 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. Can I begin just by thanking my colleague David Torrance for convening the previous session when I was unfortunately off ill, and welcoming you all to our agenda this morning, which is largely to consider seven continued petitions and five new petitions. We won't be taking any external evidence this morning. Our first item is simply to agree to take item four in private. Do we content to do that? We are. That brings us to item two, which is the consideration of new of continued petitions. The first of which is position number 1867, to establish a new qualification for British Sign Language. This was lodged by Scott McMillan calling in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the SQA, the Scottish Qualifications Authority, to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language BSL. I should just say that, as we are considering this issue this morning, BSL interpretation of our discussion will be on the Parliament's BSL channel following today's meeting. We last considered this petition in November last year, and at that point we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary of Education on the development of the next BSL plan and exploration of how BSL national qualifications might be developed. You will have seen that we have received response from the Cabinet Secretary, which suggests that the Scottish Government will be undertaking both engagement and consultation work to inform priorities of the BSL national plan for 2023. In relation to national qualifications, the Cabinet Secretary has provided details on BSL awards currently available at SCQF levels 3 to 6. While delivery of these awards is still at an early stage, the Cabinet Secretary has indicated that uptake is increasing. The Cabinet Secretary goes on to state that, while the Scottish Government shares the petitioner's vision of BSL to become more widely taught in schools, having qualifications in place does not necessarily lead to the language being offered as a level 2 by schools, and it remains the choice of schools to decide which language to teach. The Scottish Government therefore does not believe that the steps sought by this petition are necessarily sufficient to support increased take-up of BSL. We have obviously considered this petition a number of occasions. Do colleagues have any suggestions in light of the Cabinet Secretary's letter and her commitment to consult further in the 2023 plan? David Torrance, I wonder if the committee would be mind to keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government seeking details of engagement and consultation that they plan to undertake when developing the new BSL national plan. Are we content to do that? I think that these are vulnerable communities. It would be too easy for us to say, let's just close the petition, I think keep what pressure we can up to see what changes we can actually help facility. We're agreed, thank you. Petition number 1931, which is to improve the R100 rule out by prioritising properties who currently have speeds of less than five Mbps. The next petition has been lodged by Ian Barker and calls on the Scottish Government to prevent digital exclusion for rural properties and their households by giving priority in the R100 programme to properties with internet speeds of less than five. At our last consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Government and, in this case, the relevant contractor, BT OpenReach, to seek further information about how work is sequenced and prioritised. The Scottish Government's response explains that it conducted an open market review to identify the premises that would be eligible for public investment through R100. The intervention area identified was tested through a public consultation to confirm that it was accurate. The Scottish Government also waited some rural locations scoring as part of the building process to encourage deployment in those areas. This submission provides information about the full fibre charter for Scotland, which aims to extend build further into remote, rural and geographically challenging areas. OpenReach's response to the committee explains its inside-out approach to sequencing works, whereby build begins from the primary exchange location where the main fibre control unit is located out into the communities. The rationale for this is to make the most use of public subsidy and extend the network as much as we can with the funding available. Finally, a recent parliamentary question from Willie Rennie, MSP, highlighted an FOI which he said reveals that the full R100 will not be delivered until March 2028. Obviously, a subject that has entertained the chamber with a degree of controversy for as long, frankly, as I think I can recall. Colleagues, do we have any comments in light of the evidence that we've received? Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. As you indicated, I think that this is a very topical issue and has ensured that members and communities have been very skeptical of what is taking place, and I do think that there is still some more that requires to be done. I would indicate that we keep the petition open. It might be very useful to find out from the Scottish Government what proportion of Scotland currently has superfast broadband and when it is anticipated all households will have superfast broadband in the area. You touched on in your comments about rural and geographical. I think that that is vitally important, convener, that we find out whether they are evaluated of the full fibre broadband charter in Scotland and the efficacy of extending and expanding the bill further into remote, rural, geographical and challenging areas, because that is the crux of it. It is these locations that have the problem. Their communities and their representatives are very, as I say, sceptical of where things are going and how things are progressing. I think that if we could get some of that information back from the Scottish Government, that would certainly help us in our deliberation. Any other comments? Are we content to proceed as Mr Stewart suggested? We are. Petition number 1935 to create an independent committee to judge whether Scottish ministers have broken the ministerial code. This petition number 1935, not the year that there last was an infringement upheld, but certainly just the number of the petition, creates an independent committee to judge whether Scottish ministers have broken the ministerial code lodged by Dylan Crawford. It calls on the Scottish Government to create a committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the code. At our last consideration, the committee agreed to request a spice briefing on the ministerial code equivalents in the partner nations, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The spice briefing provides detail of the processes followed across the UK. In Scotland, the First Minister is the only MSP that assesses and decides action for a breach of the ministerial code. All MSPs, including ministers, are expected to abide by the Scottish Parliament code of conduct. The briefing states that this is consistent with arrangements at a UK level and in the other devolved nations, where there are separate codes of conduct for members of the Government and members of the respective legislature. Although there are similarities, the briefing notes that there are differences between Governments on how alleged breaches of the relevant ministerial code are dealt with, the status of the independent advisers and the sanctions available to the Prime Minister or First Minister in relation to the branches of the relevant ministerial code. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? David Torrance. I don't think that we could take this petition any further in the evidence that we have, so I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that an operation system of independent advisers on the ministerial code exists. The Scottish Government has no plans to amend the decision-making process in any way proposed by a petitioner and there are no other current examples of independent committees in the UK legislature in any way proposed by a petitioner. It's a controversial subject. Does anybody have anything else they would like to contribute? Are we content then for to thank the petitioner for raising the issue, but obviously in view of the information we've received and the responses that we have been given, it seems that we are unable through petition at least to affect a change in this, and therefore we will close the petition. Question number 1937. To give children the respect they deserve by providing options for privacy when changing for PE. This was lodged by Gillian Lamara and urges the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their PE kit to school on the days they have PE. At our meeting sometime ago in September 28, we agreed to write to COSLA and the commissioner for children and young people to seek their views on the action called for on the petition. Is that as long ago as that seems fresh in my mind? In response to the children and young people, Commissioner Scotland have set out their view that primary schools should adopt a flexible approach to policies on changing for PE classes. The commissioner's response also highlights long standing concerns about other parts of the learning estate such as school toilets. The response also suggests that while different PE changing practices between primary schools may be justified, the Scottish Government should explore whether national guidance will create some degree of consistency. On the other hand, we've also received a response from COSLA, which highlights that extensive work is under way across councils and schools to support the vision of a Scotland where children's human rights are embedded in all aspects of society and public services. COSLA wants to state that local government believed that it would not be appropriate for the important matters raised in this position to be the subject of a national level policy or guidance with schools best placed to determine the design and delivery of policy around wearing PE kits. I imagine that the school estate across Scotland will be hugely varied and therefore some schools will find it easy, others will probably have to put a plan in place over a longer period of time to make different arrangements possible. Colleagues, on the light of the submissions that we've received, what would colleagues suggest or think an appropriate way forward? Alexander Stewart. Thank you, convener. There's no doubt that COSLA has a very strong case here with reference to the estate, but also that the Children and Young People's Commissioner when they responded gave us some indication. It might be quite useful to not close it at this stage, but to seek some more information from that. I would suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to seek information on what consideration has been given to the review of updating of the learning estate strategy in light of the comments made by the Children and Young People's Commissioner for Scotland. That might give us further indication, but I acknowledge what COSLA is saying, and it may not be able to progress after that, but I think that at this stage, if we have some of that