Chamber and committees

Yes, I understand that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has agreed to undertake a review of the issues raised, in parallel to the petition. I think that, in this instance, that might be the best thing that we can do, given parliamentary time.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. We will hold the petition open until we gain the information that we seek.

We will return to PE2105. Good morning, Mr Sweeney. I think that your connection may have dropped. We had done the preamble and given you the big build-up. I then said to the world that we were about to receive the wisdom of Mr Sweeney, only to be met by a great big blank nothing. However, you are now with us so, without further preamble, would you like to give some thoughts to the committee before we consider how we might proceed on the back of the evidence that we heard last week?

Do members have any comments or thoughts for reflection? We could certainly frame representation to COSLA in relation to the issue, but are there any other suggestions?

The problem is that the standing orders of the Parliament do not allow us to have two petitions open in relation to the same thing at the same time, so I am afraid that we cannot do that.

It is important that we acknowledge that some of the issues here remain active in a live petition. In closing it, we accept that there is an issue here, but the Scottish Government—and, at this stage in the life of the Parliament, there is not much more that we can give effect to in that regard—has said that it is not prepared to pursue the suggested solution that is before us. I therefore do not think that we have any other course of action than the one that Mr Torrance has suggested to us.

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It may be a disappointment in some senses, but that is sometimes the way that these things fall, I am afraid.

I would not like to think that the nation’s security relied on a bingo drive. We could make some of those representations and incorporate them into what we send to the Scottish Government. The charity is obviously a very successful one that is doing great and good work. It is looking for a model—as we have said, it is long past time for that, as it has sought and been assured that something might be done. I think that we would like to see something actually being done.

Do members agree to keep the petition open on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. Before I introduce our new petitions, should anyone be looking in to follow our proceedings and see how the committee considers their petition, I highlight, as I always do, that before we consider a petition, we always do two things.

First, we ask the Scottish Parliament information centre, the Parliament’s independent research body, to give us an impartial view of the issues raised by the petition. Secondly, we write to the Scottish Government for its initial view. We do both those things, because, historically, they were the first two things that we would otherwise have decided to do and it expedites the process and consideration of the petition.

PE2155, lodged by Daniel Taggart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the support available to people trying to give up e-cigarettes and vapes by expanding access to nicotine replacement therapy and stop-smoking medications to include e-cigarette users and vapers.

The SPICe briefing for this petition explains that while e-cigarettes and vapes are currently considered lower risk than traditional tobacco products, they still pose health concerns and that further research is required to study their long-term impact on health.

The most recent data for Scotland shows that 12 per cent of adults reported using vapes or e-cigarettes in 2023, compared with just 10 per cent the year earlier. The national health service guidance for pharmacists on public health services states that e-cigarette users should be able to access licensed smoking cessation products, including nicotine replacement therapy. However, the guidance cautions that many e-cigarette products contain nicotine, which means that switching to NRT could create issues with determining the correct dosage.

Additionally, for patients who try to quit non-nicotine e-cigarette products, reintroducing nicotine through NRT would be inappropriate. For those patients, the guidance recommends referral to non-pharmacy specialist smoking cessation services, which may include telephone support, one-to-one support or group support.

In its initial response to the petitioner, the Scottish Government mentions the “Tobacco and vaping framework: roadmap 2034”, under which it has committed to improve information about vapes and to increase awareness of avenues of support for stopping vaping or smoking. The Government has also committed to continue to fund and support cessation services. Despite that, the quit your way Scotland service, which is also referenced in the Scottish Government’s response, appears to be geared primarily towards those who are trying to quit smoking. In fact, with caveats around evolving research on their safety, vapes are being suggested as one of the few possible options to help people who wish to give up smoking.

Do members have any suggestions for action?