Chamber and committees

I believe that Ruth Maguire has some more questions.

The next new petition is PE1919, lodged by Ted Gourley, on prohibiting the advertising and promotion of high-caffeine products to children for performance enhancement.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under-18s for performance enhancement. The petitioner believes that the continued sale of such products puts children and young people at risk of serious harm. He cites examples of where such gum has been distributed widely at races, with the caffeine content exceeding the daily recommended dose for a young person. The petitioner points out that both scottishathletics and sportscotland have previously warned of health risks from consuming high doses of caffeine, particularly for those under 18 who have undiagnosed medical issues.

In its submission, the Scottish Government advised that, from December 2018 to February 2019, a consultation had been held on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people, which had provided

“an opportunity for respondents to raise concerns in relation to other food and drink products, such as caffeine gum”,

as

“Chewing gum falls under the definition of food in food law.”

The Scottish Government stated that it is

“currently considering responses to the consultation”,

that it has undertaken to publish a report, and that it will update the committee in due course.

It went on to note:

“In May 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its Scientific Opinion on the safety of caffeine. It advised that single doses of caffeine up to 200mg from all sources do not raise safety concerns for the ... healthy adult population. For children and adolescents, EFSA’s opinion explains that there is insufficient information available to set a safe caffeine intake. However, EFSA considered that due to children and adolescents processing caffeine at least at the same rate as adults, the single doses of no concern for adults may also be applied to children as a daily limit.”

Do members have any comments?

Thank you very much for the comprehensive evidence that you have provided today. It is good to see people back in the Parliament giving evidence at committee.

Do committee members agree to consider the evidence and any matters arising from it at a future meeting?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The committee seeks advance views from the Scottish Government on all new petitions before they are formally considered, and those views are shared with the committee as part of our meeting papers.

PE1906, which has been lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of @ReplacetheM8, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow cathedral, specifically including complete removal of the road and repurposing of the land.

The Scottish Government states in its submission that Transport Scotland published a report, “Initial Appraisal: Case for Change: Glasgow City Region”, in February 2021. That was one step in the wider transport appraisal process, and it helped to identify problems and opportunities related to the transport network in the Glasgow region. The Scottish Government advises that appraisal work on a range of the transport options in that report progressed over the summer, and that a final set of draft recommendations will be published later this winter.

The Scottish Government highlights that the review has already considered a large amount of evidence that is related to the whole transport network across the Glasgow region, including the M8 corridor. It says that that has been supported by a significant engagement exercise that has, to date, not identified or proposed any significant change to the M8. The submission confirms that Transport Scotland is aware of the aspirations for an M8 cap at Charing Cross and that it has been willing to participate in those discussions and will continue to do so. Finally, the Scottish Government states that it believes that there is no need for a separate piece of work in relation to the section of the M8 through Glasgow city centre.

Do members have any comments?

Audit Scotland states that current commissioning procedures have led to competition between providers at the expense of collaboration. How can commissioning and procurement procedures be changed to encourage a more collaborative and less competitive approach by service providers and to shift the primary focus in decision making from cost to quality?

Dr Macaskill, you mentioned Aberdeen and collaborative working. Will you expand on examples of best practice in collaborative working?

How will the Scottish Government focus on addressing poverty among young adults—especially those who cannot live with their parents, who are often affected most by poverty?

You mentioned the planning process for care leavers. In her evidence to the committee, Helen Happer from the Care Inspectorate said that the planning process for care leavers is “out of date.” Will you expand on your previous answer by saying how the Scottish Government will make improvements to the process?

I was just going to agree with my colleague, Ruth Maguire.

Considering the evidence from the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, I do not know whether we can take the petition any further, so I would like to close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders.