Welcome to the 26th meeting of the Health and Sport Committee in 2018. We have, of course, already considered a couple of items in private session and we have had informal advice also to inform our scrutiny of the Human Tissue Authorisation Scotland Bill. That scrutiny will commence in public on Tuesday, 6 November, two weeks from today. Agenda item 3 is consideration of a further proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government legislating using the powers under the European Union Withdrawal Act in relation to three UK statutory instruments. These are the human tissue quality and safety for human application amendment EU exit regulations, the quality and safety of organs intended for transplantation, amendment EU exit regulations and the blood safety and quality amendment EU exit regulations. As we discussed and agreed at an earlier meeting, I wrote to stakeholders and to the Scottish Government seeking further information responses that have now been received and have been circulated to members and I hope members have had the opportunity to have a look at those. We have until the 10th of November to respond to the Scottish Government and to determine our approach and we should therefore consider that matter today. The question is simply on the basis of the responses that we have had from stakeholders whether members feel that we have sufficient evidence to confirm that we are content for the Scottish Government to give its consent to the statutory instruments in its way to be passed by the UK Government or to take further evidence. Do members have a view on the basis of the responses that we have received? I think that it is quite unsatisfactory that is happening here because what you have is that you have had the right convener to find it from the Scottish Government but what we have got back from them certainly in relation to the letter from the 20th of September is their best guess as to what the Department of Health and Social Care is going to do. The UK Government has failed to give advance notice. We are asking the Scottish Government to try and guess at what might happen and take a decision based on that. Even if the Scottish Government professes itself that it is satisfied that it has enough time and is content with what is proposed, I do not think that it is good enough for this committee to expect that we have to rely on what the best guess is of the Scottish Government about what the UK Government will do. It is not the proper basis on which to take decisions, in my view. Thank you very much, convener. That was one of the issues that I was going to point out as well. I did raise previously two the timescale for one thing and the lack of proper replies back from obviously Westminster as well. One of the other concerns that has came through, I note that most of the organisations have said that we need to go forward and we have to work together, but the Anthony Nolan Trust has raised an awful lot of issues, which will affect them terribly. They are the main recipients of organs and tissues, the main importer and importer, and yet they raise lots of things about the regulations that are relevant, such as stem cells, which require them to look forward to bureaucracy, etc. I would really like to hear more from the Anthony Nolan Trust, because it has raised an awful lot of issues, which I think are important issues in this regard. I do have concerns about some of the issues, because in the general food law EU regulations 2018, it talks about the explanation of the law. We will come to those in a moment. Let's get to the human tissue and blood safety ones at the moment. I think that you are right that there are some serious issues with that, but that is the next agenda item. Looking at the response from the Scottish Government, there is that offer from the minister to update the committee once the final SLS has been laid in the UK Parliament. Do we have an understanding of what that timing would be? What I can tell you is that the first of the regulations that we were asked to consider was on the basis that it would be laid in the UK Parliament by 10 October, and that has not actually happened. That is not one of those, but it is a previous one. I do think that it suggests that the concerns that have been highlighted about the timetabling of those are well-founded. Although the UK Government has indicated to the Scottish Government what its expected timetable is, it is not bound by that. We have 28 days to consider that. My point would be that, if we were going to give us the final SLS within that timeframe, that would give us the opportunity to postpone the decision. If we have to make a decision— We have 28 days in this one. That is why we have until 10 November to make a response. We sought evidence from other stakeholders. If we did not feel that that was sufficient on which to make a decision, we could choose today to invite the minister to attend between now and 10 November in order to ask some of the questions that have been raised today. I was also struck by Sandra White's suggestion that she would like to hear more from the Antony Nolan Trust and wonder if there was capacity within the work programme in that timeframe to bring them in. The work programme, as we have discovered today, is already pretty full. I think that that