Official Report 816KB pdf
Item 4 is consideration of new petitions. As always, before we consider a new petition, I make the point to those following today’s proceedings that a considerable amount of work is done in advance of our consideration of petitions. Before a petition’s first consideration, we seek an initial view from the Scottish Government and receive a briefing from the Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe—the Scottish Parliament information centre. That information enables us to properly consider the issues raised by the petition. Previously, we used to meet and then suggest that those two things happen.
The committee is now looking to where we feel that we can make significant progress on behalf of a petition before the end of the parliamentary session.
Mandatory Latex Labelling for Food Products (PE2178)
PE2178 was lodged by Hazel Margaret McIvor and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory latex labelling on food products sold in Scotland if there is a chance of contamination.
I gather that the petitioner is with us in the public gallery—forgive me, my eyesight is such that I can see only a blur at the back of the gallery, but I see her hand moving, and I welcome her to Holyrood.
Regulated food contact materials require to be authorised before use in Great Britain. The requirements include that any material or article that is intended to come into contact, directly or indirectly, with food must be sufficiently inert to preclude substances from being transferred to food in quantities large enough to endanger human health.
Food manufacturers are not legally required to set out whether latex is used in either packaging or food production. That is because latex is not a food substance or product and, therefore, is not included in the list of mandatory allergens that must be labelled under the assimilated food information to consumers regulation.
The SPICe briefing states the extent to which latex is used in food packaging is unclear. Food Standards Scotland advised SPICe that the typical cold seal adhesive is derived from natural rubber latex. The adhesive is used to seal the edges of packaging for a wide variety of applications, such as in chocolate bar packaging. Food Standards Scotland understands that the potential for the adhesives to migrate into the food product is very low.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that, in order to engage food safety provisions, the issue would need to have an effect on the food that would be detrimental to consumer interests. The response recognises that the petition raises a broader question about food packaging and states that officials plan to explore other consumer protection measures.
Do members have any suggestions for how we might proceed, in the light of that final point?
In light of the final point, I wonder whether the committee would consider writing to the Scottish Government to ask whether its exploration of consumer protection measures will consider how to alert consumers to allergens, such as latex, that can be present in food packaging. We could also ask whether it will work with the UK Government when considering options for packaging-based consumer protection measures.
Those two questions volunteer themselves, given that there is an interest in officials investigating those matters. There is progress that we could make on the petition in the time that is left to us in this parliamentary session.
I support Mr Torrance’s recommendation and add that, as the petitioner points out, the number of people—they include my partner—who happen to have a latex allergy is not inconsiderable. It is between 1 and 6 per cent of the population. Like many allergies, it can have very serious consequences.
I am surprised, in a sense, that the issue has not been dealt with in the packaging world, which is normally fairly good at dealing with this kind of thing. Perhaps it is something that really needs to be dealt with, and I thought that we could stress as much in our letter.
I think that that is a perfectly reasonable thing for us to do. We will illustrate why the issue is important, again within the context of the review that might take place.
Are colleagues content to keep the petition open and proceed with the investigation on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
School Records (Alterations) (PE2181)
PE2181, lodged by Paul Blaker on behalf of Accountability Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce measures to stop teachers backdating or altering school records in SEEMiS and other education management information systems. SEEMiS, which is the management information system provider that is used by local authority schools in Scotland, holds the core student records.
The petitioner believes that the practice of altering school records after they were created is open to abuse and could cause significant harm to children. The SPICe briefing cites the particular case mentioned by the petitioner in which a local council in Scotland was censured by the Information Commissioner’s Office for backdating education records, and it adds that, in a separate case, a different council was found by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman not to have consistently recorded incidents reported in pastoral and other recording systems.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government makes clear its expectation that local authorities and schools should keep accurate and timely records in compliance with relevant legislation and Government guidance. The Scottish Government also expects local authorities to ensure that staff and teachers understand how information should be recorded and to have clear audit processes and procedures in place to track who has accessed such systems and what changes have been made to pre-existing information, together with the reason for those changes.
