Seòmar agus comataidhean

Agenda item 3 is the consideration of new petitions. As always, before I introduce the first of the new petitions, I say to petitioners who may be with us or watching our proceedings that we do a considerable amount of work in advance of our first consideration of petitions. Part of that work is getting an initial view from the Scottish Government. That does not necessarily determine the outcome or the actions that we might subsequently take—it is simply an initial view of the Scottish Government’s perspective on the petition. We also receive a briefing from the Parliament’s impartial research service, SPICe. Petitioners should know that that work is done in advance.

The first of the new petitions is PE1993, which has been lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements, reforming the assessment criteria and adequately funding the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements.

By way of background information, the petitioners highlight that social work students spend nine months on placements during their third and fourth years but that, unlike, for example, student nurses and paramedics, there are no bursaries to support them.

In its initial response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that the relevant minister met the petitioners and representatives of the Scottish Association of Social Work, the Social Workers Union and the British Association of Social Workers to discuss support for social work students—I might refer to the summary of that meeting later. The Scottish Government’s response also states that, while a preference for bursaries over loan payments is likely to be shared by most students, there should be recognition of the wider funding landscape and the pressures across the Scottish Government’s budget, and of the challenges that that brings to ensuring that the student support package is fair while maintaining the overall affordability of the student support system. The response also highlights that social work students have access to living-cost grants that are not available to nursing, paramedic and midwifery students.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners in response to the Scottish Government. In that submission, the petitioners highlight that the support that is available for social work students currently comes in the form of a repayable loan and depends on household income. That differs from the support available to nursing, midwifery and paramedic students, who are eligible for a bursary totalling £37,500 over four years. The petitioners tell us that, while undertaking work placements, social work students work just as hard as their colleagues who are on nursing, midwifery and paramedic courses. They recognise that social work students undertake placements only during their third and fourth years, while nursing and midwifery students do so throughout the entirety of their courses, which is why the petition calls for bursaries to be made available for those in the later stages of their study.

The petitioners call for a review of the funding and assessment criteria for postgraduate bursaries administered by the Scottish Social Services Council. As noted in the SPICe briefing, it has not been possible to locate details of that scheme on the SSSC’s website, but individual universities provide more details of the scheme.

I want to refer to one comment by the minister in the Scottish Government’s response that caught my eye:

“The points raised by the petitioners in their meeting with Mr Hepburn were captured and will be taken into consideration when progressing current work to review the support available. The Minister also expressed to the petitioners that he and his fellow Ministers would welcome maintaining an open line of communication on this matter.”

I was slightly entertained by the idea of things being “captured”. That expression does not necessarily indicate that there will be a subsequent course of action.

Do members have any comments?

PE1996, which has been lodged by Calum MacKellar on behalf of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, calls for action to prevent discriminatory abortions for disability in Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to ensure that abortions cannot take place after 24 weeks in circumstances where the child is likely to have a disability.

The petitioner highlights that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 enables termination up to the point of birth if the fetus has a disorder but restricts termination to 24 weeks if the fetus has no disability. The petitioner feels that that sends a discriminatory message that a non-disabled child’s life has more worth and value than that of a child with a disability.

Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has said that it recognises that the issue of terminating a pregnancy where a fetus is likely to have severe physical or mental abnormalities is a deeply emotive one. It has stated:

“The Scottish Government equally values the contribution of all members of society and opposes any discrimination on the basis of disability.”

The committee will be aware from its consideration of related petitions that the Scottish Government currently has no plans to amend the Abortion Act 1967.

In response to the view that the Scottish Government has offered, the petitioner has highlighted the lack of explanation for why the provision exists. He suggests that section 1(1)(d) of the 1967 act enables a woman who could arguably cope with a disabled child to terminate the pregnancy because she believes that having a non-disabled child is preferable to having a disabled child.

The petitioner notes the Marie Stopes UK position paper that is referred to in the SPICe briefing, which suggests that introducing an upper gestational limit for abortion on the ground of fetal abnormality could have the unintended consequence of pressuring women to make a difficult decision in a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing the number of abortions. The petitioner feels that the Marie Stopes UK position paper does not develop or emphasise the legal context of the 24-week limit. He notes that the 24-week limit reflects an important and meaningful fetal development stage at which it is considered that a healthy fetus is deserving of protection, whether or not the fetus may eventually become a burden.

Do members have any suggestions for action in relation to the petition? I certainly studied the briefing that we received with some care.

Our final new petition this morning is PE1999, which has been lodged by William Hunter Watson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is referred to as the UNCRPD, is fully implemented in Scotland. The petitioner believes that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted. He states his view that covert medication and chemical restraint are incompatible with the UNCRPD, as he interprets article 25 as meaning that persons with disabilities have the right to refuse treatment. The petitioner highlights the importance of the right to refuse treatment in care homes and mental hospitals.

We have received two submissions from individuals who have shared their experiences in relation to treatment without consent. In particular, Barry Gale expresses his view that there is a gap between policy and practice. He states that patients and carers should be empowered

“to make their own discretionary decisions about their own lives, and to put the onus on the professionals to appeal against them—instead of the other way around.”