would be difficult to be fast for their evidence. If there is additional evidence, we feel that we would like them to provide in correspondence that we could then raise with the minister if it was the minister that we chose to seek further information on, then clearly we could do that. Brian's point is that even if we get the Scottish Government minister to come and update us, that is not going to give us 28 days to consider, because what we are operating on is their current best guess as to what this is going to contain. If that is the case, and if the information that we need in order to take a decision requires the UK Government to provide that information—in a different context, they have not done that when they said we were previously. Why should we not be asking the relevant minister of the UK Government to come and explain what they intend to put in this, and why it is late? There is no—well, the accountability here clearly is the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament. As the Scottish Parliament, we have to make recommendations in relation to— But other committees regularly have to invite UK ministers. How can we household the Scottish Government accountable if they have not been given the information? Completely understand the point. What I would simply suggest—and I am not saying that we should not or could not do that—is that the next item of the agenda, which I referred to, is one where the problem is that much greater and where the UK Government has not provided the necessary 28 days for consideration. It may be in the round that we might—we may deem that that is a more appropriate item on which to take that kind of position, but that is a matter for the committee. I am not saying that we could not do it for this one too, but I think that the next item where they are failed to provide the necessary 28 days to the Scottish Government is all the more— Is that likely to be the same minister or do you know what you think? It is to do with food safety, so it would certainly be the same Scottish Government. Yes, so that takes us—do we wish to take further evidence on this matter before we proceed? Either by seeking further written evidence, or by asking the Scottish Government minister to attend? I think that we have to ask the source if we are not getting the information from, whether we ask the minister to come or not. We have to—it seems utterly pointless to me to get a Scottish Government minister and hear and berate them over information that is not being provided with. I just do not see the logic of that. It is where the information is not coming from and we should be concentrating on. Aside from the issues that Sandra White has raised as well. Is that the relevant minister? Of the UK Government, we certainly can't— If you can do that, we can't get them to come to the committee then. We can't oblige them to attend the committee, but we can't let them know that we are, or her, know that we are discontented with the failure to provide the necessary information to the Scottish Government, to allow the Scottish Government to respond to us. With that approach, command support, we would like the relevant UK Government minister and press them to provide the necessary information to the Scottish Government, so that we can be fully informed before we are required to make a report on those regulations. Is that agreed? Thank you very much. Agenda item 4, again, is a further proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to the UK Government legislating using the same powers in relation to five UK statutory instruments. These are the general food law EU exit regulations, the general foodstuffs hygiene EU exit regulations, the specific foodstuffs hygiene EU exit regulations, the contaminants in food EU exit regulations, and the quick frozen food EU exit regulations. There are a number of points again on these matters, which clearly require clarification. I took an executive decision in light of the timescale to ask that we seek that clarification in advance of this meeting, so that letter has been sent and will be available to colleagues. The UK Government indicated that it proposed to lay these instruments between 31 October and 5 November. In this instance, it has not taken into account the fact that the Scottish Parliament has been in recess for two weeks in October. Therefore, it is not providing us with the 28 days that was an agreed provision for regulations of this type. That means that the committee has 10 days to consider because of the timing from the UK Government. My first decision is whether we think that that is acceptable and that the 10-day note is adequate in the circumstances. There is no obvious explanation for their timetable other than the fact that they are operating to a Westminster parliamentary schedule. There is no other legal consequence of whether they followed the 28 days rather than the 10 days. That is the first question. Again, I think that we may wish to consider hearing, seeking further information and possibly seeking the minister of the Scottish Government to attend either on 30 October to meet the UK Government's timetable or at the later date within the 28 days that they ought to have provided according to the protocol. Those are the questions on the regulations. Brian, I know that I want to