Chamber and committees

We will do that. This is an important petition, and we will keep it open. I hope that I am not being too light as we discuss it because, actually, the issues are quite significant, and we want to find out more.

I do not know who to write to about this, but there is another issue. It was suggested, in the instance that the petitioner discusses, that the hospital staff thought that the drink might have been spiked, but that did not seem to lead to any process or test. I do not know whether there is anybody who could help us to understand the practice around that.

PE1942, which was lodged by Fiona MacAulay, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to promote the use of peer support programmes such as TRIM and STRAW—I am sorry, but I do not know what the acronyms stand for—in public sector workplaces to promote better mental health. We previously considered the petition on 26 October, when we agreed to write to stakeholder organisations to ask for their views on the petition.

We have now received responses from the Scottish Recovery Network and the Samaritans. The Scottish Recovery Network tells us that it has a strong track record of promoting and supporting the development of peer support in communities. The work includes the Peer2Peer training resource, which was mentioned in the Scottish Government’s initial response to the petition. The response goes on to say that, although the Scottish Recovery Network has some awareness of TRIM and STRAW, and the private sector psychology consultancy company that delivers them, the network has no experience of the models or products in practice.

The submission from the Samaritans highlights the value of peer support and the need to ensure that people have access to that support when they need it, which it indicates could be achieved through sustainable investment in talking therapies and wider third-sector community support.

Before I ask for comments, it is worth mentioning that the TRIM and STRAW packages that are referred to in the petition appear to be commercial products, so whatever action the committee takes should focus on the general merits of the petition rather than on those commercial products in particular, as it is not our practice to promote such products.

Are there any comments from colleagues?

PE1944, which was lodged by Alan Ross, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to enforce the engine idling ban and to take action to introduce instant £80 fines for offences, reclassify idling as a high traffic offence, legally oblige local authorities to enforce the engine idling ban, create contact points for public reporting, and increase anti-idling signage in public spaces.

At our last consideration of this petition, the committee agreed to write to COSLA, the RAC Foundation and Professor Adrian Davis of Edinburgh Napier University to seek their views on the petition. Professor Davis’s response states that citywide or nationwide banning of idling, combined with fear of fines and environmental awareness, appears to be the most effective method of reducing engine idling. In its response to the committee, COSLA stated that many local authorities simply do not have the additional resources or staff capacity that would be required to enforce the engine idling ban on a statutory basis consistent with the comprehensive scheme of suggestions proposed by Alan Ross.

In light of the responses that we have received from Professor Davis and COSLA, do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We thank the petitioner but we now draw that petition to a close.

PE1997 has been lodged by Fiona McDonald on behalf of Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans. I understand that the petitioners are with us in the public gallery, and I welcome them. 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 its use-by or sell-by date. The petitioners highlight that Braille labelling is currently required only for medicines, leaving Braille users at a disadvantage when identifying food products that they wish to purchase.

Responding on behalf of the Scottish Government, Food Standards Scotland states:

“As the body with policy responsibility for general food labelling FSS recognises that having access to adequate food information is essential to enable consumers to make informed choices when shopping for food.”

The response highlights the intention, following the exit from the European Union, for general food labelling legislation to be considered for review on a UK-wide basis. However, it is noted that the scope of the legislation is considerable and that any such review may be unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, Food Standards Scotland has invited Sight Scotland and Disability Equality Scotland to meet it to improve its understanding of the needs of blind and partially sighted consumers.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners that notes that a meeting with Food Standards Scotland took place in early March. The petitioners tell us that the meeting provided an opportunity for them to offer clarity on the numbers of people living with sight loss in Scotland, while exploring the importance of offering a variety of accessible formats to match consumers’ individual needs and preferences. The petitioners also mention that Food Standards Scotland is considering a public consultation that would be aimed at providing further insight on the impact of mandatory Braille labelling for food products that are sold in Scotland.

Do members have any suggestions? It is an interesting petition on an issue that had not occurred to me, until I read the detail of it, as being meaningful. I can see the practical issues that are associated with it but, nonetheless, I am pleased that meetings have taken place to at least explore matters further. What more might the committee do?

I am interested in having a bit more understanding as well. The response from FSS says that a review is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, but what discussions are taking place about the process that might underpin a wider UK comprehensive review of food labelling? FSS refers to a review happening on a UK-wide basis, but I would like to understand whether the Scottish Government expects to proceed on that basis in this instance. What further information can it give us? We might ask it who in the UK Government is potentially leading on the matter. It may well be that, having received confirmation of that, we should write to the UK Government in due course to ask for its views on the process that would underpin a review. The proposed review is not as immediate a response as the petitioner is looking for, so I am very much in favour of Mr Stewart’s suggestions.

Are there any other thoughts from colleagues? As there are none, I propose that we keep the petition open and write to the various organisations, the Scottish Government and potentially the UK Government on the basis that we have described. We will maintain contact with the petitioners so that they have an opportunity to feed in their responses to any responses that we receive, and we will have that information before us when we next consider the petition. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

No, it is not.

Yes, we could ask the Government. I was wondering whether to write to every health board, but that would be quite cumbersome. We could maybe ask the Government whether there is any standard practice on this, identifying the fact that, among the young people who are petitioning us, there is a sense that it is an emerging and growing concern. It may well be that it is something that needs to happen because of a growing number of incidents.

Do we agree to the suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

The petition raises important issues. We will write to the minister and to the Scottish Social Services Council, as suggested, and consider the petition again when we consider the responses that we have received from them.

I am very concerned that I have now planted the word “capture” in your vocabulary, Mr Stewart. You are now capturing everything in every petition. I encourage you not to be led down such a dangerous path, but I fully support the sentiments.

That round-table discussion, however, was 14 months ago, and I will tell you what struck me. First of all, this Parliament has a duty to try to ensure that, although the composition of its membership is not youthful, we understand and respond to issues that are of direct concern to many young people, and this clearly is one such issue. In my ignorance, I had assumed that a urine test was probably a fairly routine process, but I was struck by the issue of there being possible reputational damage done to the individual in question, who was thereafter unable to evidence that their drink had been spiked, that was the issue, and that, as a consequence, it was open to others to suggest that they had just been irresponsible or reckless in their behaviour. That was very damaging, and it would be avoidable if processes were in place to try to properly identify the experience that people had been subject to. I think that we are all minded to pursue the petition further and to make inquiries. Mr Ewing suggested contacting Police Scotland, which is perfectly sensible.