Health Committee, 07 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Official Report 213KB pdf

---

Work Programme 2006-07

Agenda item 3 is the committee's work programme for 2006-07. Members have a paper on the work programme, which includes a discussion about the Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill and a series of recommendations.

We have been joined by Rosemary Byrne, who is the member in charge of the bill. Rosemary has some concerns about the handling of the bill and has written to me and the Presiding Officer on that, so I will invite her to comment later. Before I do, Duncan McNeil will make a proposal, and then we will discuss our work programme in general.

The committee will know from our previous discussions that I am keen to have something on the subject of Rosemary Byrne's Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill in the work programme, but I am obviously committed to accepting the recommendations in the paper because we do not have the time that we would need. We should, however, at the very least have a single meeting on the subject, which would acknowledge some of the work that has been done for the bill and the interest in and around it.

Okay. Are there any comments? I ask Rosemary Byrne to hold fire for the moment while I get comments from committee members.

The third paragraph of the letter that Rosemary Byrne sent to the Presiding Officer says that it would be ultra vires and not lawful if the committee did not consider the bill. Can anyone here advise us on whether that is the case?

We have discussed that: it is fair to say that the interpretation in Rosemary's letter is not shared by the current powers that be. As it happens—I say this just for the committee's benefit—Duncan McNeil made his proposal last week before the past 24 hours of lobbying. We did tell those in charge that the proposal had been made and that it was therefore possible that the committee would have a one-off meeting to discuss the subject. A fair interpretation of the advice that we have received is that Duncan McNeil's proposal would fulfil our obligations in relation to the standing orders.

Before we get too involved in this, I want to reiterate that it is those very standing orders that have created the difficulty for the committee in dealing with the bill in that they impose the timetable that makes it impossible for us to deal with the bill within the time that is allotted to us. I intend to bring that situation to the attention of the Procedures Committee—Rosemary Byrne has the right to feel aggrieved. Her bill is quite complex; it is by no means simple and straightforward and my view is that it was unfortunate that she was not given earlier advice that it should have been introduced earlier. I intend to raise with the Procedures Committee the matter of members introducing complicated bills late in a session during the run-up to an election.

The bill was not referred to us until the Thursday before the October recess; in other words, it came to us after we had met on the Tuesday and before a two-week recess. As a result, our first consideration of the bill was not until the final week of October. Various time limits in the standing orders make it almost impossible for the bill to progress even as far as stage 1. I hope that I have answered Kate Maclean's question.

There are constraints that are not of our making, so Duncan McNeil's suggestion is helpful. I presume that there would be nothing to prevent Rosemary Byrne from taking part in that one-off meeting and that there could be follow-up work—questions to the Executive, for example—so that the meeting was not simply us talking about the bill.

I intend to invite Rosemary Byrne to any such meeting, but that would by no means be a substitute for full consideration of the bill. We would have required at least four evidence sessions at stage 1, but we simply cannot manage that.

I agree with what colleagues have said. I read the papers for today's meeting and I noted a concern that we always note, which is to do with the period of public consultation. If we were to agree to go ahead, that period would be reduced to eight weeks, which is not acceptable for such an important issue.

I was caught up in a similar debacle with my bill on the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges, so I chose to continue my consultation for much longer than is prescribed by Parliament. We should accept Duncan McNeil's proposal and invite Rosemary Byrne to the meeting. The issue in the bill is important for the people of Scotland.

I make this point for Rosemary Byrne, because she is not a member of the committee. We allow 12 weeks for taking written evidence at stage 1 of a bill. We have considered a revised timetable that would reduce the consultation period to eight weeks. However, even had we managed to put out the call for evidence on 26 October—that is, on the very first day on which we considered the bill—the work on the bill could not have been completed until the middle of April, by which time Parliament will have been dissolved. Also, that eight-week consultation period would have included two weeks over Christmas and new year. I would have been loth to agree to that, because we would have been consulting when members of the public would not really be focused on what was happening. Unfortunately, that is the position that we are in.