information, that might be useful for us at this stage. In light of your suggestion, colleagues will probably agree. I was maybe minded to close the petition given the difficulty of the school of state, but I take your point, and it may well be that, given the strength of expression from the Children's Commissioner, it would be useful to see what the Scottish Government's response to that is. I still think it unlikely, probably, that they will choose to err on the side of a national directive, but I think that it's worth seeing that. Are we content to make that further inquiry? Carol Mochan? Yes, thank you, convener. I just wanted to support the member there in terms of, if the young person's commissioner has indicated, there may be more that we could do that it is useful to explore that to its end point. Okay, very happy that we do. We then moved to petition number 1938, which is to introduce compulsory microchipping of cats in Scotland. It lodged by Carly Power and calls on the Scottish Parliament to introduce the mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland. And assess the effectiveness of current microchip scanning processes. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has informed the committee that microchipping domestic cats has been identified in its recent work programme as an issue to potentially focus on in the medium term. The Scottish Government has stated that it is not currently considered that microchipping or the scanning of microchips should be made compulsory for cats at this time. The recent submission raises concerns shared with the UK counterparts that it could create an enforcement role on veterinary surgeons or result in pet owners avoiding taking their cat to receive medical attention if the animal is stolen or unchipped. The petitioner has provided two further written submissions to the committee. She notes that owners of 71 per cent of cats have accepted the recommendation on voluntary microchipping cats, but that this statistic brought deafness to the conclusion that advisory action is not enough. She raises concerns about road traffic accidents resulting in euthanasia from minor injuries because locating the owner had not been possible and has highlighted that waste departments often take a role on disposal of cat remains, but they do not always have access to a microchip scanner or an understanding of the scanning process. Christine Graham, MSP, titular owner of Mr Smokey, has provided a written submission as she is unable to attend the meeting this morning. Her submission states that compulsory microchipping would enable negligent cat owners to be more easily identified and would help to avoid ownership disputes. Her submission concludes by highlighting that the number of unchipped cats in Scotland is higher than the UK average. We have also received a late submission from Cats Protection, which members will appreciate was circulated to them for consideration. In light of the Animal Welfare Commission of identifying this as a medium potential and the other evidence that we have received, including Christine Graham, do members have a comment to make David Torrance? Thank you, convener. Christine Graham is going to be extremely disappointed with me because I do not think that we could take this petition any further on the evidence that we have received. I would ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis that the petitioner is satisfied that the Scottish Government's current approach will adequately address the issues of mandatory microchipping in Scotland's cats. The Scottish Government does not consider that scanning of the microchips should be made compulsory for cats at this time due to concerns about potential impact on the welfare of cats and veterinary surgeons, and that microchipping domestic cats features in the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission's work plan as a medium-term issue. I think that the fact that the petitioner is satisfied with the progress and response that we have received gives weight to that recommendation. Are we agreed? We are, so we thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us. Of course, as with all petitions that are closed if, in due course and time, the petitioner feels that commitments or the evidence that we have received does not lead to a satisfactory outcome. They are entitled to bring the petition back by way of a fresh petition after 12 months. PE 1939 is the next petition that we are considering this morning, to amend the date of birth to allow wider accessibility to the HPV vaccination programme for boys lodged by Suzanne Thornton calling on the Scottish Government to demonstrate a commitment to health equality for young males born between 1 September 1997 and 1 September 2006 by allowing them to access the HPV vaccine via the NHS. We previously considered this on 26 October. At that point, we agreed to write to various organisations to gather further information on the issues raised in the petition. Members will be aware from our papers that we have received responses from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the JCVI, Young Scott and the Teenage Cancer Trust. Importantly, in their response, the JCVI set out the reasons why a time-lit catch-up programme for boys was not pursued when the HPV vaccination was what extended in 2018. The reasons provided include a different epidemiological situation to when the programme for girls was launched, good levels of herd immunity as a result of the girls' programme and, while priority of extending the routine adolescent programme to boys while maintaining high uptake among girls. The JCVI also state that