³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We will continue taking evidence on PE2099, which is on stopping the proposed centralisation of specialist neonatal units in NHS Scotland. For the second evidence session this morning, I am delighted to welcome Jim Crombie, co-chair of the perinatal sub-group of the best start implementation programme board; and Dr Andrew Murray, co-chair of the perinatal sub-group. Are there two co-chairs, or are there other co-chairs who are not with us?

I meant the ScotSTAR service itself. At the moment there are eight centres, but if there were only three, might the call on that resource, for transferring people to just three centres that are further away, be greater than is case at present, when there are eight?

Fine. Thank you very much.

Could you give us clarity on the intention of the best start report with regard to the final number of units? Obviously, we have eight, and there was a recommendation to move to between three and five, and the recommendation ended up at three. The committee is concerned to know whether there is scope to move beyond that figure of three towards the five that was within the range of parameters that were discussed.

What about the question whether there should be three, four or five units?

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?