The crux of the matter is that a lot of hard work will be lost because it was not made clear to Rosemary Byrne by the powers that be that there might not be enough time, depending on the committee to which the bill was referred. An e-mail that was sent to me hinted that other bills had come in later than Rosemary's but have proceeded. However, I suppose that that will have depended on the committees to which those bills were referred.

It is very unfair that work has been done but the committee does not have time to see it through. It makes us feel bad, because the issue is important.

I agree, which is why—assuming that the committee agrees to the recommendation—I intend to pursue the issue with the Procedures Committee.

If we discuss the bill for just one day, will Rosemary Byrne—providing that she is returned to Parliament—or someone else be able to progress the bill towards stage 1?

No. The bill would fall at dissolution and would need to be reintroduced.

Would the bill fall in any circumstances?

Even if we were to complete stage 1, the bill would fall, but we do not have capacity even to do that. It is now too late for the committee to consider the bill as we have dealt with previous members' bills, such as Colin Fox's Abolition of NHS Prescription Charges (Scotland) Bill, which we approved narrowly, and the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Bill, which we agreed should be passed. If we were to apply to Rosemary Byrne's bill the same standards that we applied to those bills, her bill simply could not achieve completion within the time that is available.

Although the paper on our work programme obviously contains other items for discussion, I appreciate that Rosemary Byrne's bill is the most important of those. Duncan McNeil has made a serious proposition that relates to paragraph 21, which suggests that the committee undertake a number of one-off hearings on specific subjects. Originally, we had thought of doing some follow-up hearings, in which we could sweep up some of the issues that we have worked on over the past few years that are still hanging around and on which we could still do further work. Basically, Duncan McNeil's proposal is that one of those one-off hearings be on Rosemary Byrne's bill. In that hearing, we might raise a number of specific issues for correspondence in which we could ask questions for further clarification. As I see it, Duncan McNeil's proposal is probably the only way in which the committee can address some of the issues in Rosemary Byrne's bill within the timescales that are available.

Paragraph 22 of the paper lists some issues that were originally in our heads as possible subjects for one-off hearings. All those issues follow on from work that the committee has already done. We need to choose which subjects to follow up.

I think that all committee members who wanted to do so have now spoken, so I offer Rosemary Byrne the opportunity to speak.

I thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I appreciate the fact that committee members seem to have quite a bit of sympathy with the aims of the bill but, nevertheless, as Roseanna Cunningham said, I am extremely angry and annoyed that Parliament has not guided members—I know that I am not the only member who has been in this situation—correctly and properly on the timescales for members' bills.

The first point that I want to make is that, by putting in a great deal of work, we met the timescale that we were given, which put a lot of pressure on all the people who were involved. We also consulted within the timescale that we were given. We received a huge number of responses from all sorts of people and organisations, including families who have been affected by drugs, the Scottish Drugs Forum and Professor Neil McKeganey. All those people endorsed the bill and some of them added that the measures in it are very much needed. People in communities throughout Scotland welcomed the bill.

After receiving endorsement across the board in the consultation, the bill has raised many expectations that it would open up a debate at stage 1, during which witnesses would be able to give evidence to Parliament, and that we could move on from there.

I feel that the whole committee structure and democracy of Parliament have now been put in question. One of the jewels in the Parliament's crown is the committee system, which allows members to introduce members' bills. It is a disgrace if we are misled into doing all the consultation and research—which is time and resource intensive—at taxpayers' expense.

Although I appreciate that the committee is sympathetic to my position, I question its view of the legal situation. I would like the matter to be discussed and re-examined. As Roseanna Cunningham said, I have written to the Presiding Officer. A number of issues must be addressed.

I do not know whether all members have seen the letter that I sent, which shows that standing orders make a clear distinction. Rule 9.5.1 states that the procedure for a bill

"shall be … consideration of the Bill's general principles".

The rules go on to say that the lead committee

"shall consider and report on the general principles of the Bill".

In other words, the committee is directed not simply to report on, but to consider, the general principles of the bill.

