Health and Community Care Committee, 03 Nov 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 3, 1999

Official Report 208KB pdf

---

Future Business

Jennifer Smart, the committee clerk, will talk us through item 5.

I apologise for the late arrival of the paper. The committee's future business has been fluid in the past couple of days because of the timetabling of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. A motion has been lodged that makes the Justice and Home Affairs Committee the lead committee and the Health and Community Care the secondary committee on the legislation. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is hearing oral evidence today and will meet again on 9 November. Given the committee's short time scale for stage 1 consideration of the bill, I suggest that this committee appoint a reporter to attend Justice and Home Affairs Committee meetings and to prepare a report on the bill's general principles as they relate to this committee's health remit.

Furthermore, we have to consider the timetable for the Arbuthnott report. Our work on Arbuthnott today should lead to the preparation of a draft report that will be discussed with the convener at some point up to 15 November.

On 16 November, there will be an additional meeting to consider both the report on the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, which we will pass to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and the draft report on Arbuthnott. Discussion of the latter, it has been suggested, should be in private. I imagine that the committee would wish to keep that in private at that stage.

On 17 November, the minister and deputy minister, Susan Deacon and Iain Gray, will attend the committee, to answer questions that members submitted some time ago, and other questions on general topics. There is also a negative instrument to be considered, and reports will be back from the three groups reporting on smoking, access and poverty.

Given that timetable, consideration of the Stracathro petition will be on 24 November, as will the consideration of the final report on Arbuthnott. The Arbuthnott deadline has now been moved to 3 December, which is why we can spread the consideration of the report to 24 November.

On 1 December, the committee has to decide whether it wishes to consider world AIDS day, and has to approve its final report on Arbuthnott, which is to be submitted to the Executive on 3 December. Some of the evidence that has been submitted to the community care inquiry will be considered by 15 December, when a forward work plan for that inquiry may be decided.

Our timetable, and the allocation of lead committees, were given to us only yesterday afternoon, so we have had to make the changes that we are putting to you today at short notice. I am aware that parts of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill will be quite contentious and therefore of interest to members. It is important for us to have an input at this early stage, looking at the general principles of the bill. The reporter system is probably the best way of doing that. Members should be considering whether they would like to put themselves forward as reporters.

Because of the time required for our consideration of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, we have had an extension of the time available to consider Arbuthnott. However, that throws up situations such as that on 24 November, when we must consider Stracathro and the final report on Arbuthnott during the same meeting. That will be tight, because I expect that there will be four witnesses on Stracathro, and I had intended to allow a whole meeting for that. I would be interested to hear members' opinions on that.

The request to consider world AIDS day was made to me personally some months back, probably within a week of the committee getting started. At the time, I said that world AIDS day might be the time to look at HIV and the progress that is being made on that. I am now aware that our time scales are tight, but the committee should make the decision on that.

I am not sure exactly what is happening on 16 November, but I am concerned about this committee being scheduled at the same time as others. If there has to be a meeting that week, can it be scheduled so that it does not clash with another committee? I have the Equal Opportunities Committee on that Tuesday, and I am sure that lots of other people have committees on that day as well.

We are trying to accommodate that. This committee will be in the morning and the others will be in the afternoon.

I do not want to comment on world AIDS day at the moment but, in general, I am aware of people writing to the committee to ask to give evidence. Can those letters be listed, so that we know who is asking to speak to us? The committee could then make decisions on them.

There are different approaches. Some people make an approach to me as convener and want to talk only to me. Others are more formal and wish to come before the committee.

I e-mailed members to tell them that—if they agreed—whenever I had meetings with people as the convener, I would circulate information to other members if there was evidence that they might want to hear. I am aware that our work schedule will not allow all the people who want to speak to the committee to give evidence. I understand that.

Is it agreed that requests to meet the committee will be put in writing and circulated prior to decisions being made?

Yes, with the proviso that, if a request is made to meet me, as the convener, I will circulate the details of that request via e-mail. If other members want to attend such meetings, they will be able to do so. However, organisations are making two distinct approaches: some want to speak only to me; others want to approach the entire committee formally.

I do not want to appear to take a harsh view on that issue. However, although we should address the matter, what will we achieve by that? Is it simply an awareness-raising exercise, or will the committee assume responsibility for action?

Initially, it was intended to raise awareness, and I said that the committee would want to consider the issue. That was four months ago. My crystal ball does not always forecast as far ahead as it might. Although I thought that the committee might want to consider the issue, our present work load means that we should not do that.

