Seòmar agus comataidhean

The first of the new petitions is PE2166, which was lodged by John Watson McMaster. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a standardised timeframe for civil proceedings that relate to child custody cases, including a 14-day timeframe for proof hearings. The SPICe briefing explains that section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 gives courts various powers to decide an issue in a dispute about parental responsibilities and rights.

The briefing states that relatively few section 11 cases tend to get as far as a proof hearing. Instead, they are typically settled during child welfare hearings, which are relatively informal, private proceedings. The briefing also notes that there have been long-standing policy concerns about delays in cases that affect children, including in section 11 cases, and inconsistencies in how such cases are managed. To address that, the Children (Scotland) Act 2020 will, when in force, require courts to consider whether any delay in proceedings would negatively affect a child’s welfare. The length of delay is not specified in the legislation, with the explanatory notes for the bill stating that the length

“would vary from case to case.”

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it does not consider the specific asks of the petition to be practical or achievable. Its submission notes that a standardised timetable would not recognise the different complexities in individual cases. The submission also highlights the case management rules that are in place for family actions, which includes a key aim of bringing greater judicial case management to resolve cases more quickly.

The petitioner has provided a written submission calling for the committee to reconsider the timeframe that was set out in the petition. Following a meeting with the Scottish Government, he is now calling for a considered timeframe of four to six weeks rather than 14 days for a proof hearing. He states that that timeframe is pragmatic, because it aligns with the operational realities of the courts while still drastically accelerating the process. He also states that the timeframe would protect child welfare by prioritising swift resolution and improve system efficiency by reducing opportunistic and malicious litigation.

The petitioner’s submission states that the core issue is not a lack of rules but a systemic failure to enforce them consistently. He believes that the social damage that is caused by those procedural failures is measurable not only in the immense emotional toll on families but in the long-term costs to public services, including mental health support and social work intervention.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action in the light of what we have received?

That brings us to PE2171, lodged by Robert Macdonald, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop the use of prisons for punishment and deterrence and use them only for public protection purposes, in order to reduce the pressure on the Scottish Prison Service and allow more focus on rehabilitation, thereby ensuring that those who pose the greatest risk are jailed, whilst allowing those who pose less of a risk to be given community orders, fines and potentially lifelong driving bans.

The SPICe briefing explains that prisons hold remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners are awaiting trial or sentencing following conviction, while those in the second category are serving a custodial sentence. A Scottish Government paper published earlier this year concludes that there is

“no single reason for the increase in the prison population, and therefore no simple solution to manage and tackle the issue”.

The Scottish Government’s view on the ask of the petition is that, due to the complexity of the matter, it is not practical or achievable in the short term. However, the Government reiterates its long-term ambition to use prisons only for those who pose a risk of serious harm.

The response also pointed to various pieces of work that are aimed at shifting the balance between the use of custody and justice in the community. Most significantly, the sentencing and penal policy commission was established this year to establish the use and effectiveness of custodial sentences and community interventions. The commission is expected to make recommendations for dealing with offending behaviours in a way that is effective and proportionate, with the ultimate aim of ensuring the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s prison population.

Finally, the Government reiterated that courts continue to have discretion in determining the appropriate sentence for any given case, which may include a custodial sentence if that is deemed necessary.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

The next petition is PE2167, which was lodged by Donna Inglis and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pause the pavement parking ban for all roads that were built before 2019 and to require all local authorities to carry out an assessment and consultation on any other road for which they want to introduce a ban, with a presumption that bans will not be agreed for roads under 6m wide.

The Scotland-wide prohibition on the parking of motor vehicles on the pavement was introduced in part 6 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and came into force in December 2023.?The SPICe briefing explains that exemptions to the prohibition apply to certain categories of vehicle in particular circumstances, and that exemption decisions are a matter for each local authority.

The Scottish Government’s response indicates that the option to allow local authorities to only designate specific roads for pavement parking bans was considered when it designed the policy but that that option was ultimately deemed potentially confusing for drivers.?Thus, limiting the ban to roads that were constructed after 2019 would fail to provide consistent protection for all pavement users.

The Government also points out that funding and guidance were allocated to local authorities in advance of the ban to support road assessments and identify potential pavement exemptions. The initial consultation was promoted through a number of channels and a nationwide campaign was run ahead of the ban coming into force.

Finally, the Government indicates that the parking standards group, which comprises various stakeholders and includes representatives of the local authorities, can address any concerns or clarify issues that are related to the ban and to any exemptions.

In an additional submission, the petitioner lists several further issues that she believes are having an impact on local authorities and communities following the introduction of the ban.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Our second continued petition, PE1979—a great year—was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook, all of whom had an opportunity to address the committee and some of whom joined us from time to time as we considered the petition. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle all those inquiries in future.

We are joined by our MSP colleague Edward Mountain—good morning. We last considered the petition on 5 February, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise and to the GTCS. In her response, the minister indicated that work is under way to identify potential solutions to the issues that were raised in her meeting with the petitioners. She also mentioned work that was undertaken alongside the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland to understand current arrangements for whistleblowing and case investigation and potential improvements to those arrangements.

The minister also highlighted other work that was undertaken to improve child protection, including meetings of the new national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group. She reiterated the Government’s intention to engage with the recommendations of the Scottish child abuse inquiry once that has been included and to keep under review the statutory requirement for mandatory reporting, on which she said that stakeholder views have been varied.

The GTCS response highlights that a local authority-led process will always be required when investigating concerns, so long as local authorities provide education services and employ teachers in Scotland. It also reiterates its view that a focus on establishing a new whistleblowing officer could draw attention away from identifying where the current gaps are and from implementing effective solutions to fill them.

