sex. The committee has also received a new submission from the petitioners, which offers their reflections on the various responses that we have received. The petitioner has highlighted an FOI response, which shows a discussion between the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on how sex should be recorded, an area in which the petitioner has understood to be the responsibility of the Scottish Crime Recording Board, so a contradiction effectively. The petitioner has also raised concerns about Police Scotland's policy for recording sex being developed and approved in advance of reforms to gender recognition coming into effect. That summarises the submissions that we have received, and I wonder what comments or thoughts or observations colleagues might have. I certainly feel that this is a petition that deserves to remain open, but I look forward to hearing anything that colleagues might have to say. I think that we should keep the petition open, and I would like the opportunity to hear from the petitioners themselves. Plainly, we have had responses to the petition and to the evidence that we have had, including a submission by Michelle Thomson and an oral contribution from Ruth McGuire, my predecessor on this committee. Ruth McGuire pointed to the importance of data in itself being accurate, but perhaps more important than that is that this is obviously a very sensitive issue, and there must be a risk of, if you like, re-traumatising the victims of rape by failure to record the perpetrator as male and possibly recording the gender of that perpetrator as female. I think that we should not underestimate the harm and the trauma that this could cause personally, but I would be interested to hear, given that the replies have been somewhat dry and technical, what the petitioners have to say about this, because this is, after all, the petition's committee, which is a gateway for people to seek clarity. In this case, it is a pretty well-focused petition, so there would be an opportunity for us, after taking evidence, to pursue matters further. I hope that we can hear from the petitioners in the response to the information that we have gleaned from the various authorities. I agree that we should keep the petition open. I think that it is a well-thought-through foot-together evidence-based petition. You mentioned the Scottish Crime Recording Board, and I think that we should pursue that and see what information they have and their recording and what their view on how they are going to take that forward. Along with hearing from petitioners, which would be immensely helpful, a formal approach to the Scottish Crime Recording Board would be worthwhile pursuing. I concur with my colleagues that this requires more information. We have already discussed the data collection, and we note that Police Scotland talks about operational, but I think that it would be interesting just to once again get more clarity from Police Scotland to seek further information on the process of updating and recording the policy. Whether that includes a wider consultation with the policy change and how that is progressing, because, as I say, I acknowledge the fact that the police see it as one thing, but I think that we and the petitioners see it as something else. That requires to be clarified to ensure that we get the full information, so I would seek to add that to what I would recommend along with my colleagues. I also observe that it may be worth including in that submission to Police Scotland to reflect on their previous response, in which they said that there are no known cases where a biological male has been charged with a physical crime of rape and is self-identified as a woman. Obviously, that may have been their view at the time, but, as Parliament knows subsequently, that is not a robust basis on which to form a policy judgment. That was on January 22, I think, that they wrote to us, so I think that we might want to hear further from them in relation to that, as well as from the board, as Carol has suggested. I think that I am quite happy, are we content to invite the petitioners to meet with the committee at a later date when we have received responses to the various further inquiries that we now make? Is there anything further that we might wish to ask of the Scottish Government at this stage, or are we content at this stage to ask the relative bodies that we are seeking to approach? I believe that we are. We are content. We will keep the petition open. We will seek to establish further information from those bodies. We will, in this instance, invite the petitioners to join us at the committee at a future session in order to discuss directly with them their views on the responses that we receive and where we might take the petition at that point. Are we agreed? We are agreed. Thank you very much. That takes us to petition number 1884 to make whole-plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or alternative funding put in place. Our next petition is therefore that lodged by Steve Gillan, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make whole-plant cannabis oil available on the NHS or provide funds for private access for severely epileptic children and adults where all other NHS epileptic drugs have failed to help. At our last consideration of this petition, we agreed to inquire on behalf of the petitioner about how he could participate in the upcoming clinical trials of CBPMs. We now have received a response from the Interim Chief Pharmaceutical Officer, who has indicated that individuals interested in potentially taking part in the trials should mention this to the specialist clinician in charge of their care who will be able to keep them updated once the trial setup is confirmed. There was a degree of sympathy expressed in the committee last time around the general issues in the petition. It seems to me that, with the trials in prospect, that may lead to a way forward and the opportunity for this to come back at a later date if nothing much materialises, but Alexander Stewart, are you… I think that, convener, as you have identified, I really do think that at this stage in the proceedings we do not have many options that we can take. I would suggest that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, we close the petition, because you have identified that clinical trials will be carried out, the view to building an evidence-based connected to CBPMs, that unlicensed products are not routinely available on the NHS with licensing being the only way to ensure safety, equality