Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 14 Nov 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 14, 2001

Official Report 314KB pdf

---

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 3 concerns the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill. As instructed by the committee, I, along with the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, attended the relevant meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau, at which it was agreed that the Health and Community Care Committee would act as the lead committee on the bill but that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee would take evidence on it from a business point of view.

Members have before them a paper containing three recommendations. At the meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau, I made it clear that any role that we were asked to play must not interfere with our timetable for the lifelong learning inquiry. We have scheduled two evidence-taking sessions as part of stage 1 consideration of the bill. Following its meeting this morning, the Health and Community Care Committee has requested that we submit our evidence to that committee by the February recess. If we are to do that, we must hold the evidence-taking sessions on the dates that are suggested in the paper.

I suggest that we do not need to take a great deal of oral evidence on the bill. We can take written evidence from organisations that want to submit it, but we should restrict oral evidence to two one-hour sessions at most. Because the Health and Community Care Committee is the lead committee on the bill, it is responsible for setting the timetable. However, I will re-emphasise to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee that we indicated our willingness to assist in scrutinising the bill provided that that did not threaten our lifelong learning inquiry. That is crucial.

Is what I have proposed acceptable to the committee?

I welcome your comments. Tobacco advertising is a very important issue, about which all members will be concerned. However, I have concerns about the bill and am alarmed by the suggestion that that we should consider it in January. That is totally impractical. I cannot understand how we could consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill at the same time as we consider our draft report on lifelong learning. I welcome the convener's suggestion that consideration of the bill be put back slightly.

I would like to reserve my position on what will happen in February and to make a judgment when the time comes. I do not want to divert the committee's attention away from the important work that we are doing, even for the sake of a subject that is important, when there are other political considerations that need to be taken into account.

I welcome your comments, convener, and echo what Ken Macintosh said. I would like to wait and see how matters develop. We should take evidence on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill, time permitting, but the lifelong learning inquiry is the main business of the committee and it must not be hampered in any way. I may have misread it, but the proposed meeting schedule appears to include three evidence-taking sessions—on 23 January, 6 February and 13 February. I welcome the proposal to modify that. Today we could decide in principle to accept that proposal, subject to review by the gang of five.

Group of five, rather than gang.

It could be the assembly of five—who cares? The main point is that the lifelong learning inquiry should not be hampered. We should accept the convener's proposal in principle, subject to review.

I will re-emphasise to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee that, although we are always willing to assist other committees, we are not willing to jeopardise the timetable of the lifelong learning inquiry to consider this bill. If the Health and Community Care Committee wants us to meet its timetable, we can have a maximum of two evidence sessions of an hour each. Is that agreed?

Could we put that on the agenda for the next meeting? That would allow us to discuss briefly the response and the position that has been reached. I am satisfied about talking to the bureau, but we should have further discussion.

I take your point about the need for further discussion. I suggest that we put the matter on the agenda for the meeting of 5 December, rather than 28 November, because, as we heard earlier, the agenda for that meeting is rather clogged up.

We need to agree our position on how much time we are prepared to put into the bill. My view is that it would be enough for us to have two one-hour oral evidence sessions, given that we have been told that it must be done by the February recess.

I suggest that we might agree to have a one-hour session with the qualification that another one-hour session can be added if that is necessary.

I would be happy with that.

I want to put on record my concerns, convener. We have overlooked the local economic forums, which will crop up on 16 January. Everything that I have heard from different areas of Scotland argues cogently that the committee will have a responsibility to do something following on from what we hear on 16 January. For the life of me, I do not see how the committee can accommodate the bill. I want my position to be crystal clear. I am prepared to go further and say that I, personally, will oppose the bill, because it is an unacceptable inhibition of legitimate commercial activity. I am as clear in my mind as that. I do not want to mislead anybody by saying that I am anxious to take evidence or listen to anything else. The committee already has fundamental obligations.

Absolutely. However, rightly or wrongly, the committee has already taken the decision to consider the bill. In fact, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee offered to be the lead committee. We cannot renege on our agreement with the bureau. I went to the bureau in good faith and said that we would do it.

Would there be broad consensus if we were to limit the matter to a one-hour evidence session, unless it is absolutely necessary to extend that and an extension meets with the agreement of the committee. Is that your proposal, Bill?

That is fair enough. We would really be agreeing to one session and would only have another one-hour session subject to the further agreement of the committee.

I am concerned that we would put in the time and yet be overtaken by events.

I am anxious that you should go back to the bureau with something positive, convener. There are several concerns. If we are to make a constructive contribution to the bill—should it be taken forward in this form—I am not sure what a one-hour session would do. We would be caught between two stools; we would not have a constructive role as we do not have the time to do anything at the moment. Depending on what happens between now and February, I would be concerned that we would have to express our opinion on the basis of one hour of evidence and discussion, which would not be satisfactory. I am slightly concerned about the whole arrangement. At the same time, I understand that you have to make some positive comment. On that basis, I would be happy to agree to the proposal along with the suggestion that we may have to revisit it.

I intend to say to the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee that if that committee insists—as it is entitled to do—on having our report on the bill by the February recess, it is likely that the time we spend on it will be only one hour of oral evidence and some consideration of written evidence. That will be all. There seems to be consensus in the committee that we are not prepared to sacrifice the time scale for our lifelong learning inquiry in favour of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion (Scotland) Bill—or any other bill—at this stage and that that is the basis on which we made the offer to the bureau. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 13:09.