they have no plans to review the need for and value of a catch-up of HPV immunisation programme for males under age 25, as that, they believe, would not be cost-effective. I would also draw members' attention to the response from the Teenage Cancer Trust, which notes a disparity between the uptake rates of vaccination between males and females of 7.9 per cent and calls for the Scottish Government to include plans for monitoring uptake to be included in the 10-year cancer strategy. Do you have members of any comments or suggestions to make in relation to this position? Alexander Stewart. At the last meeting, I asked for some of that information to come forward, and I think we have now received that. I do think that, under the circumstances that we now find ourselves in, I would propose that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. On the basis that the JVC has no plans to review the need for or the value of an HPV vaccination catch-up programme for boys due to the indirect protection offered through herd immunity. I think that that gives us an indication. I think that we have collated and brought forward information, but I do not believe that it is going to change the direction of where we are. In reading the papers that the petitioner on June last year argued that young males living south of the border are afforded protection, which is not available for young males in Scotland. I looked at the JCVI response just to see what they said about that, and maybe it is my failure to comprehend some of the medical information in that, but I could not see a direct response as to why it is fine in England but not in Scotland. I was looking for the answer to that question that the petitioner has posed. I do not know if the clerks can help me out here. Maybe it is hidden in here somewhere, but I did not really see any reference to the different, apparently, according to the petitioner at least, a different situation in Scotland and England. I do think that we are probably reaching the end of this petition, but I wonder if that is something that might be clarified by the clerks with the GCVI or maybe I have missed something. No, I think it is a fair point. Mr Stewart, are you happy for us to leave the petition open while we pursue that point? I note also the Teenage Cancer Trust recommendation in relation to the 10-year cancer strategy and the disparity that they had identified. That is not so much something for a response, but I certainly think that we should be writing to the Scottish Government drawing them to the Teenage Cancer Trust representation. Carol Mocken, are you seeking to come in? No, I thought that that was a very relevant point that we should raise that as something that they must make sure they are more written in their cancer plans. I think that we defer closing the petition, Mr Stewart, if you are content, although I think that your analysis is largely correct. I think that it would be interesting to try to put that question back to the GCVI because, Mr Ewing is correct, I do not think that we have got in all the representation that they have made a specific explanation as to why it is right in one place and wrong in another. More than happy, convener, to take the views of the committee. We agree on that basis. That brings us to the consideration of new petitions, agenda item 3. As always, when we are considering the new petitions for the first time, it is important to say to anybody who might be tuning in because we are considering a petition that they have lodged that prior to our considering it, we do a certain amount of background work in relation to it and very often seek to get the Scottish Government's view, although that is not conditional on any position we might thereafter take. It is to assure you that we have begun the process even before our first consideration. The first of those petitions is petition number 1983 to improve the transparency and accountability of Scottish legal courts. This has been lodged by Daniel Osula and the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transparency and accountability of the Scottish legal system by ensuring clear information is provided to members of the public when their case will be considered. Information is made available to members of the public about the processes for making a complaint about court staff. In the background to this petition, Mr Osula raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of court staff when cases are being prepared and allocated to judges. He notes that he has pursued complaints about this issue directly with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. In response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it considers both matters raised by the petition to be operational matters following under the statutory responsibility of the Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Criminal Court Rules Council. The Scottish Government also highlights that the operation of the courts is the responsibility of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service under the leadership of its independent board headed by the most senior judge in Scotland and the head of the Scottish judiciary, the Lord President. Do members have said suggestions of comments for action? Mr Torrance. Thank you, convener. I wonder if a committee could write to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to ask what steps they are taking to ensure that both procedural rules and practices of the court and its complaints procedures are transparent and accessible to members of the public. Colleagues, are we content to keep this petition open and to write as so recommended by Mr