Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suggest that we schedule that for after the summer recess, by which time the Government ought to have had an opportunity to consider what the reporting information process might look like and should be able to give us some indication as to when it will be in place and operational. That timescale would also allow us to see what progress has been made in relation to some of the other deadlines that are mentioned in the various submissions that we received. Thank you.

I am sorry. Because Mr Sweeney is online, I did not catch him trying to comment on PE1893, on introducing legislation to protect Scotland’s war memorials. Mr Sweeney, do you want to add anything? I am happy to revisit our decision in light of anything that you say.

Yes, some of those themes will emerge. You talked about when the protections operate, and one of the petitioners’ questions was about whether they work and are applied. They see the forthcoming natural environment bill and the Scottish biodiversity strategy as opportunities for further protection through legislative routes. The question is whether that is envisaged at all and whether in preparing for those initiatives, as you have said, regulations could be improved if things are applied and work well in the current framework. Is there an evidence trail to show that what is there is doing the job that it is meant to do, and if not, is the Government contemplating something more?

Okay. Paul Sweeney, you have been listening quietly. Are there any questions that you would like to put?

I thank the minister and Mr Howieson for their time this morning. It has been an incredibly helpful discussion.

Do members agree that we will consider at a subsequent meeting the evidence that we have heard this morning?

Members indicated agreement.

Obviously, personal experience has been the basis of your understanding of these issues and the way in which you have sought to pursue public redress and public action to try to help others, potentially, and to have the issue tackled directly at source.

It has been very brave of you to join us this morning. I am very grateful to you both. I know that it was a long journey to get here and it will probably be a long journey back.

We take the petition seriously and I know that members will want to consider in further detail the evidence that we have heard. As you will be aware, we have gone back to the Scottish Government on the inquiry and, having heard your evidence this morning, we will consider the points afresh.

I thank you very much for the time that you have taken and for your courage in speaking with us today.

I suspend the meeting.

I very much take your point about calls for specific things to be taught. What is important is that what is taught is thought to be useful by those at whom it is ultimately aimed, and I think that that is where part of the issue lies. At the moment, the young people at whom what is taught in this area is aimed do not think that that is the case.

I have just had an answer to my earlier question: there are 87,000 people living in Scotland with some skills in Gaelic, so if the central belt represents 30 per cent of them, that would be 26,100 people across a significant number of local authorities.

We have a recommendation before us to close the petition. Are we content to proceed on the basis of the recommendation made by Ruth Maguire and supported by David Torrance?

Members indicated agreement.

The committee thanks Mr Capon for his petition. Given the Government’s commitment to Gaelic education we are unable to take the petition forward and will close it.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. Our next meeting is on 20 April, after the Easter recess.

We have a couple of new petitions to consider. PE1918, by Kate Freedman, is a petition to improve sex education in schools. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform sex education by updating guidance and implementing clear teaching rules, focusing on topics such as menstruation and related illnesses; puberty; LGBT sex, including asexuality; fertility; pornography and any other aspects that are deemed useful.

The petitioner conducted a survey of 150 students in their school and found that most people rated their period education at one to three out of 10. The petitioner references a general lack of knowledge by many young people surrounding sex and shares their own experience as a student. They felt that school sex education was lacking and subsequently sought more detailed information on YouTube.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition outlines the existing resources for relationships, sexual health and parenthood learning. Those resources are hosted on a central website, which was developed and published by a collaborative partnership of health boards and local authorities. The resources include learning activities and information on the topics raised by the petitioner.

The Scottish Government states that the curriculum is not mandatory and that it is up to teachers to decide which resources they deliver. It also indicates that it is committed to updating the current RSHP teaching guidance and to issuing that for public consultation in the new year.

The SPICe briefing provides background information on the current statutory guidance and indicates that the Scottish Government has been reviewing that over recent years. At the time of writing, neither the new guidance, nor the draft guidance, had been published.

It is some years since I was at school. No information was offered to us. That is not contemporary. I have drawn the petition to the attention of a number of younger people, who have all been in school more recently and should have benefited from the current information and practice. They universally said that it was absolutely rubbish. That very much supports the petitioner’s view of the quality of the education, although the young people were not terribly sure that they would have wanted it to be better either, so that is slightly at odds.

I think we would want to take further action to clarify the submissions that we have received. Do colleagues have any suggestions or comments?

We move to consideration of further continued petitions. 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 the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people who are charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape. There have been some developments on the petition, so I have a slightly long introduction before we consider potential ways forward.

At our last consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to a number of bodies. We have now received responses from Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We also have an additional submission from Lesley Warrender and a further response from the petitioner.

Since issuing our papers, we have received a submission from Michelle Thomson MSP, which was published and circulated to members yesterday. Unfortunately, she cannot join us as she is participating elsewhere in the Parliament this morning. In her submission, Ms Thomson highlights concerns about the failure to consider the experience of victims in the responses that the committee has received. She also highlights an evidence gap in qualitative research on the impact of the approach to recording the sex of perpetrators on those who have suffered from rape or sexual violence.

Police Scotland states that, under current operational and recording practice, sex and gender are used interchangeably, and identification is recorded based on how individuals present. However, it indicates that there are

“circumstances where the issue of biological sex may require to be explored for a legitimate policing purpose”,

such as in the case of sexual offences.

Police Scotland’s submission also states that, in considering a crime, it is irrelevant whether the perpetrator is legally defined as, or self-identifies as, male or female. It is only relevant whether they have a penis, including a surgically constructed penis, which has penetrated one of the defined bodily orifices. The submission sets out specific circumstances in which a woman might be recorded on police systems as having committed contraventions of sections 1 and 18 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. In concluding, Police Scotland states that its data governance board has been instructed to review Police Scotland’s internal policies and recording procedures.

The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service advises that information that is used in criminal proceedings originates from Police Scotland, and therefore it is a matter for Police Scotland to record the data. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service indicates that information relating to sex is not displayed in court papers.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission states that

“Any public body collecting data, including Police Scotland, should have a clear and transparent policy relating to the data they collect and the use they put it to”

and that that

“policy should be equality impact assessed”.

Collection of data

“must be necessary and proportionate”.

That means that

“where a body carries out a number of functions, the data they collect and the way it is collected will vary, depending on”

the intended purpose. For example,

“Police Scotland may collect information on the protected characteristics of those to whom they are providing a service, or who are the victims of crime, differently from those charged with serious offences”.

The commission also states that how best to record data on the sex of people who have been charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape will depend on how that data is to be used, and it is important that that

“is clearly defined and stated”.

The commission considers that the chief statistician’s recently produced guidance on data collection and publication provides

“helpful information on an appropriate balance to be struck in relation to the recording of data in relation to those charged with or convicted of rape or attempted rape”.

The petitioners have responded to Police Scotland’s submission and have highlighted two recent rulings of the inner house of the Court of Session. The petitioners consider that the rulings place a duty on Police Scotland to collect data on biological sex in relation to people who are charged with rape or attempted rape. The issues of the messaging to victims of sexual offending, the experience of those victims and the need to put them at the centre of consideration are also highlighted by the petitioner and included in the submission by Lesley Warrender. The petitioners have also submitted a further response, which was circulated to committee members yesterday. It references the submission from the commission and the guidance from the chief statistician.

Apologies—that is quite a comprehensive package of updates that we have received. I wonder whether, on reflection, having read these responses, members have any thoughts.