Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

The first continued petition is PE1947, lodged by Alex O’Kane, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland.

The committee met an Edinburgh-based youth group, 6VT, just off the Grassmarket, and it also visited Milton in Glasgow to meet the petitioner and families with direct experience of the issues that are raised in the petition. I should say that some of the families had come from further afield than the immediate Milton community. Once again, I thank everyone who took the time to speak with us: the young people we met in Edinburgh and, in particular, the people we met in Milton, who, in some instances, were still recovering from really graphic and, in some respects, unbelievable levels of violence. We could sense the parents’ bewilderment and how distraught they continued to be at what they considered to be the inability to secure the on-going environment for their children and any sense of justice. I thank all those who took the time to come to meet me and the committee—Alexander Stewart was my colleague on the committee at the time.

This morning, we are joined by two University of Glasgow academics. I welcome Dr Fern Gillon, a research associate, and Dr Susan Batchelor, a senior lecturer in criminology.

Before I ask a general question, I will give a preamble based on the evidence that we heard. It was interesting that, in Edinburgh, the young people whom we met felt a sense of security from coming together in the 6VT facility to share their experiences. That also allowed them to gain strength, as a group, in being able to withstand the torment or violence that they had previously experienced. They were very keen to be there. Obviously, sitting giving evidence on anything was an unusual environment for them, so we tried to make it a discussion with prompts.

What we heard from the families that we met in Milton—coincidentally, there was a debate on the subject in the Parliament later that day, and it was difficult, although I did contribute on the back of what we had heard—was chilling. We heard about the way in which violence is organised by appointment. People are lured to a place where others are gathered to record on their phones videos of the violence that takes place, and those people post those videos in the perceived knowledge that no recrimination will follow and they can do so with impunity. It was deeply distressing.

Two of the people we met had been left in such an appalling state that those who found them were not sure that they would survive. They did, but not without experiencing enormous trauma. Siblings of those affected felt that they had failed in some way to protect them and that they had a duty to step in and seek restorative justice. Parents felt that they had failed and that, when they had gone looking for help, the system had then failed them. Although there was lots of sympathy from the authorities, the police and others, the parents did not have any confidence that, at the end of the day, any intervention by the authorities or the police would produce a return because, as they saw it, the system was stacked against action and more towards the perpetrator than the victim. It was a very chilling session.

We heard that evidence in isolation, and we do not want to believe that that is the picture across the whole country, but we do not know. What does the available evidence tell us about the level of involvement of young people as perpetrators of violent behaviour? What is the age demographic? Is it older teenagers who are involved in such behaviour, or is it, as we heard, younger teenagers—younger than I would have thought was possible? The violence that we heard about was perpetrated by girls on other girls, not by boys. Is that typical? Are more boys involved than girls, or is there a much wider problem? Obviously, we will come to the roots of all this, but I am interested in how the evidence that we heard sits in the context of the wider academic understanding of the issue.