Chamber and committees

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?

I agree that MSPs and others, including members of Parliament, could do something to help to promote that. Is there a graphic available that we could, for example, post online to encourage community groups to register a defibrillator if that has not already happened, or to check whether their defibrillator is registered? If there is not a graphic, could something be produced that we might endeavour to use as a tool to try to encourage registration?

Fergus Ewing will pursue some of the training issues later.

You were in the brownies later than I was in the cub scouts—we just did a lot of marching.

To follow up on the point about Kym Kestell’s evidence, she said that there are potentially thousands of defibrillators that we do not really know about, as they are not registered, and that that provision could be mapped and logged. What can we do to encourage that process to take place?

How did that lack of clarity come about, and how did the situation evolve to the point where you felt that further work was needed to clarify it?

I think that it would be a positive outcome if the committee could encourage our parliamentary colleagues to involve themselves in that. There is probably not a parliamentarian who has not had cause to engage with this issue during their time in Parliament, but members are perhaps not quite sure thereafter what more they can do. I think that something constructive, such as I have described, would be appreciated.

We face the fact that the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service want to do nothing further. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has made it perfectly clear that the Scottish Government does not intend to do anything further. At the same time, the committee is of the view that the issues that the petition raises are more important than the dusty response that we have received implies.

As the responses that we received came before the roundtable discussion that took place, and as there appears to be wider cross-party support and understanding of the failures on the issue, I suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary to say that we would like her to consider the matter further, given that there is considerable disquiet for the reasons that Mr Marra has articulated. As Mr Ewing has said, it seems extraordinary that there have been no inquiries in Scotland when, irrespective of the system being different, the authorities in England and Wales have been able to progress inquiries in the face of the exact same challenges that any inquiry led in Scotland would face.

I am perfectly content for the committee to write to the chief constable, saying that it is an issue with which it would be helpful for Police Scotland to engage—my mother would correct me on my grammar if I got that the wrong way round. We can ask whether the Government would be prepared to meet Mr Marra and the petitioner with a view to progressing the matter. Are there any other suggestions from the committee?

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.

The 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?

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.

You will be aware of the experience in Italy, which has had, for a long time, screening for those who are involved in sport, and it has led to an astonishing 89 per cent reduction in the number of young people who have subsequently died of cardiac failure. I take it that that is part of the subject of the review. That seems to be a compelling success story for that country, particularly for the families of those whose children are with us still, as opposed to elsewhere and here, where that is not the case.

It is sometimes difficult to quantify the numbers in relation to those who are screened, but it seems to me that screening places a premium value on the life of young people, particularly at an age when we know that they are more likely to engage in that kind of sport. The committee was very impressed with that.