 Rydw i ni, ac welcomes to the 18th meeting of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2023. Just for the benefit of colleagues, our first agenda item is to agree to take agenda items 4 and 5 in private when we will be considering revised guidance and written submissions. Our member is happy to take those items in private, we are. Agenda item 2 is consideration of continuing petitions. The first of those is Petition number 1876 to accurately record the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape. This petition has been lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa McKenzie and Cath Murray, and I'm pleased to welcome Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa McKenzie to the committee this morning. Good morning to you both. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Officer and the Scottish Court Service, to accurately record the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape. We last considered this petition here at our meeting on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Crime Reporting Board, the Police Scotland, and also to invite the petitioners to give evidence. Before we move to the substance of today's consideration of the petition, I should note that the committee has received responses from the Scottish Crime Reporting Board, Police Scotland, as well as further written submission from the petitioners responding to those responses. The Scottish Crime Reporting Board advised in their response that their remit is focused solely on the police-recorded crime national statistics, which measures crimes, not people, and have never included the recording of demographic details of suspects or perpetrators. Police Scotland indicated the review of its recording policies progressing through its internal governance processes and, if approved by the Professionalism Strategy and Engagement Management Board, will be subject to wider consultation with relevant stakeholders. Police Scotland also carried out a manual review of its recorded crime data for rape. They state that, although they are unable to confirm the biological sex of those recorded in the statistics, none of the females recorded for the crime of rape were involved in the physical act itself. In all cases, their involvement was art and part, defined as aiding in abetting or abetting in the perpetration of the crime. In light of those responses and the evidence gathered throughout the consideration of the petition, the committee of a number of questions would like to explore with the petitioners today. I wonder whether there is anything you would like to say just in advance of us so doing. Dr Lucy Hunter-Blackburn. Thank you. If it would be helpful, convener, yes, we can... Quite happy for you to speak in comments. So the petition was lodged, of course, on the 7th of June 2021, so two and a half years ago, so we want to thank the committee, first of all, for pursuing this so diligently and being going into the various organisation that it has. You've accumulated in the course of that a lot of material and a lot of questions you could ask, but we want to say, our point here is very simple, rape is a male crime, and when a man rapes a woman, he should be recorded always in all the statistics as a man, as a male person. That's our most important point behind all the detail that we could explore this morning. We want to start there. So it's a long-standing failure to deal with this issue. Police Scotland's policy on crime recording generally not just specific to rape was raised by Joan McAlpin in the Parliament in March 2019, and the then justice secretary gave a reply, which I regret to say, I would call specius. We noticed a female rape in the 2018-19 criminal proceedings data. We asked the Scottish Government about it, and they told us that they had to check newspaper reports to see if it was right. Later, they said that the members' stats, and we noticed that they have yet to do so. So there are really four points that we think matter here. One is trust in statistics, that these are important statistics, and they need to be right. The public trust in statistics rests on them being solid and reliable and correct. There's a point about responsibility. A lot of your paperwork, a lot of your exchanges, really are watching public bodies play ping-pong with this issue and fail to take responsibility. This is not difficult. Police Scotland have the ownership of their stats. They should own this decision, and they should just make it, and they should be asked to make the right one. There's a moral obligation to victims. Very strongly, Michelle Thompson made that point very forcefully to the committee and earlier stage. It is not acceptable that a victim of rape—who could be a man as well as a woman, but predominantly for talking women—should have to see the state, the system, rebadge a person who raped them as a woman when they know fine well that it was a man. Behind this, as well, we see in the Andrew Miller case illustrates this really strongly. Andrew Miller was recorded as a man because he chose to be. We have that on the court records. Andrew Miller, who was arrested wearing a prosthetic bra. I have to be careful here. We obviously have to be quite careful about the discussion of cases that are active in live and court procedures at the moment and the one to which you're just referring is. I'd be grateful if you just perhaps didn't refer specifically to something that is a matter of subjudice. Shall I talk about his conviction, which is not under review? It's only his sentencing that's under review, but his conviction for sexual assault is not challenging the conviction, just the sentencing. Miller was arrested wearing women's underwear. He was known in his community, Amy George, and he was allowed to have himself recorded as a man. I do think that we better try and talk in general terms about the policy because I just am worried that we do contrary in any way that might be seen to be prejudicing any wider consideration of these issues. I understand how difficult that is and the timing of when anything takes place is always a factor in these matters, but we aren't immune in this building in the way that they might be at Westminster, unfortunately. The point that I would like to make is that without naming a name, we have evidence, convener, that it is open to individuals who have been convicted of a serious sexual assault to choose whether to be recorded as a man or a woman. We think that that is a force that is institutionally sexist, and we cannot think of anything much more misogynist than a man being able to choose whether to be recorded as the sexiest or the opposite one. We think that that's wrong in this context in those kinds of cases. That's where we start, Lisa. Is there anything to add to that? No, that's where we start from. Okay, thank you very much. I'm going to invite my colleague Fergus Ewing to lead the questioning. Mr Ewing. Thank you, convener, and good morning to witnesses. Thank you for appearing, the committee was, as you've alluded to, keen to give you that opportunity and also to hear what you have to say. I think that you perhaps have answered this already, Dr Blackburn, but could I just ask anyway what is the aim of the petition? What would you like to see happening? You've made your views very clear, and I'm grateful for that, but what I'm curious to know about is what would you like to see happening and what in particular would you like to see changed? I suppose the main thing that the committee, and we are really grateful for the tension that you've paid to this, because the system feels very impenetrable to people. It feels very difficult, where do we go? You write to public bodies, they bat it around. What we would like you to do is to provide the ethical leadership here, which is lacking. It's lacking from Police Scotland, it's lacking from the Government. We would like to see the committee provide the ethical leadership, which says to those bodies, you own this, you own the recording of your statistics, and secondly, we would like you to agree with us that this matters to get right and that the recording of rape should be done in sex. And what else is recorded about perpetrators is fine. We're not saying that you shouldn't record anything else, but that their sex is clearly recorded. When you look at the female offending statistics, what you're saying is the offending statistics for women. Ethical leadership. At the moment, my understanding is that Police Scotland has the primary responsibility for accurately recording sex of suspects. What's your view about that? Are you happy with that? Is your view that you're happy with that but that they don't carry it out in a way that you regard as displaying that ethical leadership? Well, ultimately, it's the Police that record the data at the point of arrest and charge, so it quite clearly falls them operationally. I mean, at one point I make about the Scottish Crime Recording Board. I hear what they say about they were set up for a very specific purpose, as I understand it. There was a set of crime data that they own, which were de-designated as national statistics in 2014-15 and they had to rectify that. But the fact of the matter is that crime statistics that they collect, yes, they're right, they collect statistics on crime, but the same statistics will be used for criminal proceedings about the people. Someone who commits three crimes will appear in the criminal proceedings as a person, if you like, and under the crime data as the offence itself. So it seems odd to me that the Board can't choose to have a little bit of oversight about this, and the Board is cheered by the Scottish Government. But, you know, there's a pointing game going on. But