Chamber and committees

Under our second item, we will continue consideration of petitions that we have considered previously. PE1919, which was lodged by Ted Gourley, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum—a high-caffeine product—for performance enhancement to under-18s due to the risk of serious harm. We previously considered the petition on 20 September 2023, at which point we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

We have received a response confirming that the independent analysis of the Government’s consultation on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people has been published and that the responses to the consultation

“did not raise any issues associated with fast release caffeine gum”,

although the consultation was not focused specifically on that area. The response also confirms that the Government

“will not be pursuing research on fast release caffeine products”

at this time—in essence, for financial reasons—but that the Government

“will keep this under review for future years.”

We have also received two written submissions from the petitioner, who suggests that labelling for high-strength caffeine gum should include a health warning about potential risks,

“particularly when taking it immediately before or during intense physical exercise”.

The petitioner also believes that the promotion of caffeine gum at public events might be in breach of health and safety regulations. It might be worth noting that workplace health and safety regulation is reserved and that much of the health and safety legislation derives from the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which focuses primarily on the safety of employees in a workplace.

Colleagues, we were quite struck by the evidence that we heard last September about there being something of a risk here. The Government has not sought to validate that argument and does not feel that it is in a position to do so at the moment. I am reluctant to close the petition at this stage, because I am not yet satisfied that there is no issue of major concern—I do not know yet.

If members have no suggestions for what we might do, I am minded to ask the clerks to give the matter some thought and to come back to us with some suggestions about where we might go. I am not sure how far we can go, but we could find out a little bit more, because I would not want us to have moved on quite so quickly if the issue became a more obvious health problem.

Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

I have been to Venice on a number of occasions, but that was under my own steam and not for the arts and culture festival.

In all seriousness, I read recently that the daily volume of visitors to Venice is now almost intolerable given the ability of the infrastructure to cope. I certainly know that, if you are staying in Venice, you really have to be up at 5 o’clock in the morning to have a wander around. Otherwise, you cannot move. The city is definitely under a lot of pressure. Nonetheless, it has a series of famous and celebrated arts festivals through the year, and Scotland’s participation in those is to be valued.

Our next petition is PE1964, which was lodged by Accountability Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set up an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, to assess the quality of its work and decisions, and to establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.

We have considered the petition before; colleagues may remember the submissions. The petitioner has brought to our attention the fact that the ombudsman stated her support for a review of the legislation governing the SPSO during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the SPSO’s annual report. Her view is that the current legislation is not

“as adaptable as it should be, for the different ways of delivering services and making complaints.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 5 December 2023; c 16.]

It is worth noting that while the ombudsman has stated her support for a review of the legislation, the petitioner is also calling for an investigation into complaints made against the SPSO and an assessment of the quality of its work. From different starting positions, the ombudsman and the petitioner are seeking such a review.

We are aware, and it is important to note, that the SPSO’s functions are independent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—which met the ombudsman recently—ministers and MSPs to ensure that there is no interference in the decisions that are made.

We are in the slightly unusual position that there has never been a review of the ombudsman. In previous evidence, there was an expectation that a review would take place at some point of the way in which the arrangements are structured. The Government seems reluctant to undertake the review that the petitioner would like, but the ombudsman herself is quite open to the idea that a review should take place.

I wonder whether Mr Torrance has a burning suggestion for us.

I am happy to say to the petitioner that we will not bury the petition but will make efforts to keep it alive. We will wait to hear what the responses to our inquiries are.

Thank you, Mr Sweeney. Do colleagues have any comments?

I think that it would be perfectly in order for us to write to the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.

We should also highlight that a number of these people are volunteers and that parking charges represent a considerable additional burden. That maybe distinguishes them from other groups in society that request exemptions, many of whom are in completely different circumstances. I think that, in this instance, the petitioner’s ask is worth pursuing. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do you want me to formally record that as the recommendation, Mr Choudhury? Is a committee visit to Venice part of your consideration?

In the first instance, we might keep the petition open, as Mr Choudhury suggests, and ask Creative Scotland, if the review is concluding, for an update on its conclusions and the consequences for Scotland’s future participation in 2025, 2026 and 2027. I think that that would be reasonable.

We could certainly draw the First Minister’s attention to the fact that we have received a petition following up on the issues that were raised with the previous First Minister at FMQs. Do you know the date?

The petition has achieved nominal success, but we want that to be followed by substantive success.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries that Mr Choudhury suggested?

Members indicated agreement.