Seòmar agus comataidhean

No. Are we agreed at this stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our first agenda item is the usual dry business of agreeing whether to take in private agenda items 4, 5 and 6, which are on consideration of a draft report on the participation blueprint, our approach to the end of the parliamentary session, and our annual report. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2093, lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code to: put the code under statute; enable independent advisers to initiate investigations, and if the First Minister decides to go against the independent adviser’s advice, they should make a statement to Parliament; set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament; allow independent advisers to make recommendations for changes to the code; rename the independent adviser position to make it clear that there is no judicial involvement; and require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the First Minister. The committee’s letter particularly sought clarification on what consideration the First Minister had given to updating the ministerial code since taking office, and it asked him to set out the process for appointing independent advisers on the ministerial code, including whether any consideration was given to how long they should remain in post.

The First Minister’s initial response confirmed his intention to publish an updated edition of the ministerial code, and it indicated that the length of service of independent advisers on the code was a matter that is agreed between the First Minister and the individual advisers.

The most recent correspondence from the First Minister confirms the publication of an updated ministerial code, following the appointment of three new independent advisers. The First Minister’s response states that, as per the updated code, those advisers can begin investigations into alleged breaches of the code without a referral from him, and that when a breach is established, the advisers can recommend appropriate sanctions.

The petitioner’s response welcomes the changes that enable independent advisers to initiate investigations and to recommend sanctions and changes to the code, but highlights concerns that the code has not been put under statute and that there is no requirement on ministers to make a public commitment to abide by it. The petitioner also raises concerns that the designation of advisers as independent may cause confusion, with people believing that “independent” suggests a judicial role. However, I feel that a certain amount of progress—some might say that it is unexpected—has been made on the substance of the petition.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE2108, lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. The petition was last considered on 9 October 2024.

In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it is confident that one medical opinion is sufficient for the granting of a short-term detention certificate, because of the additional safeguards and patients’ rights that are provided for in the 2003 act.

The petitioner and his wife, Clair Muir, have provided a joint written submission, which details Mrs Muir’s personal experience of being under a short-term detention certificate. The petitioner explains that, during Mrs Muir’s treatment, further investigation by a new responsible medical officer resulted in that treatment being brought to a conclusion. He believes that their experience would have been better had a second medical opinion been available before detention started.

The issues in the petition are familiar to many of us, and the petitioners have drawn our attention to them on a number of occasions. Given the Scottish Government’s response, what might we do now?

With some regret, we feel that we can do nothing further, in the face of the Government’s response.

We thank the petitioner for raising the petition with us. I hope that the response is validated by experience, and that the petitioner keeps a note of whether all of that transpires. If not, she could bring the issue back in a future session of Parliament.

That brings us to item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. To those tuning in to see what is happening with a petition that they have lodged, I can confirm that we always seek two opinions. The first is from the Scottish Parliament information centre—the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body—which gives us formal briefings on the issues raised by petitions, and the second is a preliminary view from the Scottish Government. As always, we seek that information from those two bodies in advance, because, historically, that has been the first thing that we have done as a committee. Doing so helps expedite our in-depth consideration of the petition before us.

The first of our new petitions is PE2141, lodged by Luis Robertson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to the neurodiverse community by providing fully-funded psychoeducation and sensory aids, which allow for greater community integration pre and post diagnosis.

In the petitioner’s view, psychoeducation is crucial for autistic individuals, as it equips them with the knowledge and tools to better understand themselves and their experiences. That knowledge could lead to self-acceptance and enable them to connect with others more effectively.

As noted in the SPICe briefing, psychoeducation interventions are typically structured, fixed-term, condition-specific sessions for neurodiverse people, delivered by a qualified professional. Depending on individual needs, some neurodiverse persons also find use for sensory aids, such as fidget toys, weighted blankets, therapy balls or visual timers. The SPICe briefing also highlights that the evidence base for psychoeducation is still somewhat small, given that it is an emerging field. However, it points to some research that suggests that psychoeducation could play a positive role in post-diagnostic support, particularly if it is co-produced by neurodiverse people.

In its initial submission, the Scottish Government explains how organisations funded through the autistic adult support fund provide support that achieves similar aims to those of psychoeducation. It also explains how existing providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids can apply for funding. The Government further stresses that it supports several alternative initiatives that achieve the aims sought in the petition, while indicating that it is open to exploring the integration of psychoeducational approaches and the use of sensory aids into existing frameworks.

If members are content, I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government to ask for a breakdown of the funding that is due to be made available to the providers of psychoeducation and sensory aids in 2025-26 and beyond and to ask whether that will be made available through the autistic adult Scotland fund. We should also ask for an update on whether the Scottish Government intends to subsidise or distribute sensory aids through the existing frameworks and to integrate that provision with the psychoeducational programmes that are led by neurodivergent individuals. Are members content?

Members indicated agreement.

We will keep the petition open and seek to make inquiries along the lines that have been suggested.

PE2144, lodged by Ben Ronnie Lang, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale and use of artificial sweeteners, such as sucralose, in food and drink products in Scotland.

This is a much-explored field of public health. The petitioner believes that artificial sweeteners that are found in foods and beverages pose a serious public health concern and should therefore be banned, based on their potential to increase the risk of developing conditions such as type 2 diabetes.

The SPICe briefing highlights that many organisations, such as the NHS, the British Heart Foundation and Diabetes UK advocate the use of sweeteners as a replacement for sugar, because of the impact of sugar on tooth decay, obesity and type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, the World Health Organization has made a conditional recommendation that non-sugar sweeteners are not used as a means of achieving weight control, due to a lack of evidence about the long-term benefits for body weight and concerns about potential long-term impacts.

In its initial review of the petition, the Scottish Government notes the conclusions of a recent statement from the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition on the lack of data on the volume of NSS used in food products and on advice to younger consumers. The Government has also indicated that it will engage with Food Standards Scotland and the UK Government to discuss the implications of the recommendations in the SACN’s statement.

However, the Scottish Government also notes the SACN’s view that all NSS in the UK are safe for human consumption, having undergone a rigorous assessment by either the European Food Safety Authority or the UK Food Standards Agency. The Scottish Government says that, although it will continue to monitor the evidence, its view is that there is currently insufficient evidence to consider banning non-sugar sweeteners.

I do not know, Mr Ewing—were there non-sugar sweeteners when we were young? I cannot remember. Did we just put sugar in everything?