Seòmar agus comataidhean

However, that is where we are at. Are colleagues content that that is the position that we are in?

Members indicated agreement.

10:45

PE2163, which was lodged by Alasdair Scott, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with partners to develop guidance on the interaction between child contact dispute processes and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.

We last considered the petition on 24 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety has responded to state that, although she has sympathy with the petitioner’s situation, the Scottish Government is not in a position to take forward the development of the guidance as asked for in the petition.

The Scottish Government plans to make regulations to give the courts the power to make an order in relation to a person who has behaved in a vexatious manner in civil proceedings, including child contact and residence cases. That would mean that such a person would need permission from the court before raising further specified actions. The hope is that that could reduce the risk of litigation being used as a way of continuing domestic abuse. The Scottish Government is also preparing a policy paper for the Scottish Civil Justice Council to propose court rule changes to ensure that the civil courts receive information on domestic abuse at the outset of the case.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which states that many proposals on that issue, such as reform of the legal aid system, are already six years into the planning stage, with no real prospect of concrete improvements in the near future. The submission notes that the way in which laws are applied places greater emphasis on protecting children from harm and, in the petitioner’s view, that is right. However, he states that doing so allows for abusive parents to maliciously use legal and court processes to cause harm.

On the change to require the courts to give permission for a person to raise court action where they have behaved in a vexatious manner, the petitioner states that a function exists to achieve that already. The limitation, he states, is that it is an expensive option when a parent might already be struggling with legal costs. In addition, the petitioner states that if there are allegations of behaviour that might put a child at risk of harm, the court must hear it, which limits the efficacy of measures to prevent vexatious action.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed, based on the evidence that we have received?

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. In the light of that, are colleagues content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I am afraid that the clincher is that the Scottish Government is not prepared to move on it. That is the point.

That would be an interesting area for a future committee, if it were to receive such a petition, to take evidence on and explore in some detail.

We would commend that option to the petitioner in closing the petition, if that is what colleagues are minded to support, given where we are in this parliamentary session. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2210, which was lodged by Nora Fry, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve access to local healthcare in rural communities by ensuring that general practitioner practices resume inclusive emergency care pathways at all hours; ensure on-call doctors are available in GP practices and emergency clinics, including after hours; remove telephone triaging, telephone appointments and remote diagnosing; and prohibit GP receptionists from requesting private health information or redirecting patients to other disciplines.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing explains that, since the 2018 GP contract, GPs have been expected to become less involved in more routine tasks, with those tasks being delivered by other health professionals in the wider primary care multidisciplinary team. The 2018 contract also highlighted opportunities to develop the skills of practice receptionists to support patients with information on a range of primary care multidisciplinary team services that are available.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that modern general practice is based on services provided by a range of disciplines, which means that GP receptionists need to be able to signpost patients to the right clinician, which in turn means asking patients for some information. It further states that the obligation to provide out-of-hours services was removed from the GP contract in 2004 for most GP practices. The submission states that the Scottish Government does not believe that the profession would support any revision to its contracts for a proportionate cost and that any such revision would endanger progress towards recruiting more GPs. The response states that the Scottish Government is not taking action to return out-of-hours services to general practitioner delivery, nor to make all GP appointments in person.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, in which she states that GP receptionists are not qualified to triage or determine whether a patient’s circumstance is urgent. She points out that there may be situations where a patient holds back on vital information because that person only wishes the doctor to know. On the issue of access to emergency care, the submission highlights an example in which a patient tried to access care at a local hospital but was advised by the nurse in charge that it did not deal with emergency cases. The receptionist at the individual’s local practice then advised her to call an ambulance. The petitioner expresses her view that people in rural areas are greatly disadvantaged in healthcare settings. She states that, as people age, they will experience health issues and should have access to on-call duty doctors to help when an emergency occurs.

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

PE2157, which was lodged by Ben Morse on behalf of Cockenzie and Port Seton Community Council, calls on the Scottish Government to update the advice for planning authorities on the consideration of energy storage applications and to ensure that clear guidance is included in it on the locating of battery energy storage systems—BESS—by setting out a minimum baseline level of practice for location and proximity in relation to residential properties, public buildings and community amenities. We last considered the petition on 10 September 2025.

Members may recall that the Scottish Government had commissioned guidance to support planning authorities in considering BESS applications. The written response that we received from the Minister for Public Finance notes the expectation that that guidance will be published “this winter”—so the Government had better get a move on. More recent correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy states that that work “is well underway”—a popular euphemism. The cabinet secretary further highlights that the Scottish Government will publish a call for evidence on BESS later in 2026, in order to help inform a future policy statement on the technology. She adds that, so far, the role of BESS in Scotland’s energy system has been quite small, with only 0.5GW currently operational.

The petitioner argues in an additional submission that Scotland is over capacity for BESS, and he believes that that

“demonstrates a fundamental breakdown in the process and the commercial and grid realities are becoming the only checks and balances”,

instead of a place-based planning approach being followed.

I believe that the petitioner might be with us in the gallery this morning. I declare an interest in that my constituency and the neighbouring constituency have been bedevilled by unwanted applications of this nature in totally unsuitable locations. The absence of a proper planning framework has been a matter of huge local public concern.

All that said, I do not know that there is much more that we can do in this session of Parliament. I definitely hope that the petition will come back for fresh discussion. Even if the work is “well underway”, it is not well enough under way for us to be able to consider its outcome in this session. I very much hope that it will be considered by the next Parliament.

Do colleagues have any comments, suggestions or reactions?

In light of that, there is nothing else that we can do in the time that is left to us.

PE2159, which was lodged by David Mackay on behalf of Innes community council, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to place a moratorium on the production of hydrogen from fresh water until scientific studies are undertaken to understand the impact on the environment, local economies and society.

We last considered the petition on 24 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The written response from the cabinet secretary reiterates that, in the first instance, it falls to the relevant planning authority to consider whether a proposed development requires an environmental impact assessment—an EIA—to be undertaken.

SEPA notes that it assesses applications using the most current environmental standards, considering the capacity of the water body to support the proposed abstraction. As we have heard in relation to PE2109, in determining an application for authorisation, SEPA must assess the risk posed by the proposed development to the water environment, including cumulative effects with other activities.

In relation to concerns about water scarcity, SEPA highlights that it has exercised its regulatory powers to restrict or suspend abstractions in affected areas, including in relation to hydrogen productions. The response adds that new permits could impose stricter conditions, including earlier cessation of abstraction during dry periods and adaptive management clauses in response to changing environmental conditions.

The amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill that related to the impact of developments on the environment, which I mentioned earlier in relation to PE2109, are also relevant to this petition. I reiterate that the Parliament considered them at stage 3 but, ultimately voted against them.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?