As convener, I am undertaking other work that week, to highlight HIV and AIDS as a continuing issue in Scotland. I will be doing other things in which other committee members will be invited to take part, outwith that week's formal committee meeting. That would be the best way for us to proceed.

Therefore, is it not on the agenda?

The matter was there for discussion.

If someone is trying to discuss a topic rationally while it is still being raised as an issue, the chances are not good of arriving at a balanced view. We should take the issue off the agenda and return to it later, as there are problems that concern HIV treatment funding and the effect that it is having on the funding of treatment for drug addiction. There is an issue that must be addressed, but it is inappropriate to raise it while it is in focus.

Does the committee share that view?

You were absolutely right to act on your best intentions, initially, but the problem has caught up with us several months later. You might say that you intended the committee to address the issue, but our schedule has caught up with us. We should dedicate some time to it in the future. As you say, it is an on-going process: we do not want to appear good just for one day. Organisations might give you written submissions, which we could study later, on the adequacies or inadequacies in service provision. We could mark the day in that way, at least.

I am sure that that would be satisfactory. Does the committee agree? I want to proceed to the business of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill and the Arbuthnott report.

Will our meeting on 9 November be rescheduled for 2 pm?

Yes.

That will cause difficulties. I will attend a meeting of the European Committee in the afternoon.

I cannot tell members immediately the constraints of the building, the rooms, and so on. However, it appears that we will have an accommodation problem if the meeting is held at another time on that day. If you leave that with me, I will find out whether the meeting can be held earlier in the day.

I will check whether we can meet in the morning rather than the afternoon, but it appears that there will be a problem with the on-campus accommodation. We might have to go off campus. There are two or three options of which the clerks have been made aware. If the Health and Community Care Committee met in the morning, our reporter would have to be present at the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, to hear evidence that was being given to that committee.

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is meeting on 9 November at 9.30 am.

We need to be a bit more careful, generally, about the meetings that we schedule and when we schedule them for. I am convener of another committee, with the responsibilities that go along with that. Just as you, convener, have requests to meet people and organisations, I have other things to do. The frequency and length of the meetings that are being scheduled for this committee make it difficult to fit everything in, especially given the starting time of some meetings. It takes some of us two and a half to three hours to get to Edinburgh in the morning. If the committee wants only to respond to the needs of people who live in and around Edinburgh, that is fine, but tell us that. If not, there is a fundamental question about the timing and frequency of meetings, and the fact that they clash with the other demands that members must address. We may have to get through the next few weeks and fulfil the commitments that have been made, but I am not prepared to go on in this way in the new year. It is unacceptable.

I am not sure that I can do justice to the work of the sub-groups that have been set up on smoking, access and poverty, given our work load. I am keen to participate, but if we spread ourselves too thinly, we are not going to achieve anything. Smoking, access and poverty are huge issues. I want to ask committee members to reconsider our decision. I would rather do the job properly than see it half-done.

Things have also moved on at Stracathro. We must make seeing the people from there a priority, whether we go to Brechin or Montrose to see them or they come here.

I ask that we consider leaving the work of the sub-groups until the new year to allow us to meet all the committee's commitments in a professional and responsible manner.

The reason that I wanted to discuss the sub-groups was that I was aware that it was several weeks since they had been set up. I know that members have not taken evidence or made particular progress, but have met one another to discuss the issues. It is crucial that we outline the remit and timetable for the sub-groups' work. The remit of the poverty sub-group can become tighter, if that is what members decide. The timetable can also be a lot longer. The scope is there for members to say that, although they want to consider the issues, it will take longer than a month—perhaps six months—to do so.

Could not we discuss the remit of the sub-groups on community care and public health and smoking on 15 December, rather than having a huge, general debate on community care? The sub-groups could then start their work in the new year. If we end the year with a long-drawn-out report, then go into recess, we will lose the momentum. I would rather that we started the new year knowing exactly what we intend to do.

In that case, we should move the date for the reports on smoking, access and poverty from 17 November to 15 December.

We must discuss the remit and the plans for those reports on that date, not the substantive issues.

I want to pick up on the general points that Hugh Henry made about work load, timetabling and the starting times of meetings. There are two issues.

I want to put on record the fact that I expressed my deep concern about the timetable for the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. We all knew that it was coming up, but I do not think that it is acceptable to have just one day's notice before we start to consider it. I have been informed that, because of the standing orders, we can do nothing but modify our schedule. I find that arrangement unacceptable.

