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?

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.

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?

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.

PE2112, which was lodged by Carole Erskine on behalf of Pregnant Then Screwed, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent review of publicly funded early learning and childcare in Scotland in order to better understand and address the challenges that families face when trying to secure and afford childcare.

We previously considered the petition on 10 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise. The Scottish Government previously stated that it was not planning to commission an external review and that ministers were using a number of sources of information regarding childcare costs for families, such as the Scottish household survey, as well as other independent reports on the availability and affordability of childcare, such as the Coram childcare survey.

The Government noted that it would also be informed by the evaluation report of its 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare offer. In response to our question about when that report will be published, the minister indicates that the expectation is for early 2026. The minister suggests that the Government will draw conclusions about the impact of ELC expansion only once the full report has been published.

We asked what preliminary conclusions the Scottish Government has drawn from the early adopter communities work and what actions it will take based on that. The minister explains that the initial evaluation, which was published in October 2024, found that, overall, families were positive about their experience.

There was evidence that activities met children’s needs and that provision was appropriate to the needs of parents and carers, including in terms of covering working hours. The minister states that a second phase of evaluation, covering spring 2025 to summer 2026, is planned for publication in the second half of this year.

I gather that Meghan Gallacher is here to observe the discussion on the petition. We have a little time in hand, if she wants to step forward and say anything to the committee.

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 colleagues have any comments? As I said, the petition is on an issue that is unlikely to be progressed in any other way in the Parliament. The committee can explore such issues to some extent, but we have no further time in this parliamentary session to take the matter forward. However, I would not be sorry to see more exploration of the issue over a longer timeline by a future Parliament, were its members minded to do that. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

You have just highlighted schools in my constituency, Mr Golden. I point out that the ones that have been built more recently usually have quite extensive car parking, or pick-up and drop-off zones, while schools of an older disposition often do not have the capacity to meet the likely traffic flows around them, particularly at collection and drop-off times.

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?