Seòmar agus comataidhean

That brings us to item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. To those tuning in to see what is happening with a petition that they have lodged, I can confirm that we always seek two opinions. The first is from the Scottish Parliament information centre—the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body—which gives us formal briefings on the issues raised by petitions, and the second is a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. As always, we seek that information from those two bodies in advance, because, historically, that has been the first thing that we have done as a committee. Doing so helps expedite our in-depth consideration of the petition before us.

The first of our new petitions is PE2141, lodged by Luis Robertson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to the neurodiverse community by providing fully-funded psychoeducation and sensory aids, which allow for greater community integration pre and post diagnosis.

In the petitioner’s view, psychoeducation is crucial for autistic individuals, as it equips them with the knowledge and tools to better understand themselves and their experiences. That knowledge could lead to self-acceptance and enable them to connect with others more effectively.

As noted in the SPICe briefing, psychoeducation interventions are typically structured, fixed-term, condition-specific sessions for neurodiverse people, delivered by a qualified professional. Depending on individual needs, some neurodiverse persons also find use for sensory aids, such as fidget toys, weighted blankets, therapy balls or visual timers. The SPICe briefing also highlights that the evidence base for psychoeducation is still somewhat small, given that it is an emerging field. However, it points to some research that suggests that psychoeducation could play a positive role in post-diagnostic support, particularly if it is co-produced by neurodiverse people.

In its initial submission, the Scottish Government explains how organisations funded through the autistic adult support fund provide support that achieves similar aims to those of psychoeducation. It also explains how existing providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids can apply for funding. The Government further stresses that it supports several alternative initiatives that achieve the aims sought in the petition, while indicating that it is open to exploring the integration of psychoeducational approaches and the use of sensory aids into existing frameworks.

If members are content, I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for a breakdown of the funding that is due to be made available to the providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids in 2025-26 and beyond and to ask whether that will be made available through the autistic adult Scotland fund. We should also ask for an update on whether the Scottish Government intends to subsidise or distribute sensory aids through the existing frameworks and to integrate that provision with the psychoeducational programmes that are led by neurodivergent individuals. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open and seek to make inquiries along the lines that have been suggested.

PE2144, lodged by Ben Ronnie Lang, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale and use of artificial sweeteners, such as sucralose, in food and drink products in Scotland.

This is a much-explored field of public health. The petitioner believes that artificial sweeteners that are found in foods and beverages pose a serious public health concern and should therefore be banned, based on their potential to increase the risk of developing conditions such as type 2 diabetes.

The SPICe briefing highlights that many organisations, such as the NHS, the British Heart Foundation and Diabetes UK advocate the use of sweeteners as a replacement for sugar, because of the impact of sugar on tooth decay, obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, the World Health Organization has made a conditional recommendation that non-sugar sweeteners are not used as a means of achieving weight control, due to a lack of evidence about the long-term benefits for body weight and concerns about potential long-term impacts.

In its initial review of the petition, the Scottish Government notes the conclusions of a recent statement from the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition on the lack of data on the volume of NSS used in food products and on advice to younger consumers. The Government has also indicated that it will engage with Food Standards Scotland and the UK Government to discuss the implications of the recommendations in the SACN’s statement.

However, the Scottish Government also notes the SACN’s view that all NSS in the UK are safe for human consumption, having undergone a rigorous assessment by either the European Food Safety Authority or the UK Food Standards Agency. The Scottish Government says that, although it will continue to monitor the evidence, its view is that there is currently insufficient evidence to consider banning non-sugar sweeteners.

I do not know, Mr Ewing—were there non-sugar sweeteners when we were young? I cannot remember. Did we just put sugar in everything?

We will keep the petition open and seek to advance our consideration by obtaining that information.

That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting. We will next meet on 4 June, and we will now move into private session for the subsequent agenda items.

We thank the petitioner, but in light of the information that we have, we will close the petition at this time and hope that the work progresses.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. With just less than a year of the parliamentary session left, the committee’s ability to extend its work on petitions is now slightly more circumscribed, because, by the time we get responses, we could be short of time to fully consider them. We are considering petitions as sensibly as we can so that we can advance their aims as best we can. I hope that those who have lodged petitions will understand that.

Our first petition is PE2020, lodged by Anne-Marie Morrison, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide the same fertility treatment to single women as is offered to couples on the national health service for the chance to have a family. We last considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to Public Health Scotland and the national fertility group.

The national fertility group’s response highlighted that access to NHS in vitro fertilisation treatment in Scotland is the most generous in the United Kingdom and it noted that, in 2021, Scotland had the highest rate of NHS-funded IVF cycles in the UK at 58 per cent, compared to 30 per cent in Wales and just 24 per cent in England.

Last April, Public Health Scotland presented its modelling work, which aimed to increase understanding of the eligibility, demand and cost implications for changes to national access criteria for NHS fertility treatment, including IVF treatment and intrauterine insemination for single people.

The national fertility group’s submission stated that further work is still to be done in order to understand capacity implications. The group will then discuss the modelling implications and consider whether a change recommendation could be supported in the medium to long term.

There is quite a lot of work going on. In light of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

We could do two tightly focused pieces of work with a view to bringing the petition back sooner rather than later. We could ask the petitioner for their response and write a straightforward letter to the minister to draw their attention to the work that we have done and ask for an urgent ministerial response so that we can determine what more we can do with the petition. Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor; ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of possessions and furniture left in the property; and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

When we previously considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, we agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. The minister’s response states:

“where a Non-Harassment Order ... is made by a civil court following an application by the person at risk, they will ... be notified of any application to revoke or vary the NHO and will be entitled to oppose the application in court.”

The response notes that, when an NHO has been made against an offender as part of their sentencing and they then apply to vary or revoke the order, they are required to serve a copy of the application upon anyone who is named in the NHO, including the victim. In such cases, it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to oppose the application.

The minister’s letter also informs us that, although the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service proactively seeks the views of the person at risk, it does not expressly impart those in open court in order to minimise safety risks to the victim. The minister states that a move from that approach might

“create opportunities for perpetrators to use the court process to further abuse the victim.”

In relation to progress on the implementation of part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, the minister highlights that work on that

“continues to take some time”

and that it has brought up new challenges but is on-going. The minister stated that she would look to provide a detailed update to the committee in the coming months but, in fact, no update has been provided since July last year.

On legal aid reform, the minister pointed to “The Vision for Justice in Scotland: Three Year Delivery Plan 2023/24 to 2025/26”, which provides for stakeholder engagement on future legislative proposals to reform the legal aid system. At the time when the minister wrote to the committee, it was intended that that work would commence “in early course”, but it is worth noting that the Scottish Government’s recently published legislative programme for 2025-26 does not include a proposed bill on legal aid reform and that stakeholder engagement is on-going.

In the light of all of that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content to pursue the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.