Torrance? I see we are. Thank you. That brings us to petition number 1988, which is to review the process for disposal of household raw sewage lodged by Sue Wallace. The petition is calling on the Scottish Government to review the process for allowing raw sewage discharge from homes into Scottish coastal waters to provide additional funding to SEPA for enforcement and to introduce legislation to ban households from discharging raw sewage. The spice briefing states that financial responsibility for the provision of private sewage treatment lists with the individual home owner or community. The Scottish Government response states that there are no plans to provide additional funds to Scottish Water to provide connections to households with private sewage arrangements during the current investment period, but households have the option to connect to the public network at their own expense and Scottish Water will make a reasonable cost contribution towards the costs of that project should a new mains be required. The submission states that the current register of septic tanks held by SEPA is incomplete and that the number of unauthorised discharges is likely to be high. The Scottish Government notes that SEPA is reviewing its regulation of private sewage systems. The petitioner highlights the difference in approaches to unauthorised disposals and dogfiling where fines are issued to those not clearing up after their dogs. She shares her experience of reporting issues to SEPA in 2019 and expresses the concern that nothing has changed in almost four years. The petitioner questions the method of registering private water discharge with SEPA at the point of house sale. In her experience, several of the properties have been sold, but no change has happened as a result. Do members have comments or suggestions for action? Mr Stewart. I think that the petitioner makes some very valid points in all of this and it's quite apparent that things haven't really changed in the timescale. I think that it would be useful to SEPA to highlight the issues raised by the petitioner and to seek information about the review of regulations of private sewage systems and ask whether there has been consideration about alternative approaches to identifying and authorising private sewage discharges. I think that those would be very useful. As I say, I do think that the petition makes some very valid points and I would keep open for that and some of the clarity that's required from SEPA. Any other comments? I have to say, dogfowling, because it was before the public eye, led to a change in practice. I can't help but feel that if every member of the public was similarly subject to the voiding of raw sewage into water, they would have much more, I think, public concern and engagement. The parallel that's drawn is certainly a valid and quite a visual one that does lead me to believe that we should pursue this a little quite a bit further to see where we get. Mr Ewing. I agree with both what you and Mr Stewart have advocated. I just wanted to add that I'm slightly puzzled as to how properties, without either connection to the main sewage or private septic tank, can actually be sold because it's standard in house conveyancing in Scotland for there to be a series of conditions about this without which it's quite difficult to see how anyone can purchase a house or indeed get a mortgage over it because that would be something that might be of concern to lenders because they may not have a valid security. I'm just wondering if, in addition to writing to SEPA, we can perhaps write to the Law Society to ask for their guidance as to how in practice the properties in this category are dealt with because I would be interested just to see what's happening out there. If people haven't got access to a sewage facility then I'm just not quite sure how these houses can actually be transacted in the market and I think the petitioner does make reference to some properties having been sold, I think that was referred to. I mean, it's not, I'm sorry, excuse me, it's the petition but it's kind of part of the overall issue I think. No, I think that's very helpful and thank you for the suggestion because having seen the concern I wasn't quite sure where we would write to to resolve it but I think that's a good suggestion. Are members of the committee content to proceed on the basis of the provisions that are made? So we'll keep this petition open and write to organisations accordingly. Our next petition is petition number 1989 to increase defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces and this is lodged by Mary Montagu who I suddenly recognise as the Provost of Easter Embershire Council and a constituent. The petition is calling on the Scottish Government to support the provision of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces. The Spice Briefing states that people living in Scotland's most deprived areas are twice as likely to experience an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest but public spaces in those areas are significantly less likely to have defibrillators. The Scottish Government's response highlights the delivery of the initial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest strategy noting that survival rates have risen from 1 to 20 to 1 in 10. The Scottish Government highlight the refreshed strategy from 21 to 26, in particular its aim of increasing the percentage of OHCA which have a defibrillator applied before the ambulance service arrived from 8 per cent to 20 per cent. The response also highlights work being undertaken by the University of Edinburgh Resuscitation Research Group to analyse the