Cross-party Groups
I welcome everyone to the 10th meeting this year of the Standards Committee and ask those present to switch off their mobile phones if they have not already done so. We have received apologies from Ken Macintosh.
Item 1 on the agenda is consideration of applications for cross-party groups, the first of which relates to a cross-party group on solutions to the loss of consultant-led services in Scotland. I welcome to the meeting the group's proposed convener, Jean Turner, and proposed vice-convener, John Swinburne. Although I am quite happy to hear from the two proposers, I must intimate that this morning we received notification that the Labour member who was to have been part of the group has resigned. That means that the group no longer meets the rule for cross-party group membership. I understand that Dr Turner is seeking a replacement member. If she is not successful in that, she is quite entitled to ask the committee to waive the membership rule, which we are allowed to do under section 8.3 of the "Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament". Perhaps at this point I should give Dr Turner and Mr Swinburne the opportunity to address the committee, after which members may ask questions.
I would like first to address the question of Maureen Macmillan's late withdrawal from the group, which I found out about only at 10 o'clock this morning. Maureen Macmillan was to have been a vice-convener of the group, along with John Swinburne. I notified everyone that the application would be discussed at today's meeting and gave them the opportunity to attend. Apart from John Swinburne, none of them could come along. I have to say that I was surprised to receive the notification at 10 o'clock this morning. Am I allowed to read it out?
Go ahead.
Maureen Macmillan says:
"Dear Jean
I have decided to resign from the proposed Cross-Party Group on Loss of Consultant Led Services in Scotland.
It seems that the West Highland Project Solutions Group is going to reach a satisfactory conclusion and I do not see the Cross-Party Group being able to engage with maternity issues in Caithness which is as much about transport solutions as availability of consultants.
I found the presentation on the European Working Time Directive"—
which we received at the proposed group's previous meeting—
"very informative—made me realise how difficult it will be to find sustainable solutions in some cases".
I would have thought that that last paragraph constituted a good reason for having the proposed cross-party group. After all, we need to be as well informed and to have the opinion of as many experts as possible. I should point out that the public as well as people who work or have worked in the health service support and welcome the proposal to establish the group.
We do not know what the solutions are and certainly would never have wanted to be in our current situation. We have known about the working time directive for 10 years and no one has been working hard on finding solutions to the problem. Everything in the health service is being changed all at once; new contracts are being introduced and more people are required to feed them.
I am very hopeful that the group will find some solutions. For example, I received an e-mail from David Sedgwick, a consultant at the Belford hospital in Fort William, which says:
"Dear Jean …
Here is a potential number of General Consultants to run a compliant rota. There are obviously areas for debate. This is a reasonable starter for a discussion and Dr Charles Leeson-Payne, our Consultant Anaesthetist here at the Belford, has spent a lot of time working out compliant rotas for junior staff and Consultants."
After setting out his model for a rota, Mr Sedgwick says:
"We await information from the European Union Commission in regard to a possible flexibility in the new legislation. This flexibility is reflected in the flexibility column".
The matter is not decided. Indeed, Maureen Macmillan is misinformed if she thinks that the whole thing is signed, sealed and delivered. The model set out in Mr Sedgwick's e-mail would be wonderful not only for the Highlands and Islands, but for Glasgow and the big towns.
I should point out that our role in this matter is to agree or otherwise the establishment of the cross-party group. We have to consider the application within the current rules. With Maureen Macmillan's withdrawal, the application does not comply with those rules. That said, it is possible for the committee to agree a waiver.
Although I am quite happy for other members to ask questions, I suggest that we defer consideration of the application until after the recess to give you, Mr Swinburne and the proposed group's other members the opportunity to persuade a Labour member to join you. If you are unsuccessful in that and can establish that you have made every effort to get a Labour member to join, you may come back to us seeking a waiver. After all, we have granted waivers for a number of other groups.
Given that you found out only at 10 o'clock that the Labour member who had joined up does not wish to continue, it would be unreasonable for us to grant a waiver when you have not had an opportunity to try to fill the gap. Of course, that will not prevent you from having discussions with your colleagues or with people outwith the Parliament. Are you happy to proceed along those lines?
I will take your advice on that matter. However, as I am in the fortunate position of being a medical doctor, I probably understand the issues better than some politicians do. If the Labour Party cannot find anyone who thinks it worth while to try to find solutions to the problem on a cross-party, no-fault basis, I will follow your advice and seek a waiver from the committee.
