Health and Sport Committee, 27 Jun 2007

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Official Report 193KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/303)<br />Health Protection Agency (Scottish Health Functions) Amendment Order 2007 <br />(SSI 2007/316)

---

National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/317)<br />Addition of Vitamins, Minerals and Other Substances (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/325)

The next item is consideration of four negative instruments. The Subordinate Legislation Committee considered them yesterday, and had no comments to make. Do members have any comments?

Is your silence an affirmation that you have no comments to make?

Indeed.

I wanted to seek clarification from a minister on a certain matter. However, as no ministers are present, I have no comment to make.

These are negative instruments, so a minister is not present to answer any questions. It is merely a paper exercise.

I appreciate that. I simply wanted some clarification.

As members have no comments and no motions to annul have been lodged, is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendation on these four instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (Variation of Age Limit for Sale of Tobacco etc and Consequential Modifications) Order 2007 (draft)

Item 5 is consideration of an affirmative instrument, which means that we can take evidence on it if we so wish. Annex A of paper HS/S3/07/02/6 sets out the responses to the Scottish Executive consultation on varying the age limit for purchasing tobacco—in other words, annex A sets out the consultation findings. Annex B contains a note of the previous Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care's meeting with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament.

I remind committee members that we are required to report to Parliament on this draft order by 17 September, which means that, if we wish, we can deal with it at our first meeting back and at our second meeting on 12 September. I am in the committee's hands.

As I said last week, this committee has a potentially enormous agenda—indeed, we began to touch on that when we were questioning Nicola Sturgeon—which means that at the away day we will have to make some hard choices about what we should concentrate on. We should not feel that we have to go into great detail on every single issue that comes before us. The fact is that this piece of legislation not only has support across the Parliament but, given the various responses, is overwhelmingly supported by stakeholders throughout Scotland. Although one or two groups—I am thinking of one in particular—have reservations about it, that does not justify our taking oral evidence on the matter. I hope that we can deal with it on 17 September simply by recommending that the draft order be approved.

It is up to the committee to decide whether to bring in a minister to comment on an affirmative instrument. We are not required to do so.

I certainly share Malcolm Chisholm's views on the matter, although I wonder whether we can seek written clarification from the minister about enforcement. A number of small shopkeepers have told me that, although they support the proposal, they are concerned that, if a nationally accepted proof-of-age card, for example, is not introduced, they will find it difficult to differentiate between customers who are below the age limit and those who are above it, and that they might then be subject to abuse. Perhaps we can move such issues forward.

I might disagree with Malcolm Chisholm on some of the issues that are covered in our papers. It could be useful to have a short round-table discussion with some of the people who contributed responses. Enforcement issues were raised, as was the matter of funding to local authorities. Trading standards bodies will require more funding. The issues around the proof-of-age card have not really been resolved in the consultation.

Small shopkeepers have expressed concern about the behaviour in shops of young people who are able to purchase cigarettes at present but who will be prevented in the future from doing so. There are some unresolved issues around that. Some responses suggest that, as psychiatrists and others have said, although the message is welcome, there is no evidence that raising the age limit actually reduces smoking. Those are just some observations. It might be worth having some people contribute their ideas on enforcement, funding and so on.

I am with Malcolm Chisholm on this issue. There is cross-party support for the proposals, and there is a danger that, in spite of the committee's potentially heavy workload, we will get drawn into issues that we do not really need to examine in detail. I do not see what difference the change in the minimum age from 16 to 18 will make as regards the number of trading standards officers who have to deal with the matter. The same people will deal with it—it is just a matter of the minimum age moving from 16 to 18.

Karen Gillon made a valid point about the national proof-of-age card. The issue goes wider, however—it also concerns the alcohol strategy and the attempts to tackle underage drinking. I suspect that the Justice Committee will have an interest in the matter, too. We might be able to deal with the issue in correspondence with the minister, but I would be reluctant to consider the matter in any further detail.

I take the same view. Karen Gillon's suggestion that some of the issues could be addressed in correspondence with ministers in advance of our further considerations is helpful. I have to declare an interest—I was the minister who held the meeting that is covered in annex B to our paper. It is fair to say that the Executive and the Gruer group conducted fairly extensive consultation on the proposals before they reached this stage.

However, some valid issues have been raised this morning around implementation and enforcement, and those issues will apply across the board. Given that the cabinet secretary has indicated to us today that a public health bill is being produced, I would be surprised if there was no opportunity in the context of that bill for the committee to explore enforcement issues around tobacco, alcohol and related matters.

I confirm that the matter is not contentious from my party's point of view, although we are concerned about enforcement. Sitting on the fence like that, I feel like a Liberal, but I agree with Malcolm Chisholm, in that I do not want to create work for the sake of it. That said, I am sort of on the convener's side, too. Sometimes, the devil is in the detail, and I would like some commitment to be made on enforcement and so on. We could have a short discussion on the matter—I do not think that we will need two full meetings. I suggest that we allocate a short period to a round-table discussion on the issues that will be raised in the eight weeks between now and September, when the subject will be discussed out in the open.

Ross Finnie is next. Try to desist from making fence-related remarks.

I will try to do that—I suggest to Mary Scanlon only that although she might be feeling some pain, she has arrived at the wrong diagnosis.

Like other members, I think that taking extensive evidence from witnesses is not appropriate in this case. I should point out that, on 14 June, I had an oral question answered by the Solicitor General for Scotland. He revealed that in relation to underage sales of tobacco, over the past year, only

"11 people were subject to court proceedings".—[Official Report, 14 June 2007; c 789.]

That is completely out of kilter with the other evidence that attracted our attention to the matter. The issue of enforcement remains tricky. The other parts of the Solicitor General's response, which concerned other measures, were interesting. If our whole intention is genuinely to reduce smoking among younger people, we must be a little clearer about how raising the purchasing age will affect their smoking. The answer that was given is not helpful on that, although it points to the need for further information.

We will have the opportunity to resolve the small but important matters that have arisen in the discussion on other occasions with the Justice Committee and in the public health bill. We must be careful, because any time that we spend on one thing is time that we cannot spend on something else. I tend to agree with Malcolm Chisholm that, as so many important issues are ahead of us, we should move on and consider them.

We must deal with the draft order, notwithstanding the fact that some aspects—such as delivery—may be a justice issue. I understand that the minister will have to appear at some point to move a motion and be questioned. I have no doubt that she will read in the Official Report of this meeting the issues that we have raised. Would having the minister along on 12 September to question her on the issues that have been openly discussed be sufficient?

As the minister must appear before the committee, it would be useful to say that we would like information on enforcement and proof of age—

Those are the two issues.

That will ensure that the minister has the answers to our questions when she appears and that we are not looking for answers that are not at her fingertips, which would mean having to return to the subject the following week.

I agree. If the minister reads the Official Report, she will see that enforcement and proof of age are the two issues that have come to the surface.

It would be worth writing to the minister to highlight the issues that we have raised, which will be in the Official Report. The civil servants will bring that to her attention, but writing would ensure that, when she comes along, she is aware of the matters.

I intend to write to the minister but not to spell everything out. I will say what the issues are and that they are developed in the Official Report. I do not expect the minister to listen in great detail to everything that we say—every blow, turn and corner.

Why not?

I suspect that we may be stars yet, Ross.

Are members content that the committee's next meeting will be on 12 September and that we do not need a meeting before then?

Members indicated agreement.