Chamber and committees

Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

As members have no more suggestions, are we content to proceed with writing to the Scottish Government as Mr Torrance has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

The next item is consideration of new petitions. As I always do for the benefit of those who might be joining us online to watch our consideration of their petition, I indicate that, ahead of a petition’s first consideration, we seek an initial view from the Scottish Government and a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre, or SPICe, which is the Parliament’s impartial research service. That will not necessarily determine the committee’s view, but it does mean that, rather than our just going through the motions of suggesting that we get a briefing, we have anticipated that that will be our course of action and will, therefore, have the evidence already before us.

The first new petition is PE2003, which was lodged by Lewis McMartin. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to stop fast food chains promoting unhealthy food choices by banning the use of reward systems. The Scottish Government’s response outlines its current work to restrict the promotion of food and drink that is high in fat, sugar or salt. When consulting on its planned legislation on the issue, promotional reward systems were not specifically discussed, but it remained open to views on whether such other types of promotions should be restricted beyond those set out in the consultation. The Government is considering responses to the consultation and will publish an external analysis report.

Has the consultation concluded? I am told by the clerks that the consultation has now closed, so it is too late to suggest that the petitioner contributes to it. I am also told that the petitioner is aware of that fact. That is fine.

I felt that the term “fast food” was rather loose in its definition. There are fast food salad bars now. I was not sure whether the petitioner quite articulated who he was specifically targeting. Do we have any suggestions?

Thank you all very much. That brings us to the end of this morning’s public session. We will move into private session to consider our public participation inquiry. We will meet again to consider petitions in public session on Wednesday 17 May.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

I suspend the meeting.

Fergus Ewing, it was at your instigation that we spoke with the two panels of people with experience of all of this last night.

Did you recognise that sentiment about the overwhelming nature of that situation for the individual—the responsibility that, in the absence of advocacy, people feel falls on them to progress things on their own behalf?

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2023. I begin by offering an apology on behalf of the deputy convener, David Torrance, who is not able to be with us this morning, sadly. That is a shame, because he was with our petitioners last night.

We come to that petition now under agenda item 1, which is consideration of continuing petitions. The first of them is PE1958, on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland, and it 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 their 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.

I am delighted that we are joined this morning by the petitioner, Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, and by Laura Pasternak, also from Who Cares? Scotland. Thank you both very much for coming to join us this morning to give evidence.

Before we get started, and for the benefit of anyone following today’s proceedings, I should note that members of the committee—Alexander Stewart and David Torrance, who were in the Parliament yesterday—had an informal discussion with individuals with lived experience of the issues raised by the petition. I understand that that was a forthright and interesting conversation. The discussion was supported by Who Cares? Scotland, the Aberlour Child Care Trust and the Scottish Refugee Council. A note of the discussion will be published on the petition web page in due course.

Getting under way with our evidence session this morning, I understand, Jasmin, that you would like to make a statement to the committee—which the wider world will of course also see and hear—and we will then move to questions.

We have extended the session quite a bit, such has been the interest in the issue at hand. Before we move to the round-table conversation, would you like to make any final comments about anything that we have not covered this morning?