Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2025, which was lodged by Bernadette Foley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to victims of domestic violence who have been forced to flee the marital home, by ensuring access to legal aid for divorce proceedings where domestic violence is a contributing factor, ensuring that victims are financially compensated for loss of the marital home, including loss of personal possessions and furniture that are left in the property, and ensuring that victims are consulted before any changes are made to non-harassment orders.

We last considered the petition on 21 May and agreed to write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. The response states that a series of “immediate reform actions” were to be implemented in 2025-26, with the aim of making it easier both for solicitors to work with legal aid funding and for users to access it. The minister also indicates that the Government was undertaking research on legal aid fees in 2025 in order to begin developing a future legal assistance system. The response reiterates that, based on that work, relevant primary legislation will be introduced in a future parliamentary session.

Regarding non-harassment orders, the minister highlights that the Scottish Law Commission’s aspects of family law project is focusing on a review of the civil remedies that are available for domestic abuse, which include civil non-harassment orders. At the time of the minister’s response, that review was under way. The committee previously heard that, when an NHO has been made by a criminal court, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service proactively seeks the views of the victim when prosecutors make a decision about whether to oppose an application to revoke or vary the NHO.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner with a number of additional questions that she thinks should be addressed.

Given the stage that we are now at in the parliamentary session, with just four meetings remaining, do members have any comments or suggestions about action that we think we might be able to take?

That argument could be tested in evidence as well.

PE2062, which was lodged by Bill Alexander, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. We last considered the petition on 27 November 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which has opened a consultation on prostate cancer screening that closes on 26 February.

The consultation seeks feedback on a 2025 modelling study and on a draft recommendation for action. The modelling study considered whole-population screening and found that screening all men in the UK, regardless of their risk profile, might lead to a small reduction in the number of deaths from prostate cancer but would result in substantial overdiagnosis. That means that many men would undergo treatment that they did not need, due to screening identifying a cancer that would not have caused symptoms of death. The study set out that whole-population screening would be likely to do more harm than good.

The UK National Screening Committee’s draft recommendation is that population screening should not be recommended as a course of action. The cabinet secretary’s response to the committee highlights the detect cancer early campaign, which aims to reduce fear of cancer and to empower those with possible symptoms to act early. In parallel with the campaign, a roadshow has visited communities in Scotland to reinforce key messages with the target audience.

Douglas Ross was recently able to ask the First Minister a question about the Government’s decision on prostate cancer screening. As we know, a very high-profile campaign has been led by figures such as Sir Chris Hoy and the former Prime Minister David Cameron, among others, about the potential benefits of screening. The First Minister said that he was open to further considering the issue.

Following the exchange that the First Minister had with Douglas Ross in the chamber, I wonder whether the committee would be content to write to the First Minister to say that we would be interested to hear what further consideration has been given to all that, given the high-profile campaign that has been led by many significant people in Scotland, and given the on-going concern that prostate cancer is one of the key men’s health issues that remains unresolved, despite the potential ability for early diagnosis to save lives. In that light, we might consider adding PE2062 to the list of petitions to keep open. Do colleagues have any thoughts?

I propose that we write to the First Minister following his exchange with Douglas Ross and potentially add PE2062 to the list of petitions that we might consider, because there is a small list of around half a dozen petitions to be bequeathed to our successor committee. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2107 is about using more of the money that is recovered from the proceeds of crime to support community-based charities that train animals to assist in the detection of drugs. The petition was lodged by Kevin Craigens on behalf of the Shetland Times Ltd. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to direct more public funding that is recovered through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to support charities such as Dogs Against Drugs, which are vital to their communities and play an integral part in the seizure of drugs and criminal assets.

We considered the petition at some length on 18 June last year, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government because we wanted to get some clarity on the specific work that has been done to improve grant-making practices.

The Government explains that it established a dedicated grants capability and assurance team at the end of 2023, which has since created a grant improvement group that brings together key stakeholders from across the Government to co-ordinate improvements in grant policy and operations. The Scottish Government further explains that its fairer funding pilot provides two-year funding to third sector organisations and that it has prioritised those that deliver front-line services and tackle child poverty. The pilot is expected to run until 2027. The Government commits to the delivery of an interim assessment by May 2026 in order to identify the pilot’s impact and potentially build the case for further multiyear funding arrangements.

None of that seems to me to be terribly helpful to Dogs Against Drugs or the Proceeds of Crime Act 2020 funding. What do colleagues think?

PE2139, which was lodged by Maria Giordano, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce automatic expulsion for children who have been charged on suspicion of committing a crime against another child. We last considered the petition on 23 April 2025, when we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Connect, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Together: the Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights, and the Scottish Youth Parliament.

Connect’s response states that it does not feel qualified to comment on the petition in detail. It notes that parents’ views are not homogeneous and that there will, therefore, be many different opinions on a challenging subject.

COSLA’s response highlights the national approach, getting it right for every child, and notes that it is rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its response acknowledges that the scenario that is set out by the petition is an example of the complexities that can arise when the rights of different children are in conflict. COSLA states that those circumstances demand a considered, thoughtful, skilled and multi-agency response in order to navigate a way forward. It notes that the petition calls for a sanction to be applied to a child before any due process under the judicial system has taken place, and it agrees with the position that has been articulated by the Scottish Government, which is that employing a policy of automatic exclusion without considering the individual circumstances of each case would not be helpful.

The clerks have confirmed that we did not receive a response from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, which I believe is unacceptable. The commission is an expensive additional level of government that the Parliament is required to fund, and it ought to have the courtesy to make a submission in response to a petition when requested. I would like to write to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland to express the Parliament’s dissatisfaction that a body that is funded by the Parliament was unable to respond on an important public policy issue. Notwithstanding that, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

What are the committee’s thoughts? I do not really feel that we have been given much information. But for the fact that this parliamentary session is about to conclude, we might have considered taking evidence to advance this petition. There is an argument for putting it on the shortlist of petitions that we might consider holding open. Are we content to hold the petition open at the moment and to see whether it is one that we recommend leaving open for the successor committee to take forward? I do not think that the aims of the petition will have become obsolete in the interim, and, as we might have been inclined to take evidence, it is possible that a successor committee might very much wish to do so.

We have an option. Which do we prefer to do?

PE2141, lodged by Luis Robertson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to support the neurodiverse community by providing funding for psychoeducation. The petition calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is available to the neurodiverse community by providing fully funded psychoeducation and sensory aids that allow for greater community integration pre- and post-diagnosis.

We last considered the petition on 21 May 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government states that it does not currently have any plans to use existing frameworks to subsidise or distribute sensory aids. The response that we received points to a number of established funding frameworks that can be used by existing providers of either psychoeducation or sensory aids to deliver those products and services. The Government illustrates that with a project run by Home-Start Caithness, which used part of its funding to provide sensory aids for autistic parents for use during childbirth.

Additionally, the Government states that health boards and local authorities can choose to invest in services that integrate the provision of sensory aids with psychoeducation services delivered by neurodivergent individuals, should that be considered to meet the needs of their service users.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

10:15

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will next meet on 11 February.

10:24

Meeting continued in private until 10:26.