���˿���

I thank Meghan Gallacher for attending the meeting and supporting the petition. I agree that the petition is useful in terms of the on-going conversation that needs to take place, but for the reasons that have been given directly to us, we will close the petition. Do members agree?

Members indicated agreement.

Maurice, you were told, “There’s a website you can go and look at.” That was the response that you got from the Scottish Government: “Away and find out for yourself, mate.” I think that that was the answer that you were given. Does anything that arises from the response in relation to the ability of local authorities to meet the expectations upon them—which you asked about—lead to further questions that you may wish to put?

Fergus, is there anything that you would like to add?

The petitioner was given the opportunity to contribute but has chosen not to.

Yes.

PE1958 is on extending aftercare for previously looked-after young people and removing the continuing care age cap. The petition was lodged by Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling, who I can see is with us in the public gallery again—she must have a season ticket for our proceedings, as I like to say to regular attendees—on behalf of Who Cares? Scotland.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to extend aftercare provision in Scotland to previously looked-after young people who left care before their 16th birthday, on the basis of individual need; to extend continuing care throughout care-experienced people’s lives, on the basis of individual need; and to ensure that care-experienced people are able to enjoy lifelong rights and achieve equality with non-care-experienced people. That includes ensuring that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the findings of the Promise are fully implemented in Scotland.

Members will recall that, at our previous meeting, we heard evidence from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise, Natalie Don MSP, and Scottish Government officials Cara Cooper and Sarah Corbett. During that meeting, the minister recognised that the care and support provided to care-experienced individuals is inconsistent, and she talked about a determination to

“review and co-design the policies and supports for people with experience of care alongside those with lived experience”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 8 November 2023; c 2-3.]

We also heard that a consultation process is planned for 2024, with the Promise bill expected to be introduced to the Parliament for consideration in 2025—which is getting a little bit near the end of this parliamentary session.

Since our previous meeting, we have received a submission from the Scottish Government providing clarification on whether legislative change would be required to achieve the things that are called for in the petition and providing the requested details on educational outcomes—I think that Maurice Golden asked about that—and on looked-after children, and data on social work staff retention and recruitment.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioner, Jasmin, sharing her reflections on the evidence that we have gathered, and additional information provided by the Scottish Government, which she has had a chance to consider. While welcoming the work being done by the Scottish Government, Jasmin highlights the reviews and consultations that have already taken place, where care-experienced people shared their views, and she cautions against further consultations, which risk asking people to relive trauma while they continue to wait for solutions to be developed and implemented.

While the evidence that we took from the Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise at our previous meeting in response to our questions is still fresh in our minds, do we have any comments or suggestions in consequence of that?

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.