Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The next petition, PE2029, on nationalising Clydeport, to bring the ports and harbours on the River Clyde into public ownership, was lodged by Robert Buirds on behalf of the campaign to save Inchgreen dry dock. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to use powers under the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to revoke the status of Peel Ports Group’s Clydeport Operations Limited as the harbour authority for the River Clyde and its estuary; to establish a municipal port authority in Clydeport’s place and bring the strategic network of ports and harbours along the River Clyde into public ownership; and to compulsorily purchase Inchgreen dry dock for the benefit of the Inverclyde community.

As background to the petition, the petitioner has raised concerns about ships breaking away from their moorings at Clydeport-managed ports and the future of Inchgreen dry dock in Greenock. The SPICe briefing notes that the Harbours Act 1964 allows the Scottish ministers to make an order that relieves a harbour authority of its statutory powers, but only if the harbour authority applies for the order or consents to its being made, or if ministers have consulted with the authority and are satisfied that it is unlikely to object.

In responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has noted that

“Scottish ports operate in a commercial environment usually with no direct public funding”.

The response goes on to argue:

“The activities Clydeport facilitates, the employment which it provides for, and the investment made in recent years, are of significant importance to the Scottish economy.”

The Scottish Government has stated that it

“has no plans to explore compulsorily purchasing, revoking the powers of, or nationalising Clydeport.”

The petitioner has also provided a submission with further details about the campaign’s concerns surrounding the regeneration of Inchgreen dry dock as well as concerns about the delays to the Adrossan harbour project.

Our MSP colleague Katy Clark had hoped to join us for the consideration of the petition but, unfortunately, she has been unable to do so. However, she has provided a written submission that details various concerns that her constituents have raised about Clydeport’s management of ports and harbours along the Ayrshire coast.

Paul Sweeney MSP, who has an interest in the petition, is staying with us following our consideration of the concessionary petition that we have just heard about. Before we as a committee have a think about the petition and consider comments or options, I invite Mr Sweeney to contribute.

Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney.

I hesitate to invite colleagues to consider matters at all, because Mr Sweeney’s knowledge is fairly comprehensive. Do you have any suggestions about what the committee might consider doing, Mr Sweeney?

I think that we might get to that. I might quite like to write to the different health boards to ask what the current status within each health board is. The assertion is that provision is a postcode lottery. I have a recollection that, right back at the start when the issue was whether insulin pumps would be provided at all, it was a health board lottery. I think that, all that time ago, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde embraced their provision and other health boards did not.

It would be interesting to know what the provision is within each health board and what policies they have surrounding the award of insulin pumps to children. This sits within a framework in which—I think—it is the case that children are meant to get them if they need them, so we need to find out where we are at with all that.

Diabetes Scotland and the Insulin Pump Awareness Group might be able to help us in that work as well. That would be helpful in the first instance. These are very important matters to those people who in life depend on them.

Do we agree to take that action?

Members indicated agreement.

Our first continued petition is PE1856, which was lodged by Pat Rafferty on behalf of Unite. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to protect the future of the taxi trade by providing financial support for taxi drivers, setting up a national stakeholder group with trade union driver representatives and reviewing low-emission standards and their implementation dates.

It was some time ago but, since our last consideration of the petition, we have received a written submission from Transport Scotland in response to our question about synchronising the roll-out of low-emission zones across Scotland, which taxi drivers were particularly concerned about. The submission states that local authorities are responsible for deciding the timing for introduction and enforcement. It states that LEZ enforcement began in Glasgow city centre on 1 June, which I think is well known by the public now, and that the council had introduced a grace period of one year for all and two years for residents within the zone. The council also developed a mechanism for taxi operators to apply for a temporary exemption beyond the June 2023 enforcement date.

In consequence, Transport Scotland is not minded to mandate a transition to electric vehicles at one point in time as an alternative to offering support with retrofitting. Its view is that it is for operators to decide how to meet the LEZ standards.

According to the submission, 250 taxis have now been retrofitted as a result of Government funding. It states that there are no plans to adapt LEZs beyond their current size or scope or to introduce new LEZs in other parts of Scotland.

Do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?