 Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting in 2016 of the Health and Score Committee. I would ask everyone at this point to switch off mobile phones, because they can often interfere with the sound system. I will also note that many of us are using tablet devices instead of their hard copies of their papers. The first item on the agenda today is stage 2 consideration of the Health, Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care Scotland bill. I welcome the minister, Maureen Watt, Minister for Public Health. She is accompanied by Claire McDermott, bill team manager, Siobhan Mackay, tobacco control team, David Wilson, solicitors, office, food, children, education and social care team and Meryl Skeen, parliamentary council and all from the Scottish Government. Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the master list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call a member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group or who wish to speak should indicate by catching my attention in the usual way. The debate on the group will be concluded by me, inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up. Many committee members are allowed to vote. In any division, voting is by a show of hands. The committee is required to indicate formally that it is considered and agreed in each section of the schedule of Bill and Soul. I will put the question in each section at an appropriate point. We are all here now. Good. No, no, you are fine. I refer to the master list now. The first question that we have this morning is that sections 1 to 7 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I will call amendment 13 in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, group with amendments 14, 15 and 16. Malcolm Chisholm, to move amendment 13 and speak to all amendments in the group. It is interesting that, although there were different views about nicotine vapour products or e-cigarettes, as we commonly call them, there was not a lot of disagreement about what was in the legislation. However, one area where there were concerns expressed was in relation to the register. The fundamental concern of people who saw the positive side of e-cigarettes in terms of smoking cessation was that the single register would result in a conflation in the public mind of tobacco products and NBPs or e-cigarettes. There was quite a lot of discussion about this in the oral evidence and, indeed, the written evidence. It was picked up in our stage 1 report. Cancer Research UK, whom I am sure we all respect, highly went the furthest on this because they did not want to have a register at all. They were so concerned that it might send out negative messages about the potential of NBPs to allow people to stop smoking and, thereby, obviously improve their health. Others expressed that in the oral evidence. For example, Professor Lindum Bald, who has done a great deal of work in this area, said that, although I do not think that the same register should be used for sellers of NBPs and sellers of tobacco, it should certainly not be presented as the same register because they are not the same products. We need to do much more to get rid of tobacco from Scottish society. We should definitely not focus on trying to get rid of e-cigarettes because they might save some people's lives. Sheila Duffie of Ash, another organisation that I am sure we all respect, highly said that she agreed that the register should look different for retailers who register to sell NBPs because that might help to distinguish the product. We obviously heard and read quite a lot in this area and picked up on this in our committee report at section 59 of our own report. We said that a number of submissions highlighted concerns about NBP retailers being included in the tobacco register as it could send a confusing message that NBPs are as harmful as tobacco. Some called for NBP retailers to be listed in an entirely separate register or for a register to be created for retailers of age-restricted products. We then went on in the next paragraph to quote Community Pharmacy Scotland, who highlighted one of the practical problems that they saw from having the same register, quoting again, the stigma of having to be on the tobacco retailer's registers will likely mean that many community pharmacists will choose not to supply NBPs. That will reduce the likelihood of vapours coming into contact with trained healthcare staff who may be able to advise them on reducing their use of NBPs or encourage them to enter NHS smoking cessation services. The conclusion of the committee on this was a final quote. We have some sympathy with the view that NBPs should not be treated the same as tobacco by registering on the same register, given that the evidence indicates that NBPs are not as harmful as tobacco products and may help with smoking cessation. However, we also recognise the benefits of retaining the existing STRRR. I am not quite sure what that stands for. I am just reading from the committee report in terms of reducing bureaucracy and cost to retailers by building on existing practice. I am trying to, in a sense, reflect the committee's conclusions in my amendment, so I am certainly not going as far as cancer research UK. I am accepting the principle of registration mainly because they are indeed an age-restricted product, and we all want to prevent young people, children and other young people accessing NBPs. Given that there is going to be a register and that having two entirely separate ones might be problematic, as the committee suggested, I am trying to ensure two things in my amendments. First of all, I am trying to make it clear that there are very distinct parts to the register section 8 of the bill as drafted amends the provisions in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Act that set up the register so that it covers NBPs as well as tobacco. My amendments would formally require the register to have separate parts, and that would mean that someone would have to apply to be on a distinct part of the register. It is a modest proposal that does not go as far as many of the people giving evidence wanted, but that is the least that we could expect. I have gone a bit further in my amendments to section 15, but I am picking up a suggestion from the committee about creating a register of age-restricted products. Section 15 of the bill changes the number of sections, in part, titles, so that they refer