���˿���

The Scottish Government’s health and wellbeing census found that young people who live in the most deprived areas are more likely to regularly vape than are those who live in the least deprived areas. The risk is that that could compound the health inequalities that already exist in Scotland.

How can we ensure that the socioeconomic context and the disparity in health outcomes are part of the evidence on the chronic health harms of vaping? Has that evidence featured so far?

That is helpful. Has any data been gathered about accident and emergency presentations or people who have sought medical assistance due to concerns that may be linked to vaping? Do you know of any data?

Professor Banks, the review of public health evidence that you published last year found evidence of acute harm such as seizure, poisoning and nausea associated with vaping. Does the evidence show whether the harms that we are seeing improve if and when a person stops vaping or whether the damage might be permanent, with the complications persisting even after vaping is stopped?

What about the risk of particulate inhalation? There are some products that have no nicotine in them and that might be perceived as being risk free as a result of that. Do you consider that there are still risks associated with those?

If the policy is influencing behaviour and causing substitution in any way, can you suggest any mitigations that could assist in reducing the harms that might be present? I know that the interdependency that you described is complex, but are there any specific measures that you might consider?

Could any adjustments be made to the scheme that would allow for the public sector to capture a share of that? Is it possible?

I appreciate your time.

If I may be clear on the fundamental concerns, the national youth justice advisory group said:

“NYJAG don’t believe the measures should be authorised as they stand as children under eighteen have different levels of need and maturity and require appropriate age and developmental stage supports.”

The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland said:

“We would recommend that alternative proposals be developed, using as a starting point the Secure Care Standards and Pathways”.

The centre for mental health and capacity law at Edinburgh Napier University said:

“There should therefore be a detailed human rights impact assessment undertaken in addition to this limited consultation.”

Is the minister’s position that the committee should disregard what those stakeholders have said?

Obviously, 100 per cent of the additional revenue that is generated by minimum unit pricing flows to the private sector, not the public sector. Do you have a view of how much revenue has been raised as a result of the policy?

Having listened to the statements and evidence from the minister and the officials, I do not have enough confidence to support the recommendation that the Parliament approve the instrument, given the human rights concerns outlined in submissions to the committee.

I have noted the reassurances received but, until we have documentary confirmation of those, it is hard to come to a firm and confident conclusion that the stakeholders who are critical are content. Therefore, I propose that the statutory instrument be deferred with a view to incorporating safeguards that stakeholders feel are absent and to allow for a detailed human rights impact assessment and a children’s rights impact assessment to be undertaken.

I will outline the key takeaways for me. First, the consultation was too short—it spanned just two weeks, and it received nine responses. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland was not included in the initial consultation distribution, so contributed late.

There are also concerns about whether children and young people in facilities such as the one that is proposed can consent to measures that are authorised under the 2005 regulations, including invasive searches and swabbing. Adding a children’s facility to the list under the regulations that are used in adult services is, on the face of it, at odds with the Scottish Government’s commitment regarding incorporation into Scots law of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Although we have noted the reassurances received from the minister, firmer protocols are needed to ensure that we have confidence in that behaviour.

No children’s rights impact assessment has been undertaken by the Scottish Government, which says that it is not necessary, as similar regulations are in place in similar facilities. However, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland says that that itself is of concern and notes:

“We are concerned that these proposals appear to have reached this stage without the creation of a Children’s Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA). It is likely that a CRIA would have brought to light, at an early stage, the concerns we outline”.

On that basis, it is not appropriate to recommend approval at this stage.