discuss that. On that, if we are going to look at it within the 28 days that the protocol would suggest, would it be the committee's desire to write to the UK minister to indicate that that is what we would expect? That is certainly open to us. The first thing that we would have to do is respond to the Scottish Government and say that we were not content that it should consent to that legislation in less than 28 days. Emma Cunningham, my issue is that the Scottish Government has been asked to consent to UK ministers making regulations, but in light of the one cow BSE episode in the Aberdeen farm, when we are looking at traceability of food and the overarching food and feed safety and traceability requirements and associated responsibilities in food and feed businesses, I think that this warrants some further investigation. I think that that is probably a view that I am looking around the committee. I think that that is generally agreed that this is significant enough to warrant some further investigation. We have already written to seek some clarification on the proposal, but I think that we may also wish to ask the clerks if it is possible to accommodate a session with the minister on this within the 28 days, if not the 10 days that has been set out. David? We can always accommodate emergency or urgent pieces of information. The knock-on effect would likely be to the timing of the committee or the time available at this stage to take evidence on the human tissue authorisation Scotland Bill. That is understood. I think that that is a substantial piece of business that is before us and that we would all take seriously. However, I do think that we should seek further information. We do not need to make that decision today unless we accept the 10 days that we have been allowed by the UK Government's time to do it. I accept what you are saying and have already written. It is so important that this committee basically has a job to do, and I do not think that we would do it properly if we did not hear evidence. Rather than kick it into the long grass again, I would prefer to say that we are not complying with the 10 days. It will be the 28 days, and we have word either by letter or a minister from Westminster, the UK Government, coming here to give evidence on that particular issue in regard to the BSE. Rather than put it back, I would rather just go for it just now. Obviously, looking at our work programme, the SSIs are going to be coming to come fast. We, as a committee, had appointed two EU rapporteurs to keep an eye on this and to update committee on as this progresses. I agree that it is acceptable that we have just got 10 days to look at this, but I think that how we have tried to, as a committee function, to keep on top of these as they come forward is something that we also need to consider, because this is the first two major ones that we have in front of us. We can see from our work programme that there are lots more coming, so I think that it is important that we start to plan in timetable properly, as ourselves as well. I completely agree with that, but at the same time there has been a protocol agreed between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, which says that in the ordinary course of events there should be a 28-day period. I think that, while we would not want to be interrogating in detail every regulation unless we have to, at the same time there is a point of principle here about the protocol and the timetabling, that means that we should treat this a little bit differently. I do not know enough about the previous discussion on the anti-knowland stuff or about what Emma is saying about the BSE case, if that raises genuine concerns. My greater concern is the principle of it. How is this committee meant to be planning in timetable links affairs if we cannot rely on the primary source of information to be complied with? It seems to me to be more than that. It has known 28 days, it has given 10 days, it has given no reason or justification for why it is going to be at a lesser time and why it has not complied with this. That is the point at issue here. If there is to be a series of further ones, then the least we can expect from the Westminster Government is that it gets its act together and gives us the information and forget the Scottish Government that this committee needs to have. It is not doing that. I think that it is treating this place with contempt. I think that we have to get to the source of that. The point is understood. I think that the process, nonetheless, of bringing forward these matters for the committee's consideration does lie with the Scottish Government. I will be meeting, as convener, with the Minister for Parliamentary Business in a few days' time. I will certainly have a discussion around this and the implications for our future business. I think that what you have said is absolutely right. We should seek further information. We should indicate that we are not content with the schedule that has been put in front of us. We should, on the basis of that further information, make a decision when that information comes back as to whether we need to seek attendance by the minister or, indeed, by a UK minister in due course. Excellent. Thank you very much, colleagues. That completes our public session of the committee.