The matter was raised by another convener at the conveners meeting last night and that concern was echoed by other members. The matter is on the timetable for a future meeting of the conveners group. I do not want to be presumptuous, but I think that conveners feel that the way in which committees are being treated is not acceptable. If committees are to focus on reports, we cannot be forced to change our timetables at the last minute.

I am aware that, while we are still in the middle of working on the Arbuthnott report, I for one will now have to turn my attention to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill. Both things warrant the full attention of members of the committee. We must not be made to feel that both cannot be adequately covered.

How soon can we expect a briefing on the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill?

Yesterday afternoon, when I found out about this, I asked whether the minister and/or an official could stay on this morning and give us a briefing. Their timetable may not allow that, but somebody from the legal section should make us aware of exactly what our role would be.

This is the first time that our committee has considered any legislation. If we are to do that, members of the committee are owed a certain amount of respect. We need to know what our role is and what we are expected to do.

Before I come to Malcolm's question, I shall ask Jennifer to clarify the point about the financial resolution.

The bill was introduced on 8 October. It has a financial resolution that, under rule 9.12.6 of the standing orders, has to be passed within three months. Because of the October recess and the December and January recess, the time available to the committee to consider the bill is truncated. The timetable has been approved by the Parliamentary Bureau and by the convener of the lead committee, the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. As a secondary committee, we have to report to that committee.

We are considering only the general principles at this stage. That does not restrict members from lodging amendments or considering the bill during debates in Parliament at stages 2 and 3. Any member can lodge amendments to the bill at those stages. The committee will be taking a narrow look at the bill at this stage.

Will we have a briefing in good time? I would not like to get the briefing on 16 November. This is the first time that we have dealt with legislation, and I would like to think that we will be better briefed than we have been in the past.

A written briefing has been prepared by SPICe. I have also been given some background information and explanatory notes to the bill. Do members have access to that information?

Those documents are available in the document supply centre.

I suggest that the clerks order up copies for all members to ensure that everyone has them.

After the bill comes before this committee for consideration of general principles, does it goes back into the chamber?

It goes to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. It must reach it by 22 November.

We can attend the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to propose amendments at stage 2.

You suggested two possibilities, Margaret: one was to invite the minister to explain the bill and the other was to invite legal officers. I do not think that it would be helpful to invite any ministers.

We had a minister with us this morning and I asked whether—

That would not have been helpful; it would have confused us. We do not want to duplicate the work of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, so it would be helpful if someone can clarify our role and explain what is required of us, legally and procedurally. Perhaps we could have a brief on the issues we should look at as a committee so that we do not wander all over the place and waste time.

That is what I meant by saying that, given the short notice, we should attempt to get a handle on what we are expected to do in relation to the bill, rather than being left with more questions and with, yet again, no one to ask.

I do not think it is acceptable for this committee to meet at the same time as the European Committee. You may have answered this question already, but why are we not having a meeting on 10 November? Why is there no room when we are scheduled to meet every Wednesday morning? If there is no committee room available, it would still be better for us to meet somewhere that morning, rather than have a meeting on the 9th that half of the committee cannot attend.

We would have to rejig everything.

I cannot attend on 9 November—a lot of us cannot.

We will try to move the meeting. Our initial intention was to meet fortnightly, not weekly, but the work load has changed. There is a problem with the availability of rooms.

Given that we would be meeting to consider the interim reporter's findings, it would be appropriate to meet in private session so that we do not have to bother about microphones and suchlike. A meeting that people can attend would be preferable to one with microphones and nobody to speak into them.

I know that Mary said the Stracathro issue has moved on, but there is an issue of principle. There was a debate on Stracathro and now there is an attempt to bring it back to this committee. We need to decide whether matters that are the responsibility of health boards should come to us, given that we cannot change the views of health boards.

In general, are we as a committee prepared to accept all local issues that are a source of concern? There could be similar issues in Fife and possibly in my own area. As a local member, I would not want to agree to certain things here and then find that, in my own area, similar things were not being properly attended to. If we are happy for a succession of local issues to come to the committee, we should say so up front so we can all raise issues.

The Stracathro business was referred to us by the Public Petitions Committee. We discussed earlier the danger of looking at local rather than strategic and national issues. I certainly took the view that some of the things that people from Stracathro raised with us when we met them after a committee meeting, such as consulting with staff and similar issues, were the kinds of issues on which the committee could have some input.

