Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 4, 2023

Official Report 682KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

National Dashcam Safety Portal (PE2013)

Agenda item 5 is consideration of new petitions. In case people joining us to follow our proceedings this morning have a petition that we are considering I will let them know, as I always do, that, ahead of each petition’s first consideration, we invite the Scottish Government to comment on it and we seek comment from the Scottish Parliament’s independent research unit, SPICe.

The first new petition is PE2013, which is on the implementation of a national dashcam safety portal and was lodged by Neil McNamara. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce without delay a national dashcam safety portal, as has already been agreed by Police Scotland.

The SPICe briefing explains that a national dashcam safety portal would provide an online channel for members of the public to submit directly to Police Scotland evidence of potential road traffic offences that is recorded on dashcams, helmet cameras and mobile phones.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights its recent programme for government commitment on the issue. The programme states that Police Scotland will seek to build on the Scottish Government’s investment to make it easier to submit digital evidence to report poor road user behaviour. Dundee has piloted the digital evidence-sharing capability programme, or DESC, which allows a request for digital evidence to be sent to a member of the public.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Can we write to Police Scotland to ask how it intends to fund improvements to the ways in which digital evidence is submitted and, in particular, where the funding will come from to implement the digital evidence-sharing capability programme?

I wonder whether I might make an additional suggestion. My understanding is that dashcam technology is available throughout police forces in Wales and England. Scotland therefore appears to be the laggard. Reference has been made to the Welsh experience and the technology company Nextbase, which apparently provides some services free of charge, whereas the Scottish Government and Police Scotland tend to labour the costs of this. Plainly, there is a slight contradiction in the evidence that is before us.

Can we write to the UK Government or to police forces in England and Wales or their representatives to try to elicit information on their experience? They have implemented the technology already. How much did it cost them, what have the benefits been and what has been their experience and evaluation of it? It seems to me that, since they have done it, we should learn from them.

I invite the clerks to give some consideration as to whom we might write in order to fulfil that objective. I am quite content with the suggestion.

Data protection and privacy could be affected as well. We see quite a lot of stuff online. People post footage of cyclists and people in private cars. What measures will the police or the law take to protect them?

We could add that question to our inquiry to those who have implemented the technology elsewhere, in order to learn how they have overcome those particular considerations. That might help inform anything that might happen in Scotland. We will do it that way. Are there any other suggestions? No. Are we therefore content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

I should say that I have just been advised that Marie McNair was not able to join us after Alex Neil’s evidence, so she has not been with us for consideration of the other petitions.

---

Injured Soldiers and Veterans (PE2032)

PE2032 seeks to improve the support that is available to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland and was lodged by James Brebner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support that is provided by public bodies to injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland by ensuring that there are clear pathways for their injuries to be treated by appropriate consultants; establishing a veterans trauma network, similar to that which operates in England and Wales; ensuring all correspondence raising concerns or making complaints about their treatment from veterans to the Scottish Government is acknowledged and responded to; and reviewing and seeking to update the way in which the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

Mr Brebner tells us that he was injured in the Falklands while serving with the Parachute Regiment, which has left him with severe leg pain.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it is working with colleagues across the NHS and the veterans community to develop a Scottish veterans treatment pathway and that it has also been working with the Veterans Trauma Network in England to understand how a similar service might be applied in Scotland. The response also notes that all correspondence that is received by the Scottish Government is logged centrally, with the aim of providing a reply within 20 days of receipt, as well as highlighting the point that it would be a matter for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to comment on its own process and any potential review of how it handles complaints from veterans about the health service.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner commenting on the Scottish Government’s response, highlighting his continued concerns about the delay in establishing a trauma network and sharing his experience of trying to navigate the processes.

We have a very interesting petition before us. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We should write to Veterans Scotland, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—SSAFA, the armed forces charity—and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman to seek their views on the action that is called for in the petition. It might be useful—I am relaxed about the point at which this should happen—to write to the convener of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community to seek its network’s views on support for injured soldiers and veterans in Scotland.

Yes. I am happy to write to the cross-party group. We might also write to the armed forces personnel and veterans health joint group, which is a separate body, seeking similar information.

I should mention that I am the convener of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community.

Are you? You can write to yourself on that basis and save the clerks the trouble. [Laughter.] Nonetheless, we will probably put down something more formal by way of communication. The Government has set an ambition of 20 days for the time that it takes to reply to letters. To borrow Mr Neil’s expression, there must be a metric that we can call on to see whether that is happening. We might ask the Scottish Government whether it is able to confirm the percentage of letters that were replied to within 20 days. Are we agreed on that basket of actions?