to the register of tobacco and NBP retailers. The amendments change that to retailers of age-restricted products. The committee in suggesting that admittedly said that that should be something that should be created in the longer term, but on reflecting on the committee's recommendations, I did not really see any reason why we could not call the register that and effect start such a register at this particular point. Clearly, subsequent legislation could add to that. The register with that title that I am suggesting would have three parts to begin with, but it would be quite easy for subsequent legislation to add additional parts to that register. I think that it would deal with some of the problems that were described by those giving evidence if we called it from the start a register of age-restricted products. In that way, we very publicly avoid the conflation of NBPs and tobacco, which so many of people giving evidence wanted to avoid. In support of those amendments, there was concern that people using NBPs to quit smoking would get the right support, because it was seen as being much more successful if people went to a pharmacy, got an NBP and got the counselling and the support that went with it. I know that the pharmacists were particularly concerned about being registered as tobacco retailers, because they saw their role as being health retailers rather than retailers of something that was going to be harmful to health. There was real concern in that area, and it would be interesting to hear what the minister has to say on how we go forward with this. I will speak to amendment 13 and the other amendments in the group in Malcolm Chisholm's name. Amendment 13, which requires the register to comprise three parts, would have a practical impact on the structure of the register and on the database that holds the register. It would require the entries in the database for each type of business to be held together and separately from entries for other types of business. That may restrict flexibility in how the register is managed and presented to the public. I realise that Malcolm Chisholm has lodged the amendment in response to concerns raised at stage 1 by some in the NBP industry and some retailers that a single register may appear to conflate tobacco and NBPs. However, I do not believe that amendment 13 alleviates those concerns. Whether amendment 13 is accepted or not, the bill retains a single register, the benefits of which were recognised by the committee in the stage 1 report, the benefits being reduced bureaucracy and reduced cost to retailers by building on existing practice. However, I understand the concerns. As the committee knows, I have made a commitment to considering the outward facing aspect of the register. My officials will explore opportunities to provide a clear separation between the two products on the website where the register is held. With regard to amendments 14 to 16, again I can understand that Mr Chisholm may have lodged those amendments with good intentions to try to alleviate those same concerns. However, renaming the title of the register of tobacco and nicotine product retailers to the retailers of age-restricted products does not accurately reflect what the register is. It is reasonable to believe that those seeing that title may expect that it is a register for all age-restricted products, for example, including alcohol, fireworks, knives, glue and a wide range of products. That is likely to cause confusion. The title contained in the bill accurately describes the contents of the register. If we were to begin to include all those other products, there would have to be a very wide consultation, because it also includes justice interest in that. It may be an attempt to future-proof the legislation. However, should there be a proposal in future to amend the legislation to include other age-restricted products, the titles associated with the register should be changed at that time. As I have already said, I do understand the concerns raised by some in the NVP industry and retailers, and that is why I have made a commitment to considering that issue during implementations. For those reasons, I have asked the committee to reject amendments 13 to 16 in Malcolm Chisholm's name. I am pleased that the minister recognises that there is a problem, but I do not think that the solution that she suggested of having a clear separation between the two products on the website is a very substantive response to the problem. She said that, in relation to the First Amendment, it would restrict the flexibility in how the register is managed and presented to the public. We are trying to restrict the flexibility in how it is presented to the public. That is the point of the amendment, to make sure that it is presented in a certain way and not presented in another way. I would have to look further into the problem that she highlighted in relation to the flexibility of management. At the moment, I would have to say that I am a little sceptical about that. She also referred to concerns raised by some in the NVP industry, but I think that she will notice that all the people that I quoted had nothing to do with the NVP industry. We had cancer research UK with all their clinical expertise and scientific expertise. We had Professor Linda Balder, Professor of Public Health. We had Sheila Duffey, the director of ASH. That is not concerns from the industry but concerns from those who want to promote health and stop people smoking tobacco. In relation to the register of age-restricted products, I would like to reflect further on that. I am particularly looking to some of the issues that she raised around alcohol, fireworks, et cetera, because I think that there are different regimes for different products. I would still want at stage 3 to revisit this issue. I am quite happy to reflect on what the minister said. If I can come up with a better way of dealing with this problem, I shall certainly aim to do that at stage 3. Failing that, I may introduce one or other of those amendments at stage 3, but what I wanted to do today was to highlight the problem. I agree that it does not have an easy solution, but I think that the committee acknowledged that we would like to do something in response to the many concerns that were expressed about it. Given that I have committed to revisiting the subject at stage 3, I am happy to withdraw those amendments. The minister also indicated that she would