Official Report 623KB pdf
That brings us to item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. To those tuning in to see what is happening with a petition that they have lodged, I can confirm that we always seek two opinions. The first is from the Scottish Parliament information centre—the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body—which gives us formal briefings on the issues raised by petitions, and the second is a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. As always, we seek that information from those two bodies in advance, because, historically, that has been the first thing that we have done as a committee. Doing so helps expedite our in-depth consideration of the petition before us.
Psychoeducation for the Neurodiverse Community (PE2141)
The first of our new petitions is PE2141, lodged by Luis Robertson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to the neurodiverse community by providing fully-funded psychoeducation and sensory aids, which allow for greater community integration pre and post diagnosis.
In the petitioner’s view, psychoeducation is crucial for autistic individuals, as it equips them with the knowledge and tools to better understand themselves and their experiences. That knowledge could lead to self-acceptance and enable them to connect with others more effectively.
As noted in the SPICe briefing, psychoeducation interventions are typically structured, fixed-term, condition-specific sessions for neurodiverse people, delivered by a qualified professional. Depending on individual needs, some neurodiverse persons also find use for sensory aids, such as fidget toys, weighted blankets, therapy balls or visual timers. The SPICe briefing also highlights that the evidence base for psychoeducation is still somewhat small, given that it is an emerging field. However, it points to some research that suggests that psychoeducation could play a positive role in post-diagnostic support, particularly if it is co-produced by neurodiverse people.
In its initial submission, the Scottish Government explains how organisations funded through the autistic adult support fund provide support that achieves similar aims to those of psychoeducation. It also explains how existing providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids can apply for funding. The Government further stresses that it supports several alternative initiatives that achieve the aims sought in the petition, while indicating that it is open to exploring the integration of psychoeducational approaches and the use of sensory aids into existing frameworks.
If members are content, I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for a breakdown of the funding that is due to be made available to the providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids in 2025-26 and beyond and to ask whether that will be made available through the autistic adult Scotland fund. We should also ask for an update on whether the Scottish Government intends to subsidise or distribute sensory aids through the existing frameworks and to integrate that provision with the psychoeducational programmes that are led by neurodivergent individuals. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and seek to make inquiries along the lines that have been suggested.
Artificial Sweeteners (Ban) (PE2144)
PE2144, lodged by Ben Ronnie Lang, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale and use of artificial sweeteners, such as sucralose, in food and drink products in Scotland.
This is a much-explored field of public health. The petitioner believes that artificial sweeteners that are found in foods and beverages pose a serious public health concern and should therefore be banned, based on their potential to increase the risk of developing conditions such as type 2 diabetes.
The SPICe briefing highlights that many organisations, such as the NHS, the British Heart Foundation and Diabetes UK advocate the use of sweeteners as a replacement for sugar, because of the impact of sugar on tooth decay, obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, the World Health Organization has made a conditional recommendation that non-sugar sweeteners are not used as a means of achieving weight control, due to a lack of evidence about the long-term benefits for body weight and concerns about potential long-term impacts.
In its initial review of the petition, the Scottish Government notes the conclusions of a recent statement from the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition on the lack of data on the volume of NSS used in food products and on advice to younger consumers. The Government has also indicated that it will engage with Food Standards Scotland and the UK Government to discuss the implications of the recommendations in the SACN’s statement.
However, the Scottish Government also notes the SACN’s view that all NSS in the UK are safe for human consumption, having undergone a rigorous assessment by either the European Food Safety Authority or the UK Food Standards Agency. The Scottish Government says that, although it will continue to monitor the evidence, its view is that there is currently insufficient evidence to consider banning non-sugar sweeteners.
I do not know, Mr Ewing—were there non-sugar sweeteners when we were young? I cannot remember. Did we just put sugar in everything?
I think that I ate the sweets so quickly that I probably did not notice.
I sometimes wonder about the implications of the use of artificial sweeteners for people who use them from birth. Nonetheless, the research does not, at the moment, appear to validate demands for the complete exclusion of artificial sweeteners.
In that light, I wonder what Mr Torrance has to say about it.
There were probably no artificial sweeteners in my day either.