Police Scotland, yes, probably they have the primary responsibility. Are you happy with that? I think so, but at the end of the day, as Lucy said, it's about ethical leadership. What we're seeing, not just on this issue but related issues on the sex and gender issues, is the failure to take leadership. Without going off into a divergent issue, we have schools guidance in Scotland. It's problematic from the view of lots of women who've been campaigning on this issue, but what you get from the Scottish Government is, well, it's just guidance, it's non-statutory guidance, but that guidance has been used once there's a kind of naivety, once it bears the imprimatur of the Scottish Government, people take it seriously quite understandably and schools will adhere to it. We've seen councils say, well, we're doing this, we're changing these toilets to gender-neutral toilets because the guidance sort of suggests that's a good way forward. So, there's a naivety about what it means when a high-profile public body, like Police Scotland or the Scottish Government, put their badge on the kind of the norm of collecting data in this way. And we had data, we had guidance from the chief statistician in September 2021, which basically said that public bodies could stop recording data on sex as a matter of course. Now, we see that as enormously problematic across all sorts of different public policy areas, but interestingly, the one thing that the chief statistician drew out was said, well, investigation of crimes in that one area, well, maybe it is important to collect data on biological sex, but that seems to have been overlooked by Police Scotland. So, your concern really isn't so much who's legally responsible for recording the sex of suspects, but it's that there is a sort of an ablingation of responsibility in the part of the Scottish Government, and instead of giving very clear instructions, they give guidance, which is vague perhaps for political considerations. Yes, right, okay, I've just realised that, okay. Yes, I think that's very, yeah. I'm just really trying to get to the root of your views and also what you think should happen so that we can then consider matters in the light of that. If the Scottish Government was to say, we think it's imperative that you record the sex of vendors, rapers, then I'm assuming that Police Scotland would probably do it. Yeah, yeah. I hope they would. Perhaps I could add one thing, which is that there is a sort of domino effect in the system here, which we notice, which is that once a police do it, then the courts do it, then the media do it. So there is a kind of, the system is linked, and the police are important because they are the first point in the system at which a person might be misrecorded by sex. But, of course, you can take someone like the Isla Bryson, Adam Graham case, and you'll see that in his case, he was reported, he was recorded initially by the police as male because he hadn't, at the point of being arrested and originally charged with rape, he hadn't, he hadn't at that point adopted his cross-sex identity. So he is, but then later when he goes into court, pronouns change, and then you, even today, you could hear Ronald Hodgkis talking on the BBC to someone and a journalist saying, well, we're using she for, because that's what the court used. So there's a sort of domino effect, but the police are the first part, the first domino, if you like. So the system does link, and you have to take an interest in what everybody does. But guidance and leadership from the Scottish Government would certainly, in because of that linkage, would simplify it in that sense. Right. Now, obviously, and I'm not going to mention any particular cases, convener, but there may be instances where a suspect, a rape suspect, self-identifies as a trans woman. And many people, including myself, may think that they are frankly at it and bad actors, although that's my personal view. But given that this is happening, what's your view, or it's happening in a few instances, happily a very few, what's your view about how these cases should be recorded in respect of the identity of their sex? Presumably, your view is that these are men and they should be recorded as male. Is that it? Yes. Absolutely. That's exactly what we think. I mean, we're not saying that there is no reason to record anything else about them. I mean, Lisa and I, we like data. We were very supportive when the census added the question about trans identities. We thought that was interesting because we hear and know little about the population of people who identify as trans. We are absolutely, if the police want to record other aspects of this person, how they identify, they might want to do it because they feel in order to handle them in custody, for example, that they need to know that. That's fine, that's absolutely fine. We're not arguing against that data being recorded as well. And on the grand scheme of things, there's a huge amount of discussion in this area which is hampered by a lack of data and being able to say yes or no to how many such cases existed, being able, without having to comb the press, to say how many of such cases, as you're describing, exist would help everybody, no matter where you stand in the argument, because information is helpful. So, we're absolutely clear that we're not arguing that you can't, you mustn't also record that if you wish to, but the fundamental point is that this person should not go into the stats as a woman. It's just listening to what you've said and the explanation you've given for which I'm very grateful. I mean, would it, just to put this point to you, I mean, is your concern not really so much about the precise sort of dry technical rules about how sex should be recorded, but the fact that there has over recent periods of time, in cases where men who've carried out rape self-identify as women and that instead of them being recognised as men, the state is taking a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed approach and can't actually spit out that they are in fact men? Is that not really your concern, rather than a sort of question of the recording of statistics? It's more of a, you know, an ethical or political view that you have here, because, you know, we have to consider where we go and what we do with this, if anything, and it does really strike me, and I don't mean in any way this to criticise the view that you take. I mean, I probably share your views as I understand them as you've expressed them this morning, but, you know, what it does seem to me is that what you really want is for society to display a very clear approach that a male rapist is a male rapist. Rapists are men, and that's that, and those men that pretend to be women, as you see it, are at it. Now, if that's your view, is that not really more a matter of politics than the recording of statistics? Because, you know, many members in the public may say, well, it's pretty obvious that all rapists are men, so what's the point? We all know that already, and if they say that they self-identify as women, well, that's a matter of self-identification, but it doesn't change biological sex. We have more than one reason for wanting this to change. I mean, one is a sense of a moral duty to people who are the victims of sexual assault and rape, but the trust in statistics is very important, because the statistics that are gathered generate an understanding of offending patterns, and sexual offending is by and large perpetrated by men. I mean, we've seen in the criminal justice proceedings, we picked up this one female rape in 2018-2019, went to the Scottish Government, they said, oh, that looks odd, we're going to look at newspaper reports. This is not a sustainable way of running a data collection exercise, but if that trebles over two years, then suddenly it looks like there's been an explosion in female rape. And it's not as if that data just sits in the ether and we don't do anything with it. I mean, you've been a minister, you know that this is foundational for public policymaking. Public policymaking and public resource allocation is made on the basis of data, so if we suddenly see what looks like an explosion in female rape or female sexual assault, then we might want to divert public resources to deal with this new phenomenon, but actually it turns out that it isn't a new phenomenon, it's actually a male offence committed by males, and that's what we should be dealing with. So it's not just that the ethical thing is one part of it, but trust in statistics is really fundamental and already we're seeing people are concerned about misinformation perpetrated because of the advent of social media, but this is really important that the public has trust in statistics and if they read a daily male headline which says there's been a trebling in the instance of female sexual assaults, can we be sure that that's really what's happening? Is that the phenomenon that we're really faced with or is it that the data now has been skewed? I mean, Police Scotland reviewed the 28 cases that they came across between 2012 and 2018 of, I think it was suspects and those arrested with the female rape, and their responses, well, they were all art and part, but that's not what we were asking. How do you know for sure those 28 people were biological females? Because once you've changed your data collection practice, that's what you've lost. You can no longer say with certainty those 28 people are male or biologically male, biologically female, and that's what gets lost if you change your practice. What do I could add? Some of the language that we were using there, I don't, I'm very uncomfortable that the response to the Bryson case was that you had to say Bryson was