and efficacy. Pending results from the clinical trials, there is no further action that the committee can take at this time. However, I do think that, in closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner to highlight the eligibility of the Scottish patients on upcoming clinical trials and the information provided by the interim chief pharmaceutical officer about the whole process. I think that that would be useful, but I really feel, convener, that we, as a committee, do not have much further action that we can take at this stage because of that. As you identify, it could come back in some other format. Are there any other comments? No. I would like to do more, but I do not think that there is more that we can do at this point. I think that we do draw this information to the petitioner's attention. I think that we point out that, in the event that it is felt that that route has not proved to be one that is open or that those trials have not really materialised, there is the opportunity to bring the petition back to us a later date. That brings us to petition number 1936, which is to remove potholes from Scotland's roads lodged by Leslie Roberts. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve road surfaces. By creating an action plan to remove potholes from trunk roads across Scotland and providing ring-fenced funding to local councils to tackle potholes. Last considered this on 28 September, and we agreed then to seek the views of a number of organisations involved in the maintenance of road work network. The committee has now received responses from the Scottish Roadworks Commissioner, the RAC Foundation, the Society of Chief Officers of Transportation in Scotland and the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. The Scottish Roadworks Commissioner notes that it is road authorities such as Transport Scotland and local councils which are responsible for the decisions relating to the repair and maintenance of roads. The commissioner does, however, have powers to impose financial penalties on roads authorities who systematically fail on their duty to co-ordinate or co-operate when undertaking roadworks. In its response, the RAC Foundation highlights call-out data, which indicates that a UK motorist is 1.6 times more likely to suffer a fault or damage caused by a poor road surface than they were in 2006. The RAC Foundation also notes cuts to transport budgets, a point that was also highlighted in the submission from the Civil Engineering Contractors Association. They expressed disappointment that the Scottish Government has reduced the budget for motorways and trunk roads by more than 75 million in the 23-24 budget. In the context of those financial pressures, the CECA also states that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point for some local authorities whereby they will never catch up on the structural repairs of their network. I do seem to recall in my own local authority it was estimated that it would take 120 years in order to get the roads up to spec at the current level of spend. The Society of Chief Officers of Transportation and Submission highlights guidance for local authorities on taking a risk-based approach to their inspection and repair regime, but notes that not all local authorities follow this approach. The response also notes previous investigations carried out by Audit Scotland on the condition of Scotland's local and trunk roads. We have also received two new submissions from the petitioner, which raised further concerns about the deteriorating condition of the road surface and the impact that this is having on motorists in particular. The petitioner highlights safety concerns about driving at night or in wet conditions, and the impact that this has on female drivers. The petitioner also wishes to draw the committee's attention to concerns raised about road conditions in Glasgow ahead of the UCI cycling championships due to be hosted by the city later this year. My only suggestion in the first instance personally is to note that the UK Government in the budget announced by the Chancellor last week anounced an additional £200 million for pothole repairs, presumably with a consequential coming to the Scottish Government of about £20 million. The Scottish Government obviously has to decide what it wishes to do with those funds, but I think that we might legitimately enquire on behalf of the petitioner whether the Scottish Government intends to commit that consequential towards the repair of potholes. In addition to raising with the Scottish Government, I think the concerns expressed by the Civil Engineering Contractors Association that the spending on motorways and trunk roads was seriously reduced in 23.24x75 million and asked what attention it is taking to help to build resilience into the road network across Scotland. I don't know if colleagues agree with that or if there are other suggestions that might complement it too. Alexander Stewart? I would agree with that. We have found out from what happened in Scotland in the past that the maintaining Scotland's roads report would be useful to follow up on that to see if there are any recommendations that have come from the maintaining Scotland's roads report and how that is planned, because that would once again give us an indication as to what action is planned to be taken in the future to time tackle this issue. I know that potholes, as a phrase, can engender a degree of hilarity at times in certain quarters, but it's nothing funny about it if you drive through one and significantly damage your vehicle. It is becoming an almost anticipated experience for most motorists now, which is not, as it should be, deeply concerning and worrying. Mr Ewing? Yes, I concur with the suggestions that have been made thus far. I would just add that the petitioner has pointed out that, as well as the inconvenience and the risk of damage to vehicles, there is also the risk of pothole leading to a personal injury. Cyclists, for example, are much more prone to accidents following off their bike, where there are potholes for obvious reasons, and where a motorist's car is incapacitated by driving into a pothole and therefore has to stop with a kerb perhaps in a remote rural part. There's the risk that anything could happen, frankly, whilst waiting for an emergency vehicle to come along, and in extremists there's the risk of somebody losing their life as a result of an accident that is occasioned by a pothole. I'm not quite sure, convener, if the police or anyone records in relation to their analysis