Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2138, which was lodged by Ian Hume McKee, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the design and signage for publicly owned buildings accessible for people with colour blindness.

We previously considered the petition on 18 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and to Disability Equality Scotland. The cabinet secretary’s response to the committee states that British standard BS 8300 makes recommendations on the use of light reflectance values in buildings and signage to establish tonal contrast between elements and that it recommends the use of universally accepted public information symbols and colour coding, as set out under international standards, for health and safety signage. The response goes on to state that, when guidance is produced by the Scottish Government, the recommendations of BS 8300 are either cited directly or inform its production. It states that there are relevant examples from building regulations, the requirements of Scottish Government estate projects and sector-specific guidance for national health service estates as provided. The cabinet secretary notes that signage in buildings and services operated by wider public authorities is an operational matter for the relevant public authority.

Disability Equality Scotland’s response to the committee sets out its agreement that colour blindness should be considered as an important factor when creating signage for individuals with colour blindness and other impairments. The response also points out that the Equality Act 2010 requires reasonable adjustments to be made to access and services.

The petitioner has provided a written submission, which notes that BS 8300 strongly recommends the use of symbols or words in addition to colour. Therefore, toilet signage should include the words “engaged” or “vacant”, and trend lines in graphics should be distinguished by symbols. However, he states that that rarely happens.

The petitioner states that there is a great deal of ignorance about the problems of those who are colour blind, yet there is a reserve of good will to help, and that simple, cheap measures exist to ameliorate those problems. The petitioner maintains that the Scottish Government has a role in encouraging such measures—I recall not having been largely aware of that when the petition first came before us. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

That is helpful additional information that we might communicate to the petitioner.

Are we content to take forward Mr Golden’s proposal to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I think that, had Parliament not expressed a view, we might have been in a different position.

It has been a recurring feature in my education as convener of this committee over this parliamentary session, but I wish that NatureScot would become a more proactive organisation and not resemble a dead sheep with its legs up in the air. It seems to parrot desktop surveys and other party-political things—actually, I do not want to use the term “party political”. Time and again, I have found it depressing.

As Mr Golden suggested, we are in the ridiculous position where the urban gull population, which is terrorising the community, is subject to statutory protection, but the goat population, which the community is actively seeking to support and sustain, is not being protected in any way. The whole thing seems to be the wrong way round—there is another expression, which I cannot use because it is not appropriate.

No colleague has indicated that they have comments or suggestions other than Mr Golden’s proposal, so we have no other option. That is where we are at. I do not think that it will satisfy anybody locally—whereas we brought relief to Stanley the eagle, we have not been able to do much for the goat population.

The issue might be raised again in other ways—and who knows what the composition of the next Parliament might be—but what seemed like a widely supported view from people who represent the community locally has been set aside in favour of a rule book.

The final continued petition is PE2166, which was lodged by John Watson McMaster, who has sat manfully in the public gallery through all our proceedings this morning. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a standardised timeframe for civil proceedings related to child custody cases, including a 14-day timeframe for proof hearings.

We last considered the petition on 8 October 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety’s response to the committee states:

“the Scottish Government has sympathy with the Petitioner’s position and agrees that any undue delay in family court proceedings will usually not be in the best interests of the child.”

However, the response also states that the Scottish Government has no plans at the present time to legislate further on the matter, including to set a timescale of any length in law as asked for by the petitioner. The minister notes that changes to case management rules in family actions came into effect on 25 September 2023, and that a key aim of these rules is for cases to be resolved more quickly through greater judicial case management, particularly to prevent undue delay in proceedings relating to the welfare of children.

The minister sets out her agreement with Mr Ewing’s reflections during our previous consideration of the petition, including the suggestion that a timescale of any length

“may be arbitrary in some cases and therefore potentially produce adverse anomalies and consequences.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 8 October 2025; c 14.]

The petitioner has provided a written submission in which he argues that ordering a proof hearing for custody matters within a defined period would mean that the custody and divorce proceedings would be decoupled. He states that that

“would allow the child’s living arrangements to be settled swiftly for their stability, while … divorce matters continue separately.”

The petitioner’s submission states that the minister’s response

“primarily reiterates existing frameworks, referencing laws and policies that have been in place for decades.”