placement of defibrillators across Scotland and map this against the areas which have the highest risk of arrest occurring. I should say that Mary Monskiew is the Labour provost of Easter Emphisher in case anybody thought I was getting a bit cosy there in that respect but somebody who is very well respected and regarded, do members have any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed? David Torrance? It is a really important issue as somebody who has actually used one in the past because it has been accessible it makes a huge difference for doing CPR to use a defibrillator on public domain is really really important so I would like us to keep the petition open and then doing so right to the Scottish Government to ask what the next report on the out-of-hospital card out arrest strategy will be published and what percentage of OHCA have had a defibrillator applied before the ambulance service arrived in 2023. I would also like to write to the British Heart Foundation seeking information about its grant funding towards public assets access defibrillators specifically requesting information about demand potential barriers and the challenges they face. Alexander Stewart? I very much concur with Mr Torrance's comments there. I think it is vitally important that we find out where many of these defibrillators are in the background towards them and I am aware of charitable organisations that do a lot of work on this as well that fund raise for local areas and also provide and it might be quite useful to find out if there is anything that they are doing that could complement or supplement what is happening here in the suggestions that Mr Torrance has put forward. Any other suggestions? Carol Mockham? I just want to support what the member has said there. I think that the important point that I would like to raise is that there are a lot of things that are being done that are being done that are being done that are being done and the important point that I would like to raise is that in the time that I have been in the Parliament there has been a number of debates, committees and discussions about it and so it is about is trying to see what actual action is being taken so to get that information from those organisations I think would be helpful and then it allows some progression to the next stage which I think is really important in matters that are quite urgent like this. I agree. Although this might be a later stage in our consideration I do recall having a conversation I think recently in relation to supermarket chains and I think there are one or two supermarkets who have actively decided to provide defibrillators on premises and one or two have actively decided not to and I think it will be interesting just to from the British Heart Foundation and others just see what the barriers potentially are to doing any of this and maybe through this committee us being able to acknowledge the very good work of all those who actually do I mean it certainly is you say Carol Malkin initiates come up in members debates and in questions in the chamber not least I think because people have had direct experience of you know a defibrillator making a meaningful a meaningful a successful outcome to somebody who has been subject to an attack. The petition number 1990 is to introduce a Scottish Parliament question session for young people lodged by Jordan Anderson calls on Scottish Government to request the introduction of a monthly chamber session to allow young people to put questions to the First Minister and her or I suppose in due course his cabinet. The petitioner states in the petition that children and young people should not have to hide behind a third party organisation to be heard. The spice briefing provides details of the working and partnership agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament this agreement includes a commitment from the Scottish Parliament to host a sitting of the Scottish Youth Parliament once every two years although I can tell you the last such sitting was in 2018 and regrettably a sitting that was scheduled to take place in 2022 was to fall on the same weekend as the death of Her Majesty the Queen which led to its postponement and therefore the next session was scheduled to be in 2024. The Scottish Government's response outlines ways in which children and young people are engaged with including an annual meeting with cabinet ministers. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? I mean I'm mindful we are obviously doing in our own inquiry into deliberative democracy and citizen engagement I'm also aware there is a children's Parliament and there is a youth Parliament and these are elected bodies to which anybody you know eligible is able to stand so I mean I do feel that there are opportunities there I'm wondering whether we might as part of our work consider whether rather than this youth Parliament just sitting in Holyrood every second year that there might be something more formal by way of a joint session that could take place at some stage between MSPs and MSYPs which would be of benefit but I don't know what people I mean we're at the early stage but I don't know what further consideration or suggestions colleagues might have. David Torrance? I think if we are to be fully engaged in citizens participation I think it would be good for the committee to try and bring it together to see how we could engage with the youth of today and see how we could do it more because I think every two years it's a paper exercise I look at it for doing it every two years and I would like it to be far more regular but youth parliaments can actually meet with us I'm just