Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am content with that approach. When closing the petition, however, could we draw the Government’s attention to the information that the petitioner provided in the supplementary submission on 13 November, to which you alluded, convener? The petitioner made a strong point that should be made to the Scottish Government specifically so that it can be considered in the consultation. People with a disability cannot go by bus for long distances because, according to the petitioner at least, there are no adequate toilet facilities on various well-known bus company vehicles, which are referred to in the petitioner’s response. The point is that they cannot access public transport because provision is based on people without a disability. Therefore, because trains do not 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 entirely agree that we cannot take the matter much further given that there is a consultation, so that would be a way to deal with it. It is an extremely strong point and a very obvious form of discrimination against people with a disability.

I was astonished by the replies, quite frankly. The starting point for us in our work is to look at what petitioners say and what they complain about. This petitioner says that the parking charges that he and his cohort of community healthcare workers must pay—it is not quite clear whether he is an employee or a volunteer, but maybe I have not read the information properly—have increased to £6 per hour. That means that staff pay £48 for working an eight-hour shift, which, on a five-day week, comes to £11,520 year.

I would have thought that the health minister and NHS Scotland would have commented directly on what the petitioner said, but they have not. Why not? It is absolutely baffling and completely unacceptable. The idea that the Scottish Government can pass the buck to local authorities is completely at odds with what happened in September 2008—the information that I have suggests that, at that time, the Scottish Government announced that car parking 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 regard this nonsense as in any way acceptable. We have to strongly rebut the response and write to COSLA and the health minister and ask them to look again. We should ask whether it is the case that groups of health workers have to pay these extortionate charges and, if so, how on earth they can be expected to carry on in their jobs. If that is true, we will be driving people out of that kind of work. COSLA and the minister might question that evidence, which is fine, but surely the petitioner is entitled to a direct response.

It was of concern in the good old days, convener.

I thought that the responses were comprehensive, particularly that from the police. It is obvious that the police take the matter very seriously. I will not expand on it, but I thought that they offered a comprehensive reply, for which I am grateful. Nonetheless, Clare Adamson’s point about testing being standard—which the police say is the approach that they take—is the correct principal approach. Therefore, there a few questions on which I would like to establish the police’s position in view of the responses that we have had.

First, the committee should write to the police to ask whether it keeps a record of instances in which a urine test was conducted, when it was refused by the victim or when it was not practically possible. The police refer to instances in which a test was not practically possible or in which it was refused. Secondly, we should ask whether the police can compare those records, if available, with the number of reported incidents of suspected spiking. Thirdly, how does it ensure that the operation precept guidance is understood and followed by police officers across Scotland, so that there is a uniform, routine approach and that testing is standard?

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. In addition, we could ask how the Government is engaging with pub owners as part of its work to tackle spiking and broader safeguarding regulations for the night-time industry. Inconsistencies in approach by individual pubs due to a lack of specific regulation was raised during the committee’s round-table session. Lastly, has the Scottish Government given consideration to making spiking a specific offence? That suggestion was also made during the committee’s round-table discussion.

Are you happy with that, though?

Right, and the Government’s response, which is that it is up to the police, is an abnegation of leadership.

You want us to find out why the values to which the police have referred have resulted in changing the previous practice. To many of us, such matters seem to be fairly straightforward and have always been so—for decades, if not centuries.

I do not oppose that proposal, as it is very clear that the Scottish Government is not going to change its practice. However, I want to record my full support for the petitioner’s views in every respect.

In reading the petitioner’s submission of 18 September, which responded to minister Shirley-Anne Somerville’s submission in August this year, it occurred to me that we have not fully explored and bottomed out the points made in the most recent comments by the petitioner, and I felt that it would be only fair to the petitioner to do that.

As I understand it, their report in 2018, which was five years ago, pointed out the basic inconsistency or unfairness that the petition is about, which is that the 20m rule is arbitrary and there is no evidence that it is based on any rational justification. When the move was made from disability living allowance, or DLA, to personal independence payment, or PIP, the rule resulted in a third of people who suffered from MS losing some support and one in 10 losing all support. That was the basic thesis five years ago. I am not sure that we have ever had a factual response from the Government about whether that is correct or, indeed, on any of the specifics. The Government’s response mentioned the review, which is fine, but it has not responded specifically to what the petitioner said.

The other point that I picked up from the petitioner’s response in September was slightly different. It says that ADP and PIP use the 20m rule but that DLA, which still applies in some cases, uses a 50m rule. There is an inconsistency, as different benefits apply different rules. If that is correct—I am no expert on this at all so I do not know, but that is what the petitioner said a couple of months back—I do not think that this committee should take forward this work. I understand that the Social Security and Social Justice Committee is undertaking scrutiny on the issue—perhaps Mr Torrance will speak to that in a minute.

However, the very least that we could do is specifically and explicitly refer those matters to the minister. We could send a copy of that letter to the Social Security and Social Justice Committee and suggest that it might have regard to those points in its scrutiny. In that way, the petitioner’s case would not be lost but would be bequeathed to the substantive committee.

At the risk of causing difficulty, those are my suggestions.

Good morning to both witnesses. I would like your views on current efforts to reduce violence and on the various initiatives that, as I understand it, exist in order to promote violence reduction.

I go back to the rather distant days when I was Minister for Community Safety, working with Kenny MacAskill as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, when a great deal of effort was put into supporting the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and Medics Against Violence, along with diversionary activity that was funded by the cashback scheme. The VRU had at its core a belief that violence can be reduced by one-to-one intervention. Medics Against Violence involved doctors volunteering to go and speak in schools and explain to kids the consequences of violence—for example, what happens when someone is attacked with a knife and is left with a facial injury. That showed children at school just how devastating the consequences of violence were.

As I understand it, those were volunteer medics—doctors, nurses and others—who had direct experience of working in places such as Glasgow Royal infirmary on a Saturday night. As I recall from my visit there many years ago, that is not an experience for the faint-hearted.

Are those efforts effective, or do you think that more needs to be done? Do you have any suggestions or thoughts about how those activities and other, similar activities can be beefed up? I get the impression that they have perhaps not been pursued with the same gusto and enthusiasm that I felt was evident in the distant days when Kenny MacAskill and I were at the justice helm.