The committee has received a response to the petition from the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. He states that, for some individuals,

“compulsory treatment is used to provide the person with medical treatment to alleviate suffering and for the protection of both the person and others”.

He adds:

“Compulsory treatment is only allowed under mental health legislation in Scotland in very strict circumstances.”

The minister’s submission highlights safeguards that are in place, such as the right to independent advocacy and the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The minister states that other interventions should be considered before restrictive practice is proceeded with, as such action should be a last resort. He notes that the Scottish Mental Health Law Review’s report proposes reforms to help to drive reductions in the use of coercion, including restrictive practices, while recognising the potential need for it in certain circumstances.

I should have recorded David Torrance’s apology for the meeting earlier. I do so now. I feel that, if he was here, he would recollect some of these themes being raised in petitions on such issues before, as I do. Do colleagues have thoughts as to how we might proceed?

PE1943, which was lodged by Victoria Mungall, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce financial support mechanisms that would enable local authorities to work alongside developers in bringing brownfield sites back into use while also discouraging developments on greenfield land. When we last considered the petition, on 26 October, we agreed to wait until the national planning framework 4 was finalised. We also agreed to write to a number of organisations seeking their views.

Members will be aware that NPF4 has now been finalised and was approved by Parliament on 11 January. We have also received responses from Clyde Gateway, the Royal Town Planning Institute Scotland and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. I also note that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities declined to provide a formal response to the petition on this occasion.

The responses that we have received detail some of the challenges of developing long-term vacant and derelict sites, such as fragmented land ownership and ground conditions, while highlighting the funding streams that are available to support the redevelopment and regeneration of those sites. In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute highlighted the work of the Scottish Land Commission on the matter and the recommendations to review and evaluate funding streams to ensure that they incorporate criteria that will help direct investment to parts of the country that need it most.

On that basis, do members have any suggestions?

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2023 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Our first—I hope, very easy—decision is whether to take item 4 in private. Are we content to take that item in private?

Members indicated agreement.

That is a sympathetic and comprehensive response. Are colleagues agreed that we will write to the petitioner, confirming the information that we have received and the fact that NPF4 has been published, and that we will close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. First, PE1876, which was lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service 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 almost a year ago, on 23 March 2022, so I apologise to the petitioners that we have not given it further consideration before now. At that stage, we agreed to write to a number of bodies to gather information on recording practices and the guidance underpinning those practices. That has taken some time.

Members will be aware that issues relating to the collection and use of data were discussed during consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. To assist us in our consideration of the petition, the Scottish Parliament information centre has published an updated petition briefing that highlights the consideration that was given to data collection during the passage of that bill.

We have now received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Veterans, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland, copies of which are included in our meeting papers. The cabinet secretary’s response reiterates the Government’s position that recording practices are operational matters for the relevant bodies to determine. The cabinet secretary also refers to the chief statistician’s guidance, “Data collection and publication guidance—Sex, Gender Identity, Trans Status”, and he notes that there are no current plans to revise that guidance, which was published in September 2021.

Similarly, Police Scotland refers to its previous response to the petition, stating that police

“do not routinely ask the gender or sex of people with whom they interact”,

with records based on how a person presents to officers at the time of engagement. The response from Police Scotland also notes that DNA samples are obtained from all individuals who are accused of a sexual offence, with the DNA profile obtained from those samples indicating the person’s biological sex.

The committee has received a new submission from the petitioners, which offers their reflections on the various responses that we have received. The petitioners highlight a freedom of information response that shows a discussion between the Scottish Government and Police Scotland on how sex should be recorded. The petitioners understood that area to be the responsibility of the Scottish crime recording board, so there is, in effect, a contradiction. The petitioners have also raised concerns about Police Scotland’s policy for recording sex being developed and approved in advance of reforms to gender recognition coming into effect.

That summarises the submissions that we have received. What comments, thoughts or observations do colleagues have? I certainly feel that the petition deserves to remain open, but I look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.

I am struck by the work placement point, because we really want individuals at that stage to be focused on delivering their best and getting their best from the work placement. Encouraging them to try to find alternative income streams through work while on a nine-month secondment is not really a healthy prospect or route in those circumstances, so I am inclined to agree.

PE1995 has been 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. A member of the petitioner’s family feels failed by the system after her negative experience of reporting a suspected spiking incident. I read, with some concern, about the incident as described.

The SPICe briefing notes that the Education, Children and Young People Committee held a round-table evidence session on spiking at its meeting on 26 January 2022.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government outlines its work to address spiking, and that includes an investigative strategy to provide guidance and direction to staff responding to and investigating incidents of spiking; senior investigating officers leading on local spiking-related investigations; and round-table, cross-organisation meetings.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Bear in mind that we cannot pursue the individual circumstance that the petitioner identified, because it is not competent for us to do so. There is a general issue in there, however, and that general issue certainly raised concerns within me about a potential variable attitude to such incidents.

It is about that person’s reputation as well.