Seòmar agus comataidhean

We might also write to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee detailing the petition that we have received. If it is taking evidence from the chief medical officer at the end of October, would it be possible to write to the committee asking it to make reference to the petition that we have received when putting questions to him, with a view to trying to seek an update on the research that is being undertaken specifically on the issue?

I am conscious that, although the chief medical officer is coming to give evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the specific issue that is raised in the petition will feature in the committee’s questions. In closing the petition, I wonder whether it would be possible for us to invite the committee to consider whether it might give consideration to asking the chief medical officer about the issue that the petitioner raises.

Do colleagues have views? Given that another committee is considering the issue, I am not sure that there is much more that we can actively do. Generally speaking, we do not consider things in parallel with other committees.

The petitioner raises an important issue. The committee is reluctantly minded to close it, but we will seek to ensure that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is made aware that the petition has been raised and try to have the issue raised directly with the chief medical officer when he gives evidence. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content for us to write to the minister on the basis that we have considered the petition afresh and come reluctantly to the view that there is no more that the committee can do, but that is in the light of the specific commitments that we have received from the Scottish Government and the committee’s unanimous view that those commitments should be fulfilled during this session of Parliament?

I thank Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling and the others who have been involved in the petition. Their focus and the evidence that they gave us persuaded the committee of the case. In closing the petition, we will write to the minister in the terms that we have suggested to ensure that the commitment that we have received is fulfilled. Given the limited time that we now have in this parliamentary session, we will emphasise in writing again to the petitioner that, if that does not happen, as part of the legacy from this session to the next, we hope that a fresh petition can be raised with reference to the work that was done.

Are colleagues content to act on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

If only the same dedication was shown to filling potholes in our roads.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always do before we consider new petitions, I say for the record that, in considering any new petition, we initially invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, and the Scottish Government to give us a preliminary view. That is not in any way to undermine or shortcut our consideration of the petition. It is simply the case that, in considering new petitions in previous sessions of Parliament, that was the first thing that the committee decided that it would do. That allows us to have some informed views before us when we consider a new petition.

The first new petition this week is PE2097, by Giovanni di Stefano, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to immediately repeal the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. It is the petitioner’s view that that act is in violation of the European convention on human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while also being, in his words, “impossible for the police to enforce”.

Members will recall that, shortly after the main provisions of the act came into effect in April of this year, Parliament debated a motion to repeal the legislation, which is the objective of the petition, and that that motion was not agreed to. In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the act includes

“rigorous safeguards on free speech and is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”.

Notwithstanding the views of individual committee members in relation to the objective of the petition, it is the case that Parliament has recently debated and voted on the very thing that the petition seeks to achieve and, unfortunately for the petitioner and for those who felt similarly, that motion was not agreed to.

In the light of that, I wonder whether the petition is one that we can usefully take forward or whether, in a sense, Parliament has recently spoken on it already. I am inclined to take the latter view and to say from the chair that, on this occasion, because we have recently had a vote on the matter, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that Parliament considered the objective that the petition seeks to achieve and, sadly—for those people who agree with the petitioner and others—on 17 April, the majority of members voted not to repeal the legislation.

Do members agree with my proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner for lodging the petition, but we had a vote in Parliament on the matter not long before the summer recess, when Parliament once again expressed its view.

PE2101, which has been lodged by Peter Earl on behalf of Troqueer primary school, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide primary and secondary schools with automated external defibrillators—AEDs. The petition explains that Troqueer primary school pupils discovered that their local defibrillator is, in fact, too far away to have a positive impact if someone were to suffer cardiac arrest at the school.

The SPICe briefing notes that, in January of this year, data that was obtained through freedom of information requests submitted by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party showed that approximately four in 10 Scottish schools do not currently have a defibrillator. It is thought that that figure could be an underestimate, because six of Scotland’s 32 local authorities did not respond to the freedom of information requests.

The UK Government provided AEDs to state schools in England that did not already have one on site to ensure that all state schools had a defibrillator by the end of the 2022-23 academic year.

The committee has received a response to the petition from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, which highlights the existence of “Scotland’s Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Strategy 2021-2026” and points out that one of the strategy’s aims is to increase the percentage of OHCA cases in which a defibrillator is deployed before the arrival of the Ambulance Service to 20 per cent. The response also points out that decisions on the installation and maintenance of defibrillators in schools are matters for local authorities to consider at local level.

Members will know that our colleague Finlay Carson has expressed an interest in the petition. Although he is unable to join us today, he has submitted a written submission.

The provision of defibrillators is an issue that we have come round to before. It seems something of a no-brainer that defibrillators should be in place in schools. Other parts of the country have already moved to ensure that that is the case. The response that we have received is a bit lacking, I think, in that nobody appears to be taking a lead. It is all just being farmed around. Do colleagues have similar thoughts? Does anyone have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We come to PE2102, for our consideration of which Fulton MacGregor MSP has expressed an interest in joining us. I understand that he will be with the committee shortly.

The petition, which has been lodged by Anna-Cristina Seaver, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the option of an absolute discharge in cases where the accused is found guilty of rape or sexual assault and to introduce a statutory minimum sentence for such offences that includes the convicted person being registered as a sex offender.

The Scottish Sentencing Council’s information on absolute discharge states that

“Reasons for an absolute discharge can include, for example, that the crime is very minor, that the offender has been previously of good character, or that the offender is very young or old.”

The Scottish Government’s statistics show that there were two absolute discharges for rape and attempted rape and nine for sexual assault in 2021-22.

The petitioner feels that, even though the numbers are low, there is no circumstance that is exceptional enough to allow a person who is found guilty of a sexual assault to go unpunished. In its response, the Scottish Government notes that, in assessing a case, the court will consider the appropriate sentence for each offender before them,

“taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”

That includes consideration of the fact that absolute discharge will remove the requirement for notification—that is, for the person to be registered as a sex offender.

In her recent submission, the petitioner argues that the current framework has a loophole that excuses those with an absolute discharge from being subject to notification requirements. That is because the length of an individual’s notification requirement is set by the length of their sentence. When no sentence is set when an individual receives an absolute discharge, that equals a period of “no duration” in which they are subject to notification requirements.

I will use my discretion to briefly suspend the meeting, because I understand that Mr MacGregor will be with us shortly, and I know that the committee would want to give him an opportunity to comment on the issues raised by the petition.

Given that we know that the Scottish Sentencing Council is undertaking a consultation—and we respect the fact that it is—it would be helpful to the committee, in trying to understand on behalf of both the petitioner and others who might be looking at the issues that are identified in the petition, if the council was able to give us some understanding as to how an absolute discharge might arise as an appropriate sentence. We are not asking for any breach of confidentiality in a specific circumstance, but we would like to understand in a more general sense how that could happen. On the face of it, it seems unpardonable.

We will keep the petition open. Thank you, Mr MacGregor, for your contribution.

Are colleagues content that, in addition to Mr Torrance’s and Mr Ewing’s suggestions, we proceed on the basis that we have identified?

Members indicated agreement.