Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee 18 June 2025
We come to PE2138. Colleagues will be aware that they have fresh submissions before them. The petition was lodged by Dr Ian Hume McKee, who, you might remember—well, no, only Fergus Ewing, David Torrance and I might remember—is a former parliamentary colleague of ours. He stood down in 2011, I understand. I remember Dr Ian McKee—I can remember some very florid chamber contributions and sparring engagements in times past. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make the design and signage for publicly owned buildings accessible for people with colour blindness. Good morning, Dr McKee, if you are joining us.
The petitioner highlights the difficulty that he and other colour-blind people experience when dealing with a world in which information is often provided in a colour-coded way. He points out that hospitals use red and green lines to direct patients, and graphs and Government documents use colour to differentiate trends. The SPICe briefing states:
“While there are regulations and guidance on inclusive access to public buildings, there is limited specific guidance on addressing the challenges associated with colour blindness.”
The briefing outlines the requirement to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, as set out in the Equality Act 2010. However, SPICe notes that it is not clear whether colour blindness would constitute a disability under the act, as it would likely depend on the impact that the condition has on an individual.
We have received a written submission from our parliamentary colleague Gordon MacDonald, which highlights the challenges that are faced by colour-blind high school students. He shares an example of a student in his constituency who was unable to answer a higher geography exam question because it could be answered only by identifying colours on a map. He explains that the question was worth 20 out of 100 marks, so the student was left at a serious disadvantage.
10:15I mentioned at the beginning of this agenda item that we seek an initial view from the Scottish Government on each new petition. However, I was disappointed that the response from the Scottish Government on this petition, which was due in mid-February, was only very recently received. We now have that response before us, and I wonder whether the committee would like to consider how best to proceed. If responses to our inquiries are not timeously responded to, it merely delays our ability to represent the petitioner who has brought the petition before Parliament, which is our responsibility and our endeavour. We understand that it can take a little time to consider a petition, but it is very unhelpful if we do not have the response in due course, such that we can consider the detail of the petition timeously.