Seòmar agus comataidhean

“Hands, face, space”.

Thanks for that answer. I am sure that all the MSPs here are very familiar with the situation of being bombarded with queries from constituents asking, “In these circumstances, can I do X, Y and Z?” We were not equipped to answer those questions, and it was a difficult and time-consuming process for us to get answers.

I have one brief follow-up question, which is for Adam Stachura. One of the messages that the committee has had is that social media could be used more effectively when it comes to targeting particular audiences. However, you said that half a million over-60s do not have access to the internet. I am interested to get your perspective on how effective social media would be in reaching groups—in particular, older people. [Interruption.] We cannot hear you at the moment.

Thanks very much. We hear you loud and clear, Dr Witcher.

I apologise to colleagues and witnesses for my late arrival, which was because my usual method of transport, train, was not available, and I was battling with Royal Highland Show traffic to get in.

I would like to ask about targeting of communications, because the committee has heard from previous witnesses that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to public health messaging that meets everyone’s needs. We segment the population—there are various minority groups, including older people, those in ethnic minorities and those in higher risk groups, for whom the messaging might need to be different from the messaging for the general population.

I will start with Adam Stachura. Do you think that Covid public health messaging has been adequately targeted at different groups? If not, what more needs to be done to try to fix that?

On a point of order, convener. I have an interest to declare. I should have put on the record that I am a member of the Church of Scotland.

I thank Mercedes Villalba for lodging her amendments, because she raises some important issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with the case studies that she identified. However, what she proposes would potentially have unintended consequences.

We heard earlier about concerns that the supply of private rented property is already in decline. There is a danger that, by bringing in such a measure at this point, we would constrain further the supply of private rented property. That would not be in the interests of people who are seeking accommodation in the private rented sector. Such accommodation might suit young people or those who move around often with their jobs, for whom being in the private rented sector is very helpful.

There is a broader debate to be had around the issue, but the correct context for that would be a housing bill, which I understand the Scottish Government is considering, rather than this bill. Although I have some sympathy with the point that Mercedes Villalba makes, I do not think that the bill is the appropriate avenue for bringing in the particular measure that she proposes.

I read Mr Mason’s amendment with interest. I was a member of two committees that dealt with bankruptcy legislation in previous sessions of Parliament, so I am well aware of the issues around diligence and arrestment, and how difficult it is to balance the rights of creditors and debtors. When such issues have been raised in the past, creditors such as credit unions have expressed concerns about their inability to recover funds and the position that that might put them in.

My concern about amendment 69 is that the issue that it addresses is not one that we have taken any evidence on. The representation that I have seen from the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers expresses concern about the proposed increase in the level to what appears to be the arbitrary figure of £1,000. I find it difficult to agree to amendment 69 given the absence of substantial evidence in support of it.

We have legislative competence here; it is simply a matter of whether we decide to legislate now, putting the power in the hands of ministers to produce regulations that Parliament can only say yes or no to, or to retain power in the hands of Parliament, whose members can then lodge amendments to what has been proposed. There is simply a fundamental difference of view between me and Mr Fairlie on that particular issue.

I have two amendments in the group, which address an issue on which the committee took evidence at stage 1. Indeed, we made a unanimous recommendation on it in our report.

The background is that the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 provides for a named person to be appointed to support someone who is subject to compulsory powers—for example, where they may be detained in hospital or are subject to a compulsory treatment order. As the law stands, the signature of the named person accepting the appointment must be witnessed by a suitably qualified professional, with the intention that the responsibilities of being a named person should be explained to the person.

Section 28 of the bill removes that requirement. That is an understandable change and it has been supported by stakeholders and people from whom we took evidence. However, we also heard in evidence a concern that a named person could be appointed under the new procedure without a full understanding of the role and the responsibilities that it involves. When we took evidence, Dr Arun Chopra of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and Dr Roger Smyth from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland agreed that a named person should have to declare that they understand their role. The point of my amendment 3 is to require that there should be a declaration from the named person that they understand the role, duties, rights and responsibilities of being a named person.

Amendment 2 is a complementary amendment that requires the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to named persons so that they are aware of their responsibilities. The fact that there will not be a person witnessing a named person’s signature leaves a lacuna. That is why it is important that the matter be addressed.

As I said, convener, we discussed the matter in the committee and there is a unanimous recommendation on it in our report. I hope that the amendments will have members’ support.

I move amendment 3.