at it, that that was a political response. From my point of view, when we're talking about this, I'm not, words like pretending or whatever, it's just a fact that this is a male person. What that person genuinely believes about themselves is a separate question in this context. I'm not wanting to make that kind of judgment. It's a simple fact, the crime has been committed with a male body by someone who I would describe as a man, but I'm not asking anyone to make a judgment about in every individual case whether we're going to use a phrase like at it, which I don't think is particularly helpful here. We just need to say it's a male person. Some of what, in any such case that might arise, what the relationship of that person is with the identity which they profess, is a completely different question and will vary, and I want to be careful here that this is not the argument here is not we should do this because people are quote unquote at it, we should simply record them correctly by their sex because they're male. I guess that the background to that view is that there's a feeling that some individuals may seek to be housed in female prisons and in that sense the motive for professing female gender is one which most people would regard as bogus. I just have one more question for the witnesses, which is what you would like to happen next. You've already said that ethical leadership is what you require from the Government, from the police, from those who record statistics, but are there any more specific things that you would like done in response to your petition? I suppose to simply, what it says, please, when we thought about it when we started, would the Parliament tell, ask the Government, etc. What the petition says, would you please ask the Government to ask the police and the other bodies concerned to do this, I suppose, is our fundamental simple request. And the Government's response, which is it's up to the police, is an application of leadership. Yes, absolutely. This is a problem, it's the kind of perpetual finger pointing, it's not me, it's got responsibility, it's them. I'd like to know why Police Scotland believes that it's consistent with their so-called values to hand-rapist the power to determine how they are represented in public statistics. This has been the consistent response that the police have given to the media, that this is aligned with their values. I find that quite incredible. In April 2019, the police were asked by a feminist campaigner, why have you changed your recording policy and they said, when did it change and on what basis? And they said, well, it evolved. And then the Deputy Chief Constable wrote to the Justice Committee in January 2022 to report that, actually, later that year in 2019, they decided that they would have to, the reason for changing the practice was in anticipation of the GRA being reformed. So this is very common phenomenon as well as public policy running ahead of law reform, which, of course, none of us can guarantee will happen or come to fruition. And we've seen this with other public bodies, so Police Scotland casting around for a rationale and retrofitting it and changing it, perhaps when they come under scrutiny. But I would like to know why they think that this policy is consistent with their so-called values. I find that quite shocking. Do we like us to find out what are the police values to which they refer and why have they resulted in the change in the previous practice to matters which to many of us seem fairly straightforward and always have done for decades, if not centuries? I'm quite keen to establish whether the recording of crimes, the related data, and indeed the databases, are if there is a general issue or a specific issue. It's my understanding that police officers will often record details of a crime in different ways, depending on, even though we have a singular force, they might record the data, particularly once you get down to granularities, in different ways. Indeed, there's not even a central database that covers all the recording of that data that is universally shared across Scotland. The committee may choose to find out, but I just wondered if you had any insights into that. No, in the sense that Police Scotland would have to give you the answer there, but I suppose that one reason that rape was the issue of the petition, although I think that we wouldn't deny that the same arguments were making, you could add to serious sexual assault and violent crime, all the crimes that women very rarely commit and then do, and where the statistics would be skewed. The reason that we focused on rape was very specifically if you're charging rape because of the nature of the definition in law of rape, you know something about that person. If you take out the art and part people, you know something. It's one of the very few crimes that, unambiguously, requires a sex. In a sense, rape is to be generous there, it's unusual, but I think there are questions about other crimes that might then get into what you're describing, which is if there's an inconsistency across systems that have started to get more complicated to chase down, but it's a useful question. It's a very good question to have with Police Scotland, because coming back to trust in public statistics across the whole board of statistics at the police collect, which is an incredibly important statistical set, the consistency of data recording by the police more generally is obviously for you as politicians, for whom this is data that you will work with a great deal. You need to feel secure that what you're being given by the police is an account of the world, is reliable, is trustworthy and that local variation is within the limits that are absolutely unavoidable. Okay, thanks for that. Thank you, convener. Just a question, do you believe that there should be a third party involved rather than the police for recording or determining the sex of the person committing it? Do you think that there should be a third party involved rather than the police? I don't understand. Do you mean at the point of charge? At the point of reporting, because what I've heard and what discussion has been happening is that the petitioner is wanting the record of the biological sex and the gender identity, but if the police is not recording or the database, should there be a third party involved? I think that it's got to be the police. I mean, we'll come back to Mr Golden. If the police are charging rape, the sex is unambiguous of a rapist. If the act, the person committing it, cannot charge rape unless they know the person in question, has used an erect penis to rape a person. There's no third party required at that point who would add anything to that. The police have done this since forever, since rape has been on the statute, but they've known this and had to know this. I think that it should be a matter that police have recorded practices that are robust in their own right to do that as a functional entity that they need to be able to do that. I'll ask a couple of questions just in relation to the various submissions that were received in your own. I mean, I note that in your final submission you say that the Police Scotland statement remains technically correct. I just wanted to look behind that. Do you believe that it remains technically correct because that is convenient or because it is technically correct? Do you worry that that is euphemism for not entirely responding to the issues that you are raising? Forgive me, convener. Could you tell us where in our submission? Yes, so the last paragraph, the last two paragraphs, it says, as we previously argued, while the Police Scotland remains technically correct since Bryson declared a transidentity after being charged. Is that familiar with where we are? Yes, absolutely, no. I mean, we think that in 2021 they said that there's no such case and it's technically true because Bryson was at the point of arrest still using his—no, he was just presenting as a man called Adam Graham—and he transitioned, he assumed his new character in between charge and trial. So it is technically correct that the Police have never dealt with a case. I think I have to find—I'm trying to think about it there—it's an angel on pinheads and the case I know you'd rather I didn't mention involved what we have, let's say we have now evidence of a case of a person who had lived in their community for many, many years using a female name, was known around the community, was arrested, dressed in a manner that clearly they were in that persona at the time and yet at the fact that that person was recorded as male was the choice of that individual. So I feel there's an angel on pinheads quality to any maintaining the position they do. And what we have, I mean you referred earlier on to the way statistics can be manipulated and how a tabloid might suggest that there has been an explosion in a particular area of crime. The statistics, insofar as we've got them from any of the bodies, take us up to 2020. Is it your worry that, in the period since then, that the statistics that might be presented will give rise to the type of tabloid journalism to which you are referring? Are you disappointed that there aren't more up-to-date statistics that might confirm or not the worry that maybe you have that what is this evolving practice might be about to have an impact on the way that these things are reported and perceived? We can't and won't know. I mean this is the thing. Once the data recording practice has been altered, I mean this is what really troubled us. When we went to the Scottish Government to say we've spotted this one female rape in the 2018-19 criminal proceedings data, their response to us was, oh yes, that does look