Chamber and committees

It is certainly looking a lot busier.

Thank you, Mr Lumsden.

PE2163, which was lodged by Alistair 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.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition indicates that it did not understand the main ask of the petition, stating that it is not clear towards whom such guidance would be directed, nor what it would be intended to achieve. The submission then details the routes that can be taken during child contact disputes.

The petitioner has provided a written submission outlining the concerns that led him to lodge the petition. He points out that mediation is not suitable for abusive relationships, stating that the parent seeking contact is then left with no other option but to progress matters through the courts. He also explains that contact dispute cases can be used to further abuse those parents.

The petitioner acknowledges that family courts will always be concerned with protecting a child from abuse, or possible abuse, from the person seeking contact. However, he believes that that results in a disregard of the impact that false and malicious allegations have on the parent seeking contact, and he shares the view that false and malicious allegations have a profound impact on the mental health of the abused parent.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

That seems a sensible recommendation, in light of the petitioner’s further explanation of his concerns. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2164, which was lodged by Tabitha Fletcher, calls for a ban on all non-essential single-use plastics. The SPICe briefing on the petition explains that single-use plastic products are used once, or for a short period of time, before being thrown away, and highlights the scale of the issue and its negative impact on the environment and on health, quoting the OECD’s description of it as one of

“the great environmental challenges of”

this

“century”.

In summarising the Government’s actions to date, the briefing mentions that some new product restrictions might require either a United Kingdom-wide approach or an agreed exclusion from the principles of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

The Scottish Government points to past and on-going action that it has taken on many of the asks within the petition’s broad scope. For example, the circular economy and waste route map sets out actions for accelerating progress towards a circular economy, including on problematic single-use items. As for more targeted approaches, the Government points to legislation to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds; the proposal for a minimum charge on single-use cups; minimising plastic pellets in the environment; and the ban on single-use vapes. It also refers to the four-nation work that is under way on tackling packaging waste, plastic wet wipes and aquaculture gear, while reiterating its commitment to the deposit return scheme.

The Government also states that further detailed evidence gathering, consultation and impact assessments would be required to assess the petition’s asks on any actions not yet being taken. In an additional submission, the petitioner, too, acknowledges the complexity of the action being called for, while underlining that the existing pieces of legislation that target specific items only go to show the petition’s viability.

Do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

We thank the petitioner, but, for the reasons identified, we feel unable to take her petition forward in the time available to us.

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

From the SPICe briefing, we find that functional disorders include dissociative seizures, functional movement disorders such as tremors or spasms, and functional limb weakness. The briefing helpfully points to the introduction of a national FND pathway in Scotland in 2024, but suggests that it is not clear what training is available to primary care medical and nursing staff to assist with diagnosis in primary care.

The Scottish Government considers the asks of the petition not to be achievable, as

“Developing and disseminating new resources to provide training and education to medical professionals requires additional budget not currently available”.

The Government also considers that the concerns raised in the petition are addressed in current work such as the FND pathway; a project for a dedicated clinical network in NHS Lothian that is due to conclude this autumn; and a pilot study in NHS Grampian that looks to enhance knowledge and diagnosis of FND. The additional submission from the petitioner, however, contains a series of questions stemming from the Government’s response, including on the need for mandatory rather than just voluntary training, on the public sharing of data from the two regional projects that are under way, and on the Government’s next steps.

Are there any comments or suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The suggestion is that we keep the petition open and seek further information on that basis. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of our meeting. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday 8 October. Thank you for joining us.

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We have received apologies from the deputy convener, David Torrance, who is not with us this morning. We welcome his substitute, Marie McNair. Good morning, Marie. It is nice to have you back with us.

Agenda item 1 is a decision for colleagues on whether we will take in private items 5, 6 and 7, which relate to consideration of the evidence that we will hear, an anonymous submission and our work programme. Do colleagues agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.