Chamber and committees

PE2218 has been submitted by June Smillie on behalf of Nicola’s, which is a charity supporting women in West Lothian. The petition, which was published on 24 June, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory standardised women’s health training for general practitioners and national health service healthcare professionals across Scotland, noting that any training should focus on conditions that disproportionately affect women, should be evidence based and should be regularly updated and regulated to ensure consistent, compassionate and informed care across all healthcare settings.

The SPICe briefing on the petition notes various research projects and inquiries that have highlighted the health inequalities that are faced by women, including research commissioned by the Scottish Government in 2023 that explored women’s experience of discrimination and the impact on their health. The briefing also notes that that research highlighted a number of issues identified by participants. For example, women reported feeling ignored and dismissed when attempting to seek healthcare.

The Scottish Government's submission to the petition sets out that it cannot mandate what training GPs receive in order to become GPs. It explains that GPs are regulated by the General Medical Council, which is a United Kingdom-wide body, and their training is provided by independent university medical schools. Similarly, pharmacists are regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council, which is another UK-wide body.

The submission further notes that responsibility for professional development sits with individual healthcare professionals, employers, Public Service Delivery Scotland, the royal colleges and other professional bodies. The Government, therefore, does not consider the petition’s ask to be either practical or achievable, and it also highlights the various forms of women’s health education and training resources that are currently available.

The petitioner's submission references the response to a freedom of information request that she submitted, which explained that

“individual practitioners are responsible for identifying their own professional development requirements/learning needs.”

The petitioner also notes that the existence of good-quality training resources does not ensure that healthcare professionals undertake such training, and she asks for a consistent minimum standard of education and awareness for health professionals in relation to women’s health.

In light of all that, do members of the committee have any views?

That is a really important point. When we think of the amount of effort and energy that goes into some of these things, with people often doing them in their free time only to be stymied in a spider’s web of bureaucracy, we can see just how debilitating it can be. More than once, I have heard people say, “I’m not doing this again.” It is not nice to see people who are trying to do the right thing feeling exhausted by the effort.

I certainly think that a check is needed here, and risk-averse local authorities might need encouragement to be more facilitative of these kinds of events. Therefore, I think that the proposals are reasonable.

I know that Mr Torrance is unable to be here, but I also wonder whether the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain might have a view on this petition, too. Should we write and see whether it does?

The next petition is PE2229, on making childcare choice a right in Scotland, which was submitted by Hannah Murison on behalf of the National Day Nurseries Association and published on 16 July. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make funded early learning and childcare on a cross-local authority basis a legal right across Scotland so that families are not prevented from obtaining appropriate childcare as a result of arbitrary council boundaries. It also calls for national action to prevent cost-cutting measures from restricting parental choice and disrupting children’s care and development.

The SPICe briefing on the petition explains that local authorities have a duty to secure the provision of 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare for eligible children who reside in their area. The briefing goes on to state that, under the Scottish Government’s approach that the funding follows the child, local authorities are expected to facilitate that sort of choice and flexibility, and the statutory guidance on the delivery of funded early years care states that local authorities’ admission policy should include arrangements for cross-boundary placements.

The Scottish Government’s submission on the petition states that creating a legal duty to provide services on a cross-boundary basis would be a challenging and lengthy process, given that the statutory duties in respect of early learning and childcare, and school education generally, are currently held by education authorities towards their residents. It notes, however, that ministers have committed to exploring cross-boundary provision with COSLA within the context of wider reform, and highlights the Scottish Government’s ambition to expand the wider childcare offer during this parliamentary session.

The petitioner’s submission notes that children in some parts of Scotland continue to have access to funded places in the setting that best meets their needs, while others are denied that opportunity. It also notes that parents who have selected a nursery because of location, continuity of care, sibling arrangement, specialist support, transport links or proximity to work can find that choice removed through local policy decisions over which they have no control. The petitioner also states that making cross-local authority access to funded childcare a legal right would protect parental choice, support children’s continuity of care and contribute to wider employment and anti-poverty objectives.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I think that is reasonable.

Our next petition is PE2230, which was lodged by Stephanie and Dale McDowell and published on 16 July. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a national six-month maximum waiting time for neurodevelopmental assessments for children who display significant behaviours or emotions that raise concerns, including in relation to safety, in order to ensure that families can access timely assessment, support and intervention.

The SPICe briefing references an inquiry that was conducted in session 6 by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism pathways and support. Analysis that was carried out by SPICe in 2025 in relation to that inquiry found that waiting times for children who seek a neurodevelopmental assessment ranged from between 22 and 141 weeks, with a median waiting time of 76 weeks.

The Scottish Government’s submission on the petition states that it recognises concerns about long waits for neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessment and support. However, it sets out that it has no current plans to introduce a national six-month waiting time standard for neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessment. The response also highlights actions that are being taken by the Scottish Government to improve neurodevelopmental support for children and young people, including the establishment of a cross-sector taskforce to support the delivery of the national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people.

The petitioner’s submission raises the issue of what happens when a child displays significant risk behaviours and must wait several years before receiving an assessment. The petitioner highlights the practical consequences of receiving a diagnosis—for example, to allow the person involved to access appropriate medication. The petitioner states that there needs to be an immediate safeguard for children whose behaviour, emotional wellbeing or safety indicate significant risk.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Yes, that makes sense.

Should we write to the relevant committees to see whether they are doing any work on the issue?

Members indicated agreement.

That assessment is fair.

Thank you, Mr Green. You have raised important points on behalf of your constituent, the petitioner. I invite members of the committee to express any views.

Our next petition is PE2228, which was submitted by Ewan Irvine and published on 16 July. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the increasing licensing, regulatory and financial burdens that are placed on volunteer-run community fairs and gala days across Scotland. The SPICe briefing on the petition states that community events and gala days can require a range of licences depending on the nature of the activities provided. Those potentially include public entertainment licences, street trading licences and food-related licences. It is for the local authority, as the licensing authority, to determine whether to licence the various activities.

That is reiterated by the Scottish Government’s written submission on the petition, which states that licensing authorities have wide discretion to determine the appropriate licensing arrangements according to local needs and circumstances and their own legal advice. The Scottish Government, therefore, does not consider it appropriate to interfere in any specific issues relating to locally made licensing decisions.

The Scottish Government’s response further notes that it has convened a task force on civic licensing to review a range of existing licensing provisions in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and that it will publish a report in due course.

The petitioner’s submission draws the committee’s attention to section 40(2)(a) of the 1982 act, which specifically exempts certain functions held by charitable, religious, youth, recreational, community, political or similar organisations from the requirement to hold a market operator’s licence. The petitioner states that there is difficulty in understanding how that provision applies to a modern community fair or gala day. More generally, the petitioner explains that where materially different interpretations of national legislation exist in different authorities, that creates uncertainty for volunteers organising essentially similar community events in different local authorities in different parts of Scotland.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?