Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understood it, and I think that colleagues are in agreement with the sentiment that has been expressed. Mr Torrance has proposed that this be one of the petitions that we add to our shortlist of petitions that the future committee can consider. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The balanced conclusion is that we should close the petition for the reasons that Mr Torrance outlined. I think that the petitioner is in the gallery. In writing to him and closing the petition, we should highlight that it might be useful to lodge a fresh petition that includes the issues that we have discussed, which members could explore in a little more detail in the next parliamentary session. Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We are looking to keep the petition open in this instance. Are we content with that?

PE2165, which was lodged by Michelle Moir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to improve awareness of functional neurological disorder by providing funding for training and educational resources for medical professionals, general practitioners, paramedics, call handlers, employers and wider society on the symptoms and impacts of FND.

We last considered the petition on 24 September last year, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. The minister’s response methodically answers the additional questions posed by the petitioner. She reiterates that a number of projects are under way that are relevant to the petition’s ask, including the FND care pathway, which some colleagues welcomed when we last considered the petition. The minister explains that, ultimately, it is the responsibility of national health service boards to plan and deliver services at a local level, including those for FND, and that boards have a statutory duty to involve people and communities in such decisions.

On disseminating information, the minister explains that, despite statutory obligations, the ombudsman appears to maintain a pattern of inflexibility that in effect discriminates against neurodivergent individuals. I think that I have got my notes mixed up. I apologise and I will start again.

The minister explains that the responsibility to refer people with FND to the appropriate resources falls on clinicians.

The petitioner came back with further additional questions for the minister. Although those questions are perfectly reasonable, I tentatively suggest that, in this case, there might not be much else that the committee can pursue in relation to the substantive ask of the petition. Given that the FND care pathway has been set up, is there any action that colleagues think that we could take?

PE2170, which was lodged by Paul Blaker on behalf of Accountability Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to abolish the General Teaching Council for Scotland and replace it with a Government agency.

We last considered the petition on 8 October, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government maintains that, as far as the regulatory role of the GTCS is concerned, it believes the council to be effective. It therefore reiterates that it has no plans whatsoever to abolish it, as that would be neither desirable nor proportionate.

With regard to the petitioner’s concerns about the co-ordination between the Government and the GTCS, the Government’s position is that policy officials maintain regular contact with the GTCS as part of their on-going responsibilities, to ensure that any responses are informed and accurate.

Members will remember that the GTCS previously commissioned the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care to undertake an independent review of the performance and efficiency of its fitness-to-teach process. The GTCS has now published an action plan for implementing the PSA’s recommendations. The planned actions range from short to long-term measures. Over the next two years, updated fitness-to-teach rules will be developed, with a view to those being published by spring 2028. The Scottish Government has indicated that, although it will stay in close communication with the GTCS during the implementation of the PSA’s recommendations, ultimately, it is for the organisation to take forward the required improvement work.

The petitioner remains concerned that the Scottish Government’s position does not provide sufficient clarity and reassurance, and that it does not address the wider questions regarding systemic failure.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

Were it not for the stage that the Parliament is at, we would have held the petition open a little longer to see whether some of that progress was made. It is one of the shortest periods for a petition to be recognised and action initiated. We first considered the issue only in November. The Government is taking the issue seriously and is taking it forward; it is certainly something that I had not previously been aware of.

For those reasons, we should close the petition, but, again, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Something is supposed to be happening, and either it will or will not happen. If it does not happen, the next Parliament will have the opportunity to take the issue more seriously over a longer period of time.

We will see what happens with it.

PE2188, which was lodged by Clare Sparrow, calls on the Scottish Government to extend the national entitlement card scheme to include ferry travel for people aged 60 and over. The petition was last considered on 26 November, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport.

The cabinet secretary’s response states that the Scottish Government provides significant funding to keep ferry fares low for everyone, including over 60s. Islander fares and funding of local authority ferries are also designed to allow frequent travel at a lower cost for islanders’ daily needs. The response highlights that eligible residents of Orkney’s outlying islands receive 24 free journeys per year for travel to mainland Orkney, and that older and disabled Shetland residents receive free or discounted interisland ferry travel.

The cabinet secretary states that the Scottish Government looked closely at ferry fares as part of the fair fares review and the islands connectivity plan. On 2 May, the Scottish Government published its strategic approach document, which confirmed that concessionary ferry travel will be extended only to under-22-year-olds. The cabinet secretary states that she understands the calls to include over-60s, but that the Government is not currently able to expand concessions further within current budgets.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

11:00

The final petition for our consideration is PE2196, which was lodged by Leanne Kelly on behalf of the root the rot campaign. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to act on early sexual offending in young people and prevent future offending by: taking tougher action on gateway offences such as unsolicited sexual images and peer assaults; educating young people about consent and online harms at school; creating a culture of parental accountability; introducing a youth monitoring register for offences that are committed by young people; and providing real support for victims of all sexual offences.

We last considered the petition on 14 January 2026, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate. The Scottish Government’s response highlights a number of programmes and sets out the evaluation and review of work in the area, such as the mentors in violence prevention programme, which undertakes an annual survey to assess its impact in schools. The submission also highlights a campaign to educate young people and adults about “sextortion”. Crimestoppers produced a report that found that there had been very positive engagement with the campaign.

The Scottish Government’s response notes that it is consulting on new offences that relate to the creation of deepfake intimate images. The Lord Advocate’s response to the petition states that online sexual offences are already capable of prosecution under existing legislation. Her response notes that although the development of wider policy measures lies with the Scottish Government and the Parliament, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will continue to contribute evidence and expertise to inform any future reforms.

The petitioner has provided a written submission that highlights that harmful sexual behaviour most commonly emerges in early to mid-adolescence—typically the age of 14. She argues that that represents a critical prevention window. The submission highlights the petitioner’s personal experience with this issue and states that responses to non-contact sexual harm often minimise the event. The petitioner questions whether annual blocks of school education on relationships, sexual health and parenthood are sufficient. She argues that prevention requires clarity, consistency and repetition in proportion to the scale of the harm.

Do members have any suggestions for action?

I think that that is the correct course of action. It is a big subject that requires much more exploration than we can give it. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.