SEEMiS explained to our SPICe researchers that the ability to backdate or update records in pastoral notes is intended to align with the day-to-day practice in schools. Teachers or staff might not be able to update records immediately and, therefore, may create or update records when they have non-contact time. SEEMiS also clarifies that, following the issues highlighted in the first case that I mentioned, changes were made to the system to allow local authorities to access the content history of an entry, rather than just the dates and the authors of any changes.
Colleagues, do we have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government has indicated that it is the responsibility of local authorities and schools to keep accurate records in compliance with relevant legislation and guidance; to have a clear audit process in place; and to work with their school management information system provider to ensure that systems are fit for purpose. The ability to update records in SEEMiS is intended to align with the day-to-day practice in schools and allow staff to update records when they have non-contact time, and changes to the system mean that local authorities can now also access the content history of individual notes, rather than just dates and the authors of information.
Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for lodging the petition, but, unfortunately, I do not think that there is more that we can reasonably hope to achieve in the very limited time that is left to us in this parliamentary session. For the reasons that Mr Torrance has suggested, we are closing the petition, but again we thank the petitioner for submitting it.
Domestic Abuse (Minimum Sentence) (PE2182)
The last of the new petitions to be considered today is PE2182. Lodged by Hannah Doig, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the definition of domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 and to introduce a minimum sentence for severe offences.
The petitioner’s view is that the current penalties for severe cases of domestic abuse are too lenient and fail to reflect the severity of the crimes or the lasting trauma that victims endure. Her petition states that increased sentencing is necessary to properly address domestic abuse and its devastating impact on the victims.
The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is long-standing policy on sentencing in Scottish criminal courts to give discretion to the court to decide a sentence, based on the facts and circumstances of a case. The penalties available for almost all offences are generally provided up to a maximum, but with no minimum sentence required. The response also states that that approach gives the independent court the greatest discretion and flexibility when sentencing.
The Scottish Government’s view is that establishing minimum sentencing would remove discretion from the court and mean that the court would be unable to apply full discretion when sentencing, after considering the full facts and circumstances of any case. The response also sets out the protections that are in place to guard against sentences that, as a matter of law, are considered too lenient.
12:15The Scottish Sentencing Council is currently working on producing further sentencing guidelines in several areas, including developing a draft guideline on sentencing in domestic abuse cases. A domestic abuse working group committee has been established to help take forward that work, and the next stage is for the council to conduct a full public consultation on the proposed guideline.
The petitioner has provided a written submission that acknowledges the Scottish Government’s commitment to judicial independence and the support for the Scottish Sentencing Council’s on-going work, but she challenges the assertion that current measures are sufficient to address the scale and severity of domestic abuse in Scotland. She states that sentencing guidelines, although useful, are not binding, and she believes that introducing minimum sentences would establish a clear baseline of accountability while still allowing judges to apply discretion within a defined range. She also argues that such an approach would preserve judicial independence while ensuring consistency and fairness.
These are important issues. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed?
I wonder whether the committee would consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government’s view is that establishing a minimum sentence would mean that the court would be unable to apply full discretion when sentencing, after considering the full facts and circumstances of the case; there are protections in place to guard against sentences that, as a matter of law, are considered too lenient; and the Scottish Sentencing Council is currently developing a sentencing guideline for domestic abuse cases.
In deciding to close the petition, the committee might wish to highlight to the petitioner the Scottish Sentencing Council’s public consultation on the proposed sentencing guideline for domestic abuse.
Thank you, Mr Torrance. Are members content to support the proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
We will therefore close the petition, but I will say to the petitioner that she has raised an important issue. Unfortunately, I do not think that there is time left to us to properly explore in detail or interrogate the response that we have received. However, given the consultation that the Scottish Sentencing Council will be conducting, the issue might well be the basis for a petition in the next parliamentary session, and I am sure that the Parliament will have the opportunity to consider it in more detail at that time.
That is the end of the public part of our proceedings. We now move into private session.
12:17 Meeting continued in private until 12:27.Previous
Continued Petitions