Official Report 639KB pdf
Smoking Ban and Vaping Strategy (PE1932)
We now move to new petitions, the first of which is PE1932, which is entitled “Ban smoking in Scotland and develop a strategy for vaping”. The petition was lodged by Doug Mutter on behalf of VPZ. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to impose an outright ban on smoking and to develop a transformative public health strategy for vaping.
Doug Mutter notes that
“The Pandemic has triggered an increase in smoking rates.”
He suggests that “Scotland has lost momentum” in creating a tobacco-free generation by 2034. He suggests that
“Vaping is the best way to quit smoking”
and “strongly believes” that a public health strategy for vaping will help to realise that target.
In its submission, the Scottish Government indicated that, as yet, there is little evidence on the long-term effects of vaping because of the relatively short time for which these products have been available, although evidence has been growing over the past decade. There has been some time in which to collect evidence, but it is a short time. As such, the Scottish Government is not considering an outright ban on smoking in favour of a pro-vaping policy. Do colleagues have any comments?
I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government is not currently considering an outright ban on smoking in favour of vaping.
Colleagues, are you all of that view?
Members indicated agreement.
Redress Scheme (Fornethy House Residential School) (PE1933)
PE1933 is entitled “Allow the Fornethy Survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme”. The petition was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy survivors group and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to the redress scheme in order to allow the survivors to seek redress.
Iris Tinto notes that
“Survivors need acknowledgement, closure and compensation.”
She states that, despite being
“‘in care’ of Glasgow Corporation”
the decision to exempt groups such as the Fornethy survivors group has “magnified that suffering.” The group has provided a powerful and detailed account of the range of abuse that they suffered and the outcomes associated with that in the written submission that members will have seen among their papers. In its submission to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it
“recognises that the abuse of children in all circumstances ... is wrong and harmful.”
Despite that recognition—I am thinking of a petition that we heard not long ago; herein lies a common theme—the Scottish Government states that the exclusion of people who were abused in short-term respite or holiday care is
“in keeping with the core purpose of the redress scheme”.
It states that
“eligibility for the scheme is not based on how long a child was in care ... Instead, it is based on how the child came to be in care and the type of care setting”
that they were in.
Members will recall the petition that we have been considering about the abuse inquiry and the terms of reference in relation to that. Although this is a different petition and a different set of circumstances, I was struck when reading the notes that it seems again to be the case that drafting of regulations is tight and allows groups to fall through the net, which is acknowledged but not followed by any resolution. What views do colleagues have, having read the notes?
We should write to the Deputy First Minister to draw his attention to the issues that are raised in the petition and ask that he consider adjusting the current eligibility criteria to allow Fornethy survivors, and other survivors with similar experiences of short-term respite or holiday care, to access the redress scheme.
I very much endorse the course of action that has been recommended by David Torrance about writing to the Deputy First Minister. In the letter, I wonder whether we might seek clarification of why the criteria seem to be based on how people came to be in care rather than on the experiences that they had in care. If an individual suffered a wrong, surely that individual should be entitled to receive remedy of whatever sort—a monetary compensatory award, an apology or something else. It seems that the criteria that are being used to restrict groups of people are, at least, open to question.
I also want to raise a point that relates to a constituency case that I had about not dissimilar circumstances. Although I will perhaps need to go back and check, my recollection is that part of the Scottish Government’s answer as to why a category of potential claimants was excluded from entitlement to claim a remedy was that that was what Parliament had judged during the passage of the relevant legislation. If that is the case, I wonder whether a little bit more work needs to be done to check the evidence and the basis on which Parliament came to its conclusion. That is my recollection; if it is faulty, I must apologise, but I think that that was part of the reasoning that the DFM adduced in reply to me on a very similar issue. If that is the case, it suggests that Parliament has, in fact, considered the principle of the issue before.
Perhaps the clerks could check that in order to see whether I am rambling incoherently and talking complete nonsense or have a nugget of a point.
Mr Ewing makes a very valid point with regard to how we should examine the issue. I also agree with David Torrance’s recommendation to write to the Deputy First Minister. The entire saga continues to unlock and show survivors and individuals across the care sector and support sector how they were dealt with in that entire area. We should examine the matter as much as we possibly can so that we can capture it.
As the convener identified, organisations and individuals are falling through the net, which is the last thing we want. We want to encapsulate as much information as we can so that we bring together the broadest range of views and opinions. We will achieve some of that through the suggestions of Fergus Ewing and David Torrance; I am therefore very supportive of those proposals.
I concur with what Mr Ewing said with regard to a need for remedy, which is clear in terms of natural justice.
I think that there is another stakeholder, because Glasgow City Council is the successor body to Glasgow Corporation. Any question of liability would probably need to be discussed, which therefore requires a response from Glasgow City Council as well as from the Scottish Government. We should therefore also make inquiries of Glasgow City Council.
The instincts in bureaucracy are to defend against liability and against extending liability, but that is the wrong approach in this instance. We should therefore try to establish a remedy for a group that has clearly suffered harm.
Thank you. I wonder whether we might also write to some of the bodies that represent victims and survivors, just to call in aid to the argument and to get some understanding of their views on widening the eligibility criteria. They must be aware of the particular circumstances of the groups that are falling through the net, and might be able to identify others that they would say are in a similar situation. Do we agree to write to those bodies, together with the suggestions that have already been made?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you. It is an important petition; we will keep it open and see what progress we can make.
I will suspend the meeting briefly. The minister is now with us, so we will be able to discuss our final continued petition in a moment.
11:15 Meeting suspended.Air ais
Continued PetitionsAir adhart
Continued Petitions