Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will suspend the meeting briefly, because we have a large party that wishes to join us in the public gallery. I also have to excuse David Torrance from proceedings for the rest of the meeting.

I do not wish to be unkind, but I sometimes feel like a judge in one of those TV programmes. I have to keep reminding counsel that he is not a witness. He is here to make constructive suggestions as a member of the committee.

Thank you, Mr Ewing. We will take on board the spirit and sentiment of that—I think that the committee was very unanimously of the view underpinning that.

I read the Official Report. You said,

“Good morning, Deputy First Minister. Could you change the regulation, even though the current position is not to change it?”,

to which Shona Robison replied,

“Technically, yes.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 20 March 2024; c 16.]

That was followed by a long treatise.

I believe that Mr Swinney’s position was slightly different, so I am inclined to wonder whether, in the letter that we write to Mr Swinney, we should ask whether, in fact, he was minded to consider that when he was in office.

Mr Ewing is correct. There is an opportunity at the biannual Conveners Group meeting with the First Minister for me, as convener, to put to the First Minister the issues of a particular petition. If we get to that point, and we are not satisfied with the response, it is perfectly possible for us, as a committee, to lead a debate in the chamber. However, there are few petitions on which the committee has been so robustly unanimous in its view of the way in which matters have progressed and the outcome that we think is achievable and ought to be pursued.

We agree with the various actions that have been suggested this morning. I thank Mr Smyth and Mr Cole-Hamilton for joining us, and I thank those in the public gallery who have joined us as well. I will not suspend the meeting, because we have quite a lot of business to get through. If you are planning to leave, I ask you to be as discreet in your exit as you can be. Thank you all very much.

In closing the petition, I thank the petitioners for raising the issue and say to them that we have only two years of this session of Parliament left and that they should hold in reserve the option of submitting a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session, if the progress that the Government believes it is making proves to be insufficient and if, at that time, the issue remains just as live.

Thank you, Tess, for that impassioned address. In view of the submissions that we have received and the evidence from Tess White, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

We will keep the petition open on that basis and pursue the actions as suggested.

PE2035, to recognise legal control of generalist predators as a conservation act, a petition on which we took evidence recently. It was lodged by Alex Hogg on behalf of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to officially recognise legal control of abundant generalist predators as an act of conservation to help ground-nesting birds in Scotland. Members will recall our meeting with Mr Hogg, who called for a ministerial statement recognising predator control and the value of gamekeepers in addressing the biodiversity crisis. He also suggested ways that the Scottish Government could actively support predator control activity.

In the light of the evidence that we heard from Mr Hogg, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we should proceed?

Thank you. This is our first consideration of the petition, and it may well be that there is further evidence that we would want to take and other views that we would want to hear. Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. To those who might be watching our proceedings because this is the first consideration of their petition, I say that, ahead of the consideration of any new petition, we seek a view from the Scottish Government, because otherwise that would be the first thing that we would do.

We also receive a briefing from the Scottish Parliament’s independent research body, SPICe. I thank everybody in SPICe for the work that they do on behalf of the committee. Most committees draw on the experience and advice of SPICe on core subjects so that they can follow a clear narrative path. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s varied agenda means that we go to SPICe with the broadest possible diet of requests for supporting information and the committee members are grateful for the detailed briefings that we receive, particularly when we are taking evidence on a new petition.

The first of the new petitions is on familiar territory, given the conversation that we had a moment ago. PE2066, lodged by Lewis McMartin, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to treat vapes and e-cigarettes in the same way as we treat tobacco and cigarettes by banning the brightly coloured packaging and contents and/or removing the devices from public display so that they are only available from behind customer service counters, and by preventing special offers that promote the sale of multiple units for a cheaper price.

The petition notes the legislation that was passed in 2010 to prohibit the display of tobacco and smoking-related products and suggests that, if vapes and e-cigarettes are to be sold as tools for smoking cessation, they should be tobacco flavoured. As noted in the SPICe briefing, the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016 restricts the marketing, advertising and sale of vaping products. The act also gives Scottish ministers powers over restricting or prohibiting displays and promotions of nicotine vapour products. However, those powers have yet to be exercised.

As I did during our consideration of the related petition a moment ago, I draw members’ attention to the ministerial statement that was provided to Parliament on 26 March that updated us on the Scottish Government working towards a tobacco-free Scotland by 2034 and tackling youth vaping. The statement also mentioned the introduction of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to the UK Parliament that would give ministers the power to regulate retail displays of vapes and other nicotine products, as well as extending existing provisions on the regulation and distribution of nicotine products.

There is a lot to digest in that. Do members have any comments or suggestions in the light of all that about what action might be appropriate?

As there are no other suggestions, does the committee agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.