wish to come back in at this point, so I do not know whether it is— I just wanted to say that the distinct parts, as I understand Malcolm Chisholm's amendments, would only affect the database, but it would not affect the presentation to the public. Between now and stage 3, I am quite happy to meet Malcolm Chisholm, if he would like, and to go over this together. I think that that is a very constructive approach, and hopefully the reflections of the committee report can make progress through those discussions. You are withdrawing at this stage, Malcolm Chisholm. I have not had an indication of any other member once they move it, no? The question is that section 8 be agreed to—are we all agreed? I now call amendment 2, in the name of the minister, in the group on its own. I will speak to amendment 2 in my name. Tackling counterfeit trade in tobacco products is recognised and forms part of the Scottish Government's wider tobacco control strategy, which seeks to reduce the availability of counterfeit tobacco in Scotland. The amendment will make a conviction that relates to the sale, possession and control of tobacco and NVP products, where there is unauthorised use of a trademark. Counter is a relevant enforcement action that could result in the local authority applying to the sheriff for a banning order. The aim of the offences under the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Scotland Act 2010, as amended by the bill, is to reduce the accessibility and appeal of tobacco, smoking-related products and nicotine vapour products to children and non-smokers. Including those counterfeit offences will strengthen that aim and it will also contribute to strengthening our approach to counterfeit tobacco and further public health gains and other public interest objectives. The committee considered written evidence at stage 1, including evidence from the Society of Chief Officers of Trading Standards, Aberdeen City Council and the Fife, Health and Wellbeing Alliance, suggesting that those offences should count as relevant enforcement action. The amendment will support local authorities to strengthen enforcement action against irresponsible retailers who knowingly put the health of the public at risk and continually flout the law. Trade of counterfeit tobacco is a serious offence, although the Scottish Government is not aware of trade in counterfeit NVPs, there is potential for such a market to grow in the future. It therefore seems prudent to me to ensure that a conviction relating to the trade in counterfeit NVPs can also be caught as a relevant enforcement action. I move amendment 2. Thank you. The question is then that amendment 2 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Question is that section 10 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Question is that section 11 to 14 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Thank you. Amendment 14, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, is already debated with amendment 13. Malcolm Chisholm, to move or not move? Not moved. Members not moving? No other member wishes to put the amendment? No, thank you. We now call amendment 15, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 13. Malcolm Chisholm, to move or not move? Not moved. Members not moving? No other member wishing to move the amendment? No. We now call amendment 16, in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 13. Malcolm Chisholm, to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Members not moving? No other member wishes to move the amendment? The question is then that section 15 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is then that section 16 to 20 be agreed to, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. That ends our stage 2 consideration of the bill for today. I would remind members that amendments to the remainder of the bill should be lodged with the clerks in the legislation team by 12 noon this Thursday. Thank you minister and Andrew colligs for your attendance this morning. Thank you. We now suspend at this point, allow the panel to leave and then we are going into sub-legislation. We return to our agenda item number 2, which is subordinate legislation. We have two negative instruments before us. First instrument, public bodies, joint working integration, joint boards, integration, joint monitoring committee, Scotland amendment number 2, order 2015, SSI 2015, 432. There has been no motion to annull and the delegated powers and the law reform committee has not made any comments on the instrument. I invite any comments from the members. Rhoda? I suppose what was puzzling me slightly was that there was talk of a consultation but there was no information as to what the consultation responses were and I think that that would have been helpful. When we are considering it to know what people are saying, usually in other instruments when there has been a consultation you at least get a summary of what they are saying. I am not talking about a long summary but there were no concerns about this or whatever whereas it seemed to me that there was a fair amount of response to the consultation but no information as to what they said. I think that we can note that comment and even in retrospect I attempt to get some feedback but make the point for future that may be useful for us in the future that we did our understanding. On the other point— I suppose that it was a point of clarification whether people had a code of conduct that they would adhere to because they were self-reporting. It was up to them to decide whether or not they had a conflict of interest and if that is the case then there surely must be a code of conduct to go with it and that was not clear either. Apart from those comments, no others. Thanks for taking the comments into consideration but does the committee agree to make no recommendation? That is agreed then. Thank you. The second instrument is the Food Scotland Act 2015, consequential provisions number two, order 2015, SSI, 2015, 433. There has been no motion to anulwm the delegated powers and law reform committee. I have not made any comments on the instrument. Do members have any comments? No comment from members. The committee took it from that. The committee agreed to make no recommendations. That is agreed. Thank you. We now move to agenda item number three, transplant which we have previously agreed will be taken as normal in private session. We now move into private session.