strange. We're going to check newspaper reports. This is not a sustainable way of running a data collection exercise. I mean, obviously, we're here talking very specifically about the crime of rape, but if Police Scotland have, for example, ended up recording a number of sexual assaults being perpetrated by females when they were actually perpetrated by males, well we won't know that now. Are we going to contact them again? Are they going to scour the newspapers? Go back on to check whether they've misrecorded them. I mean, this is not sustainable. You know, once you've lost the data and the certainty about the data, you've lost it, so we just won't know. And rape is the most obvious one, as Lucy said. We came to you because to us it's an indisputably male crime. Some women do commit sexual assault, but the numbers are very small. But because the numbers are small, the ability to skew is great, and that would go for serious sexual assault as well. But the fact is that they've changed their practice, and we just don't know any more. So it's one of those unknown things. I'll just add to that. There was a case in Stranraer. It was Stranraer Sheriff Court, I think, just in the past week. It was sexual, so it was groping and decent exposure, and then internet... Richard Bell conditions the use of the internet, and the person concerned had been convicted in 2008 as a man, just straightforwardly, of past sexual assaults, but is now using a female name that was recorded in the press statement using female... No, well, the press reporting I saw, but I think in court was dealt out with using sort of a female pronouns and so on. So we don't know that case could well turn up in the sexual offending stats for the current year as a female case, but the only way to find that out later will be to do exactly what Lisa says. It's just to comb through the press, which is a former senior civil servant. I find an extraordinary proposition from any Government. Thank you. I think that's very helpful from my point of view as well, if any colleagues could any further questions they'd like to put. Thank you both then for coming in. Is there anything you'd like to just say that perhaps you felt we didn't manage to explore in the detail you might have wished? Yes, there's a statement actually, so I made a note. If I could make a note. I think we're grateful for the conversation. I hope that you will come back to us if there's anything that comes up in your own discussions. Please do. We'll continue to be very pleased to help the committee with this. I'd like to make a closing comment, if I may. I would like to say to the committee that sitting in front of you all as a group of your men, you'll be very aware of that, and we're women, sitting in front of you today as two women talking about the issues and the petition, talking about the kind of things talking, this is not an experience we would choose. I really want to make that point. This is not normal. Please don't read into the fact that we're sitting here as we are, that we're comfortable doing this. We think that Police Scotland particularly is unwilling, but also the Scottish Government to give leadership here that has made this policy and this petition such a drawn-out process is a problem. It's not that neither you nor we, having asked to engage here with a normal political discussion, it should not take two and a half years to bottom out that rapists should be recorded as male. I'd like to finish there, if I may. I understand the point that you're making and I understand the point that you're making about the committee. I had a long experience obviously in 2013 when women came forward on the transvaginal mesh scandal and that must have been an incredibly difficult presentation to have to make at that time identifying what was not an area of public health policy that had had to be discussed in detail. I hope that the Parliament and certainly those of us who were men on the panel at the time did understand and pursue that case very actively on behalf of those women. I hope that we're capable of doing that. I believe that we're capable of doing that, but I understand that from the experience then I've well long understood that some of those issues are very difficult actually to have to present and to discuss. I do thank you both very much indeed for your evidence this morning and we'll take a short recess just to allow us to reset. Thank you. Our second petition this morning continued petition is petition number 1928 to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel. This has been lodged by David Gallant and last considered by us on the third of May when we agreed at that time to write to the Scottish Government. I'm pleased to note that the Scottish Government has responded to confirm that the remit of the fair fairs 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 and colleagues may remember the issue in relation to companions who may have been getting off at one stop where there was a concession and getting off at another where there wasn't. This 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've also received a submission from the petitioner drawing our attention to provisions of the Equalities Act and suggesting that this legislation be used to compel the Scottish Government to ensure disabled people have equitable access to public transport. Do members have any comments or suggestions? I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis that the Scottish Government has confirmed to the remit of the fair fairs review, it includes consideration of concessionary travel schemes for disabled people and their companions travelling by rail. In closing the petitioner, I remind the petitioner if it doesn't meet the fair review and doesn't meet what we're trying to do, who can bring a petition back in 12 months' time. Are colleagues content with that approach? I am content with that approach. I wonder if, when closing the petition, we could just draw specifically the attention of the Government to the information that the petitioner has provided in the supplementary submission to which you alluded, convener of the 13th November, because I thought that the petitioner made a very strong point and is one that I think should be made to the Scottish Government specifically to be considered in the consultation, namely that, at the moment, people with a disability cannot go by bus for long distances because there are no adequate toilet facilities, according to the petitioners, at least on various well-known bus company vehicles that are referred to in the petitioner's response. The point is that they cannot access public transport at the moment on the basis of people without a disability. Therefore, because trains have disabled-friendly toilets, the provision of what they ask for would enable them to travel. At the moment, they cannot travel at all. I totally agree that we cannot really take this much further, given that there is a consultation, so that's really a way to deal with it. Specifically, that seems to me to be an extremely strong point indeed, and a very obvious form of discrimination against people with a disability. I'm very happy, I think, colleagues, that in closing petitions we write to the Scottish Government who are undertaking this review to make that a very point to them in closing petitions. Are we agreed? We are. Our next petition is petition number 1985, to evaluate garages to homes developments. This has been lodged by Darren Loftus and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent evaluation and provide national guidance on garages to home developments. We last considered this petition at our meeting on 23 February, where we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and COSLA. However, before we move forward, we have received a request from the petitioner, which was received yesterday, asking us to defer consideration of this petition until a later date. We are still trying to establish the underpinning of all that, but in light of that request, our colleagues content to defer consideration of this petition. We are. Thank you very much. The next petition is petition number 1989, to increase defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces. This has been lodged by Mary Montague, who I should acknowledge again, has subsequently become the provost of my own local authority in East Renfisher. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces. We last considered this on 28 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the British Heart Foundation and the Order of St John. The petitioner highlights our recent UK-wide survey on the factors affecting public access to defibrillators, which found a strong desire for public funding to support placement of pads, as currently there is a reliance on communities, charities or local organisations. The petitioner has suggested that the Scottish Government make representations to the UK Government to appropriately update health and safety at work legislation, with the inclusion of reasonable defibrillator provision in first aid requirements. I thought that the information that we received on survival rates, at 60 per cent greater chance of survival if there is access to a defibrillator, is a meaningful difference. The Scottish Government's response states that the Scottish out-of-hospital cardiac arrest report, 22.23, was due for publication in October. However, the clerks have become aware that the publication has now been delayed until later in the year, although there is not much of the year for it to be delayed later in too, I presume. It must therefore be imminent. St John's Scotland's written submission highlights growing financial concerns among community groups specifically in relation to purchasing batteries, and meeting the rising energy costs. It also shares challenges in engaging with some local authorities whose response is a bit uneven, stating that some refuse to provide the relevant planning permission and will not enter into a dialogue to address the issues. The British Heart Foundation Scotland has highlighted Government funding in Wales and England to assist with the provision of defibrillators in areas of need, noting that it would support a similar programme in Scotland. It is a very important health issue that Mary Montague has brought to the committee. I think that there is some interesting evidence from the various organisations to whom we have written. Do members have any comments or suggestions? Thank you, convener. I wonder if a committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government to highlight the issues that St John's Scotland has identified in communicating with some local authorities and to ask whether it is aware of any local authorities that have refused to engage with charities and community groups or refused to provide planning permission for pads installation, and if so, why that has occurred and how it intends to work with local authorities to improve their engagement with charities and community groups seeking to install pads. I wonder if we could also write to the Scottish Government to ask if it is considering providing specific fund for the provision of defibrillators in areas of greatest need in Scotland, similar to the fund in England and Wales. However, it will give consideration to meeting representation to UK Government to update the health and safety at work legislation to include defibrillators provision as part of a minimum first aid requirements. I wonder if we could add to the content of the letter to the Government as described by Mr Torrance a request that the Government specifically comment on their view as to the statistic to which you alluded, convener, namely that access to defibrillator increases very substantially the chances of survival. Maybe I missed this in the papers but it seems that there is a lot of data from the British Heart Foundation submission on that. I wonder if it is possible also to identify how many people's lives have been saved as a result of this increased ability to protect and survive. It would be interesting to see if, rather than a theoretical statistical percentage, how many people have actually lives been saved as a result of defibrillators. That would be quite useful data to access if they have it, of course. Certainly by asking them we can ascertain if they do. I might also suggest to colleagues, depending on the responses that we receive, that this issue might be one that we put on our short list of topics that we might take to the chamber for a debate. I know that we are looking for two shorter debates that might be combined for a debating time of the chamber, but it does seem to me to be an issue of some considerable importance. Petition number 1995 to improve support for victims of spiking, which has been lodged by Catherine Ann Mackay. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a multi-agency approach to investigating spiking incidents to ensure that victims are given access to appropriate testing and incidents are investigated robustly. We are joined this morning in consideration of this petition by our parliamentary colleague Claire Adamson, who is with us online. I notice that it has been faithfully online throughout all of our proceedings so far. Good morning to you, Claire, and I will come back to you in just a second. We last considered the petition on 22 March, and at that time we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. Police Scotland has confirmed that victims will always be asked to provide a urine sample when reporting a suspected spiking incident. However, a sample is not collected if the report is out with the 14-day forensic window or that the victim does not wish to provide a sample. Senior investigating officers have been appointed within each territorial police division to act as a point of contact for all spiking-related matters and investigations. The Scottish Government's response highlights Operation Precept, a national response to spiking, which includes guidance for officers and staff. It states that Police Scotland also has a spiking information toolkit, which includes guidance and information for the licensed trade. The response notes that there is no single test that can determine if a person has been spiked. It is not possible to determine whether drugs found as part of any test were taken by the individual or given to them against their knowledge or will. It includes by noting that a further round-table meeting is due to take place with operational partners. Lastly, SPICE, the Parliament's independent research body, has produced a summary of education, children and young people committees on the topic of drink and needle spiking from January 2022. That summary has been attached to the meeting pack for colleagues. Before I ask colleagues to comment further on actions that we might take in light of the evidence that we have received, can I ask Clare Adamson if there is anything that she would like to say to the committee in consideration of our petition? Thank you very much, convener. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on this important subject. The petition does have my full support. Ms Mackay previously contacted my office and erased her case with Police Scotland, and she has my admiration for the way she has approached this issue after such a harrowing incident for her family. We know that there is a correlation between spiking and sexual offences, and we know the systemic barriers that people face in reporting such crimes. Those are wider cultural issues, typically rooted in the tacit societal acceptance of both violence and misogyny. This petition does not speak to those cultural norms, but it is those attitudes that drive the inequity that have made such incidents troublingly commonplace. As policy makers, we must recognise the areas in which we can make an immediate and tangible difference. Other barriers will still exist to reporting these incidents, but confidence in these incidents being investigated should not be one of them. Victims should feel confident that their complaints will be treated with the utmost seriousness. They need to know that their voices will be heard and their experiences will be compassionately handled and rigorously investigated. This is not the current position, as demonstrated by the experience of the Mackay family. Too many people are hesitant to bring cases forward. Our Parliament has an opportunity to change that narrative. In cases of suspected spiking, I share the belief that appropriate testing should be standard because we know that our following incidents are critical. Further victims should be directed to holistic emotional support. People in such situations will always feel scared and isolated and supporting their mental wellbeing is crucial. Promoting that support more widely will encourage more people to relay their experiences so that these crimes can be investigated and perpetrators will feel the full legal scrutiny for their actions. No one who commits these heinous crimes should feel safe and their actions should not go unpunished. No one who suffers because of these crimes should feel that their voice is dismissed. I thank the committee once again for allowing me to speak and convey my appreciation for Catherine Ann Mackay and for her dedicated advocacy on behalf of her family. Their work will make no difference to their own experience and the outcome, but it means sure that no other victim or family are left feeling that incredible injustice. Thank you very much, Claire. For that testimony and support of the petition, which is much appreciated and on behalf of your constituent. Colleagues, we've got various responses, which we've had an opportunity to consider. I wonder if there are any comments or suggestions for action as to how we might proceed. Fergus Ewing. I thought that the responses were pretty comprehensive, particularly from the police. It's obvious that the police do take this very seriously. They stressed that, and I won't expand on that, but I thought that it was quite a comprehensive reply for which I'm grateful. Nonetheless, I do think that the points that Claire Adamson makes about testing make standard, which the police say is the approach that they take, is the correct, principled approach. Therefore, I think that there are a few questions that I would like to establish from the police in view of the responses that we've had. First, to write to the police to ask if it keeps a record of instances where a urine test was conducted, refused by the victim or not practically possible. The police do refer to instances where it's not practically possible or where it was refused. Secondly, whether it can compare those records if available with a number of reported incidents of suspected spiking. And thirdly, how it ensures that precept guidance is understood and followed by police officers across Scotland so that there is a uniform routine approach that spiking testing is standard. I wonder if we could also write to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on its round table meeting with operational partners, as noted in its submission of 1 June. Secondly, how it's engaging with pub owners as part of its work to tackle spiking and broader safeguarding regulations for the night-time industry inconsistencies and approach by individual pubs due to a lack of specific regulation was raised during the committee round table session. Lastly, if it's given consideration to making spiking a specific offence and the