Item 4 is to decide whether to do anything further on the Public Health etc (Scotland) Bill in light of submissions that we have received. We decided previously on level 1 scrutiny for the bill, but the submissions that we have received raise some substantive issues. The clerk's paper suggests two alternative options for the committee to consider: that we forward the written evidence to the lead committee with a recommendation that the issues be raised with the Scottish Government; or that we take evidence and produce a report.
I have a suggestion. I presume that we wrote to all the health boards, but only two of the 14 were sufficiently concerned to write back to us, and only one of those expressed concerns. Therefore, we should follow option 1 in the paper. We should raise with the lead committee the concerns that have been expressed and not go to level 3 scrutiny, as the concern that has been reflected is insufficient for such a change. We will also be extremely busy at the beginning of January with other business, as you have said.
That is an excellent suggestion. Do members agree with it?
I agree with Elaine Murray's analysis of the response, but that response concerns me. We do not know whether NHS Lothian has taken a different view because it has considered the financial memorandum at a different depth or because it has pressures that are different from those of other boards, which it may well have. We should consider the depth of its concern.
I certainly agree that a substantive issue has been raised. We should consider how to get some purchase on that issue and ensure that it is properly scrutinised. However, if we pass the evidence on to the lead committee, surely we would do so with a recommendation that it should take on board what has been said and scrutinise it appropriately.
I presume that we must report on the financial memorandum. I wonder whether we will get enough evidence to fulfil that role.
We will not report on it because level 1 scrutiny has been adopted.
Right. However, on the basis of what has been said, the question is whether level 1 scrutiny is appropriate. We have sought and received evidence, and half of the evidence in front of us shows that there could be a significant problem. On that basis, and given that financial memoranda have often been significantly wrong in the past, should we not take a cautious approach?
What do you suggest?
To be frank, I am firmly leaning towards option 2.
So you want the committee to take oral evidence. It may be a while before we do so. We could consider the financial memorandum in a specialised way, and the lead committee could simply be alerted to the responses. Committees have their own finance advisers now—
I think that they are for the budget process.
What are committee members' views?
I take Derek Brownlee's point, but in view of the totality of organisations that could have responded, we must put the response in perspective. One organisation has expressed reasonably strong concerns, but it is on its own.
One might not expect some of the smaller health boards to be as concerned about the potential implications of the bill as the larger health boards, such as NHS Lothian. That is where my concerns lie. Perhaps NHS Lothian has simply taken a view that completely diverges from those of the rest of the health boards. I do not know.
I suggest a compromise. I am good at compromises.
Go for it.
Why do we not write to the other health boards? We would have to write to only 12 of them, as we have also received a submission from NHS Ayrshire and Arran. We could enclose a copy of NHS Lothian's comments and ask whether they agree that the situation is as serious as NHS Lothian has said it is. We would not send out a general invitation—we could ask them to reply before Christmas and we would chase up replies. If the other health boards say that NHS Lothian is absolutely right, it would be incumbent on us to take oral evidence, but if they say that they do not share its concerns and that its concerns are exaggerated, we should go with option 1.
That would work.
NHS Lothian's submission also refers to the Scottish directors of public health. That group's evidence might also be helpful.
Are members agreed that we take that action?
Will we write to NHS Lothian about this decision? After all, we might as well flag up to the board that we are going to use its evidence to go on this fishing exercise.
That is fair enough. It should not be a problem.
Previous
Public Sector Pay