Chamber and committees

I hope that that meets the immediate hopes and expectations of the petitioners.

You may have felt that it was the right idea, Mr Adam, but I am not sure that it was the most enlightening of the options that were before you.

Thank you for that. Lots of colleagues want to come in. Mr Golden has a specific supplementary on a point that was made in the latter half of that response. You can come back to any other points that you want to make later on.

We will keep the petition open and seek to hold an evidence session at a subsequent committee meeting, as agreed.

Our next petition is PE1979, regarding the establishment of an independent inquiry and an independent national whistleblowing officer to investigate concerns about the alleged mishandling of child safeguarding inquiries by public bodies. The petition has been lodged by Neil McLennan, Christine Scott, Alison Dickie and Bill Cook. I see that the petitioners are with us in the public gallery. A warm welcome to you. You have had quite an extended morning before we got to your petition.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to launch an independent inquiry to examine concerns that allegations about child protection, child abuse, safeguarding and children’s rights have been mishandled by public bodies, including local authorities and the General Teaching Council for Scotland, and concerns that there are gaps in the Scottish child abuse inquiry and to establish an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services in Scotland to handle such inquiries.

We considered this petition at our meeting on 8 February, at which point we agreed to seek further information from a number of relevant organisations. We have subsequently received responses from the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the Scottish Social Services Council, the Educational Institute of Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Copies of the responses are in the papers for today’s meeting.

The GTCS has provided an overview of its fitness to teach process and identified national education reform and the Scottish child abuse inquiry as opportunities for driving improvement on the roles and responsibilities in child protection.

The responses from the Scottish Social Services Council, the EIS and COSLA suggest that the existing guidance and processes for child protection are sufficient, with both the EIS and the SSSC hesitant about the need for an independent national whistleblowing officer for education and children’s services.

In contrast, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland response notes that it has identified

“a number of gaps in the national guidance and a need for stronger accountability mechanisms.”

Its response suggests that there would be merit in exploring the creation of a national whistleblowing officer, perhaps in a similar format to the independent national whistleblowing officer for the national health service.

The committee has received three submissions from the petitioners that reflect on our previous consideration of the petition and comment on the content of responses that we have otherwise received.

Finally, members of the committee and I have received email correspondence from a number of individuals seeking to make submissions to the committee or to give evidence in support of the petition, but only if they can do so under conditions of confidentiality, which the committee can obviously agree to.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We can consider that in our determination of the evidence that we have heard.

Marie McNair, who joins us online and who is substituting for David Torrance, has indicated that she has a question.

We come to Edward Mountain, whose land you just volunteered up, Mr Neil. I do not want him to stray into matters on which he has not necessarily given a declaration of interest to the committee, but I invite him, as our reporter from the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, to ask a question.

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?

Thank you very much, Mr Neil. There is some fascinating new information for the committee in the detail that you have given.

Colleagues are keen to come in with questions. I offer you the opportunity to make one observation, which is to speculate, although that is always a dangerous thing to do. When the decision was announced, you were clearly satisfied that a detailed programme was in place that would allow for the project to be completed by the specified date and that, within the funding allocations that were anticipated to be available, you had a reasonable expectation that the project could be funded without compromising the Government’s ability to proceed with other projects that were also important.

Something therefore happened. When you made the decision, even though there was a manifesto commitment, was there any resistance to the principle underpinning the decision from those, perhaps from Transport Scotland or elsewhere, who did not feel the same obligation to respect manifesto commitments that you, as a minister, might have felt were important? Did you feel that your successors might be influenced by other considerations at that point that you had been determined to overrule and insist were not adhered to?

Okay. Doreen Grove, Amy Watson and minister, thank you very much for your participation and attendance. We will have a brief suspension while we move to the next session.