In light of the research, I wonder whether the committee will consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government will not consider taking steps to ban the sale of non-sugar sweeteners, given the views expressed by the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition that NSS are safe for human consumption, having undergone safety assessments by the European Food Safety Authority or by the UK Food Standards Agency, and that the Government will continue to monitor the evidence on NSS and to work with Food Standards Scotland, which is reviewing the SACN recommendations and assessing what they could mean for Scotland.
That is probably the position that we have to adopt, although do colleagues, like me, sometimes wonder what the safety assessments actually are or amount to? What do they do to establish that an issue is not one of concern? Is it some form of monitoring?
Unfortunately from the petitioner’s perspective, if the Scottish Government’s view is that?that is the course of action that it is going to follow, there is really nothing that the committee can do but accept that it is an issue that will continue to command a degree of public attention and which will remain the subject of further discussion. For the moment, are colleagues content to follow Mr Torrance’s recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
Compulsory Microchipping for Cats (PE2145)
PE2145, lodged by Jillian Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it compulsory for cats and kittens to be microchipped. The Scottish Government’s “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats” recommends that all responsible cat owners consider microchipping their pets as the best way of ensuring that they can be reunited with their rightful owners.
The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has published a report on responsible ownership and care of cats, recommending that Scottish ministers
“introduce legislation to require the compulsory microchipping and registration of owned cats”.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is carefully considering the recommendations in that report and will engage with stakeholders ahead of any decision being made on what future direction the Government might recommend.
The committee has received a written submission from Cats Protection, highlighting the public support for compulsory microchipping in England, which is now in force, and calling for its introduction in Scotland.
Before Mr Torrance jumps in, I want to say that I totally agree with everything that the petitioner has said. Microchipping should be compulsory, because a cat is not only a cat—it is part of a family, too. If the proposal means that cats that are lost are brought back home, we should all support it.
We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, in light of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report and the new requirement in England, it will introduce legislation to mandate the microchipping and registration of cats in this parliamentary session.
Do we have any idea of how many cats there are? I doubt it. My goodness, it could be quite a commitment.
Does anybody else have any observations or reflections?
Why do we not find out how many there are?
I do not even know whom I would ask to find out how many cats there are that would require to be microchipped. Would the measure be retrospective, or applied to each new cat that is to be launched into the domestic environment?
In any event, the Government is considering the issues, and it is perfectly reasonable to try to establish when those considerations might lead to a recommendation. Are colleagues content to support Mr Choudhury’s recommendation?
Members indicated agreement.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Transition) (PE2148)
PE2148 is on improving the transition from child and adolescent mental health services to adult mental health services. Colleagues will be aware that we are already considering a petition asking for a complete review of mental health services, but this petition is quite a focused ask in that wider field. Lodged by Heather Stitt, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transition from CAMHS to adult mental health services by ensuring that national referral guidelines and criteria are adhered to.
The SPICe briefing provides an overview of the work that the Scottish Government has undertaken on transitions. Research in 2016-17 highlighted the need for improvements to training resources, service co-ordination, information access and proactive outreach to vulnerable individuals with additional support needs.
The Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport’s submission states that the Scottish Government expects health boards to consider and plan for transitions in services and care. The submission also highlights the 2020 service specification, which sets out an expectation that the transition care planning guidance will be implemented and that CAMHS will have protocols in place to ensure robust transitions. Moreover, the minister’s response highlights the transition care plan guidance and template, which were developed with the Scottish Youth Parliament.
Our colleague Sarah Boyack MSP wished to join us this morning, but she is unable to do so. Instead, we have received a written submission from her, which questions how the Scottish Government monitors adherence to the guidelines and service standards. Ms Boyack states that, without appropriate support or treatment, there is a risk that some young people will be unable to work or contribute to their communities, and she concludes by saying that young people and their families should not feel that they have been abandoned or left in limbo.
Do colleagues have any suggestions?
We should keep the petition open and write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to ask, in light of the expectations that the Scottish Government has set, how it monitors implementation of the transition care planning guidance, CAMHS transition protocols and the transition care plan template, and whether the Scottish Government has gathered feedback from young people and their families following transition between child and adult mental health services.
There is a recommendation from Mr Choudhury to keep the petition open and to explore two specific lines of inquiry. Are colleagues content with Mr Choudhury’s suggestions?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and seek to advance our consideration by obtaining that information.
That brings us to the end of the public part of our meeting. We will next meet on 4 June, and we will now move into private session for the subsequent agenda items.
10:05 Meeting continued in private until 10:24.Previous
Continued Petitions