I could read out the obligations of the Parliamentary Bureau, but I appreciate that such matters must be taken to the bureau. I question the way in which the committee wishes to proceed and I seek to enter a dialogue with the Presiding Officer, the bureau and the legal team. I realise that the committee has a demanding workload—I am a member of a committee that has a heavy workload, so I know what that is like. However, I ask the committee to re-examine its workload and to consider whether it could fit in a few extra meetings. I do not suggest that lightly; I appreciate that everyone is under pressure.

The Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill is a significant bill that has raised expectations. More important, consideration of it would open up the debate. Last week, Professor McKeganey's report said that only 4 per cent of people on methadone emerge successfully from the programme. The bill also deals with child protection and family support. Another report has come out today that tells us that substance misuse is a huge factor in abuse of children. I could talk at length on all those points.

It is time for us to consider legislation on the treatment of drug users. The bill seeks to open up the debate and to give us an avenue for such consideration.

I want a number of things to be done. I want to re-examine, with the legal team and the Presiding Officer, the legality of the present situation. I want to discuss the matter with the bureau and to re-examine its recommendation, which is not correct from a legal point of view. In addition, I ask the committee to think about making available more room for consideration of the bill, if that is possible. It is not for me to say whether that will mean extra meetings, but I suggest it as a possible solution. I appreciate Duncan McNeil's offer that the committee hold a one-off hearing on the bill, although at the moment I would obviously prefer the bill to go through stage 1.

I reiterate that we are already dealing with two bills. The first is a major Executive bill on which we have yet to publish our stage 1 report and to deal with stage 2. On the second, we have only just come to the end of stage 1 evidence. That means that we are in quite a difficult position. I cannot speak for other committees because I do not know what their legislative workloads are. There may be issues about how the matter has been handled.

When I received Rosemary Byrne's letter, I asked for advice on some of the issues that she raised. I appreciate that there may be further discussions to be had, but my understanding is that the word "consider" is not defined in standing orders, that it has simply been the convention that consideration has been undertaken through the formal stage 1 process and report, and that that is not mandated. That is why we think that what Duncan McNeil has proposed would satisfy the consideration requirement in standing orders. That is the present position.

I appreciate Rosemary Byrne's desire for the bill to be considered fully but, as we have explained, that simply cannot happen before dissolution. In effect, we are being asked to begin work on a bill that we know cannot complete its parliamentary passage. In those circumstances, I must question how we deal with parliamentary time.

I ask Rosemary Byrne to consider that, in the short term, the one-off meeting is a compromise that is, although she would rather not have to make it, nevertheless better than nothing at all.

The issue is not just to do with members' time; I am sure that every member of the committee would be quite happy to have extra sessions, as we have done at times over the past three and a half years. Even if we were to complete stage 1, it would be the time for consultation that would be curtailed. As the convener said, our call for written evidence takes 12 weeks, and we would probably need four meetings for the oral evidence that we would want to hear; there just is not the time to conduct that level of consultation and to complete stage 1.

Rosemary Byrne is asking that stage 1 be completed, in the knowledge that all three stages cannot be completed, in order to raise awareness and start the debate. Those would be good things to do, but I would be interested to hear Rosemary outline what she thinks would be an appropriate timetable. I would not want to curtail public involvement and I would not want the people who have e-mailed us about the issue to think that it is because members of the Health Committee are not prepared to put in a few extra sessions that the bill will not complete its passage. The evidence of the past three and a half years shows that that simply is not the case. We cannot embark on that process because we would not be able to do the bill justice, in terms of consulting the public, and because it would be impossible to get through the three stages of the bill. Nevertheless, if Rosemary can tell us how she feels the bill could be fitted into our timetable before the end of March, I would be interested to hear that.

I agree with everything that Kate Maclean said. The added complication is that everyone, including Rosemary Byrne, acknowledges that, even if we did complete stage 1, the bill would certainly fall. The communications that we have received also say that there would be a genuine risk that our consideration of the bill could be misunderstood by the public, and might even prejudice its later consideration. That serious issue needs to be borne in mind.

