Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that we hear from the minister and from the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland.

Right, and the Government’s response, which is that it is up to the police, is an abnegation of leadership.

You want us to find out why the values to which the police have referred have resulted in changing the previous practice. To many of us, such matters seem to be fairly straightforward and have always been so—for decades, if not centuries.

I do not oppose that proposal, as it is very clear that the Scottish Government is not going to change its practice. However, I want to record my full support for the petitioner’s views in every respect.

Ethical leadership. My understanding is that, at the moment, Police Scotland has the primary responsibility for accurately recording the sex of suspects. What is your view about that? Are you happy with that? Is it your view that you are happy with that but that the police do not carry it out in a way that you regard as displaying that ethical leadership?

So your concern is not so much who is legally responsible for recording the sex of suspects but the fact that there is an abnegation of responsibility on the part of the Scottish Government. Instead of giving very clear instructions, it gives guidance that is vague—perhaps for political considerations.

I am content with that approach. When closing the petition, however, could we draw the Government’s attention to the information that the petitioner provided in the supplementary submission on 13 November, to which you alluded, convener? The petitioner made a strong point that should be made to the Scottish Government specifically so that it can be considered in the consultation. People with a disability cannot go by bus for long distances because, according to the petitioner at least, there are no adequate toilet facilities on various well-known bus company vehicles, which are referred to in the petitioner’s response. The point is that they cannot access public transport because provision is based on people without a disability. Therefore, because trains do not have disabled-friendly toilets, the provision of what they ask for would enable them to travel. At the moment, they cannot travel at all.

I entirely agree that we cannot take the matter much further given that there is a consultation, so that would be a way to deal with it. It is an extremely strong point and a very obvious form of discrimination against people with a disability.

I was astonished by the replies, quite frankly. The starting point for us in our work is to look at what petitioners say and what they complain about. This petitioner says that the parking charges that he and his cohort of community healthcare workers must pay—it is not quite clear whether he is an employee or a volunteer, but maybe I have not read the information properly—have increased to £6 per hour. That means that staff pay £48 for working an eight-hour shift, which, on a five-day week, comes to £11,520 year.

I would have thought that the health minister and NHS Scotland would have commented directly on what the petitioner said, but they have not. Why not? It is absolutely baffling and completely unacceptable. The idea that the Scottish Government can pass the buck to local authorities is completely at odds with what happened in September 2008—the information that I have suggests that, at that time, the Scottish Government announced that car parking charges should be abolished at NHS hospitals.

That directly contradicts what the minister is now saying. I find it absolutely baffling that we would be asked to regard this nonsense as in any way acceptable. We have to strongly rebut the response and write to COSLA and the health minister and ask them to look again. We should ask whether it is the case that groups of health workers have to pay these extortionate charges and, if so, how on earth they can be expected to carry on in their jobs. If that is true, we will be driving people out of that kind of work. COSLA and the minister might question that evidence, which is fine, but surely the petitioner is entitled to a direct response.

It was of concern in the good old days, convener.

I guess that the background to that view is the feeling that some individuals might seek to be housed in female prisons. In that sense, the motive for professing female gender is one that most people would regard as bogus. That said, I take the distinction that has been made.

I have just one more question for the witnesses, which is this: what would you like to happen next? You have already said that ethical leadership is what you require from the Government, the police, those who record statistics and so on, but are there any more specific things that you would like to be done in response to your petition?