suggestion again convener was made during the round table discussion that we had, thank you. All of those suggestions I think are sensible and certainly rise out of the evidence we've received. Are colleagues anything else they wish to suggest? Are we happy to proceed on the basis of Mr Ewing's recommendations? So we will keep this petition open. Thank you again to Catherine Ann Mackay and to Claire Adamson for her work this morning and we will take forward with the suggestions that have been made by the committee. Thank you very much. Our next petition is petition number 2000. I don't know whether that's statistically significant. It's the 2000 watt, I'm not entirely sure, but the petition number 2000 to ensure universities are held accountable to students under consumer law lodged by Dr Marie Oldfield calling on the Scottish Government to ensure universities are held accountable to students under consumer protection law by extending the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman or creating a new body similar to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which could enable students to access redress without the need for court action. We last considered this on the 19th of April and at that point we agreed to seek the views of University of Scotland and the National Union of Students, also known as NUS Scotland. Now University of Scotland has responded to state its view that SPSO offers an effective route for complaints handling where cases have not been resolved at an institution level and it therefore does not see the basis for an expanded remit or a new body to be established. The response also notes new guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority published earlier this year, which provides advice on how consumer protection law applies to the UK higher education sector and what enforcement action is available when higher education providers do not comply with the law. Reference is also made to the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Bill, which is currently being considered by the UK Parliament, which is expected to significantly strengthen the Competition and Markets Authority's enforcement powers. NUS Scotland responds states their support for review into the complaints processes for higher education institutions and notes their view that extending the remit of the SPSO would be an effective way of empowering students to hold universities to account, which SPSO itself has no wish to do. We have also received a response from the petitioner expressing concerns about the SPSO's remit and approach to complaints handling and the impact on students of navigating complaints processes and having to seek redress through civil courts. I think that from the NUS and from the petitioner, a desire to go further, but from the SPSO and Universities Scotland less of a desire to so do do, colleagues have any comments or observations in view of the responses that have received? Mr Torrance? Thank you, convener. I consider the responses that the committee has received. I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that redressing enforcement aspects of consumer protection remain reserved to the UK Parliament with provision in the digital markets competition and consumer bill expected to strengthen enforcement powers in the competition and market authorities, and the Scottish Government has no intention at this time to seek extended powers available to the SPSO or to create a new body in this area. I think that that latter point in particular with the Scottish Government has given very clear direction means that there is limited scope for the committee to advance the aims of the petition. Do colleagues therefore support Mr Torrance's recommendation? We thank the petitioner for bringing the petition forward. We respect the fact that the important issues have been raised, but given the response of the Scottish Government who have no inclination to undertake work to advance the aim of that petition, I feel that there is little scope for the committee to proceed and we will therefore close the petition. Petition number 2001 is to withdraw and I quote the supporting transgender young people in schools guidance from Scottish schools. This has been lodged by E. Phillips on behalf of safeguarding our schools Scotland and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the supporting transgender young people in schools guidance for schools resource and await the outcome of the CAS review before developing a new resource. We last considered this petition again on 19 April and we agreed to seek the views of a variety of stakeholders. We have received responses from LBGT Youth Scotland and Scottish Trans, both of which oppose the action called for on the petition and highlight the development of the guidance with input from organisations across the education, women's and sports sectors, as well as the LGBT plus sector. While the national gender identity clinical network for Scotland responded to note that its remit does not include the provision of materials and guidance documents to educational establishment, it is supportive of any guidance that aims to help school staff provide transgender young people with the best possible educational experiences. The response also notes that the CAS review commissioned by NHS England to make recommendations by NHS services provided to children and young people questioning their gender identity has no significance to the provision of educational materials in 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 has understood that amendments have been made to ensure references to the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment, reflect developments in the complex area of law and policy, that latter being a quote. The response from COSLA notes that, while it was not directly involved in the development of the guidance referred to in the petition, does not have an agreed position on the guidance. It remains committed to working with partners to take forward the recommendations, including in the LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group's 2018 report. We have also received response from the petitioner, drawing our attention to the equality and human rights commission as updated technical guidance for schools and sharing information on an NHS England resource that has been designed to help educators to support gender-distressed children. A request to provide the committee with written evidence has also been received from Four Women Scotland. Well, 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? I would like to have the evidence before us. I wonder if we could close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis of that, the Scottish Government has clear guidance to support transgender young people in schools as needed. Withdrawing the existence guidance would be detrimental to the wellbeing of transgender young people and would leave teachers and schools without national guidance to inform them and support their decisions. The case review of NHS services provided in England has no significance in the provision of educational materials for schools in Scotland. Thank you. Are there any other comments or suggestions or variations of view? No, we have a proposal from Mr Torrance. Are colleagues wishing to pursue that? Yes, they are. Right. Well, thank you. Quite a lot of information. We will obviously summarise much of that in our response to the petitioner. Thank them for bringing forward the petition. However, in view of the work currently being done, the committee has taken the view that we will close the petition. We now come to agenda item 3, which is the consideration of new petitions. As I always do, in case there are petitioners who might be watching our proceedings this morning having lodged a petition, just so that they understand, we initially take a view from the Scottish Government and from SPICE, the Scottish Parliament's independent research body. We do that because, were we not to, then, at the first consideration of the petition, that is exactly what we would then propose doing, which would only add a delay to our consideration of the petition. It is important that we get to the meat of the argument and case that the petitioner is trying to advance. The first of our petitions that are new this morning is petition number 2041 to exempt community healthcare staff from parking charges. This has been 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 and allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without costing them thousands of pounds per year. Mr Ronald tells us that he works alongside healthcare staff based in community health buildings surrounded by parking metres, which has seen an increase in charges to around £6 per hour. Mr Ronald is concerned about the impact that this 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 has responded to the petition, noting that, as local authorities are responsible for setting parking charges and property they own and determining who is exempt from such charges, this is not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in, although I might have argued that it was an issue on which the Scottish Government might have had 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 that we are considering here. I have to say so to colleagues of any comments or suggestions. I do not really feel that so far we have had anything that helps this very important body of public service workers at all. Mr Ewing? I was astonished at the replies that we have got quite frankly. The starting point, I guess, for us and the work that we do is to look and see what the petitioners say and what they are complaining about. This petitioner says that parking charges that he must pay