of fatal accidents, whether the poor road maintenance has been a contributory factor, but I would be interested to at least ask the police if that's the case. I'm very much attracted to the idea that if there were to be additional funding coming to Scotland, that that should be used for this issue. I think that, in particular, perhaps not necessarily the motorways, which, in my experience, are generally pretty well maintained as they have to be given the speed of vehicles using them, but just the roads in cities, not least Edinburgh, are in an appalling state in Glasgow as well, sadly. I think that this is becoming considerably worse, and it's a problem that has bedeviled Scotland, really, since devolution, with the various audit reports over the years and the backlogs that you've alluded to already. It does affect people, and obviously all of us as MSPs will frequently receive complaints from constituents about the effects of accidents that are occasioned by poorly maintained roads. Yes, thank you for that. I think that that would be an interesting inquiry of Police Scotland as the extent to which the condition of the roads themselves have been a contributory factor in accidents at which police have had to attend. Dipping back into my long, now distant past career in the retail motor industry, pothole repairs were not something that we routinely, as a large repairing operation, had to consider as something that we would expect to undertake on a regular routine basis. To be fair, the number of automobiles on the roads 30 years ago were considerably fewer than they are today, but notwithstanding that, I think that all of us can see a deterioration. The word pothole means so many different things. It can mean just a little bit of rough texture on a road that is messy, but it can also now be quite a heavily disguised and large, fairly dangerous pothole, which people, if the road is busy, very often don't have advanced sight of until they find themselves in it. I do think that it is something that needs to be taken far more seriously as it becomes potentially a more dangerous experience. I think that we're agreed to write to all those various organisations to keep the petition open. Excellent. The next petition is petition number 1942, which is to encourage peer support programmes in the public sector organisations, lodged by Fiona McCauly. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer support programmes such as Trim and Straw, sorry, acronyms, and I don't know what they stand for, in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health. We previously considered the petition on 26 October when we agreed to write to stakeholder organisations to ask for their views on the petition. We've now received responses from the Scottish Recovery Network and the Samaritans. The Scottish Recovery Network tells it as a strong track record of promoting and supporting the development of peer support in communities. This work includes the peer-to-peer training resource, which was mentioned in the Scottish Government's initial response to the petition. The response goes on to say that, while the Scottish Recovery Network has some awareness of Trim and Straw and the private sector psychology consultancy company that delivers them, the network has no experience of these models or products in practice. The submission from the Samaritans highlights the value of peer support and the need to ensure that people have access to the support when they need it, which they indicate could be achieved through sustainable investment in talking therapies and wider third sector community support. Do members have comments for suggestions for action? It's worth noting that the Trim and Straw packages referred to in the petition appear to be commercial products, so whatever action the committee takes should focus on the general merits of the petition rather than on these commercial products in particular, which it's not our practice to promote. Are there any comments from colleagues? Once again, I think that this petition probably has gone as far as we can take it in the process. I think that it would be appropriate to close it, understanding order 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Recovery Network is continuing to develop a peer support training resource such as the peer-to-peer that we have had information back from the Scottish Government and from others about that, which can be adapted to support the needs of the different organisations. Under those recommendations, I would propose that we close the petition. We are agreed to that, so we thank the petitioner for raising this issue with us, but I think that we've taken it as far as we can and we will close the petition. Position number 1943, which is to help prevent the destruction of greenfield sites by providing financial incentives towards the remediation and reuse of brownfield sites. This is a petition that was lodged by Victoria Mungal and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use while also discouraging developments on greenfield land. We last considered this on 26 October, at that point, we agreed to wait until the national planning framework MPF4 was finalised and we also agreed at that stage to write to a number of organisations seeking their views. Members will be aware that MPF4 has now been finalised and was approved by Parliament on 11 January. We have also received responses from Clyde Gateway, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. I should also note that COSLA declined to provide a formal response to this petition on this occasion. The responses that we have received detail some of the challenges of developing long-term vacant and derelicts such as fragmented land ownership and ground conditions, while highlighting the funding streams that are available to support the redevelopment and regeneration of these sites. In particular, RTPI Scotland highlighted the work of the Scottish Land Commission on this matter and recommendations to review and evaluate funding streams to ensure that they incorporate criteria that will help direct investment to parts of the country that need it most. On that basis, do members have any suggestions? I wonder if, given that the MPF4 has been published and on the basis that there are, as I understand it, funding streams available such as the vacant and derelict land investment programme and the regeneration capital grant fund, which in principle provides what the petitioners are looking for, namely a means to incentivise restoration of Brownfield as opposed to always