Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 final petition today, PE2047, was lodged by Frances Anne Nixon and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider legislation to ensure that malicious false allegations are considered hate crimes and are dealt with as such. Members may be aware that the petitioner lodged a similar petition in 2019, which was considered by our predecessor committee in session 5 of the Parliament and was prompted by the petitioner’s experience of malicious false allegations at that time. The Scottish Government has provided a response that notes that behaviour amounting to making false allegations can be dealt with under existing common law. It is not clear to the Government on what basis a false allegation that is made against someone should be treated as a hate crime when other offences, such as assault, that are committed in the same circumstances and with the same motivation would not be. It is also noted that existing hate crime legislation can be used to add a statutory aggravation to general offences that are being prosecuted.

Ms Nixon has responded to the Scottish Government’s view, highlighting that her experience demonstrates the challenges of dealing with malicious false allegations using existing law and calling for the definition of a hate crime to be expanded to ensure that any characteristic of an individual cannot be used by others to make false allegations against them. I appreciate the petitioner’s tenacity based on her experience, but the Scottish Government’s view is direct.

Do members have any comments, or are we content to agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner for raising the issue. The direct response that we have received from the Scottish Government and from SPICe is that we will be unable to advance the aims of the petition, so we will close it.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on 6 December.