Chamber and committees

Unfortunately for the petitioner, we have reached the end of the road with the petition. The one positive aspect is that the petition called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government

“to expand universal free school meals provision for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils.”

As you have highlighted, convener, that has been secured. We therefore have no choice but to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that a debate on a non-binding motion has taken place, the Scottish Government has reaffirmed its commitment to rolling out the next phase of the free school meals programme to primary 6 and 7 pupils who are in receipt of the Scottish child payment, and it continues to work closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the capital work that is required to support the expansion of free school meals can begin. The Government is also considering initial views on a pilot for universal free school meals in secondary schools.

Particularly at this point in the parliamentary session, it is unacceptable not to have a timeline in place. We should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to highlight the time that has elapsed; request an update and a timeline for the Scottish Government’s work, including the stakeholder engagement and public consultation; and, critically, ask whether that will be concluded in the current session. Perhaps we could consider inviting the cabinet secretary to give evidence on the petition at a future meeting.

What is the Scottish Government’s view on the Competition and Market Authority’s report and its position that the current system of private management of housing estates might lead to consumer detriment?

I agree with everything that Mr Ewing has said.

I was slightly concerned by the evidence that we took regarding the marketing of and communication about BE FAST rather than FAST. In that regard, I wonder if we could write to the Chartered Institute of Marketing, first to ask whether there is any evidence about whether the addition of two letters to a four-letter word makes any difference to people remembering that term and secondly to find out whether there is any evidence about the effect that adding two letters has on meaning. That might be useful evidence to obtain.

I think that the petition definitely requires further investigation. On that basis, we should write to the Scottish Government, seeking an update on its work with health boards on developing a plan for patients waiting for delayed reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, we should ask what information is available on the capacity of specialised plastic surgeons and whether the Government has considered how any gaps in the availability of specialised plastic surgery services can be addressed. Finally, we should seek an update on the Government’s commitment to exploring the publication of data on the current waiting times for breast reconstruction surgery.

I do not think that I need to declare an interest, but I attended a Catholic secondary school for some time. I think that we should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to ask whether she is confident that the consideration of proposals for denominational schools is fair and consistent across Scotland and, if so, what evidence exists to support that view.

There is quite a lot in the petition, and it might help the petitioner if the Scottish Government could provide the context of roadside litter awareness campaigns and say who has been responsible for delivering them over the period in which this Scottish Government has been in charge, since 2007. It would be useful for the committee to have that context.

I would like the Scottish Government to detail who has been responsible for any specific campaigns. I am aware of one that was run by Keep Scotland Beautiful from 2016 to 2019, but I am also aware that there has been varied responsibility for delivering litter awareness campaigns more generally. In 2011, there was the “Dunna chuck bruck” litter awareness campaign in Shetland, which I might have to declare as an interest, as I funded it.

It is important that the Scottish Government tells us how much funding has gone into roadside litter awareness campaigns each year—if it is generous, it might expand that to litter campaigns in general—and who is responsible for delivering them. It should also tell us what the assessment of the dumb dumpers phone line was. That was a national phone line, but if you call it now, you are instructed to call your local authority, which might not necessarily be set up to deal with the issue.

We should also ask the Scottish Government for further information on the national litter and fly-tipping strategy delivery group’s communications sub-groups—what a mouthful—including what actions will be taken at the national level to improve communications about littering. It is important that that action is taken nationally, as this is not purely a local authority issue. We should also ask what engagement has been done with stakeholders. It would also be worth asking whether the littering provisions in the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 will cover unintentional littering from commercial vehicles—I hope that they will, because the 2024 act will not deliver a circular economy if it does not deliver on litter.

It might be interesting to talk to other stakeholders who might have an interest in the issue. Rachael Hamilton mentioned those that manage our trunk roads, including Transport Scotland. I know from paddle boarding under the Friarton bridge how dangerous roadside litter can be, because lots of individuals will throw various things over the side of the bridge.

Finally, on extended producer responsibility, I would like us to ask how the Scottish Government is engaging with producers to help to co-ordinate litter collection and therefore reduce disposal costs, which I know many of the large companies and small producers are keen to do.

The petitioner mentions research from Australia—it has a similar healthcare system to ours—which showed that when BE FAST was used in a live medical setting the result was quicker detection and treatment and better outcomes. What is your assessment of how many strokes FAST might miss? Are we talking about one in five, one in 10 or one in 20?

I will perhaps start with Professor Majid. In relation to your previous point, are you aware of any work around the use of artificial intelligence to triage potential stroke victims?

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government will take the actions that have been highlighted by the convener. In addition, it has committed to introducing a natural environment bill. On that final point and—I hope—to allay some of the petitioners’ concerns, in closing the petition we should write to the Scottish Government, asking it to put on the record its plans and timescales for the natural environment bill. The Government’s response said that it will happen in due course, which is similar to the response that I received on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which was due to be introduced in the 2016-17 programme for government but was not introduced until 2023. That is why I am keen to at least get an update on the timescales for the natural environment bill, which should, in theory, adequately address the petitioners’ concerns.