going for new Greenfield sites. I did notice that Paul Sweeney, when he was on the committee, in his evidence talked about the VAT on renovation and retrofitting existing buildings, subject to 20 per cent of that. However, demolition and new builds are zero-rated, so a handy cap is imposed on the right thing to do. That is a fair point, but it is not really within the power of the Scottish Parliament to deal with the VAT on that matter, as I understand it. Given that we have now got the MPF4, Mr Torrance had suggested that we wait until MPF4 was finalised. Given that that is now finalised and that there are vehicles for funding, I do think that perhaps we have taken this as far as we can. If it subsequently emerges that the petitioner feels that these funds are insufficient, the petitioner could raise that again, perhaps, but I am not sure that we can really go any further with this than we have already with the inquiries that we have made and the evidence received. No, I think that that is a sympathetic and comprehensive response. Our colleagues agreed that we will write the petitioner just confirming the information that we have received and the fact that the MPF4 has been published and closed the petition at this stage. Are we agreed? We are. We are. Petition number 1944 to enforce the engine idling ban, introduced by Lodge by Alan Ross, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enforce the engine idling ban and to take action to introduce instant £80 fines for offences, reclassify idling as a high traffic offence, legally oblige local authorities to enforce the engine idling ban, create contact points for public reporting, increase anti-idling signage in public spaces. At our last consideration of this petition, the committee agreed to write to COSLA, the RAC Foundation and Professor Adrian Davis of Edinburgh Napier University to seek their views on the petition. Professor Davis' response states that city-wide or nationwide banning of idling, combined with fear of fines and environmental awareness, appear to be the most effective methods of reducing engine idling. In response to the committee, COSLA stated that many local authorities simply do not have the additional resources or staff capacity that would be required to enforce the engine idling ban on a statutory basis, consistent in addition with the comprehensive scheme of suggestions proposed by Alan Ross. In light of the responses that we have received from Professor Davis and COSLA, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed, Alexander Stewart? Once again, the petition probably has come to its fruition. We need to close it under Standing Order 15.7. As you have identified, the feedback from local authorities to the Scottish Government suggests that the vast majority of idling drivers switch off their engines when requested to do so. Despite briefing indicated that fixed penalty notices are rarely issued, and the Scottish Government has stated that it considers the current approach to enforce them to be fit for purpose and appropriate. COSLA, as you indicated, convener, has indicated that it does not have the resource to manage this under a statutory duty to enforce the engine ban, and that, because of that, the additional resources and staff capacity would not be able to manage that process. For all those reasons, I think that rule 15.7 standing orders should come into effect and the petition should be closed. Colleagues, are we content with Mr Stewart's suggestion in relation to this petition? We are, so we thank the petitioner, but we now draw that petition to close. That concludes agenda item 2. We now move on to agenda item 3, which is the consideration of new petitions. As always, before I introduce the first of these new petitions, I should say to petitioners who may be with us or who may be watching our proceedings that we do a considerable amount of work and advance all of our first consideration of the petition. Part of that work includes getting an initial view from the Scottish Government, not one that necessarily determines the outcome of actions that we might subsequently take, but an initial view in relation to the Scottish Government's perspective on the petition, and we also receive a briefing from the Parliament's Impartial Research Service, SPICE, as well. So, petitioners should know that that work has been done in advance. The first of our new petitions is petition number 1993, which is to reform the financial support for social work students and work placements, and it's been lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Chaliner. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third and fourth year undergraduate social work students on work placements and reforming the assessment criteria and adequately funding the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements. By way of background information, the petitioners highlight that social work students spend nine months on placements during their third and fourth years, but unlike, for example, student, nurses and paramedics, there are no bursaries to support them. In their initial response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that the relevant minister has met with the petitioners and representatives of the Scottish Association of Social Workers, the Social Workers Union and the British Association of Social Workers to discuss support for social work students. I might refer to the summary of that meeting later. The Scottish Government response also states that, while a preference for bursaries over loan payments is likely to be shared by most students, there should be recognition of the wider funding landscape and pressures across the Scottish Government budget and the challenges that this brings to ensuring that the student support package is fair while maintaining the overall affordability of the student support system. The response also highlights that social work students have access to living cost grants that are not available to nursing, paramedic and midwifery students. We have also received a submission from the petitioners in response to the Scottish Government, and in that submission, the petitioners highlight that support available for social work students currently comes in the form of a repayable loan and that this depends on household income. That differs from the support available to nursing, midwifery and paramedic students who are eligible for a bursary totaling £37,500 over four years. The petitioners tell us that, while undertaking work placements, social work students work just as