The Public Petitions Committee has asked us to address the Stracathro problem. That petition has 25,000 signatures on it. You might call me populist, but I think that we must do something with a petition of that size. The Public Petitions Committee is also aware of how things are moving through the committee structure.

I am not objecting to that. All I am saying is that I want a principle established that if other issues from other committees come to us in that way, we will have a procedure for dealing with them. We must be clear that we are setting precedents. Once that is done, others have the right to expect us to continue in that way, and the expectation that we will deal with everyone equitably.

Can I clarify that the principle would be that the petition would come to the committee so that the committee could decide whether to look at it or not? That does not mean that we will look at every petition.

Why not?

We must exercise judgment as to whether or not we want to look at a petition.

Because loads of petitions come in.

Exactly, Margaret.

Would we not review each petition on a case-by-case basis?

As someone who sits on the Public Petitions Committee—although I must apologise for missing it yesterday—I would like to point out that there are a number of petitions undergoing consideration. Some committees are getting more of their work load in that way than others. So far, the impact of petitions on our work load has been quite slight. At one of the Public Petitions Committee meetings, five items were sent to the Transport and the Environment Committee. That committee could not set a precedent that because one of those five is something that it ought to consider, all five must be considered. Every Public Petitions Committee meeting that I have been at has resulted in the bulk of petitions being sent on to the Transport and the Environment Committee.

The only way in which we can deal with petitions is to look at each one on a case-by-case basis as it comes to us. We must also bear in mind that the Public Petitions Committee is a vehicle of which many people are not yet aware. When it becomes a better-publicised, well-oiled machine, even more people will make use of it. The Public Petitions Committee is simply passing things along; it is not making judgments about the contents of the petitions. It is up to us as a committee to do that.

That is the point. What exactly does the Public Petitions Committee do, if it does not say that the locus of this Parliament in relation to those petitions is to look at X? Hugh is right. If the Public Petitions Committee is simply forwarding petitions to us and saying that they are administratively correct—they meet the terms required of a petition—then the committees will be totally swamped by that process.

This committee has decided that it must examine the process by which things were moved around in Stracathro. That is reasonable, but the Public Petitions Committee must act on the Parliament's behalf and it should have said that it thought that the petition was valid and that the Health and Community Care Committee might wish to look at the concerns of this group in relation to the process of what happened in Stracathro. We will not talk about the acute services review in relation to Tayside. If we do, we are lost.

The Public Petitions Committee works in the way that you described. Petitions come forward and, if they are administratively correct, they are passed on.

We do not need a committee to decide that. That would be one committee less.

The other aspect of the Public Petitions Committee's work is that it monitors what has happened to those petitions it has referred on. You may laugh, Hugh—

Our clerical staff would be good at that. They could provide a turnaround timetable and state when the petition had to be returned.

I am not the convener of the Public Petitions Committee. You might like to take that up with him. There was a strong feeling that the way in which petitions were dealt with in Westminster could be improved. That process was not open and transparent and, because of that, there has been a view that this is a better way forward.

If you look at previous meetings of the Public Petitions Committee, Hugh, you will see that the points that you and Richard have raised were raised several times by me in the initial meetings of the Public Petitions Committee. I know that you have better things to do with your time than to search out my words but, as a committee convener, I have the same concerns that you do. I can see what is going to happen in future when this route is better travelled by more people.

Can we refer our concerns to the Public Petitions Committee? Will you, convener, also tell the conveners group that this committee is concerned that the Public Petitions Committee should not be merely an administrative vehicle for passing petitions on to other committees, and then monitoring whether those other committees have examined the petitions?

The Public Petitions Committee should attempt to establish the role of Parliament and of specific committees in relation to specific issues, so that committees are charged with examination of those issues. Committees can then be held to account as to whether that has been achieved.

If the Public Petitions Committee is simply a pass-through mechanism, then 129 MSPs will use it to play a local publicity game and the system will grind to a halt. We must give added value to the process and, so far, I cannot see what added value we have been asked to contribute.

We should also, perhaps, refer our concerns to the Procedures Committee. That committee is examining a number of issues and this should be one of them.

Is that agreed to?

Members indicated agreement.

I agree that that is a fair point, but the structure should not be so rigid that people feel that they do not have access to it. Flexibility and discretion should be used occasionally and the Public Petitions Committee should not be seen as an obstacle.

The only danger is that flexibility and discretion are issues that are important to Mary Scanlon, but they might not mean the same to me. There will be 129 versions of flexibility and discretion.

We will make decisions issue by issue in regard to the petitions that are brought before us. We are concerned about the way in which the Public Petitions Committee must function and that is reasonable because our work plan might be swamped because of that.

