Seòmar agus comataidhean

I recommend that all members of the Parliament consult the SEPA flood risk projections for their constituencies, because they will be shocked when they see them—they are really dramatic.

As Mr Ewing identified—the situation is the same in my constituency—there are sites on quite elevated plains where developments are finding it difficult to proceed because of the long-term forecasts that, as I said at the start, appear to be based on criteria that no other country has sought to adopt. A lot of members could be unaware of that, but I think that they will become increasingly aware in the next parliamentary session.

I genuinely think that it would be better to have a fresh petition, but the trouble is that the Government has diminished the terms that are used here. If you want to be pedantic, you can ignore the substance of the petition by hanging around the definition of a particular word. I would love to cater for whoever submitted the response to us—I would give them a wholly frozen meal and tell them that it was fresh.

Do we agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2026 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. This might be our penultimate meeting, depending on the progress that is made on our legacy report at a subsequent gathering.

In view of that fact, I must be honest and say that at this stage in the session there is very little that we can do, and that we are between a rock and a hard place in terms of our ability to take petitions any further. In some instances, we will close petitions, not because we do not believe that they are still substantive and with merit but because, if we keep them open and the committee in the next session chooses to close them, there will then be a 12-month embargo before the issue can be raised again. It might suit the aims of the petitioner to be able to simply relodge the petition at the start of the next session, which will allow the petition to be aired immediately by the new committee.

There are a handful of petitions that we will be minded to keep open. The criterion that we have to think about is whether the original asks and narrative of the petition are still current. If a petition has been open for a long time, events have moved on and its original underpinning is somewhat dated, it would not be helpful to keep it open until the next session of Parliament, and a fresh petition that brings the narrative up to date would be better.

In some instances, we have been exploring areas of evidence that remain unresolved, and we would look to potentially keep those petitions open for the new committee to look at. When I say that a handful will be kept open, I mean that, of the 120 petitions that were open at the start of the year, between six and 10 will be kept open. It is a very small list that we can bequeath to the subsequent Parliament that will be elected.

Our first item today—indeed, it is our entire business today—is the consideration of continued petitions.

The first continued petition is PE1887, which was lodged by Nicola Murray. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act with a specific offence so that courts are enabled to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic violence that causes miscarriage. We last considered the petition on 3 May 2023, when we agreed to seek a chamber debate on the issues raised in the petition, and that debate was held on 2 May 2024.

Before we begin consideration of the petition, I point out that, as members of the committee and those following the petition might be aware, since we last considered the petition and since that committee debate, the petitioner has been convicted of offences following a court case. That being said, the ask of the petition remains important, and this morning the committee will decide what action it wishes to take in relation to the action that is called for in the petition.

Since the committee debate, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has provided two written submissions to the committee. The first of those, which was in July 2024, states that she has asked officials to progress discussions with justice partners to develop policy for how a statutory aggravator for causing miscarriage through acts of domestic abuse could operate. The submission also notes that the Scottish Sentencing Council is considering the issues that are raised in the petition in so far as they relate to sentencing and in the context of the new draft guidelines that are being developed.

The second written submission from the cabinet secretary states that discussions have taken place with a focus on the potential to develop a statutory aggravator for causing miscarriage through acts of domestic abuse and how it could operate in practice.

There has been progress on the aims of the petition, about which we heard some fairly disturbing evidence early in the lifetime of this session. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we might now do?

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Notwithstanding that, I call Mr Russell.

PE1979 was lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland; to examine gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry; and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries in future.

We considered the petition on 8 October 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government reiterates its position that processes and bodies are already in place in Scotland, including the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, to provide independent inspections and investigations into specific incidents. The response also restates that the Government is progressing work to understand complaints and whistleblowing processes more widely, including via the national public protection leadership group and the education and childcare assurance board.

Members might recall that the Professional Standards Authority has reviewed the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s fitness-to-teach process and made a number of recommendations. The GTCS has now published an action plan to implement those recommendations over the short, medium and long term. The Scottish Government states that, when new concerns regarding individual cases emerge, those must be reported to the appropriate authorities, particularly Police Scotland, so that they are properly investigated.

