Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would very much like us to pursue that with the minister. In many respects, I would like to think that we could embrace the language of Jackie Baillie, in that what is being called for seems to be common sense. If the Government has considered adopting the BE FAST model and has chosen not to, I would like to know what reasons it had for coming to that conclusion, because I think that that would further assist us in considering how we might pursue the issues raised in the petition.

I thank James Anthony Bundy for lodging his important petition. We will keep the petition open and will return to our consideration of it at a subsequent date once we have received the information that we have requested. I thank our parliamentary colleagues for joining us.

Our next continued petition is PE1995, on improved support for victims of spiking, which was lodged by Catherine Anne McKay. 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 that incidents are investigated robustly.

We are joined for our consideration of the petition by our parliamentary colleague Clare Adamson, who joins us online—indeed, she has been faithfully with us throughout all our proceedings so far. Good morning, Clare. I will come back to you in a second.

We last considered the petition on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and Police Scotland. Police Scotland has confirmed that victims who report a suspected spiking incident will always be asked to provide a urine sample. However, a sample will not be collected if such a report is made outwith the 14-day forensic window or the victim does not wish to provide a sample. Senior investigating officers have been appointed within each territorial police division to act as points of contact for all spiking-related matters and investigations.

The Scottish Government’s response highlights operation precept, which is the name for a national response to spiking that 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 whether a person has been spiked, and that 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 concludes by noting that a further round-table meeting is due to take place with operational partners.

Lastly, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament’s independent information centre—has produced a summary of the round-table discussion on the topic of drink and needle spiking that was held by the Education, Children and Young People Committee in January 2022. That summary has been included in colleagues’ meeting pack.

Before I invite committee members to comment on further actions that we might take in the light of the evidence that we have received, I offer Clare Adamson the opportunity to make some comments.

We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition. We respect the fact that important issues have been raised but, given the response from the Scottish Government, which has no inclination to undertake work to advance the aim of the petition, I feel that there is little scope for the committee to proceed. We will therefore close the petition.

Yes. Curiously, I see that our colleague Jackie Baillie is in the public gallery, as she is joining us for a later petition. Jackie and I worked together on hospital car parking charges in an earlier parliamentary session. We wrote to the then health secretary—one Nicola Sturgeon—and managed, on a joint Opposition basis, to have hospital car parking charges in NHS-owned car parks abolished. You make the point very effectively, Mr Ewing, that the Government has previously intervened on a matter that it regarded as being in the ownership of the NHS.

The key thing for me is exactly the point that you make, which is that the Scottish Government says that it is not a matter for the Scottish Government. It may not be technically a matter for the Scottish Government, but the Government can have an opinion on it and can show some sort of moral leadership or lead in relation to our evidencing the petitioner’s claim. It seems to me that we are talking about individuals who are community based and who need to use a car to get to the patients or people whom they are assisting. If they are having to pay significant car parking charges, whether that is back at headquarters or when they are with the patient, that is a disincentive to their continuing in the form of employment that they are in. Their loss would be hugely detrimental to that valuable service in the community.

I wonder whether we could also write to COSLA, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, Unite and the Allied Health Professions Federation to see whether we can get further evidence on the statements that the petitioner has made to understand whether it is a widespread experience. I certainly think that we should go back to the Scottish Government and say, “We’d like to understand what your view is on the petition and not just to hear you argue that it’s not a matter for you.” Clearly, it would be a matter for ministers if we suddenly lost all the staff who are providing the service.

Earlier, you referred to the way in which statistics can be manipulated and how a tabloid might suggest that there has been an explosion in a particular area of crime. These statistics, in so far as we have them from any of the bodies, take us up to 2020. Is it your worry that the statistics that might be presented for the period since then might give rise to the type of tabloid journalism to which you are referring? Are you disappointed that there are not more up-to-date statistics that might confirm or not the worry that you have that this evolving practice might be about to have an impact on the way that these things are reported and perceived?

PE2046, which has been lodged by Debbie-Ann McMillan, 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 note that Clare Haughey, who I imagine is the MSP for the petitioner concerned, is in the gallery to observe the proceedings.

A 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 breathe or show any other sign of life, and that definition reflects the view 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 that and other legislation, including the limit of 24 weeks for most terminations of pregnancy. The Scottish Government therefore has no plans currently to introduce primary legislation to change the 24-week threshold to 20 weeks.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition outlines the current approach to registering a stillbirth, with the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 making provision for 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 Government has stated that it does not plan to make changes to the way in which stillbirths are registered. It notes that, as part of the recent launch of a memorial book for those who have experienced a pregnancy or baby loss prior to 24 weeks, applicants will be given a commemorative certificate, which is intended to give recognition and comfort to those who want to record their loss.

I imagine that most members of the committee will know people who have experienced the matters addressed in the petition, but I think that there has been very clear direction from the Government in relation to potential consequential impacts, were the change to be made via primary legislation.

Do members have any suggestions or comments?

I am happy that, in closing the petition, we write to the Scottish Government, which is undertaking the review, to make that point to it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always say, in case there are petitioners who might be watching our proceedings this morning, when a petition is lodged we initially take a view from the Scottish Government and from SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre. We do that because we would propose doing so at first consideration of the petition, so not having their views would only cause a delay in our consideration. It is important that we get to the meat of the argument that the petitioner is trying to advance.

The first of our new petitions is PE2041, on exempting community healthcare staff from parking charges. The petition was 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, to allow them to care for vulnerable and sick people in our country without it costing them thousands of pounds per year.

Mr Ronald told us that he works alongside healthcare staff who are based in community health buildings that are surrounded by parking meters, which have seen an increase in charges to around £6 per hour. Mr Ronald is concerned about the impact that that 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 responded to the petition, noting that, as local authorities are responsible for setting parking charges on property that they own and for determining who is exempt from such charges, it is not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in. However, I argue that it is an issue on which the Scottish Government might have 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 whom we are considering here. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? I do not feel that, so far, we have had anything that helps that very important body of public service workers at all.

Our final petition for consideration this morning is PE2049, on the introduction of buffer zones outside migrant accommodation, which has been lodged by Gilliane Petrie. 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 those spaces and to 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 hotels that are being used to temporarily house refugees and asylum seekers. The petitioner has provided examples of demonstrations that have targeted accommodation in Erskine and Elgin.

In her response to the petition, the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees highlights the Scottish Government’s previous engagement with the petitioner and the need to establish a clear definition of migrant accommodation. She also notes that consideration would have to be given to 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 the petitioner’s ask.

The minister also notes the existing powers that are available to Police Scotland to deal with any serious disorder arising from public assemblies, and she encourages anyone who has experienced or witnessed any form of harassment or hate crime to report it to the police.

Do members have any comments or suggestions?

All those suggestions are sensible and arise out of the evidence that we have received. Colleagues, do you have anything else that you wish to suggest? Are we happy to proceed on the basis of Mr Ewing’s recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.