Every MSP has had a chance to introduce two bills during the past four years. When we introduce an important bill, even at the last gasp—we are in the final months of this session of Parliament—we need to reflect on what we could have done in the previous three years, rather than having left what is clearly an important issue to the last minute. You are right, convener, and Shona Robison is right to say that everyone around the table has gone the extra mile for the committee whenever that has been asked of us. However, even if we did go the extra mile again to complete stage 1, the bill would fall anyway, so I do not see that there would be any benefit in doing that.

I repeat that I have worked within the programme and timescale that I was given by the Parliament. I cannot say any more than that I did, with good will, what we were advised to do. I worked with the non-Executive bills unit to ensure that we met the deadlines. I believe that there is therefore a responsibility, on the committee or on the bureau, to explain to me why my bill cannot complete its passage. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the bill's falling at stage 1. I want the bill to go as far as the Parliament will allow it to go. I do not think that it is within the gift of the committee to say that it will not take the bill to stage 1 or that, if it does take it to stage 1, it will not go any further. I am still working within the timescales that I was given by the Parliament—

I will have to cut you off, Rosemary. The fact is that the timescales that are now available to the committee make that impossible. I sympathise with the position in which you find yourself. One of the recommendations is that I should take the matter up with the Procedures Committee. It is a ridiculous position that we are all in; however, the fact is that, at this point, the committee is simply not in a position to take the bill forward. We are talking about a process that simply cannot be achieved. In the circumstances, we are in as difficult a position as you are in.

All that I can say is that you will have the support of some members of the Health Committee in respect of any representations that you might wish to make about the process that has brought us here. With the best will in the world, we cannot create the capacity to process the bill in the time that has been allotted to us. We would, effectively, have had to dump almost all our work from the past couple of weeks in order even to conclude stage 1 procedure. That shows how difficult the situation is for us.

The problem for me is that, having followed the rules and done everything correctly, I cannot concede that the bill should not go any further. You will understand my position. I must fight as hard as I can for the bill to be taken further. I acknowledge the difficulties that the committee has with its workload and given timescale, but I cannot sit here and concede that the bill should not go any further. I have worked to the instructions and advice that I was given. We are in a difficult position—I appreciate that—and I think that the matter must be referred to the Presiding Officer and the bureau before any decision is made. That is what I seek. I ask that the committee make no decision until we have taken further advice from the bureau, the Presiding Officer and the legal team. I ask you to bear with me on that.

I will not allow the committee not to agree our forward work programme today. That would put us in an impossible position. If subsequent discussions change the work programme, we will put the bill back on the agenda for another discussion; however, I am not sure whether that will happen. In the meantime, we must start to make provision for our forward work programme.

I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive. We can agree our forward work programme and also agree that we would like those discussions to take place about the concerns that Rosemary Byrne has raised. I do not want the committee to be left with the blame for not proceeding with the bill, as that would be entirely unfair. It is important that, if blame is to be apportioned for the way in which the situation has arisen, it is directed to the right place. We can agree our forward work programme while also agreeing that discussions should take place with the Procedures Committee about how the situation arose and what the resolution to it is. I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive.

That is a recommendation.

We need to be careful that we are not creating a false expectation. The bureau can decide what it wants. The decision that the committee has made is that it cannot consider the bill.

I am not agreeing to reserve the position of the committee on the matter; I want us to decide today. That includes deciding on Duncan McNeil's proposal and—because we have not reached recommendations—on my taking the issue up with the Procedures Committee as a matter of principle. The same principle will apply to other members' bills as well, at this stage, depending on the committee to which they are referred.

To clarify, my suggestion is that, as part of the agreement today, the convener should be given the committee's backing to go to the Procedures Committee to raise our concerns about the way in which the process has been handled, so that we can make our dissatisfaction known. I am merely making the point that I do not want it to appear in any way that the situation is the committee's responsibility or fault, when it clearly is not. Part of the decision-making process should be for us to give the convener our backing to put our view on that to the Procedures Committee. That would not prevent us from agreeing to the other pieces of work that we have to do.