hard as their colleagues on nursing, midwifery and paramedic courses. They recognise that social work students only undertake placements during their third and fourth years, while nursery and midwifery students do so throughout the entirety of their courses, which is why the petition calls for bursaries to be made available for those in the later stages of their study. The petitioners call for a review of the funding and assessment criteria for postgraduate bursaries administered by the Scottish Social Services Council, the SSSC. As noted in the spice briefing, it has not been possible to locate details of the scheme on the SSC's website, however individual universities do provide more details of the scheme. I want to refer to one comment by the minister in the Scottish Government response, which caught my eye, which was that the points raised by the petitioners in their meeting with Mr Hepburn were captured and will be taken into consideration when progressing current work to review the support available. The minister also expressed the petitioners that he and his fellow ministers would welcome when taking an open line of communication of this matter. I was slightly entertained by the idea of things being captured, not necessarily an expression, that indicates necessarily a subsequent course of action to me particularly. Colleagues, do we have any comments that we would like to make? I think that this is a really important area right across the board in terms of the support available to students. We do know that, particularly in the public sector, we are trying to attract people into these really important jobs. Having met with social work students and the social work organisations, they are at crisis point in terms of people believe them to be good career options, but it is incredibly difficult to be able to finance yourself through that. In particular, I noted when speaking with the social work students at that stage, that late stage, when they are on placements so heavily, other people in academic life may be able to get a balance of doing some work to support themselves financially, but when you are doing a course such as social work on nine-month placement in the workplace, as any worker would be, that ability to be able to do that well and get that qualification and that experience means that we are asking people to also take on additional work. It is such an important area for us to get good experiences for people as they go through their careers and learn the ropes of that career. We so need them to be available to our public sector. I would absolutely support that we should keep the petition open and seek some guidance on what we could do perhaps by being in touch with some of the social work organisations, what they support the social work union and social work services and see what we could do to help the petitioners with us. I am struck by the work placement point because we want individuals at this stage to be focused on delivering their best and getting their best from that work placement. If it is of a nine-month secondment, I encourage them to try to find alternative income streams by work as well as not really a healthy prospect or, I think, a route in those circumstances. I am inclined to agree. I agree, convener, that there is definitely a gap in the bursary provision in this process. To try and encourage someone to go into the sector is tough enough, I think, in reality, but putting extra obstacles and burdens in front of them is going to make it much more challenging for those individuals to find the course and to fulfil it. By providing some of that information, as Carol Morgan has suggested, we can get a much clearer identification about what happens in the bursaries in the third and fourth year within the social work practice and the replacements. I think that it would be very useful, but I think that the petition needs to require more information to be captured, as the minister might have captured, but we need to capture some information here as well to make sure that we are fulfilling and getting the full information that is required. I certainly would be interested to write to the minister to ask him what form he expects his open line of communication to take and whether he is able to confirm a structured basis for that on an on-going basis, but I think that we may also, as Carol Morgan has suggested, want to write more formally. I think that you were talking to the social work, but to the Scottish Social Services Council to seek their views on the issues raised in the petition, I think that we want a view on providing bursaries to all third and fourth year undergraduate social work students' work placements, probably an explanation of the criteria for assessing bursary applications for post-graduate students, and a clarification on where members of the public can access information on those assessment criteria, because Spice seemed to find that that was more problematic than it ought to be. If Spice found it problematic, I do not quite know how other people are meant to find it more readily than they are. Any other suggestions or are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis? I think that we are going to keep the petition open. I think that it raises important issues. We will write to the minister and to the Scottish Social Services Council, as we suggested, and we will consider the petition again when we consider the responses that we have received from them. Agreed? Agreed. Our next new petition is petition number 1995, to improve support for victims of spiking. It has been lodged by Catherine Ann Mackay. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a multiagency approach to investigating spiking incidents to ensure that victims are given access to appropriate testing and incidents are investigated robustly. A member of the petitioner's family feels failed by the system after her negative experience reporting a suspected spiking incident. I certainly read the incident, as described, with some concern, I have to say. The Spice briefing notes that the Education, Children and Young People Committee held a round-table evidence session on spiking at its meeting on 22 January 2022. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government outlines its work to address spiking. That includes an investigative strategy to provide guidance and direction to staff responding to an investigating instance of spiking, senior investigating officers leading on local spiking-related investigations, and round-table cross-organisation meetings. Do members of any comments or suggestions for action, just bearing in mind that we cannot pursue the individual circumstance that was identified by the petitioner because that is not competent for us to do, but there is a very general issue in there. That general issue certainly raised concerns within me about a potential variable attitude to the incidents of this. Mr Ewing? Yes, I too re-read the description by the petitioner of the experience that a member of her family underwent and was struck by how serious it was and must still be to that particular family. That question is a repetition as well. I was just going to make a kind of distinction, maybe a fine distinction, which is whilst it is not really open to us to investigate individual circumstances. Nonetheless, there are a couple of general points that arose, namely why wasn't a urine test carried out? Should one have been carried out? Is that an issue that we should get a reply on? If it is not carried out because the police formed the view that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, it does kind of delimit any later possibility of establishing that there was spiking because the medical evidence that would have come from a urine test would not be available if the test was not taken fairly promptly. Therefore, I do think that we should be asking the police whether or not urine tests should be routinely taken. Is that part of the advice that they have got? I am not quite sure about that to be candid, but I would like clarity on that. The petitioner also states that the hospital personnel appeared to form the view that spiking may well have taken place. Therefore, although we cannot look at that particular issue for this particular case, where there is apparently some potential corroborative evidence, surely that then should make the conduct of a urine test almost routine. I think that that particular issue is one that I feel out of our duty to pursue properly petitioners' pleas, particularly when there is a very serious incident that has occurred. I think that that duty is exacerbated. It is a higher level of duty, so I would be keen that we investigate this further. I would ask the Scottish Government and the police whether or not this is something that should be carried out either on a routine basis or where there is really any evidence available or where it may be the case that more evidence may emerge later, because evidence is not always necessarily available within the first 24 or 48 hours. After that, it is too late to conduct the urine test. I want to come in because I have friends who have children of the age that this would perhaps be something that has happened. To me, it is quite a serious issue because the young people have said to me that when they go out, they make preparations with each other to make sure that they make sure that drinks are not being spiked in things. I think that if young people are looking out for each other and raising that as a concern amongst themselves in those groups, it must be taken as a serious issue by the police. I would be interested to get some feedback from the police about how seriously they take the issue and whether they have training for police officers in that area. I absolutely agree. Alexander Stewart, will you comment? Yes, there has been some work done on this already. We note that the Police Scotland has had support. Universities have done quite a lot of work themselves to try and support any student who is in that situation. I note from the report that the Scottish Government has had round-table discussions. Those are all good, but it would be quite useful to get a summary from SPICE about what has happened at the Education, Children and Young People's Committee evidence session on drink and needle spiking. They have done quite a lot of work on this already, but we could capture some of that and we could get that information here. Use that to try and benefit, because what Carole Mocken and Fergus Ewing have said are very valid, but there may be some more clarity that we could capture. I am going to use it again. I am very concerned that I have now planted this word capture in your vocabulary, Mr Stewart. You are now capturing everything in every petition. I encourage you not to be led down such a dangerous path, but I fully support the sentiments. That round-table, however, was 14 months ago. I have to say what struck me. First of all, I think that this Parliament has a duty to try and ensure that, although the composition of its membership is not youthful, that we are understanding and responding to issues that are of direct concern to many young people at the present time. This clearly is one. What struck me and I in my ignorance had probably assumed that a urine test was a fairly routine process, but it was the reputational damage that was potentially being done to the individual in question, which was thereafter unable to evidence that their drinks had been spiked, in consequence of which it was open to others to suggest that they had just been irresponsible or reckless in their behaviour. I felt that that was very damaging and avoidable if the processes were in place to try and properly identify the experience that people had been subject to. I think that we are all kind of minded to pursue this petition further and to make inquiries. I think that Mr Ewing suggested Police Scotland. I thought that that was perfectly sensible. Mr Ewing? Yes. In addition to that, I did not catch anyone suggesting it, but the recommendation here, which I think is good, is that we should request a spice drink. That was Mr Stewart. You said that, sorry. Yes, he wanted to capture it. I feel to capture what he said. But we will do that as well. I think that this is an important petition. We are going to keep it open, not being too light as we discuss it, because actually I think that the issues are quite significant. I do not know who to write to on this, though, but it was also suggested in this instance that the hospital staff thought that the drink might have been spiked, but I was not sure if that led to any kind of process or test there, either. I do not know if there is anybody who could reasonably try to understand what the practice is of that. We could certainly ask the Government. I was trying to write to every health board, but I think that that would be quite cumbersome, but we could maybe ask of the Government whether or not there is any standard practice in relation to this, identifying the fact that, amongst young people petitioning us, there is a sense that it is