Item 4, which we are taking in public, is consideration of our work programme for 2004. Members have in front of them a late buff-coloured paper.
Official Report · Committee
Work Programme
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Christine Grahame SNP 35
- Duncan McNeil Lab 14
- Mike Rumbles LD 12
- Helen Eadie Lab 6
- David Davidson Con 6
- Shona Robison SNP 5
- Kate Maclean Lab 3
- Janis Hughes Lab 2
- Dr Jean Turner Ind 1
The record
85 contributionsI understand that we are in public session. I refer members to the draft work programme, which is paper HC/S2/04/02/3. Members are asked to consider how they wish to timetable consideration of the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill and the proposed regulation of smoking bill. Members have the paper with the suggested timetable, so I seek comments.
What are the blanks in the paper? There are days listed that have nothing marked against them.
They are days off.
Is that what they are?
Or recess dates.
They are not all recess dates.
We are in public session so you should not talk amongst yourselves because it will not be recorded properly. Our inquiry will have to be fitted into some of the slots that are marked, so we have to have flexibility in our timetable. We have received feedback from witnesses suggesting that for inquiries and bills the period for receiving written evidence should be 12 weeks rather than six to eight weeks. That would allow large organisations to meet their members and have views ratified. We decided previously that oral witnesses would be selected only after written evidence had been submitted. I am in your hands.
You asked us about the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill. Has a consultation been carried out, or will we carry out consultation?
There will be committee consultation: there is always consultation on members' bills.
So we call for written evidence, which will be with us by 20 April, according to the timetable, so that we can decide whom to call to give us oral evidence on the basis of the written evidence. In that case the suggested timetable is appropriate.
We do not know the position with the proposed regulation of smoking bill. It might not come to us as lead committee; it might go to the Local Government Committee.
I understand that the member who hopes to introduce that bill is in a period of purdah during which he is not allowed to speak to anybody about anything or show them anything to do with the bill, which I think expires next week. He will then lodge his bill formally. Given the comments that the Executive has made recently about smoking, which are varied, would it be appropriate to write to the Executive to ask whether it has any plans to do anything on the matter at about the same time? That was the impression that I got.
The action plan was announced today, but it basically just says that the Executive is consulting on smoking in public places. I think that we should move ahead, but the first thing to do is to clarify whether we are getting the bill. We cannot really do anything until we know whether we will be getting it. However, if we do, I would not have thought that the fact that the Scottish Executive was conducting a consultation exercise should stop us making progress on a bill on the subject. We do not know what the outcome of the Scottish Executive's consultation will be, so rather than delay a member's bill on an important subject perhaps we should continue to consider it. However, we need to clarify whether we will get the bill.
We should know within the next couple of weeks whether we will be the lead committee on that.
I agree entirely with what Shona Robison has just said. The Executive's consultation was announced today and it is rolling out a total ban on smoking in public places. The bill, as I understand it, is about just that. The two are not mutually exclusive and it would be appropriate for us to go ahead with consideration of a member's bill. I have to state on the record that I would be very surprised if the bill did not come to the Health Committee. I do not know why it would not come to the Health Committee. This is a major health issue and I would be very surprised if the bill did not come to this committee.
The Local Government and Transport Committee obviously has a major role to play in the matter from a licensing and inspection point of view, because that is where a lot of the burden will fall. I totally support members' bills being introduced and given every opportunity to proceed. I have no objection to that but, as an indication for our work load, I would have liked to know whether any matters are likely to arise that we will have to deal with at the same time and whether we can programme in consideration of a bill.
We can certainly deal with that.
I would like to think that the bill would come to the Health Committee. It is definitely a health issue and I was surprised to hear that it might not come to us. Being new to this game, I was not sure how that would affect progress in this committee. It should come to us. It is an important issue and the connections between cigarette smoking and detriment to health have been well known for years. If we do not deal with the bill in this committee, it will be an opportunity missed.
It is worth clarifying the fact that the bill's aim is to ban smoking from public places that serve food. I agree with Mike Rumbles that, although we recognise that licensing provisions form a large part of the bill, the fundamental thrust is a measure to improve health. It would be useful to know how that is to be developed, so we can clarify who should be dealing with the bill.
As I said, the Parliamentary Bureau will decide that in the next week or two. Once the bill is introduced, it is the bureau that will allocate it.
Do we get to make any representations?
Yes. We would certainly indicate that we have a substantial interest in the matter. If it is the committee's view that the bill should come to us, that would put even greater weight behind our representation to the bureau.
