Health and Community Care Committee, 23 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000

Official Report 139KB pdf

---

Forward Work Plan

We now move on to item 3. Members should note the attached report, but I want to bring to their attention some of the issues in it.

The Justice and Home Affairs Committee has indicated that amendments to part 5 of the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill will be considered on 29 February and 1 March. I understand that more than 50 amendments to part 5 have been lodged and therefore it is likely that consideration of part 5 will stretch over both days. Members of the committee and I will want to attend those meetings on this committee's behalf, to speak to amendments. We have decided to suggest that the Health and Community Care Committee should not meet on 1 March, to allow members to attend the Justice and Home Affairs Committee meeting. I hope that that is agreeable to members.

The fact that so many amendments to part 5 have been lodged shows that that legislation is probably being considered by the wrong committee. The hefty controversy over the care of patients is a matter that belongs to this committee. Standing orders do not prohibit the establishment of a full joint committee. We could do that in future.

My view, although it is not based on evidence, is that because it was one of the first bills to come through, they wanted to simplify the process by taking it through one committee rather than through a joint committee. Time and hindsight, however, have shown that you are right, Ben, and that it should have been at least a joint committee bill, if not a Health and Community Care Committee bill.

While we are discussing processes, I want to raise another point. The original evidence, which to some extent was taken jointly, because we were invited to attend the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, was taken on the basis of the bill as published. Unusually, amendments were then made at stage 1, which does not happen at Westminster. The effect was that a number of community groups that had no objection to the bill as published had objections after evidence had been taken.

When we consider the processes for this Parliament, we must consider how to take further evidence when such changes occur. This committee did take further evidence, which was helpful, but we must make the meeting of conveners and the people who organise standing orders and processes aware of the need to be careful.

I want to follow that up. We heard evidence from Alzheimer Scotland and Parent Pressure. As far as I could see, everybody was, if not fully, at least half persuaded by what they said. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee refused to hear them on the ground that they heard their evidence before stage 1, which in one way is a consistent position.

I know that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is a busy committee so I do not want to criticise it, but, as Richard Simpson says, the changes made at stage 1 meant that a whole lot of people had an interest in the bill who had not previously had one. Convener, will you convey the Health and Community Care Committee's conclusions on those evidence sessions to others, which will at least enable us to feed the evidence into the process?

Following our evidence session with Alzheimer Scotland, Parent Pressure and the Scottish Law Commission, I pointed out to the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that we had taken extra evidence. I picked up on the point that Richard Simpson has made that that evidence was important, because the Executive had made substantive changes. None of us is saying that the Executive should not be prepared to change its mind if it is persuaded to go in a different direction following consultation. That may create a set of problems for us, but we do not suggest that the Executive should not listen to what people say.

I asked the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to draw the attention of members of that committee to the work of the Health and Community Care Committee. When I address the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I will try to make reference to the difficulties that section 47 has given the committee. I am happy to put that in writing to the clerk and the convener of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, but some of our concerns have already been passed on verbally.

Let us move on. The committee has been asked to note the intention to hold a briefing on 29 March on the budget process. The Scottish Parliament information centre and the clerks are making moves behind the scenes to provide us with guidelines on what we are and are not expected to do and how we can be assisted, as this is the first time that committees have had the chance to examine budgets.

Is the committee happy to agree, in principle, to recommend to the Parliamentary Bureau the appointment of a short-term adviser to advise us during the budget process? As this is the first year that we have had to deal with the budget process, a short-term adviser would be useful. If I could have the committee's agreement in principle we can pursue that possibility. Although there are guidelines for how committees deal with the budget process, each committee is likely to look at it in a different way. We will be considering a very large and very emotive budget. We need more information on what we can and cannot do.

Apart from the briefing session, there are five weeks planned for us to discuss the budget proposals. What input are you expecting us to make?

It should become clear from the informal briefing session on the budget process what witnesses the committee may wish to call. They could be from the Scottish Executive and sections of the health community.

I am new to this, so you will have to excuse me—

We all are.

What budget proposals are we discussing? 2000-01?

2001-02.

At our briefing on 29 March we can ask questions about how we are meant to proceed. None of us has dealt with the budget process before. It is new to this Parliament that committees have such a role—no parliamentary committee at Westminster has that power, as I understand it.

Can we question the budget priorities?

Yes, I think so.

I am concerned because unavoidably we have been slow to get our community care inquiry started. After the three evidence sessions on community care between now and 5 April, we lose sight of it for two months so that, at the beginning of June, with a month before the recess, that is all that we will have done. That is not acceptable. We should intersperse the budget meetings in April and May with meetings on community care. We should discuss how to proceed, but I hope that we can produce something by the recess, even if only an interim report. Members of the public and of the committee will feel frustrated if we study the subject for six months and make so little progress.

I agree with Malcolm's suggestion. I am as in the dark as other committee members. Once the committee has been briefed on the budget process, we may decide that we want only one meeting about it. I am flagging it up at this point as something on which we could take evidence—we may want to take that evidence over several weeks. Is it acceptable that in April we cover the budget proposals and community care, plus other business as it arises?

Members indicated agreement.

One of our problems with the community care inquiry has been that we have not had special advisers in place. The money has been set aside and we have been given the go-ahead to appoint them, so, although I cannot say who they will be or whether they have accepted, I hope that we will have special advisers in place before our first evidence session on 8 March.

What is the process—will you come back to the committee with a range of names that the committee can examine?

That has already been done. We asked people for suggestions about two or three months ago.

Are you saying that there is no more input on the committee side?

There was input in the sense that members of the committee suggested people whom they would be happy with. I do not want to go into a sort of competitive tendering process, but on this occasion we have had difficulty. I have told the conveners committee—and through it the bureau—that, when we are looking for special advisers, we do not necessarily have a big pool to choose from. People who are experts in their field tend not to sit around, twiddling their thumbs and waiting for us to ask them to get involved in something for several months. When you have a shorter—

Sorry to interrupt, but I am worried that we have a massive programme this morning.

I am trying to explain that there has been a fairly long-winded process. It has been pointed out to the bureau that it should streamline the tendering process, because of the difficulties that committees face in attracting and paying for special advisers. The bureau has accepted that and is starting to streamline the process. Until now, we have been working with the old process, which has been cumbersome. I am happy to discuss this with Mr Hamilton in private, after the meeting.

If everybody else is happy with that change in April, I move to the substantive part of our—

I wish to make two points. First, on the forward work plan, although I am mindful of what Richard Simpson has said, there are still matters outstanding relating to cross-cutting issues in committees. A report on that is due from the conveners committee; it would be useful to know where that will fit into the work plan.

Secondly, would it be useful at some stage to put down a date for interim reports on each of the sub-groups? Otherwise, that will simply slip off the agenda again.

I think that we have agreed to all those points. Matters are in hand and we will know more the next time that we consider this issue.

My point is that until we have a definite date for the reports, the matter will tend to spiral.

I will ensure that that matter comes before us at the next meeting, when we may be less pushed for time.