Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am interested in hearing a bit more about how the budget helps island communities and residents with the increasing cost of living. I note that you announced a £1.4 million budget for that. Will you give some examples of where that money is being spent and how you expect it to be spent?

That is great. Referring back to the convener’s question, can you give us an update on carbon-neutral islands?

Minister, I have been listening to you, and what you have said takes me back to my constituency, Argyll and Bute, and the differences that exist across Scotland. As you said, this is all about people. We need a consistent approach to social care throughout Scotland, with health and wellbeing at the centre of the approach.

We have talked a lot about how the bill is structured. Legislation has to be clear and accessible. I am interested in hearing your comments, for the record, on the approach of introducing a bill before you create the policy in direct consultation with the people whom it will serve. Do you consider the bill to be clear and accessible?

Thank you.

Thank you for that response. It brings me on to my next question, which is about how well equipped the public are to understand how the legislation will change social care for them. It would be interesting to get your thoughts on how engaged the wider public have been. Also, how can we ensure that parliamentarians know exactly what the changes will be?

On behalf of Christine Grahame, I move amendment 174.

What will happen to the defrosted turkeys that are still on supermarket shelves on 31 December?

I, too, wish Christine Grahame a speedy recovery. On her behalf, I thank the minister for her comments and her willingness to meet Ms Grahame to discuss her amendments, and this amendment in particular, prior to stage 3. I am sure that Ms Grahame will also appreciate the comments that other members have made.

Given that, convener, I seek leave to withdraw amendment 174.

Amendment 174, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 237 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Last week, at our round-table evidence session with, mainly, environmental groups, we asked about the impact that the bill was having on them. They talked about a lack of resources to be able to respond to it. Isobel Mercer from RSPB Scotland said:

“the core focus at the moment is ensuring that Scotland has an appropriate and ambitious response to the nature and climate emergency. That will involve improving many of our existing laws and protections ... However, that will all become difficult if our organisations are distracted by ensuring that existing effective protections do not fall off the statute book.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 1 December 2022; c 28.]

We have been hearing from environmental organisations and the food and drink industry about how the bill is having a negative impact on their ability to move forward. You touched on this a bit in your previous answer, but what impact is there on the Scottish Government’s work to improve legislation and on the work of the civil service in Scotland?

Lloyd Austin from Scottish Environment LINK described it as “immense” pressure. That underlines what you have said.