Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry that that is not the decision that the petitioner will have looked for, but I thank them for raising the issue. We have put their concern on the record.

PE2008, which was lodged by Kirsty Solman, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funding to create a separate accident and emergency for children and young people presenting with mental health issues.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition details on-going work to support people experiencing poor mental health. It states that several mechanisms are in place to ensure that emergency mental health care is accessible quickly and as close to home as possible.

For example, the mental health unscheduled care pathway ensures that anyone presenting at A and E in a mental health crisis is properly assessed and cared for. Care plans are put in place that may include support from crisis support organisations or local mental health services, or admission to the hospital where necessary.

The redesign of urgent care programme ensures that each health board is providing access to a senior clinical decision maker 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for urgent mental health assessment or urgent referral to local mental health services.

The Scottish Government has published the child and adolescent mental health services national service specification, which outlines the provisions that young people and their families can expect from the NHS, including a 24/7 mental health crisis response service for children and young people.

In her response to the Scottish Government, the petitioner highlights that there are only two wards in the west of Scotland for those in crisis with their mental health and questions the effectiveness of speaking to a child or parent over the phone to assess their mental state. The petitioner also questions the rationale behind the redesign of urgent care programme, stating that the programme does not have sufficient CAMHS staff available. She also notes the lack of information on the locations of available hubs for children and adolescents struggling with their mental health.

The petitioner raises a number of challenges to and questions for the Scottish Government in response to its submission, details of which are available in the clerk’s note.

Do colleagues agree that we will write to the Scottish Government requesting that it provides a clear view on the merits of what the petition is asking for as well as responding to the points raised by the petitioner in her recent written submission, to which I have just referred?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you very much. That was the final petition this morning. We will now move into private session.

PE2007, which was lodged by Carol Ann Weston, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase allotment provision so that current waiting lists are fulfilled and all universal credit claimants are offered a free plot at their nearest allotment site.

Members will be aware that legislation on allotments is contained in part 9 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The briefing that we have received from SPICe highlights the post-legislative scrutiny that the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has undertaken on the matter. The committee noted that

“local authorities do not have enough resources to simply create large numbers of new allotments to meet all demand.”

In addition to the challenges of land availability for allotments, the SPICe briefing notes that, in January 2023, more than 478,000 people were in receipt of universal credit in Scotland.

Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government recognises the on-going challenges that local authorities face in relation to allotment waiting lists and encourages local authorities to look at innovative ways to reduce allotment waiting lists. The Government response also provides information on the funding that it has allocated for community growing over the past decade.

In relation to universal credit, the Scottish Government states that there is no provision for it to provide an allotment to universal credit recipients in Scotland, but it lists a range of benefits that are managed and paid for by the Scottish Government for which universal credit is a passporting benefit.

Do members have any suggestions or comments on what we might do in light of the responses that we have received from SPICe and the Scottish Government?

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.

Our next new petition is PE2005, which was lodged by Jonathan Patrick. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to formally respond to the annual adoption barometer report that is undertaken by Adoption UK. The Scottish Government’s response notes that it has recognised and welcomed the findings of the adoption barometer 2022 report. It highlights that Clare Haughey MSP, the then Minister for Children and Young People, attended the formal launch of the report, and that the report was referred to in a members’ business debate in March 2023. The Scottish Government states that there are no plans to publish a formal written response to the report, which is consistent with its approach to previous annual adoption barometer reports and with the approach that other Governments across the UK take.

It appears that the Scottish Government’s procedural approach is consistent with that in other jurisdictions. Do members have any comments or suggestions?

In light of that consistent approach across the UK and the actions that by David Torrance identifies in his recommendation, are colleagues content that we do not pursue the petition further?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. If you are joining us this morning, it is a great pleasure to have you with us.

Our first agenda item is a declaration of interests following the resignation from the committee of Carol Mochan. I am sorry to say that Carol was with us for only a short time, but we very much appreciated her contribution and her valuable insights to the work of the committee during her time with us. I have pleasure in welcoming to the committee, in her place, Foysol Choudhury MSP. The first item of business this morning is to invite Mr Choudhury to declare any relevant interests.