We have received an additional submission from the petitioners, who continue to highlight concerns that the national child protection guidance is only advisory and that power is placed in the hands of local authorities. The petitioners feel that the improvements that the Government cites do not go far enough to address the issues that have been raised.

I remind members that the minister previously indicated that the Government would engage with the recommendations of the Scottish child abuse inquiry once that is concluded, and that it will keep under review the statutory requirement for mandatory reporting. We also heard previously that, so long as local authorities provide education services and employ teachers in Scotland, a local authority-led process will always be required when investigating concerns.

Colleagues, the Scottish Government insists that a number of established processes and bodies such as the Care Inspectorate and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman already carry out independent inspections and investigations. The GTCS has published its action plan to implement the recommendations of the PSA report. The Scottish Government continues to look at how existing whistleblowing arrangements are working and various pieces of work are in progress that will inform further reviews of child safeguarding processes. The Scottish Government has urged that new concerns regarding individual safeguarding cases should be reported to the appropriate authorities, including Police Scotland.

Notwithstanding all that, this is a live issue of immense public interest. I am minded to suggest that the committee leaves the petition open and offers it to our successor committee in our legacy report, in order that it can take these matters forward. The underpinning of the issues that have been raised remains current. Do any colleagues have any comments?

As there are no other comments, are we content to add this to the shortlist of petitions that we will hold open for the next session of Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

The final petition for our consideration is PE2196, which was lodged by Leanne Kelly on behalf of the root the rot campaign. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to act on early sexual offending in young people and prevent future offending by: taking tougher action on gateway offences such as unsolicited sexual images and peer assaults; educating young people about consent and online harms at school; creating a culture of parental accountability; introducing a youth monitoring register for offences that are committed by young people; and providing real support for victims of all sexual offences.

We last considered the petition on 14 January 2026, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the Lord Advocate. The Scottish Government’s response highlights a number of programmes and sets out the evaluation and review of work in the area, such as the mentors in violence prevention programme, which undertakes an annual survey to assess its impact in schools. The submission also highlights a campaign to educate young people and adults about “sextortion”. Crimestoppers produced a report that found that there had been very positive engagement with the campaign.

The Scottish Government’s response notes that it is consulting on new offences that relate to the creation of deepfake intimate images. The Lord Advocate’s response to the petition states that online sexual offences are already capable of prosecution under existing legislation. Her response notes that although the development of wider policy measures lies with the Scottish Government and the Parliament, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service will continue to contribute evidence and expertise to inform any future reforms.

The petitioner has provided a written submission that highlights that harmful sexual behaviour most commonly emerges in early to mid-adolescence—typically the age of 14. She argues that that represents a critical prevention window. The submission highlights the petitioner’s personal experience with this issue and states that responses to non-contact sexual harm often minimise the event. The petitioner questions whether annual blocks of school education on relationships, sexual health and parenthood are sufficient. She argues that prevention requires clarity, consistency and repetition in proportion to the scale of the harm.

Do members have any suggestions for action?

PE2165, which was lodged by Michelle Moir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to improve awareness of functional neurological disorder by providing funding for training and educational resources for medical professionals, general practitioners, paramedics, call handlers, employers and wider society on the symptoms and impacts of FND.

We last considered the petition on 24 September last year, when we agreed to write to the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. The minister’s response methodically answers the additional questions posed by the petitioner. She reiterates that a number of projects are under way that are relevant to the petition’s ask, including the FND care pathway, which some colleagues welcomed when we last considered the petition. The minister explains that, ultimately, it is the responsibility of national health service boards to plan and deliver services at a local level, including those for FND, and that boards have a statutory duty to involve people and communities in such decisions.

On disseminating information, the minister explains that, despite statutory obligations, the ombudsman appears to maintain a pattern of inflexibility that in effect discriminates against neurodivergent individuals. I think that I have got my notes mixed up. I apologise and I will start again.

The minister explains that the responsibility to refer people with FND to the appropriate resources falls on clinicians.

The petitioner came back with further additional questions for the minister. Although those questions are perfectly reasonable, I tentatively suggest that, in this case, there might not be much else that the committee can pursue in relation to the substantive ask of the petition. Given that the FND care pathway has been set up, is there any action that colleagues think that we could take?