turning to the clerks have the Scottish youth Parliament and the church have we written to these bodies in relation to our own inquiry and deliberative democracy and have we received any submissions from them and have they come forward with any recommendations to us of anything we might want to consider do they've fed into the recent consultation on the panel's recommendations I couldn't say which ones were specifically related to people I'm happy to keep the petition open for us to take it into account in our consideration are we content to write to key stakeholders seeking their views and the action called the petition just to generate a bit of further information and are you content for the clerks perhaps to give some consideration to who these stakeholders might be and who we might want to hear from and on that recommendation we'll write to a broader body of people rather than us trying to second-guess who all these organisations are at the moment are we content to do that we agree good thank you petition number 1994 to review the trial process for sexual offence cases this is our last petition this morning and it's lodged by Margaret Fagan calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to undertake a review of the trial process and handling of witness evidence in sexual offence cases Ms Fagan tells us that while reforms aimed at protecting victims of sexual offences are welcome changes to the law are in her view unduly disadvantageing those accused of committing such offences Ms Fagan is particularly concerned that evidence gathered by the defence such as medical reports and witness statements is being rejected in the grounds that it is irrelevant or inadmissible in responding to the petition the Scottish Government notes that reforms introduced through the sexual offences procedure and evidence Scotland Act 2002 amended the restrictions on evidence relating to sexual offences the reforms were intended to prevent the leading of evidence which is of limited relevance to the particulars of the case or which unduly undermines the credibility of the complainer the provisions were not intended to increase conviction rates nor should they infringe on the accused's right to a fair trial the Scottish Government response also notes that after careful consideration sorry that careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Lady Dorian review improving the management of sexual offence cases with a view to bringing forward proposals for legislative reform as part of the criminal justice reform bill as noted at the spice briefing it's anticipated that this bill will be introduced in the spring or summer of the current year do members of any comments or suggestions for action David Torrance I wonder if we could keep the petition open to gather more information and there are several stakeholders that are actually like us committed to right to including the Crown Office and Procurator of Fiscal Service of Advocates Law Society of Scotland Rape Crisis Scotland and Victim Supports Scotland seeking reviews on what's raised in the petition Are we content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance's recommendation we are I believe Mr Ewing Yes I do think that that should be done and I wonder if in addition we could seek to get some information probably from the I don't know whether it would be the Scottish Courage Service of the Crown Office but just reading an XC from the Scottish Government's submission they go into the background of the reason behind the law reforms which essentially as I understand it is to prevent the the raising of evidence about the complainers past sexual behaviour as not being relevant to charges libled however and this is the point that I wanted to make that there is a provision under section 275 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act where an accused can apply to court to lead evidence a trial that is prohibited by this law that generally speaking prevents the raising of prior sexual behaviour in history so in other words there is a provision where an accused can seek to bring in this evidence if it can be established that it's pertinent to the case my query convener is how frequently have these applications been made and how frequently have they been granted and how is it working out in practice because I'd be curious to see whether this is a routine application that's made and whether it tends to be dismissed because the law would tend to suggest that it should be dismissed but I think if that could be added as a specific area of questioning to our letters that might help to shed some light on what is actually happening because the petitioner I think that the petitioner indicated that she approached Mr Torrance's MSP the petition doesn't go into much detail at least not in the papers that I've read about about her concerns but be that as it may I wonder if that could be added to the inquiries that we're making I think that's very helpful Mr Ewing that this committee has on numerous occasions in consideration of petitions in the past received submissions where it's been suggested that there is already a route through which the aims of a petition can be realised only for us on investigation to find that the obstacles in place are such or that the in fact route is very rarely exercised or understood and I think it would be very helpful given that that has been suggested to us as a remedy to understand the extent to which it is very happy to agree to that are we all agreed we are that concludes the public section of our meeting this morning thank you all we meet again on the 22nd of March and we now go into private session to consider item 4