and his cohort of community healthcare workers—it is not quite clear if he is an employee or a volunteer, I may say, but maybe that is—I have not read that properly—but in any event, parking charges have increased to £6 per hour. That means that staff pay £48 from working-in-a-hour shift a five-day week and that comes to 11,520 pounds. I would have thought, convener, that, given that, that is what the petitioner said, that the health minister and NHS Scotland would have commented directly on that, but they have not. Why not? It is completely, absolutely baffling, but it is also completely unacceptable. The idea that the Scottish Government can pass the ballot to local authorities is completely at odds with what happened in September 2008, when the information that I have suggests that the Scottish Government announced that car park charges should be abolished at NHS hospitals. That directly contradicts what the minister is now saying. I find it absolutely baffling that we would be asked to accept that nonsense as in any way acceptable. I do think that we have to strongly rebut this to write to COSLA and to the health minister and ask him to look again and ask if it is the case that groups of health workers have to pay these extortionate charges. How on earth, if that is the case, they can be expected to carry on in their job? We would be driving people out of this kind of work if that is true. It may be the question that that evidence and that would be fine, but a direct response is something to which surely the petitioner must be entitled. Curiously, I see joining us for a later petition our colleague Jackie Baillie in the gallery today, and Jackie Baillie and I should work together on hospital car parking charges in an earlier Parliament, where we wrote to the then health secretary, Nicola Sturgeon, and managed on a joint opposition basis to have hospital car parking charges in NHS-owned car parks abolished. I think that you make the point very effectively that the Government has intervened on a matter that it regarded as the ownership of the NHS previously. The key thing for me here is exactly the point that you make. The Scottish Government says that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government, but it may not be technically a matter for the Scottish Government, but it can have an opinion on it, and it could show some sort of moral leadership or lead in relation to us evidencing the claim of the petitioner, because it does seem to me that these are individuals who are community-based, who need to get to the patients or the people that they are seeking to assist in a car. If, in fact, whether they are back at HQ or they are with their patient, they are then having to pay significant car parking charges, then that is a disincentive to those people actually continuing in the form of employment that they are in, and the loss of that would be hugely detrimental to this valuable service in the community. I wonder if we could also write to COSLA, the Royal College of Nursing, UNICE and UNITE and the Allied Health Professionals Federation to see if we can get some further evidence in relation to the statements that the petitioner has made to understand whether this is a widespread experience or not. I certainly think that we should return to the Scottish Government and say that we would like to understand what your view is on the petition, not just to argue that it is not a matter for you, because clearly it would be a matter for ministers if we suddenly lost all the staff who are performing this service. It was of concern in the good old days, convener. Well, I am not going to lead the committee in a chorus of down at the old bull and bush, Mr Ewing, but are there any other comments or comments from the—are we content to proceed on that basis? I agree. We are. Thank you. Our next petition is—thank you very much to the petitioner, and we will be taking forward the aims of the petition as you can hear. Petition number 2043, to change the way gender theory is presented in schools, which has been lodged by Philippa Jackson. You will recall that we considered a similar petition, not exactly the same, just a moment ago. It has been lodged to urge the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to redefine the relationship of sexual health and parenthood, that is RSHP lessons, pertaining to transgender and not present the information as fact. The spice briefing note, which 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 delivery of relationship sexual health and parenthood education to replace the guidance currently that is 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 five to primary seven. 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 submission notes that the content of the RSHP resource was informed by over a thousand primary and secondary teachers and was piloted in 38 schools. The petition has written submission expresses that children are being taught an ideology that she is deeply concerned about, as she finds the current teaching to be age and appropriate and extremely graphic. She believes that some of the people involved in creating the RSHP resource are very biased. The petition 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 from the petitioner, and I wonder if members have any suggested options for action that we might take forward. I wonder if the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard honours. On the basis of that, the Scottish Government is clear guidance to support transgender young people in schools that is needed. The Scottish Government has accepted the LGBTI Inclusive Education Working Group's recommendations on its approach in inclusive education. Mr Ewing? I would not oppose that, because it is very clear that the Scottish Government is not going to change its practice, but I just like to record my full support for the petitioner's views in every respect. Are there any other comments or observations? Given the very clear guidance of the Scottish Government and noting Mr Ewing's comments, which might be more widely shared, I expect, are colleagues content to, even though it is a new petition, regrettably close it given the direction that we have received? We are. I thank the petitioner for bringing the petition forward. As I hope that you will have understood, the response that we have received from the Scottish Government means that there is little scope for the committee to pursue the petition and, on that basis, we are closing it. Petition number 2046 to provide birth certificates for stillborn babies, which has been lodged by Debbie Ann McMillan. The petition 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 noticed in the gallery this morning is the Claire Hockey, who is the MSP. I imagine that all the petitioner is concerned, and Claire is just observing the proceedings that are taking place. 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 breed or show any other sign of life. That reflects 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 this and other legislation, including the limit of 24 weeks for most terminations of pregnancy. The Scottish Government therefore has no plans currently to bring forward primary legislation to change the 24-week threshold to 20 weeks. The Scottish Government's response to the petition outlines the current approach for registering a stillbirth, whereby the registration of birth deaths and marriages Scotland Act 1965 makes provision so that there is 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 Scottish Government has stated that it does not plan to make changes to the way in which stillbirths are registered. It does note that the recent launch of a memorial book for those who have experienced a pregnancy or baby loss of 24 weeks, applicants will also be given a commemorative certificate, which is intended to give recognition and comfort to those who want to record their loss. An important consideration—I imagine that most members of the committee will have known people experience the matters that are affected by the petition—is a very clear direction from the Government in relation to potential consequential impacts. Were those changes to be made via primary legislation? Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments to make? In light of evidence given to the committee by a Government and impact on legislation, I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standard orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has no current plans to bring forward primary legislation to change the 24-week threshold for registering a stillbirth to 20 weeks and does not plan to make any changes to the requirements to separate registers of stillbirths and of births? I think that the Government's argument in relation to the termination of a pregnancy at 24 weeks really would have to be the primary source of any debate from which a consequential subsequent action, where any change at some point to be made, might be one that the petition seeks to establish. In a way, I think probably I understand the Government's concern that, to move on this area, first could have consequential impacts on that legislation, which may not be those that are intended by the petitioner. I think that for those reasons it is important that—or I agree that they are right in the correct proposal list to close the petition. Colleagues are content with that, yes. That brings us to our penultimate petition this morning, which is petition number 20, 48. It is to review the fast stroke awareness campaign. This has been lodged by James Anthony Monday. The petition 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 perhaps say that Mr Monday is known to members of the Scottish Conservative Party, as someone who has worked in