The debate about who is allocated the issue for inquiry should go through the normal channels. If we are going to ban smoking in bingo halls, social clubs, pubs and restaurants, so that there will be people standing outside such locations all over Scotland, that is very much an issue for the licensing remit of local authorities. I am sure that that discussion will take place in the bureau and that is right and proper. We have spent a lot of time discussing something that we do not know will come to the committee. Is it appropriate for us to duplicate the consultation that the Scottish Executive is going to carry out? I think that we should wait until we are certain about all these things. You told us, convener, that we should be able to have a proper and realistic discussion about the matter in a couple of weeks' time. I do not know why we are spending so much time on it today, when there is still uncertainty. It would be best to discuss it when we are certain about what is going to happen, so that we can make appropriate decisions in the light of all the information. We should move on.
Well, I am going to do that.
That is also my view. We can make an informed decision only once we have clear information in front of us. At the moment, what is clear from what I know is that the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill is progressing and there should be a firm decision today on the suggested timetable for that. I have no problems with the other elements of the work programme, except that I would want to put a question mark over those days when the bill on the prohibition of smoking in regulated areas is the suggested business. Until we know for certain whether the bill will come to us, we cannot make an informed decision on that.
My point at the very beginning was that we should write to the Executive asking it to clarify its position. While it is dealing with a response to us, the bill could still be introduced and begin its public consultation period. We have a window of opportunity for that. We can also establish where, in addition to handling the two bills that we are talking about today, we will have to deal with something that comes from the Executive. Perhaps the Executive will simply step back and wait to see what happens and deal with the bill at its three stages as it progresses through the Parliament. I brought up the issue of the Local Government and Transport Committee because I know that members of that committee have some concerns about the impact of the bill. The financial memorandum to the bill will no doubt show a severe impact on the licensing and inspection capabilities of local government. I am not suggesting that that committee should be first in charge of the bill. I think that we should be the lead committee, but we will have to work closely with that committee because of the technical application of the bill's provisions.
I agree with that. The Local Government and Transport Committee's role as a secondary committee would be appropriate. There is a decision that we could make today, given the time scales. We could send out the strong message that this committee should be the lead committee, and that is what I would like to propose.
I support what Shona Robison has said. We should send that strong message. I understand what Duncan McNeil has said. He takes the view that until the Parliamentary Bureau decides—and it is quite rightly the bureau's decision—we cannot do anything about it and we should not be having this discussion. However, I do not agree with him. The whole point of today's discussion is that we have a programme of work in front of us, and that bill will be a major bill. It will not be a duplication of what the Scottish Executive has announced today. The Executive made it quite clear that a ban on smoking in public places that serve food is not part of the consultation, so it is not a duplication. In my view, we must plan our programme. As I say, it will be a major bill. Like Shona Robison, I would be astounded if we were not the lead committee on the bill, as smoking is a major health issue and a controversial one. The people of Scotland will be discussing it, so if the bill were not to come to us, that would be very poor. The Health Committee should make it clear to the Parliamentary Bureau that we expect the bill to come this way. I therefore support what Shona Robison has suggested.
We have the work plan in front of us. Nine slots are left out for the member's bill, which may come here and may not. We do not have one slot clearly defined for a major inquiry, which we agreed as a committee, on work-force planning, which affects every single person in Scotland. It does not affect a minority group here or a minority group there, or some airy-fairy thing in the future. It affects people and the services that they receive day in, day out. Not one slot has been allocated to that priority in the programme.
Can I respond to that—
Not one slot—
Direct your comments through the chair, please, Duncan. I was going to say that we were going to hold our civic participation event first. The bid goes before the Conveners Group at its meeting on Thursday, which I will attend to make submissions on the committee's behalf. That will kick-start the process. After all, we have to get that show on the road first. There is time within the work programme to carry out on-going inquiries, which will give us an agenda that is balanced between scrutinising legislation and undertaking inquiries. That will make it easier for the committee to carry out its work. No one should have any fears that we are simply loading ourselves with Executive and members' bills. In any case, we will have to sort out time for the civic participation event. At least we will know by Thursday whether our bid has been accepted.
But we are nearly at the end of January.
I do not know how to answer that. We are moving as fast as we can on the issue. We have space in the programme to carry out inquiries. Indeed, if I recall rightly, we have allotted almost a year for our inquiry into work-force planning in the NHS. The Executive has not done any work on that issue. Instead, we will carry out that work and certainly take our time to ensure that we are thorough with it. However, we need to get the foundations of the inquiry right with our civic participation event, which the committee had decided to do first.
Can you remind me when the committee took that decision?
That is a hard question.
It was a few months ago now, but we are asking the Conveners Group only this week for permission to hold the event. It is coming up to a year now.
I am advised that that is because this is the first opportunity that the Conveners Group has had to consider and agree to bids. We are all very keen to get down the road on this issue.