Members indicated agreement.

I say thank you very much to Mr Brebner. We will take forward the objectives of the petition and, I hope, consider it again in early course when we have responses from those to whom we are writing.

---

Disposable Vapes (PE2033)

PE2033, on introducing a full ban on disposable vapes, has been lodged by Jordon Anderson, a name with which some of you might be familiar from other petitions that we have considered.

The petition calls on the Scottish Government to legislate for a full or partial ban on disposable vapes in Scotland and to recognise the dangers that the devices pose to the environment and the health of young people. Jordon highlights research on the number of single-use vapes that are discarded each year and the damage that could be caused to the environment as a result. He is also concerned that not enough research is available on the health aspects of using the devices, particularly, though not exclusively, for young people.

In July, the Scottish Government provided a response to the petition, noting a range of steps related to the marketing, promotion and sale of vaping products that will be considered as part of the process of refreshing the tobacco action plan, which is due to be published later this year. The response also refers to the recent Zero Waste Scotland report, which proposes a range of policy options intended to address concerns about the environmental impact of the single-use vapes that we see lying around our communities.

We have received two submissions from the petitioner, and they further detail his concerns about the increasing number of young people regularly using vapes and urge the Scottish Government to act on the policy options put forward by Zero Waste Scotland. The petitioner has also highlighted work carried out by the Scottish Youth Parliament to gather views on the impacts of vaping from young people across Scotland. Members will also be aware that, since the Scottish Government’s initial response, the new programme for government includes a commitment to consult on a proposal to ban the sale of single-use vapes.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

The petition is interesting. In considering its proposal for a full ban on disposable vapes, the committee will probably focus on the environmental impacts; after all, a ban based on a health angle would, presumably, include all vapes, if that was the reason for it.

Nonetheless, we need more evidence, so we should write to Action on Smoking and Health Scotland, Forest and the UK Vaping Industry Association. Perhaps the clerks can identify major producers of vapes, too. I believe that the UK Vaping Industry Association does not represent vape manufacturers in the tobacco industry, so there might be scope for a slightly wider stakeholder response.

It would also be worth while asking the Scottish Government when it expects to launch its consultation on the proposal to ban the sale of single-use vapes and what consideration it has given to ASH Scotland’s suggestion that e-cigarettes be made available on prescription only to those who wish to use them as an aid to smoking cessation.

In my introduction, I noted that the Scottish Youth Parliament had undertaken some work on that. Links to information on the outcome of that work are in the papers, so we have access to that.

The petitioner referred to the health impact on young people. Can we establish whether there is data on the prevalence of young people using vapes and where we might find that information?

We can see whether SPICe can undertake that work. I would also like us, if we can find the information, to establish whether there is any clinical evidence on the consequences of vaping. Clearly, ASH is wholly funded by the Scottish Government, so it will not disagree with the Scottish Government’s proposals. It is not that I wish to—well, I suppose that I do, but I would just like something that is a little bit independent of ASH as we try to identify something factual on these matters, instead of our just getting information from lobby organisations wholly funded by Government.

12:15  

Is the Scottish Government doing anything to protect the under-18s? The vaping industry is targeting youngsters, as well as non-smokers, with all these flavours, but I do not know whether the Government is doing anything about that.

You are right, convener—we need to find somebody else or some other organisations, because ASH will just agree with the Scottish Government. There might well be other organisations; indeed, we could have a round-table discussion with community organisations, too.

We should find out—perhaps from COSLA—how trading standards enforces the ban on under-18s accessing vapes and whether that has been successful. We should also ask about illegal sales of vapes.

There is, it seems to me, a slight contradiction in ASH’s position. ASH is suggesting that e-cigarettes be made available on prescription only to people who wish to use them as an aid to smoking cessation, but if that were to come about, it could, indirectly, encourage young people to start smoking in the first instance in order to get access to vaping, instead of vaping being an alternative to smoking in the first place. The proposal could almost be counterproductive.

I am familiar with the introduction of vaping at an earlier stage in public life and the feeling that it was very much one of the tools that might be available to help with smoking cessation. Clearly, though, vaping has grown exponentially since then, but I do not think that we should be judgmental about that in itself. We should want to understand what evidence, including any emerging evidence, there might be of material harm, and SPICe might be able to identify where such research is being carried out. I think that that would be helpful.

Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Highly Protected Marine Areas (PE2034)

PE2034, on stopping the current proposals for highly protected marine areas in Scotland, has been lodged by Stuart Chirnside and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt its current proposals for highly protected marine areas and to bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods.

