Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Thank you. So any interests that you have are as they are recorded in the register of members’ interests.

PE1949, which was lodged by Alexander James Dickson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the rules regarding MSPs with a dual mandate and to legislate to bring the Scottish Parliament in line with the Senedd and Stormont by preventing MSPs from holding a dual mandate in time for the next Scottish Parliament elections.

We previously considered the petition on 9 November, when we agreed to write to the Welsh Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Electoral Reform Society. We also noted the Scottish Government’s view that the matter is one for the Parliament to consider.

We have now received responses from our colleagues in other devolved institutions. Members will have noted that the United Kingdom Government introduced legislation to prevent a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly from simultaneously being a member of the UK House of Commons or of the lower house of the Irish Parliament. Similar legislation in Wales was introduced by the Senedd Commission, which is the equivalent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. It appears that, if the Scottish Government has no appetite to pursue the matter, we should consider what options are available to allow the Parliament to give the matter further consideration.

I always observe that ministers hold a dual mandate, in that they have a second responsibility as well as that of being an MSP.

Do colleagues have any suggestions?

For the record, I state that I am a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, even though, in this instance, the recommendation is to send the petition to a different committee.

Is that advice being given only to motorcyclists or to tourists in general?