We need to find evidence on which to base our work. We expect doctors to practise evidence-based medicine. We should have evidence-based changes. I would have thought that the many groups that are seeking solutions would be complementary to one another. I will ask the committee for a waiver if the Labour Party cannot find somebody who realises the urgent need to maintain our national health service.
Before I let Mr Butler and Mr Fergusson ask questions, I point out that it is not the role of the Labour Party to find a member.
Perhaps I put that incorrectly, but you know what I meant.
I understood the sense of what you said.
It came as a shock this morning. Ten o'clock is very late.
Nevertheless, Maureen Macmillan is entitled to resign.
Of course she is and I do not object to her explanation. I was just saying that she may not have been in full possession of the facts. The last sentence in her letter lays out a jolly good reason for having a cross-party group with highly informed people in it, including the public, to work towards solutions. That is all that I was trying to say. I do not blame Maureen Macmillan at all for her decision, which she was entitled to make.
Convener, you are absolutely right to say that it is up to individual members to join cross-party groups; it has nothing to do with any party finding someone. I am glad that you set that straight. We are here to examine the criteria for cross-party groups. That is our remit—nothing else. Any argument outwith that is completely inappropriate, although I am absolutely certain that all of us here—of all parties and none—are in favour of pursuing policies that make our NHS better.
Having said that, I think that your suggestion is eminently sensible. The putative convener Dr Jean Turner and vice-convener John Swinburne could have a trawl during the recess to see whether any member would be willing to join the proposed cross-party group. If that trawl is successful, that will be fine; if it is not successful, we can consider a waiver. That would be the proper way in which to proceed and I support it.
I put on the record the fact that I find the timing of the member's withdrawal—at 10 o'clock in the morning, an hour before the proposed convener comes before the committee to put the case for the group—to be on the verge of bad manners. I would have gone for a waiver today, but I can see where you are coming from, convener. I simply want to put on the record the fact that I find it almost discourteous to withdraw with such a short period of notice. Withdrawing last week would have been fine, but doing so this week is almost unacceptable. I have the greatest sympathy with the proposer of the cross-party group.
I can see the sense of where you are coming from, convener, because it makes sense to try to find another member. I agree entirely with Bill Butler that it is not up to the Labour Party to provide somebody; a member of the Labour Party must want to join the group. I sincerely hope that one will.
Are members content with my proposal?
Members indicated agreement.
Dr Turner, I know that you will be disappointed—
Not just me personally, but all the people who were to be in the group. We were to have vice-conveners from different parties.
I suggest that you do as the committee invited and have a trawl of Labour members. If you are unsuccessful, please detail to us how extensive your trawl was. You have already had an indication from at least one committee member that you might well get a sympathetic hearing, but we require some evidence that extensive efforts have been made.
In my opinion, as far as the health of the country is concerned, the proposed cross-party group is one of the minor steps in the right direction that the Scottish Parliament could take. Nothing annoys me more than sitting through a health debate with all the parties yah-booing at one another. Health should be taken out of politics completely and should be dealt with on a national-crisis basis by a coalition of all parties. We should not be discussing health as a party-political football. The proposed cross-party group is a minor step in that direction. I hope that one day common sense will prevail and all parties will join together in a consensual manner and attack in an intelligent way the enormous health problems that face this country, rather than indulge in the yah-boo politics to which we are currently subjected.
I reiterate that the role of the committee is to determine whether any application complies with the rules. We have agreed waivers for some cross-party groups that have not managed to get members from the various parties, but we have done so only when extensive efforts have been made to find such members and those efforts have been unsuccessful. Mr Swinburne, you are right to say that cross-party groups have a valuable role to play in parliamentary activity. Thank you for coming today. We look forward to hearing from you when we meet after the recess.
We will now deal with the second application, which is for a cross-party group on funeral and bereavements. I understand that Mary Scanlon, who is the proposed convener of the group, is unable to attend today. However, Dr Jean Turner, who is also a proposed member of the group, is present. The one part of the application on which we are missing some information is an estimate of the value of the secretarial services that are to be provided by the National Association of Funeral Directors. Other than that, I am sure that we can confirm that the application complies with the rules. Do members have any questions?
I declare an interest, as I have signed up for the group.
You are declaring an interest.
By way of preparation, I think that we all should.
Death is only a hair's breadth away.
I might be closer to it than others. I suggest that we agree to the application, subject to the gap in the information being satisfactorily filled.
Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you for your attendance, Dr Turner. We will write to you in due course with regard to the second of the applications.