Chamber and committees

Yes.

PE1958 is on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, who I can see is with us in the public gallery again—she must have a season ticket for our proceedings, as I like to say to regular attendees—on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, on the basis of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

Members will recall that, at our previous meeting, we heard evidence from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, Natalie Don MSP, and Scottish Government officials Cara Cooper and Sarah Corbett. During that meeting, the minister recognised that the care and support provided to care-experienced individuals is inconsistent, and she talked about a determination to

“review and co-design the policies and supports for people with experience of care alongside those with lived experience”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 8 November 2023; c 2-3.]

We also heard that a consultation process is planned for 2024, with the Promise bill expected to be introduced to the Parliament for consideration in 2025—which is getting a little bit near the end of this parliamentary session.

Since our previous meeting, we have received a submission from the Scottish Government providing clarification on whether legislative change would be required to achieve the things that are called for in the petition and providing the requested details on educational outcomes—I think that Maurice Golden asked about that—and on looked-after children, and data on social work staff retention and recruitment.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Jasmin, sharing her reflections on the evidence that we have gathered, and additional information provided by the Scottish Government, which she has had a chance to consider. While welcoming the work being done by the Scottish Government, Jasmin highlights the reviews and consultations that have already taken place, where care-experienced people shared their views, and she cautions against further consultations, which risk asking people to relive trauma while they continue to wait for solutions to be developed and implemented.

While the evidence that we took from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise at our previous meeting in response to our questions is still fresh in our minds, do we have any comments or suggestions in consequence of that?

Yes.

That would be useful, because it is a recurring feature. When we are considering petitions that are pursuing why legislation has not been implemented, the response is often very much a case of, “Well, the funding isn’t in place to allow us to do it.” We would like an indication of whether the Government is confident that the funding will be in place when the bill is finally progressed.

Are we content to take forward the petition and seek further clarification on the back of the evidence that we heard from the minister at our previous meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1997, which is on the introduction of Braille labelling for food products that are sold in Scotland, has been lodged by Fiona McDonald on behalf of Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans. I believe that we have the petitioners in the public gallery today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce new legal requirements on retailers to provide Braille labelling on food products detailing the name of the item and the item’s use-by or sell-by date.

We last considered the petition on 22 March, when we agreed to write to Food Standards Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation Scotland and the Scottish Government. Members will have noted that the response from Food Standards Scotland also covers the issues that we raised directly with the Scottish Government.

Food Standards Scotland states that it

“has no immediate plans to conduct a public consultation on policy options for the introduction of mandatory braille labelling”,

but that it will continue to build the evidence base in that area. The response also indicates that, while it is “unlikely” that progress on Braille labelling work will be made in the short term, FSS has brought the petition to the attention of the UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Food and Drink Federation draws our attention to

“alternative technologies being trialled by food producers”

that would improve accessibility for consumers. It also “encourages” the recognition of digital food information, which can be used to provide complementary detail and repeat mandatory product information.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioners, which emphasise

“the importance of food products being accessible and safe for blind and partially sighted people”.

In particular, they note that, while the use of QR codes is helpful, the technology needs

“to be used in combination with”

other techniques to ensure that packaging is fully accessible for all.

The petitioners’ most recent submission shares results of their survey, which gathered feedback on the general accessibility of food packaging. Interestingly, 76 per cent of respondents said that current labels do not meet respective accessibility requirements.

There is quite interesting feedback from the various parties in relation to the petition. Do members have any suggestions? Perhaps we could follow up on the Food Standards Scotland approach to the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

We will keep the petition open and we will pursue it in the ways that we have just agreed.

As has been suggested, we need to see the equality impact assessments, as well as how the charges are established, what facilities they deliver and what benefit they provide to those who use the facilities. We thank the petitioner and will take the action suggested to see what response we get.

PE2045, lodged by Tiffany Maguire, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to lower the cervical cancer smear test age in Scotland to 16.

Meghan Gallacher joins us for consideration of the petition. Good morning, Meghan. Is the petitioner known to you? Is she a constituent?

Considering Meghan Gallacher’s assessment and the evidence that we have received, do members have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The first continued petition is PE1947, lodged by Alex O’Kane, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to address the disturbing culture of youth violence in Scotland.

The committee met an Edinburgh-based youth group, 6VT, just off the Grassmarket, and it also visited Milton in Glasgow to meet the petitioner and families with direct experience of the issues that are raised in the petition. I should say that some of the families had come from further afield than the immediate Milton community. Once again, I thank everyone who took the time to speak with us: the young people we met in Edinburgh and, in particular, the people we met in Milton, who, in some instances, were still recovering from really graphic and, in some respects, unbelievable levels of violence. We could sense the parents’ bewilderment and how distraught they continued to be at what they considered to be the inability to secure the on-going environment for their children and any sense of justice. I thank all those who took the time to come to meet me and the committee—Alexander Stewart was my colleague on the committee at the time.

This morning, we are joined by two University of Glasgow academics. I welcome Dr Fern Gillon, a research associate, and Dr Susan Batchelor, a senior lecturer in criminology.

Before I ask a general question, I will give a preamble based on the evidence that we heard. It was interesting that, in Edinburgh, the young people whom we met felt a sense of security from coming together in the 6VT facility to share their experiences. That also allowed them to gain strength, as a group, in being able to withstand the torment or violence that they had previously experienced. They were very keen to be there. Obviously, sitting giving evidence on anything was an unusual environment for them, so we tried to make it a discussion with prompts.

What we heard from the families that we met in Milton—coincidentally, there was a debate on the subject in the Parliament later that day, and it was difficult, although I did contribute on the back of what we had heard—was chilling. We heard about the way in which violence is organised by appointment. People are lured to a place where others are gathered to record on their phones videos of the violence that takes place, and those people post those videos in the perceived knowledge that no recrimination will follow and they can do so with impunity. It was deeply distressing.

Two of the people we met had been left in such an appalling state that those who found them were not sure that they would survive. They did, but not without experiencing enormous trauma. Siblings of those affected felt that they had failed in some way to protect them and that they had a duty to step in and seek restorative justice. Parents felt that they had failed and that, when they had gone looking for help, the system had then failed them. Although there was lots of sympathy from the authorities, the police and others, the parents did not have any confidence that, at the end of the day, any intervention by the authorities or the police would produce a return because, as they saw it, the system was stacked against action and more towards the perpetrator than the victim. It was a very chilling session.

We heard that evidence in isolation, and we do not want to believe that that is the picture across the whole country, but we do not know. What does the available evidence tell us about the level of involvement of young people as perpetrators of violent behaviour? What is the age demographic? Is it older teenagers who are involved in such behaviour, or is it, as we heard, younger teenagers—younger than I would have thought was possible? The violence that we heard about was perpetrated by girls on other girls, not by boys. Is that typical? Are more boys involved than girls, or is there a much wider problem? Obviously, we will come to the roots of all this, but I am interested in how the evidence that we heard sits in the context of the wider academic understanding of the issue.