Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate that, minister.

We are all keen to hear what stakeholders have to say. The question is what role Parliament has in the discussion. That is the concern that we have; it is not about the qualitative aspects of what we want to do, it is about Parliament’s role in that exercise.

I am interested in the point that you made about gathering information. Last year, Mary Alexander, the deputy regional secretary of Unite trade union, suggested to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that the Government had already collected enough evidence of the changes that are needed in the care sector. What is your response to that suggestion and to evidence to other committees that the co-design approach may well present a risk to robust parliamentary scrutiny and that it is potentially a duplication of work that has already been undertaken by the Government?

A lot of the detail that the minister alluded to is critical to the strategic plan for the national care service and local care boards’ plans for delivery. However, at a macro level, Parliament will be able to address much of the bill’s provisions only in secondary legislation. As was alluded to by my colleague, it will therefore have the opportunity only to approve or reject in a binary fashion any significant policy proposals, rather than having the chance to debate and propose amendments in a more nuanced fashion to any of those policy provisions. That is a real concern around Parliament’s opportunity to engage with the process constructively. Will the minister offer a view on how that might be improved?

Thank you, minister, for your responses so far and thanks to your team for their support. It has certainly been an interesting discussion.

A point that has been raised consistently is that it is quite difficult for Parliament as a democratic body to adequately scrutinise a piece of proposed legislation when there is a lack of detail in it.

The minister referred to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, which had 81 sections and was 90 pages in length. The current bill has 38 pages and 48 sections, so there is quite a significant difference. What safeguards exist in the bill to ensure adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s policy proposals?

I will briefly raise one specific point in relation to the opportunity for Parliament to engage. The main area where it is mentioned in the bill is, as I see it, in section 12, which is on further provision about a national care service charter. The charter is to be reviewed at, at least, a five-yearly interval. Would there be an opportunity for Parliament at those junctures to have a role in ratification of the charter and perhaps to propose amendments to it? That would be the fundamental and overarching document that would create the fundamental principles.

The bill currently states only that

“The Scottish Ministers must lay before the Scottish Parliament a copy”

of the charter and any subsequent changes. It does not provide a mechanism for the Parliament to have any role in engaging with it; it is merely a presentation exercise. Might there be an opportunity for Parliament to have more on-going engagement with the charter through amendments?

I inform the committee that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, of which I am a member, will be the lead committee on the bill, which is the result of work carried out by the Scottish Law Commission. If the petitioner wants to engage with that committee or he wishes to make any submissions for consideration, I would be happy to speak to that.

Thank you, minister, for your points so far. You made a point about balancing and being consistent about legislation. I note a point that was made by our witness Barry Blyther at his recent session with us. He said:

“When we look at the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we note that, for the very same reason, there is an exemption from the legislation that protects birds

‘for the purposes of falconry’.”

It explicitly mentions falconry. Mr Blyther continued:

NatureScot has suggested that it does not understand why the same derogation has not been applied in the legislation that is relevant to mammals, and, indeed, it does not support such an omission. All that is required to correct that is a small amendment to the legislation to bring mammal and bird legislation into line. Such an amendment would be far less complicated than that which has already been imposed, and it would not require any change to primary legislation.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Appointments Committee, 7 December 2022; c 23.]

The art of falconry is 4,000 years old. It is protected by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as an intangible cultural practice. It has been carried out in Scotland since at least the Norman conquest and the emergence of medieval society in Scotland.

To balance the cultural practices, the minimal risk in practice and reality, and the fact that there is a precedent with regard to birds of prey feeding on other birds—as opposed to mammals—is there the potential to make a minor amendment that would give comfort to falconers that they can carry out a protected cultural practice that has existed in Scotland for a thousand years or so? That would give a decent balance and allow the issue to be resolved amicably. On the balance of risks, it is probably a useful way to proceed.

I am just a fan of “Weir’s Way”—that is all.

Convener, may I ask a brief supplementary question?

How do the strategies interact with the national mission on drugs? From personal experience, I have discovered that a suicide completion might not be intentional but, in some instances, there is indifference to being alive. The person might be ambivalent to it, and that is characterised by their indifference and reckless behaviour. When there is a request for treatment or support, it is often not forthcoming or their referral to a mental health service might be weeks away. Is there any interaction between the strategies and the national mission on drugs?