Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good progress has been made on the petition during this session of Parliament. I recall that specific changes have been made to the way in which drugs are issued in police custody.

We thank the petitioner and look to the petition being reframed and, I hope, coming back in the next session of Parliament. I note in passing Mr Ewing’s constitutional innovation of directly elected committee members by the wider public—

Thank you. You have summed up the horns of the dilemma on which the committee rests. Is this a case of a petition that we should keep open or a petition that should be closed now but brought back in the new session of Parliament to monitor the actions that are allegedly being taken forward and anything else that remains outstanding? I defer to colleagues.

Who, I should say, is in the public gallery.

Thank you. Colleagues, do we agree with Mr Ewing’s suggestion that that is the best course of action to pursue?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2173, which was lodged by Lauren Houstoun, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of ultra-processed food in school meals across Scotland in order to give our children healthier options.

We last considered the petition on 8 October 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and relevant school meal providers.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that although there is no universally agreed definition of “ultra-processed foods”, they can broadly be defined as foods containing many ingredients used in the industrial production process and, although the term “ultra-processed” may include products commonly high in fat, salt and sugar, such as sweet and savoury pre-packaged snacks and soft drinks, it also includes products that are fortified with vitamins and minerals and have nutritionally beneficial components such as fibre, including bread and yoghurts.

The Scottish Government states that it does not use a single definition of “fresh”, as this will depend on the context; nor does it collect data on “fresh” provision. Instead, the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020 focus on the nutritional value of school food, drink and meals to support the healthy growth and development of children.

For example, some local authorities cook the main component of a meal at a central location, freeze and transport it for reheating at several local school locations and serve it alongside fruit, vegetables and salad prepared at each site—that sounds lovely. As such, although the meal as a whole delivers the desired amount of energy and key nutrients, it would be difficult to determine whether that meal would be deemed “fresh”.

The Scottish Government adds that, for other local authorities, although the whole meal might be cooked on site daily, it could include frozen vegetables, which deliver high nutritional value but may or may not be considered as “fresh”—well, they are not, they are frozen—as vegetables that have been cooked hours before and kept warm until service. Compliance with food regulations is monitored by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education health and nutrition inspectors as part of the annual school inspection programme.

It all seems to have become more complicated than those terms once used to be. Mr Golden, as the committee member with the most recent experience of being in school—[Laughter.]—do you have any comments?

I think that the Government response is almost a road map of what to avoid saying and what to say instead. If the petitioner lodges a fresh petition, they could navigate around what I thought was a jobsworth’s response as to how you define whether something is fresh or frozen. For me, it has never been in doubt that, if I eat something that is frozen, it is not fresh; it is frozen. That response seems nuts to me. Well, maybe not nuts—we do not want to introduce another term that the Government jobsworths might find difficult to accommodate.

My view is that, if we close the petition, there is still a big issue here and anew petition would need some careful drafting to allow the substantive issue to be addressed without this playing-at-games response, which we all find deeply unsatisfactory.

Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

We will see what happens with it.

PE2161, which was lodged by Ivor Roderick Bisset, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 to allow for a two-year complaints period for people with cognitive disabilities.

We last considered the petition on 10 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. The SPSO’s response explains that the complaints form asks complainants when the problem happened and the reason for any delay in submitting the complaint. If a decision is made not to grant an extension, an internal review can be requested. The response also notes that detailed guidance about the application of the time limit is available for complaint reviewers and is reviewed regularly. At the time of writing, the SPSO was piloting a revised version of the time bar guidance and tool.

The SPSO’s response also states that it does not keep a log of how many times it has allowed an extension to the time limit. Its view is that a single discretionary test for a specific group of users would create a two-tier system and that it might result in a new requirement for complainants to provide evidence or divulge a specific diagnosis to meet the criteria.

Rhoda Grant MSP provided a written submission to record her disappointment with the SPSO’s response. She states that, despite statutory obligations, the SPSO’s office appears to maintain a pattern of inflexibility that in effect discriminates against neurodivergent individuals. Ms Grant also points out that the SPSO’s own missed deadlines carry no penalty, while service users are excluded by rigid timelines.

As Ms Grant is standing down at the end of the parliamentary session, I thank her for her contributions to the committee’s work. She has been an assiduous supporter of many petitions during the lifetime of this Parliament.

The petitioner has provided a submission in which he questions whether the extension policy is real, measurable and accessible or merely theoretical. He states that the SPSO’s response does not provide evidence that is capable of answering that question. He argues that a policy that never results in accommodation is not a reasonable adjustment. He points out that the SPSO’s response relies on broad assurances but that it provides no verifiable data to support its claims. The petitioner also states that the absence of data prevents parliamentary scrutiny and that the internal nature of the review process means that appeals lack meaningful independence.

I am spectacularly unsatisfied with all of this.

10:30