an emerging and growing concern, because it may well be it is something that needs to happen because of an incidence growing. Anyway, fine. We now move to petition number 1996. This is a petition to take action to prevent discriminatory abortions for disability in Scotland, and it has been lodged by Callum McEllar on behalf of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to ensure that abortions cannot take place after 24 weeks and circumstances where the child is likely to have a disability. The petitioner highlights section 11d of the Abortion Act 1967, which enables termination up to the point of birth if the fetus has a disorder, but restricts termination to 24 weeks if the fetus has no disability. The petitioner feels that this sends a discriminatory message that a non-disabled child's life has more worth than the value of that of a child with a disability. The Scottish Government recognises that the issue of terminating a pregnancy where a fetus is likely to have severe physical or mental abnormalities is a deeply emotive one. The Scottish Government also states that it equally values the contribution of all members of society and opposes any discrimination on the basis of disability. As the committee will be aware, from consideration of related petitions, the Scottish Government currently has no plans to amend the Abortion Act 1967. The petitioner has responded to the view offered by the Scottish Government, highlighting the lack of explanation for why this provision exists, and suggests that section 11d enables a woman who could arguably cope with a disabled child, arguably, to terminate the pregnancy because she believes that having a non-disabled child is preferable to having a disabled child. The petitioner also notes the Mary Stopes UK position paper referred to in the SPICE briefing, which suggests that introducing an upper gestational limit for abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality could have the unintended consequence of pressuring women to make a difficult decision in a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing the number of abortions. The petitioner feels that the Mary Stopes UK position does not develop or emphasise the legal context of the 24-week limit, and notes that the 24-week limit reflects an important and meaningful fetal development stage at which it is considered a healthy fetus that is deserving of protection, whether or not the fetus may eventually become a burden. Do members have any suggestions for action in relation to this petition, which I certainly studied the briefing that we received with some care? I also looked thoroughly at the briefing on an important sort of sensitive issue to look at. On balance, I believe that the Government has indicated that it has no intent to change the law around abortion. I also believe that the right to choose and to get appropriate healthcare throughout your pregnancy is an important choice for women. I believe that, in this instance, this is not a petition that should go forward. It would be my balance view on it. I also noted in the briefing that we received in the October 21 case that was heard in the High Court in respect of the UK Secretary of State for Health, in which an effort to strike down section 11d was dismissed. The court dismissed the argument at that time that the section of the act perpetuated negative stereotypes of people with disabilities as it focused more on the rights of the pregnant person and their medical treatment. I found that the briefing received in this interesting in presenting different sides of the argument that the petitioner was seeking to represent, which in itself was well expressed. We have Carol Mockins position. Does any other colleagues have any suggestions? No, so you are proposing that, in this instance, given the position of the Scottish Government, in particular, not to amend the 67 abortion act, there is actually nothing that the Petitions Committee can meaningfully do to pursue this. Therefore, we close it. Are we agreed? We are agreed. We will write to the petitioner explaining that it is not a petition that we can meaningfully advance. Petition number 1997, to introduce mandatory braille labelling for food products sold in Scotland. That has been introduced by Fiona MacDonald on behalf of Site Scotland and Site Scotland veterans who may be with us in the gallery, I understand. We are very welcome to you. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce new legal requirements on retailers to provide braille labelling and food products dealing with the name of the item and the items used by or sell by date. The petitioner has highlighted that braille labelling is currently only required from medicines, leaving braille users at a disadvantage when identifying food products that they wish to purchase. Responding on behalf of the Scottish Government, Food Standards Scotland, note that, as the body with policy responsibility for general food labelling, they recognise that having access to adequate food information is essential to enable customers to make informed choices when shopping for food. The response also highlights the intention following the exit from the European Union for general food labelling legislation to be considered for review on a UK-wide basis. It is noted that the scope of the legislation is considerable and any such review may be unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, Food Standards Scotland has invited Site Scotland and Disability Equality Scotland to meet with them to improve their understanding of the needs of blind and partially sighted consumers. We have also received a submission from the petitioners, which notes that a meeting with Food Standards Scotland took place in early March. The petitioners tell us that the meeting provided an opportunity for them to offer clarity on the numbers of people living with sight loss in Scotland while exploring the importance of offering a variety of accessible formats to match their consumers' individual needs and preferences. The petitioners also mentioned that Food Standards Scotland is considering a public consultation aimed at providing further insight on the impact of mandatory braille labelling for food products sold in Scotland. Do members have any suggestions? That is an interesting petition on an issue that has not occurred to me until I read the detail of it as being meaningful. I could also see the practical issues associated with it, but nonetheless it seemed to me that there was an unpleasant to see that meetings have taken place