Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

Thank you, Mr Torrance. Are members content to support the proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

Our second agenda item is a very important evidence session, during which we will consider cardiac and stroke care issues that have been raised in various petitions. I am delighted that we are joined, again, by the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health, Jenni Minto—a semi-frequent guest at our proceedings—and by Scottish Government officials working on the long-term conditions policy: Kylie Barclay, senior policy manager; Martin Macdonald, stroke senior policy manager; and Will Wood, unit head. I welcome you all. Thank you for joining us.

Our evidence session will cover recurring themes and issues that have emerged from the committee’s consideration of petitions PE1989, which calls for an increase in the number of defibrillators in public spaces and workplaces; PE2048, which calls for a review of the FAST—face, arms, speech and time—stroke awareness campaign; PE2067, which calls for improved data on young people affected by conditions that cause sudden cardiac death; and PE2101, which calls for defibrillators for all primary and secondary schools in Scotland.

The committee recently had a round-table discussion that teased out a number of the issues relating to the petitions. The discussion left the committee more convinced in some respects than in others. For example, we recognise that a lot of modern schools are being built outside of town, which is, potentially, not where a defibrillator might otherwise need to be. At the same time, there is now a map of defibrillator access across Scotland, and we are concerned that, in certain areas—particularly Glasgow and the west of Scotland—there is an obvious deficiency. I was able to put that question to the First Minister at the Convener’s Group meeting. He did not agree with all aspects of the question that we put, but he at least recognised that defibrillator access is something of a postcode lottery and that that is not ideal with regard to people’s ability to survive these issues.

Minister, do you wish to say anything by way of an introduction, or are you happy for us to go to questions?

You mentioned Steven Short. He made the point that community responder units might be another way of ensuring that we access individuals quickly. How might the Scottish Government expand and sustain community responder schemes and give confidence in cardiopulmonary resuscitation defibrillator use? We all know that early bystander intervention can make a tremendous difference in getting a successful outcome. I was impressed with how he articulated that as a potential route, but how might that suggestion become something closer to an implemented strategy?

I think that that would be helpful. I will then bring in Fergus Ewing.

I am grateful for that. We do not want an impression of intransigence to be given. Instead, we could say that BE FAST is something that others might have moved to at this stage and that, although we do not dismiss the possibility of its value, we do not think that it is the right step to take at this point. There is a distinction between those two things and how they are coloured.

I thank you and your colleagues again, minister. I will suspend the meeting briefly.

Fergus Ewing?

Sorry for interrupting you, Mr Ewing.