³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

We will keep the petition open, and we will begin our inquiry. I thank Jackie Baillie again for her participation.

I am quite happy to try to establish what information exists on the number of such occurrences.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again in public on 1 May. We move into private session to consider items 4 and 5.

We expect Fergus Ewing to join us shortly, so there is no apology there.

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2024 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. I begin by thanking my deputy convener, David Torrance, for convening the previous meeting of the committee, which had quite a packed agenda of engagement and evidence taking. I am grateful to him.

Our first item is the customary one to agree on whether to take business in private. Under items 4 and 5, we will consider the evidence that we will hear this morning. Do colleagues agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a series of areas to explore in detail, but my first question is just meant to ensure our broad understanding of the issue. The committee was engaged by the petition when we saw it. Therefore, we have taken the unusual step of convening this evidence session, which we do not do in relation to every petition.

We have also had a briefing from the Parliament’s independent research unit, the Scottish Parliament information centre. When I read that, I was struck not by the principle of the argument that you are making but by the question of whether, in practice, the different genetic code that Scotland’s legal system has as a result of the way in which it was established means that it is less likely to be overwhelmed by the type of threat that you envisage and that, therefore, a reactive rather than a proactive Government approach to the issue, in the light of evidence, would be an arguable way to go.

What is your view on that? I put that question to you, Mr Mullin, and any of your colleagues.

It is as if you are suggesting that our legal profession always has an eye to the main chance. That is the conclusion that I am drawing from that.

Is there anything that you would like to say, Mr Mustafa?