Hansard

I thank the committee members for their contributions. Listening to the different perspectives of members across the chamber has been interesting. I am sure that some people will even manage to get press releases out of the debate.

I mentioned in my opening speech that I have enjoyed working with John Farquhar Munro and Rhona Brankin over the past four years. It might be my last chance to say to Robin Harper that I have enjoyed working with him since 1999. I wish him all the best when he retires at the end of the session.

Petitions are brought by members of the Scottish public who seek answers and look for change. As we heard in members’ contributions this afternoon, the committee has continued its record of success into this session. By its nature, the petitions process is reactive; it responds to the petitions that are brought before it. The committee has also often taken on issues that are raised as catalysts for debate—issues that have ranged from the availability of cancer drugs to the display of sexually graphic material.

Like other members, I want to bore down a bit more closely into individual petitions that raised two issues in particular. The petitions have been mentioned already in the debate, but the issues they raise bear repetition. They are the significant petitions on vitamin D supplements and fair trade confectionery.

Bill Butler spoke about the petition on vitamin D supplements, which was submitted as part of the shine on Scotland campaign that is run by his constituents Ryan McLaughlin and the McLaughlin family. The petition attracted a lot of positive media coverage not only for the campaign but for the Parliament.

The petitioners called on the Parliament to urge the Government to give every child in Scotland vitamin D supplements and to fortify school milk with vitamin D. On various occasions, the McLaughlin family have met the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, the Minister for Public Health and Sport and the chief medical officer. The petition that the family began has made quite a contribution. The Scottish Government has committed to undertake an awareness-raising campaign on recommended vitamin D levels. In the first part of the campaign information was given to all GPs and health professionals to reinforce the importance of vitamin D supplements. Health Scotland is working on the second part of the campaign—a leaflet for the general public should be published in the spring.

Nanette Milne and Robin Harper referred to the fair trade petitions. These two petitions, which were submitted in 2009, called on the Government to amend regulations to allow schools to sell fair trade confectionery. They were very interesting petitions. The Government’s explanation that it had no plans to amend the legislation or change the regulations could have been seen as a sign of resistance or of not wanting to listen. In fact, as the discussions on the regulations brought out, there was already flexibility in the current regulatory regime—flexibility that would allow fair trade confectionery to be sold in schools. As a result, earlier this month, my colleague the Minister for Children and Early Years wrote to the director of education in each local authority to highlight the flexibility within the existing regulations to allow fair trade sales in schools and to draw their attention to the relevant guidance.

As those examples show, change can be delivered through the petitions process. However, we need to look to the future. The petitions process has been a success. When it first started we could not anticipate what would happen and where it might lead. The Public Petitions Committee’s inquiry two years ago into the petitions process showed that it was not afraid to look at its procedures and consider ways in which to improve them. I was pleased to be able to contribute to that inquiry, which made a number of recommendations on different aspects of the petitions process. How the recommendations were taken forward and implemented was key: done well and the petitions process would improve; done badly and there was every chance that it would stagnate. It is commendable to note that the committee has now implemented those recommendations and many others. The committee has been proactive; it has embraced change.

Where does the Public Petitions Committee go from here? Is there a risk that it is becoming too bogged down by the sheer volume of petitions in the system? Are too many petitions coming forward to allow it sufficient time to scrutinise and investigate petitions where change can be delivered? To my mind, the committee works best when it can focus—when it can bring to bear the skills, knowledge and, indeed, personality of committee members. I would like to see that focus further refined in the next session.

I again thank the members of the Public Petitions Committee who have worked hard this session and the clerks who deal efficiently with petitions. The Public Petitions Committee leaves a strong legacy. It is important that its successor committee should keep on going, maintain momentum and build on what the current committee has achieved.

16:04