Events have slightly overtaken the petition, as we know. It was lodged on 20 June, and as members will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition gave a statement to Parliament on 29 June, confirming that the Scottish Government would not be progressing with the proposals. As noted in both the SPICe briefing and the Scottish Government response, the cabinet secretary has committed to providing the Parliament with an update on the Government’s next steps on the issue.

I note the cabinet secretary’s response, which is brief. What it does not say is that, although the statement was made to the Scottish Parliament on 29 June that the proposals would not be going ahead, one of the Green MSPs said shortly afterwards that the Scottish Government was

“committed to bringing forward these proposals”,

so what was in the statement was immediately contradicted in the press. Since then, the cabinet secretary has said that she will bring forward other measures.

The industry itself is highly sceptical. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has talked about the measures being brought back in by the back door, and when I speak to fishing representatives in Clyde, Shetland, the Western Isles and elsewhere, as well as the SFF, I hear grave concern. Instead of closing the petition now—the issues have not really gone away, which is the point that I am making—could we write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on its alternative plans to enhance the protection of the marine environment and whether they will include HPMAs? That appears to be the case, even though such a move appears to have been ruled out.

In addition, could we specifically request the Scottish Government to tell us what engagement it is having with Duncan Macinnes and the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association, with Elaine Whyte and her colleagues in Clyde and with all the bodies that represent inshore fisheries? They have tremendous knowledge and are doing tremendous things, but they have just been completely skated over.

Finally, 37 per cent of our seas are already designated as marine protected areas, but there has been no mention by the Scottish Government whether there should be a review of the existing designations of MPAs. It has always seemed to me—as a logician, I would hope—that before you embark on a series of brand-new measures, you should work out how effective or otherwise the existing measures have been as well as the economic impacts. As a former fisheries minister, I know that the impacts issue is highly controversial, because the fishermen feel that they have never been properly assessed and are repeatedly underestimated. We need look only at the number of vessels closing—we are losing vessels all over Scotland. It is a dire situation.

I am sorry—perhaps I have gone on too long, but I feel that we should keep the petition open and ask in writing for a lot of detail. Indeed, I am pretty sure that that is what the petitioner and many others would want us to do.

We should certainly ask for a breakdown of what other actions are planned.

We might even commend to the Government the evidence—or, I should say, the discussion—at this morning’s SPICe briefing, where we heard from Dr Andy Williamson, who said that this policy area might very well benefit from the input of an informed citizens panel made up of those who would be affected. The work of such a panel would underpin any ministerial consideration of how to proceed with an issue on which there is generally public understanding—though not for the approach that had been previously advocated—and as a result, there might be much more informed community buy-in to any proposals that might be brought forward.

Are we content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

---

People with Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders (PE2038)

Our final new petition is PE2038, which has been lodged by Ehlers-Danlos Support UK and asks that suitable NHS services be commissioned for people with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or HEDS, and hypermobility spectrum disorders, or HSD.

The SPICe briefing explains that Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a group of rare inherited conditions that affect connective tissues in the body and that there are different types of EDS, including hypermobile EDS. The briefing also outlines other hypermobility spectrum disorders and notes that guidance on and guidelines for managing EDS have not been straightforward, due to some views that the evidence base is insufficient and varied opinions on the best way of managing the conditions.

The Scottish Government has outlined that diagnosis and patient care are provided by local and regional rheumatology services with the input of other specialities. Its submission highlights the Scottish rare disease action plan and states that the actions in the plan will address issues around the lack of signposting, referral pathways and overall care co-ordination, including for those living with HEDS and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The petitioner’s written submission disputes the categorisation of HEDS and HSD as rare, stating low diagnosis of the issue and saying that four out of five people to whom it has spoken have not been diagnosed.

The submission also refers to a bid made in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist centre that was supported by consultants, therapists and patients but not by the Scottish Society for Rheumatology. The petitioner highlights concern about access to services through rheumatology, stating its understanding that rheumatologists have been directed not to see people with non-inflammatory conditions.

In light of the submissions that we have received in addition to that from the petitioning organisation, do colleagues have any suggestions for action? If not, I suggest that we write to the national services division to ask whether it remains committed to producing a paper highlighting the issues and service gaps that people with EDS and HSD encounter; why the proposal in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist EDS centre was rejected; and whether it has monitored the delivery of its commitment to encourage regional expertise and services in place of a specialist centre. We might also write to the Government to ask how it intends to engage with people with HEDS and HSD in taking forward actions under the rare disease action plan, either individually or through Ehlers-Danlos Support UK.

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

On that note, we move into private session. That concludes our consideration of petitions today, and we will meet again to consider fresh petitions on Wednesday 25 October.

12:26 Meeting continued in private until 12:31.