Official Report 109KB pdf
Item 4 on the agenda is our approach to developing a work programme. Members have substantial paperwork on the previous committee's legacy paper and the sports issue that is now tied into the committee's remit. Before I ask for brief comments, I refer members to page 10 of the briefing pack, which contains a breakdown of the percentages of time that the previous Health Committee spent on various activities, as a steer for what we can do. I cannot find page 10. I am told that it is in the green paper. Have all members located it? It shows the percentage of time that the Health Committee in the previous session spent on various things. I ask members to look at that, and also at the list of anticipated legislation on page 23.
It is evident that we will not come to a decision today. We need time to reflect on the legacy paper and we need to meet to discuss the various options.
Indeed. You anticipated what I was going to say. It would be useful to have a meeting before the recess for that very purpose. It would be useful to get the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing or the Minister for Public Health and the Minister for Communities and Sport so that we get a steer on the forthcoming legislation and issues. I agree with Ross Finnie—it would be useful to hear from the cabinet secretary so that we do not prepare a work programme only to be presented with legislation that we had not anticipated.
You hit the nail on the head. We need to know what legislation is forthcoming. It would be interesting to have a conversation with the cabinet secretary or the ministers, but the key thing that we need to know in order to decide on our work programme is what legislation is forthcoming—in so far as they can tell us that—and roughly when it will be referred to the committee. We could find that out through correspondence. I am not averse to having a conversation with the ministers, but I am open-minded about whether we need to do that next week. The important thing is to get the information about the legislation in one way or another.
I understand that there will be five bills, including one on no-fault compensation in the national health service, which is likely to be complex. Given the time that the Health Committee in the previous session spent on bills, I am concerned that we allow enough time to consider the legislation. I would like to know the timetable and remit for the forthcoming bill on public health. I am not sure whether it will be a review or a complete update, but public health is one of the major health issues in Scotland. Before we agree to hold any inquiries or to do anything else, I would like to know the extent of the Executive's intentions for the public health bill.
We could write to the minister and simply have a note to the committee, if members agree, although we are required to meet next week in any event. I am in your hands.
I would be interested to know what the agenda for next week might contain if it did not involve an appearance by the minister. I put it in those terms because the briefing that we have had from the clerks suggests that the substantial decisions that we will need to make about the work programme should be made separately. I like the idea of an away day that will give close consideration to that in a slightly less formal format than in a meeting of the committee. If it is the committee's view that we should determine our work programme in that context, the question is, what would we be doing next week other than hearing from a minister?
I can answer that. There are four negative instruments which, if we did not consider them, would come into force without our seeing them. That would not be good practice. I will read them all out—I ask members to bear with me. They are the Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/303), the Health Protection Agency (Scottish Health Functions) Amendment Order 2007 (SSI 2007/316), the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/317) and the Addition of Vitamins, Minerals and Other Substances (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/325).
It would be helpful to have the minister here at the outset. Most of us are new to the committee. It is quite a change and there has not been just a continuation of the previous Government. It would be helpful in every way to have a discussion with the minister before we set out our work programme.
That is absolutely fine. We will write to the cabinet secretary.
I am happy to support that but, in writing to the minister, it is important that we state that are looking for something that will help us to determine our work programme—in other words, the timetabling of legislation that Mary Scanlon mentioned.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary's staff will read the Official Report of the meeting—or will be listening even as we speak.
I share your confidence.
We have agreed what we are doing next week.
It is an important measure, but I do not think that it is proving to be particularly controversial. I may be wrong about that, but my impression is that everybody supports it. Therefore, it is not particularly urgent to hear lots of evidence on it.
I understood that there were some serious misgivings among those who serve on the Scottish Youth Parliament. That is extraordinary, but nonetheless it is a fact, so it might be not unimportant to hear their view at least. I am not aware of the substance of that view, but I was given to understand that there were misgivings.
Perhaps we could ask for some written evidence, but I do not know whether we would have it in time to make a decision on taking oral evidence. If some groups are satisfied, we would not need to speak to them but, if others have issues with the instrument, we could call them before us. What are members' views?
What do you know of the timetable?
We have to consider and take a view on the instrument before 17 September. I am advised that after we return from the summer recess, we will have just two meetings before that date.
We could circulate the consultation material submitted to the Executive. Members could look at that and then take a view on whether they want to call for evidence.
That sounds sensible.
So we will see whether anyone wants to make submissions before we take a view.
We need to see any submissions and then decide—it might well be that we do not need to do much more with the matter.
Some of those who were mentioned, including the Scottish Youth Parliament, were consulted by the Executive.
That is important. There might be enforcement issues as a result of the instrument. Although I do not know much about it, I take it that it will create a criminal offence. In addition to enforcement issues there will be evidential and corroborative issues. It is sometimes the little things that we miss that cause trouble later. We will ask for written submissions and we will take a view—
We can circulate the submissions that have already been made to the Executive as part of the consultation, including one from the Scottish Youth Parliament.
Are there any others? Did the Scottish Youth Parliament send in a submission?
Yes, it did.
Let us talk about the away day. I hasten to add for the record that it will not be fun and parlour games; it will be a work day. I assume that members have fixed their holidays. Suggested dates are 28 and 29 August, which will be just before we come back, so I anticipate that most members will be available at that time. I ask members to check their diaries before we convene next.
I ask members to consider a paper that suggests options for places where we might have our away day. I ask for your answers and any other suggestions that you might have. However, bear it in mind that we have finite resources and that the heavy hand of freedom of information legislation is on our shoulders whenever we breathe. That is pretty much it, I think.
Sorry for coming in late, but when you mentioned topics for consideration, it reminded me that I would like to discuss the Howat report—although I appreciate that this committee is not the place to do that. However, perhaps when the minister comes to the committee next week she will be able to give us an idea of when the budget will be available for us to scrutinise. I think that I am right in saying that it will be introduced in September. I do not want us to miss the opportunity to scrutinise the budget.
I note the remarks in the legacy paper—they would be corroborated by many other committees—about the budget process not always being satisfactory for committees. We note your comments too.
I was on the Finance Committee for the last three months of the previous session. One of the recommendations in that committee's legacy paper was that subject committees should consider appointing a budget adviser, because it was mindful that the budget was an area into which subject committees had not been able to go in great detail. Perhaps that can also be considered at the appropriate time.
Yes. When I chaired a previous Health Committee, we had a budget adviser who gave us difficult questions to ask the ministers and explained to us what lines of figures really meant. That was very useful. I notice that the previous Health Committee made considerable use of advisers, which is a worthy pursuit. We can put consideration of the principle of appointing a budget adviser on next week's agenda and talk about the details later.
We will tell Karen Gillon that she missed only five minutes.
Meeting closed at 10:20.
Previous
Deputy Convener