His view is that a streamlined system would safeguard children’s welfare through a number of benefits, including expediting proceedings and reducing the psychological and emotional impact on all parties.

The petitioner has contacted a number of key stakeholders and set out the responses in his written submission. He notes a pattern of non-response or procedural delay from operational bodies during the exercise. The petitioner believes that the response underlines his central concern about inconsistent application of systems and policies.

Given the additional submission and all the notes that we have received from the petitioner, we have a contradiction in terms of the views that are represented. Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions? Unfortunately, we are not allowed to take contributions from the gallery.

Do you think that, if we close the petition, following Mr Torrance’s advice, those points might therefore be the basis for a slightly different approach in a fresh petition that identified a further exploration of that route, rather than the more straitjacketed suggestion of the timelines?

In light of that, are we content to support Mr Torrance’s proposal, with the notes that have been suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the final new petition for consideration in the 2021 to 2026 session: PE2211, on following the science and broadening eligibility for Covid vaccines. It is not only the final new petition of the session; by definition, it is the final new petition for consideration today. Lodged by Peter Barlow, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to recognise the flaws in the guidance of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and to broaden eligibility for updated Covid vaccines, including Novavax, to include those who are at moderate or high risk.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that its decision making on all Covid-19 vaccination matters continues to be guided by the independent clinical advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which follows rigorous consideration of risks and benefits for different population groups.

The JCVI’s advice notes that the vaccines’ ability to prevent transmission is now expected to be extremely limited. As a result, in the current phase of the pandemic, the indirect benefits of vaccinating one group to reduce severe disease in others are significantly reduced.

The submission notes that the JCVI considered a range of evidence when advising who should be offered a winter 2025 vaccination dose. Public Health Scotland’s monitoring found in November 2025 that Covid-19 case rates remained at baseline levels overall.

On the question of making the Novavax vaccine available, although it remains the Scottish Government’s policy position that non-mRNA Covid-19 vaccines must be made available, no non-mRNA products were authorised for use in the UK at the time of writing. The submission notes that the Scottish vaccination and immunisation programme is keeping that under review, to see whether supply becomes available at a later date.

The petitioner has provided a written response in which he emphasises that it is misleading to describe Covid as endemic, as that wrongly implies that the pandemic stage is over. His view is that that false impression seeks to justify a reduction in precautions such as vaccination.

The submission notes feedback from people who currently take precautions, such as immunocompromised people and carers, who want sensible mitigations to be reintroduced so that they can lead more active lives without being threatened with illness or disability. The submission calls for vaccination to be combined with other layers of protection such as mask wearing and good air quality. The petitioner states that we should be following the well-established science on airborne infections.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? We will close where we started—with Covid.

Are colleagues content to follow that recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

I take all that into account. The issue might be best served by a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session, simply because the Government has set a timeline to summer 2026 in relation to the publication of certain actions. It seems to be an issue that we would want to explore properly in the next session. Does Maurice Golden have any suggestions for how we might proceed in relation to the petition?

PE2149, which was lodged by Andreas Heinzl, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legally require speed cameras in front of all schools next to major roads. We previously considered the petition on 4 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

Transport Scotland’s response to the committee provides the annual grant funding figures for the Scottish safety camera programme since 2021. The response sets out that the Scottish safety camera programme prioritises locations with the most significant casualty and collision reduction potential, and the use of collision and casualty evidence allows Transport Scotland to prioritise public investment and target it at areas of greatest need. The submission states that enforcement is not possible at every location and on every road, so the use of evidence is currently the most reliable way of identifying where it would have the most positive impact.

Transport Scotland notes that local communities and other stakeholders can request a flexible or short-term deployment of a safety camera at areas of road safety concern. The relevant safety camera unit will then consider whether an additional speed survey is required in order to determine whether speed compliance is a problem at that location.

The petitioner has provided a written statement that recognises that Police Scotland does not have the resources to enforce the speed limit in all 20mph zones, which is why he feels that it is important to have speed cameras. He conducted his own survey by taking readings from a radar-activated sign that showed the speed of vehicles as they passed; the sign was located outside a school, and the petitioner found that two thirds of cars were travelling at over the 20mph speed limit and that around half of the cars were driving at over 30mph.

There we are. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?