I disagree strongly with Shona Robison on the issue. We have had four years as elected members to introduce what we regard as important proposals. If we then introduce a proposal at the last possible moment—as Rosemary Byrne has done and as Bruce Crawford and I have done—that is our responsibility, not that of other committee members. The Parliament may want to change the general principle in the standing orders, but the fact is that the rules have been made clear to us. With my bill proposal, the advice that I received from the non-Executive bills unit was clear on the timescales. As an elected member, I accepted those timescales but, knowing that the issues that I am pursuing are still important to me and to the people I represent, I will continue to press forward with my proposal. If I am elected again—God and the electors willing—I will continue with that proposal in the next session of Parliament.

I would accept the recommendations—

I would like to move on. We have not put the recommendations yet—we will come to them. Rosemary Byrne may make one final point, after which we need to decide what to cover in the one-off sessions, separately from the issues of Rosemary Byrne's bill.

I reiterate for Helen Eadie that I followed the rules and the procedures. The reason why I waited to propose the bill was because of the Executive's multiple promises on drug treatment. I have considered the proposals throughout. As members know, I have spoken in debates on the issue over and over. I was compelled to introduce the bill at the stage that I did because the indications are that Executive policy is clearly not working, so we have to do something radical. I was patient and I waited, because promises were made. I followed the procedures and the timescales that were given.

Duncan McNeil has proposed that we have a one-off session on the issues that are raised in the bill. Some other possible issues that we might consider in the one-off sessions are listed in paragraph 22 of the paper on the work programme. Is there any strong feeling about the primacy or otherwise of any of those issues? Obviously, we will add to the list Duncan McNeil's proposal on Rosemary Byrne's bill.

That depends on whether we have three or four one-off sessions.

There will be three.

Is that including the session on the Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill?

There will be three sessions, including the one on the bill. That leaves two spaces.

Okay. I would like to revisit free personal care. I am also interested in considering prescription charges and the dental strategy, on which there are on-going questions and issues that were to be dealt with by the Executive and which we would like to know about. It is possible that some of the issues could be dealt with differently, perhaps by correspondence.

So you suggest that we consider the Executive's review of free personal care when the outcome is published early in the new year.

Yes.

Do other members have specific comments?

I would like to consider the smoking ban.

I was going to suggest that we consider free personal care and the smoking ban.

I suggest that we tackle free personal care and prescription charges.

I would like to do free personal care, the smoking ban and prescription charges.

This is a kind of bidding process. Do we all agree with Duncan McNeil's proposal to have one of the sessions on Rosemary Byrne's bill?

Yes.

I do not agree.

Okay. We will note that Euan Robson dissents.

I suggest that one of the other sessions should be on the Executive's review of free personal care? Is everybody happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We now have to decide whether to consider the smoking ban or prescription charges. Will those in favour of considering the smoking ban please raise their hands? I see six members in favour of that. Will those in favour of considering prescription charges please raise their hands? There are two. Therefore, the third one-off session will be on the smoking ban.

We now move to the recommendations in paragraph 24 of the paper on the work programme, which will have to be amended slightly from what is printed. The first recommendation is that we note the committee's existing commitments. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

The second recommendation is that I write to the Procedures Committee outlining our concern about and dissatisfaction with the existing deadline for the introduction of members' bills, in the light of our experience with the Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill. Do members agree to that?

Members indicated agreement.

The third recommendation is that we undertake a one-off hearing on the issues that are raised by the Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill, on the basis that it will not be possible for the bill to complete its progress in this session of Parliament. Do members agree to that?

Yes.

I dissent.

One member dissents.

Do members agree to undertake two one-off hearings in 2007 on issues on which the committee has already done work, as well as the one that we have just agreed to carry out on the Treatment of Drug Users (Scotland) Bill, and to report to the Parliament thereafter?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree that the other hearings will be on the Executive's review of free personal care and on the impact of the smoking ban?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to ask the clerks to produce a revised work programme on the basis of the agreements that have been reached and to publish that on the committee's web page?

Members indicated agreement.

That ends our public business for today.

Meeting continued in private until 16:11.