Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would that be on the basis that it would be updated to reflect the evidence that we have had so far, rather than having a repeating cycle in relation to that?

Do colleagues have any comments? Are we content to accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

I genuinely think that it would be better to have a fresh petition, but the trouble is that the Government has diminished the terms that are used here. If you want to be pedantic, you can ignore the substance of the petition by hanging around the definition of a particular word. I would love to cater for whoever submitted the response to us—I would give them a wholly frozen meal and tell them that it was fresh.

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We have the option of keeping the petition open, on the basis that the next committee could further explore the issues that it raises, but on the back of the responses that relate to part of the petition, we could instead recommend that a fresh petition be lodged that focuses on those areas—and potentially the wider issue of digital evidence—which might be of interest for a fresh committee to explore. I am between a rock and a hard place on the matter.

What is the best course of action?

Thank you. Are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 11 March. I thank the petitioners and all those who have followed our proceedings.

Meeting closed at 11:03.

PE2161, which was lodged by Ivor Roderick Bisset, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to allow for a two-year complaints period for people with cognitive disabilities.

We last considered the petition on 10 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The SPSO’s response explains that the complaints form asks complainants when the problem happened and the reason for any delay in submitting the complaint. If a decision is made not to grant an extension, an internal review can be requested. The response also notes that detailed guidance about the application of the time limit is available for complaint reviewers and is reviewed regularly. At the time of writing, the SPSO was piloting a revised version of the time bar guidance and tool.

The SPSO’s response also states that it does not keep a log of how many times it has allowed an extension to the time limit. Its view is that a single discretionary test for a specific group of users would create a two-tier system and that it might result in a new requirement for complainants to provide evidence or divulge a specific diagnosis to meet the criteria.

Rhoda Grant MSP provided a written submission to record her disappointment with the SPSO’s response. She states that, despite statutory obligations, the SPSO’s office appears to maintain a pattern of inflexibility that in effect discriminates against neurodivergent individuals. Ms Grant also points out that the SPSO’s own missed deadlines carry no penalty, while service users are excluded by rigid timelines.

As Ms Grant is standing down at the end of the parliamentary session, I thank her for her contributions to the committee’s work. She has been an assiduous supporter of many petitions during the lifetime of this Parliament.

The petitioner has provided a submission in which he questions whether the extension policy is real, measurable and accessible or merely theoretical. He states that the SPSO’s response does not provide evidence that is capable of answering that question. He argues that a policy that never results in accommodation is not a reasonable adjustment. He points out that the SPSO’s response relies on broad assurances but that it provides no verifiable data to support its claims. The petitioner also states that the absence of data prevents parliamentary scrutiny and that the internal nature of the review process means that appeals lack meaningful independence.

I am spectacularly unsatisfied with all of this.

10:30

Although the pathway has been set up, it is still to be established and understood whether it is adequate and is being effectively resourced and implemented. In the light of whatever the practice proves to be, there might well be merit in a fresh petition being lodged in the next session of Parliament on the basis of future experience. We could write to the petitioner—who might be with us—to advocate that they look to see whether the pathway has addressed the issue and, if it has not, to consider asking for the matter to be re-examined in the next session of Parliament.

As the current petition asks for something that any new committee might feel that it could not advance in the immediate term, it might close the petition. That would bar any further discussion of the matter for a full year, which might not be desirable. Are colleagues therefore content with Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.