Chamber and committees

Good afternoon. We have been here that long that it is the afternoon. I know that you were here when I asked the previous panel of witnesses about a national HIV testing week for Scotland and the regular publication of data. From what I heard earlier, the general consensus is that although such a week would highlight the need for people to get a test, it would be resource intensive for the results that we would get—I do not mean that it would not be worth while. On the publication of data, we all agree that we need to collect data.

What else can we do? We have talked about education and working with health professionals to tackle stigma. Having been around in the 1980s and 1990s, I can say that, at that point, I thought that there was a very clear message. We got to the stage of saying, “This is what it is. It’s no gonnae affect you. It’s no gonnae hurt you.” However, I am in my fifties and I know people my age who are HIV positive who still suffer from that stigma. They still do not want people to know. They feel that they are the problem, but it is not them. How do we challenge that stigma? Can we bring anything new to the table to deal with stigma?

That is perfect.

Dr Howe, do you have anything to add?

Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing how the interactive dashboard works out.

Good morning. I have listened with interest for the past hour or so. The word “stigma” gets used a lot during our discussions on how we reach zero transmissions. Alan Eagleson said that the Terrence Higgins Trust supports a national HIV testing week and the publication of regular data. What is the background to that? Why are those two things important for the elimination of stigma? Do the other witnesses agree that we need to have a national testing week?

Does anyone else have an opinion on whether we should have an HIV testing week?

That is perfect. Thank you.

Do you think that we always have the same witnesses in to give evidence to the same committee? You touched on that issue as well, Johann. I was on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee for four years and I knew exactly who was going to be in front of me every other week. We never heard the voice of wee Betty fae Broomhill or whatever.

I know that we are trying to do better in that regard, but how can committees listen better to what people want us to do and to their views on certain issues that we are looking at, especially on things such as equalities, finance, housing and local government? A lot of those people feel far away from the committee, but we need to hear those voices in order for us to make good legislation and put forward good reports to the Government.

I will let in Johann Lamont in a second.

Committees meet once a week, on a sitting day—the sitting days are Tuesday to Thursday. A lot of legislation comes in front of us, and we want to look at legacy issues. We want to hold our own sessions on things that come up and interrogate people or whatever. We do not have enough time in committees to do all of that, especially not in Thursday morning committee meetings, because we need to stop.

Johann Lamont said that Ken Macintosh looked at the idea of committees sitting at the same time as plenary business is going on. I feel quite frustrated at doing the same thing over and over again and not getting to go on committee work planning days. Sometimes we never get to the real bit that we want to do.

Should we therefore have committee work from Monday to Friday? Could Monday and Friday be days on which we are out and about in the community to do a bit of evidence gathering? Alternatively, should we keep to the structure of Tuesday to Thursday sitting days? What are your thoughts on that?

It has been a long time, but it is good to have you both back.

Johann, I think that you said in your opening remarks that, unlike Westminster, in times of crisis, we are unable to quickly enough to hold ministers and cabinet secretaries to account. How could we make that better, and what is holding us back? If there is a crisis, how do we get ministers and cabinet secretaries to come to committees as soon as possible? We need to look at committee workload, but should there be a process for calling them to committees to be questioned? If so, how would that work?

I have a further question. I was going to come on to the question of Government funding. It is important that, if an organisation is coming to the committee, it should be up front. It could perhaps make a declaration at the beginning of an evidence session, if it is giving a witness statement or contributing evidence, to say that it is fully funded by the Scottish Government, for instance.

Having been back a second time, I have dealt with one legacy report on the way in and one on the way out. One of Johann Lamont’s colleagues, Mary Fee, was on the Equal Opportunities Committee. When I came in in 2016, there was a legacy report on Gypsy Travellers, and, when Mary Fee left in 2021, there was a legacy report on Gypsy Travellers. I am sure that there will be another one when we go in 2026.

How can committees look at legacy reports and go back to see what the Government has been doing? We should be able to do that. We have given the Government those legacy reports and it has seen them, but we still seem to have the same questions every time that there is a new parliamentary session. I do not know whether such reports are valuable. Are they valuable only if we properly scrutinise them and do something with them at the first meeting when the committee is reconstituted?