Chamber and committees

I recognise that, but no social media campaign or campaign in this chamber can kill one of our members of Parliament. I think that those distinct cases are quite different. In one case, somebody has lost their life—through natural causes, one hopes. In the other, somebody could lose their seat as a result of a campaign.

I will finish by saying that, not so long ago, Parliament agreed to a motion requiring the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to put in place a process that will result in an investigation of the regime that might apply in a future Parliament. We have invited Rosemary Agnew, who is a highly respected individual, to undertake that inquiry. It seems to me that, through that method and through discussion of the outcomes and recommendations that arise from it, Parliament could find a solution to the issues that have been raised without recourse to recall legislation and all the confusions and unforeseen consequences—now and in the future—that it might bring about.

Will the member give way on that point?

Therein lies the problem, because, if we had passed this legislation in 2015, the hybrid arrangements that we now have would not have been reflected in it, and members could thereby have been recalled. Similarly, we do not know what the arrangements might be in a future session of Parliament, for which we might now set out criteria in the legislation. Therefore, it seems to me that we are trying to predict the future in ways that I think we cannot absolutely do.

I will in a moment. If there was a campaign outwith this Parliament, we could find that there was pressure, within whatever protocols we had established, to push for a finding that the sanction threshold of 14 days or 10 sitting days had been breached, because people would see the political advantage that could accrue from a recall potentially changing the complexion of the Parliament in one circumstance, but not in the other.

Moreover, I do not think that a lot of money would be spent on the recall of a regional member. On the idea of there being a yes or no vote in the regional context, it is very difficult to see how anybody would survive in that environment, and then we would just reset by resorting to the original list.

All of that does not seem to me to be fair, principled or reasonable, and I think that it is open to manipulation. In 2015, people had only had iPads for two or three years—the whole way that people operate through digital and social media was in its infancy. Now, it is quite easy to see how someone could mobilise a malicious campaign across a constituency or a region that is designed to politically unsettle an individual for a calculated outcome. I think that we should be very wary of that.

That was very helpful. I am sure that it will help inform colleagues as we proceed.

We have been joined by our parliamentary colleagues Tess White, Ruth Maguire and Rachael Hamilton. After the committee has asked questions, time permitting, I hope to invite them to ask questions that they might feel have not been properly addressed.

Chief constable, I listened to all of your statement with interest and care, and I am grateful for it, but was there an underlying admission in there that Police Scotland got something wrong? If so, why?

Thank you, minister. We are at the stage in the political cycle when we are drawing our work together and looking for outcomes, because the parliamentary session ends in March.

Speaking on a personal level, I applaud the proactive engagement that you have had with David Hill’s parents, Rodger and Sharon, as well as with James Bundy and his family. The petitions were motivated by particularly personal tragic circumstances, and I know that you have invested a degree of time in engaging with them and consulting them as the way in which the Government might react and proceed has evolved. We are now at the business end of the various petitions before us.

I will start on the subject of defibrillator access, usage and community response. The public access defibrillator placement map has identified gaps. There is fantastically widespread availability, and we can see how much that has grown, as you outlined, in the course of this session of the Parliament. One of the interesting things to note is that some defibrillators do not get used very much, whereas others get used more often. That is interesting, as it points to the importance of placement and where everything should ultimately be.

People still largely rely on community fundraising and generous external sponsorship, and that has been a successful strategy, in that it has allowed for the defibrillators that we currently have to be located where they are. However, for more deprived communities—we can see them on the map, in Glasgow and the west of Scotland—is that a reasonable approach that will allow us to avoid having a postcode lottery? I am interested in how the Government plans to plug that gap. Is it through direct intervention and support, or is it through cajoling people or trying to identify people who might be available to lead efforts in communities or who might be generous enough to sponsor units in those places? Clearly, we do not want people who live in areas where there is a gap in provision to have less chance of surviving than those who live in areas where provision has been more obviously achieved.

What causes you to hesitate on the BE FAST programme, minister?

Yes. Notwithstanding the wall of negativity that we have received from officialdom, with a view to penetrating that wall with further efforts, are members content to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

Concessionary Bus Travel Scheme (Asylum Seekers) (PE2028)

Noted.

Are colleagues content?

Members indicated agreement.

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?