Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are all in favour of conversing.

I appreciate the point about treating people with dignity, and I appreciate that it is a very sensitive topic and there are people with different views. However, I want to probe a wee bit further and take us through the consequences of the new policy. If a biological man is recorded as a biological man but declares to be a woman, how would that person be treated as the person goes through the criminal justice system? Would that person be treated as a man or as a woman when it comes to prosecution and—assuming that prosecution leads to a guilty finding—the sentence?

To follow up on Mr Golden’s question, three years is a long time. Has the Scottish Government recommended that the UK NSC speed up the review?

I will pursue the point that my colleague Davy Russell raised about the internal organisation of the police. I have no detailed knowledge of this but I understand from the website that, within the police, there is the Scottish Women’s Development Forum and the Scottish LGBTI Police Association. That is fair enough. However, I have been advised that, also within the police, there is an organisation called Police SEEN—sex equality and equity network—UK, representing those who describe themselves as “sex realists”, but attempts to have the organisation recognised by Police Scotland have not been agreed to. Is that correct? Will you talk me through that?

I get the sense that the ethos of the police is to be as supportive as possible, to recognise different views and not to get involved in some of the stuff that we have seen about public bodies disciplining people because they are deemed to hold unacceptable views, which has led to a tremendous outcry in the public, and rightly so. I am looking for some assurance that Police Scotland is understanding of, sympathetic to and supportive of those officers who have particular views, including those who feel, as I and many others do, that biological males should not be housed in women’s prisons and who take a sex realist point of view, while recognising, as the deputy chief constable said, the need to be sensitive and fair and to treat other people as you wish to be treated yourself.

That will be communicated to staff after the final report, which will follow the September 2024 review and the June 2025 interim update, which I understand was provided. When will that final report be made public?

I would be happy to begin the relationship, which would be very exciting.

For the reasons that Mr Golden set out, we should close the petition. However, having heard what Mr Mountain said, I agree that, in closing the petition, it would be helpful to write to the Scottish Government, in the terms that he suggested. The fire in Dava decimated everything for an area of 44 square miles, which is one half of the area of the city of Edinburgh, and it is of huge concern that the next wildfire could be even worse. An international expert in wildfires said that Governments do not take this issue seriously until the first 100 people are dead. I do not say that to be dramatic, but gamekeepers in my area tell me that there is a risk of a serious fire, which could decimate vast areas, and they can tell me exactly where it would happen, how, in what wind conditions and at what time of year.

Although I know that Mr Fairlie is taking the issue seriously, the need for swift action is absolutely overwhelming. We should ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with local authorities to put a ban in place, especially in times of high risk, and especially during April and the months in which bracken, gorse and so on in moorland are more susceptible to fire than they are at other times of year, although I am no expert.

I just wanted to back up what Mr Mountain was saying and make sure that we show the petitioner that we are taking the petition very seriously indeed. Otherwise, it could drag on for another five years, while draft byelaws here and there in little bits of Scotland are considered instead of national action, which the Government should surely not allocate to others but should take responsibility for itself.

I have no comment.

My second and only further question is: what do you believe would improve data collection and analysis to inform screening and prevention strategies? Two of you have referred to gaps. Are there any particular steps that you would advocate for or areas where you feel that gaps need to be filled in order to improve data collection to inform screening? I am thinking particularly of young people, who are the topic of one of the petitions.

There is no alternative but to close the petition. I say so because it is plain that we will not see any further specific action by the Scottish Government before dissolution. That is crystal clear. However, I want to say a few things.

First, I pick up on the fact that, as the convener said, Mr Gale—I think—noted that there is a particular concern about sedatives being given to people in old folks’ homes to make them easier to deal with. That point has not been answered at all—I thought it only fair to Mr Gale and the petitioner to point that out—and nor, really, has the petitioner’s ask ever been directly responded to. The petition was lodged on 5 January 2023, and its aim was that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted.

Looking back at Maree Todd’s first response, on 29 January 2024, I see that she did not answer that point at all—not in the slightest. She said that the Scottish Government would introduce the human rights bill later that year. That has not happened. I think that it is only fair to the petitioner to point that out and get it on the record that that promise has plainly been broken.

We are not going to get any further, but it is symptomatic of the Government’s approach, which is that, where it is not willing to do something that it is asked to do, instead of just saying, “We’re not going to do that” and giving a reason—I suspect that that is the case here—we get huge amounts of written material in response that does not bear directly on the point. Personally, I feel that that does the Government no good at all, because petitioners understandably get completely hacked off that the thing that they are asking for has not been answered at all.

I just wanted to put that on the record, but I agree with Mr Torrance—perhaps from a slightly different perspective—that nothing further is going to take place. I note that the petitioner has been pursuing the issue for two decades now and he must feel pretty aggrieved and disappointed. I reflect on the fact that the committee tries very hard to extract answers from the Government but, very often, for whatever reason, that does not happen. This is one of those cases.