Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2001, which has been lodged by E Phillips, on behalf of Safeguarding Our Schools Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to withdraw the “Supporting Transgender Young People—Guidance for Schools in Scotland” resource from Scottish schools, and to await the outcome of the Cass review before developing a new resource.

Again, we previously considered the petition on 19 April and we agreed to seek the views of a variety of stakeholders. We have received responses from LGBT Youth Scotland and Scottish Trans, both of which oppose the action for which the petition calls, and which highlight that the development of the guidance took place with input from organisations across the education, women’s and sports sectors as well as the LGBT+ sector.

The National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland responded by noting that its remit does not include

“the provision of materials and guidance documents to educational establishments”.

It states that it

“is supportive of any guidance which aims to help school staff to provide transgender young people with the best possible educational experiences.”

The response also notes that the Cass review that was commissioned by NHS England to make recommendations about national health services that are provided to children and young people who are questioning their gender identity

“has no significance to the provision of educational materials to 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 is understood that amendments have been made

“to ensure its references to the protected characteristics of sex and gender reassignment reflect developments in this complex area of law and policy.”

The response from COSLA notes that, although it was not directly involved in the development of the guidance referred to in the petition and does not have an agreed position on the guidance, it remains committed to working with partners to take forward the recommendations that are included in the LGBTI-inclusive education working group’s 2018 report.

We have also received a response from the petitioner that draws our attention to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated technical guidance for schools and shares information on a national health service England resource that has been designed to help educators support gender-distressed children. A request to provide the committee with written evidence has also been received from For Women Scotland.

There has been 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?

Well, I am not going to lead the committee in a chorus of “Down at the Old Bull and Bush”, Mr Ewing.

Are there any other comments? Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1876, on accurately recording the sex of people who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape. The petition has been lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray, and I am pleased to welcome Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa Mackenzie to the committee; good morning to you both.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape. We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 March, when we agreed to write to the Scottish crime recording board and Police Scotland, and 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 recording board and Police Scotland, as well as a further written submission from the petitioners responding to those responses.

In its response, the Scottish crime recording board advised that its remit focuses solely on the police recorded crime national statistics, which measure crimes, not people, and it has never included the recording of demographic details of suspects or perpetrators. Police Scotland indicated that a review of its recording policy is progressing through its internal governance processes and, if approved by the professionalism, strategy and engagement management board, it will be subject to wider consultation with relevant stakeholders. Police Scotland also carried out a manual review of its recorded crime data for rape. It states that, although it is unable to confirm the biological sex of those who were 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 (aiding or abetting in the perpetration of the crime)”.

In light of those responses and the evidence that has been gathered throughout the consideration of the petition, the committee has a number of questions that we would like to explore with the petitioners today. Is there anything that you would like to say in advance of us doing so?

That is in the last paragraph.

It says:

“As we have previously argued, while the PS statement remains technically correct (since Bryson declared a trans identity after being charged)”.

Are you familiar with where I am reading from now?

I thank the petitioner very much. As he will have heard, we will be taking forward the aims of the petition.

I have a couple of questions on the various submissions that the committee has received and your own. In your final submission, you say that the Police Scotland statement remains “technically correct”. I want to look behind that. Do you believe that it remains technically correct because that is convenient or because it is technically correct—if you understand my meaning? When you say “technically correct”, do you worry that that is a euphemism for not entirely responding to the issues that you are raising?

Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 20 December. We now move into private session to consider items 4 and 5, as we agreed to do earlier.

Depending on the responses that we receive, I suggest to colleagues that the issue might be one that we could put on our shortlist of topics to debate in the chamber. I know that we are looking for debating time for two shorter debates that could be combined, but the issue of defibrillator provision seems to be one of considerable importance.

Thank you. That is very helpful. I see that colleagues do not have any further questions. I thank the witnesses for coming in. Is there anything that you would like to mention that you feel we did not manage to explore in the detail that you might have wished?