Seòmar agus comataidhean

Anecdotally—and it is only anecdotal, although first-hand anecdotal—I have been told by recent school leavers that, in fact, pupils are being encouraged to use their mobile phone as a working tool in the classroom to support the digital learning of the class. If that is an evolving practice in learning, I am not quite sure how that is consistent with banning the use of the mobile phone. There was talk at one time of every child being provided with an iPad or a laptop or something, but in the absence of that, how would digital learning proceed in the event of a total ban? That was the response of someone who had recently been at school and thought that there was a contradiction in that, albeit that they had been at a school where there were restrictions on when a phone could be used. The restrictions applied variably in different situations within the school.

I am interested in writing to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to understand whether, in a digital learning era, consideration has been given to the phone being a necessary piece of equipment in the same way that a calculator used to be. Can you just say, “Don’t use them,” or will that prejudice certain individuals’ ability to participate in the learning of the class? I do not know, but I would like to be reassured on that point.

PE1997, which was lodged by Fiona McDonald on behalf of Sight Scotland and Sight Scotland Veterans, 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 its use-by or sell-by date.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 22 November. We agreed to write to the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—which is more commonly known as DEFRA—and to Food Standards Scotland. The latter has told us that it is

“looking to use all available relevant science, evidence and research to inform our thinking on the matter”.

Food Standards Scotland’s response highlights that no timescale has been set to carry out that work but that it will continue to discuss issues relating to Braille food labelling on a UK basis, in line with the common framework for food composition, standards and labelling. It says that it will continue to keep in touch with the petitioner as its plans develop.

In its response to the committee, DEFRA states that there are

“no immediate plans to initiate a public consultation on ... the introduction of mandatory braille labelling on food products.”

It notes that factors such as

“practical viability of braille labelling on a diverse range of packaging formats, and the costs and effectiveness of the use of braille labelling relative to that of using different methods”

would have to be considered before a public consultation was launched.

We have subsequently received two submissions from the petitioner, who has raised concerns that “current practices fall short” of UK standards for food labelling and is seeking clarification on how compliance with existing standards is monitored.

We were interested in the petition when we first heard about it, and we have had quite interesting and comprehensive responses from the organisations and bodies to which we wrote. How do members think we should proceed?

As there are no other suggestions from colleagues, is the committee content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

I emphasise that this will be an on-going issue. Although there was an acceptance of the issues that have been raised, the responses that we received were not exactly a call to action at this stage, albeit that there was an indicative suggestion that action might follow at some point. The issue could well be considered afresh in the next parliamentary session.

We might also write to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee detailing the petition that we have received. If it is taking evidence from the chief medical officer at the end of October, would it be possible to write to the committee asking it to make reference to the petition that we have received when putting questions to him, with a view to trying to seek an update on the research that is being undertaken specifically on the issue?

I am conscious that, although the chief medical officer is coming to give evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the specific issue that is raised in the petition will feature in the committee’s questions. In closing the petition, I wonder whether it would be possible for us to invite the committee to consider whether it might give consideration to asking the chief medical officer about the issue that the petitioner raises.

Do colleagues have views? Given that another committee is considering the issue, I am not sure that there is much more that we can actively do. Generally speaking, we do not consider things in parallel with other committees.

The petitioner raises an important issue. The committee is reluctantly minded to close it, but we will seek to ensure that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is made aware that the petition has been raised and try to have the issue raised directly with the chief medical officer when he gives evidence. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content for us to write to the minister on the basis that we have considered the petition afresh and come reluctantly to the view that there is no more that the committee can do, but that is in the light of the specific commitments that we have received from the Scottish Government and the committee’s unanimous view that those commitments should be fulfilled during this session of Parliament?

I thank Jasmin-Kasaya Pilling and the others who have been involved in the petition. Their focus and the evidence that they gave us persuaded the committee of the case. In closing the petition, we will write to the minister in the terms that we have suggested to ensure that the commitment that we have received is fulfilled. Given the limited time that we now have in this parliamentary session, we will emphasise in writing again to the petitioner that, if that does not happen, as part of the legacy from this session to the next, we hope that a fresh petition can be raised with reference to the work that was done.

Are colleagues content to act on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

If only the same dedication was shown to filling potholes in our roads.

Agenda item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As I always do before we consider new petitions, I say for the record that, in considering any new petition, we initially invite the Parliament’s independent research body, the Scottish Parliament information centre, and the Scottish Government to give us a preliminary view. That is not in any way to undermine or shortcut our consideration of the petition. It is simply the case that, in considering new petitions in previous sessions of Parliament, that was the first thing that the committee decided that it would do. That allows us to have some informed views before us when we consider a new petition.

The first new petition this week is PE2097, by Giovanni di Stefano, which calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to immediately repeal the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. It is the petitioner’s view that that act is in violation of the European convention on human rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while also being, in his words, “impossible for the police to enforce”.

Members will recall that, shortly after the main provisions of the act came into effect in April of this year, Parliament debated a motion to repeal the legislation, which is the objective of the petition, and that that motion was not agreed to. In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that the act includes

“rigorous safeguards on free speech and is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”.

Notwithstanding the views of individual committee members in relation to the objective of the petition, it is the case that Parliament has recently debated and voted on the very thing that the petition seeks to achieve and, unfortunately for the petitioner and for those who felt similarly, that motion was not agreed to.

In the light of that, I wonder whether the petition is one that we can usefully take forward or whether, in a sense, Parliament has recently spoken on it already. I am inclined to take the latter view and to say from the chair that, on this occasion, because we have recently had a vote on the matter, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that Parliament considered the objective that the petition seeks to achieve and, sadly—for those people who agree with the petitioner and others—on 17 April, the majority of members voted not to repeal the legislation.

Do members agree with my proposal?

Members indicated agreement.