Chamber and committees

Item 4 is consideration of our work programme in outline. There are two or three decisions that it would be useful for us to take. The first is to consider holding a business planning session, which will give us an opportunity to consider the legacy report and to consider and agree our statement of intent for the committee for the coming session, and also to discuss all the other relevant issues that we might wish to consider about how we do the work of the committee.

I propose that we hold a planning session during the summer recess and that we aim, all things being equal, to do that in person here in Parliament at some point, probably during the final week of recess.

Do members agree to do that? I will not come to you all individually, because we know from experience that that can take half an hour. I will take it that the proposal is generally agreed.

The second issue that is before us is to consider the status of 15 on-going petitions that our predecessor committee referred to subject committees. The committee had taken those petitions as far as it could and had decided that they would best be taken forward by a subject committee. By convention, at the end of a parliamentary session, if such a petition is still under discussion, it is referred back to this committee, because it might be that the subject committee that was considering it has been disbanded or constructed in a different form.

As I said, we have 15 petitions in that category; I suggest that we refer them back to the most appropriate subject committees, which might, of course, be the same committees that were dealing with them before. Do members agree to do that?

I see that we all agree.

Do members have any other matters that they would like us to consider this morning? Brief as this meeting has been, we have considered all the immediate items on the agenda.

I take members’ silence as agreement that we do not want to consider anything else today. We look forward to our next public meeting after the summer recess. Until then, I thank you all and wish you a good morning.

Thank you, Bill. I begin by paying tribute to the immediate past conveners of the committee—Johann Lamont, Michael McMahon and David Stewart—all of whom I had the pleasure of working with in different ways.

I look forward to taking on the convenership of the committee. Having served on the Public Petitions Committee in the session before the previous one, I can say that I greatly value the work of the committee. Inherent and essential to that work is the free-flowing exchange of views and the working relationship that we all have on the committee as we seek to do our best on behalf of the petitioners whose petitions we will be considering.

I look forward to the coming session and to the work that we will do. In many respects, we have no idea what that will be. There are some outstanding petitions, as a consequence of the deadline by which petitions could be considered in the previous session. However, the new work that will come our way will be the challenge and the joy of the committee in the months ahead. I look forward very much to the task and to working with colleagues.

Item 3 is the choice of deputy convener. Parliament has agreed that only members of the Scottish National Party are eligible for the position. I believe that David Torrance is that party’s nominee; I am pleased to invite Bill Kidd to nominate him.

I confirm that I have no relevant interests to declare.

Congratulations on your appointment, David. You are a continuing member of the committee. I remember serving with you on the Public Petitions Committee in a session that feels like 100 years ago now. You were also a member in the session before this one. I know that you will bring your huge experience to bear in your new post, to the benefit of us all.

I also welcome all the other members of the committee: Bill, who, it turns out, is older than me; Paul; and Tess. I hope that we have a successful parliamentary session.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the announcement that the United Kingdom-Australia free trade agreement will remove tariffs of up to 5 per cent on Scotch whisky. (S6O-00056)

I thought that you were going to say that time was up, Presiding Officer.

When Ivan McKee has time to get off his high horse, will he focus on the aspect that I asked about, which is the opportunity for Scotch whisky? Australia was our eighth-biggest market last year, worth £113 million to the Scotch whisky industry. Since the announcement of the agreement, what specific conversations has Ivan McKee had with the Scotch whisky industry about how the Scottish Government can work with it to ensure that we maximise the opportunity? Assuming that he has not bothered to do that, will he commit to doing so in the weeks ahead?

One welcome success of the pandemic has been the support offered to the First Minister by signers. On behalf of the deaf community of my constituency, I thank the signers for the outstanding and sustained job that they have done. However, that belies a much more complicated pathway for the deaf community to public services and particularly to general practitioner services.

Initially, many members of the deaf community received letters saying that they should make telephone appointments—I assume that was inadvertent. Subsequently, online appointments have often taken place without a signer. When a signer is provided, they can join the consultation from anywhere in the UK. Sign language, just as any other language, has nuances and many in the deaf community are concerned that very delicate matters relating to their health are not being properly translated. They are looking to have the right to direct face-to-face contact with GP services once again. They look to the First Minister to champion that, so that they can enjoy that right at the earliest opportunity.

Many people have put off seeking a GP consultation for far too long. Will the First Minister intervene to allow such consultations to take place?

I can confirm to the minister that they are welcome. Obviously, they vindicate the decision of those of us who supported the policy from its inception. However, there is one caveat in the research that is a cause for concern, which has been reported in The Scotsman and elsewhere. The exception to the reduction of sales is that those in high-purchasing, low-income homes do not seem to have changed their habits. Professor Eileen Kaner from Newcastle University, who is one of the study’s authors and is also a director of applied research collaboration, said:

“it is a concern ... that ... households did not adjust their buying habits, and spending simply increased as a result of the MUP policy.”

It was always a concern that low-income households would simply increase their spend on alcohol from fixed incomes at the expense of other things and that there would be considerable consequential long-term harms. What is the Scottish Government’s response to that? Can anything more be done? Does the Government intend to review the level of minimum unit pricing in the near future?