This Parliament is trying to do things in a different way to Westminster and, although I can appreciate the thinking behind the actions of the Public Petitions Committee, we must say that it would be helpful if the Public Petitions Committee were more specific regarding the remit that they are passing forward. That committee should not simply take a petition lock, stock and barrel and pass it on.

You and I might be more likely to think of a petition as something which someone has gone round the doors with and collected 25,000 signatures on, but a petition can come from any member of the public in Scotland. There are petitions from individuals and petitions from 25,000 people. That provides wide scope to affect the work of the Parliament.

I would like to come back to the point. If we do that to the Public Petitions Committee, we must send them guidelines on what we feel we are competent to deal with. As a result, when a health petition comes before them, they will know what we will and will not consider.

Such guidelines will evolve.

No. I do not want to get into the specifics of the technicalities of the Public Petitions Committee, but we cannot do that at the moment, Ben. We will tell the Public Petitions Committee and, I hope, the Procedures Committee and the conveners group in what direction we think we are going to have to work. My understanding is that the Public Petitions Committee is there to pass petitions on. As far as I am aware, the only thing that that committee has said no to is a petition that was procedurally wrong.

What is the point of that?

I tried to outline to you the thinking in terms of openness and transparency.

If that committee is to be a sifter, then who decides on how the sift is done? Is that decided by the Public Petitions Committee or by the other committees?

We should put forward our general concerns about how the system functions. We can then hear back from the Public Petitions Committee and the Procedures Committee. If those committees require more information from us regarding those concerns, we will supply it. I will speak to Murray Tosh about this issue.

I would like to move the committee on to two of the main things that we still have to do in relation to the report. Section 4.2 asks us to consider part 5 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill and to agree the appointment of a reporter on the bill. The reporter will have to listen in to what the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is doing with the bill and will be able to attend that committee's meetings.

Would anybody be willing to act as a reporter?

I would volunteer, but I am a member of three committees at the moment so I will rule myself out.

I will rule myself out, too.

I am aware that there are members who would like to do this but will be unable to do so due to pressure of work.

It is difficult to cope with the work that we have.

We need to look at the timetable of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

In the absence of a volunteer, I should act as reporter. However, as the Parliamentary Bureau has not come to an agreement on the election of deputy conveners, if I even leave this room to go to the toilet, the meeting stops. If our committee has to meet at the same time as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I cannot be the reporter.

Would it be possible for the reporter simply to read copies of the Official Report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? Why does anyone have to attend the committee's meetings?

As you know, we have a problem in terms of the time that it takes for the Official Report to be published, which means that the reporter might not see a copy for a few days.

Another aspect is that a reporter who attended the meeting would be able to ask questions, as would other members of this committee who chose to attend.

There would be a time lag between the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the report of whoever had attended the committee anyway, so what are we losing?

That is true, but that time would allow them to formulate some of the points that were raised that were relevant to health.

I am not trying to be awkward but—

The reporter would serve as a sort of early warning system. Also, having a member of this committee attending that committee would allow us to ask questions at an early stage.

As you can imagine, Duncan, only having had since 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon to deal with this has not allowed us to come up with anything more than the suggestions that we have in front of us.

Do we have any volunteers at all?

What date is it?

We have a volunteer.

One never volunteers for anything in the army but I will volunteer for this because I cannot stand waffle and I want to get something done.

It is on a Tuesday morning, Ben.

I will do it.

We should all say thank you to Ben Wallace for agreeing to act as the reporter.

The clerks will give you a briefing after today's meeting, Ben.

Any members of this committee are welcome to attend the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 9 November.

Are we agreed that we can take the work programme on board, with the proviso that we will sort out the timetabling clashes?

Members indicated agreement.

I appreciate the patience of the committee members and, as Margaret Jamieson suggested, we will try to ensure that we are in a much better position to concentrate on the matter in hand in the new year.

Something has just occurred to me, although I might be making an elementary error. I have not read the minutes of the Finance Committee's last meeting—perhaps Richard Simpson can help me—but I understand that we have new procedures on budgets. I thought that committees had a role in scrutinising the budget at this stage. Will we have more work that we have not taken account of?

Not this year. We will have extra work next year, though.

So that is next year's learning curve.

I would like to draw the public part of the meeting to a close and move into private session to consider John Forbes's submission and to discuss the report without the presence of the official reporters and without the presence of the broadcasters.

Meeting continued in private.