Chamber and committees

PE2173, which was lodged by Lauren Houstoun, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the use of ultra-processed food in school meals across Scotland in order to give our children healthier options.

We last considered the petition on 8 October 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and relevant school meal providers.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that although there is no universally agreed definition of “ultra-processed foods”, they can broadly be defined as foods containing many ingredients used in the industrial production process and, although the term “ultra-processed” may include products commonly high in fat, salt and sugar, such as sweet and savoury pre-packaged snacks and soft drinks, it also includes products that are fortified with vitamins and minerals and have nutritionally beneficial components such as fibre, including bread and yoghurts.

The Scottish Government states that it does not use a single definition of “fresh”, as this will depend on the context; nor does it collect data on “fresh” provision. Instead, the Nutritional Requirements for Food and Drink in Schools (Scotland) Regulations 2020 focus on the nutritional value of school food, drink and meals to support the healthy growth and development of children.

For example, some local authorities cook the main component of a meal at a central location, freeze and transport it for reheating at several local school locations and serve it alongside fruit, vegetables and salad prepared at each site—that sounds lovely. As such, although the meal as a whole delivers the desired amount of energy and key nutrients, it would be difficult to determine whether that meal would be deemed “fresh”.

The Scottish Government adds that, for other local authorities, although the whole meal might be cooked on site daily, it could include frozen vegetables, which deliver high nutritional value but may or may not be considered as “fresh”—well, they are not, they are frozen—as vegetables that have been cooked hours before and kept warm until service. Compliance with food regulations is monitored by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education health and nutrition inspectors as part of the annual school inspection programme.

It all seems to have become more complicated than those terms once used to be. Mr Golden, as the committee member with the most recent experience of being in school—[Laughter.]—do you have any comments?

I think that the Government response is almost a road map of what to avoid saying and what to say instead. If the petitioner lodges a fresh petition, they could navigate around what I thought was a jobsworth’s response as to how you define whether something is fresh or frozen. For me, it has never been in doubt that, if I eat something that is frozen, it is not fresh; it is frozen. That response seems nuts to me. Well, maybe not nuts—we do not want to introduce another term that the Government jobsworths might find difficult to accommodate.

My view is that, if we close the petition, there is still a big issue here and anew petition would need some careful drafting to allow the substantive issue to be addressed without this playing-at-games response, which we all find deeply unsatisfactory.

The next continued petition, PE2178, was lodged by Hazel Margaret McIvor. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory latex labelling on food products that are sold in Scotland if there is a chance of contamination. I was unaware of the issue until we considered the petition on 12 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response states that Food Standards Scotland intends to explore what scope there might be to include statements or warnings about non-food allergens on packaging under general consumer protection law. Officials at Food Standards Scotland will discuss options for packaging-based consumer protection measures with their counterparts in the UK Government and highlight the points that are raised in the petition.

The Scottish Government seems to have taken the issue more seriously in response to what we have said. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed?

PE2185, which was lodged by Christopher Simpson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to ensure that any digital material that is presented in court, such as photos or screenshots, is verifiably sourced, time stamped and able to be independently authenticated before being considered admissible, unless both parties agree otherwise.

We previously considered the petition on 26 November 2025, when we agreed to write to the Lord Advocate and the chief constable of Police Scotland. The Lord Advocate’s response explains that prosecutors must be satisfied that any evidence, whether digital or otherwise, is both credible and reliable. The Lord Advocate reiterates that the provenance of any evidence must be established and that the authenticity and accuracy of evidence can be challenged by any party. In addition, the chief constable’s response states that, where concerns regarding the authenticity of digital evidence are raised in the course of a police investigation into a reported crime, those allegations would be treated seriously and investigated appropriately by Police Scotland.

The petitioner refers to his experience to highlight that, in practice, things do not always work as the other submissions suggest that they should. He expresses on-going concerns regarding current frameworks assuming that digital evidence is authentic at the point at which it is presented, and regarding the lack of a mechanism to address the harm that is caused to a person who is reported to the police on the basis of fabricated digital evidence.

Some of the issues struck me as being of real interest when we first considered the matter. We have had some response but, if I was in the position of the petitioner, I do not know how terribly reassured I would be. I am unclear about what to do with this one.

The balanced conclusion is that we should close the petition for the reasons that Mr Torrance outlined. I think that the petitioner is in the gallery. In writing to him and closing the petition, we should highlight that it might be useful to lodge a fresh petition that includes the issues that we have discussed, which members could explore in a little more detail in the next parliamentary session. Do members agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

What is the best course of action?

I think that that is the correct course of action. It is a big subject that requires much more exploration than we can give it. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on Wednesday 11 March. I thank the petitioners and all those who have followed our proceedings.

Meeting closed at 11:03.

We are looking to keep the petition open in this instance. Are we content with that?

I understood it, and I think that colleagues are in agreement with the sentiment that has been expressed. Mr Torrance has proposed that this be one of the petitions that we add to our shortlist of petitions that the future committee can consider. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.