Chamber and committees

PE1926, which was lodged by Alison Dowling, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand universal free school meals provision to all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils. We previously considered the petition on 20 April, when we agreed to seek more views and information from the Scottish Government and a number of stakeholders. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Public Health Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, and the Trussell Trust.

Members will be aware that expanding provision of free school meals has been the subject of discussion in the chamber—notably in relation to our consideration of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill.

Do members have any comments or suggestions of actions that we might take?

I am happy to do that. We might advocate taking the petition to the chamber for a debate, but in the first instance we will wait for a response from the cabinet secretary.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions.

PE1927, which has been lodged by Claire Mooney, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to install CCTV into every additional support needs school in the country. Members—Mr Torrance, in particular—will be aware that the petition is similar to one that was considered by our predecessor committee and was also lodged by Ms Mooney. It was closed on the basis that, from written submissions that were received, it appeared that there was limited support for the action that was called for in the petition. Further information on the previous petition and written submissions are included in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing paper.

In the background information, Ms Mooney shares her experience of a family member being injured while being restrained and the challenges of ensuring that a full investigation was done and a full explanation of events provided, particularly when the child is unable to give an account of what happened. We have also received submissions in support of the petition from Patricia Hewitt and Elaine M, both of whom suggest that CCTV could be used as a tool to support and protect vulnerable children, as well as the staff who work with them.

The Scottish Government’s response states that it is for local authorities to determine whether use of CCTV cameras on their premises is appropriate, and that, in making such a decision, consideration must be given to balancing the privacy and protection of children, young people, and staff. The Government also notes that new guidance is being drafted on minimising use of physical intervention, physical restraint and seclusion in schools. That draft guidance on physical intervention in schools has been made available and the public consultation on it is due to close on 25 October.

There are two or three areas in particular that we could look at. One that we could explore in a debate is the fact that it has now been repeatedly stated that responsibility for medical devices rests with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and that there is a general view across all parties in Parliament that it has fallen short in its responsibility. All parties have offered support to the Government, not just in complaining about that but, potentially, in seeking to do something more directly about it, and that has not happened. That is one strand.

There is information relating to the Shouldice hospital that shows alternative ways forward. One of the themes from the petitioners is that their experiences were not taken seriously. It was a bit like the whole transvaginal mesh situation all over again, because they were treated as though they were imagining their pain and as though other people knew what was best for them. They felt that they had not received the same informed advice as others had. The minister suggested to us that a lot of work was being done in relation to the wider criteria and guidelines, so there is scope for a debate in the chamber. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

They can do that. I would like to give the petitioner the most informed response possible. I think that that appears on our website in due course. Anybody could see from our website what advice we receive and how people could apply. That would be helpful.

PE1919, which was lodged by Ted Gourley, is on prohibiting the sale of high-caffeine products to children for performance enhancement. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast release caffeine gum to under 18s for performance enhancement due to the risk of serious harm. We previously considered the petition on 23 February, when we agreed to write to the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, scottishathletics, sportscotland, Cardiac Risk in the Young, and Food Standards Scotland. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from those stakeholders as well as a submission from the petitioner.

Members will have noted that many of the responses refer to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the sale of energy drinks, and to the fact that Food Standards Scotland has committed to providing enhanced guidance on food additives, including caffeine, in the coming months.

The responses from sportscotland and scottishathletics highlight the potential challenges of implementing a ban that is specifically focused on performance enhancement. Cardiac Risk in the Young and the petitioner have also suggested that there is a need for further research to evaluate the impact of such products on young at-risk individuals and athletes.

Do members have any comments or suggestions on action? I think that the issue was raised in the chamber at some point. I recollect it coming up.

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting—I am sure that it will be lucky for us all—of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022. We have apologies from Fergus Ewing and Paul Sweeney and are joined today by Carol Mochan, who is substituting for Paul Sweeney. Welcome to you, Carol.

Our first item of business, therefore—because this is the first time that you have been with us—is to invite you to declare any relevant interests.

May I ask where that information came from?

That is helpful. Do colleagues have comments, questions or suggestions?

Before I bring in David Torrance, I will say that, obviously, we can make further inquiries, but one suggestion is that we try to take the issue to the chamber for a debate in order to inform colleagues more broadly about the wider issues arising from this particular aspect of the use of mesh. We might want to consider that, but is there anything that we might want to do ahead of that?