Seòmar agus comataidhean

We will do that at the appropriate time, to test the water. I will dabble my toes in the waters of that statement and will see what response I get, at the appropriate time.

I understand, having participated in the work of the parliamentary commission and in other events, that it is easy to set up a timeline. We set up timelines using parliamentary structures because we anticipate, in a sense, what we might be about to hear, and we therefore think that we can benchmark when the next milestone will be. However, in the evidence that you are hearing, you will hear fresh thoughts, challenges and ideas that might contradict views that people have held before. As you are reflecting, do you have in your mind an idea of when the Government will be able to indicate formally what its thoughts on the report are?

I thank the minister, Mr Kinnaird and Mr Rafferty for joining us this morning, and I thank Brian Whittle, too, for his participation.

Colleagues, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning at a future meeting of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Hold on a second, Mr Whittle—what has overtaken Whitelee? It used to be the biggest.

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.

Obviously, the Government has not yet published a response, but what, in general terms, is your overall reaction to the report?

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 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?

Please could the clerks encapsulate the essence of the discussion and members’ reflections on the evidence this morning in such a way that we can offer that to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its further consideration? Rhoda Grant has a final thought on the matter.

Mr Kinnaird, I heard you say that a second public event was to be incorporated. Is there a definition of what constitutes a public event?