Seòmar agus comataidhean

And you would like us to find that out.

Yes.

Are you happy with that, though?

I thought that the responses were comprehensive, particularly that from the police. It is obvious that the police take the matter very seriously. I will not expand on it, but I thought that they offered a comprehensive reply, for which I am grateful. Nonetheless, Clare Adamson’s point about testing being standard—which the police say is the approach that they take—is the correct principal approach. Therefore, there a few questions on which I would like to establish the police’s position in view of the responses that we have had.

First, the committee should write to the police to ask whether it keeps a record of instances in which a urine test was conducted, when it was refused by the victim or when it was not practically possible. The police refer to instances in which a test was not practically possible or in which it was refused. Secondly, we should ask whether the police can compare those records, if available, with the number of reported incidents of suspected spiking. Thirdly, how does it ensure that the operation precept guidance is understood and followed by police officers across Scotland, so that there is a uniform, routine approach and that testing is standard?

We could also write to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on its round-table meeting with operational partners, as noted in its submission of 1 June. In addition, we could ask how the Government is engaging with pub owners as part of its work to tackle spiking and broader safeguarding regulations for the night-time industry. Inconsistencies in approach by individual pubs due to a lack of specific regulation was raised during the committee’s round-table session. Lastly, has the Scottish Government given consideration to making spiking a specific offence? That suggestion was also made during the committee’s round-table discussion.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for appearing. As you have alluded to, the committee was keen to give you the opportunity and to hear what you have to say.

You might have already answered my question, Dr Blackburn, but what is the aim of the petition? What would you like to see happening? You have made your views clear, and I am grateful for that, but I am curious to know what you would like to happen and what in particular you would like to see changed.

I am obviously not going to mention any particular cases, but there may be instances of a rape suspect self-identifying as a trans woman. Many people—including me, although this is my personal view—might think that that person is frankly at it and is a bad actor. Given that that is happening in—happily—a very few instances, what is your view about how the gender identity of the suspects in those cases should be recorded? It is presumably your view that those are men and should be recorded as male. Is that it?

I have listened to what you said and I am grateful for the explanation that you have given. Is your concern not so much about the precise or dry technical rules about how sex should be recorded but about the fact that there have, in recent times, been cases of men carrying out rape and self-identifying as women so that, instead of recognising them as men, the state takes a wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed approach and cannot spit out that those people are, in fact, men? Is that really your concern? Rather than the issue of the recording of statistics, is this not more about an ethical or political view that you have? We have to consider where we go and what we do with the petition, if anything.

I do not mean in any way to criticise the view that you take, which I probably share, if I have understood the views that you have expressed this morning, but it seems to me that what you really want is for society to take the very clear approach that a male rapist is a male rapist, that rapists are men and that that is that, and that men who—as you see it—pretend to be women are at it. If that is your view, is that not more a matter of politics than of the recording of statistics? Many members of the public would say that it is pretty obvious that all rapists are men and that we all know that already, and that, if they identify as women, that is a matter of self-identification but does not change their biological sex.

I wonder whether we could add to the content of the letter to the Government as described by Mr Torrance a request that the Government comment specifically on the statistic to which the convener alluded, which shows that access to a defibrillator increases substantially a person’s chances of survival. In addition, I might have missed this in the papers—there is a lot of data in the British Heart Foundation’s submission—but I wonder whether it is possible to identify how many people’s lives have been saved as a result of the increased protect and survive capability that defibrillators provide. Rather than having a theoretical statistical percentage, it would be very interesting to find out how many people’s lives have been saved as a result of defibrillators. I think that that would be useful data to access—if, of course, the British Heart Foundation has it. We can ascertain whether it does by asking it that question.

I am just trying to get to the root of your views and also to what you think should happen, so that we can consider matters in the light of that.

Good morning to both witnesses. I would like your views on current efforts to reduce violence and on the various initiatives that, as I understand it, exist in order to promote violence reduction.

I go back to the rather distant days when I was Minister for Community Safety, working with Kenny MacAskill as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, when a great deal of effort was put into supporting the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and Medics Against Violence, along with diversionary activity that was funded by the cashback scheme. The VRU had at its core a belief that violence can be reduced by one-to-one intervention. Medics Against Violence involved doctors volunteering to go and speak in schools and explain to kids the consequences of violence—for example, what happens when someone is attacked with a knife and is left with a facial injury. That showed children at school just how devastating the consequences of violence were.

As I understand it, those were volunteer medics—doctors, nurses and others—who had direct experience of working in places such as Glasgow Royal infirmary on a Saturday night. As I recall from my visit there many years ago, that is not an experience for the faint-hearted.

Are those efforts effective, or do you think that more needs to be done? Do you have any suggestions or thoughts about how those activities and other, similar activities can be beefed up? I get the impression that they have perhaps not been pursued with the same gusto and enthusiasm that I felt was evident in the distant days when Kenny MacAskill and I were at the justice helm.