Seòmar agus comataidhean

Colin, you mentioned working across other cross-party groups. Do you foresee that as being by correspondence only or do you foresee having joint meetings on certain areas so that people can share and build on the experiences that they bring to those meetings?

We know from when we went to Shetland—it was possibly Orkney—that the mental health professionals are supposed to travel up on a Tuesday, but that does not always happen and sometimes there are delays of two or three weeks. That is a serious issue. I am not aware of the health boards having carried out impact assessments of the failure to provide healthcare. It would be helpful to have that information.

My next question is a little more parochial. Raasay, for example, relies on the good will of CalMac Ferries to deliver parcels: they are dropped off at the terminal when the ferry comes over. CalMac is stopping that service because it says that it costs £250,000 a year to run. I am not sure where that figure came from—a man or lady in a white van would not cost £250,000 to run such a service. Getting Amazon parcels or shopping delivered to Raasay is a real problem, although that happens on other islands. CalMac has been very iffy about the issue. I have looked at the CalMac impact assessment and it realises my greatest fear: it is a tick-box exercise that cannot be justified. Are you convinced more generally that island impact assessments for changes in services are being done properly? If you are unable to give an answer now, could you look at a few assessments and respond to the committee to confirm whether they are being done properly? I fear that they are not.

I remember the Islands (Scotland) Bill coming through the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stages 1 and 2 and through Parliament at stage 3. One of the questions that was raised was whether island impact assessments would be worth while and carried out properly or whether those would simply be a tick-box exercise.

Professor Sindico said that there are multifaceted reasons for population decline, but I suggest that connectivity, health, education and quality of life keep people in the islands. Let us start with health. Mental health issues can be a real problem in rural areas. Islands do not necessarily have mental health experts so they have to be brought in and they do not always make it because the ferries are not available or there is bad weather. How many island impact assessments have been carried out in relation to changes in health provision on the islands in the past year?

Thank you. I believe that those impact assessments would demonstrate that they are becoming tick-box exercises. I believe that it is a failure of the legislation to ensure that they are being done properly. In the future, I would like the annual report to include confirmation from the cabinet secretary that island impact assessments are being carried out and implemented in the spirit of the legislation that introduced them.

I turn now to Lord Gardiner. I should explain that our committee system in the Scottish Parliament is slightly different. It is, in effect, our second chamber for scrutinising legislation, and committees can take evidence very effectively.

Do you think that committees are in a position to scrutinise legislation line by line if they are doing it remotely and the members are not around a table, facing questions? If you had 200 amendments to one bill, as I had, could they be considered remotely, or would that be impossible?

I will try to keep this short, because a lot of my questions have been answered. I have a question for Denis Naughten. I am delighted to know that parliamentary privilege exists for your Parliament, Denis. It does not exist for the Scottish Parliament, so what we say is not subject to privilege.

Your point about politics and relationships is well made. I hark back to evidence that we heard from somebody else that you do not bump into people on WhatsApp. That is right—the ability to talk to people is important.

Have you watched other Parliaments debating in a hybrid format? If so, do you think that those debates are informative or sterile?

Our broadcasting services control our cameras. If we type, “Away from keyboard”, they do not turn them on.

I am always conscious when I am in the room with our convener, because you get a glare when you overstay your welcome, and I can feel that glare boring into me now, so I will hand back to him. It would be more physically threatening if I were in the room with him rather than doing this remotely.

Thank you. I have one more question, which is for Karen Bradley. Lord Gardiner’s point chimes with me: ministers, if they are not at the despatch box, just talk things out. If they are not there, you cannot intervene, shut them up or get them back on topic. They just waffle away for the 20 minutes that they have for questions, giving you non-answers.

Do you agree with that summation? When ministers are participating, should they be in front of the committee or the Parliament to ensure that they have no way of wriggling out of answering a question—or, at least, have less of an opportunity to do so?

I should probably put it on the record that, for the past year, I have had to work in hybrid or virtual format through no choice of my own.

There are some distinct views on this, but I will come to you to start with, Karen. I would like to discuss and hear your view on spontaneity and people’s ability to make interventions and actually participate in debate when you were operating in a hybrid way. We have a wonderful system in Scotland in which we know the debates for the next three weeks, the whips choose the speakers, the speakers are notified to the Presiding Officer and the Presiding Officer calls them—and that is it. We cannot make interventions if we are participating remotely. Did you find operating in a hybrid way as sterile as that?

Thank you, Karen. I agree. Having been a convener, I know that, in a committee room, it is very easy to turn off a minister’s microphone so that they shut up. You cannot do that remotely.