Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The next petition is PE1985, which was lodged by Darren Loftus. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent evaluation and provide national guidance on garages to homes developments.

We last considered the petition on 6 December 2023, when we agreed to consider it at a future meeting on the basis that the petitioner had at that point requested a deferral of consideration.

The Scottish Government’s submission to the committee states that planning applications are determined in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The submission sets out that planning and building standards, although separate regulatory regimes, involve robust processes, which means that whether in the Scottish Borders or elsewhere, garages to homes developments will require planning permission.

The submission states that it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on any proposals that have been made as planning applications to a council, or that might be made in the future, because that might prejudice the outcome of the decision-making process, should the case be notified to ministers.

The Scottish Government does not consider that there are any national implications of the garages to homes proposal in the Scottish Borders, and does not believe that a broader, independent evaluation is required, because there are long-standing processes for assessing and adjudicating on proposals of this nature.

The petitioner’s submission refutes the Scottish Government’s view that there are no national implications of the garages to homes proposal in the Borders. The petitioner states that he has evidence that the Scottish Borders Housing Association hopes that its feasibility study and pilot could be rolled out nationally.

The petitioner’s view is that an evaluation is required of garages to homes developments, as planning and building standards regulatory regimes do not allow objections on the grounds of social impact. His view is that an evaluation is required to consider issues such as social inclusion, disability rights and the proximity of amenities.

In the light of the Scottish Government’s response, would members like to make any comments or suggestions for action?

We thank Helen Plank and everybody who has contributed to what has been one of the really interesting petitions that we have considered in this session of Parliament. Certainly, the attention that we have given to it has raised awareness of the issue. That issue remains huge. I do not forget Duncan Scott asking us where the next generation of Olympic swimmers are going to come from if we do not have swimming pools for them to train in. I hope that, one way or another, the issue continues to have the profile that it deserves in the next session.

Under rule 15.7.

Are we content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I urge the petitioner to contact her MSP after the election with a view to pursuing the Government with inquiries over the national fertility group’s consideration of those options. If that does not lead to the progress that is hoped for, she could potentially submit a fresh petition to the next Parliament.

On that basis, we propose to close the petition under rule 15.7. I recall the previous discussion that we had on the petition, which raises important issues that came out of a difficult circumstance. The fact that the Government is reviewing the issue and that it has had to undertake further review illustrates the complexity of the issues involved. Are we content to close the petition at this stage on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.