I want to put on record my very firm support for Duncan McNeil. Everything that has happened in the NHS in Scotland over the past couple of years since the Parliament was established has related to the core issue that he highlighted. If he is angry and frustrated, I share his anger and frustration, because we are facing major redesign issues in my area and in other areas across the country. I am glad that the Conveners Group will consider the matter on Thursday and I want a message to go out loud and clear that I support Duncan and that I hope that the clerks make the issue a very high priority. Unless we get this right and get this major inquiry under way, we cannot address the issues that Jean Turner raised about recruiting and retaining more people in the health service and planning for their future. As a result, I strongly share the concerns that Duncan expressed.
The issue will not be on next week's agenda, simply because the agenda is published on Thursday and that is when the Conveners Group will make its decision on our bid. However, it will be back on the agenda the following week.
I propose that we set aside a fortnightly slot in each and every part of the programme so that we know that every fortnight a part of our meeting will be given over to the inquiry.
I am sorry. Will you repeat that?
Can we timetable a slot in every second meeting to deal with the inquiry? I do not mind whether the slot is brief or long or is set aside for an evidence-taking session. It would simply allow us to know that such a slot was available before any other legislation came to us for our consideration. If that happened, we might need extra meetings or meetings at different times. In any case, establishing those slots will send out a clear signal that the committee means business on this issue.
Absolutely. I am not sure where we are on the other issues that have been raised. Do members want to follow David Davidson's suggestion and write to the Executive about its agenda in relation to its inquiry into a smoking ban? I say "agenda", but I do not know the language; members will have to say to the Executive whatever they want to say. Do we want to take that route?
The Executive is not launching an inquiry into a smoking ban.
I beg your pardon. I mean the consultation.
The Executive has launched a smoking strategy. It is about a voluntary approach to—
Okay. This is the problem with coming in at the tail-end of the meeting; I am not in tune. David, will you tell me exactly what you want us to write to the Executive so that the committee can take a view on it?
I feel that we should seek clarification from the Executive about its programme, the sort of work that will be involved and its views on the Health Committee's involvement in the matter.
Are members happy to write in those terms?Members indicated agreement.
I take it that members would want the committee to lead on the member's bill about smoking.
Yes.
So we can put that on the record.
The member's bill?
Yes.
Do you mean the prohibition of smoking in regulated areas (Scotland) bill?
Yes.
Are we saying that that is a health issue?
Yes.
If we are to achieve the bill's objective, it would be more appropriate for the Local Government and Transport Committee to be the lead committee.
Sorry?
We are talking about the prohibition of smoking in regulated areas.
I am sorry, Duncan. I take it that you agree with the rest of us that the Health Committee should be the lead committee.
He does not agree.
So you do not agree, Duncan.
Obviously I am on my own in that.
Okay, Duncan, you are on your own. Does everyone else on the committee feel that we should take the lead on this matter?
I do not think that it matters.
I think that we should await the outcome of the Parliamentary Bureau discussions.
We can involve the conveners of both committees.
All I want is a steer from the committee for the Parliamentary Bureau in advance of its discussions. Does the committee wish to give the bureau a steer on this?
Yes.
Do members feel that this is emphatically a health issue or is it a local government issue?
I do not think that it matters whether the Health Committee or the Local Government and Transport Committee leads on the bill, because we will take the same amount of evidence and produce the same results. However, I must say that the way this part of the meeting has gone shows why we should hold such discussions in private in future. I do not think that the public find it very impressive.
Well, I was not here when the decision was taken and do not know how it happened.So is there to be no unanimous guidance from the committee on this matter?
The committee is divided on it.
Yes, and it would be very unfortunate if members who hold the minority view were to force the matter to a vote. The majority of committee members want that guidance to be given to the Parliamentary Bureau. I am astounded that this discussion has taken place and that all committee members do not feel that this is a major health issue.
I do not want to take this matter to a vote. Is it fair to say that the majority of the committee is in favour of making the Health Committee the lead on this bill?
Yes.
It is a decision for the bureau. Convener, you know the feeling of the committee.
Duncan, all I am asking is whether the majority of the committee, by whatever margin, wishes it to be the lead committee on the bill.
Yes.
Thank you. The meeting is closed.
Meeting closed at 15:42.
In this meeting
Everything on 13 Jan 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Health Committee Tuesday 13 January 2004 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 6
- Petitions Petitions · 1
- Petitions Petitions · 6
- Petitions Petitions · 13
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 33
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 24
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 7
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 11
- Petitions Petitions · 1
- Budget Process Committee business · 12
- Work Programme Procedure · 85
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.