���˿���

Returning to the minister, I will have to put her on the spot by asking whether the funding will indeed be available for recording that information.

I interrupted you earlier to go to Mr O’Kelly, minister. Was there anything more that you wanted to say?

Thank you. I call David Torrance.

That brings us to the end of our consideration of new petitions. We will have a short suspension to allow witnesses to join us.

In the interests of time, we will leave that question.

Thank you for that. It leads me to wonder about the autism services that are provided to an individual who does not have a learning disability or mental disorder. How do we ensure that a properly and sustainably funded resource is available to that group of autistic individuals?

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2021 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Under agenda item 1, I want to welcome a new committee member who is replacing Tess White. Although she was not with us for very long, I very much thank Ms White for her contribution to the committee, and I know that she will have an on-going interest in a number of the petitions in which she was involved.

We have now been joined by Alexander Stewart. Mr Stewart, do you have any interests to declare before assuming your position?

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. First of all, for those who might be tuning in to see the progress of their petition or others who might be watching this morning, I should make it clear that, in advance of considering petitions, we seek submissions from the Scottish Government and receive submissions from other parties to ensure that we have a certain amount of information at our disposal before we proceed.

Our first new petition is PE1876, which has been lodged by Lucy Hunter Blackburn, Lisa Mackenzie and Kath Murray. It 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 charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that the crime statistics that it publishes

“are derived from data held on the Criminal History System ... an operational database which is used for the primary purpose of recording of information on people accused or convicted of perpetrating a criminal act.”

The submission argues that it would therefore be

“for Police Scotland to determine how the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape is recorded on the CHS.”

Since the publication of our meeting papers, the committee has received several written submissions, including from Fair Play For Women, Dr Shonagh Dillon, For Women Scotland, Sharon Dowey MSP and the petitioners. In their submission, the petitioners highlight that crime recording practices in Scotland are overseen by the Scottish crime recording board. The role of the board, which is chaired by the Scottish Government, is to

“support the production of accurate and objective statistics on crime in Scotland”.

The petitioners therefore reiterate that the action that they are calling for is for the Scottish Government to require Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to accurately record the sex of people charged or convicted of rape or attempted rape.

The petitioners also highlight in their submission guidance that the Scottish Government published last month on collecting data on sex, gender identity and trans status and which cites the investigation of “a serious sexual offence” as an example where data on biological sex is required. They argue that the fact that the chief statistician chose to single out sexual offending in this guidance lends weight to the argument that the nature and gravity of such cases justify accurate recording.

After that introduction, I seek comments from members.

I am going to be a bit blunt here. I was struck by the following paragraph in the Scottish Government’s submission:

“The crime of rape is committed by someone with a penis, including a surgically constructed penis. As the petition mentions, a person (male or female) can also be convicted of rape when their involvement was art and part (assisted in the perpetration of the crime).”

I note that the petitioners wonder whether, although that is technically the case, such a rape has been the subject of any subsequent prosecution. I do not think that that is entirely clear.

There are a number of people to whom we can write. I invite suggestions as to who they might be.

Welcome back. This morning we have our first evidence-gathering session, and I am delighted that we have with us Maree Todd, the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport. Online we have, from the Scottish Government, David Bishop, mesh team leader, and—trying to join us, although he has not yet managed to establish a link—Terry O’Kelly, senior medical adviser.

PE1865 is a continued petition that was lodged by Roseanna Clarkin, Lauren McDougall and Graham Robertson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to suspend the use of all surgical mesh and fixation devices while a review of all surgical procedures that use polyester, polypropylene or titanium is carried out and guidelines for the surgical use of mesh are established.

At our last consideration of the petition, on 8 September, we agreed to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to give evidence at a future meeting. The Scottish Government has advised that the issues raised in the petition are within the portfolio of the Minister for Public Health, Women’s Health and Sport.

Having welcomed the minister to the meeting, my first job is to invite her to make a brief opening statement before we open up the floor for questioning.