Chamber and committees

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.

Thank you very much. That was all characteristically candid. I am reminded of my old friend and colleague Sir Albert McQuarrie, who contemplated a return to public life and elected office at the age of 96. You could offer the country a lot more yet, Mr Neil, with at least three decades’ advantage on him.

That was very helpful. You have not only pointed the committee in directions that it might wish to explore further but identified ways in which we can try to take forward the inquiry. I think that you made the point that looking forward is actually the committee’s objective in realising the aims of the petition.

Welcome back. I should have concluded the previous evidence session by asking members whether they agree to reflect on that evidence and come to a determination on how we might want to proceed at a subsequent meeting. Do we agree to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

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.

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.

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.

In fact, the whole nomenclature of this stuff is difficult to be certain about, but, for citizens assemblies, let us talk about the idea of a unit of about 100 people convening to undertake a proper exercise.

That is very helpful. Some of that will be the subject of the debate that we will see in the chamber. I share your analysis of the nature of subjects that can be best deliberated through this process.

Given that there is other engagement going on, as you say, how is that quantified as a cost that the Government is undertaking across the different portfolios? Are you able to quantify the cost of the engagement that the Scottish Government is currently offering?

Colleagues, that might mean that you would be devolving to me the ability to agree that that session might be private in order to protect and respect the anonymity of those individuals who might feel that they want to contribute, and to work with the clerks to ensure that we can identify a format that the individuals who might want to contribute feel that they could support and feel confident in. Do members agree to keep the petition open and to next consider it at a round-table discussion where we will hear direct evidence, in a format that is to be agreed, from the people affected.

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for the PE1977. There appears to be national protection guidance in place, so we thank them for raising the issue with us. Obviously, it is open to the petitioner to lodge another petition later, if we feel that the matter is still not being acted upon.

Members indicated agreement.