our corridor and whose father died. I gather that his mother is with us in the chamber this morning, as we consider the petition. In addition to that, we are joined by our MSP colleagues Alexander Stewart and Jackie Baillie for the consideration of this petition. Mr Stewart is back for his first visit to us since he withdrew his patronage of our committee. Jackie Baillie is a very familiar and regular attendee and campaigner on behalf of constituents with petitions before us. I should also note that we have received a written submission from Sandesh Gulhane MSP in support of the petition. James lodged the petition after losing his father to a stroke that went undiagnosed as his symptoms did not fall within the parameters of fast, that is face-arm speech time 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 systemic review of evidence, which noted that less commonly used B fast test, that is balance eyes face-arm speech time, identified more ischemic strokes than the fast test, and that this test may play an important role in the diagnosis of strokes. In response to the petition, the Minister for Public Health and Women's Health notes that the Scottish Government published its refreshed stroke improvement plan in June, with priority two of this plan committing the Government to establish 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 on his family's experience and the difference use of the BE fast test might have made. In doing so, James calls for an immediate and urgent review of the existing stroke awareness campaign to help ensure that every individual experiencing a stroke receives the time of care that they deserve. So, an important petition that has been brought to us, and before we as a committee consideration further, I will ask our two parliamentary colleagues if they would wish to comment. Alexander Stewart. Convener, good morning, and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be back amongst you, but for the first time at this side of the table rather than the other. And can I also say that I was in the previous session of Parliament a co-convener of the cross-party group for chest, heart and stroke. I would like to speak today on support of James Bundy's petition PE2048, the review of fast stroke awareness campaign, and commend James and his family for the fantastic work that they have done to date bringing this petition here and also highlighting where we are. They are calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase awareness of symptoms of stroke by reviewing the promotion of fast stroke campaign and ensure that awareness campaigns include all the symptoms of a potential stroke. There have been 11,055 reported strokes of Scotland in 2022 and increased from 2021. Latest data for the year ended 31 March 2022 reported 3,836 deaths, which were a cerebral disease, including stroke, and the current test to assess patients suspected of having a stroke, as we have heard, is the fast. While the test can identify most stroke patients, it can also present other symptoms, which are less common symptoms, and I think that the crux of all this, convener, is the less common symptoms that can occur in some individuals. That may mean that they end up being, unfortunately, delayed in their process. There may be a misdiagnosis when it comes to that. That very much was the case that happened here with Mr Bundy dying at the age of 53. In 2021, as you have indicated, there was a systemic review of evidence found that the fast, accurate, dedicated support would show that between 69 and 90 per cent of strokes could be identified. Crucially, the test missed 40 per cent of the posterior stroke, which is exactly what Mr Bundy suffered from. The issue that we have here has also been identified by the National Advisory Committee on Stroke, which stated that it was important that it was education for health professionals, including in circumstances where there is a negative test for stroke. That is what we talk about here. Education that is required for the professionals who are dealing with the situations and circumstances is important. I firmly endorse all the calls that James Bundy and his family are putting together to the review of the fast test that was carried out in evidence sessions. There should, I believe, be an evidence session that would be potentially brought towards the health committee and the potential for a debate in the future. That would help the opportunity to carry out where the family is and how the process is moving forward. It is quite clear that, in those circumstances, that test was not fit for the purpose to identify, and it is very important that we try to alleviate that for the future. As I say, I commend and congratulate the Bundy family for their terrible loss that they have had to suffer, but it is their wishing to support individuals and others who find themselves so that this will not happen to other families. As I say, I am very supportive of the petition and delighted to be here. Thank you very much, Mr Stewart. Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much, convener, and of course both you and Mr Stewart have covered most of the detail of what I was going to say, but just a couple of points of emphasis. I think that we would all acknowledge that FAST is a very good awareness programme for strokes, but it could be even better. I think that that is at the essence of this petition. I have to say that the petition, when I read it, is simply common sense, convener, and I am not sure why the Scottish Government is not doing this. We have heard why James brought the petition to us, and it is a matter of regret that his father died in the way that he did. It is the case, as we have already heard, that 40 per cent of ischemic strokes are simply not captured, and symptoms such as vomiting, blurring of vision, confusion or lack of balance should be included in an extended FAST awareness campaign. You yourself have referred to BFAST, which covers balance and eyes. I would ask the committee to urge the Scottish Government to conduct a wider review of FAST. Of course, we recognise the good work of the FAST campaign, but if we are missing up to 40 per cent of ischemic strokes, then surely we should be open to changing the campaign to include more symptoms. The minister's response, I think, misunderstands this point, but what I would ask the committee encourages her to do is to build on the solid foundations of FAST, but extend it to include more symptoms so that indeed we can save more lives. That is an objective that I am sure that everybody signs up to. Obviously, that is an important petition. I, too, applaud James and the family for the work that they have done in bringing it forward to us. I, too, was struck, as Jackie Baillie was, by the fairly straightforward action that could be taken and promoted, which could have a material difference. I think that we will certainly want to return to the minister, but I wonder whether there are suggestions of action that we might take in the interim period. Mr Torrance? Thank you, convener. I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the Stroke Association and the Chess Heart in Stroke Scotland to seek reviews on the action called for in the petition. I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on what consideration has been given to using the BFAST model to help to raise awareness of symptoms of stroke. I would very much like us to pursue that with the minister, I think. In many respects, I would like to think that we could embrace the language of Jackie Baillie and all that, that it seems to be fairly common sense in this instance. As much as anything else, if they have considered it and have chosen not to, what reasons they might have for having come to that conclusion, that would assist us further in the way that we might pursue the issues released in the petition. I thank James for bringing forward this petition. It is an important consideration. We will keep the petition open, and we will seek the information that we have requested and return to it at a subsequent date. I thank my parliamentary colleagues for joining us this morning. That brings us to petition number 2049 to introduce buffer zones outside migrant accommodation. That is our final petition this morning, and it has been lodged by Gillianne Peatree. 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 these spaces and 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 of tells being used to temporarily house refugees and asylum seekers, with Gillianne providing examples of demonstrations targeting accommodation in Erskine and Elgin. The Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees has responded to the petition highlighting the Scottish Government's previous engagement with the petitioner and the need to establish a clear definition of migrant accommodation, as well as consideration of 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 this ask. The minister also notes existing powers available to Police Scotland to deal with any serious disorder arising from public assemblies and encourages anyone who has experienced or witnesses any form of harassment or hate crime to report it to the police. Do members have any comments or suggestions to make? I wonder if the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Refugee Council just right Scotland, COSLA, Police Scotland and the Mears Group to draw attention to the Scottish Government's initial view and to seek your views on the action's call for the petition. I'll be content to do so. We are. Thank you very much, and that concludes the public part of our meeting today. We'll next meet on Wednesday 20 December, and we now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5, as we agreed earlier.