at least to explore matters further, but what more might we do? Alexander Stewart? I think that there is no doubt that there is an opportunity to deal with this petition and to seek some clarity as to what is taking place. I think that we have touched on the consultation that is anticipated, and I think that it would be useful to write to the Food Standards Scotland to ask them to update their plans on the consultation that is going to take place with reference to the labelling of food products sold in Scotland having the mandatory braille labelling on them and the timescale that that would take for the consultation to be carried out. I think that that is important, but I also think that we need to write to the Food and Drink Federation to seek the views on the issues raised by the petitioner, specifically on what would be anticipated the additional costs of adding braille to labelling that would be put on to food products. I think that that once again would also give us an indication as to where this is going. It would also be useful to find out from the Scottish Government what their views and feelings are on this process, too, because they have a role to play in this process. So they would be some of the recommendations that I would put forward at this stage, convener? I would be interested to have a little bit more of an understanding as well. I know that it is said here to be not something happening in the foreseeable future, but just what discussions are taking place about the process that might underpin a wider UK comprehensive review of food labelling, because the Scottish Government have indicated this on a UK-wide basis. I would just like to understand if they expect to proceed on a UK-wide basis in this instance and what further information they can give to us. I think that we might ask them who in the UK Government is potentially leading in this matter, and it may well be that we can write to the UK Government in due course as well after having confirmation of that, just to ask what their view is on the process that would underpin this. It is not as immediate an action as the petitioner is looking for, so I think that I am very much in favour of Mr Stewart's suggestions. Are there any other thoughts from colleagues? We are content to keep the petition open to write to the various organisations and the Scottish Government and potentially the UK Government on the basis that we have described. We maintain contact with the petitioners as well so that they have an opportunity to feed in their responses to any responses that we receive so that we have that information before us when we next consider the petitioner. Are we agreed? We are, thank you. Our next petition and final petition, new petition this morning, is petition number 1999, which is to fully implement the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities lodged by William Hunter Watson, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, referred to as the UNCRPD, is fully implemented in Scotland. The petitioner believes that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted. He states his view that covert medication and chemical restraint are incompatible with the UNCRPD as he interprets article 25, meaning that persons with disabilities have the right to refuse treatment. The petitioner highlights the importance of the right to refuse treatment in care homes and mental hospitals. We have received two submissions from individuals who share their experiences in relation to treatment without consent. In particular, Gary Gale expresses his view that there is a gap between policy and practice. He states that patients and carers should be empowered to make their own discretionary decisions about their own lives and to put the onus on the professionals to appeal against them instead of the other way around. The committee has received a response to this petition from the Minister for Mental Well-being and Social Care. He states that for some individuals compulsory treatment is used to provide the person with medical treatment to alleviate suffering and for the protection of both the person and others. Compulsory treatment is only allowed under mental health legislation in Scotland in very strict circumstances. The submission highlights safeguards in place such as the right to independent advocacy and a mental health tribunal. The minister states that other interventions should be considered before proceeding with restrictive practices, as such actions should be a last resort. It notes that the Scottish mental health law review report proposes reforms to help to drive reductions in the use of coercion, including restrictive practices, while recognising the potential need for it in certain circumstances. I do feel that there are themes here that David Torrance was with us this morning, and I should have recorded his apology earlier on, which I now do. He would have, like me, recollect having been raised, I think, in petitions to do with this sort of issue before. Nonetheless, colleagues, do we have any thoughts as to how we might proceed? Mr Ewing? Yes, I note from the papers that the Scottish mental health review, the independent review, was chaired by John Scott, KC, and the review published its final report on 30 September, and in the Scottish Government's response it states that it is taking time carefully to consider the recommendations, which I think is fair enough, because those issues are not by any means straightforward. I think that it would make sense to inquire from the Scottish Government as to when they expect to respond to the mental health law review, because that review, as I understand it, did recommend that a human rights approach be taken to these matters, but it still acknowledged that there may be instances where treatment may require to be administered without consent for health reasons, for example, as has been alluded to. I think that it would be useful to ascertain that I am sure that the petitioner would like to know when the Government is going to respond, because I think that response will very much dictate how the petitioner would wish us to proceed in terms of any possible recommendations that may arise from the Government's response to the review. I agree. Do we have any other suggestions? We can tent, so we will hold the petition open and proceed on the basis advocated by Mr Ewing. That concludes the open public section of our meeting today. We next meet again on Wednesday 19 April, and I thank all those who joined our proceedings this morning. We now move into private session.