Since reviewing the official GTCS response, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care’s review of the fitness-to-teach process was published, and the GTCS is working on an action plan that is based on the PSA recommendations.

The petitioners have welcomed some of the work that has been undertaken, but they continue to highlight the power imbalance against those who raise concerns and say that current mechanisms do not provide the level of security that is required to identify validity of safeguarding concerns.

Edward Mountain would like to address the committee.

Yes, keeping open the petition is an option, but it is one that we would exercise very carefully, because it might not be helpful to the next committee in the next session of Parliament were it to have a significant body of open petitions before it.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Good morning, and welcome to the 15th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.?We will begin our proceedings in the hope and expectation that the deputy convener will join us.

The first item on our agenda is consideration of continued petitions. I highlight to those who are joining us or watching us online that we have a large number of open petitions to consider before the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, with the last working week being week ending 26 March 2026. Our focus for the rest of the parliamentary session is now on identifying any areas where we feel that we can make progress during the time remaining, given that there are not many meetings of the committee ahead.

Our first continued petition is PE1865, lodged by Roseanna Clarkin and Lauren McDougall, which 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. We are joined by our colleague Jackie Baillie, who has a long-standing interest in such matters.

We last considered the petition on 19 February 2025, when we discussed potentially closing the petition but ultimately agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek more information on the points about data. We have received a response from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. Although committing to keep emerging evidence under review, the minister stated that the Scottish Health Technologies Group—SHTG—analysed the most relevant research on the use of mesh for hernia repair and that evidence published since 2021 aligns with the group’s advice on outcomes and patient follow-up.

The Scottish Government is further guided by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—our old friends, the MHRA—which says that there is currently no evidence on which to base further regulatory action for surgical mesh. The minister also referenced the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE—which regularly reviews evidence to update its clinical guidance, including on hernia repair.

The minister’s response then highlights a series of programmes in progress, which provide data for medical devices, including pelvic and hernia mesh, both at a United Kingdom and a Scottish level. It also points to the open initiative of the evidence directorate in Healthcare Improvement Scotland, whereby anyone can propose guideline topics or request research to be considered in Scottish clinical guidelines.

The petitioners reiterate their view that the SHTG’s recommendations are based on incomplete and outdated data. They also believe that meaningful action has yet to materialise on clear patient pathways for hernia mesh-injured individuals and guidelines for the use of mesh, suggesting that there are still patients who are neither being offered non-mesh alternatives nor receiving fully informed consent.?

Before I invite Jackie Baillie to contribute, I will say that I have raised the mesh issue, particularly with regard to the two reports by the late Professor Alison Britton, which were commissioned by the Scottish Government, and the First Minister offered to meet me. He did so after the summer recess. He, the minister and all relevant officials were there. Subsequently, he has written to me with a very detailed outline of all the work that has been done to implement the findings of the two reports. I have to say that there are still some gaps, so follow-up evidence is required.

I am also going to London to pursue, with relevant authorities there, progress on the recommendations by Dr Henrietta Hughes on compensation for mesh.

Mr Ewing recommends that we invite the Scottish Government to respond to the petitioners’ latest submission.

PE2056, which was lodged by Stephen Gauld, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation providing ministers with the power to call in and potentially override council decisions on the hire of public land for large-scale events.

We last considered the petition on 5 February 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government about it. The response from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government states that the Scottish Tourism Alliance’s submission does not change the Scottish Government’s previously stated position. The Government would not consider introducing the mechanism asked for in the petition, since that would go against the principles set out in the Verity house agreement, under which it committed to respecting local government’s democratic mandate, and vice versa. I did not know that that was still a thing. For the same reason, the Scottish Government would not pass judgment on what may, or may not be, a sound reason for refusing an application at a local level.

The petitioner’s additional submission details his recent experiences when attempting to hire land for events, which he found demoralising and expensive.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2129, which was lodged by Elizabeth Spencer, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require education authorities to adopt a uniform set of criteria and a standard consultation for assessing community demand for denominational schools.

We wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills after we last considered the petition on 19 February. The cabinet secretary’s response states that, when establishing a new school, local authorities are required to carry out a consultation under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. That consultation has to include at least 30 school days, engage with a specific list of relevant consultees and include a public meeting. Education Scotland also produces a report about the educational benefit of the proposal, and the local authority has to produce a final report summarising responses to that consultation. The cabinet secretary states that she has no evidence to support the view that the current arrangements for the establishment of new schools, including denominational schools, is unfair or inconsistent.

The petitioner has provided a written submission that states that, in the case of Aberdeen City Council, non-Catholic parents and grandparents were disregarded from the consultation. She calls for the committee to consider whether the criteria and consultations are being applied consistently and to examine whether the experience of Aberdeen families shows the need for national guidance and oversight.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I do not think that there is any question but that the committee wants to keep the petition open. Before we make any further recommendations, I think that we need to take some evidence. I suggest that we invite the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health to give evidence on the matter, and that we invite the British Association of Perinatal Medicine’s best start perinatal sub-group to the committee so that we can interrogate the process that led to the recommendation for three rather than four or five units. That seems to be the critical issue, as far as I can see. It would have been wholly consistent with the original report and recommendation for a fourth unit to be retained.

As Jackie Baillie said, this is an award-winning facility that provides support to such a large health board. Given all the issues that have been identified, those of us who visited the facility thought that the petition ought to be considered, and we are very sympathetic to its aims.