Is it necessary that every father and every son has to have some kind of angst? This big man is occupying too much space and that man thinks this is my space and who is this? This happens that there will be some friction and either the younger one goes out or the older one goes out. It also happens between women in a different way. But women have a way of covering their frictions in certain way. When we talk about family, Sadhguru, there are few things that have always intrigued me and I see answers or rather validation from a higher energy such as yourself. It's like I've always questioned why there's an organic distance between a father and son, why there is always that angst in that relationship. And I'm sure there are many in this house that have experienced that emotion in their own homes in their own environment. Where do you think the origin of that distance came? Because every generation makes the same mistake, which means they're not learning at all. When we say family, you know, in Italy family meant crime. Crime? Yeah, mafia was always referred to as the family. Yes. So in a way it's a kind of crime. It is the most basic institution in the making of a society. But it does not mean you must remain basic because this is a biological identity that we have. Biology is a reality, we can't deny it. Obviously this was in some way at least to certain extent our parents gave this to us, one part of it at least. Today the way it is, the way it looks is essentially because of them. Well, it was given to them by somebody else, that's another point, but to us it was given by them. So it's a biological identity. This limiting oneself to one's biological identity for an entire lifetime is a crime because it creates so many things. In this country, this country has suffered a lot from a long time. Just now you released the Mahabharat video, entire Mahabharat is family problem. It is Dhritrashtra syndrome. We are still suffering. My son is best, no matter what. Even today we are suffering the same thing. My son is best and he should become the king no matter what. Some sons haven't managed very well somehow. So family is a basic identity that we are born with. It's a wonderful thing when you're a child because without that family support, you wouldn't be who you are today in many ways, okay? With all due respect and regard and great respect for the family because human creature is born in such a way that as soon as you fall out of your mother's womb you are not ready to get up on your feet and do things like other creatures. It needs a long gestation period before a man becomes a man or a woman becomes a woman. There is a long period where the incubation of family is most important and vital. There's no question about that. But you're supposed to grow beyond that identity, but a whole lot of people just never grow beyond that identity for which they suffer and sometimes if they're born in certain places, they make the entire nation suffer. You are supposed to grow out of that. As a child it's most vital that you're identified with the family. But as an adult you're supposed to grow beyond your biology because biology is the most basic identity. One has to grow beyond that. So having said that, is it necessary that every father and every son has to have some kind of angst? It is not about father and son. It is just two men being accommodated in the same home. When you were eight, ten, your father was godlike. So this problem started after you became fifteen, sixteen when you want to be a man and there's not enough space. This big man is occupying too much space and that man thinks this is my space and who's this? They can't recognize each other as father and son because now there are… there is no father and son, there are two men in the same house and there's not enough space. This happens not just in human families. Every creature, whether it's an elephant or a buffalo or whatever in every creature's life, this happens that there will be some friction and either the younger one goes out or the older one goes out. This happens everywhere because this is not a problem between father and son. This is two men trying to share the same space and the same woman called mother to one and wife to the other. Two men. Well that certainly breaks a very strong myth that this country is operated with because the problem was always meant to be two women in the same house and you just change it on his head which I believe is true because I believe the problem lies in the fact that two men can't be a couple of women. No, it also happens between women in a different way. But women have a way of covering their frictions in certain way. They do it in a certain way, in a feminine way. Men will do it in more. Head to head on. Headbutting is the man's way. Women's way is different. She will do it differently but the friction happens.


The Allied People's Movement, APM, is seeking to nullify the election of President Bollard Tinnaboo, closed its case after its lone witness appeared before the presidential election petition court sitting in Abuja. The witness, Aisha Abu Berger, who identified herself as the assistant welfare director of the party, attended seven barges of documentary evidence before the court to establish their case that Tinnaboo was not qualified to participate in the 2023 presidential election. Tinnaboo's lawyer stressed that the only ground the APM conversed in its petition was the fact that the Vice President Shatima had double nomination to the presidential election that held on February 20.


The Holy Spirit manifests his power in many ways, yet one of the manifestations I most often asked about is the slain in the spirit phenomenon. Some imagine that it's the power of suggestion, while others out of fear accuse me of using demonic power. But this expression of the Holy Spirit's power is a pure life-changing wonder. It's absolutely biblical, breathtaking, and beautiful. While having this experience, some say they feel intense heat, a heavy weight, shakiness in their bodies, and some even experience pulses of electric sensations moving up and down their beings. This same power can be transferred to you right now, even as you watch this video. We seek Jesus, and sometimes when seeking His presence, we can feel His power. I just caution others to be careful about criticizing what you don't understand.